This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
Interesting that you prefer the Hard flexor when most seem happy with the Normal most of the time.
I wonder if it has anything to do with your style of skiing -- maybe more energetic?
I do think that skiing style and preferences do play a major factor-
I do like to charge on skis- in all contexts.
I do agree that the standard flexor is "better" for straightforward XC skiing- but, on this tur I wanted to really test the "hard" flexor and certainly used it more than I "needed" to.
On this particular thru tur- I end up skiing out ~5kms breaking trail on woods roads-trails that have some very steep narrow descents. I wanted the hard flexor in for those descents (especially with the crust below the soft top) and wanted to see what it would be like to just leave the hard flexor in for K&G and climbing sections. I do not want to have to change the flexor for these XC-downhill-climbing transitions.
I was very pleased with the overall performance of the "hard" flexor.
So- I do agree that the flexor could be harder for pure downhill skiing- the "hard" flexor is ideal for my extended trail skiing in hilly terrain.
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
How the flexors feels would also depend on what boot you're using. You might have a different opinion with the Alfa Frees.
I have the Alfa Free boot as well. I like/love the hard flexor with the Free boot as well.
(Though I prefer the sole-flex pattern of the Alaska XP over the Free for distance touring.)
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
That's good to know. I'm not normally an early adapter, but an 850gr boot that is stiff enough for my needs would be very appealing. After all the skiing I did last month with leathers and wide skis I see a lot of potential for laterally stiff and light boots. Maybe my transnordics are the answer, but, although they are laterally stiff they lack support because of the soft forward flex of the upper.
1. Boot size will affect perception of the flexor. A large boot will have more leverage and the flexor will seem softer than it will seem for someone with a smaller boot.
2. I wonder if there is a limit on flexor stiffness related to stress on the toe of the boot? A solid flexor with a large boot would allow quite a bit of leverage and resultant force against the pins. Everything works only so many times before it fails and the more stress, often the shorter the life cycle. That consideration could be part of the design decision process.
1. Boot size will affect perception of the flexor. A large boot will have more leverage and the flexor will seem softer than it will seem for someone with a smaller boot.
Not sure if understand you here Stephen-
why would the size of ones foot matter?
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.
1. Boot size will affect perception of the flexor. A large boot will have more leverage and the flexor will seem softer than it will seem for someone with a smaller boot.
Not sure if understand you here Stephen-
why would the size of ones foot matter?
The lightbulb above your head will go off soon, I think!
Because the foot is longer, so has more leverage against the flexor.
Like trying to pull a stubborn nail with a small hammer vs a longer pry bar.
Is that making sense? Maybe I’m missing something…
PLEASE, don’t make me draw force vector diagrams!!!
I’m already traumatized enough!
Came across the review of the updated Xplore in Utemagasinet.no. It touches upon the issue of stiff sole as well.
Below are some extract translated (mostly with google) for those who are not subscribers or don't read Norwegian:
About the flexors
The hard flex pad should be supplied with all Xplore bindings, as it is an absolutely crucial part for the binding to be more stable than the BC. Without it, we don't have much more than a new variant of a BC binding with a slightly larger travel range, and somewhat slacker forward resistance..
We are happy about the important improvements with the new flexors, because the weak and uneven forward resistance in the previous version was a big step back in functionality for a tour binding, and especially not favorable for contact with the ski in telemark turns. It is precisely on telemarking skiing that we can actually increase stability considerably with this technique, in contrast to the use of tall telemark boots where it is usually more stable with alpine technique.
Stable ski boots require a lot of stiffness in the sole, which in turn requires stronger resistance in the flexor. The new, hard flexor is up to the task, even for the 95 kg ski tester with a shoe size of 47. Fortunately, the hard flexor has now been considerably increased in size, as we suggested for Rottefella after testing two prototypes in March 2021.
The hard flex pad is also suitable for cross country. Also the lighter test subject of 165 cm and approx. 65 kg, who is only used to BC binding, somewhat surprisingly likes using this hard flex pad for normal walking.
The limitation in removing skis and changing loose flexors with Xplore is a clear disadvantage compared to many different randonee and 75 mm bindings [...]
We hope that there will be introduced several new flexors for the Xplore binding that are adapted to the skier's weight, shoe size or preferences, as you can with NNN cross-country bindings.[...]
About the small binding surface
No attempt has been made to increase the support surface of the ski boot, which is significantly narrower than a BC binding, and very much narrower than for 75 mm. Increased width under the ball of the toe on a flexible rubber sole provides better stability and edging power. Are there trend/fashion phenomena such as a slim look and the rando wave that lie behind these limitations in the binding's design?
About the way forward for Xplore
We have always done off-piste skiing, for recreation or transport in the winter. The binding is what matters the least in order to realize such an activity [...].Stability and steering properties are still determined 95 percent by the skis and boots.
Much of the way forward for the Xplore system is therefore determined by whether the shoe manufacturers come up with good and stable mountain ski boots, and whether they design a sole profile that provides better contact with the ski and reduces the disadvantage of a higher axis of rotation in the binding.
