WHY THE TELEMARK?

The Challenge of Downhill Skiing on Xcountry Skis

Went to my daughter’s badminton tournament this morning- they were two hours behind schedule…So- I spent two hours sitting on a severely uncomfortable bleacher- day dreaming about skiing.

I ended up browsing a “telemark” forum on my phone, and discovered a thread entitled “Drop knee advantages”.  The original post asked a meaningful question that is seldom asked- and even more rarely effectively answered: how and why is the telemark useful?  And by extension: if the telemark is so difficult to learn, why would you use it instead of alpine turns?

The responses on the forum, from skiers, started with things such as “because it is more fun”; and ended in an endless series of bantering posts.  Although many responses did give good excellent examples of where and how the telemark turn is effective; no one seemed to manage to answer this question of why- at least in a fundamental sense.

The more I think about it- this is a very meaningful question.  There is of course much talk, discussion, teaching, and learning (and trial and error) about how and where to telemark- and especially what to telemark with.  There is rarely much discussion on why to telemark.  The “why” seems an important question.  Especially when it comes to downhill skiing- Alpine ski technology is much more powerful than Nordic.  If us Nordic-downhill (i.e. “telemark”) skiers want the ski manufacturers to keep advancing and developing Nordic-downhill technology and equipment, perhaps we need to take some time to attract new skiers to downhill skiing on Nordic equipment.  If there is not a large enough consumer base, eventually the manufacturers will stop producing it.  And rather than assuming that the question of “why the telemark” is purely either philosophical, or simply matter of personal preference- perhaps we should take it as serious question.  Perhaps effectively answering the question of “why”, is a key to the relevance and future of Nordic-downhill technology.  After all if the telemark skier cannot reasonably answer the question “why”- why should we expect other skiers to consider downhill skiing on Nordic equipment?

I here will attempt to give my answer to “why”, and hopefully stimulate some focused responses and discussion.

Perhaps the best place for me to start is where I personally see the limitations of the telemark turn.   Having done much big-mountain skiing on both alpine touring (AT) and telemark equipment; I must say that I personally believe that regardless of skier skill- there is a limit to the downhill performance of a telemark turn.  There are things I have seen skiers do on extreme terrain and snow, which I believe, can only be done with a locked heel, a rigid boot, and alpine techniques.

My next perspective is that the telemark turn is a downhill technique that was born out of skiing downhill, on essentially xcountry-Nordic equipment.

The origins of Nordic ski technology/technique are truly ancient.  The ancient pioneering of Nordic ski technology is purely utilitarian: travel, hunt, trap, herd…  Snowshoe technology is even older than Nordic skiing.  But the fundamental purpose is still the same- travelling on snow.  Nordic skiing takes the efficiency of walking on snow even further than snowshoes, because of the ability to stride and glide.  The fundamental essence of Nordic ski technology is still what it was thousands of years ago:  attaching the ball of your foot to a ski, so that you can efficiently stride and glide your way around on the snow.  Nordic ski technology has been used to travel long distances, hunt, trap, and even herd livestock. 

Some of the ancient Nordic ski technologies only remain amongst Aboriginal peoples of Northern Eurasia.  For example; Sami hunters used two completely different skis to hunt with a spear or bow- one very long gliding ski, and a second short, traction ski, with a permanent skin.  The hunter would glide on one leg, while using the traction ski to “kick”- there was no use of ski poles in this setup.  This frees up both hands to allow active use of a weapon such as a spear or bow- while skiing!

It seems clear that ancient Nordic ski technology at some point ran into mountainous terrain.  The need to travel through, and on, mountainous terrain caused the evolution of Nordic-downhill skiing techniques. 

Alpine ski technology is not ancient.  It was developed in the Alps (about a hundred years ago) for a different purpose than Nordic skiing.  Alpine ski technology was not developed to travel on snow.  Alpine skiing was developed to powerfully and efficiently ski down mountains.  Even “Alpine Touring” (AT) equipment is primarily designed to climb up mountains- in order to ski back down them.  Alpine skiing was developed for recreation and high-performance sport.  Nordic skiing was developed to travel and get work done.

The term “telemark turn” comes from the mountainous region of Norway with the same name.  Legendary skiers, such as Sondre Norheim (from Telemark, Norway), pioneered modern Nordic-downhill technology and technique.  The fact that Fennoscandians associate mountain-Nordic skiing technique with Norway is no accident- western Norway is extremely mountainous.  But, Nordic downhill skiing techniques (e.g. the telemark turn) were developed at a time in history when skiers were still primarily using skis to travel, and just “get shit done”.  Downhill skiing on Nordic ski tech was not invented in Telemark Norway.  Humans have been using Nordic ski technology to travel in the mountains for thousands of years- they still are.

So- my basic argument is based on the fact that the telemark turn has its origins in downhill skiing on Nordic skis.  In other words- the “telemark” was developed to turn xcountry skis.

The advancement and development of both Nordic and Alpine skiing technology has been dominated by recreation and high-performance sport over the last century (Sondre Norheim himself was a world-class xcountry racer, downhill racer, and ski jumper).  This has led to such extremes as high-performance Nordic ski equipment that can only be effectively used on a perfectly groomed track; to big-mountain equipment that is designed to safely and powerfully ski down extreme slopes.  High-performance big-mountain, Nordic (i.e. “telemark”) equipment has become so rigid and powerful that it approaches what can be done on Alpine equipment.

But regardless of the extreme downhill skiing that can be done on modern telemark equipment- I stand by my first statement: it pales in comparison to the extreme downhill skiing that can be done on Alpine equipment.

Add to it this simple fact- no matter how much a master can make it look and sound easy- the telemark turn is damn hard to learn- especially on light, traditional Nordic ski technology.

