Good eye. I was waiting for someone to catch that. I received the skis from Alpina mounted as shown in the video. The heel wire is easier to grab with the pole when the wire is mounted to the rear, and that is how Voile positions their heel wire, so I'm not certain why Rottefella decided it was better under foot. All the photos I have seen of the binding mounted on skis show the wire mounted toward the front, so I suspect that is the way it was designed. As a side note, I had no issues using the heel wire for the short time I had to test the skis last May. While I had the bindings off, I went ahead and reversed the heel plates.
Tom, thanks for the in-depth look at the new Explore binding. You probably know this already, but some SS is magnetic, so, some of the bits that are magnetic could still be SS (not the screws, though). I think it’s just 300 series SS that is non-magnetic. Looking forward to your further thoughts on the new boots and bindings.
Really surprised there isn’t more “interface” between the binding and the sole of the boot. Love the implementation of a heel riser. But the stability under the ball of the foot seems so much less than NNNBC. Unless those pins are just that stiff and secure. Curious to see what you think of these for making turns.
The lateral stability under the ball of the foot should be much more substantial than the NNNBC system. Not only are the pivot points move back closer to the ball, but they are about double the contact width you get from the 42mm of contact you get from NNNBC.
The two pin step in makes me think of the tech-bindings used in AT. Here the pins are spring loaded in the boot but on AT set ups the pins are are on the binding and clamp onto the boot. I wonder what the reasoning for reversing the mechanism this way is, is it just that it's slightly lower profile and has fewer components?
I sure wish I knew why Rottefella ended up with the spring-loaded pins. It sure would have been interesting to have been part of the design team discussing the advantages and disadvantages. I don't know if the spring pin design was selected for technical reasons or due to patent or cost issue. Maybe at some point one of the insiders will spill the beans. At any rate, I'm in my second season with the Xplore system and so far it has been trouble free and a great off trail XC binding.
I am a little confused over the smallest size width ski they will fit. I read 65 at the waist on the specs. I just ordered them and have not received them yet. I am having trouble finding a ski since everything is sold out. I am 115 lbs and would like something for rolling terrain that I can tele turn in. I definitely want some kick and glide capabilities for the flats. Mostly in trees and variable snow conditions here in southwest colorado. Been enjoying your videos! If you have any thoughts, please share. Thank you!
Hi Wendy. I have not seen an official "minimum width" specification for this binding, but the screw hole width spacing for the Xplore is the same as the NNNBC binding. Rottefella's recommended minimum width for the NNNBC is 52 mm at the waist. I've seen some retailers list a "recommended minimum ski width" in the 60's for this binding but I think it is more of a recommendation as to what type of ski is appropriate for this binding than it is a physical limitation of the binding mount. I would feel confident in mounting the Xplore binding on any ski that would accept the NNNBC binding.
@@tomm9850 That's great. I have been looking for either the fisher 78 or 88, alpina discovery, or even the rossignol 80. Do you think I should be around 162 to 169. Would 176 be to long? Do you know of anything comparable that might work? I must have bad timing because not much available in my weight grade. We did a short full moon tour tonight and there was some grabbing crust that I was busting through. Pretty typical for us to get sunny days with some melt then freezing up at night for some crusty conditions. Guess I better not get anything too soft. Thanks again for your input. It's been about 15 years since I bought xc skis. I am skiing pretty skinny old rossignol back countries. Tricky to tele turn those unless it's powder.🙂
@@wendyhenderson883 The Xplore binding would be a good choice for all of the skis mentioned above, especially if the intended use is for off trail skiing. I currently have the Traverse 78 and the Discovery 80 mounted with the Xplore binding. My wife skis the Excursion 88 with NNNBC. Of those three skis, the Discovery 80 is probably the easiest to turn, but not by a huge margin. The 78's and the 88's have the advantage of the easy skin. I have not skied the Rossignol 80. The ski manufactures sizing recommendation are a good place to start, just be sure to include your boots, clothing and carry weight when using Fischer's chart. Julie picked the Excursion based on the weight chart and she is very happy with the glide and grip. All of the skis you mentioned are cross country skis at heart and work well for off trail skiing. They are not what most would consider as a "tour for turns" ski, but it sounds like you are very familiar with the pros and cons of the various ski types. The tele turn works best in soft snow and is very difficult to use when icy and crusty. I tend to use different turn types when the snow conditions are difficult. I hope you are able to find the right gear. If you decide to go with the Xplore system, report back after a few skis as I'm sure others would be curious on your thoughts of your new system in comparison to what you are skiing on now.
