What ski/binding combo for Scarpa Fabiano?

[TeleBeaver]

Hi all! Long time lurker here on telemark talk, and I thouroughly enjoy reading all of your posts and seeing passion for the sport.

I have been skiing telemark at the resort (Sugarloaf, Maine) for three seasons now, and am totally hooked. Once I nailed "The Turn" about halfway through my first season, I knew I was a freeheeler for life. Skiing has consumed my life so much that I have moved from my home state of Maine to Utah, to ski at Alta this winter. I am currently fully committed to heavy telemark; bishop bombers, axls, crispi xr boots, daily drivers of 105 underfoot and pow skis at 115 underfoot. (As well as a few narrower skis). I have a few backcountry setups with black diamomd 01s that I drive with my crispi xp boots. These are great for climbing to descend in steep and deep terrain, but I have been staring longingly at a pair of scarpa fabiano 75mm boots my uncle gave to me.

It seems like a shame to leave these leathers unskied, and I want to get an xcd setup for them. I grew up bombing around the back 40 on a pair of old rental xc skis, and I kind of want to get back to my roots a bit and just meander about on skis in low angle terrain on days when the resort is busy or the avy danger is high. I also am very interested to experience telemark on light equipment. Although learned on a pretty light setup: t4s, cobras and rossignol powderbirds, I think it may benefit my balance and form to spend some time on the leather boots.

My question to you all, the experts of xcd, is what ski-binding combo is this boot optimized for? I am a huge believer in a "matched" setup; i.e. the activeness of the binding is determined by the flex of the ski which is determined by the capabilities and flex of the boot. Having never skied leather boots, I am a little lost on where to start with this setup. While I love to tour (I just love being active outdoors), it is the telemark turn that fuels my skiing addiction. I am pretty much set that I do NOT want a double cambered ski, or have to deal with wax, but other than that I am pretty wide open. I know something like a Karhu guide with hardwires would be great for going down, but I wonder what kind of ski this boot can drive and if it would be appropriate to move down to a skinnier, less turny ski with just mountaineers or cables. This is for almost 100 percent soft snow conditions in the Wasatch and surrounding hills. Thanks for your help!

[Johnny]

The ones with or without the leather buckle? They are pretty cool boots...!

I would try them without cable, Voile 3p or Rotte Super Teles... With any light, alpine ski you can find... I think the key here would be to start on low angle terrain... Gear won't make much of a difference... Remember, you are not looking for activeness or boot capacity with XCD... But finesse in the toes...

If you wanna both tour and make serious turns, Epochs and S98's would be a very good start... Pretty much the easiest XCD skis to turn...

You will see, leathers are very good to kill a tele ego...

[TeleBeaver]

No buckle, just laces.

You will see, leathers are very good to kill a tele ego...

This is exactly what I am hoping for, I loved the challenge of learning on plastic boots, and am looking forward to falling on my face and breaking a sweat trying to master the leathers. I do want to tour around on these, and want a patterned base ski. I think the epoch and s98 class of ski is what I am looking for. I am a little torn between the fatter Annums and s112 vs their skinnier siblings. Coming from fat skis it is hard to imagine what turning a 69 waisted ski will feel like . Although I probably ought to just man up and go skinny, because it ain't gonna be easy either way.

I guess my next question is in regard to bindings. I am pretty much looking at the voile mountaineer, cable, or traverse. I know the cable is removable for touring, and I could still do turns without the cable on, so it seems like the cable 3-pin is a more versatile system, unless the cable itself is really useless for this setup and I should just save my money and get mountaineers. If a cable isn't useless for this setup, I am wondering if the traverse is overkill or not. I know the riser would give me a bit more leverage and prevent boot-out on the skinny skis, but is that something that's really necessary in my context? I will mostly be seeking out mellow powder fields to ski up and tele down, with the potential for some hut-to-hut trips in the future.

Sorry for all noob questions

[D'hostie]

With leather, skinny is your friend. Go lightest and narrowest that can fulfill your needs.

Annum is totally different ski than the Epoch, it's not just fatness. The same is not the case with the S112 vs the 98, they are very similar. They all work well, but the wider, heavier skis will be stressing the boots more in difficult snow.

Risers are probably not something that will be of much benefit for XCD, but cables may be, depending on your preference. You can do fine without them, but some people really want that crutch. The purest method is the Mountaineer. It's the most XC you can get.

[lilcliffy]

Welcome, TeleBeaver! (love your handle BTW- family name or just an affinity for a truly awesome ecological engineer and builder?)

Well- your start into Telemark and then your move to "XCD" is similar to mine (though mine happened more than 15 years ago - just had my birthday- cannot believe how time flies!)

No matter what you end up going with- please keep us posted on your experiences- I will be very keen to read of how you find moving from Telemark to XCD! (My personal experience is that my powerful downhill muscle memory and form did not help me develop Nordic-downhill technique in a BC-XC setup). (BUT- I could well just be a weirdo!)

NICE boot.

