3 Pin or NNN BC Magnum?

[afsnewbie]

After a lot of research, I just purchased the Fischer Excursion 88. This is my first proper backcountry ski, but, at first I'll use it mostly in rolling terrain with some hills. I wanted a ski that ski had decent kick and glide for touring but could handle telemark turns reasonable well as I develop skills and do tours with steeper stuff. I'm a beginner at the tele turn, so for a while I'll be on rolling terrain or hit up golf course hills to work on turn technique.

If anyone could give advice on bindings I would appreciate it. I'm leaning toward 3 pin with detachable cable, but wondering if a NNN BC Magnum type binding would be better. Does a 3 Pin kick and glide as well as NNN set-up? My experience so far is on a 25 year old pair of skinny 210 cm Karhu (60mm at tip) with soft Salomon boots, so I have no 3 pin experience. Thanks!

[connyro]

You can really go either way here. I would look for boots that fit the best and go from there. The advantage of 3- pin imo is that you can use a wider variety of boots than nnnbc. For example, you can use old Asolo tele boots or new leather boots and anything in between. Personally I prefer nnnbc for k+g (not to mention how much easier it is to drive with a clutch with nnnbc vs 3-pin boots). I recently mounted a pair of Excursion 78s with nnnbc that I ski with alpina alaskas.

[Rodbelan]

You can't go wrong... But I prefer 3 pins; as Connyro's saying, there is more choice... You can go burly or flimsy...

[fisheater]

To add to what Connyro states, it is just easier to find a quality leather boot that fits in NNN-BC. I also have an Alaska in NNN-BC and I really like it. I like it so much that I bought the Alaska 75 mm boot this summer, however I got it on sale, delivered, for less than $100. Now on the ski that I bought the Alaska 75 for is mounted 75 mm and I have a stiff leather boot already. I bought the Alaska 75 for more distance but still turn focused tours. If the Alaska 75 experiences a failure of the sole, which is very possible as there are many reported failures, I’ll be disappointed. I will still have boots. I guess my real point is that the more readily available leather 75 mm boots have a thermomolded sole. The only 75 mm Norwegian welted sole that I am aware of, sold in the US is the Crispi Antarctic. That boot is available from the Fey Brothers proprietors of Telemark Down.
There are many more appropriate touring boots that would be a good match in NNN-BC than 75 mm. Also, while I have not skied my Alaska 75 as of yet, I cannot see how it would be a more powerful turning boot than my Alaska BC. You may get more “turning power” out of an Antarctic, especially as you could have cable option. It would still tour well. For me NNN-BC serves me quite well in the class of skis similar to the E-88.
You won’t go wrong either way, unless you go up to a plastic 75 mm touring boot such as a T-4 or Excursion. Both are great boots, but a little heavy and stiff, and overkill for an E-88.
Good luck

[afsnewbie]

Very helpful, thanks for the advice! I was actually looking to get the Alaska in 3 Pin. That way, I could also get tele boots if I was doing a tour with more downhill.

[fisheater]

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3277

Hey Newbie,
Read this thread. There are some interesting and relevant ideas.

[afsnewbie]

Thanks for all of the help and advice! Very helpful. One thing now I'm a bit confused about is the size I've ordered, 179cm. Fischer doesn't give a size chart on their website but REI says the 179 is for skiers 145-195 lbs. I'm 6'1" and about 165 lbs. I noticed that they had both 189cm and 199cm, so I thought maybe this was a bit short, but I thought perhaps a little shorter ski could be a little easier to maneuver in the tight New England woods. In the thread shared one guy was clear that 189cm would be for my size, but another mentioned a shorter size, while a little slower, would turn a little easier. Any thoughts are appreciated!

[fisheater]

Read what Woodserson writes about sizing. I believe 179 cm is too short, however I’m at 190 lbs. Mr. Woods is more knowledgeable about this Fischer, and is of weight more similar to you.
I would follow Mr. Woods advice over REI.
Below is a cut and paste of the advice Woodserson gave another skier. I would follow this advice:



Top
User avatar
Woodserson
Re: Excursion 88 Sizing and Bindings.
Report Quote LIKE!
Post Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:04 pm

You are on the right track.

The ski is a tried and true piece of kit and the Fischer Offtrack Crown (the scales) is excellent at grip. Very grippy, wonderful design. If you get the EZ Skin option you can even add mohair skin which works very well for steeper climbs. This is a classic BC ski that has stood the test of time. It has high camber, is very springy, and launches you into the next glide.

Binding wise you can go either way. Lots of opinions on this. A Voile 3pin Cable gives you options for more control on longer planned for descents, but you have to install and un-install. NNNBC is difficult to go wrong, and people are very successful using this binding for turning coming from strong telemark backgrounds but it's as neutral as you're going to get and no cable option. Real skiin'! I learned to do it, but with lots of practice as the local hill.

If I am going to be 75/25 touring/turning then I go NNNBC. If I want to turn more and use the ski for mostly turns then I go 75mm. That's ME.

If you decide to go 75mm, the Rottefella Super Tele (no cable option, unless you order the cable version from Europe) fits the Alaska duckbill tighter than Voile unless you get an older Voile binding. If you go Voile, add the anti-ice plate to take up a bit of room in the binding.

Now for the real meat of the matter, ze ski size. Don't screw yourself here. Forget the 179 completely: Too short and you will drag the scales and the ski will be slow. The nordic rocker on the Excursion removes gliding surface off firm snow and leaves you with more drag. I have the 189cm and at 6'2" 155lbs I find it perfectly suitable for good kick and glide, unless I'm going up a steep hill in loose snow. My brother skis this ski at 189cm at 165lb with weak XC technique, works very well for him. Be honest with yourself: are you in shape? do you want to get good at XC kick&glide technique? Do you want efficiency? Do you ski on firm snow or will these conditions predominate? Will you have a pack most of the time? You may even want to consider the 199cm version. There is nothing more miserable than buying a ski and going slow because you got it too short.

Will you have a pack on more than not and trying to put down miles on flatness? Go 199. Will you be day tripping mostly in hills with tight trees with lots of up and downs? Are you not willing to learn good kick&glide technique? Go 189.

BE HONEST with yourself and what you are planning to do, actually do. Not what your cubicle-inspire-snow-dream is telling you, but what are the realities on the ground.

Remember this is a whole new type of skiing, turning these things may not come naturally, or it may, but be prepared to flop around like a dying fish.

But wipe the 179 from your memory, it does not exist for you.

WELCOME this little place of nerds
These users liked this post by Woodserson

[afsnewbie]

Thank you!

[Woodserson]

Trees? Turns? Learning to learn? Stepping up the game with a plastic boot to tackle said trees? New to the sport? 189.

If you want really short for tight trees, get an Altai KOM and forget about XC skiing.

The 88 "turns" but it demands a lot of you. I linked my first telemark turns on this ski. I did it by going to local hill and getting the snot pounded out of me for weeks. If you have a local hill, go practice! Practice practice practice.

If you are really just looking to get into telemark turning for mostly downhill there are better skis for this. The 88 is still a XC ski. Just wider and some rocker to help the turning.

Great ski, but a not a magic bullet!

Yeah, baby, yeah! You're gonna get hoooooked I can feeeeeel it!