Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

I've been browsing, searching and learning from you all for the past week or so and really appreciate the wisdom here.

But I havent found what I'm looking for. Today I talked to my local mountain gear shop and got the feeling they werent much into telemark and were probably pushing the randonee gear.

I've skied downhill and cross country for years, but lately have been intrigued in testing the water (frozen of course) with telemark and the beauty of those turns.

So my crazy idea...to test on the cheap...

I have Alaska boots (nnn-bc), I have some k2 shuksan skis (light weight backcountry skis 186 cm 107-75-98). I was thinking of mounting an nnn-bc binding on these skis to test out telemark skiing at my local resort.

Would this work? Would it be worth the effort? Would it give me a chance at testing out telemark turns?

Any input is appreciated.

It is always a good idea to learn the Telemark turn. The ski has side cut and a relatively narrow waist. However a mid 70 mm ski may be a bit much for an Alaska BC boot.
As I think only slightly more, even my 62 mm underfoot Falketind X ski would still be interesting in most resort conditions. However interesting isn’t impossible. I’ve seen @mca80 skiing Nnn-bc and an edgeless ski at the resort, and doing a fine job!
I guess my final thought is that if that is the rig you want to start on, do it by all means. You can definitely learn the Telemark turn on that rig. My suggestion would be to start on gentle, groomed, terrain, on a soft snow day.
There are some good threads about learning the Telemark turn, with very good instructional videos.
Just for a little stoke, here are some videos of skiers on mostly NNN-BC gear. The video titled Morgan Crayon is a short video of a guy ripping through the wooded hills on NNN-BC and edgeless skis on a powder day. So it’s definitely not what to expect, but rather a possibility.
https://whitegrass.com/about/videos/

The Asnes Kongsvold are 96-66-85 and without a metal edge, significant sidecut, low camber, lightweight. This past winter was my first time learning downhill turns (other than step turns) on nordic gear. I skied greens and sometimes blues at local resort using Alpina 1600 which was their stiffest boot prior to the Alaska. I wonder if your ski may be just a bit much for those Alaskas, I dunno. But for testing something on the cheap, and if you don't mind plugging the holes if you don't find you like the binding, I think it could be worth a shot. Otherwise, new boots and/or a 3pin (or other) binding will cost a heck of a lot more.

Here's one of the pages alluded to by @fisheater with great instructional info all consolidated. Practicing the drills on a green run or even more gentle slopes definitely helped me a lot.

https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5649

Also, you can get a stiffer flexor (red) for the nnnbc which should help in pressuring downhill. I think shipping is free to usa from this vendor and for 12 bucks it's not a huge expense to experiment with a slightly different feel.

https://nordicskater.com/products/rotte ... exors-1639

I wrote a more thorough reply 20 minutes ago, but it didn't reach this destination, so shorter version here:

I skied a pair of Shuksans for several years, and it's a really great all round ski. Enjoyed it with T1's and T2's, cable bindings. I have a pair of Alaska 75's that I use for light touring. I would strongly advise your not trying to use that NNN BC set-up on the Shuksan's; it's not nearly enough boot/binding for the ski. Don't ruin you intro to tele on such a mismatch.

We could offer better suggestions if you tell us where you'll be skiing, and what you're hoping to do with yor tele rig. For now, just drop the idea of the NNN on a real AT ski.Think Madshus Panorama class ski, or narrower.

Not sure what’s meant by the term “boot binding”. Boot? Binding? Both?

Here’s the thing…. All biases aside, there’s nothing the matter with NNN BC bindings. The toe clamp locates the boot on the binding. The rails locate the boot sole and allow a significant amount of force to be applied from the sole to the ski. This combination can deliver more torque than any boot or knee can tolerate.

The issue comes down to lateral support. How much support is needed for an individual skier to exert control? Depends on ankle strength in most cases. Skiers with strong tree trunks for ankles can get by with a flexy boot like the Alaska. Others like what a supportive boot like an Alfa brings to the game. Either way, the pivot of the toe bar (or pins, in the case of the Xplore) allows range of motion beyond the flex limit of the sole.

1. NNNBC manual or auto? How are you planning to attach leashes to the bindings or skis?

2. Have you tried telemarking on the skis you already have?

@phoenix gave good, 1st hand advice.

I would *guess* that, on firm, groomed snow, that ski, with those bindings and boots, will want to stay flat (it will not want to edge).
This means you’ll probably end up sliding around (skidding) a lot, without much control.
If you were on green slopes, with a little bit of fresh snow, it might work enough to get a feel for telemark, but hard to progress beyond that.
On friendly, ungroomed snow, it would probably work ok.
For example, people are skiing something like a Voile Objective, with an 82mm waist, with NNN BC in good snow conditions.

BC bindings and boots aren’t designed for groomers. Nor are they designed for alpine conditions, alpine touring, higher angle slopes etc. The clue is in the name… “backcountry” which is explicit. This is why “NNN BC” and “Xplore BC” carry the names they do.

75mm under foot isn’t especially wide. A Rossi BC100 (emphasis on the name… “BC”) is wider under foot, yet eminently suitable for the back country. And ski shops have no issue with mounting any BC bindings on these skis. NN, NNN BC, Xplore.

So the issue becomes more one dictated by use than ski tbh.