Alpina Alaska XP vs Alaska NNN-BC fit

[JohnSKepler]

With some of the Xmas sales offering decent pricing, I'm thinking of picking up a pair of NNN-BC Alaskas. Does the NNN-BC fit about like the XP? I've read some reviews that suggest the differences in design are a lot more extensive than just an Xplore sole in place of the NNN-BC sole and I'm wondering if I should go with a different size. I do prefer the Xplore binding but I still own skis that I like with an NNN-BC binding.

I generally wear an 8US 42EUR but with the Alaska XP a size 40 works better. Would this translate to a 40 in the NNN-BC?

[snow-mark]

@fisheater and others suggest the fit is the same from this thread viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5282

I have the 75s and took advantage of the sales to order the NNN-BC version. I did go a size down but that’s because I find my 75s just a hair too big. But I don’t have the BCs yet so can’t comment on the sizing just yet.

[fisheater]

My Alaska 75 and Alaska BC fit exactly the same. I can’t speak to the Alaska Xplore.
REI stocks the Alaska Xplore, it would be easy to deal with them. Not that I wouldn’t prefer to deal with an independent proprietor. It just would be easy to try sizing at REI

[lilcliffy]

With some of the Xmas sales offering decent pricing, I'm thinking of picking up a pair of NNN-BC Alaskas. Does the NNN-BC fit about like the XP?

Haven't tried on the Alaska XP yet (I'm about to)- been told the last and volume are similar XP vs BC-
should have someone else report on this.

I generally wear an 8US 42EUR but with the Alaska XP a size 40 works better. Would this translate to a 40 in the NNN-BC?

This is a bit confusing for me-
I have never personally experienced a 42EU that would be equivalent to a 8US...I am a 42 to 42.5EU in terms of ideal footbed length for a hiking/field/Nordic boot and have never worn anything smaller than a 9US...
I have the Alaska BC in both a 42EU and a 43EU- the 43 is a bit large in terms of voume (I have a small volume foot)- the 42 is a performance fit.

Do you have a wide and/or large-volume foot?
This might explain why you would often need a size 42EU- despite being an "8US"...
HOWEVER- it completely contradicts you being able to fit a 40EU Alaska XP...
Sorry, I'm confused and am probably not being helpful...

Need someone that is familiar with the fit of both the Alaska BC/75 and the Alaska XP.

[JohnSKepler]

With some of the Xmas sales offering decent pricing, I'm thinking of picking up a pair of NNN-BC Alaskas. Does the NNN-BC fit about like the XP?

Haven't tried on the Alaska XP yet (I'm about to)- been told the last and volume are similar XP vs BC-
should have someone else report on this.

I generally wear an 8US 42EUR but with the Alaska XP a size 40 works better. Would this translate to a 40 in the NNN-BC?

This is a bit confusing for me-
I have never personally experienced a 42EU that would be equivalent to a 8US...I am a 42 to 42.5EU in terms of ideal footbed length for a hiking/field/Nordic boot and have never worn anything smaller than a 9US...
I have the Alaska BC in both a 42EU and a 43EU- the 43 is a bit large in terms of voume (I have a small volume foot)- the 42 is a performance fit.

Do you have a wide and/or large-volume foot?
This might explain why you would often need a size 42EU- despite being an "8US"...
HOWEVER- it completely contradicts you being able to fit a 40EU Alaska XP...
Sorry, I'm confused and am probably not being helpful...

Need someone that is familiar with the fit of both the Alaska BC/75 and the Alaska XP.

You guessed correctly, sir! I do have a wide foot. Generally a 42 fits me pretty well if a tiny bit long. All my motorcycle boots are 42, since most are of European make. Most of my US shoes are size 8. But the Alaska XP in size 40 just works. It is somewhat snug but we want our ski boots snug. And they are not uncomfortable.

I actually ordered a 41 and a 40 from REI and wore them both around the office for a few weeks before deciding that the 40 worked better. I sent the 41 back still looking like a brand new boot.

I've been buying my shoes and boots too large for most of my life. I just couldn't tolerate a narrow shoe. Wearing a narrow shoe (soccer cleat) once led to a Morton's neuroma in my left foot. But, since I stopped playing soccer after 45 years my feet seem to be tolerating a narrow shoe better. Maybe that's it? Should have stopped 15 years before I did!

[snow-mark]

Interesting that you went smaller for the XP. I don’t recall if the gargantuan thread in the Alaska XPs had any comments on fit versus the BCs.

[boby13]

These 3 boots are the right size for me.

The Alaska BC is a little weird, in size 43 it has a size 44 sole.

[snow-mark]

These 3 boots are the right size for me.


Sole3.jpg


The Alaska BC is a little weird, in size 43 it has a size 44 sole.

Thanks for this. Looks like the XP is narrower compared to the BC. Is that how it feels?

[boby13]

For me the XP it doesn't feel narrower but shorter for sure.

[GrimSurfer]

First post, so maybe I should pay it forward by offering some modest observations…

I can’t directly speak to the issue of XP vs BC fit, but here’s what I’ve observed with regard to BC fit.

My Alpina Alaska 43s were fractionally longer than other brands’ products in the same size. Just enough to notice but not enough to change sizing. Maybe 1/8th of a size.

There was noticeably more lateral room in the pad and heel of the boot. Maybe 1/4 of a size. This didn’t bother my narrow foot but could be a game changer for anyone with a medium-to-wide foot who finds other boots a bit too snug.

My 43 boots had a 44 insert. I’m not sure how much this matters in a practical sense because of the shape of the toe box, which tapers in a way that would likely make my 43s unable to accommodate a 44 foot. Worth noting though, especially in light of photos posted earlier in this thread.

Some other brands I tried had accentuated arch supports, but not the Alpina Alaska. It is moderate to low, which suits me fine because I have somewhat lower arches. Since classic cross country skiers roll off the ball of their foot, not heel strike-and-roll (as per running), I’m not sure whether aggressive arch support would have a practical impact on comfort or stability.

I bought a pair of 44s for my son-in-law recently, and the above observations appear to apply (including the insert, which is one size up — 45 — from the boot size.

Hope this adds something to the convo…