Xplore & the advantages of stiff stole for XC

[Nitram Tocrut]

Edit : I erased the content of my useless post

[Johnny]

Good sunday folks!

I've been intrigued to read the growing library of positive Xplore reviews. I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of many. Thanks in particular to @Tom M and @Johnny for first class material.

Now what I find particuarly interesting, is the positive feedback with respect to XC performance of the Xplore boots - despite their stiff soles. How do we make sense of this? Traditionally, XC boots have been associated with flexible soles to enable kicking the ground with the ball of your foot. This has been the gold standard through the norms of 75mm, NNN-bc and NNN.

What is going on? Have we been fooled all along?

I wrote dozens and dozens of pages about the XP system, so much that I could write a book! So I can't repeat everything in just a few words, but one thing to remember here is the LATERAL sole stiffness and the LATERAL leverage of the binding. A floppy XC boot will be nice and soft for K&G, but will also be super easy to twist, offering no real edge control. It's the opposite with XP, it still offers a somehow tolerable flex at the toes (well, on the Alpina line), but with much more lateral stiffness and leverage for better control of the ski. (A new, different compromise, nothing is perfect.)

Well, that table is one person’s opinion, so I’m not sure we can take it as the final word. Perhaps @Johnny has a particular preference that leads him to this conclusion and others might not reach the same conclusion. And I will say that he seems excessively enthusiastic about Xplore (no offense @Johnny !).

No, that table was not my "opinion". This forum is awesome to discuss (and argue) about people's opinions. Sometimes it's positive and constructive, sometimes it's not. And that's life. But when we review things, especially new innovations, it's important that we try to keep our opinions out of it, despite being sometimes over-enthusiastic. (I know, I have a bad case of it...) I tried to try to be as objective as possible. Perhaps you missed the introduction to that chart?

"It seems quite simple at first sight, but there is actually A LOT of technical information packed in there. It took me quite some time to come up with all the details and to objectively analyze each boot"

My chart is probably not perfect, but it's the very best I could do to give you an idea of all the boots side by side, holding and twisting all of them in my hands, one after the other and having skiied all of them under different snow conditions. Of course, different people would come up with different DH and XC ratings. I tried to keep the average skier in mind when I made the chart. I made the chart to help you figure where to drop the big bucks according to your needs, not to express my personal opinion about each boot.

I think an interesting piece of evidence for this question would be what XC racers choose (classic racers, not skate).

Very important point. If you are skiing tracks, you will not gain anything from the XP system. Your old floppy and super-comfy boots are already perfect. You don't need lateral control at all, particularly not at the expense of comfort and softness. But from a NORDIC, XCD and TELEMARK skiing perspective, it's totally different.

Race skating boots fixed this, but with the advent of 650g backcountry boots, it now puts a lot of gear in the obsolete category.

Rottefella has been in the binding game for a hundred years. If they, and more experienced skiers such as Tom M and Johnny say they’re better performing, it kind of ends the debate about what is “best”.

The end of the debate? The end of all ski forums?!? Already?

Of course, you cannot go wrong with nnn-bc for backcountry. But I presume most innovation will be on xplore from here on. And when people like Johnny are so enthusiastic about xplore while stating that nnn-bc used to be his favorite binding, it’s time to listen.

As I mentioned earlier in my reviews, "For most of the time, the new XP system is almost as good as NNN-BC for downhill. I am not saying better..." For more serious telemark, and especially Norpine and demanding conditions, I still personally prefer NNN-BC. For everything else in the nordic spectrum, the Alaska XPs are currently my all-time favorite boots. But that could change, if they can come up with better XP flexors.

[JohnSKepler]

Good sunday folks!

How do we make sense of this? Traditionally, XC boots have been associated with flexible soles to enable kicking the ground with the ball of your foot. This has been the gold standard through the norms of 75mm, NNN-bc and NNN.

With Xplore and their stiff soles, this gold standard now seems to be up for question. Are we now to be relying mainly on the flexor to kick the ground?

I'm not supremely experienced like a lot of the people here but I do observe and am learning. The Xplore sole is stiff but it seems to be designed to bend at a specific place, just aft of the toes. I can certainly put the ball of my foot onto the ski in both the Alaska XP and with the Alfa Free. I prefer the Alaska for more kick and glide oriented activities because of that awesome bellows. The Free is a lot stiffer and I tend to use it for turns. All I have to compare it with are some NNN-BC Crispi Svartisan I used for two years before I got the Xplore equipment. I've improved in a lot of areas so it's hard to say where the change has come from but I am advancing a LOT faster on the Xplore gear than I did with the NNN-BC gear.

I studied @Johnny's boot table quite a bit, and read pretty much all of his related equipment reviews, before deciding to go the direction that I did and I couldn't be happier with my choice. I do wish I had the experience of having skied 75mm with cables and years of NNN-BC to really be able to make meaningful comparisons, but I don't, so I really appreciate Johnny, fisheater, lilcliffy, and many other knowledgeable people for helping me understand all of this. It reminds of an area where I'm more knowledgable: motorcycles. For a long time I stuck with my air cooled engines and there is still a very vocal group that swear by them. And they can be great machines. But, if you want something newer, you have to go liquid cooled. I still miss my airhead GS but, frankly, my water-cooled R1200GS buries it in every category. The R1200 doesn't have much in the way of style points but I stopped caring about that a long time ago.

