Xplore Flexors — Thoughts on Standard vs Hard

[Stephen]

There is another thread where people are talking about and comparing the Standard vs Hard Xplore flexor.
I started a Reply, but then thought a separate thread might be better…
https://www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6129
*********************************************************************************************************************************

When people report their experience and opinions about the Standard vs the Stiff Xplore flexor, it would be interesting to know their boot size.

I have used both the standard and hard flexor a few times last year and found the hard flexor to work just fine for all around touring.
None of that would have been K&G in a set track, which I imagine would make a difference in my experience.

So, for example, I wear a size 47 boot, which has more leverage against the flexor than a smaller boot would have, which would make the hard flexor seem softer to me than for someone with a smaller boot size.

In other words, I think all the different reports on the two different flexors are not “apples to apples,” because of the boot size variable. Not to mention different use cases, and preferences.

When commenting on the different flexors, including your boot size would provide another data point.

[telerat]

Alfa Skaget size 41. I find the hard flexor unusable for any flat or uphill skiing. I could walk around with skis on flat terrain with it, but I would not call it skiing.

[lilcliffy]

When people report their experience and opinions about the Standard vs the Stiff Xplore flexor, it would be interesting to know their boot size.

I have used both the standard and hard flexor a few times last year and found the hard flexor to work just fine for all around touring.
None of that would have been K&G in a set track, which I imagine would make a difference in my experience.

So, for example, I wear a size 47 boot, which has more leverage against the flexor than a smaller boot would have, which would make the hard flexor seem softer to me than for someone with a smaller boot size.

In other words, I think all the different reports on the two different flexors are not “apples to apples,” because of the boot size variable. Not to mention different use cases, and preferences.

When commenting on the different flexors, including your boot size would provide another data point.

I don't think I agree that a longer foot inherently applies more leverage to the flexor...A human foot is not a lever- especially in a Nordic boot- there are are multiple points of flex between the ankle joint and the toes...

I just reported on my experience with the different XP flexors in the other thread.

I do agree that reports on the different flexors are not consistent scientifically-controlled tests of the physics involved. But, I do not think I agree that foot length is a significant factor.

Last winter there were two of us in my ski clan testing XP. Two quite different and very experienced skiers (one with a Nordic background- moi-; and the other from a modern Alpine background). The two of us have been skiing together weekly for several years in my local conditions. My ski partner is significantly larger (taller, heavier) and has a much larger foot than me (47 vs 42). I would strongly suggest that his experience with the XP flexors was near identical to mine. At first he was thrilled with the downhill stability and resistance of the hard flexor, and was determined to leave them in. A few weeks later- midway through a particularly grueling tour- his feet were hurting so bad I insisted we stop, and he switch out to the standard flexor- like night and day- he would not have been able to complete that tour with the hard flexors.

I think that there are many, many complex and interacting factors influencing one's experience with these different flexors. My very limited experience is that when the environmental conditions are controlled- the experience with the flexor seems to be consistent between different skiers- regardless of skier size, weight, and foot length.

[Stephen]

@lilcliffy, on this, I would trust your perspective more than mine!

Maybe I over-simplified my thinking on this.
My logic was based on simple physics, and the idea of a longer lever being able to apply more force to something than a shorter lever can. Along the lines of using a pry bar.

But, like you say, it’s not quite that simple.
Still, I would love to see a direct comparison between a short an long boot in an Xplore binding with a stiff flexor.
I think X force lifting the heel on each boot would lift the sole of the longer boot more, creating a larger angle between the ski and boot sole.

But, the boot sole is flexing, so maybe the toe area of boot might have the same angle, and the longer boot would just have more bend under the ball of the foot.

Just random thoughts while waiting for snow…

[lilcliffy]

@Stephen
Well! I certainly am aware that my experience is limited!

All I know is that I am not going to cover any significant distance with the hard flexor in!

[JohnSKepler]

I did a lot of skiing last year with all three flexors. Skis were Gamme 54, FT62X, and Objective BC. Boots were Alpina AlaskaXP and Alfa Free.

For me, I see no reason to ever use the flat plate. I prefer having a bit of resistance up there. With nothing, the ski is just too floppy for getting around. Maybe it would work in a track but I don't stay in those much. I probably won't carry a flat plate at all this year. Others may feel differently but so far I don't think I've run into anyone who just loves the flat plate.

For most situations, the medium flexor worked well. It never prevents kick and glide and didn't seem to cause issues on really low angle slopes regardless of snow conditions. I never found myself wishing I had the flat plate in.

There was no situation on the Gamme where I preferred the stiff flexor. In fact, the stiff flexor on the Gamme seemed to drive the ski away from straight. That could be because I only ever skied the Gamme with Alpina AlaskaXP boots on fairly stiff snow. The Alaska isn't torsionally very stiff and when I drop a knee with the stiff flexor, the tip of the rear ski tends to move away from my body when wearing them. This was true in FT and Objective as well but there was no benefit to wearing the Alaska with those skis and so I didn't.