I'd be concerned with the spring loaded pins on the boot jamming with debris at some point. I like the easy in and out, being able to use boot off ski without obstruction of bar or 3 pin lip.. If the materials are quality it can be great, but I fear for the small parts and slots jamming, deforming or getting dirty, leaving you stranded in field if it doesn't work perfectly. I'd like to learn more about field experiences and longer use reviews. Also there are very few boot choices so far afaik
This is a great time for this discussion. Over on Telemarktalk, Theme posted that he finished an 83 day 2300 km ski of Norway, end to end trip skiing an Explore setup. www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4071&start=180 Lots of good info and experience in that thread. I've had 3 seasons of use and no issues, but others have not been as fortunate. At this point, it has been reliable for me, and I do like the system for off trail XC use.
The holes do not match up with the Voile 3 pin so you will have to fill the old holes with epoxy. I really like the Xplore binding for off trail cross country. I have posted several videos documenting my experience with this new binding, so be sure to check them out. th-cam.com/video/Ovx48kCVtzM/w-d-xo.html
@@tomm9850 thanks for the reply! After cracking the duckbills on three pairs of Alaska 75s over two seasons, I have decided to go all in on explore. In your opinion, would I be better off sourcing new skis or just patch up the old binding holes and get on with it?
If you fill the old holes with a slow cure epoxy, the ski should be fine. Be sure to use a toothpick with an up and down motion to minimize trapping an air bubble in the ski. If your old skis are in good shape and you are happy with them, then the only reason to replace them would be if you wanted to try a different ski.
Thanks for this detail Tom. I would love to know if the dynafit p49 boot pins go into the toe piece. Would you mind tracking down a pair to demonstrate a hypothetical test? The toe bump may work... I wonder if someone will make an adapter plate for swapping a p49 heel on so the sbound ski can be used alpine touring and low slope touring possibly on the same trip if we dont mind carrying the extra boots and heel piece. Great work
That is a great question, but I don't know of anyone who has a p49 boot / binding setup. I can post some measurements of the Xplore pin arrangement if that would be helpful. Off the top of my head, I think one would be better off sticking with one system or the other as they are really designed for two different styles of skiing. It sure would be amazing if a boot manufacturer would come up with a lightweight plastic boot for the xplore binding, that way one could ski the same ski with soft leathers or hard plastic depending on tour terrain.
Hi Tom, pretty sure it's not aluminium alloy but plastics on the outside of the body. In fact the only metal part (aside from the lever and pin inserts) is the metal plate with 4 bolt holes which is covered by plastics. Quite disappointing to be honest, I thought using metal alloy would warrant the price point which is quite high. I suspect the groves where the pins should slide will wear out as expected from metal to plastics contact. Do you see any signs of wear in that area, how is it holding so far?
The front portion of the binding is metal and the rear is plastic. I'm not seeing any abnormal wear in the toe piece, and they are holding up well. Time will tell if there are any issues in the design.
@@tomm9850 Is it a preproduction version of some sort? Mine looks little different from the underside, interesting. Nevertheless, @6:56 I can clearly see PA66 GF35 symbol exactly as on my set and it means it's a 35% glass fibre reinforced polyamide 6.6. It's supposed to be stiff but still, I'd like to see metal used here for the $$$.
Nice piece of kit. Should turn well with the stiff buffer. I have mode a two pin tele binding that, with a lighter weight toe, would be the same weight. And a old F3 carbon race would be about the same as the boot. It would rip it on the turns, but then you will be lucky to pick up an old F3. (And a new one would make this set up look a bargain)
I would love it if Scarpa would make a telemark version of their new F1 LT boot. If they did, I suspect many would skip over the Xplore system and boots for a lightweight NTN or tts setup for backcountry downhill. I'm anxiously waiting for the new Xplore products to become available. The rollout seems to be pretty slow. Thanks for tuning in and I hope you have a great winter.
