Rossignol BC X11 v. Fischer BCX 675

I’ve discussed the conundrum that is nordic backcountry ski boots before, and no doubt will again. I’ll reprise my wish list for such a boot at the end, but given that it does not yet exist, comparing these two will have to suffice. Refer to my thoughts and pictures of the Fischer boot in this post for comparison.

A good nordic BC boot should stride very well, have enough support to (survival) turn and edge 70mm waisted skis in most all conditions, and be able to hike for miles in varied terrain with no blisters and modest efficiency.  It should be warm, waterproof, absorb minimal water when soaked, and dry fast.  It should also be light.

The balance between hiking/striding and turning/stopping will be a continually negotiated problem for as long as skiing is skiing.  There will be better or worse solutions for various skis and skiers, but few inherently wrong answers.  The rest of the qualifications listed above can already be answered by existing technology, and thus both boots failures to fit these criteria is merely a subject for excoriation.  I realize most users are probably taking these on day trips, but that is still not a good excuse for makers to not have their shit in order.

The 675s were 2 lb 7 oz a foot in size 45.  The X11s are 2 lb 12 oz a foot in size 45, which is totally ridiculous.  Boots in this category, especially those with the less beefy performance of the X11s, should be sub 2 lb a foot.  Putting fit issues aside (read about my irreconcilable differences with the 675s here), the 675s are a substantially beefier boot.  The sole is stiffer and much more resistant to twisting flex, and the upper is both taller and more supportive.  Compare the photo at left, of the X11, with this photo of the the 675.  The former is soft and easy flexing all the way down to the stitching below the R, allowing the plastic cuff to pivot and the whole thing to move freely.  The 675 has fiberglassish reinforcement in the upper heel (white material), and thick pleather all around the ankle.  The cuff of the 675 is less substantial than that on the X11, and it lacks the ratcheting buckles, but the stiffness in the soft material of the 675 means it strides worse and controls skis much better than the X11.

Different users will prefer one over the other.  I like the enhanced striding on the X11, though I didn’t find the sole stiffness of the 675 problematic for hiking.  I’d prefer the X11 was more like the 675 in this respect.  Softer uppers can be compensated for, to a certain extent, by strong legs, but only if the sole is decently stiff.  Adding to my displeasure, most of the weight in the X11 seems to live in the sole, without adding the benefit that it should.  Boo.

The ratcheting upper buckle on the X11 is no better than the velcro strap on the 675, and I’d probably prefer the latter for the sake of simplicity and weight savings.  Neither boot has enough structure that high to make a ratcheting buckle worth much.  The lower buckle on the X11, however, is eminently worth a ratcheting buckle, and this feature is a highlight of the boot.  In my book laces don’t provide enough resistance against foot movement when schteming for all you’re worth down a narrow trail, or straining to turn skinny skis in deep snow.  The lower buckle on the X11 does a fantastic job of keeping the foot locked in under duress.

The X11 seems about as warm as the 675 but has ‘thermo-moldable’ material inside which is much less squishy than that in the 675.  This stuff is supposed to mold under body heat, a claim I very much doubt and thus far see no evidence of, but it’s perfectly comfy and absorbs a lot less water than that in the 675. Both boots are mostly waterproof.  I sealed all the lower seams of the X11s once I decided to keep them, but haven’t put this to a rigorous test yet.

Fit of the X11 is fairly middle of the road.  My heel stays put well enough, and unlike in the 675s my forefeet have enough room, and there is no pinching or other nonsense.  The inner bootie and lacing is secure and adapts to a wide range of feet.  The vibram sole of each boot is, as far as memory tells me, identical and quite functional for hiking on rocks and dirt.  The X11 is far from a perfect boot, but because it fits and hits a decent performance balance it will be my main nordic boot until something better comes along.  It matches well with my Outbound Crowns (70/60/65), though due to the softer sole I’d hesitate to use it with anything much wider.  I would not use it with my Guides (109/78/85) or Hoks (120/109/120) save in close to ideal powder.  The later would be manageable due to the short length and easy turning design.  The 675s, being substantially beefier, could ski the Guides in corn, though not on resort hardpack.

