Rabb 68- NNNBC, 75mm-3pin, or Xplore?

[telerat]

I went with the Alaska and the Alfas are going back to REI today. The Alaskas felt like they were custom made for me when I laced them up, and the Alfas felt uncomfortable around the ankle.

I have the Alfa Skaget, and if the Free is like them they don't feel as comfortable as the Alpina Alaska at start. The foam around the ankle joint is very contoured and feels a bit strange, but with a normal thick sock and when I lace them up snug they are very precise and feels good. I very much like the lacing system on Skaget, where I can have different tension over the metatarsals, the talus and the leg and the three eyelets on the shaft allows for snug tensioning and as good support as I feel a boot with such supple leather can give. I have not been comfortable with the lacing on the Alaska the times I have tried it, and Skaget was the cheapest alternative for Xplore.

I have just briefly tried the Alfa Free and even though I could get a good price on them I haven't taken the plunge as I they are still expensive and I want to check out the alternatives. It is still the top alternative, but I'd like them more if they where a bit warmer, had a full rubber rand, had better flex/flex point, were a bit higher and perhaps had better ankle movement. I was skeptical of the BOA-closures first, but see that it gives great flexibility and that even AT-boots uses them. If Crispi comes with an Xplore version of their Svartisen I think that would be the main contender for me.

[lilcliffy]

I ordered both the Alfa Free and Alaska XP when I bought my Rabb/Xplore skis this year. Based on recommendations here I ordered the Alaska in size 44 and the Alfa in size 43. Was somewhat surprised to find out they are both built on the same sized Xplore sole. They line up exactly. I figured Rottefella soles would have a dedicated size, but the only size indicator on either boot is a "44" sticker on the Alaska.

This is common with NNN and NNNBC as well.

I don't know whether Rotte makes a NNN/NNNBC outsole for every specific whole EU size- but I have seen many examples of different EU sizes sharing the same outsole.

[lilcliffy]

Was the Alfa Free fit one size down similar to the Alaska? I’m normally somewhere between 39-40 for hiking shoes. The Alaska BC in 39 felt snug but had the fit issues mentioned. Knowing this, I recently ordered a pair of Alfa Skaget one size down, 38, so hopefully that will fit well. It seems everyone here is going down at least 1 size on their Alfa boots compared to Alpina.

I would be careful about this-
I would not assume that Alfa's boots are a full EU size larger than other manufacturers (e.g. Alpina).

For example, the Alpina Alaska BC definitely has a narrower last and is lower-volume than the Alfa Guard/Kikut BC.

Many people with wide and/or large volume feet have to size up in the Alaska- due to width-volume- not length.

I have a medium-width, low-volume foot and I can assure you that all of my size 42 Nordic touring boots (Alpina/Alfa/Crispi/Lundhags) have the same-length last- where they differ is in width-volume.

There is no way I could wear a size 41 Alfa- and my slightly longer left foot is a tad long for the 42 (i.e. I am really a size 42.5). This is exactly the same for my 42 Alpina/Crispi/Lundhags.

In order to get my 42 Alfa to work I use a thick insole to take up volume.

I don't think an Alfa is a full-size larger than an Alpina- I think that people with wide and/or large-volume feet need to size-up in the Alpina.

[Stephen]

I'm stating the obvious by saying that boot fit is a highly individual / case by case situation.
For one person (me, for example) to say XYZ boot is fantastic means only that it is fantastic for me, and my use of it.

@lilcliffy, has decades more experience than I do, but what he is saying below matches my experience (edited for the points I key in on).

I would not assume that Alfa's boots are a full EU size larger than other manufacturers (e.g. Alpina).

Many people with wide and/or large volume feet have to size up in the Alaska- due to width-volume- not length.

I don't think an Alfa is a full-size larger than an Alpina- I think that people with wide and/or large-volume feet need to size-up in the Alpina.

My foot is:
Wide in the BOF / Toe Box.
Low Volume.
High Instep.

For me, the ALFA boots fit great (but, like @lilcliffy, I have to add extra insole thickness to take up the interior volume, otherwise the boot does not fit right and is uncomfortable).
Everything else I have tried is too narrow in the BOF / Toe Box, and I would have to size up to MAKE it fit.
But then, it would not really be fitting right, because my BOF would be further back in the boot than the boot was designed for, and the boot might break more over my toes, rather than further back on my foot, where it should.