Scarpa rumoured new boot is due sometime soon? It looks like it will be about 1.5kg, not near the 1kg of most light AT boots…or the 700g of Skimo boots. I have been wanting to try a AT boot in my two pin tele binding, leaving the cuff unlocked to give dorsiflexion rather than ball of foot. If it worked I could sell the wife and buy a pair of Pierre Ginoux carbon boots and fly up the hills. PS, at 65 I can still claim to be UK No1 Tele Skimo racer…in a class of my own!
Hi Tom: I am new and fervent fan of your channel. My Madshus BC62 have BC nnn: Is it possible to convert them to Rotafella Xplore? REI or a local MN shop would do the work. Thanks Steve
A good ski tech should be able to remount the Xplore binding on a ski that has been previously mounted with NNNBC. At a minimum, the tech would have to drill 2 new holes and fill 2 holes. The catch is that there is about 1/4 inch difference in the location of the balance point if you reuse two holes. I myself would opt to reuse the two existing holes. The heel plate on the NNNBC uses one screw and the Xplore uses two screws. That is less critical. REI states that the Xplore binding is ideal for skis wider than 68 mm, but the screw pattern on the Xplore is no wider than the pattern for NNNBC, so if a ski can take a NNNBC it should be fine with the Xplore. If you are curious, you can print out the mounting templates for the NNNBC rottefella.com/media/pdf-manuals/RF_BackCountry_papirjig_A3.pdf and the Xplore rottefella.com/media/pdf-manuals/RF_Xplore_Off-Track_paper_jig.pdf so you can compare the two mounting patterns. Be sure to set the pdf print options to print "to actual size"
@@tomm9850 thanks Tom. Waiting for my IRS refund to make the switch. I am an Winter Ultra athlete with plans to XC ski the Arrowhead 135 someday. Your videos are instrumental in my planning
@@tomm9850 I read the REI point about recommended minimum waist size of 68 so I came here and you've already addressed it! Do you think skis with a ~62 waist like the Fischer Traverse 78 would work well with the Xplore binding?
@@btb103 Yes, the Xplore and the Traverse 78 are a very good match. I have the Xplore mounted on a set of Discovery 80's and they have a 58 mm waist. I just returned from an outing today with the Discovery 80's / Xplore / Alpina Alaska XP and I'm very happy with the Xplore on a ski of that width.
The 75 mm is still the only choice if you want the option to ski a soft leather boot for a "kick and glide tour" on one day, and then ski a plastic boot like the Scarpa T4 with a spring cable or hardwire on the next day on a "tour for turns" ski. If you don't need or want the option to ski a plastic boot, then I think that the Xplore system is a better choice, especially over the NNNBC option. I myself have remounted my two ski setups that had a simple 3 pin binding (Sbound 98 and Voile Objective) with the new Xplore system, and I'm using the Free boot when I'm doing a "tour for turns" ski and then I use the Alpina Alaska XP boot when I'm doing a "kick and glide" tour. I still have a set of Traverse 78's with the NNNBC and I have no plans to remount them with the Xplore system.
I've been told that boots will be available this fall in time for the upcoming season. Most of the retailers have not updated their on line catalogs yet. Rottefella says that their launch partners are Alfa and Alpina, and the equipment will be available Autumn 21 rottefella.no/
It'll be interesting to see how it works outside a warm and dry shop or garage. One has to think that Rottefella has done extensive testing in various conditions. Snow and ice have their ways to make moving parts - like those shoe pins - not move the way we want.
I'm looking forward to using the system next winter and I'll be sure to post any issues that arise. I've been pretty impressed so far. It will be interesting to see which major retailers offer the system this fall.
By 2023, another binding will correct the weak points that inevitably would be discovered with extensive field use. It always happens with all brands that introduce new bindings. Just remember Dynafit !!
Isin´t the rear portion of the binding is mounted the wrong way?
Good eye. I was waiting for someone to catch that. I received the skis from Alpina mounted as shown in the video. The heel wire is easier to grab with the pole when the wire is mounted to the rear, and that is how Voile positions their heel wire, so I'm not certain why Rottefella decided it was better under foot. All the photos I have seen of the binding mounted on skis show the wire mounted toward the front, so I suspect that is the way it was designed. As a side note, I had no issues using the heel wire for the short time I had to test the skis last May. While I had the bindings off, I went ahead and reversed the heel plates.