The ideal nordic boot with be a synthetic, primarily soft fabric double boot with a thermo liner from a company like Intuition.  The outer would match a sole like that of the 675 with a cuff like the X11.  The taller liner would provide a bit more support while still allowing good flex.  Most importantly, the design would be warmer and much drier under real backcountry conditions.  Especially in the spring, keeping boots totally dry is not realistic.  Designs ought to start addressing this.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Rossignol BC X11 v. Fischer BCX 675

  1. I think the ideal boot would allow you to switch back and forth from flexibility to rigidity. For most of a tour, being flexible is just fine. I can ski rolling terrain in straight (non-BC) cross country boots. But once I have to make a tough turn, I want things to be as rigid and firm as possible. On a typical tour, this is a small part of the trip. From a time perspective, it is even smaller. A typical tour for me will have 40% gentle up, 40% gentle down, 10% steep up and 10% steep down. A soft boot covers 80% of the trip. Skins (or kickers) works for another 10%. It seems silly that we throw a bunch of weight on our feet and make things uncomfortable, just so we can quickly deal with that 10% of steep downhill. It makes a lot more sense to me to have some sort of external shell that wraps around the soft boot, even if it takes a while to apply that shell before gong down a section that needs it. After all, no one uses a quick or easy system for going up a very steep section. They deal with the hassle of skins, because it works so well, even though it takes a while. It would be nice to have something similar for going down.

  2. Thanks for the nice look at your two subject boots. I picked up a pair of Scarpa T4’s this spring on end-of-season closeout and will not get a chance to use them until winter comes again. Went to this plastic shelled boot in hopes of making 98-69-88 skis sing coming downhill, but am a bit concerned about tourability with the hard shell. My old Asolo Snowpines are still hard to knock for cruising but totally lack the power to drive a wider ski, hence the upgrade. And I’ve never been a fan of hiking in ANY 3-pin boot, so if that is on the agenda, a ightweight pair of approach shoes gets added to the pack.

  3. Does it look like the toe piece will hold up to repeated flexing? I have seen several toe pieces (I think 6, including 1 on a older Rossignol boot) rip partially off on trips. It might be a cold weather thing..

  4. I’m coming more and more around to using light gear. Snowplowing and kick turning down stuff is not the end of the world. Another bonus of softer boots is safety when you wreck using non-releasable bindings. I can see having a stiffer cuff that tours better with an open strap, but don’t see something like a lean lock being desirable.

    Jay, were those 3 pin duckbills ripping out? I’ve never seen nor heard of that. NNN-BC on the other hand is in my eyes a solution looking for an answer when it comes to skiing off track. More expensive, weaker in the boot and binding, and more prone to icing.

  5. Having skiied on the X11s for most of the winter and having taken them on one overnighter I have been pleased with their performance in terms of both ascending and descending abilities as well as their warmth in camp at night. No comment on their waterproofness however as I’ve not yet intentionally walked through a creek with them.

    All of the above being said I completely agree with your sentiments regarding how much better a boot could (and should) be built by the manufacturer willing to take on the task. The Scarpa T4 and the Garmont Excursion represent a positive move by telemark mfgs to create a simpler, well-rounded touring boot. Why has not Fisher, Rossignol or Alpina created a lighter version of their existing BC boot line?

  6. I am commenting on your comment, as opposed to your article. I’ve done a lot of skiing on lightweight, flimsy gear (I hesitate to use the term “light” because some of the really expensive Randonee gear provides great control while being extremely light). I often have the flimsiest stuff on the mountain, by a good margin. I am like Steve Barnett (http://www.earnyourturns.com/3402/profile-steve-barnett-telemark-prophet/) except without the skill. There is no question that if you are good enough (like Steve) than you can ski just about anything with flimsy gear. However, if you aren’t (like me), then you may run into trouble. If the terrain is open enough, then you can traverse back and forth and make your way down. If the snow is bad, then you can’t snow plow.

    For example, I skied Blueberry Chutes, near the Mount Baker ski area (across from Mount Shuksan). This is by no means the easiest way down the hill. It is about 40 degrees (according to one website) and the conditions were less than ideal. It was a warm day in April, so the snow was mushy. My brother skied the entire chute just fine, in Telemark gear and Rossignol BC 125s (a great ski, by the way). I skied it in BC boots and Alpina LIte Terrain (another ski I would recommend). I started out OK, but soon was in over my head. I fell repeatedly. I’m not a great skier, but I’m not terrible either. Snow plowing was not an option. Neither was long traverses. There was the risk of soft slab avalanche as well as the a lot of previous debris to deal with. In other words, traversing meant skiing through big globs of heavy mushy snow.

    Of course, I could have simply taken off my skis and glissaded down (the runoff was outstanding). But that isn’t skiing, and would be less than ideal. In other words, while I agree with you in spirit (and practice) there is a serious trade-off with the flimsy gear. The trade-off is lessened the more skilled you become, but until then, I can sure see the appeal of gear that is more supportive.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s