So- this leads me back to my original question- why the telemark?

The purely utilitarian answer is no different than it was thousands of years ago: to travel long distances in mountainous terrain. 

Big-mountain telemark equipment along with Alpine equipment may make downhill skiing extremely efficient.  But- rigid, powerful big-mountain ski equipment is not efficient at traveling long distances.

Efficient long distance travel on snow is all about the Nordic stride (i.e. “diagonal stride”): the action of pushing down with one leg for traction, while lunging forward on the alternate leg in order to glide.  An efficient Nordic stride blows all other forms of manual-xcountry travel away.  An efficient Nordic stride requires some key elements:

• A Nordic binding: attached at the toe/ball of foot- allowing the full extension of the foot, when striding- with enough resistance to translate foot/boot flex into downward grip (i.e. “kick”)
•   Flexibility of the instep.  The foot/boot must be able to freely flex for efficient “kick”, stride and glide.

Big-mountain ski equipment is simply too rigid to enable efficient Nordic striding.  One cannot have it all. 

Here is another fundamental perspective that I have:  I believe that the original “telemark” turn was simply a modified Nordic stride.  Like the Nordic stride; the original telemark turn was initiated with the same weight shifted onto the trailing ski.  Unlike the Nordic stride, the leading ski was placed and forced into a carved turn, as the rear knee dropped, and weight was evenly distributed between both leading and trailing skis.  The diagonal stride becomes the telemark turn.

Alpine ski technology allows the skier to effectively steer skis.  This cannot be done on traditional Nordic equipment- except in the most ideal conditions- the boots and bindings are simply not rigid and powerful enough.  The original telemark technique allows a skier to stride through turns, on light, flexible equipment.

So from a purely utilitarian perspective: if you are long-distance touring, the telemark allows the skier to stride through downhill turns on light, flexible equipment, which enables efficient xcountry Nordic striding.   This is the essence of the “why” for me.  I am a long-distance tourer- even in mountainous terrain.  I personally need the telemark turn in order to effectively and consistently turn my long, glide-oriented skis, with light, flexible boots/bindings.

(I am also a serious geek for feeling in touch with ancient culture and tech.  Knowing that humans have been Nordic skiing for thousands of years just does it for me!)

On the other hand, if I was simply climbing mountains to aggressively ski back down them…I would be hard-pressed to argue that the telemark is the way to go- except for the fact that it does feel so damn good!  Like many have already said- perhaps “fun” is enough of a personal reason” why” to use the telemark.  But I am not so certain that fun is enough of a reason to convince skiers to use Nordic rather than Alpine tech to downhill ski…

Why do you use the telemark?  Why is it important?  Why do we need the telemark?

ANNUM vs. EPOCH

After several years of skiing with both the Madshus Epoch/Karhu XCD 10th Mtn, and the Madshus Annum/Karhu XCD Guide- I have come to a few conclusions.

In my experience the choice between these two skis fundamentally depends on skier weight.

These are both xcountry-telemark hybrid skis with a soft flex- designed for Nordic touring on relatively deep, soft snow.

In my opinion and experience, the Annum is basically a fatter version of the same basic design as the Epoch.

The Annum, being wider, offers more flotation in deep powder than the Epoch.  The Epoch being narrower, theoretically offers better xcountry glide. But- neither of the skis perform well on dense/hard snow- whether in xcountry or downhill application- they are too soft.

At my weight (185lbs) I get much better flotation out of the Annum.  So despite the extra width- I personally get better performance with the Annum than the Epoch- whether in a xcountry or downhill application.

If you weigh less than me- the Epoch should be a better choice....

I wish they made the Epoch longer than 195cm- then you would get as much flotation as the Annum, but with better glide.

REVIEW: MADSHUS ANNUM

Ultimate Deep Powder Xcountry Ski

I here have decided to offer my humble “review” of the famous, and now legendary (in its own time), Madshus Annum/Karhu XCD Guide (my newest pair are the 2013/2014 model year).

The Madshus Annum is the replacement for the Karhu XCD Guide (the two are essentially identical).  With a 109-78-95mm profile; the Annum/Guide is one of the fattest xcountry skis on the North American market (only the Fischer S-Bound 112 (if only slightly), and the Rossignol BC125, are fatter).  The “XCD” stands for “xcountry-downhill”.

The Annum/Guide is a hybrid xcountry-telemark ski- designed to offer a balance between off-track xcountry touring, and downhill-turning performance (i.e. XCD).  As far as truly dedicated single-cambered XCD skis; Fischer’s S-Bounds, Rossignol’s fattest BC skis (BC90, 110&125), and Alpina’s fattest backcountry skis (e.g. X-Terrain/Discover 110); have a somewhat similar design and intent to the Madshus/Karhu XCD line.  Most of the other skis mentioned are not available in as long a length as the Annum (195cm).

The Annum/Guide is an obvious choice for XCD (i.e. telemark) touring in deep snow, in mountainous terrain.  I also highly recommend the Annum/Guide as a backcountry-xcountry trekking/touring ski (i.e. classic kick & glide) in deep snow.  The Annum/Guide is typically overlooked as a straight forward xcountry ski.  In my experience, the Annum/Guide is the best deep powder, xcountry kick & glide ski available in North America.  Don’t let the width scare you off- if you regularly xcountry ski in deep, soft snow- consider the Annum!

Here is a brief summary of the Annum/Guide specs:

• 109-78-95mm profile
• lengths up to 195cm (wish you could get 'em longer!)
• Progressive sidecut, with a relatively straight tail
• Full-length metal edges
• Single-cambered (it has been described as having a “traditional” single camber)
• Relatively soft tips/tails
• Waxless base under foot (Karhu’s “Omnitrack”)

First of all- no matter what the intended use- the Annum/Guide is, in my opinion, first and foremost a ski designed for relatively deep powder snow.  

