Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

Is there enough of a difference between the old brown Fischer BCX-5 and the Alaska BC to justify the $ difference.
I have both of these in my living room and I need to choose one in the next 48 hours (but I can't ski them). They fit the same, no issues there. Flip them over and they are identical in every way.
When I twist them I don't notice a significant difference. Will one boot start to become less supportive before the other? I'm plan on wearing them to break trails in southern New England with E-109 or an S-bound 78 skiing flat to rolling terrain (maybe the rare downhill in the apple orchard on the Voile Objective/ Karhu Guide/ Madshus Annum). (note-I did post a related question about the BCX-5 under a previous post- forgive the faux pas if I broke with protocol (I'm still new).
Woodserson was kind enough to comment on the boot before I settled on a ski:

The boots are fine and if you fit and you like them, it would be a good pairing. Just make sure they fit right. I don't think you'd need beefier boots for this combo unless you started to get wider skis and were planning on turning more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEanR3JotLY

I use to have the Fischer BCX4 — which is very, very similar to the BCX5 (https://www.sportrebel.com/index.php/Bo ... r-BCX4/534). The fit wasn't good for me and the relative stiffness of the sole didn't meet the real softness of the upper boot. I think the Alaska is more balanced (disclaimer: I haven't tried the boot in the snow... just in the store). Alaska: More expensive but better fabrication (it is obvious... durability is another thing...). I wouldn't bother with BCX5. BCX6 seems better. But save your pennies and go Alaska!

Well... I didn't know they were competing with the Alaska... it depends on your values. The Alaska is the best. I am sold on mine ten ways to Sunday. It is built better and it probably has a stiffer sole with more torsional rigidity. But you may not need it for the skiing your are doing. This is your call.

I'm always in favor of real leather boots, the Alaska fit wil continue to improve in time. IMO neither of these boots is ideal for powering serious BC tele skis, probably makes sense to see what the Alaska's can do and then decide if you want a heavier pair of boots in the future, Crispi Svartsen, or one of the 75mm boots

I have no actual experience with the BCX5 other than trying them on.
I would suggest that the BCX5 is a significant step up- with leather construction- over the previous BCX4 with its nylon toe and foot-crushing construction.

To be honest I do not see a lot of difference between these two boots in terms of performance...
As you have both of them in front of you-

What does the sole flex feel like with the boots on?
What does the sole flex feel like when you try and twist them by hand?

As there is no interior re-enforcement above the ankle in either boot- I would suspect the ankle support to be similar.

Is the BCX5 model you are looking at the "waterproof" model?
The waterproof-breathable liner of the Alaska is excellent.

Isnt the current BCX5 leather?

Underdog wrote:Is there enough of a difference between the old brown Fischer BCX-5 and the Alaska BC to justify the $ difference.
I have both of these in my living room and I need to choose one in the next 48 hours (but I can't ski them). They fit the same, no issues there. Flip them over and they are identical in every way.
When I twist them I don't notice a significant difference. Will one boot start to become less supportive before the other? I'm plan on wearing them to break trails in southern New England with E-109 or an S-bound 78 skiing flat to rolling terrain (maybe the rare downhill in the apple orchard on the Voile Objective/ Karhu Guide/ Madshus Annum). (note-I did post a related question about the BCX-5 under a previous post- forgive the faux pas if I broke with protocol (I'm still new).
Woodserson was kind enough to comment on the boot before I settled on a ski:

The boots are fine and if you fit and you like them, it would be a good pairing. Just make sure they fit right. I don't think you'd need beefier boots for this combo unless you started to get wider skis and were planning on turning more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEanR3JotLY

This class of boot is ideally suited to even drive the 78 or E109.
This class of boot is enough to ride a ski like the Annum/Objective in ideal conditions- but it is not enough boot to drive a ski like the Annum/Objective in less than ideal conditions.
The skier in your posted "Annum Ski Test" video is using full-on plastic Telemark downhill boots and bindings.
...............
If you want to drive an Annum/Objective class ski downhill- you need to be looking at more boot than either of these skis IMHO.

Is the BCX5 model you are looking at the "waterproof" model?
.

No, this is not the "current" waterproof BCX-5. I believe this brown BCX-5 is a few generations older (never tried any of the others).

The waterproof-breathable liner of the Alaska is excellent

I did not know the Alaska had a breathable waterproof lining. While I love Goretex in my clothing, I find I only get a year of Goretex boots before the fabric's breathing is clogged and the lining start to become compromised.
Still, my feet love leather boots.

To be honest I do not see a lot of difference between these two boots in terms of performance...
As you have both of them in front of you-

What does the sole flex feel like with the boots on?
What does the sole flex feel like when you try and twist them by hand?

As there is no interior re-enforcement above the ankle in either boot- I would suspect the ankle support to be similar.

These soles are identical in every way (from what I can see).
Wearing them, I also cannot tell a difference.
But neither boot is broken in, and most good leather boots have a break in period. Orignally, I was planning on keeping which ever pair fit the best. They both fit very well. The liner (insole) in the BCX-5 comes out. Does the liner (insole) come out of the Alaska (with some effort)? I will wear them around some more on the carpet floor. The input is appreciated.
I may be a frugal New Englander, but I don't have a problem investing in a good pair of leather boots.

lilcliffy wrote:Isnt the current BCX5 leather?

Yes, the current (waterproof) BCX5 :

• Updated for Fall 2016 with Fischer Climate Control w/b membrane
  Thinsulate insulation that is twice as warm as foam or felt
  Leather upper
  Gaitor ring
  NNN-BC outsole

What about the BCX5 you are looking at- it is not leather?

And when you say you can take the liner out- do you mean the insole?
Or do you mean the BCX5 has a removable liner like a pack or double boot?

If so- I had no idea!!!

The Alaska does not have a removable liner- just a removable insole- just like a standard hiking boot.

A removable liner on a boot in this class would be quite something!