Really interested to see how this Telemark's in comparison without a duckbill or heel attachment.
Thanks again for these reviews.
Tom, thanks for the in-depth look at the new Explore binding.
You probably know this already, but some SS is magnetic, so, some of the bits that are magnetic could still be SS (not the screws, though).
I think it’s just 300 series SS that is non-magnetic.
Looking forward to your further thoughts on the new boots and bindings.
Really surprised there isn’t more “interface” between the binding and the sole of the boot. Love the implementation of a heel riser. But the stability under the ball of the foot seems so much less than NNNBC. Unless those pins are just that stiff and secure. Curious to see what you think of these for making turns.
The lateral stability under the ball of the foot should be much more substantial than the NNNBC system. Not only are the pivot points move back closer to the ball, but they are about double the contact width you get from the 42mm of contact you get from NNNBC.
The two pin step in makes me think of the tech-bindings used in AT. Here the pins are spring loaded in the boot but on AT set ups the pins are are on the binding and clamp onto the boot. I wonder what the reasoning for reversing the mechanism this way is, is it just that it's slightly lower profile and has fewer components?
I sure wish I knew why Rottefella ended up with the spring-loaded pins. It sure would have been interesting to have been part of the design team discussing the advantages and disadvantages. I don't know if the spring pin design was selected for technical reasons or due to patent or cost issue. Maybe at some point one of the insiders will spill the beans. At any rate, I'm in my second season with the Xplore system and so far it has been trouble free and a great off trail XC binding.
I am a little confused over the smallest size width ski they will fit. I read 65 at the waist on the specs. I just ordered them and have not received them yet. I am having trouble finding a ski since everything is sold out. I am 115 lbs and would like something for rolling terrain that I can tele turn in. I definitely want some kick and glide capabilities for the flats. Mostly in trees and variable snow conditions here in southwest colorado. Been enjoying your videos! If you have any thoughts, please share. Thank you!
Hi Wendy. I have not seen an official "minimum width" specification for this binding, but the screw hole width spacing for the Xplore is the same as the NNNBC binding. Rottefella's recommended minimum width for the NNNBC is 52 mm at the waist. I've seen some retailers list a "recommended minimum ski width" in the 60's for this binding but I think it is more of a recommendation as to what type of ski is appropriate for this binding than it is a physical limitation of the binding mount. I would feel confident in mounting the Xplore binding on any ski that would accept the NNNBC binding.
@@tomm9850 That's great. I have been looking for either the fisher 78 or 88, alpina discovery, or even the rossignol 80. Do you think I should be around 162 to 169. Would 176 be to long? Do you know of anything comparable that might work? I must have bad timing because not much available in my weight grade. We did a short full moon tour tonight and there was some grabbing crust that I was busting through. Pretty typical for us to get sunny days with some melt then freezing up at night for some crusty conditions. Guess I better not get anything too soft. Thanks again for your input. It's been about 15 years since I bought xc skis. I am skiing pretty skinny old rossignol back countries. Tricky to tele turn those unless it's powder.🙂
@@wendyhenderson883 The Xplore binding would be a good choice for all of the skis mentioned above, especially if the intended use is for off trail skiing. I currently have the Traverse 78 and the Discovery 80 mounted with the Xplore binding. My wife skis the Excursion 88 with NNNBC. Of those three skis, the Discovery 80 is probably the easiest to turn, but not by a huge margin. The 78's and the 88's have the advantage of the easy skin. I have not skied the Rossignol 80. The ski manufactures sizing recommendation are a good place to start, just be sure to include your boots, clothing and carry weight when using Fischer's chart. Julie picked the Excursion based on the weight chart and she is very happy with the glide and grip. All of the skis you mentioned are cross country skis at heart and work well for off trail skiing. They are not what most would consider as a "tour for turns" ski, but it sounds like you are very familiar with the pros and cons of the various ski types. The tele turn works best in soft snow and is very difficult to use when icy and crusty. I tend to use different turn types when the snow conditions are difficult. I hope you are able to find the right gear. If you decide to go with the Xplore system, report back after a few skis as I'm sure others would be curious on your thoughts of your new system in comparison to what you are skiing on now.