As a xcountry ski, the Annum/Guide is brutally inefficient on dense and/or hard snow.  In my experience, as a telemark ski- you need some pretty rugged boots-bindings to control this ski on dense and/or hard snow, in a downhill turn.  This ski is not as torsionally-rigid as an "all-mountain" alpine touring/telemark ski (e.g. Voile Vector).   In my experience, on hardpack, this ski feels weak and "noodly", when put on edge.

However, put this ski in the deep pow- and it becomes the ultimate XCD touring ski!  In deep, soft snow this ski tracks, strides, kicks and glides, smoothly and efficiently.  In deep, soft snow, you can stride/drive this ski through a sweet traditional telemark- even with relatively light Nordic boots (and even system (SNS/NNN) bindings).

I have 195cm Guides, and Annums, in both a 75mm-3-pin-cable setup, and a NNNBC Magnum setup, respectively.  Although the Guide/Annum is the least versatile xcountry ski in my “quiver” (i.e. only for the pow); it is my favorite ski- allowing me to fully enjoy XCD skiing in deep, soft snow.

This ski is most commonly used as a light telemark-touring ski (with 75mm tele bindings) - and for good reason.  As a light “mountain” telemark ski, the Annum does it all in deep pow: climbs, turns, and strides.  

In recent years, I have changed my perspective on the Annum/Guide…My current perspective of this ski is that it is first and foremost an off-trail xcountry touring ski- with some moderate downhill performance.

A bit of background here.  In the past, I have always assumed that something as fat as the Annum is really a telemark ski, and have reserved them for that use alone (with 75mm-3-pin-cable telemark bindings).  I have used the 195cm Guide with 3PC bindings, and T-4 boots as my go to “mountain” setup for skiing in areas that tend to have a lot of deep snow, and extreme terrain (e.g. Gaspe Mountains, Laurentians).  In recent years (I don’t  get out much- I have 4 young children!); I have only needed my “mountain” XCD gear a few times per season (heck- my wife and I haven’t even made it to QC for two seasons now (our youngest 2 children are under 3 years old)). 

My everyday backyard skiing in central New Brunswick (Stanley) offers endless 100s of kms of backcountry touring through fields, woods roads, trails; over gentle to moderate rolling terrain- with only the occasional steep climb and descent.  So- my everyday skiing has much more of a backcountry-xcountry tour, than a downhill climb/turn focus.  In this context- I am in love with NNNBC manual bindings and boots.  But, until very recently I had never considered using the Annum with NNNBC bindings as an off-trail xcountry ski.  In the past, I have assumed that the only best choice in a backcountry-xcountry ski is a long, relatively narrow, metal-edged, double-cambered ski.  However; I have never been impressed with the xcountry performance of double-cambered skis in deep snow.  

We get a lot of snowfall in central New Brunswick.  And; unlike the more coastal areas of the Maritimes- our snow survives winter warm spells (for example, I skied at least once a day last season (2013-2014) from late November until the second week of May!- and I am well on my way to the same this season!).  The typical snow pattern here starts with a huge dump of fresh, soft snow (sometimes as much as 50cm), which gradually condenses into dense, hard snow (caused by warm spells, wind, and the occasional ice storm); all leading up to the next fresh dump!

For a few years now my everyday choice in fresh snow has been a 205cm Madshus Eon/Karhu XCD GT (83-62-70mm) with NNNBC bindings.  I have always been very pleased with the Eon, especially when I manage to maintain my own backcountry "track."  I have never been thrilled with the Eon when I am breaking trail through deep snow (this happens to be my passion).

At the beginning of the 2013-2014 season, I bought a fresh pair of Annums and mated a NNNBC magnum binding to them.  The result?  Pure, thrilling, efficient, stride, kick, glide, and light, traditional telemark.  I am actually blown away to discover that the Annum is truly a classic off-trail xcountry ski- in disguise as a tele ski.  In deep snow, it has smooth and snappy kick and glide, breaks trail effortlessly, and tracks very well.

The NNNBC binding brings out this stride, kick and glide performance more completely.  The design of this ski is brilliant.  There is just enough progressive sidecut in this ski to be able to turn it when you need to.  But, it has quite a straight tail and tracks beautifully.

Although the Eon has always been marketed as being "more about the tour than the turn," I would argue that the same goes for the Annum; and that suits me just fine.

The performance of this ski is perhaps influenced by the binding/boot system.

75mm-3-pin Nordic/telemark bindings are without a doubt the most versatile and flexible setup- ranging from classic xcountry, to light telemark.

However; in my opinion, NNNBC binding/boot systems offer much more efficient classic xcountry performance (i.e. stride and glide) - allowing the complete extension of the Nordic stride.

For my everyday skiing- rolling terrain with only the occasional steep descent and climb- I much prefer the NNNBC system.  If my backyard skiing had much more vertical to it- I would probably be on 75mm-3-pin.

In the mountains (in deep snow), my touring setup is a 195cm Karhu XCD Guide with 3PC cable bindings and Scarpa T-4 boots.

My current setup for this ski, on gentle to moderate terrain setup (in deep snow) is a 195cm Annum with NNNBC-magnum bindings, and Alpina Alaska boots.  

As a xcountry ski; the only thing I could wish for is an even longer length…say 205 or even 210-215cm…Hear that Madshus?  We need a 200+cm Annum for backcountry-xcountry skiing in the pow!

