Update from the XCD Knights

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
User avatar
connyro
needs to take stock of his life
needs to take stock of his life
Posts: 1233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by connyro » Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:11 am

LooseHeel wrote:I've been xc skiing for over 40yrs, going up, down, across many types of terrain, using all sorts of different skis from skinny to wide. For any type of soft snow, a 95-115mm waist ski is by far my favorite. Plastic boots with tongue shell removed, touring liners, duckbill modified specifically to allow some free-pivot. Floating and skimming the surface, not plowing under, so it's faster and less tiring. They turn with ease and handle most conditions like there's nothing to do. I've gone farther, faster, longer with less fatigue and all the control needed for downhills. Wax for dry snow, waxless for wet.

Sometimes I'll try out the 55-85mm waist skis and every time I wonder why I bother. Sure, they're great on preset tracks, hard, crusty snow or snowmobile trails.

Maybe it doesn't fit the new definition of xcd, but I'll go anywhere from the golf course to the big mtns, have fun and not break anything.
I feel the same way LH. We get very deep, soft snowpack here and for trailbreaking, etc. XC skis just don't cut it. Yesterday, I 'toured' 8-10 miles in untouched, super-deep soft snow where poles sank into oblivion. If I had used my XC setup, it would have been a nightmare on the ups and the downs. The Vector BCs worked great for grip and flotation: it was no place for XCD!
LoveJohnny wrote:Obviously, there seems to be a lot of envy about the XCD category... Why is that? Where does that anger and jealousy comes from? I guess a lot of people want to be called XCD skiers, without the required extra effort... WTF, is XCD cool again or what? Why is everyone looking to be called XCD skiers? Did I miss a cool teenage movie mentionning XCD? What's going on?!?
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.

MikeK

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by MikeK » Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:35 am

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.



User avatar
connyro
needs to take stock of his life
needs to take stock of his life
Posts: 1233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by connyro » Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:51 am

I dunno. I stand by my mountain biking on a road bike analogy. Skiing DH on XC gear is taking the gear out of it's intended use and using it for something that it's not at all designed for. And I think it goes the other way too: road biking on a mountain bike can be done but it's inappropriate gear, just like XC skiing on Vectors and plastic boots.
MikeK wrote: 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.
This was how I USED TO think about XCD but was incorrect in the eyes of the Knights: XCD meant (to me) a balance (mix) of BOTH XC and D gear and techniques. In my foggy little mind, what the Knights are actually trying to describe should be called DXC (downhill XC).



MikeK

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by MikeK » Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:58 am

connyro wrote:I dunno. I stand by my mountain biking on a road bike analogy. Skiing DH on XC gear is taking the gear out of it's intended use and using it for something that it's not at all designed for. And I think it goes the other way too: road biking on a mountain bike can be done but it's inappropriate gear, just like XC skiing on Vectors and plastic boots.
But is any of our modern 'XCD' gear (it's hard to use that term when we don't all agree on what it is) actually XC gear? Not really. It's too heavy and too slow. It would be EXACTLY like riding a MTB on the road. We'd get smoked by the true XC gear. I can take my XCD skis to a Nordie center, but I'm far, far slow than a skater and quite a bit slower than a classic skier on 40mm track skis optimized to their weight and snow type.

XC Skiing with Vectors and plastic boots is more like riding a fat bike on the road IMO. It goes beyond what the other lighter XCD gear does and pushes it farther away from the touring efficiency. Unless of course you were riding your XC MTB in sand, in which case you'd wish you had a fat bike... much the same way you wish you'd have your Vectors in deep fluff vs. say an Eon/S78...



MikeK

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by MikeK » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:14 pm

So let's look at some examples and decide what really is the difference:

Example 1:
Vector BC ski
Dynafit bindindings
Scarpa Alien boot

Example 2:
Vector BC ski
TTS binding
Scarpa TX Pro boot

Example 3:
Vector BC ski
Switchback binding
Scarpa T2 boot

Example 4:
Vector BC ski
Switchback binding
Scarpa T4 boot

So what's the differences? All have scaled skis. All have free pviots. All have rigid, plastic shell boots. We'd all know how to classify these traditionally from what has been taught by Craig Dostie and his crew, but what's the real difference? And how long before all AT skis have an option for scales for low angle climbing and flat land touring?

Now throw in this example.

Example 5:
Fischer S Bound 112 Ski
Rotte ST bindings
Fischer BCX875 boots

Can you see the vast difference? To me it's a completely different beast. Like comparing bears to wolves. Both mammals, but both very different animals.



User avatar
connyro
needs to take stock of his life
needs to take stock of his life
Posts: 1233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by connyro » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:18 pm

Well, regardless of differences of opinion, this thread is VERY interesting/entertaining and a good example of why this forum works so well. It's great to hear different opinions about XCD (unlike the OLD XCD thread), now that the Knights have laid down the law. I think most of us who post here are pretty similar in our skiing techniques and goals, but without the Knights decree, I'm not sure it would have been discussed in such detail.