The Free shoe we have tested with now loses contact between the ball of the toe and the ski, even with full weight on one leg, already when the heel is lifted 5-6 cm, in contrast to the BC and 75 mm which have good contact with the ski when the heel is lifted two -three times as high. This gives the binding more instability during telemark turns and easier slips as the skis' buckle pocket is designed to be pressed down just below the ball of the toe.
New development is great - and more focus on the versatility of good mountain skiing equipment. New products must provide a better function, not just novelty value and appearance that resembles another type of binding that is not suitable for mountain ski boots.
Comparison with other bindings
There is no evidence to say that the Xplore is more stable than the scalable 75mm system. But with the new hard flex pad, the binding can somewhat exceed the stability of the BC system, but then only together with sufficiently stable mountain ski boots.
Both BC and 75 mm are still good enough binding systems to cover the whole segment between cross-country skiing and randonee, given that the shoes are stable enough in relation to the width of the skis.
Will we soon see an improved BC binding, or at least a harder flex pad? Or perhaps tighter springs for "Super Telemark with cable" and lighter 75 mm ski boots? Remember, the most efficient sailing ships were developed after competition with the steamships arose!
Not going to lie, this review is more skeptical than I expected - and what I'm hearing from the users here.
Came across the review of the updated Xplore in Utemagasinet.no. It touches upon the issue of stiff sole as well.
Below are some extract translated (mostly with google) for those who are not subscribers or don't read Norwegian:
About the flexors
The hard flex pad should be supplied with all Xplore bindings, as it is an absolutely crucial part for the binding to be more stable than the BC. Without it, we don't have much more than a new variant of a BC binding with a slightly larger travel range, and somewhat slacker forward resistance..
We are happy about the important improvements with the new flexors, because the weak and uneven forward resistance in the previous version was a big step back in functionality for a tour binding, and especially not favorable for contact with the ski in telemark turns. It is precisely on telemarking skiing that we can actually increase stability considerably with this technique, in contrast to the use of tall telemark boots where it is usually more stable with alpine technique.
Stable ski boots require a lot of stiffness in the sole, which in turn requires stronger resistance in the flexor. The new, hard flexor is up to the task, even for the 95 kg ski tester with a shoe size of 47. Fortunately, the hard flexor has now been considerably increased in size, as we suggested for Rottefella after testing two prototypes in March 2021.
The hard flex pad is also suitable for cross country. Also the lighter test subject of 165 cm and approx. 65 kg, who is only used to BC binding, somewhat surprisingly likes using this hard flex pad for normal walking.
The limitation in removing skis and changing loose flexors with Xplore is a clear disadvantage compared to many different randonee and 75 mm bindings [...]
We hope that there will be introduced several new flexors for the Xplore binding that are adapted to the skier's weight, shoe size or preferences, as you can with NNN cross-country bindings.[...]
About the small binding surface
No attempt has been made to increase the support surface of the ski boot, which is significantly narrower than a BC binding, and very much narrower than for 75 mm. Increased width under the ball of the toe on a flexible rubber sole provides better stability and edging power. Are there trend/fashion phenomena such as a slim look and the rando wave that lie behind these limitations in the binding's design?
About the way forward for Xplore
We have always done off-piste skiing, for recreation or transport in the winter. The binding is what matters the least in order to realize such an activity [...].Stability and steering properties are still determined 95 percent by the skis and boots.
Much of the way forward for the Xplore system is therefore determined by whether the shoe manufacturers come up with good and stable mountain ski boots, and whether they design a sole profile that provides better contact with the ski and reduces the disadvantage of a higher axis of rotation in the binding.
The Free shoe we have tested with now loses contact between the ball of the toe and the ski, even with full weight on one leg, already when the heel is lifted 5-6 cm, in contrast to the BC and 75 mm which have good contact with the ski when the heel is lifted two -three times as high. This gives the binding more instability during telemark turns and easier slips as the skis' buckle pocket is designed to be pressed down just below the ball of the toe.
New development is great - and more focus on the versatility of good mountain skiing equipment. New products must provide a better function, not just novelty value and appearance that resembles another type of binding that is not suitable for mountain ski boots.
Comparison with other bindings
There is no evidence to say that the Xplore is more stable than the scalable 75mm system. But with the new hard flex pad, the binding can somewhat exceed the stability of the BC system, but then only together with sufficiently stable mountain ski boots.
Both BC and 75 mm are still good enough binding systems to cover the whole segment between cross-country skiing and randonee, given that the shoes are stable enough in relation to the width of the skis.
Will we soon see an improved BC binding, or at least a harder flex pad? Or perhaps tighter springs for "Super Telemark with cable" and lighter 75 mm ski boots? Remember, the most efficient sailing ships were developed after competition with the steamships arose!
Not going to lie, this review is more skeptical than I expected - and what I'm hearing from the users here.
Interesting... I would nonetheless like to try the beast to see...
É y fa ty fret? On é ty ben dun ti cotton waté? célèbre et ancien chant celtique
I think the test was with the Alfa Free boot. Their conclusions are based on that, and don't necessarily reflect how the system will feel with other boots with a different flexing sole.
