Xplore on Ice?

[Montana St Alum]

I think there will be a learning curve for you if you havent done much skiing on steep and icy terrain on nordic bindings and skis (regardless of setup type)... I personally dont see an advantage in using alpine skis for nordic boots/bindings. Mount the nordic bindings on many of the fine bc nordic skis that are out there.

Old school DH skis werent much different from todays mid width bc touring skis. Little heavier… bit less rocker. That’s about it. Anyone skiing before mid 90s (before parabolics) will understand this.

I raced DH on 213cm Head downhill skis 1969-1971. Heavy as hell. I'd hope today's mid width bc skis are more than a little lighter!

[Manney]

You’d know that ash and maple were used in skis from that time… two layer fibreglass top sheets… no air channels. Double the weight of a modern, wider bc ski… even one with titanal, polyester cap etc.

[jyw5]

I think there will be a learning curve for you if you havent done much skiing on steep and icy terrain on nordic bindings and skis (regardless of setup type)... I personally dont see an advantage in using alpine skis for nordic boots/bindings. Mount the nordic bindings on many of the fine bc nordic skis that are out there.

Old school DH skis werent much different from todays mid width bc touring skis. Little heavier… bit less rocker. That’s about it. Anyone skiing before mid 90s (before parabolics) will understand this.

they were ALOT heavier. Dont remember my 1st setup...I believe they were Dynastar skis in 80s. then I had the 195cm K2 Extreme in 1990. then 188cm Atomic R:EX around the early 2000s. I thankfully passed on that parabolic ski trend...I thought they looked ridiculous.

BC Nordic skis now are well balanced, downhill oriented vs. traditional nordic and wider (depending on model)....and much much lighter.

I appreciate that the 55mm waist Asnes Sverdrup is only 4lbs. I used these all winter in the flatter but rugged and icy windblown slopes of North Dakota this winter.

Other more downhill oriented Asnes skis with wider waists are only ounces more.

[Manney]

The industry has boxed the compass. Skinny, shaped, parabolic/hour glass, wide, fat. All available now… any time… any ski shop… any e retailer.

Good time for companies to stop gushing about power, carve, lightness etc. and talk preferred conditions, terrain, style, level. There’s a ski out there for every skier.

[Eastern Ian]

Old school DH skis werent much different from todays mid width bc touring skis. Little heavier… bit less rocker. That’s about it. Anyone skiing before mid 90s (before parabolics) will understand this.

That's sort of what i was thinking. I loved skiing on my Asolo Extremes with my Kazama outbacks, but that was a long time ago and I'm not even sure what the waist width was. I also remember avoiding groomers like the plague because they couldn't hold an edge for shit. Now, after long tours in My Crispi Evos my feet are screaming and lugging those boots up the mountain is a bit of a drag. The other day after skiing a chute off Mount Washington I looked down and noticed that, not only was I in Walk mode, but all of my buckles were undone (it was nice slush). I couldn't help but think that I would have had a much better day in lighter boots.

[lowangle al]

Hi Ian, IMO, for the downhill stuff you are skiing I wouldn't want to do it in anything less than a T4, especially if your goal is to have fun enjoying the turns. If Xplore or ntn had a boot like the T4 I'm sure either would work, but unfortunately they don't. The T4 gives me the edge control of a plastic boot but still has the range of motion of my old Extremes. I felt my old stance come back, more physical and natural, not relying on the boot as much for stability. For me it was the best of both worlds, light enough for touring and good edge hold and control. My guess is you will be able to ski anything with the T4 that you could ski with your heavy set up. You may not be able to bomb a run like you could with the Evos but with some adjustments in speed and maybe more turns it is very doable. I wouldn't say the same for a lighter boot.

As far as skis go, if turns are your goal I would recommend an alpine ski. Most,(if not all) xcd skis have a "nordic" camber that I can feel and don't like, and I think their light weight construction is not conducive to their DH performance. The T4 will enable you to ski a wider ski then any of the Xplore boots will, which is another big advantage. Xplore is no holy grail, at least with the boots currently available.

[Eastern Ian]

I guess I need to put together a video segment on a cold icy morning skiing my Xplore system. It won't be pretty carving that's for sure, but maybe it will help to demonstrate the advantages and weakness of skiing an Xplore system on ice.

Thanks for replying Tom. I would like to get a better idea of how much of an edge one can hold with the Xplore system. but I'd hate to encourage you to seek out icy conditions when there's good corn to be skied!

I love your Videos BTW.

