Fischer Transnordic BOOT

[lilcliffy]

@@dave52
Thanks again for the details!

[fisheater]

I have an Alaska 75 and an Alaska BC. The BC has the stiffer sole, and without cable assist I can turn a ski better in the BC boot. However adding a cable the 75mm system then offers much more control.
For me, that means BC for touring skis, and 75 mm for more turning oriented skis. I would include Nansen, Ingstad, and Otto as skis I would plan on mounting BC if I were to purchase.
However the Alaska 75 tours quite nicely, soft and comfortable.

[lilcliffy]

@fisheater
Right! Thanks Bob.

[dave52]

I have an Alaska 75 and an Alaska BC. The BC has the stiffer sole, and without cable assist I can turn a ski better in the BC boot. However adding a cable the 75mm system then offers much more control.
For me, that means BC for touring skis, and 75 mm for more turning oriented skis. I would include Nansen, Ingstad, and Otto as skis I would plan on mounting BC if I were to purchase.
However the Alaska 75 tours quite nicely, soft and comfortable.

That's interesting to hear they're that different, thanks for the info!

I know nothing about 75mm (haven't worn since a young kid first trying XC), in the tele stance is the ball of foot placement on rear ski the desired form for 75 leathers too? Curious if the duckbill interferes with that, and if the cables allow for a looser technique?

[fisheater]

On all my boots, 75 mm Alaska, Ski March, and T-4, as well as my Alaska BC, the ball of my foot is firmly planted on the ski on my back foot.
My T-4 is pretty well broken in (ten years +) but I do remember when the cable definitely assisted in breaking the bellows allowing for good ball of foot placement. I really always thought this was the prime function of neutral cable bindings. However my Rotte ST cable is set so that the doing pressure is just enough for the latch to secure. Set in that manner interference with kick and glide is minimal, the longitudinal stiffening of the boot and ski interface is very significant.
Without the cable the rails on the BC offer more control with the Alaska BC, than the control with the Alaska 75. While the difference with the BC binding is noticeable, the difference with the cable is much, much, more significant

[Lo-Fi]

…in the tele stance is the ball of foot placement on rear ski the desired form for 75 leathers too? Curious if the duckbill interferes with that, and if the cables allow for a looser technique?

Yes, you want the ball of your “rear” foot exerting pressure on the “back” ski - (it’s probably better to think of that foot and ski as “under” you rather than “behind” you, as you are dropping your body weight onto them to get the ski to carve and pivot along with the forward ski).

The duckbill really helps that because it acts as a lever on the front end of the boot, helping the boot break below the bellows, keeping the ball of the foot flat on the ski as the rear of the boot rises with your lifting heel.

It always feels to me that nnn bc boots are missing that leverage of the toe duckbill. While a stiffer toe bumper resists ball of foot lifting, unfortunately I find the boot tends to get compressed end to end, mashing your toes and heel.

A cable, depending on the tension and pivot point helps resist ball of foot and heel lift and also lends lateral and maybe torsional support to the boot too.

[lowangle al]

I try to drop my weight down into the cuff of the boot with my shin to weight the ball of my foot. It's easier on the feet and you can get a little "snap" out of the recoil of the boot to help get a better kick. For turns it gives you more stability because your ankle is already flexed forward.

It's good advice to think of the uphill ski as being under you as opposed to trailing you. It also helps to try keeping your heel as low as possible when turning. Having your heel up in the air doesn't do anything to help fore/aft stability. Combine this with a tight (fore/aft) stance and things will come together a lot quicker. In most conditions you only need about a half boot length separation between your skis to give you all the fore/ aft stability you need. I try to keep the separation to about a boot length. Keeping a tight stance will also help keep your knees closer together giving you less of a "drop" the knee feel.

Ironically, two of the biggest things holding people back when learning to turn are the two things telemark is most associated with; dropping the knee and raising the heel. Two things you should be doing as little of as possible.

[dave52]

Oh man so many gold nuggets of wisdom, eager to try these out. Thanks for sharing gents, I appreciate the info.

Call 1-666-SKI-TELE, $69.99 a minute for ice melting hot tips

This forum really is a great corner of the internet. It's been hard to sift through and find applicable technical info for more XC-like skis, most of the Youtube stuff although helpful, is for harder boots and wider skis.

Ironically, two of the biggest things holding people back when learning to turn are the two things telemark is most associated with; dropping the knee and raising the heel. Two things you should be doing as little of as possible.

This resonates a ton! With my first teles, trying to recreate what I "thought" I should be doing, and what I "thought" I was seeing was a total disaster; even getting into that presumed form felt awkward and unsafe, without even trying to turn from it, lol.

It didn't start clicking until I understood the "big toe, little toe" concept and then finding this old gem of a post and drilling the hockey stops: http://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 774#p20774 ...if anyone is struggling it may help you too, very thorough explanation of what happens in the turn.

Still have lots of room for improvement, and am looking forward to applying what you've shared above.

[Ro-Bear]

I have the BCX 75’s with Voile Traverse bindings on an set ofCrown 99 BCX skis. With a little practice they go down hill very well. Conversely, while touring on the flats they are are lighter and feel much more nimble and comfortable than my Scarpa T4 / Black Diamond skin set up.

[lilcliffy]

I recenty bought a 2021 Fischer Transnordic BC boot.
This boot is like no other BC-XC touring boot I have ever seen or tried.
It has more in common with my Asolo Extreme than it has with boots like the Alpina Alaska or Alfa Guard. Yet unlike the Asolo Extreme- it does not offer a smooth comfortable sole flex. This boot also does not offer the versatility of a boot like the Crispi Svartisen (where you can tighten up the exoskeleton for increased stability, and then loosen it for striding).

There is no way I would take this boot on any serious-distance tour- in my opinion it is a recipe for discomfort, pain, and possible injury.

There is a very strange design here that extends the rigid interior skeleton into the toe box- both restricting striding performance as well as forcing the leather and rand into a bizarre pattern when flexed- photos below↓

Note that the crease at the sides of the boot are caused by the rigid interior frame that extends into the toe box!?

Note that I have very thick insoles inserted in order to take up as much boot volume and reduce the pinching (they are even worse with the stock insole as I have a small-volume foot).

In my opinion these boots are not designed for striding- they are designed for downhill stability.
And as they are not designed for striding- I don't find them comfortable for traditional Nordic downhill techniques- such as step and striding turns.
They are also uncomfortable in a Telemark turn unless one has an upright and very compact stance- otherwise the flex points- as seen in the photo above- are very uncomfortable.

These boots do offer superb stability when making Alpine turns.
I do not see them as designed for Nordic downhlll techniques- including the Telemark turn.

Some other notes:
- they are remarkably light- hard to believe really!

- the leather is cheap and painted- making it impossible to treat. I see the leather cracking at the flex points- and I predict this to happen quickly- especially at those bizarre flex points (as seen in the photo above). I suppose if one only used them as a skate boot- or at hill with primarily Alpine technique- they might last longer.

- the cleats and eyelets are cheap and don't look durable.

- the size 42 has the same length footbed of all my current 42 boots (Alfa/Alpina/Crispi/Rossignol/Fischer/Scarpa)
- the toe box is medium width and relatively large volume- I don't think I could ski in these boots without a thick insole (I have small-volume feet) due to toe pinch.

- overall I think the construction and materials is pretty low quality- considering the price tag ($400CAN retail)- I am glad I bought them on clearance.

This is a unique and frankly strange boot. "Transnordic" is definitely a misnomer- at least from a traditional perspective. I would not describe this as a Nordic touring boot.

YMMV!