Xplore & the advantages of stiff stole for XC

[TheMusher]

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.

Very important for context if true! Good catch.

[Jurassien]

Below are some extract translated (mostly with google) for those who are not subscribers or don't read Norwegian:

Google Translate usually does a good job with Norwegian, but the odd howler is inevitable. For example, Åsnes is sometimes translated as "asses" (= donkeys) and "kortfeller" is rendered as "card traps". So, according to Google, a lot of Norwegians are sliding around on their asses with card traps!

Thank you for drawing attention to the current UTE article - I've just registered so that I could read the full text. It provides a somewhat more sobering perspective than some of the opinions presented here on this forum. For me, personally, it carries some weight, as the testing was done in Norway and presumably by Norwegians - so more likely to be closer to the kind of touring I prefer. Unfortunately, they say nothing about the methodology of the testing, although it appears that there were only two testers "Vi kjenner da begge.....", namely the mentioned 95kg and 65kg skiers. There is no indication of where, or what kind of terrain, although they do say "Et skifte mellom lett/normal og hard flekspute er ønskelig på toppturer" (A change between light/normal and hard flexible pad is desirable on summit tours). Which summits, if any, did they climb and ski down from?

Also, as pointed out by member lowangle al, the only boot mentioned is the Alfa Free - so that's another fair criticism of the testing.

I have toured extensively in Breheimen, Jotunheimen, Skarvheimen and the Hardangervidda with both NNN BC and 75mm. Both systems work well, but while I would happily zip through the Hardangervidda with BC bindings, I have felt more secure with 75mm in the other three mountain ranges. My only reason for contemplating a change of binding for the steeper ranges would be the overall lightness of the Xplore system - and it is very significantly lighter than a 75mm boot with cable binding. Another consideration is the limited choice of decent 75mm boots and the almost total disappearance from the market of boots with a stitched welt.

However, if the Xplore performance is considered little better than NNN BC - and only then after fiddling with different buffers - then I'll stay on the fence until I can be convinced otherwise.

[mca80]

Thanks, @Jurassien, for that post.

P.S. after reading various reviews I have learned some of the nuances of google translate with respect to "trap," "walk," etc.

[Stephen]

It seems like this tread has morphed to also include the binding, so posting this here.

This morning had a chance to rug test the combination of the Free boot and Xplore binding (attached to Voile Objective BC).
With the option to switch between the Normal and Hard Flexor.

I’m able to directly compare:
NNN BC with Normal Flexor with Alfa Guard, and;
Xplore with Normal Flexor with Alfa Free.

When comparing the resistance to raising the boots (which then presses against the Flexor), it seems to me there is more resistance (as well as sooner) with the NNN BC binding.
This surprises me.
But, in looking at the Flexor housing, the NNN BC Flexor is encased, which limits the squish-out factor, and as well, the Flexor is bigger on NNN BC.
For pure K&G, it seems like the normal Xplore Flexor would be the best choice.

With the Xplore Hard Flexor, there is firm resistance once the heel is lifted about 35mm off the heel plate (size 47, mid-heel).

Agree that swapping flexors is a bit of a pain. I’ll have to ski both flexors to see if I will be happy with the Hard Xplore Flexor for mixed terrain (I almost always have a bias towards looking for the DH opportunities!


I think others have expressed concerns with how little and where the Alfa Free sole flexes.
Without having skied it yet, I think I would have preferred more flex under the ball of the foot.
It does seem to force me up on my toes. Maybe the sole will break in?

[lilcliffy]

(copy of post in Didier's review of the Rossi XP12)- http://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.p ... =20#p56713

To clarify- I certainly don't prefer the hard flexor for XC skiing and climbing-
I wanted to rigorously test whether I could "tolerate" the hard flexor on tours in steep terrain- with lots of transitions-
the deal-breaker for me with XP is if I felt compelled to constantly switch out the flexor.

I regularly do distance tours in steep terrain where the turn must serve the tour-
I also tour for turns when the conditions are ideal-

I do not have the verticals (max ~350m) in my local terrain that would allow me to tolerate constantly switching out the flexors.

And while I still like XP downhill with the standard flexor- I much prefer the hard flexor for downhill skiing.