Boot Fit/Comfort is separate from Boot Construction/Quality/Application.

[lilcliffy]

A point of interest-

I have been hand-flexing a lot of skis over the last few days (AS IT FUCKING RAINS AND TAKES MY EARLY BASE AWAY...)-

I am not convinced that my new Rabb is noticably stiffer than my 1st/2nd-gen FT62-
correction→ the Rabb does have a more stable flex- but probably only because it is wider...
The Rabb is more what I am looking for, but only because it is wider, and I would think if a skier was much lighter than me- one might not notice a huge difference...

My Storetind is not only stiffer than the Rabb, it also has more resistance underfoot- closer to the Ingstad...

Addition- I think the only obvious difference between the Rabb and my FT622s is width...

I am really curious about how different the new FTX is to the FT62...

[fisheater]

I realize measuring camber can be a meaningless measure, as the resistance of the camber is what really affects performance. However this is from my FT to FT X comparisons

Camber FT. 11 mm
FT X 30 mm

Actual length FT 186.4 cm
FT X. 194.7 cm

Tip rocker FT 37 cm
F TX 38 cm

[RabbitEars]

@lilcliffy I'm looking forward to your review. I just had my first outing on my Rabb68 on Xplore and Alfa Skagit. So much fun! I don't regret returning the Voile Ultravectors in exchange for the Rabb. Very lightweight and turny with the added benefit of being able to kick and glide.

[GrimSurfer]

I personally don’t understand how you can have a boot flex at the ball of foot, but not be torqued in the turn without the aid of a cable.

There isn’t a 1:1 relationship between longitudinal boot flex and lateral torque. On a NNN BC binding, much of the torque is driven by the interface between the bottom of the boot and the shape of the binding. 75mm doesn’t have this… but it does have a cable (when fitted).

The moment of torque is different but the overall effect is equal. Cables transmit torque in one direction. Binding grooves transmit torque in both directions simultaneously. The moments of torque are different… the different bindings probably achieve the same levels. The only thing that differs is that a NNN BC can only do this when the mid foot is planed.

Boot stiffness comes into play a lot though. Turning is driven by the knees. The tarsals, calcaneus and navicular are kind of along for the ride.

I see the Asnes Falketind is narrower, but still with lotsa sidecut, seems about like some old school telemark skis for leather boots.

Depends on what you mean by “old”. Really old skis were rather plank like. People telemarked on them. Some did so damned near as convincingly as folks do today with plastic boots and side cut skis. Gotta appreciate the talent of some of those old dudes back in the day.

And if the only current Xplore boots that will work for my feet are either the Alaska XP or the leather Alfa XPs- what is the point of all the extra cost?
Would an Alaska Xplore be THAT much better than an Alaska NNNBC setup- when you consider +200% extra cost?

I’m with you on this. The Xplore offers a lot of performance potential. Does it offer double the performance when paired with a flexible boot? Doubtful.

I realize measuring camber can be a meaningless measure, as the resistance of the camber is what really affects performance.

As I’m sure you’ve realized, resistance of the camber can be assessed with a bit of interpolation.

All skis have a weight range, which typically spans ~10-15 kg. Assuming that a ski can be compressed with 75% of a skiers weight, the one with less unloaded camber will generally be stiffer.

This is a very general guide (emphasis on “very general”).

Classic racing skis of identical camber and length come in differing stiffness. These are laid up differently to maximize glide across softer and harder surfaces. We don’t see this as much in BC because the surface doesn’t vary THAT much. Not like reformed, compressed, and track set vs. fresh or soft, lightly compressed, and textured.

Gravity is a constant. Mother Nature settles and wind packs. Machines compress.

[DG99]

[

I see the Asnes Falketind is narrower, but still with lotsa sidecut, seems about like some old school telemark skis for leather boots.

Depends on what you mean by “old”. Really old skis were rather plank like. People telemarked on them. Some did so damned near as convincingly as folks do today with plastic boots and side cut skis. Gotta appreciate the talent of some of those old dudes back in the day.

[

Of course I was thinking around 1990, not 1690

https://skishoeing.com/wp-content/uploa ... Chokue.jpg

[GrimSurfer]

And I was thinking 1960, not 1690…

I didn’t think horsehair was used for skins, but the look on that pony’s face suggests otherwise.