Noob in Yellowstone considering Alpina Discovery 68, Alpina XP, Xplore, etc?

[staralfur]

Hello! I am working in Yellowstone this winter. I am going to be working here many winters and get into XC here. I have not skiied before but I absolutely know I will a lot in my future so I want to get the best.

I am a tall slender female which makes choosing sizing a bit confusing. 5'9, 125lbs.

Its a combo of semi-groomed trails where all there employees make tracks by consistently skiing daily to work etc, & where our ski tours go, with some backcountry (& I hope to do more and more backcountry).

The rec from the ski shop here is is something like 68 Outback Fisher Crown. I am also looking at the Alpina Discoveries. Any other recs? Should I get metal edges? Really torn on the length too. I see charts widely varying on rec length for my weight.

Open to aaaalll suggestions.

Edit: Leaning toward the Alpina Discovery 68 in 170?

I really really want to get the new Alpina Alaska XPs and Xplore bindings. Looks like they will fit a 68 width ski?

Torn on the boot size between 41 & 42; I see some used 41s on sale I want to nab but all the size charts say I am a 42 (10 × womens) tho an old 75mm used Alaska I tried on was 42 and maybe felt just a touch big so maybe the 41s will work? My Oboz bridger snowboots are a 10 and touch too big, but they say their EU size is 41.5; I have some Merrels that are 10 and 41 and too small, and some Altras that are 10/42 and fit great.

Thanks in advance!

[GrimSurfer]

The Alaska regular (not XP) runs about 1/8 size big in length for men. Maybe a tad wider too. I know for a fact that the sole liners in Alpina Alaskas are one size higher than the advertised boot size (44 liners in 43 boots). Don’t know if this intel helps but it’s worth considering.

I’ve heard the XPs are the same.

I get cold feet in general and ski in Canada at temps that regularly hit 5 below zero Fahrenheit. Sometimes colder. Occasionally above zero in January/February. My feet have never been cold in a good quality BC boot. They were always cold in a classic shoe/boot though. Not sure if this helps you decide between a regular and heated boot, but it might.

If you haven’t skied before, it’s hard to go wrong simply picking a ski in your weight range. As your experience grows, classic skiers might go one weight range higher.

The thing to keep in mind is “all up weight”. A set of Alpina Alaskas will be ~5 lbs. Socks, base layer, mid layer another 2 lbs. gloves, spare gloves, and hat will be another pound. Depending on distance, it’s usually a good idea to ski with a quart of water (either in a soft bottle or Camelbak, which will be another 3 lbs. Throw in a snack, phone, and wallet/purse (you gals carry a lot of stuff in those bags) plus backpack for another 3 or 4 lbs.

So your weight standing on skis will be 10 lbs or more. Keep that in mind if ordering on line. Ideally, though, you’d choose the skis based on how they compress (at the ski shop) when holding a 10 lb hand weight.

[staralfur]

The Alaska regular (not XP) runs about 1/8 size big in length for men.

I’ve heard the XPs are the same.

Good to know, that makes me consider buying the used 41 XPs.

Ideally, though, you’d choose the skis based on how they compress (at the ski shop) when holding a 10 lb hand weight.

Also good advice. I had 1 day of ski shopping before I got into Yellowstone & almost bought some old 185 alpina skis and a 75mm alaska. They did not have me test w extra weight, & thought maybe too big & I also wondered if they were just trying to sell the skis. But some charts do say 185 for my weight, while alpinas chart seems to rec 170. I do kinda wish I had bought that set tho cuz it was a steal. Now Im considering going all out with new.

[GrimSurfer]

In general, the proper ski should compress fully when 75% of your body weight is on it. Again, in general.

(Back in the day — my younger days— ski length was based on extended reach (i.e. height). Worked OK-ish for people fitting the norms of whatever assumptions were made about weight. Compared to today, however, it was crap.)

Full compression isn’t critical on soft powder. The scales or wax pocket will provide grip even if the ski is not completely flattened (some skis are harder than others to completely compress because of their internal construction and camber).

On highly compressed, wet snow, the flatter the ski on compression, the better the kick.

These are very general observations and things can change depending on the skill of the wax tech and skier. The truth is that skiers with a good classic stride will dynamically load all of their body weight onto a ski. Inertia will flatten the ski more than it would by simply standing on it with one foot.

Some ski shops will have a glass or plexiglas light table. They’ll place a pair of skis on it and ask you to stand on them and shift your weight so they can see how the ski is compressing. The same thing can be done on a flat polished concrete floor (just about every commercial building has them these days) and observing where a slip of ordinary printer paper catches along the mid part of the ski.

I’ve been to some ski shops that have a table that nobody knows how to use, because all the staff are downhill skiers. So there may be reasons other than “pushing the product” at play here.

Lots of YouTube video on selecting the right skis for body weight. Some folks here might be able to provide links to their favourites.

[JohnSKepler]

If you are a true NOOB, never cross country skied, I might recommend something a bit less current. I learned over the last few years on some rental Rossis and NNNBC boots. I had a great time on that gear. So much so that I've now upgraded and I'm glad I did. But I wouldn't change that experience on, what I consider to be "lesser gear", for anything. It has provided so much more insight into the Nordic skiing experience. Without that learning I'd have no context for assessing much. And, you might even find you don't love it, so why spend more than you have to?

[GrimSurfer]

Great point, John.

She could also rent a pair in her weight range, use them for an afternoon, and determine how her movement and weight stack up against a “norm”. There are all kinds of caveats here but it would give her a frame of reference before spending money on a new or used rig.

