Update from the XCD Knights

[MikeK]

I'm waiting for Tom's and cliffy's review of the Ingstads. I'm 99% sure that's my next ski. I love that width, flex, sidecut for the BC and I want those integrated skins!

I almost bought a pair a little while ago, but I'm going to wait until next year. It'll just drive me nuts to have a pair of wax skis with this crap winter. I haven't even had a chance to try the USGI skis yet.

[Cannatonic]

I'm waiting for Tom's and cliffy's review of the Ingstads. I'm 99% sure that's my next ski. I love that width, flex, sidecut for the BC and I want those integrated skins!.

I agree on the skins - thinking I should save my money and try to buy new Asnes skis instead of more vintage treasure hunting. Would make sense to convert to these and use the same skins on all the skis. Still hoping those Breidablikk 200's go on sale - they still have 200 Ingstad's too. Will be watching the website through next month

[MikeK]

Yeah - I'd buy those wax Eons right now if it weren't for that. That skin system is really appealing to me. If Fischer did it with wax like Asnes did, I'd consider them (I think they did for the E109 tour, but good luck getting it in the US).

I don't have much interest in the S Bound easy skin. I'm sure it works, but I want wax/skin, not fishscale/skin... actually we're speculating that seen as how Fischer has a fishscale skin, they could make the wax/fishscale/skin ski combo pretty easy. Maybe next year? You'd essentially have one base that could work for any condition.

For now, S78s for waxless, Ingstad for wax/skin. I bought another pair of old S78s for my wife while I could. I just don't think the waxless Eons can hold their own UP the hills as much as I love that ski.

I also want a compliment to my E89 waxless. I'd take an E89 wax if I could find it. I won't ski those in steep terrain so the skin thing is less important to me. Gamme would be sweet, but I think money is better spent for me with the Ingstad.

[bgregoire]

I also want a compliment to my E89 waxless. I'd take an E89 wax if I could find it. I won't ski those in steep terrain so the skin thing is less important to me. Gamme would be sweet, but I think money is better spent for me with the Ingstad.

Somehow, I believe we have lost the main topic of the thread. Anyway:

You might consider the Fischer Country Waxless - light and cheap or a nice pair of Woodies, pretty, dirt cheap, and better climbers thans the ptexed bases.

[MikeK]

It's OK - we had a bit of a infestation that seems to have cleared itself.

Woodies would be cool for that void. Something less than 70 mm overall width. I do have the USGI skis, but too fat for track duty.

[Woodserson]

Everyone chill.

Mounted knights were unhorsed in the 1300s by halberd wielding Swiss peasant armies and the age of knighted terror saw its end. I (Swiss by birth) scoff at these kaniggits-- I will continue wearing cables on the down, halberd in hand. I don't take this thread too seriously other than the fun philosophical exercise that it is. It's nice to wile away the NoSnow Winter.

I subscribe to the pan-European notion of 'la glisse.' We are all bound by love of sliding on snow. No labels, just Nordic skiing, one way or the other.

[Woodserson]

:

You might consider the Fischer Country Waxless - light and cheap or a nice pair of Woodies, pretty, dirt cheap, and better climbers thans the ptexed bases.

I have a pair of these, they are nice but I prefer my woodies, smoother and quieter ride. Greg F who runs woodenskis.com is a stand up guy and his inventory is good and the condition of the skis is accurate. Highly recommended. AND he knows how to ship skis.

[MikeK]

The Knights might be the most serious joke ever... or perhaps they are real because we make them real. It's for you to decide.

[MikeK]

OK - back to the mental masturbation. Practically, none of this matters, but I can't resist.

Obviously, regardless of the definition of “XCD” as a class of Nordic skiing- one can go “xcd-skiing” on any class of Nordic equipment; including opposite ends of the spectrum:
• xcd-skiing on performance track equipment can be done- I have seen it done- and for most it is a wild, stiff, cambered ride!

Ok this I get. People descend hills and ski all sorts of stuff on track equipment. Some people take it into the BC and do tele and p-turns on it. There was actually just an article on this in a popular magazine about skate gear XCD.

It's beyond my skill or interest, but yeah it's there and always an option.

