Fischer Transnordic BOOT

[lilcliffy]

As far as tele turns go, comparing the two boots, I'm far from a seasoned expert here, this is my second season with XC and honing my tele's, I'm getting fairly comfortable with the turns, but initial reaction is a liking more for the Alaska Alpina's. I descended down on my Ingstads, switching between both boots on a given outing, and in various conditions over several days (slush, 6" powder over base, and 1" snow over hard hardpack). On the Alaskas, I found it more easy and ergonomical to get onto the ball of my rear foot, and then pressurize and hold this pose. Maybe there's a break in period with the Fischers, IDK, but I feel a touch more clumsy in the tele wearing Transnordics, they're just not as pliable as Alaskas. Don't take my opinion as final word, I'd like to spend some more time evaluating this; others might feel differently, and who knows maybe there's a slight mod to the tele technique in these boots. I learned the tele on and have a lot more time in wearing the Alaskas.

This is helpful. Sounds like the midsole of the Transnordic is even stiffer than the Alaska BC?

[lowangle al]

“Stiff” must be a relative term because I thought the forward flex of the sole to be quite soft and geared towards K&G.

[lilcliffy]

“Stiff” must be a relative term because I thought the forward flex of the sole to be quite soft and geared towards K&G.

Hey AL,
Do you have the 75 or BC version?

[lowangle al]

75

[lowangle al]

Action shot

[lilcliffy]

That's what I thought- I wonder how the sole stiffness of the BC vs 75 compares...
(e.g. the Alaska BC has a stiffer sole than the 75 version)

But- yes- agree- "stiff" is certainly a relative term!

[CwmRaider]

The 75mm sole obviously HAS to bend, whereas the BC version can pivot (though this is not good for telemarking). It@s quite certain that the Crispi Stetind I had before had higher longitudinal stiffness than the Crispi Bre 75 and maybe comparable(?) or stiffer (?) longitudinally to the transnordic 75, perhaps this caused my blisters with the Stetind behind the heel. Adding a cable certainly makes the increase in bending resistance much more progressive, and yes it does help with control, actually. but it is not the initial bending resistance that matters most.
It's the torsional stiffness which I find most beneficial with these Transnordic 75. One cannot really apply edging power to the ski with just the toes (I found myself doing that all the time), so if the toe piece twists relative to the ankle then driving skis will be tough no matter what ankle support there is.
I'm really happy I had these shipped from France...

[dave52]

Sounds like the midsole of the Transnordic is even stiffer than the Alaska BC?

They're similar midsole stiffness, the Trans might be a little stiffer. I'm having a hard time comparing, I don't know if it's the heft and bulk of the boot or sole stiffness. Where the Trans "prefers" to bend and flex forward is in a different place, when sinking into the tele.

When I wear an Alaska BC on one foot and Trans BC on the other and get into a telemark stance (without skis even on), the Trans requires a little more force to press the ball of my foot against the floor. The Fischers seem to want to fold forward closer towards my toes, whereas the Alaskas are a a little softer and compliant to bend where i'd like them to (and my preference being ball of foot solidly down, feels more stable versus being higher on toes). But with the added torsional stiffness on the Trans maybe it doesn't matter, as long as some decent downward pressure can be applied to rear foot? This is all microscopic minutiae too.

I forgot to bring my red BC flexors with me on my ski trip, but would like to experiment with these in the future.

My unscientific, probably bias, and limited experience with the Transnordics would guess the torsional and lateral support is 25% greater than the Alaskas. I've never worn Telemark plastic boots, or AT gear, but have used traditional Alpine ski boots, they're nowhere near that stiff. Someone compared them to a snowboard boot, that feels right, although the soles are much more flexible, snowboard boot soles are quite stiff.

A few other thoughts... I actually dig the adjustable heel strap. I thought it was worthless at first but it actually does cinch up some space around the heel for a better fit. The taller height of the boot is nice for deep snow, might be able to leave gaiters at home. Quality isn't impressive, it's not bad, but the stitching is a little sloppy and uneven. Never owned Fischer gear but from others sounds like they wear quicker than other reputable boots. The outside material of the boots feels tough enough, more rugged than my Alfa Skarvets I returned after a few months due to wear.

I'd highly recommend them to anyone considering them especially for NNN BC.

[dave52]

“Stiff” must be a relative term because I thought the forward flex of the sole to be quite soft and geared towards K&G.

@lowangle al and @Roelant , do you have 75 Alaska's by chance? If you do, curious to hear your take on Alaska 75 to Trans 75, even if it's comparing a set of oranges to a set of apples, the Trans 75 : Alaska 75, to Trans BC : Alaska BC.

[lilcliffy]

I have compared the Alaska 75 vs BC many times- and have skied both- the BC has a significantly stiffer and more stable sole.

@Nitram Tocrut Pretty sure mon ami ici has both currently...