The length you choose will have a fundamental effect on how this ski performs (as it does with all skis!).  In a long length (for your weight), this ski feels quite snappy in classic kick & glide xcountry skiing.  If you end up choosing a short length for easier downhill turns- you are going to lose the kick & glide performance this ski has to offer.

My advice is that if you wish a shorter Annum for downhill skiing, I would suggest considering a more downhill-oriented ski.

In conclusion- if you want to, or find yourself routinely xcountry skiing in deep pow- consider the Annum! 

REVIEW: MADSHUS EPOCH

The Jack of All Trades Mountain-Xcountry Ski

I here have decided to offer my humble “review” of the Madshus Epoch (my newest pair are the 2013/2014 model year).

The Madshus Epoch is the replacement for the Karhu XCD 10^th Mountain (the two are essentially identical).  With a 99-68-84mm profile; the Epoch is a relatively fat, single-cambered, waxless xcountry/light telemark touring ski.  The “XCD” stands for “xcountry-downhill”.

These skis are hybrid xcountry-telemark skis- designed to offer a balance between off-track xcountry touring, and downhill-turning performance.  As far as truly dedicated single-cambered XCD skis; Fischer’s S-Bounds, Rossignol’s fattest BC skis (BC90, 110&125), and Alpina’s fattest backcountry skis (e.g. X-Terrain/Discover 110); have a somewhat similar design and intent to the Madshus/Karhu XCD line.

The Epoch is an obvious choice for XCD (i.e. telemark) touring in variable snow, and variable terrain.  Its width gives it decent flotation in deep snow; the single-camber gives good climbing and turning performance; the progressive sidecut gives decent downhill turning performance; the moderately fat width gives a decent balance between flotation and xcountry glide.  The moderate width under foot allows for easier downhill control on hardpack snow- compared to much fatter XCD skis.  I also highly recommend the Epoch as a backcountry-xcountry trekking/touring ski (i.e. classic kick & glide) in deep snow.  Although there are wider xcountry skis available; the Epoch is still a powder ski offering decent flotation- especially in the longer lengths.  My perspective is that the Epoch is "a jack of all trades" XCD  touring ski.

Here is a brief summary of the Epoch specs:

• 99-68-84mm profile
• lengths to 195cm
• Progressive sidecut, with a relatively straight tail
• Full-length metal edges
• Single-cambered (it has been described as having a “traditional” single camber)
• Relatively soft tips/tails
• Waxless base under foot (Karhu’s “Omnitrack”)

The Epoch may not be super "fat", but it is still a powder xcountry ski with single camber, and lacking the traditional track groove of a xcountry touring ski .  As a xcountry ski, the Epoch is relatively inefficient on dense and/or hard snow.  But unlike even wider options (e.g. Madshus Annum; Fischer S-Bound 112; Rossignol BC125); the Epoch offers more acceptable performance on hard/dense snow, and it tours more efficiently.  In my experience, as a telemark ski- you need fairly rugged boots-bindings to control this ski on dense and/or hard snow, in a downhill turn.  However, put this ski on softer snow- you can stride/drive this ski through a sweet telemark- even with relatively light Nordic boots (and even system (SNS/NNN) bindings).

This ski is most commonly used as a light telemark-touring ski (with 75mm tele bindings) - and for good reason.  As a light “mountain” telemark ski, the Epoch is highly versatile; offering a good balance between downhill turning and kick and glide touring; on variable terrain and snow.  

Perhaps the best way to review this ski is by comparing it to its two siblings: the Madshus Eon (Karhu XCD GT) and the Madshus Annum (Karhu XCD Guide).  The Epoch sits in the middle, as far as width.  My perspective is that the Epoch is a "jack of all trades", but perhaps a master of none- but perhaps that is what may make it the best backcountry-xcountry mountain touring ski available.

First of all, from my perspective, all three of these Madshus XCD skis are designed to be first and foremost off-trail, classic kick and glide xcountry skis- with moderate downhill performance.  Yes, they do have a progressive sidecut- they will turn on the downhill.  However, these skis have quite a straight tail, and track very efficiently during the kick and glide (this sacrifices some turning efficiency).  The Eon is marketed as being "more about the tour, than the turn".  My perspective is that this is equally true for the Epoch, and the Annum.

The Epoch sits in the middle between the Eon and the Annum. The Eon is the slimmest, tracks the straightest, and has the best glide.  The Annum is the fattest, offers the best flotation, and excels when breaking trail through deep powder.  The Epoch, I assume, is supposed to split the difference, and be good at both.  Although this is an excellent ski; I find that it doesn't excel at either glide, or flotation.  When the snow base is dense and hard, and you can really cruise- the Eon will perform better than the Epoch.  When the snow is deep and soft- the Annum will offer better flotation, and break trail more efficiently than the Epoch.  In short; I currently have the Eon, the Epoch, and the Annum to choose from.  I regularly find myself choosing either the Eon or the Annum, and leaving the Epoch in the shed.

On the other hand, if you want one ski for mountain XCD touring, in variable terrain and snow- this ski may be the best choice.  As a XCD touring ski- the Epoch is reasonably good at everything.  However, in my opinion, it is perhaps not the best at anything.

The performance of this ski is influenced by the binding/boot system.  75mm-3-pin nordic/telemark bindings are without a doubt the most versatile and flexible setup- ranging from classic xcountry, to light telemark.  

However; NNNBC binding/boot systems offering much more efficient classic xcountry performance (i.e. stride and glide), by allowing the complete extension of the Nordic stride.

For my everyday skiing- rolling terrain with only the occasional steep descent and climb- I much prefer the NNNBC system.  If my backyard skiing had much more vertical to it- I would probably be on 75mm.