• xcd-skiing on big-mtn, rigid, powerful “Telemark” equipment.

This is where I'm lost. What is the XC here? Just covering ground. Literally crossing country? So what is the difference if I do that with a split board or AT skis. What's the difference if I take my skis off and walk? I'm still crossing country. Herein lies the biggest hitch to me.

So- let me see if I have the “Knight’s” definition of XCD, in terms of preserving the sanctity of xcountry in “XCD”:
• Downhill skiing on Nordic ski technology that does not “overly” sacrifice true xcountry “kick and glide”.
• Therefore, the boots/shoes, must be flexible enough through the instep, and from the ankle up, to allow a full Nordic stride;
• And the bindings must offer a full range of motion to allow a full, Nordic stride- but have enough resistance to produce a Nordic “kick”.
• The only limitation I see to the ski is that it must have at least a single camber, underfoot- in order to allow a Nordic “kick” (i.e. a fully-rockered ski would never qualify).

To me this is exactly what constitutes XC skiing. If you don't actually ENJOY the XC portion of the skiing, then how is XC? We often hear the term slogging. To me skiing on flats with XC gear is anything but a slog. It's a slide. Some skis slide more than others, but if you do a full diagonal stride, you're likely to more than in a shuffle.

A full committed diagonal stride isn't always a great idea for bottomless snow though. Keeping your weight more distributed between both skis may actually keep you floating rather than sinking. So it's not completely cut and dry.

I think that we have generated a number of questions (assuming the initial premise of “XCD”):
1. Can a ski designed for “alpine touring” (i.e. “Alpine touring” or “Telemark”) be considered an “XCD” ski if it fits the above criteria?
2. Does a heavy-duty BC-XC boot like the Alaska/Stetind/Svartisen/Quest Advance meet the above criteria?
3. Are materials a determining factor? For example: I am assuming that a very stiff, powerful leather “Telemark” boot would not fit the above criteria? I am assuming that a purely synthetic boot could meet the above criteria?

My opinions on the questions. No Knight speculation:

1. Maybe. Does it provide better XC for deep snow touring?
2. Yes. They are the ideal options for the criteria.
3. No. Construction. Plastic shells with removable liners limit the Nordic stride. I'm not against the cuff if it allows you to use the muscles in your feet effectively. Anyone can notice a difference between walking with a plastic boot and leather boot. You limit degrees of freedom which give you more force transfer for downhill, but limit the natural motion of your feet to propel you. Slippers give the most natural foot flex, but don't transfer the force to the ski as well. Full shell plastic boots are overly constrictive. To me, XCD is somewhere in the middle. Enough support and stiffness to control the skis, but not so much to keep your foot from flexing fully.

And I have my own question regarding “free-pivot” and Nordic “kick”…

Is the effective and consistent ability to produce a true Nordic “kick” part of the Knights’ definition of “XCD”?

Despite the fact that some skiers can get some limited “kick” with a free-pivot binding (we have recently discussed this on the forum )- IMHO there is a dominant misperception in the big-mtn touring world that a free-pivot binding offers optimum “kick & glide” performance…

I'm of the mind that free pivot is a Telemark/AT tech. It's optimized for climbing and then locking down for descending, not for striding - even though it can accomplish that task, it's not it's strength. We also know a NNN-BC binding isn't as effective a tool to steer skis as a 75mm spring cartridge binding with risers, but coupled with a free pivot, one is optimized for K+G and moderate DH control, the other is optimized for climbing and descending with acceptable K+G performance.

[bgregoire]

I was having a ball when those mighty Knights we're updating us on their progress. I admit I somewhat lost interest through all the chatter that ensued on this thread. Saw some discussion on the "true" definition of XCD, some talk elsewhere on Pinnahs work and the beginnings of an XCD-Wiki ...and I just now got thinking, why not just call what we do BACKCOUNTRY SKIING? Or, just to make it a lille more specific, BACKCOUNTRY FREE-HEEL SKIING? I mean, XCD is cool and all. We do go out somedays hunting for turns, telemarking turns, but on others, many of us are simply touring the backcountry on skis, whether were going down or up.... what is common is that were always on skis, heels free and HAVING FUN!