Asnes Ingstad vs. Fischer S-bound 98?

[fisheater]

This is my opinion, only one man’s opinion. If I were to have two equal skis, and I were to mount on 75 mm and one NNN-BC. I believe that my Alaska BC boot would offer both better downhill control and better kick and glide than my Alaska BC.
Now let me offer this caveat. If I were to mount a ski 75 mm, the binding would have a removable cable. At that point downhill performance could exceed downhill performance of the rail on an NNN-BC binding. I also have a leather boot more powerful than my Alaska 75.
I wouldn’t mount a ski that I didn’t want to point straight downhill at times, with a 75 mm binding. However 75 mm does allow me the opportunity to use a stiffer boot than an Alaska 75, while also being able to use that Alaska 75 when conditions are good.
In closing I will add I have an S-112. It is mounted 75 mm, but torsionally it really isn’t a powerful ski. I believe I could get everything out of that ski with NNN-BC. The s-98 I assume isn’t any more powerful, so I assume NNN-BC would offer me enough power on that ski as well. NNN-BC would without question offer better cross country performance.
However I am so completely underwhelmed by the cross country performance of the S-112, my idea of xcd purgatory would be having an S-112 and an S-98 as my only two skis. I definitely would want a more cross country oriented ski. If it had too be waxless, I would go all the way to a Traverse 78, unless there was deep snow issues pushing me to the Expedition 88.

[Tom M]

Thanks Tom, it wasn't actually the ski tech who said 88 is not for 75mm, it was a Fischer rep (from Fischer Sports).

I emailed him asking for clarification and also asking if the Xplore bindings will be compatible with 88.

I do realize the 75mm Rotefella Super Tele would hang off the edge of the skis too much with such a small waist (both on 88's and the Discovery 80's).

I'd love to know if Xplore bindings would provide the same or more control at cable-less 75mm (which for me is much higher than NNNBC), but that might be a whole new thread.

I'm guessing what the Fischer rep meant to say was that NNNBC was a good match for the 88 for the kind of skiing the 88 is mostly used for and that the 75 mm binding is more commonly used for wider downhill oriented skis.

After reading your concerns regarding width, I went out into the garage to measure the Xplore width. The Xplore binding at its widest point is around 88.5 mm. My Voile 3 pin is about 120 mm at its widest point. The screw pattern on these bindings are such that they will work with skis much narrower than what you are considering. Most of the time, the boots end up being wider than the bindings so binding width isn't much of a concern for backcountry (non track skiing). My backcountry leather boots vary in width, but most of them are about 110 mm wide at their widest point. Here are a couple of photos so you can see the difference between the 3pin and Xplore binding and boots. In the first photo, my calipers are set at the Xplore width, so you can visually see the difference between the Voile 3 pin and the new Xplore in width.

In this photo, you can see the width difference between the Alpina Alaska XP Xplore (top) and the Alfa Greenland (3 pin) (bottom) boots

And a top view, Alfa Greenland 75 mm left, Alpina Alaska XP right

[Woodserson]

The overhang doesn't matter much, this is loony tunes how we're going down this path. 75mm has been to the poles and up and down mountains on skinnier skis than this since it was invented. More Rebounds, Outtabounds, Boundless, Sbound 78, 88, 98s, have probably been mounted with 75mm than any other binding.

Get the boot that FITS and has available inventory, and then get the binding that goes with that boot. FIT is the number one deciding factor. If you want something for a specific purpose that's fine, but do not let this overhang subject be a primary driver in the decision making. It's a distraction.

Tom you've been doing this for longer than I've been alive. All those cool photos of you camping out in the 70s... What binding was on those skis and how wide were they?

[riel]

I do realize the 75mm Rotefella Super Tele would hang off the edge of the skis too much with such a small waist (both on 88's and the Discovery 80's).

There are two cases where the binding hanging over the edge of the ski can cause issues: you are skiing in the tracks, and your binding is scraping the edge of the track, or you are skiing on very steep terrain and your boot is lifting the ski edge off of the snow.

I don't think either are a concern for what you want to do.

However, in your case there is a real advantage to having the boot and binding a little wider than the ski: you get more leverage over the ski, making it easier for you to turn, and generally control the skis.

[Tom M]

Ingstad, 98's, 88's. All good but different skis.