[Eastern Ian]

Hi Ian, IMO, for the downhill stuff you are skiing I wouldn't want to do it in anything less than a T4, especially if your goal is to have fun enjoying the turns. If Xplore or ntn had a boot like the T4 I'm sure either would work, but unfortunately they don't. The T4 gives me the edge control of a plastic boot but still has the range of motion of my old Extremes. I felt my old stance come back, more physical and natural, not relying on the boot as much for stability. For me it was the best of both worlds, light enough for touring and good edge hold and control. My guess is you will be able to ski anything with the T4 that you could ski with your heavy set up. You may not be able to bomb a run like you could with the Evos but with some adjustments in speed and maybe more turns it is very doable. I wouldn't say the same for a lighter boot.

As far as skis go, if turns are your goal I would recommend an alpine ski. Most,(if not all) xcd skis have a "nordic" camber that I can feel and don't like, and I think their light weight construction is not conducive to their DH performance. The T4 will enable you to ski a wider ski then any of the Xplore boots will, which is another big advantage. Xplore is no holy grail, at least with the boots currently available.

Thanks, for your feedback. I know I'm at least partly, projecting my desire of a lightweight NTN boot onto the Xplore. but I also would like to have a bit more feel in my turns.

[Manney]

Old school DH skis werent much different from todays mid width bc touring skis. Little heavier… bit less rocker. That’s about it. Anyone skiing before mid 90s (before parabolics) will understand this.

That's sort of what i was thinking. I loved skiing on my Asolo Extremes with my Kazama outbacks, but that was a long time ago and I'm not even sure what the waist width was. I also remember avoiding groomers like the plague because they couldn't hold an edge for shit. Now, after long tours in My Crispi Evos my feet are screaming and lugging those boots up the mountain is a bit of a drag. The other day after skiing a chute off Mount Washington I looked down and noticed that, not only was I in Walk mode, but all of my buckles were undone (it was nice slush). I couldn't help but think that I would have had a much better day in lighter boots.

Not familiar with those skis… but found a reference to the brand on BCT

https://www.backcountrytalk.com/forum/b ... rill/2859-

Also found an old ad showing construction of the skis… yep… lots of hardwood and fibreglass. Would have been on the heavy side… but not much side cut.

Ppl used to ski old school DH skis without complaint. The same ppl today freak out because they’re older… accustomed to easier skis, skiing.

Let’s not forget who ushered in the parabolic and progressive skis… FIS. Elan was having a hard time selling them… but FIS wanted a way to keep speeds and injuries down on groomed competition courses. Once they got onboard, all the the manufacturers got onboard, pushed ads, and they became the bomb.

They were never that much of a problem for recreational skiing. More knee injuries, sure. Fewer fib fractures tho. The old skis were heavier but that weight was equally distributed along the ski. Skis today have lots of weight in the tips, tails. Shorter but easier to spin out on progressive skis today. It took serious effort to do that on the hand-me-down old school boards I started skiing on as a kid.

[lowangle al]

Hi Ian, IMO, for the downhill stuff you are skiing I wouldn't want to do it in anything less than a T4, especially if your goal is to have fun enjoying the turns. If Xplore or ntn had a boot like the T4 I'm sure either would work, but unfortunately they don't. The T4 gives me the edge control of a plastic boot but still has the range of motion of my old Extremes. I felt my old stance come back, more physical and natural, not relying on the boot as much for stability. For me it was the best of both worlds, light enough for touring and good edge hold and control. My guess is you will be able to ski anything with the T4 that you could ski with your heavy set up. You may not be able to bomb a run like you could with the Evos but with some adjustments in speed and maybe more turns it is very doable. I wouldn't say the same for a lighter boot.

As far as skis go, if turns are your goal I would recommend an alpine ski. Most,(if not all) xcd skis have a "nordic" camber that I can feel and don't like, and I think their light weight construction is not conducive to their DH performance. The T4 will enable you to ski a wider ski then any of the Xplore boots will, which is another big advantage. Xplore is no holy grail, at least with the boots currently available.

Thanks, for your feedback. I know I'm at least partly, projecting my desire of a lightweight NTN boot onto the Xplore. but I also would like to have a bit more feel in my turns.

As far as "feel" goes, I like the feel I get from the responsiveness I get from skis with the T4 compared to my old leathers or especially my new Fischer Transnordics. I'm also not convinced that the new Xplore boots are as good for the downhill as your old leather boots were. Ever since telemark went in two directions (heavy/xcd) the light end of gear was never as good for the downhill.