Binding? My plug would be to get the cable- I realize you may not need it or want it in the short term- but it is a much more versatile binding than the plain-jane 3pin. (I can't imagine you needing the hardwire- unless you think you may want to clamp a plastic boot onto that ski at some point...) I personally find the cable does make a big difference (especially if you need to make some Alpine turns (heaven forbid) in some steep difficult snow)- it also can save your ass on a multi-day trek if the bail or duckbill fail on one of your boots...

Skis? The wider you go, the less your downhill habits are going to help you with a XC boot...Even a ski as wide as the Epoch/S-98 is not going to be "driven" by a soft leather boot...

I like the flex of the Epoch better than the S-98 for deep soft snow. I like the Annum better than the Epoch for truly deep soft snow- I weigh 185lbs without a pack- I don't find the Epoch offers enough flotation- likely a different experience for a lighter skier.

I like the Fischer 88 (now "Excursion") better than the S-98- I don't believe for a second that the 98 will offer greater flotation- and I have heard many a report that the current 88 has wonderful turn initiation in soft BC snow (i.e. better than the 98).

For my weight and use of XCD skis- I find the class of the Epoch/S-98 a bit useless- they don't XC-tour as efficiently as a narrower ski, and they don't float as effectively as a wider ski...

Riding a ski as wide as the Annum/S-112 with soft leather boots is a VERY different experience then driving wide skis with stiff, supportive and active Telemark tech...

If you want something as wide and floaty as the Annum/S-112, then I would seriously consider the current class-smasher the Voile Objective BC (similar skis from Asnes with a smooth base and integrated kicker skin- Tind 76/85). The new mysterious kid on this block is OAC's XCD GT. Check out this video for a peak:

I personally believe that skis like the Objective/Tind 85/XCD GT may have made the Annum/S-112/BC110 obselete...

The other option to SERIOUSLY consider is a much narrower downhill-oriented BC-XC ski. Current options include the Madshus Eon/Fischer 88/Fischer 78/Fischer E109- or even more interesting the Asnes Nansen/Ingstad.

Gamme the Elder describes the downhill flex of the Nansen as a "telemarker's wet dream" and wonders why we need such big fat skis and associated rigging:
https://www.utemagasinet.no/Test/TEST-Ski-for-fjellet

Neptune Mountaineering is rumored to be continuing as an Asnes dealer:
https://www.neptunemountaineering.com/s ... ccessories

So I have two votes for skis:
1) Nansen- or the new Ingstad
2) Objective BC/Tind 85- or this XCD GT thing...

Option 2 will obviously float your boat in deep soft snow- but you ain't going to "drive" them with that soft leather boot.

Option 1 is the more traditional fit for a soft leather boot.

Again- WELCOME- and keep us posted!

[D'hostie]

Here is some supplementary reading on the subject:

http://www.earnyourturns.com/9489/revie ... bound-112/

http://www.earnyourturns.com/15935/revi ... hus-annum/

http://www.earnyourturns.com/33004/waxl ... i-roundup/

[fisheater]

Hello Beaver, I would second Lilcliffy's suggestion of the cable. The cable on the 3pin/cable is easily removable, for the extra $30 it could be worth it. If you don't like it, never buy another. I have a stiff soled leather boot and can turn my s-112's about as easily as I can in my T-4's. That being said, for bombing around on low angle I would go for a faster skinnier ski like the 88. I think with all your snow, a little extra length would be nice. Most of my time in Utah was on skinny 205's. My last couple of years were on mid-fats, that is what we skied on then. A skinny 205 still could be fun, and it sounds like you already are covered with heavier gear.
I skied Utah for about 7 years in a row when I was younger. You always have fresh snow in the Cottonwood Canyons. Fresh snow is so much more enjoyable on kick wax. Kick wax works it's best in fresh snow. I would really go for a waxable ski, I think waxable is a no brainer in a place that gets 500" a year every year.
On another note, Lilcliffy suggested to me incorporating a surgeon's knot every so often as I laced and tightened up my boots. It has proven to be a great way to get the boot to be snug and comfortable. I am confident that I am not unusual in that I want to tighten eyelets differently as I lace up. The surgeon's knot really helps me dial in fit and tightness.
Hope to see some photos this season!

[TeleBeaver]

Thank you all for your responses!

Welcome, TeleBeaver! (love your handle BTW- family name or just an affinity for a truly awesome ecological engineer and builder?)
...
Well- your start into Telemark and then your move to "XCD" is similar to mine (though mine happened more than 15 years ago - just had my birthday- cannot believe how time flies!)

The beaver was my college mascot for awhile, and I do have a strange affinity and respect for their industrious nature. We always had beaver bogs on our property, and I spent many days exploring their marvelous construction on my xc skis as a youngster, so I thought it was fitting handle.

I wouldn't call it a "move" to XCD. I love lift served skiing and plan to spend most of my time doing that this winter, including entering big mountain comps and races. However, the allure of XCD is strong, and those Fabianos will tempt me no longer.