[Stephen]

@Ira, I looked at the Excursion 88 today and thought of you.
Slightly wider than the Ingstad (more stable?).
Seems like availability might be good.
Link to some thoughts on the ski:
https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic. ... +88#p42197
Seems like it might be your ski?

Not sure why you exclude the NNN BC boots?
They will be as supportive as 75mm.
Like someone else said, find a boot that fits well, get the binding that matches that boot.
Not sure how @Tom M got Xplore bindings, but expensive and for what you’re doing, maybe a little overkill, and will probably complicate and slow down your decision-making process.

You should be getting close to having enough info to make a choice.
I understand wanting to get it right — really, but stop and digest the info you have and see if that gets you an answer.

Just my .02 cents…

[Nick BC]

Not sure how @Tom M got Xplore bindings,

[/quote

I suspect Tom M is an “internet influencer”, as is probably Johnny. They get the new gear early so they can spread the word. Nothing wrong with that since we all get the goods early. I have to say I really enjoy Tom’s videos on YouTube, maybe if we had that in the 80’s I would have transitioned to single camber skis sooner

[Ira]

Thank you everyone!

I think I'm going to pass on the Alpina 80 (I might need more lateral stability).

I realize it would be returnable, but I'm cautious now because, I'm embarrassed to say, I may have made a hasty purchase a month ago. I tried to get an S-98 from REI, and all they had was 159 and I preferred the 169 being 130 lbs -- REI kindly said that if I got it and found it too short after trying it, they'd let me return it. I got the 159 because I'm only a few pounds overweight for it, and all I had was a severely delaminated 5-year-old Rossi and was afraid of having nothing useable at all. Now, based on how much I flatten the 159 out standing on it on a wood floor, weight evenly distributed, I have a feeling there's a 40% chance it's too short for any decent glide even on hard snow (although I'll still give it a chance). So I'm researching everything extensively even if it's returnable, and I'm going wait until I can get something I'm much more likely to keep, even if that risks waiting until next season due to lack of inventory of the ideal-skis.

On Thanksgiving, they briefly had the 112 in 169, and ordered the 112 just in time, so I won't be ski-less while I search for that ideal 2nd ski (I wouldn't have gotten the too-short 98 if I had known they'd have 112 in 169 later, so want to avoid making another hasty purchase decision).

You're so right about skis being available only briefly -- within an hour after I ordered the 112, they no longer had it in any size whatsoever!

Thanks for the warning about Asnes waxless grip issue, and thank you for the wonderful advice on the Excursion 88 everyone -- right now I'm leaning towards Excursion for the 2nd ski, especially if it actually works well with 3-pin or Xplore (but I might wait for snow and see if the too-short S-98 ends up being acceptable after all).

BTW, Tom, while searching "Excursion reviews" and came upon your wonderful video on it -- thanks for posting it!

[Ira]

Thanks so much everyone about the bindings advice as well.

To clarify, I don't know why, I realize it doesn't make sense, perhaps I have weird unusual feet, but my feet and NNNBC do not get along. I can't even do a simple snowplow with NNNBC. And my foot doctor cautioned me against skiing at all due to my foot conditions, but when I told her how conservative I am, said I'm only allowed to ski if I don't fall (and if I used NNNBC I couldn't fulfill that requirement -- with NNNBC it's like my skis are on someone else's feet, I have 0 control). There's something about the tip-toe connection, but with 75 mm at least the ball of my foot transfers some (still rudimentary, but at least some control)

So NNNBC is out of the question for me.

I did get cables with my 3-pins for this recent purchase, though I've never used them yet (no snow to try).

Re: bindings hitting the ski tracks -- I never ski in groomed tracks, but I ski in my own tracks for days afterwards, and with Rossi BC-90, I had frequent experiences when skiing in my own melted/refrozen tracks, of sudden jerks / stops from the binding hitting the sides of my tracks and getting stuck.

I have a separate question about a diagonal/uncentered binding job from a ski shop, but I'll make a new thread for that.

Thanks!

[Ira]

I realize this is very much a beginner's question: For metal-edge touring skis in icy or crusty conditions, is it helpful to have more sidecut, or less sidecut (if using a snowplow or half-snowplow to scrape the icy snow to slow down)? Which profile would be better for control in ice: 88/68/78 or 98/69/88 (same waist, wider tip/tail)?

Thanks!