Great NNN light touring boots?

In article ,
Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com) wrote:
What's up with Rossi's thermal fit stuff? I'm having a hard time
finding details.

It molds to your feet over time, but you can speed the
process up by poking a hair dryer into the boots and
softening up the insoles. I've been pretty happy with my
Rossi X3s as a nice, light touring boot that I think is in
line with what you've been asking about, but they don't make
them anymore, or rather they've changed them into something
unrecognizable.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

On Dec 19, 3:45 pm, "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)"
wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:24 pm, Camilo wrote:

How about good quality, maybe even top of the line, combi boots?
Based on all of the 1000's of touring I've done on my full-on racing
weight striding gear, I believe the combi boots and a slightly wider,
but light weight, ski would be the ticket.

I can see improving support in tour boots but when touring with 60mm
skis one will rarely skate. Combi support is different from touring
support for control. The new bindings and plastic heel pockets plus a
boot that goes to just over the ankle is probably all that's needed.
Anything else will give you more weight than will be comfy for most
multi-hour outings. Unless you're skating. (With 60mm skis?)

As for color: black is an excellent default. I'm even an old codger
who has been backcountry and groomed skiing for almost 40 years. Yes,
I've skied in Norge and didn't feel one tiny iota of self
consciousness in my black pants (I have 3 or 4 different types/
weights). I have black and other color tops and vests, but they all
look good with the black pants. Nobody in Norway gave me a second
look.

Sure. Black disappears. It's a fine default. But most of an enthusiast
market appreciates more than a default.

A friend of mine said the same thing (as you) about cycling shorts
after returning from a European trip this summer - the Americans were
the only ones wearing black shorts. But the colored shorts were
generally parts of full, (and I say butt ugly) "kits" which don't
appeal to me at all. Give me black shorts and a bunch of generic and
a few "team" style jerseys any day. Plus there's nothing uglier than
stained and worn colored shorts.

Cycling clothes are different. Shorts get dirty. But cycling gives
lots of room to a variety of looks. The retro look is strong, too. The
"just ride in regular clothes" look for casual day riding is pretty
popular. This approach should continue on into XC skiing---with the
difference being that rain and dirt aren't part of the equation.

Black is awkwardly ubiquitous in US XC apparel.

--JP

We'll just agree to disagree 8-). My main memory in Norway, mountain
touring on light gear on semi tracked trailes is that people didn't
have obviously "skiing clothing". Nylon jogging type or team suits,
mountain parkas and nylon ski pants, etc. etc.

Camilo wrote:
We'll just agree to disagree 8-). My main memory in Norway, mountain
touring on light gear on semi tracked trailes is that people didn't
have obviously "skiing clothing". Nylon jogging type or team suits,
mountain parkas and nylon ski pants, etc. etc.

Canonical mountain skiing clothing consists of long (above the knee)
woolen socks, wind-proof knickers and an anorak (mountain hooded parka).

The lower legs/socks will also be covered by gaithers unless it's a
really nice days and the skiing is tracked.

What's variable is the the color of the anorak (traditionally red, but
can also be blue, with other colors (including white to make you very
hard to find for rescue people (red cross volunteers)) traling distantly
behind.

In Nordmarka serious skiers (i.e. Birkebeiner hopefuls) will usually be
in some kind of ski suit, usually with a light jacket as well. If I
start skiing after 10:00, I'll typically meet a group of them, 55-75
years old. As I'm getting close to Kikut, they've been to Sandungen or
further north already and are on their way back. Very easy to recognize:
They _always_ ski with a tiny (probably about 3-4 kg?) backpack. :-)

As Jay says: "Lycra never lies".

Terje
--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On Dec 19, 7:57 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:35:52 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of



OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
Black works in NYC but not on ski trails.

This is an idiotic statement. What is "works" or not works?

It's fashion idiom, idiot.

Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski.

Do you think they're better skiers or something because of the color
of their clothes?

Ah no. I think they don't look ugly.

So "works" means looking good, to you. Very sloppy use of language.