For you guys out there that prefer NNN-BC, and there seem to be a lot of you, I wish one of you would take my Crispi Svartisans off my hands! Great shape. Size 40. I just don't use them anymore. I'll make someone a great deal!

[GrimSurfer]

If you think that NNN BC is better for downhill XC than Xplore, then that’s good enough for me @Johnny . It’s going to save me a few hundred clams in fact.

I suppose that the availability of three flexors for the Xplore has an effect on the OP’s question. Sole stiffness for the Xplore, for example, won’t have the same impact as sole stiffness for NN bindings.

A stiff flexor + stiff sole might have good potential on some DH manoeuvres, like a parallel turn or snowplow turn. Telemark turn? What are your thoughts on this, @Johnny, having tried them?

[GrimSurfer]

Edit : I erased the content of my useless post

[Jurassien]

Right! Hard to disagree. But when there are enough alternatives within each norm to find a perfectly comfortable boot, what norm are you going to recommend to your friends & family (& yourself) for such BC touring?

I'm finding myself having to give recommendations, and I'm increasingly uncertain which recommendation to give.

I've been out training and in the meantime a heap of responses have been made, some of which are in line with what I would have said. Recommendations depend on the experience level of the skier, their expectations, and the type of terrain which attracts them. If you're in Norway, as I think you are, then Norwegians are in the very fortunate situation of having sports shops, and even private individuals (online auctions) offering nordic touring sets to hire for a day, weekend, etc. It makes a lot of sense to hire and try if the opportunity is available. Just Google "fjellskiutleie" and see what comes up. Norway has a wide selection of used touring gear for sale - I've even seen Xplore boots (feilkjøp) on offer. Those two options could help someone find what suits them without having to invest in a brand-new set only to find that it's not what they expected. Used stuff can be sold again at less loss than brand-new gear.

With regard to which boot/binding norm to recommend for nordic touring, both BC and 75 can be recommended, as NNN BC has been in use for 30-odd years and 75mm for much longer than that. Extended polar tours have been accomplished successfully with both norms as has the "Norge på langs" tour (a mere 3000km) - so they both work. I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending a very new boot/binding system, without the track record of the other two, just because someone else recommends it.

This has always been my stance as well, but it's hard to ignore all the positive reviews. If the sole stiffness is somewhere between typical nnn-bc boots and T4, would you still prefer the nnn-bc? How about when towing a heavy pulk?

I'm not sure, so think it's worthy a consideration.

It's certainly worthy of consideration, especially since there has been no significant development in the nordic touring boot/binding sector in the last 30 years. I'm not averse to the new technology and I'm looking forward to trying the boots. However there are lots of open questions with regard to how they would work for my own usage. They are not just skiing boots - they are touring boots. On several tours you might have to walk significant distances, before, during and after the tour. What are they like to walk in - on tarmac, on gravel and, more significantly, how would they hold up after a passage involving rocky terrain. Have the "super-users" whose opinion you respect an answer to that? How do you like walking in AT boots?

If the boots feel akin to an alpine touring boot when I try them on and the whole system pivots only on the pins, with practically no flexing of the sole, then I'm afraid that would be a deal-killer for me personally. I can't comment on usage with a pulk, as I've never used a pulk.

Another point involves the binding itself, or more specifically the buffer/bumper/flexor or whatever you like to call it. A harder one appears to make a significant difference in downhill control - as it does to some extent with NNN BC. Thanks to a video by member @Tom M I was able to see how these are changed in the field, and it's not something I could see myself doing. One of the advantages of nordic touring vs. alpine touring is the lack of transitions - making the experience much more fluid. I very often don't make adjustments to the boot for descent (they're under the gaiters anyhow) and in certain circumstances I'll even leave the skins on for descent (I use narrow, well waxed and 100% mohair skins) - so I'm not going to take my skis off and fiddle with buffers only to have to change them again to ski across a lake.

[lilcliffy]

I have very limited ski use of Xplore at the moment-
(I was planning epic turs this weekend, but our massive dump of snow ended with rain and a flash-freeze → death crust. I have been on old Roald + Guide BC all weekend)

However- I have had them out on both E109 Tour and Rabb 68- both Alaska XP and Free XP-

And I have been wearing the boots- flexing them- CONSTANTLY- both at home and on Campus at work.

Both the Alaska XP and the Free XP have stiff, stable- yet flexible soles.
Both boots flex like a Nordic ski boot should- though the flex pattern on both boots are quite different- see Johnny's excellent reviews for more detail on this.

The matter of sole stiffness is complex- and what is desirable depends on many things- including the environmental-ecological complex that one skis in- as well as the performance desired- as well as the skills and preferences of the individual.

Personally- I prefer boots- that are intended for striding/hiking- that have a relatively stiff sole flex- especially out-of-the-box. I want a boot with a stable, supportive sole for striding on uneven and steep terrain- not ultrastiff like a modern climbing mountaineering boot/alpine touring boot- but stiff enough to be stable and supportive yet flexible enough to stride effectively and comfortably.

