This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips / Telemark Francais Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web since 1998. East, West, North, South, Canada, US or Europe, Backcountry or not.
This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
Bindings facilitate the shifting of weight. They don’t actually shift weight themselves. The skier does that.
A binding element attached to itself cannot generate pressure. The forces act in equal and opposite directions, as the laws of motion require.
Well, you are correct here on both of your statements. But has anybody suggested that the bindings itself generate any forces? Of course it is the skier that generates the forces, like lifting the heel to extend the spring.
Without the cable, the friction on the pins can be thought as negligible and the skier is not able to generate any tip pressure (aka torque around the pivot point of the bindings). The skier can generate pressure to the rear of the ski by leaning back, but whenever the skier tries to shift weight forward so that there is greater pressure in front of the bindings than rear of the bindings, the boot will just rotate frictionless and no torque is generated.
With the cable attached, now the skier is able to shift the weight forward of the bindings, since the springs generate torque around the pivot point of the binding.
Any guesses why NNN BC bindings don’t use cables? If the cables transferred force, surely they’d be useful…
But cables don’t transfer force. They control heel movement.
So why don’t NNN BC bindings use cables? Look at the bottom of the boot and top of the binding…
8209E8E6-5CA1-49FD-AA37-8EC43F9E1F06.jpeg
Because heel control is achieved by the bottom of the binding AND the boot all the way to the mid foot. This is sufficient to keep the heel aligned. Could the heel still twist somewhat? Sure, but the moment of torque acting on the heel runs from the arch to the heel (in an NN binding, the moment of torque runs from the toes to the heel because there is nothing restraining movement (unless one uses a cable to control heel movement)).
THAT’s why NN bindings can benefit from cables. There’s really nothing else in the binding designed to control heel movement.
This could open up a fascinating discussion on why we don’t yet see cables on Xplore. Someday we might. At the moment, I suspect that the torsional stiffness of soles (which are ALL made by Rottefella and supplied to boot manufacturers) has something to do with it.
Time will tell though. And the discussion may not be framed by physics. If money can be made selling cable systems for Xplore, somebody will do it. The challenge will be getting away with it in a way that the binding system can tolerate.
Cables are all about heel control. Some binding systems benefit from cables. Others (apparently) don’t need them…
More interesting stuff from the beginning of this thread.
The NNN BC does not use cables, but the rubber flexor in front of the boot is doing the same job as the springs on the cables would: it is converting the skier leg movement into torque applied to the bindings and therefore to the skis.
Whats this fuss about the springs not transferring force?
Obviously the springs tension as you raise your heel, transmitting a forward force to the ski generated by raising your heel. It’s the whole point of active tele bindings…
____
They being said, I’m more interested in the actual subject. I myself need to decide between xplore versus Rottefella 75mm w/ cables for my rabb and Breidablikk husky.
Is the xplore investment worth it?
My only current issue with 75mm is the typical more flat shoe soles and very slightly more restrictive k&g (compared to nnn-bc and likely xplore)
I believe k&g on equal boots will be better on Xplore. However although close, I actually believe the Alaska 75 kicks better than the BC version. Put the Alaska 75 in a Rotte 75 cable and it’s a very good downhill combination. I added a Voile 10 mm riser to facilitate cable use for DH only
You may be right. I suppose there is generally a bigger difference in K&G between boots than binding:
My poor k& experience with 3-pin stems mostly from Crispi Bre+Voile, which I found too restrictive.
Now last year, I've had much better experience with Lundhags Guide Expedition + Rottefella 75.
Not sure if the improved experience came from different boots or bindings or combination thereof, so discarding the 3-pin altogether is probably too harsh with such a small sample.
Still maintain tough that nnn-bc in general gives a smoother k&g experience on hard-packed flat terrain, without being able to tell if is the nnn-bc boot soles or bindings that actually makes the difference. I mostly use Crispi Stetind BC as such.