The length you choose will have a fundamental effect on how this ski performs (as it does with all skis!).  In a long length (for your weight), this ski feels quite snappy in classic kick & glide xcountry skiing.  If you end up choosing a short length for easier downhill turns- you are going to lose the kick & glide performance this ski has to offer.


My advice is that if you wish a shorter Epoch for downhill skiing, I would suggest considering a ski with more of a downhill focus.

In conclusion- if you want a do-it-all XCD touring ski- consider the Epoch! 

REVIEW: MADSHUS EON- WAXLESS

The Ever-So-Popular Madshus Eon

What follows is my review of the Madshus Eon/Karhu XCD GT.  My current pair of Eons is a 205cm, with a waxless base.  I would like a waxable Eon as well!

The Madshus Eon is the replacement for the last generation Karhu XCD GT (the two are essentially identical).  With an 83-62-70mm profile; the Eon is a mid-width 1.5-cambered xcountry ski.  The “XCD” stands for “xcountry-downhill”.  These skis are hybrid xcountry-telemark skis- designed to offer a balance between off-track xcountry touring, and downhill-turning performance.  To my knowledge, in the North American market, there are few hybrid xcountry-telemark skis available in a comparable profile.  The Fischer S-Bound 78 & 88, the Alpina Discovery 90, and the Rossignol BC90, are all similar in design and intent- but you cannot get them in as long a length as the Eon.  The Fischer E109 has a similar profile to the Eon, but the the E109 is stiffer and has more of a double camber- more of a true xcountry ski than the Eon.

The Eon is an ideal backcountry XCD ski in up to about 12 inches of powder.  In my experience, once the pow get deeper than a foot- the Eon does not offer as much flotation as I would like.  Increasingly people are using the Eon as a recreational off-trail xcountry ski.  The Eon is extremely forgiving- with 1.5-camber under foot, and relatively soft tips/tails- it does not require as much skill and effort as a more traditional double-cambered backcountry-xcountry ski.

Here is a brief summary of the Eon specs:

• 83-62-70mm profile
• length to 205cm
• Progressive sidecut, with a relatively straight tail
• Full-length metal edges
• 1.5-cambered
• Relatively soft tips/tails (from a classic xcountry ski perspective)
• Waxless base under foot (Karhu’s “Omnitrack”); or a waxable base
• Traditional xcountry track groove

The Eon comes in lengths up to 205cm; and in waxless or waxable bases.

In my experience, the Eon seems to shine in two relatively specific conditions:

1. Telemark skiing on a relatively hard base
2. Xcountry skiing on up to a foot of powder (over a hard base)

The Eon is relatively “narrow” (compared to contemporary hybrid XCD skis), and fairly torsionally rigid- I have been able to stride through some effective telemark turns on this ski- even with relatively light-duty boots.  As a xcountry ski I find the Eon as a merely adequate performer.  (I do understand why so many people love this ski.)  I find myself yearning for more grip (waxable base), and more snap (double camber).  (I have briefly tested the current Fischer E109 (82-60-70mm), a trad double-cambered backcountry-xcountry ski.  In my opinion, the E109 would outperform the Eon as xcountry ski- the Eon would be easier to turn).  As far as traction; the Karhu “Omnitrack” waxless design offers excellent performance relative to other waxless designs.  The grip is lacking on very cold and hard/icy snow (this is a universal problem with all waxless traction )- this is where grip wax will outperform the waxless.  The Eon waxless traction pattern does not offer aggressive climbing traction- in my opinion it is designed more for classic kick & glide xcountry skiing.  You will definitely want climbing skins, if you plan on climbing any steep slopes. 

No matter what, as a xcountry ski; the Eon is not a great performer in deep, soft snow.  I have 205cm Eons (waxless) in a NNNBC Magnum setup, with Alpina Alaska boots.  The Eon is a highly versatile backcountry-xcountry ski.  However; when the snow is deep and soft- I leave it in the shed!  I have always been very pleased with the Eon, especially when I manage to maintain my own backcountry "track."  I have never been thrilled with the Eon when I am breaking trail- especially through deep snow.

As a primarily touring-focused XCD ski- I am using the Eon with an NNNBC-Magnum binding.  In my experience, NNNBC binding/boot systems offer much more efficient classic xcountry performance (i.e. stride and glide) than 75mm- allowing the complete extension of the Nordic stride.

For my everyday skiing- rolling terrain with only the occasional steep descent and climb- I much prefer the NNNBC system.  If my backyard skiing had much more vertical to it- I would probably be on 75mm.

Contrary to the marketing, I would recommend choosing a long length.  If you want them short for telemark turns; I would recommend considering a more downhill-orientated ski.

Camber/flex.  The Eon has relatively soft tips/tails with relatively smooth, long, camber.  The soft tips and tails, make the Eon very "forgiving" when covering variable terrain and snow conditions- that are often found in the backcountry.  It is described as having "camber-and-a-half"- offering a small, shallow wax/traction pocket.   The presence and effectiveness of this wax pocket utterly depends on the length of ski you choose.  For example, at my weight (185lbs), a 205cm Eon has a small wax pocket- at 195cm it does not.   In my opinion, if you end up choosing a short Eon for "easy-turns"- you will lose the touring efficiency this ski has to offer.

I would also recommend considering the waxable base (even though I have not tested it).  I have been a xcountry skier for more than 30 years, and in my experience, a waxable Eon would outperform the waxless (as a xcountry ski).  That being said- I will always want a waxless ski or two in my "quiver".  In the early winter and late spring, snow conditions are often poor and unpredictable- either Klister or a waxless base are a must.  Klister will always outperform the waxless base in terms of grip and glide- Kilster is fine for the clean,  groomed track.  However- I ski through the woods.  Getting forest debris (e.g. twigs, lichen) stuck to your Klister- is not fun!  If you ski in the woods- I highly recommend having at least one waxless ski for when the snow is littered with forest debris.