[fisheater]

@staralfur I actually have an older, hardly used set of Discovery 68 at 170 cm. The ski has a real solid secondary camber. I believe they will kick really nicely for you. It has a softer shovel that could aid in turn initiation in soft snow, while still being supportive in soft snow. If all that doesn’t mean anything to you, don’t worry. I’m just saying I thing it would be a really nice ski to start out with.
Now since you are in an area where your XCD skiing could be absolutely fantastic, and you may want to upgrade to a more downhill oriented ski, or a faster touring ski, Xplore may be a fine system choice. However for skiing with the Discovery 68 NNN-BC is all you need. Now I am not kicking the Discovery 68, I think it is a great ski. You will not outgrow it, but you may end up with more specific task skis and not use it as much. However it will always be a solid ski. So if you want to save a few bucks go NNN-BC. However if you are thinking about more performance oriented skis down the road, perhaps the extra expense of Xplore is worth it to you.
If you have a way of picking up the set I have in Michigan (the Discovery 68 @170cm) you can have them. They have been drilled once for 75 mm bindings

[GrimSurfer]

Also good advice. I had 1 day of ski shopping before I got into Yellowstone & almost bought some old 185 alpina skis and a 75mm alaska. They did not have me test w extra weight, & thought maybe too big & I also wondered if they were just trying to sell the skis. But some charts do say 185 for my weight, while alpinas chart seems to rec 170. I do kinda wish I had bought that set tho cuz it was a steal. Now Im considering going all out with new.

Re: Poles

You haven’t mentioned them, so I’ll open that can of worms.

Poles are the least expensive components of an XC rig. Because of this, people don’t hesitate paying for more pole than they need. You don’t need to spend your after tax earnings this way. Whatever you save can be held for a ski or boot upgrade at some point… or maybe outerwear.

Carbon fibre is expensive, stiff and brittle. It skis well but breaks more easily. This is because the orientation of the cloth in a light CF pole is designed to handle a lot of force along the pole. So if you fall on it or hit it hard against something, it breaks. Game over.

Composite poles are heavier, very strong, and durable. They’re normally mid priced and can take a lot of abuse.. they’re practically unbreakable. They’re not as stiff, so absorb the energy that would otherwise be used to propel yourself forward.

Aluminum poles are very inexpensive, moderately strong, and durable. They can be bent in extreme use, but can be bent back by hand and get you home (so you’re not stuck on the trail.

Baskets have two basic configurations. Wide, flexible snow baskets for deeper snow and very small racing baskets for groomed or compressed snow. Snow baskets are a bit heavier than racing baskets. They can be used on groomed trails (look a little goofy but work). Racing baskets cannot be used in backcountry snow, unless your goal is to punch all the way down to the base (which isn’t terribly useful).

Handles and straps… cork or plastic, cork being warmer to the touch. Straps… click in harness or simple loop. Click in harness for thrust but can be awkward getting into. Don’t work particularly well with mitts. Don’t release. If your pole gets stuck, risk of rotator cuff injury is much higher.

Simple straps are inexpensive, can be used with or without any hand covering, and can be released by opening your hand. Handy after a fall, if your pole gets stuck, or (heaven forbid) you fall through ice. The latter can save your life.

So I’d recommend composite or aluminum with a strap. The basket entirely depends on prevailing snow conditions… mountains? Snow basket, 100%. Groomed, compressed track skiing? Racing basket, 95%.

Lots of articles on best length. There’s even a sport standard (83% of height, iirc), but that applies to groomed, compressed snow. Powder, downhill component favours a shorter or adjustable pole. Most adjustable poles are aluminum btw.

So however you wish to spend $40-600, it’s up to you. Lots of value and performance for the novice skier at $60-100 to be honest. Nothing the matter with used as long as they are in good shape.

[staralfur]

However for skiing with the Discovery 68 NNN-BC is all you need. Now I am not kicking the Discovery 68, I think it is a great ski. You will not outgrow it, but you may end up with more specific task skis and not use it as much. However it will always be a solid ski. So if you want to save a few bucks go NNN-BC. However if you are thinking about more performance oriented skis down the road, perhaps the extra expense of Xplore is worth it to you.
If you have a way of picking up the set I have in Michigan (the Discovery 68 @170cm) you can have them. They have been drilled once for 75 mm bindings

@fisheater cool you have experience with the discovery! Would you be willing to ship the skis?

As far as NNNBC vs Xplore, which one would be easier to learn on? I assumed the better tech might make it easier but maybe not.

@GrimSurfer thank you for all of that pole advice!

@JohnSKepler Thanks, yes I may rent and take lessons first. I just saw some deals online and wanted to pull the trigger but I haven't yet

[GrimSurfer]

I don’t think they’ll be a big difference in learning on NNN BC vs Xplore. When your skills are developed, you’d definitely get more drive in downhill powder sections with Xplore. It can take a few years to get to this point though. By then, your needs could be quite different.

A big issue will be skis. I know for a fact that a NNN BC Magnum won’t fit properly on a ski with a sidecut of less than 58mm. A NNN BC will be the same because the difference between regular and Magnum bindings is all in the “wings”, not in the mounting surface itself.

A Discovery 68 is 60 mm at the waist, as a point of reference.

The Xplore is definitely wider in the toe area, like a 75 mm binding. The mounting hole arrangement is different though. So I’d wait until you know the exact dimensions of the skis you’ll be riding before rushing out to buy Xplore boots and bindings. They’re a bit pricey.

In the meantime, there are people here who may have mounted their own Xplores on all kinds of skis. Their views are important to capture.