I wonder how much any XP boot would cause the binding to flex like this? I’m still in wait and see mode if they will have a 10 year lifetime like a 75mm binding. I know all materials will suffer from fatigue when flexed. The Xplore system has seemed to me to be more of a nnn-bc replacement as opposed to a Tele system replacement. This was stolen from one of those other deplorable tele sites. Because sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don’t.
Free Heeler - As in Free Spirit and Free Beer. No $700 pass! No plastic boots! And No Fkn Merlot!
I wonder how much any XP boot would cause the binding to flex like this? I’m still in wait and see mode if they will have a 10 year lifetime like a 75mm binding. I know all materials will suffer from fatigue when flexed. The Xplore system has seemed to me to be more of a nnn-bc replacement as opposed to a Tele system replacement. This was stolen from one of those other deplorable tele sites. Because sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don’t.
Hopefully this gif is someone's idea of humor. Believe me, the binding does not flex as shown in the above. I guess I'll add to the humor. If rubber is good enough for the boot's soles, then it should be good enough for the binding.
I wonder how much any XP boot would cause the binding to flex like this? I’m still in wait and see mode if they will have a 10 year lifetime like a 75mm binding. I know all materials will suffer from fatigue when flexed. The Xplore system has seemed to me to be more of a nnn-bc replacement as opposed to a Tele system replacement. This was stolen from one of those other deplorable tele sites. Because sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don’t.
Hopefully this gif is someone's idea of humor. Believe me, the binding does not flex as shown in the above. I guess I'll add to the humor. If rubber is good enough for the boot's soles, then it should be good enough for the binding.
Well that's good to know, so there is no play in it Tom?
Well that's good to know, so there is no play in it Tom?
Very little side to side play between the boot and the binding (at least with one year's use) There may be more play over time as the parts wear, only time will tell. There is no discernable flex or movement of the "wings" on the binding with normal foot pressure.
Whats this fuss about the springs not transferring force?
Obviously the springs tension as you raise your heel, transmitting a forward force to the ski generated by raising your heel. It’s the whole point of active tele bindings…
____
They being said, I’m more interested in the actual subject. I myself need to decide between xplore versus Rottefella 75mm w/ cables for my rabb and Breidablikk husky.
Is the xplore investment worth it?
My only current issue with 75mm is the typical more flat shoe soles and very slightly more restrictive k&g (compared to nnn-bc and likely xplore)
I believe k&g on equal boots will be better on Xplore. However although close, I actually believe the Alaska 75 kicks better than the BC version. Put the Alaska 75 in a Rotte 75 cable and it’s a very good downhill combination. I added a Voile 10 mm riser to facilitate cable use for DH only
You may be right. I suppose there is generally a bigger difference in K&G between boots than binding:
My poor k& experience with 3-pin stems mostly from Crispi Bre+Voile, which I found too restrictive.
Now last year, I've had much better experience with Lundhags Guide Expedition + Rottefella 75.
Not sure if the improved experience came from different boots or bindings or combination thereof, so discarding the 3-pin altogether is probably too harsh with such a small sample.
Still maintain tough that nnn-bc in general gives a smoother k&g experience on hard-packed flat terrain, without being able to tell if is the nnn-bc boot soles or bindings that actually makes the difference. I mostly use Crispi Stetind BC as such.
I agree that nnn-bc gives smoother k&g experience on hard packed terrain. I would go one step further and say my Alaska BC in it’s railed NNN-BC binding tracks better than my Alaska 75. I wouldn’t ski a 75 mm binding without the option to attach a cable binding. For me my more traditional backcountry double cambered skis will be mounted NNN-BC, while my more single cambered (but with Asnes “tensioned” magic) that while must tour well, also must turn efficiently downhill will be mounted 75 mm, with a cable option. I will also state again. The binding that had given soft leather boots more lateral support than any other, FOR ME, is the Rotte ST with cable.
