 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi there,
I'm very close to buying my first freeride ski. 
Would love to hear from people regarding binding set up.
I'm planning to mostly be skiing lift served off piste, however, I would be happy to hike a little (30 minutes max) to find good snow! This might change in the future. For now this is true.
My boots are regular downhill boots, with a "walk" function (Lange XC120) and I have zero intention to buy touring boots.
My question is, does it make sense to get a downhill binding with touring like features (e.g. Marker Baron) and skins? Or Simply get a normal downhill binding and then strap on my ski's and hike?
What are the pro's con's and your experience with either setup?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Frame bindings are fine for short skins. You can get all nerdy about the merits of dynafit but for short skins they are a lot of investment. You may be able to get away with a Marker FT if you're relatively trim and shave some weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Thanks@Dave of the Marmottes, I weigh in at 70kg. No idea if that classifies me as trim?
Are you aware of any performance differences going downhill between Frame & Normal bindings? Will frame bindings handle the same level of impact/abuse as regular bindings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Garethr, I have Marker F12 EPF frame bindings for similar reasons. Long tours don't appeal to me. Apart from being noticibly trickier to get into compared to my others (a feature of some Marker bindings), they feel exactly the same going downhill and seem pretty sturdy over all. My comparison is a set of standard alpine Atomic/Salomon rail bindings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
You'll struggle to hike anything other than wind blown ridges if there's much snow, so frame bindings and skins are the way to go for short tours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Yeah the "hiking" is a no go I'd imagine.
I don't see most people seeing any performance difference between something like the Baron and any "regular" alpine binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks @Scarlet, @Dashed, and @under a new name, Originally I thought any kind of skinning would not happen as I'm quite early in my freeride journey. Then the more I thought about it, the more I thought it might make sense to get a frame binding then when i'm ready to start taking short tours I can get some skins and i'm good to go.
So now the question is what bindings should I be looking at?
From what I see it seems only Marker are making frame bindings that would fit skis 106mm wide. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also have F12s like @Scarlet and have the same experience that they're perfectly great on the downhill but they're a bit of a b*gger to get into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Garethr, I've been pleased with the Baron for similar use to what you describe. No noticeable reduction in performance from the alpine binding which was previously on the skis, and the option to skin is so much better than walking for any distance. They've been on several day tours too but clearly heavy when others in the party are on light pin bindings. I did own a pair of Fritschi Diamir for a short time but didn't like the downhill feel so sold them on pretty quick. The Fritschi would have been better for more dedicated touring, being easier to change walk/ski mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Garethr, one question is what stage your actual skiing journey is at? as 106mm skis are getting quite wide and for a real all condition ski - I would be inclined to go a little slimmer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Thanks @Maireadoconnor, @balernoStu, for the info on the bindings. I think the Marker Baron is going to be first choice binding.
@under a new name, right now I'm a confident piste skier who can get down most things. I'm maybe not the most elegant on the really bumpy and mogully sections, however, I am able to through.
Last season I started spending more time at the side and inbetween pistes, I even did a Ski Safari (http://www.mythenregion.ch/fileadmin/Files/Documents/Handgruobi/Skisafari-Illgau-NEU_2015.pdf) which was mostly ungroomed terrain and on the day in question thigh deep powder. All of this on Ski's with an 84mm waist. To say it was challenging would be an understatement!
I already have lessons booked to help develop my technique for skiing ungroomed and variable terrain. My intention is be skiing most of the time (70-80%) ungroomed terrain during this season.
I was in Zermatt last weekend testing freeride ski's and the conditions were just perfect, fresh dump of snow meant i could ski, groomed, ungroomed, powder, and bumps. I loved how the fatter ski's felt so stable on everything and really gave me the confidence to start playing a little with jumps and to really take a lot of speed.
I tried a range of widths between 95 and 106mm and have to say I really did enjoy the fatter skis much more! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
You can get Salomon frame bindings with different brake widths can't you? I've got atomic trackers (rebranded salomons) on 106mm skis (Rossi Souls).
Up for sale too if you're interested 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Garethr, to a point, well fair enough. Far be it from me to get in the way of what feels most fun.
I would note;
- that most tourers are skiing around on much slimmer skis (~80mm)
- the fat skis maybe felt stable in the way an oil tanker feels stable, but is a right begger to get round a mini-roundabout
- going too wide could have adverse effects on your progression at this stage, esp. on firmer surfaces (because of caster, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@under a new name, although most tourers may be on ~80mm underfoot, that doesn't mean it's the best width. I took the brave step last season of moving from 74mm to 98mm (for touring skis) and wish I'd moved sooner. Far better skiing in all conditions encountered so far (which includes everything other than deep powder).
Clearly it does depend on skiers weight to some extent, but I'd encourage anyone thinking about getting new touring skis to try 95-105mm underfoot. If they have the right profile then they're perfectly manouvrable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Inboard, I should probably have caveated that with something along the lines that the typically touring line-ups marketed these days are (unless you're racing) much wider. I suspect the typical tourer in a few years will be around 95mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Garethr wrote: |
From what I see it seems only Marker are making frame bindings that would fit skis 106mm wide. Or am I missing something? |
You're missing something I can't think of a single touring binding on the market that wouldn't fit a 106mm ski.
106mm is also pretty much ideal for an all condition ski IMO.