Thank you,
You are welcome!
I'd be concerned with the spring loaded pins on the boot jamming with debris at some point. I like the easy in and out, being able to use boot off ski without obstruction of bar or 3 pin lip.. If the materials are quality it can be great, but I fear for the small parts and slots jamming, deforming or getting dirty, leaving you stranded in field if it doesn't work perfectly. I'd like to learn more about field experiences and longer use reviews. Also there are very few boot choices so far afaik
This is a great time for this discussion. Over on Telemarktalk, Theme posted that he finished an 83 day 2300 km ski of Norway, end to end trip skiing an Explore setup. www.telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4071&start=180 Lots of good info and experience in that thread. I've had 3 seasons of use and no issues, but others have not been as fortunate. At this point, it has been reliable for me, and I do like the system for off trail XC use.
Thanks for the great content Tom! How do these binding compare to a voile 3 pin? Are any of the holes reusable if switching from 3 pin to Xplore?
The holes do not match up with the Voile 3 pin so you will have to fill the old holes with epoxy. I really like the Xplore binding for off trail cross country. I have posted several videos documenting my experience with this new binding, so be sure to check them out. th-cam.com/video/Ovx48kCVtzM/w-d-xo.html
@@tomm9850 thanks for the reply! After cracking the duckbills on three pairs of Alaska 75s over two seasons, I have decided to go all in on explore. In your opinion, would I be better off sourcing new skis or just patch up the old binding holes and get on with it?
If you fill the old holes with a slow cure epoxy, the ski should be fine. Be sure to use a toothpick with an up and down motion to minimize trapping an air bubble in the ski. If your old skis are in good shape and you are happy with them, then the only reason to replace them would be if you wanted to try a different ski.
Thanks for this detail Tom. I would love to know if the dynafit p49 boot pins go into the toe piece. Would you mind tracking down a pair to demonstrate a hypothetical test? The toe bump may work... I wonder if someone will make an adapter plate for swapping a p49 heel on so the sbound ski can be used alpine touring and low slope touring possibly on the same trip if we dont mind carrying the extra boots and heel piece. Great work
That is a great question, but I don't know of anyone who has a p49 boot / binding setup. I can post some measurements of the Xplore pin arrangement if that would be helpful. Off the top of my head, I think one would be better off sticking with one system or the other as they are really designed for two different styles of skiing. It sure would be amazing if a boot manufacturer would come up with a lightweight plastic boot for the xplore binding, that way one could ski the same ski with soft leathers or hard plastic depending on tour terrain.
Hi Tom, pretty sure it's not aluminium alloy but plastics on the outside of the body. In fact the only metal part (aside from the lever and pin inserts) is the metal plate with 4 bolt holes which is covered by plastics. Quite disappointing to be honest, I thought using metal alloy would warrant the price point which is quite high. I suspect the groves where the pins should slide will wear out as expected from metal to plastics contact. Do you see any signs of wear in that area, how is it holding so far?
The front portion of the binding is metal and the rear is plastic. I'm not seeing any abnormal wear in the toe piece, and they are holding up well. Time will tell if there are any issues in the design.
@@tomm9850 Is it a preproduction version of some sort? Mine looks little different from the underside, interesting. Nevertheless, @6:56 I can clearly see PA66 GF35 symbol exactly as on my set and it means it's a 35% glass fibre reinforced polyamide 6.6. It's supposed to be stiff but still, I'd like to see metal used here for the $$$.
Nice piece of kit. Should turn well with the stiff buffer.
I have mode a two pin tele binding that, with a lighter weight toe, would be the same weight. And a old F3 carbon race would be about the same as the boot. It would rip it on the turns, but then you will be lucky to pick up an old F3. (And a new one would make this set up look a bargain)
I would love it if Scarpa would make a telemark version of their new F1 LT boot. If they did, I suspect many would skip over the Xplore system and boots for a lightweight NTN or tts setup for backcountry downhill. I'm anxiously waiting for the new Xplore products to become available. The rollout seems to be pretty slow. Thanks for tuning in and I hope you have a great winter.
