connyro wrote:
I think maybe people just don't like to have their definitions reset for them. I suspect many of us were referring to the type of skiing we do as 'XCD". Now we find that it does not fit the Knights' definition. I'm OK with that. I'll just refer to the skiing that I do as touring: no harm, no foul! If the Knights want to define XCD purely as 'downhill skiing on XC gear', then that works for me. It's like mountain biking on a road bike. Not my bag, but I'd watch videos of someone doing it.
I don't think this is true. The Knights seem to want to keep some semblance of XC in the XCD.
I know this seems really hard for some people to grasp, but what XC has become today is not very good for XCD. But all XC racers go downhill, and all of them use XCD techniques, but not necessarily the ones we are interested in for the BC.
To me, it becomes about blurring the lines. Like I said with the low cuff plastic boots. Look at their heritage. Does it come from XC? No. It's purely an Alpine tech that was applied to Modern Telemark and became a the simplest, lightest option for Telemark. Some double leather boots may provide nearly as much performance as those boots, but look at the heritage again. It came from very old-school mountaineering/Alpine skiing. I know I said that nasty Alpine skiing word, but this was far back when Alpine/Telemark/XC were all kind of the same. It's the true roots of skiing. It was all free heel (although they did use cables) and it was all leather boots (because plastic hadn't been invented). When plastic came about, it was purely applied to Alpine. The tech developed along with Alpine skiing until eventually the bellows was added and Modern Tele was born. There was a break in skiing and tech back then. Telemark was XCD. XCD was Telemark. It was all the same. And even XC was far different back in those days.
Now that XC has evolved so much beyond what most of us on this forum consider in the cross country overland travel we do in our skiing, it's again time to evolve what we call it. I think Nordic BC Touring defines what I think of XCD better than anything else. We still use the same tech as is used in modern XC gear but it has been beefed up to make different style turns (Teles and parallels vs. snowplows and steps) and handle snow that has not been groomed.
Anyway, back to the point. It's not MTB with a Road Bike. It's MTB with a XC bike, not a DH bike. In bikes, XC bikes are in between road bikes and DH bikes. They are harder to handle in tech descents, but they also posses a fair deal of touring efficiency that is found in road bikes. The current trend in MTB is a lot like skis. Everyone wants trail or Enduro bikes. Basically the XCD of MTB. The lines are even more blurry. And it's obvious the guys out west favor the slacked out, big travel bikes more than the guys int he east. You can rip a lot of eastern terrain with 100mm HT. And back to skis, you can rip a lot of eastern terrain with a modern leather boot, a hybrid XC/Alpine ski (which is what most of the XCD skis are), and neutral, touring bindings.
I think part of the confusion here is now you can ski on skis that are considered XCD skis with boots that are considered Tele. Because old school Tele became XCD, a lot of the gear is cross-compatible. That's actually kind of the coolest thing! You could take a pair of Guides and XCD them one day with your leathers and another day Tele them with your plastic boots. They become the most versatile things around, and people use them this way all the time. My wife uses her Epochs this way, and it completely changes the character of how the skis will perform. With leather boots they are good deep snow tourers that can turn pretty easily, with plastic boots they become DH machines (in comparison). They can easily be overpowered by the boots and ski Tele or Parallel with relative ease.
So don't consider it bad thing, and don't think you don't do it. AFAIK most everyone on this forum does both Tele and XCD. And both people seem to enjoy both.