"Option 1 is the more traditional fit for a soft leather boot."

I think this is what I am after. The "traditional" setup for touring with making turns in mind for this type of boot. I have decided the 3-pin cables are going to be the binding of choice, just for their versatility. Now I am between the s98 and the e88. Does the e88 have double camber? If so it is out, and looks like the s98 will be the choice. I am partial to Fischer, just because I have access to a pro-form for them, but will look for other used stuff if it is in the same price range (for me).

think with all your snow, a little extra length would be nice. Most of my time in Utah was on skinny 205's. My last couple of years were on mid-fats, that is what we skied on then. A skinny 205 still could be fun, and it sounds like you already are covered with heavier gear.
I skied Utah for about 7 years in a row when I was younger. You always have fresh snow in the Cottonwood Canyons. Fresh snow is so much more enjoyable on kick wax. Kick wax works it's best in fresh snow. I would really go for a waxable ski, I think waxable is a no brainer in a place that gets 500" a year every year.

I am in agreement on length. "Short skis suck, long skis truck" is my motto when it comes to my heavy telemark gear, and I share that sentiment with the Nordic gear. I am not opposed to wax, but am definitely opposed to double camber, which I guess I assumed came with wax. Bottom line is that I am looking for a skinny, single camber, long, soft snow, downhill oriented xcD ski. It is all about the turn for me after all.

[lilcliffy]

I wouldn't call it a "move" to XCD. I love lift served skiing and plan to spend most of my time doing that this winter, including entering big mountain comps and races. However, the allure of XCD is strong, and those Fabianos will tempt me no longer.

Sorry- didn't take it that way- nor did I mean to suggest that you were leaving your big-mtn Tele behind you. Just meant to emphasize that downhill skiing on a XC kit is very different.

"Option 1 is the more traditional fit for a soft leather boot."

I think this is what I am after. The "traditional" setup for touring with making turns in mind for this type of boot. I have decided the 3-pin cables are going to be the binding of choice, just for their versatility. Now I am between the s98 and the e88. Does the e88 have double camber? If so it is out, and looks like the s98 will be the choice. I am partial to Fischer, just because I have access to a pro-form for them, but will look for other used stuff if it is in the same price range (for me).

Well- every Excursion 88/S-Bound 88 I have ever squeezed or squashed was single-cambered. The current 88 has more tip rocker than the 98- at least by my estimation in the shop (I have not tested the current 88&98-tested the previous models extensively). Woodserson's experience with the current 88/98 testifies to this- suggesting that the current 88 is actually easier to turn- despite the 98 having more sidecut. What I can personally say is that in my opinion, the 88 is a better tracking XC ski. They are both the same width underfoot- I doubt the 98 offers any greater effective float. I think that the dimensions of the 88 are about perfect for a midwidth XCD ski (I actually wish the Eon/E109/Ingstad were a little wider underfoot...)- the only reason I don't currently own one is they don't make an 88 over 200cm.

think with all your snow, a little extra length would be nice. Most of my time in Utah was on skinny 205's. My last couple of years were on mid-fats, that is what we skied on then. A skinny 205 still could be fun, and it sounds like you already are covered with heavier gear.
I skied Utah for about 7 years in a row when I was younger. You always have fresh snow in the Cottonwood Canyons. Fresh snow is so much more enjoyable on kick wax. Kick wax works it's best in fresh snow. I would really go for a waxable ski, I think waxable is a no brainer in a place that gets 500" a year every year.

I am certainly with Bob with regards to kick wax- especially with loads of stable cold snow...(Last season, I even forced myself out of my comfort zone and started using klister off the track so that I could use my waxable BC-XCD skis on icy, refrozen snow, without having to exclusively use kicker skins.)

Bottom line is that I am looking for a skinny, single camber, long, soft snow, downhill oriented xcD ski. It is all about the turn for me after all.

How long is long? And how skinny is skinny? Does a 189cm Fischer 88 fit that bill? The only Fischer BC-XCD skis that are over 200cm are the E99 (double-cambered) and the E109 (camber-and-a-half)- both are finely tuned for soft, fresh snow.

[D'hostie]

Perhaps one should define what they mean by "single" camber. S Bounds are "single" camber; Vectors are "single" camber, but in no way are they even close to the same thing.

So how does one distinguish between two "single" camber skis, and what does that make a "double" cambered ski?

Individuals seem to want one or the other, but there is no one or the other, it's a broad spectrum. Anyone who knows these skis knows this is true. The fact of matter is how the camber works with the rocker, flex and sidecut of the ski to make the ski perform a certain way. You cannot tell unless you actually ski it despite what experts tell you.

I would say if you are unclear on any of this, contact Fischer. According to them, as shovel width increases, camber decreases and rocker increases. The S Bound 125 having the most rocker and the least camber. It's a small difference from the S Bound 112 and 98 though. The 88 and the 78 are closer as are the 98/112/125. They claim to have added more camber into the Traverse and Excursion from the old S Bound models. I cannot confirm or deny this, only report what they claim.