User avatar
connyro
needs to take stock of his life
needs to take stock of his life
Posts: 1233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:46 am

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by connyro » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:25 pm

MikeK wrote:So let's look at some examples and decide what really is the difference:

Example 1:
Vector BC ski
Dynafit bindindings
Scarpa Alien boot

Example 2:
Vector BC ski
TTS binding
Scarpa TX Pro boot

Example 3:
Vector BC ski
Switchback binding
Scarpa T2 boot

Example 4:
Vector BC ski
Switchback binding
Scarpa T4 boot

So what's the differences? All have scaled skis. All have free pviots. All have rigid, plastic shell boots. We'd all know how to classify these traditionally from what has been taught by Craig Dostie and his crew, but what's the real difference? And how long before all AT skis have an option for scales for low angle climbing and flat land touring?

Now throw in this example.

Example 5:
Fischer S Bound 112 Ski
Rotte ST bindings
Fischer BCX875 boots

Can you see the vast difference? To me it's a completely different beast. Like comparing bears to wolves. Both mammals, but both very different animals.
I get your point but to me, the SBound 112/3-pin/Fischer boots is in the SAME class as Vectors/Lite plastic/3-pins, just at the lighter end of the spectrum. You know, once you break in and beat the shit out of a pair of excursions, they get real soft, similar to a big plasticy Fischer BCX875 boot which weighs similar to Excursions/t4s...



MikeK

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by MikeK » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:29 pm

I think we'd all agree that our thought processes are very different than the other BC forum.

Personally, I don't like what is being called XCD by these other guys when I know their goal is to try to promote AT and tech bindings. Their goal is snuff the XC right out of everything and make everything shuffling and climbing to make turns.

I'm not against what the other people are doing, but they'll surely tell you how what we might be doing is isn't fun or relevant. I think it's all relevant, we might just have slightly different goals.

I'm also really confused because I know in certain situations, what traditionally works for XC touring won't be the best touring option, and those options aren't considered XCD by the Knights.

If fact what would work best for XC touring options in those conditions doesn't even exist on the market. And it wouldn't be very good for going down hills.

The Knights have some wisdom, but they certainly don't know it all. Luckily they evolve with the times and vote on what is best to keep BC XC alive and try to not let AT/Big Mountain Tele trample it out. I'd say the best way to influence something like that is to join their cause.



MikeK

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by MikeK » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:39 pm

connyro wrote: I get your point but to me, the SBound 112/3-pin/Fischer boots is in the SAME class as Vectors/Lite plastic/3-pins, just at the lighter end of the spectrum. You know, once you break in and beat the shit out of a pair of excursions, they get real soft, similar to a big plasticy Fischer BCX875 boot which weighs similar to Excursions/t4s...
This gets really fuzzy to me. I don't have the personal experience and maybe the BCX875 is a bad example, but I'll use the Svartisen 75 (which is a similar boot style) and the Excursions.

My wife will tell you there is a big difference. Her Excursions are not that beat, but as the Svartisen ages, the leather gets softer... so they both get less effective for edging skis. And they both get better for K+G, but she'll tell you 110% that she can get a better stride with her Svartisen than her Excursion regardless of the ski. She has not bias. She doesn't care what us idiots call it. To her it's just skiing. But she knows the differences in her gear.

And those leather boots, and despite the cuff, don't really give you any fore/aft support. No more than any other leather boot. The Excursion supports your tibia and calf way more. Even in walk mode the T4 does way more to hold you up.

I think there is a huge step between a leather exo boot and the full plastic shell with bellows, despite the stiffness of the plastic. There's really stuff you cannot do with those plastic boots in terms of DOF of the foot, the whole bottom portion is constrained to the majority of it's flex only at the bellows. The leather boot can flex in a lot of different areas, some good, some bad, but all allowing you to use your foot muscles to propel you in a way that is more natural.

Think about this. You can hike in your leather boots (any of them). How does hiking feel in the plastic shell boots?



User avatar
lilcliffy
Posts: 4147
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm
Location: Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Ski style: backcountry Nordic ski touring
Favorite Skis: Asnes Ingstad, Combat Nato, Amundsen, Rabb 68; Altai Kom
Favorite boots: Alpina Alaska BC; Lundhags Expedition; Alfa Skaget XP; Scarpa T4
Occupation: Forestry Professional
Instructor at Maritime College of Forest Technology
Husband, father, farmer and logger

Re: Update from the XCD Knights

Post by lilcliffy » Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:36 pm

LoveJohnny wrote: I'm gonna start calling alpine touring "Snowboard"
This made me laugh- hard. :lol:
Cross-country AND down-hill skiing in the backcountry.
Unashamed to be a "cross-country type" and love skiing down-hill.



Post Reply