No. I was precise. I said black works in NYC but the beauty of winter
wants color. If you don't think that's clear language as regards
aesthetics, well, that's your problem. If you think I was discussing
functionality, again, your worry not mine.

But your insistence on pointless flames is definitely your problem.
Netiquette requires you to post to advance a subject. Why do you
insist on nonstop blatant violation? ---I post a clear aesthetic
statement and you flame me about language use.

--JP

On Dec 19, 7:57 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:17 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I specifically said that the fake-leather of my ski gloves absorbed
water quickly. It's among the most absorbent materials I've seen---the
opposite of water repellent. No blanket statement. My statements have
been specific.

In that discussion I asked you why that mattered, if your hands are
comftable. Rubber repels water too, you know.

Odd. Skiing involves occasional brushes with snow. It shouldn't mean
wet hands after a couple light touches of snow. If you brush your skis
off with these gloves, you'll have wet hands. Lame. --JP

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:20:42 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 19, 7:57 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:35:52 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of



OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:30:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
Black works in NYC but not on ski trails.

This is an idiotic statement. What is "works" or not works?

It's fashion idiom, idiot.

Take a look at how Scandi
people dress when they ski.

Do you think they're better skiers or something because of the color
of their clothes?

Ah no. I think they don't look ugly.

So "works" means looking good, to you. Very sloppy use of language.

No. I was precise. I said black works in NYC but the beauty of winter
wants color. If you don't think that's clear language as regards
aesthetics, well, that's your problem. If you think I was discussing
functionality, again, your worry not mine.

You did not qualify it for any particular place until after I came
back at you. And the word "works" is just silly in a discussion of
the performance of products.

If you think I was discussing
functionality, again, your worry not mine.

You should worry when you're sloppy like that and reasonable people
can't get your meaning.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:23:31 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of
OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:

On Dec 19, 7:57 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:38:17 -0800 (PST), "Jeff Potter (of

OutYourBackdoor.com)" wrote:
I specifically said that the fake-leather of my ski gloves absorbed
water quickly. It's among the most absorbent materials I've seen---the
opposite of water repellent. No blanket statement. My statements have
been specific.

In that discussion I asked you why that mattered, if your hands are
comftable. Rubber repels water too, you know.

Odd. Skiing involves occasional brushes with snow. It shouldn't mean
wet hands after a couple light touches of snow. If you brush your skis
off with these gloves, you'll have wet hands. Lame. --JP


Odd, I wear non-waterproof stuff on most of my body when skiing and
even from occassaionlly touching the snow I don't get wet.

Jeff, step back and think for a minute. Think carefully and
critically. Do you really believe that thousands or tens of thousands
of people are skiing around with gloves from Yoko and Sinisalo and
other companies and those products suck in general, and that all those
people are wrong in choosing and using such products.

While you, from your experience back in the day, know what's good and
proper *in general*? You're better informed or smarter than all of
them?

Wow. That's some hubris.

On Dec 6, 8:47 am, "Jeff Potter (of OutYourBackdoor.com)"
wrote:
Know any?

Update: I just tried on an Alpina TR25. Seems like a fine boot. No
plastic cuff. Just a classic tour boot with slightly more support due
to the above-ankle cut. Actually, I dunno if height makes support or
control, but I suppose it does a bit. Probably heel cup is a more
important control factor. Ski stability is the main ankle stabilizer.
But a tallish boot will help.

[ ]
Why did they go to higher cuffs on most boots? Does a skier get
effective support or warmth from this?

I suppose it's for the Combi effect, also some warmth and ankle
support.

I wonder why there were few or none above-ankle daytour boots back in
the low-support, low-control 75mm days? Hiking boots went above ankle.
Tele boots did. If they could've easily gotten more support and
control by making boots a bit taller, I wonder why they didn't. Maybe
freedom of movement and weight were considered more important? Also it
seems like skiing was more popular back then. If long skis and floppy
equipment were a barrier...why was the sport popular?

I personally do appreciate the far-greater control of a NNN binding
and a solid heel cup and a light, curvy ski. I'm not totally against
a taller boot---I feel the nice extra security. But I really dislike
impeding the kick and I also dislike extra weight on that swinging
leg.

--JP