Scarpa rumoured new boot is due sometime soon? It looks like it will be about 1.5kg, not near the 1kg of most light AT boots…or the 700g of Skimo boots.
I have been wanting to try a AT boot in my two pin tele binding, leaving the cuff unlocked to give dorsiflexion rather than ball of foot. If it worked I could sell the wife and buy a pair of Pierre Ginoux carbon boots and fly up the hills.
PS, at 65 I can still claim to be UK No1 Tele Skimo racer…in a class of my own!
Hi, the rear plate is mounted backwards.
Yes
I flipped the heel plate on these skis shortly after receiving them. Thanks for tuning in, and I hope you have a great winter.
Hi Tom: I am new and fervent fan of your channel. My Madshus BC62 have BC nnn: Is it possible to convert them to Rotafella Xplore? REI or a local MN shop would do the work. Thanks Steve
A good ski tech should be able to remount the Xplore binding on a ski that has been previously mounted with NNNBC. At a minimum, the tech would have to drill 2 new holes and fill 2 holes. The catch is that there is about 1/4 inch difference in the location of the balance point if you reuse two holes. I myself would opt to reuse the two existing holes. The heel plate on the NNNBC uses one screw and the Xplore uses two screws. That is less critical. REI states that the Xplore binding is ideal for skis wider than 68 mm, but the screw pattern on the Xplore is no wider than the pattern for NNNBC, so if a ski can take a NNNBC it should be fine with the Xplore. If you are curious, you can print out the mounting templates for the NNNBC rottefella.com/media/pdf-manuals/RF_BackCountry_papirjig_A3.pdf and the Xplore rottefella.com/media/pdf-manuals/RF_Xplore_Off-Track_paper_jig.pdf so you can compare the two mounting patterns. Be sure to set the pdf print options to print "to actual size"
@@tomm9850 thanks Tom. Waiting for my IRS refund to make the switch. I am an Winter Ultra athlete with plans to XC ski the Arrowhead 135 someday. Your videos are instrumental in my planning
@@tomm9850 I read the REI point about recommended minimum waist size of 68 so I came here and you've already addressed it! Do you think skis with a ~62 waist like the Fischer Traverse 78 would work well with the Xplore binding?
@@btb103 Yes, the Xplore and the Traverse 78 are a very good match. I have the Xplore mounted on a set of Discovery 80's and they have a 58 mm waist. I just returned from an outing today with the Discovery 80's / Xplore / Alpina Alaska XP and I'm very happy with the Xplore on a ski of that width.
Do you own a ski shop, or just own every boot and binding imaginable?
I don't own or work in a ski shop, but skiing is my primary vice and has been for a very long time.
As i understand, Tom, you are still prefer NN75 )
The 75 mm is still the only choice if you want the option to ski a soft leather boot for a "kick and glide tour" on one day, and then ski a plastic boot like the Scarpa T4 with a spring cable or hardwire on the next day on a "tour for turns" ski. If you don't need or want the option to ski a plastic boot, then I think that the Xplore system is a better choice, especially over the NNNBC option. I myself have remounted my two ski setups that had a simple 3 pin binding (Sbound 98 and Voile Objective) with the new Xplore system, and I'm using the Free boot when I'm doing a "tour for turns" ski and then I use the Alpina Alaska XP boot when I'm doing a "kick and glide" tour. I still have a set of Traverse 78's with the NNNBC and I have no plans to remount them with the Xplore system.
Is this boot available yet?
I've been told that boots will be available this fall in time for the upcoming season. Most of the retailers have not updated their on line catalogs yet.
Rottefella says that their launch partners are Alfa and Alpina, and the equipment will be available Autumn 21 rottefella.no/
It'll be interesting to see how it works outside a warm and dry shop or garage. One has to think that Rottefella has done extensive testing in various conditions. Snow and ice have their ways to make moving parts - like those shoe pins - not move the way we want.
I'm looking forward to using the system next winter and I'll be sure to post any issues that arise. I've been pretty impressed so far. It will be interesting to see which major retailers offer the system this fall.
By 2023, another binding will correct the weak points that inevitably would be discovered with extensive field use. It always happens with all brands that introduce new bindings. Just remember Dynafit !!
It will be interesting to see if there are any issues after it has been out in the public for a full ski season.