In conclusion- the Eon is a well-designed and very capable and versatile mid-width backcountry-xcountry ski.  It is easy to like- and easy to handle.  Combine that with a very reasonable price- its popularity is well deserved. 

REVIEW: ROTTEFELLA NNN-BC MAGNUM

Ultimate Off-Trail Backcountry-Xcountry Binding

I suppose that I should perhaps consider not giving my review of the NNNBC binding.  Having done a little leisurely reading- it appears that NNNBC versus 3 pin-75mm NN can spark much heated debate.

There is no question that the 75mm binding is more versatile- ranging from classic xcountry to big mountain telemark.   To date- I have continued to use 3pin 75mm telemark bindings for xcountry-telemark skiing in more mountainous terrain. 

Regardless of what people claim NNNBC can or cannot do; I offer this: NNNBC is a well designed off-trail, backcountry-xcountry binding.  For many of us- that spend most of our time on gentle to moderate terrain- NNNBC is all we need.

The NNNBC binding is perfect for what it is designed to do: stable, light, off-trail backcountry-xcountry skiing.

The SNS X-ADV bindings are very good as well.  Though narrower than the NNNBC- the SNS X-ADV has a longer ridge on the base plate (there is also a debate over which of these designs offers the best downhill control).  The biggest issue I have with the SNS X-ADV is the severe lack of boot options.  I have yet to find an SNS X-ADV boot that fit me properly.

There are essentially 3 types of NNNBC bindings:

1. NNNBC-auto: not designed for deep snow- will ice up in deep snow conditions.
2. NNNBC-manual: the same dimensions as the “auto”, but with a manual lever to open and close the binding.
3. NNNBC-magnum: Heavy-duty version of the manual- wider base plate; heavier binding lever.

Check out the Rottefella website for more specs: http://www.rottefella.com/en/Products/?showProductsUnder=58

I have been skiing on NNNBC bindings for more than 10 years (exclusively 3pin 75mm before).  I have tried all three types.  In my experience, the NNNBC-magnum offers the best backcountry performance.

This review is primarily about the NNNBC-magnum binding.  On an everyday basis; I am currently using this binding mounted on Madshus Eon, and Annum skis; with Alpina Alaska boots.

When I say "xcountry" I specifically mean classic kick (stride) and glide skiing.  From my experience; the NNNBC-Magnum is the best off-trail kick and glide binding available- stable and efficient.  It is perhaps the best simply because it also widely available- with a huge selection of boots to match it.

Performance.  From my experience the NNNBC system is much more efficient at classic kick (stride) and glide than a 75mm binding.  The fundamental concept/technique to efficient classic xcountry skiing is the "diagonal stride".  Efficient classic xcountry skiing is about striding (i.e. lunging) - it is not really a "kick" that produces your forward momentum and gliding.  The "kick" is really the product of pushing downwards in order to generate enough grip to lunge/stride, and glide, forwards on the alternate ski.  Unlike 75mm bindings- the system bindings (e.g. NNN, SNS) pivot perfectly like a hinge at the toe; allowing complete extension of your foot as you stride and glide.  They are a traditional Nordic binding, with resistance (produced by a rubber bumper) designed to transfer foot-flex into downward grip or "kick".  Once you have experienced this freedom of movement through the stride and glide- it is hard to go back to 75mm for xcountry skiing!  One of the potential limitations of NNNBC is the lack of a heel lift (climbing wire) option for steep climbing with skins.  And of course, NNNBC does not extend it's power into the realm of big-mountain telemark.  For example, there is no heel cable option, like there is with a 3-pin-75mm-NN binding.

Durability.  Despite much anxiety about the potential mechanical failings of NNNBC- I have yet to have any significant breakdowns with NNNBC bindings.  That being said- there are obviously plastic parts involved which must eventually deteriorate.

Now the controversial part: telemark technique with a system (NNN, SNS) binding…

Claiming that the NNNBC binding can or cannot be used as a telemark binding is more than a matter of opinion- I have learned that it is also a matter of technique.

I am afraid that I have to say that I have become impressed with the telemark that I can do on a NNNBC binding. 

A little background.  I learned to make a telemark turn on 3-pin-cable bindings, with rigid plastic Nordic boots.  Due to the strength of the binding/boot (and some of my past alpine skiing); the telemark technique I developed was to steer my way into a telemark.  In my experience, steering a ski into a telemark cannot be effectively and consistently done with the system bindings (except perhaps on firm, consolidated snow) - the bindings and the boots are rarely rigid enough.

When I first began attempting the telemark on NNNBC bindings (with relatively soft composite boots), I was dismayed, discovering that I could only pull it off in a few conditions.  Even worse- I could not effectively steer my fat powder xcountry skis at all on NNNBC!

I tend to be a tenacious and somewhat stubborn person.  I decided that it could be done- I just needed to work at it.

I eventually had a bit of a revelation when re-reading Steve Barnett’s legendary Cross-Country Downhill (1978).  Here is the passage that unlocked something for me:

“The most common failure of aspiring telemarkers is to try starting the turn by reluctantly sliding one ski forward and then attempting to force it, weighted, into the turning position…What you want to do is move the front ski, unweighted (sometimes even lifted off the snow), into position and then weight the ski aggressively...”