The only time I am going to choose to ski with zero resistance is out of nescesity (I have lost a flexor a few times on a tur).

I'm afraid the only part of Full Johnny skiing that I would do intentionally is the full frontal portion!

[TheMusher]

Copy that @lilcliffy !

Can you see yourself replace all or most of your BC bindings with Xplore? Conversely, are there tours where you will continue to prefer BC?

I’m at a crossroads now, where I need to make some binding decisions in my quiver to keep norm count at two..

Finnmark - BC today. Replace with Xplore?
Breidablikk Husky - Rottefella 75 or Xplore?
Rabb 68 - Rottefella 75
Transalp 86 - Switchback

Still thinking I’ll keep Rottefella 75 for a while for my biggest skis, as it gives the option for T4 when April brings the boilerplate, but will be exciting to see to what extent Xplore should be mounted also to fully replace 75mm eventually. (I'm thinking it's only a matter of time before we see boot designs for xplore that will challenge T4..)

Though times..

[TheMusher]

@Jurassien , seems like we share a lot of the same considerations. We also share the same, magnificent I may add, touring terrain..

Especially with pulks and dogs in the mountain ranges, extra stability trumps any marginal xc efficiency every time.

My main motivation for making the switch from BC to xplore - and maybe 75mm to xplore for mid-class skis ala Breidablikk - would be to increase the support per gram while also avoiding too many norms.

Currently, I see the primary flaw in the xplore design as the absence of smooth transition between different modi, and to a lesser extent the absence of cable option or similar activity that would allow for full-force telemark. Otherwise it looks like they hit the mark!

Edit: Final note, agree that it’s bad craftsmanship that they have not specified more testing parameters in the xplore test in Utemagasinet.no. Conditions? Boot? Terrain? Skis? Think it needs to be digested with a great pinch of salt without such clarity.

[lilcliffy]

Update-
I have had the chance to put the ALFA Free boot through its paces this week-
both in a traditional Nordic touring context-
and a backcountry up-down touring-for-turns downhill-focused context.

Personally I will not be able to use the Free boot for Nordic touring- not as a function of the stiffness of the sole flex- but as a function of the flex profile. The Free boot hurts my feet- crushes my toes when striding. AND- unlike the Alaska XP boot- I had to take the hard flexors out to be able to comfortably intensively climb with them.

So- as Johnny pointed to in his early reviews- the flex pattern of these current XP boots indeed can be very different-

And back to the OP of this thread- I think the flex pattern of the boot will have a greater impact on its suitability for "XC" (i.e. Nordic touring) than the stiffness of the sole...

[DG99]

After reading this thread, I’m thinking the Xplore is a “more elegant” solution than NNNBC, but not really a big step up in control or downhill ability, given the same boot (same boot uppers).

Fair enough?

More elegant design in terms of ease in and out, better pivot point placement, less parts and weight, easier to change bumpers, vs. NNNBC.

A more paranoid thought (?). Rottefella is switching due to the NNNBC patents running out, and they rely on patent monopolies for their business model?

[Capercaillie]

Two more advantages:

Greatly reduced play/slop when pivoting the skis. This is both due to the pins (or rather, the inherent limitations on the manufacturing tolerances of an NNN-style hook closure and the part of the boot soles that holds the bar and fits onto the binding), and the fact that the distance between the pins is greater than the distance between the ends of the NNNBC binding (even if you had the same 1mm of fore-aft slop, the resulting angle would be smaller). NNNBC is not so bad, but for example old NNN bindings have a ridiculous amount of play when trying to pivot the ski. This is one reason why I think that the boot ridges in NNNBC and especially NNN (which unlike NNNBC has heel ridges on most modern bindings, which don't seem to do anything other than get packed with ice) are not effective and why Xplore doesn't need them. I think this would be an advantage not just for downhill control but for skinny XC skis as well, because it would let you feel when a ski is being deflected sooner.

The flexor design makes it possible to make dual (maybe even triple, why not) density flexors. Something that is not possible for NNNBC (well, not in any way that would be useful). That is probably going to be the key to making that magic flexor that allows great XC kick and then provides the rear telemark foot resistance.