I mainly skied the FT62 and Objective with an Alfa Free boot. For both of these skis I found I got significantly better control going downhill with the stiff flexor. However, depending on the profile I didn't always change them out. If I was doing rolling hills I just kept the medium flexor in. There was a bit less control than with the stiff flexor but it was better than stopping and changing. On more than one occasion I found myself foundering a bit (a bit more than normal anyway) going down only to realize I hadn't changed flexors. After stopping and swapping them out I almost always skied better. Changing them isn't hard but it is a pain and you have to be careful sometimes. There are places you don't want to drop a flexor as it can disappear into soft snow. I didn't carry extras last year but this year I might carry one. Either way, you need to come up with a system for changing the flexors. I found that keeping my flexors in one of those little black Asnes Xskin pouches was ideal, even if I had a skin in there. That way I only had to hold one at a time and didn't flounder around in my pockets. Oh, and the best way to get a flexor out is to use the little tab on another one to push in the button.

If there are bumps or moguls or anything like that, the stiff flexors do a much better job keeping you from falling forward. Of course in those situations I tend to split my skis or I always seem to wind up face down.

A lot of my skiing is along the base of canyons and canyons almost always lead up in one direction and down in the other. In this case the multi-flexor system is about as perfect as you might want. Put in the medium flexor going up. Slog for a few miles. Stop at the top and put in the hard flexor and ski back down. I found that it kicked well enough that in spots where the canyon leveled to keep things moving. In fact, though the medium flexor does MUCH better for kick and glide, I could still kick and glide with the stiff flexor. Depending on the terrain, I could definitely bias towards the hard flexor and still get around okay without having to change flexors as much.

I really liked the stiff flexor on groomed snowbike trails where they did a much better job than the medium with jump-turning. When jump-turning with the medium I found I tended to land more often with skis farther from parallel than with the hard flexor, and I do small jump turns a lot on groomed snow-bike trails.

By the end of the winter I was thinking about a variable stiffness flexor that could be switched between modes with a pole tip. I also think something between medium and hard would be useful. The hard flexor isn't a flexor at all. It just pins your toe similar to a 75mm. It doesn't really flex at all.

[CIMA]

By the end of the winter I was thinking about a variable stiffness flexor that could be switched between modes with a pole tip. I also think something between medium and hard would be useful. The hard flexor isn't a flexor at all. It just pins your toe similar to a 75mm. It doesn't really flex at all.

What an awesome idea! You should seriously think about patenting that system.

When I'm on backcountry tours in the heart of winter, it would be fantastic to switch between a flat and standard flexor without the hassle of releasing the bindings. This would make snow-plowing a breeze!

[JohnSKepler]

By the end of the winter I was thinking about a variable stiffness flexor that could be switched between modes with a pole tip. I also think something between medium and hard would be useful. The hard flexor isn't a flexor at all. It just pins your toe similar to a 75mm. It doesn't really flex at all.

What an awesome idea! You should seriously think about patenting that system.

When I'm on backcountry tours in the heart of winter, it would be fantastic to switch between a flat and standard flexor without the hassle of releasing the bindings. This would make snow-plowing a breeze!

What would people pay for a variable stiffness flexor that could be easily adjusted on the fly? It would weigh a little more than the current system but eliminate field changes. Right now flexor-pairs run about $10. That's pretty cheap. I doubt a small-lot run, variable stiffness flexor could be sold for less than... $50 for a pair, without losing money on each one. I'm thinking a spring, damper, and dial system.

I also thought about a dual-mode flexor, medium and lock-out: basically you'd have medium and hard with the flip of a lever or something. That could probably be made in a small-lot run for around $35 for a pair. Maybe less for an optimized design.

If anyone out there is willing to do some beta testing, I might put a set together...

I would be tough to patent since you'd be infringing on Rottefella's (vigorusly-defended) design, which I totally support. There are legal ways around that if it is for "hobbiest" purposes that include providing plans that may include additive manufacturing. I'm on it!

[telerat]

Regarding mode shift; I have earlier suggested a binding with a fixed block that can be moved so we either get free pivot uphill mode or good control downhill mode, i.e. like switching between the free pivot plate and hard flexor. It would be like mode switch on BD Ascent or Switchback, but without the adjustability of the springs. I think such a binding would fit well on skis like Åsnes Falketind/Rabb, Fischer S-Bound 98 and similar for tours going mostly up and then down.

I have also wanted a new flexor that is harder than the normal and much softer than the hard for skiing terrain that varies with both ups and steeper downs. The normal flex works very well on flatter terrain.

[Capercaillie]

Some interesting ideas. The nice thing is that these are all possible with Xplore (if you think of it as a standard and not just Rottefella's current binding design), and not NNNBC.

I think Xplore flexors would have a lot less complaints if the attachment system was not designed like a TV remote battery cover. Fortunately this can be fixed in future binding designs.

What I would like to see is a dual-density flexor made of two very different hardness layers of elastomer glued together. This is something not possible with NNNBC, but I think would work really well with Xplore. The soft layer would give a low-resistance ROM until it bottoms out and the hard layer engages. Same idea as dual-rate suspension springs (existing flexors already have a non-linear response, it probably most closely resembles exponential and is not tunable). Should be possible to DIY this by starting with the flat plates.

Rottefella can also take their highly regarded Super Telemark hardwires, put a heel ledge on the Xplore soles, and make a hardwire Xplore (they have to call it Xplore Xtreme).