Help Me Build XCD Kit

[phoenix]

No worries, lilcliffy... Ii agree the Alaska's are better suited for a narrower ski. They mate very well with my old skinnies, and I ski them often. Thing is I firmly believe Munsi will be way more pleased with a little bigger set up for where he is, and what he's wanting to do. It's all good. But some things are a little better!

[jyw5]

I live in Alaska and have been skiing on 169cm s112 with NNN BC bindings and madshus glittertind boots for 3 seasons. it is really slow on flat approaches but not bad on steep terrain. I am 5'8" and 145 lbs. I am going to try try some glide wax on the warmer days which will help. I regularly climb 1000-1500 ft for 1-2 miles which gives u an idea of the slope angles. The approaches in AK are usually very flat and long. Many approaches can be 2 miles with only 500ft gain then steep 2000ft for the last 2 miles. Terrain is highly variable...can start out warm and wet and be boilerplate at the summit.

I just bought the Asnes Falketind 62 with NNN BC and plan to try them on the same slopes.

On very steep terrain of 30+ degrees..I have to kick and step turn. I am not that good at telemark skiing. Just learned how to tele turn last season. I am a very good downhill backcountry skiier...have done multiday hut to hut tours.

Colorado probably has less variability in snow in any given day so these setups would do great but for your weight and height, someone else can maybe comment on a setup that would be equivalent to what I am using and be better for you.

As for the S125, I have a pair with Silvretta bindings that fit my La Sportiva G2 mountaineering boots. People up here use this setup for mountaineering....like climbing Denali. The S125 is a great approach ski for climbing but isn't really suitable for downhill nor kick and glide xc skiing...maybe that's why they discontinued it. (Of course any good skiier can use it but there are way better options for downhill for similar weight and size ski). It has a very narrow application and climbs up very well in long technical terrain (I have taken it up 40+ degree gullies with 40 lb pack).

Cheers

[Cannatonic]

I like LC"s idea of staying with light boots like the Alaska (or a little beefier Crispi Antarctic which you can try at Neptune) and getting a lighter/longer pair of skis. I have many years of skiing the stiffest, heaviest highback alpine ski boots in my past life, Lange Pink Panthers, Raichle Flexon Comp, Technica TNT and my favorites, Dachsteins.

But there is really something fun to getting light XCD gear and comfortable boots and heading out on versatile skis like the Ingstad/NATo combat dimension or E99/Gamme. On consolidated snow like spring corn you can make smooth tele turns and ski up & down descents with extremely light, comfortable gear on your feet - it's addicting and a real thrill. I'm thinking of corn season in Colorado which goes on for months.

[lilcliffy]

The OP is from an expert skier from what I read.
If he is considering the Alaska boot- I would think he knows what it is capable of.

Stating that the Alaska offers no more support than a high-top sneaker is a bit of an exageration...

The Alaska offers the support of a heavy-duty backpacking boot (as opposed to a light hiking boot). I am very comfortable and feel safe touring in the backcountry with this boot.

As far as a ski to mate with a boot like the Alaska/Antarctic- to me the 78mm Annum/S-112 are the reasonable limit- though some are going as wide as an Objective with this boot...

My recent years of skiing suggest that a ski like the Ingstad BC is just as good as the Annum/S-112 in deep snow and I find the narrower waist more fun downhill- with a boot like the Alaska- and it is certainly a better XC touriing ski than the Annum/S-112.

Just something to think about...

If a wider downhill ski is the best ski- which it might well be (I really have no idea)- than I personally would be reaching for something much wider than the Annum/S-112- mounted with a Telemark touring binding and a Telemark touring boot.

But- again- if the Alaska was the boot- I would be reaching for something narrower than and Annum/S-112...

[BackInMyDay]

Thanks everyone. As usual, a clustermark of opinions -- I expect nothing less.... : )

OK, so I'm narrowing it down. Reading everything above, I'm down to two refined questions:

What boots fit in between the Alaska and T4 / Excursions? I hear "new old-school leather tele boots." From what I understand the major downside here is break-in time. Yes? What else would you say about that? And, other than the break-in, is this really the best solution?

Second question I see is choosing between a more modern shape of the S-Bounds (and related) and the more traditional shape of the E99 (and related). It seems like the Annum might split the difference. I *think* I want the more modern shape, and I hear that the straighter skis might actually ski better / as well. Overall, it seems like this is a question of preference more than fact. Maybe less so than the question about boots?

I'll do some more reading on the site, in order to hone in on the answers to my questions, but thanks for chiming in here. In related news, my company (which is just my private LLC that handles the consulting income I generate) has an annual "employee retention policy" of "new skis for everyone (ie, me)." So, stoked to make the decision and pull the trigger here.

[BackInMyDay]

Now I think I'm leaning towards the Crispi Svartisen. What's the story on fit? I have pretty wide feet, and generally perceive Crispis as being narrow. How much can they be stretched?

[bgregoire]

Thanks everyone. As usual, a clustermark of opinions -- I expect nothing less.... : )

OK, so I'm narrowing it down. Reading everything above, I'm down to two refined questions:

What boots fit in between the Alaska and T4 / Excursions? I hear "new old-school leather tele boots." From what I understand the major downside here is break-in time. Yes? What else would you say about that? And, other than the break-in, is this really the best solution?

Second question I see is choosing between a more modern shape of the S-Bounds (and related) and the more traditional shape of the E99 (and related). It seems like the Annum might split the difference. I *think* I want the more modern shape, and I hear that the straighter skis might actually ski better / as well. Overall, it seems like this is a question of preference more than fact. Maybe less so than the question about boots?

Yes the Crispi Svartisen might offer a little more control than the Alaska (I would not be surprised if it was narrow and painful at the start though). Most norwegian stitched boots definitely fit between the Alaska and the T4/Excursion. There is a whole thread here on the finest leathers for more info and blabber. Consider the Crispi Antartic (I have the Sydpolens and I love them) or Andrew Rifugio. Leathers can be stretched fo you can get a good fit for wide fit (I have an uer wide tow box. I use a boot stretcher, its a must for my toes. Leathers do need some time to fit nicely, but most leathers require a lot less time to fit properly thans the Alico Ski March, if that is what you have been reading, those boots are super stiff.

As for a ski. go with the S-bound type if you want to place more emphasis on turning and downhill. Go E-99 style for more distance-oriented skiing and fun on the flats. The new Asnes Ingstad is probably right in between.

My guess is you will appreciate a long S-bound (alpine cut) bc ski (with 3-pin binding) given your strong background in alpine skiing. Perhaps after a few years, or too much reading on this forum, you can add a more distance-focused ski like the E99 (faster and stays on track) to your quiver as well.

Being in Colorado, you should check out Nepture Mountaineering if you can. Get some local advice as well.

Don't overthink it, get out there!

[BackInMyDay]

.... oh, I'm going to over-think it... : )

and, thanks -- sounds like i've got it narrowed down.