At this moment- both XP boots I have meet the requirements- they are stable and supportive, as well as flexible for striding. And the flex of the soles feels much more natural than a plastic boot with a bellows.

All walking/striding boot soles break-in and get softer over time-

Any boot that is soft out-of-the-box is going to turn into a noodle once it is broken in.
...............
As an example- I share Gamme-the-Elder's disapointment with the soft sole of the Svartisen BC (and even softer 75)-
and I can confirm that the out-of-the-box soft Svartisen is now a wet noodle after much use- to the point that the Alaska BC is a better XCD boot, despite the lateral stiffness of the Svartisen! The Svartisen needs a stiffer, more stable midsole.
................

I don't mind breaking in stiff boots- it is worth it- they offer better performance and they last longer than a soft boot.

While I am not a Classic track Nordic racer- if competive Classic skiers are using soft-flexing boots, they are likely able to grab another pair as as soon as they are too soft.

BC Nordic ski tourers need boots that have supportive, stable soles- with a natural flex- to facilitate striding in the backcountry and hills and mountains. And unless, one is going to buy a new boot every month, we need boots that are stable in the long-term.

The modern average urban consumer doesn't want to have to wait for anything- let alone put in the work to break in a pair of boots- hence, the trend towards soft as marshmallow soles- that do not last.

I remember Fisheater describing breaking in his very stiff Ski March boots while walking his dog- this is a great example of doing the work to break-in a well-designed striding boot with a stiiff sole.

I may be a weirdo, but I actually enjoy breaking in a stiff, well-designed boot.
................

I have read and watched a lot of material with regards to Rottefella's R&D with the Xplore outsole-
their objective was to both improve the stability of the outsole (vs NNNBC) as well as maintain the striding flex required for true Nordic skiing. THEY NAILED IT.
......
And- BTW- both XP boots I have are wonderful to walk in- better than NNNBC and duckbill NN boots.

[TheMusher]

This is gold! Thanks all. Will reply when Monday calms downs.

[Johnny]

A stiff flexor + stiff sole might have good potential on some DH manoeuvres, like a parallel turn or snowplow turn. Telemark turn? What are your thoughts on this, Johnny, having tried them?

The hard XP flexors just totally suck. They are useless. Just as useless as the red NNNBC flexors. Ok, they do add a tiny bit of resistance, which only translates into a different feeling. But they are light-years away from adding any real performance. They would have to be at least twice as hard to do that. Well, my guess is that this is what they did in the first place. But they knew the consumer wouldn't like it. They knew people would whine and complain about the hard flexors being ridiculously too stiff, like they do all the time, and like they did with NNNBC 20 years ago. Nothing new here.

I heard from Asnes and Alfa that Rotte worked a lot on the hard's stiffness. In fact, that is the reason why the hard flexors didn't come out at the same time. They were still working on it. (Deciding I guess?) They obviously ended up picking the softer ones to keep the rich nordic newbies happy... I really hope they will come up with real HARD flexors at some point...

But hey, who cares about cables and flexors? The truth is, I have 5 pairs of XP skis and I have completely removed the flexors on all of them. Never felt so free on skis before! (The anti-ice plates do help a bit to prevent snow buildup...)

Grace, technique and finesse, not cables, springs and flexors!

[Stephen]

A stiff flexor + stiff sole might have good potential on some DH manoeuvres, like a parallel turn or snowplow turn. Telemark turn? What are your thoughts on this, Johnny, having tried them?

The hard XP flexors just totally suck. They are useless. Just as useless as the red NNNBC flexors. Ok, they do add a tiny bit of resistance, which only translates into a different feeling. But they are light-years away from adding any real performance. They would have to be at least twice as hard to do that. Well, my guess is that this is what they did in the first place. But they knew the consumer wouldn't like it. They knew people would whine and complain about the hard flexors being ridiculously too stiff, like they do all the time, and like they did with NNNBC 20 years ago. Nothing new here.

I heard from Asnes and Alfa that Rotte worked a lot on the hard's stiffness. In fact, that is the reason why the hard flexors didn't come out at the same time. They were still working on it. (Deciding I guess?) They obviously ended up picking the softer ones to keep the rich nordic newbies happy... I really hope they will come up with real HARD flexors at some point...

But hey, who cares about cables and flexors? The truth is, I have 5 pairs of XP skis and I have completely removed the flexors on all of them. Never felt so free on skis before! (The anti-ice plates do help a bit to prevent snow buildup...)

Can either the normal or the hard flexor actually help in a parallel or snowplow turn?
It seems like the flexor comes into play only when the heel is raised.
Normally, the heel would not be raised for either of these turns?

There was a post about someone looking for an anti-ice plate for the Xplore binding.
It seems like the Anti-ice plate and the Free-pivot plate are the same thing?

Radical. Is @Johnny really skiing Xplore in Free-pivot mode all the time?!
First he says the flexors are not stiff enough, then he says he skis with no flexors at all.
I can see the freedom aspect of it, but hard to wrap my head around actually doing it.
It’s not April 1st is it?