Barnett’s descriptions of telemark technique with light xcountry gear are fundamentally based on using an angled xcountry diagonal stride to initiate the telemark.  In Barnett’s words, “Initiate the turn by stepping forward with one ski and placing it so that it crosses in front of the other ski…”  This technique unlocked the telemark for me on a light NNNBC setup.  In my opinion, this is a xcountry striding technique, rather than an alpine steering technique.

Advancements in ski, binding, and boot technologies have allowed the development of a wide range of styles and approaches to the telemark turn.  The NNNBC binding can be used to make a telemark turn- but rarely with the same technique that can be used with heavier/stronger bindings and boots. 

Barnett offers some advice: “The best preparation for a good telemark technique is a good diagonal stride.  The diagonal stride’s decisive but relaxed motion, strong forward drive, positive weight shift, balance needed for smoothness, and continuous rhythm all directly apply to telemark skiing.  A stride has to become a telemark when needed or vice versa.”

So I offer this at least; whether you wish to use the NNNBC as a light telemark binding or not- spending a significant amount of time xcountry striding on a NNNBC setup may add more balance and variability to your telemark technique in general.  I know that it has to mine!

REVIEW: ALPINA ALASKA NNN-BC

Heavy-Duty Backcountry-XCountry Boot

The Alpina Alaska NNNBC is the best NNNBC Nordic boot I have tried.  I have well over 4000kms of backcountry touring on my current pair- without any significant problems.  Pros include: comfort, durability, warmth, and performance.  The only con I have had is that the stock insoles are very poor.

My everyday skiing is off-trail xcountry through rolling terrain (with the occasional steep climb and decent).  Although I appreciate 75mm telemark bindings when I truly need them; I find it agonizingly inefficient compared to NNNBC for most of the skiing I do.  If there was more vertical in my backyard- I would probably be on 75mm-3 pin boots/bindings.  I have always been convinced that 75mm-3 pin bindings offered much greater downhill control than NNNBC.  I have become more and more impressed with what I can do on NNNBC.

In recent years, I have struggled to find the perfect NNNBC boot.  I have tried the Rossi BC line; like them; but not enough support.  I used the Fischer BCX6 for two seasons; love the performance; but they hurt my feet.- the Fischer’s' flex point squeezes my toes and metatarsus (apparently this has been fixed in the newer model).  So far; the Alpina Alaska is the best NNNBC boot I have tried: incredible comfort; impressive support; excellent stability; excellent stride and glide.

I am currently using this boot with NNNBC-Magnum bindings; Madshus Eon, and Annum skis.

After more than 4000kms of backcountry touring, the comfort and support continue to impress me.  As far as performance; these boots excel at what hey are designed to be: a heavy-duty, off-trail, stride and glide xcountry boot. They stride and glide beautifully.

These are very high quality boots- made in the Alpina boot factory in Slovenia.

Touring performance.  In my opinion; these boots are designed first and foremost for striding- not steering.  (For comparison- I think of these boots as more like a long-distance backpacking/hiking boot; than a mountaineering boot.)  These boots are primarily designed to offer support, stability and flexibility when kick and glide-touring in the backcountry.  They have a moderately-stiff sole flex (similar to a heavy-duty hiking/backpacking boot).  They are relatively torsionally-rigid from the ankle down- to offer ankle support and stability in variable terrain and snow conditions.  However; they are not rigid from the ankle up; and are relatively flexible through the instep and above the ankle.  This is designed to offer striding performance for classic kick & glide xcountry skiing.  In my opinion, they do not offer as much above-the-ankle support as some other light backcountry Nordic boots.  But, in my experience, you cannot gain above-ankle rigidness, support, and leverage; without losing flexibility through the instep.

Downhill performance.  I have found that I can turn a wide range of skis with these boots- depending on the snow conditions.  In powder snow, I can stride through a telemark turn- even on the Madshus Annum (109-78-95mm).  But on hardpack, ice, and/or a groomed surface, I need to be on a narrower ski with these boots (one might ask why anyone would ski on hard snow/ice with a powder ski in the first place- but these things do happen!)  By comparison; with the Eon (83-62-70mm) I can hold a carving turn with this boot on hardpack.  But- due to a lack of above-ankle support and leverage- this boot is not strong enough to steer skis in alpine-style downhill turns.  I do find that these boots have enough stability and support to stride through a traditional telemark turn.

Regardless; this boot is perfect for my everyday skiing: off-trail, backcountry, kick and glide, xcountry. And for that; the NNNBC binding is a perfect mate. When the snow conditions are too harsh; I simply am a bit more strategic with my descents.

Durability.  Overall, durability is impressive.  The standard insoles are inadequate; they have little support, and they gradually slide back as you ski (I replaced them).  The lace system is excellent; however the cleats are hard on the laces.  The cleats, coupled with no lace cover; cause the laces to wear.  I would definitely recommend bringing an extra set of laces if you were headed out for a multi-day trip.

Care.  These are leather boots; I recommend treating the leather- thoroughly.  I am using Zamberlan Hydrobloc (a similar water-based product should be just  as good).  Make sure you use a product that does not affect the waterproof-breathable liner.  I thoroughly wet the leather before applying the Hydrobloc- for complete saturation (about twice per season).  I treat the flex points every time I take them off, in order to prevent the leather from eventually cracking.

Out of the box these boots are more orange than red.  Once you treat the leather- they will turn red.

Fit.  These boots have relatively narrow heels, with memory foam supporting the ankle and shank of your calf.  I have a small volume foot.  I have relatively narrow heels, with a comparatively wide ball of foot /metatarsus.  The footbed of these boots fit me perfectly- but I find them to be large volume for their width.  I made up some of that volume with a high-volume insole.  Through a process of boot treatment, and diligent training of the leather tongue- I now have a perfect fit.  I had to train the thick leather tongue to slide under the sides of the boot.  I have read reports of these boots being too small for people- I have a thought that this may be more of a problem with width- rather than boot volume.  I would describe these boots as being high-volume, with only narrow to moderate width.   I have managed to train the leather to dial in a perfect custom fit.  These boots are incredibly comfortable and very supportive.

Warmth and waterproofness.  These boots are well-insulated- they are very warm.  I have done full-day backcountry tours in temperatures as low as -30C, with only a thin wool sock.  The entire interior of the boot is encased in an effective waterproof-breathable  liner ("Alpitex").  I have found the "Alpitex" to be every bit as effective as GTX.  The combined system of treated leather, waterproof-breathable liner, and breathable insulation, is an ideal backcountry touring combination.  These boots stay warm and dry- and they actually breathe.   This not only keeps your feet warm on tour- but they dry out more efficiently.  I have tried many composite and  plastic touring boots-unless the liner is removable- it can take days for them to dry out.

These are ultimate backcountry-xcountry boots- made for the backcountry strider!

(As an aside- Alpina makes a heavy-duty backpacking/mountaineering boot with the same construction: the “LHOSTE”.  I want a pair!)

INTRODUCTION

This blog is based on my experience as a Nordic skier.  In particular, this blog will focus on backcountry Nordic skiing.  This blog is not intended to be a journal, or log, of my skiing; as much as it is to present my thoughts and experiences.

Why “hemiboreal” skiing?  The term hemiboreal describes a climate that is at the meeting of the northern limits of the temperate zone; and the southern limits of the boreal zone- a temperate-boreal transitional climate.  A hemiboreal forest is forest that is a mix of both northern temperate, and boreal forest.  I live and backcountry ski in rural, central New Brunswick, Canada.  The climate in New Brunswick is most definitely hemiboreal; and the forests that I work, hike and ski in every day are a spectacular mix of northern temperate and boreal species.

I am a passionate outdoor enthusiast.  Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to experience and enjoy regular outdoor experiences ranging from paddling, sailing, and snorkeling; to hiking and backpacking; to wilderness camping; to xcountry and alpine skiing on piste; to backcountry skiing.  Being on skis in the wilderness, on fresh snow- is just about my favourite thing to do!

In general, I love to be surrounded by Nature.  In particular, I love to be on a tour or trek through forests and/or mountains.  I have explored the forests and mountains of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, New England and southwestern Mexico.

The posts in this blog will reflect my particular preferences in skiing.  Although I have a passion for skiing in the mountains; I am first and foremost interested in backcountry touring.  I do love to ski downhill- but my focus is primarily on touring performance.  This is why I greatly prefer Nordic ski equipment over Alpine.

As a starting point- free-heel Nordic ski equipment offers much greater touring performance than Alpine touring (AT) equipment.  Taking that further; my preference is for a more traditional backcountry-xcountry setup.  This means light boots and bindings, and long, touring-oriented skis. 

My love of skiing began early- I have been skiing for more than 30 years.

I was born in Montreal, Quebec, to newly-immigrant parents.  Neither of my parents came from a skiing background (my mother is from Ireland; my father is from Wales).  In fact; my parents had no real experience with snow before they came to Canada.  However; my parents were quickly influenced by the Quebecois passion for winter- they began to xcountry ski.  As a family (sister included) we xcountry skied on track; and backcountry-xcountry skied in the Laurentians, the Eastern Townships, the Green Mountains, and the Adirondacks.

When I was 9 years old we moved to coastal, Saint John New Brunswick- not exactly a skiers paradise!  Saint John has a cool-cold maritime climate- with intense winters filled with heavy snowfalls, ice and rain storms; and both arctic cold snaps, and mid-winter thaws.  The winter snow conditions are highly variable, and often terrible for backcountry skiing.  I vividly remember racing home after school in order to take advantage of a few hours of fresh, soft snow!  We lived within easy-walking distance of Rockwood Park- so getting out in the woods was never difficult.

As a teenager, my family took seasonal trips to Alpine ski resorts in Maine and New Hampshire; where I began to develop some Alpine skiing skills.

I lived and worked in BC during the late 1990s, where I was first exposed to mountain backcountry touring, and had the opportunity to tour in both heavy telemark equipment, and AT equipment.  Although I greatly appreciate the downhill performance of AT- the greater touring efficiency of Nordic equipment was obvious.

I currently live in rural, central New Brunswick.  My family lives on a farm-woodlot that backs onto endless 100s of kilometres of forests.  I can ski right from my doorstep, and routinely tour through fields, forests, glades, and stream/river valleys.  The forests here have a long history of logging.  There are endless old forest trails and roads through the forest that allow efficient long distance touring.  To date; I have not been grooming xcountry track- I am typically skiing on ungroomed snow- breaking our own track.  The terrain here is rolling hills- gentle to moderate with only the occasional steep climb and descent.  There is some beautiful steep terrain in the Glen- I regularly take in some excellent downhill runs through fields and hardwood glades.  During the ski season I ski most every day (at times with a headlamp); I manage to get longer tours in on the weekend.  I currently ski about 1500kms per season.

My wife and I have done many backcountry ski tours in the mountains of Quebec and the Gaspe.  With our very young family we have not managed a trip to Quebec in a few years.  We plan on continuing our ski trips in the future!

I am at heart, first and foremost a xcountry skier.  My particular interest and passion is backcountry touring/trekking on skis.  My particular obsession is xcountry touring efficiency.  My gear interests are focused on relatively light, flexible boots and long skis.  However I particularly love to tour in mountainous terrain.  In order to ski down mountains- one must be able to make downhill turns.  In order to make downhill turns on traditional, light Nordic gear- one must learn the telemark turn.