I disagree that most ski tourers are on 80mm skis these days. Sure there are plenty, mostly the ones who've been doing it for 20+ years and haven't kept up with the times, or are focussed on either long flat mellow tours or extreme ski mountaineering. They're the ones flailing around - even the locals - when the powder gets a bit heavier on the way down, and the vast majority would benefit from something a little wider. On a side note I skied a few runs with a guide and Salomon athlete the other weekend who was moaning about his Mountain Lab 95s for touring: he didn't see the point in taking a narrow ski optimised for groomed snow uphill when he knows full well he'll be skiing ungroomed snow down - and is switching to the Quest 106 for touring this year.
under a new name I really think you should try some new bigger skis, as comments about them being a begger to get around are so far off the mark that you can't even put it down to your personal preference. I'm not suggesting you will ever prefer fat skis, but literally the whole point of width and rocker is to make the skis MORE and more easily manoeuvrable in any sort of 3D snow or crust. Narrow cambered skis that sink into the snow, with the ends curved down to grip and dig into the snow rather than curved up to release and smear over the surface, are simply inherently harder to turn in anything that isn't a jump turn or carve on flat piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@under a new name, 
Definitely. As folk change their kit - and older tourers cease - it's likely to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@under a new name, get down to Echo Base this season and treat yourself to a demo of R108 and Director Carbonlites then come back and argue with us again on why SL skis are superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Garethr, as you have said you are getting a freeride ski set up so I dont know why you are being told to be on a 80mm touring ski and wide skis are not what you want as its not the question you asked so...there are a few bindings that would suit as you say the Markers and also Tyrolia Adrenline 13 would fit the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@clarky999, I totally get the deep / 3D snow thing. I totally get that e.g. You, where you live, doing what you do could quite easily optimise on a limited "quiver" all >100mm.
Just the thing though, most people I see are on piste, aren't going off any time (seasons time) soon and their skiing is not being helped by having to lever their weight upwards to incline the ski.
And I don't think I'm alone in this opinion. They won't make firm, smooth surface skiing easier, nor easier to learn.
I'd also point out  that this years spanky Blizzard rando race ski is all of 65mm underfoot ...
Most tourers I know are generally in it for the up and >100mm is just going to get in the way. But one could argue that's a different sport entirely.
For the OP, I submit that not going too wide will be better short term for his skiing overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that if people are kidding themselves and buying >100mm wide skis to be used mostly on piste then this is sub optimal.
However, if you start using them in the soft then not only is wider better, but it is easier and helps with progression. I struggled for years with some 80mm skis in powder. Some old codger told me that I would develop bad habits with fat skis. What a waste of time. A week of skiing on some fatter skis and my offpiste skiing changed completely. What's more, once it had 'clicked' I was able to go back and ski skinnier skis as well (but frankly rarely do).
If people are doing super long days or hut to hut tours then there is a strong argument for going skinnier, but the OP is looking for doing a bit of sidecountry possibly progressing to daytours and a ~105 ski would be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BenA,
Us old codgers are really just jealous - we had to eat so much snow learning to ski off piste on 60mm skis that we don't see why you lot should have such an easy life
To be fair what@under a new name, is really getting at is that while fat skis will accelerate your progress off piste, if they are your only skis then they will also slow your technical progression on piste. It's the exact mirror of what you describe off piste - essentially smoothand precise transitions from one high edge angle to the other are really hard on fat skis, just as skiing heavy soft snow is really hard on slalom skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Thinking about it though, the dimensional difference on each edge from 95mm to 105mm is probably hardly noticeable.
P.s. I have had a very nice powder week on Coombacks (104) but I wouldn't choose them on a piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The guy is looking for bindings not skis
"Would love to hear from people regarding binding set up".
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I have the Guardian / Tracker bindings on a pair of 98mm skis and on my 120mm powder skis. I actually find the touring in deeper snow easier on the wider skis as the rocker combined with Atomic's fat ski skins really helps with forward glide. Many frame bindings are available with different brake widths, just make sure you order the brake width you want. No problem with skinning for an hour or two.
Kooky has both the Tracker bindings on some Atomic Access skis and now a pair of lighter Marker F12s on her White Dot 104mm powder skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I will happily confess that I am a tiny weeny little but of a purist and find it most bizarre even around Chamonix (admittedly mostly at weekends) to see so many people of kit that is seriously inappropriate for what they are doing and appear capable of.
But @BenA's point is totally valid. I could ski powder skinny ski style but only after a week of it on some weird Volant things about 90mm did I nail big fast swoopy turns, after which they worked just fine on skinny skis.
Don't get me started on rocker though. Meh. What were Völkl thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meandrew wrote: |
The guy is looking for bindings not skis
"Would love to hear from people regarding binding set up". |
That's easy - Tele bindings. Anything else will just develop bad habits
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Just make sure you are bending the correct knee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@clarky999, I totally get the deep / 3D snow thing. I totally get that e.g. You, where you live, doing what you do could quite easily optimise on a limited "quiver" all >100mm.
Just the thing though, most people I see are on piste, aren't going off any time (seasons time) soon and their skiing is not being helped by having to lever their weight upwards to incline the ski.
And I don't think I'm alone in this opinion. They won't make firm, smooth surface skiing easier, nor easier to learn.
I'd also point out that this years spanky Blizzard rando race ski is all of 65mm underfoot ...
Most tourers I know are generally in it for the up and >100mm is just going to get in the way. But one could argue that's a different sport entirely.
For the OP, I submit that not going too wide will be better short term for his skiing overall. |
I aso do get your point that most people you see on the mountain would be better off on relatively piste friendly skis if they're realistic about what they do, but the OP is specifically looking for a ski for freeride lines accessed by quick skins, so there I really can't see any advantage to a ski under 100mm or so.
Yes the Rando race skis are all minuscule toothpicks, but have you seen what people look like when actually skiing them - even the pro racers?? Blades would be more elegant most of the time!
Equally, Blizzard's 'flagship' touring skis this season are the ZeroG's at 95 and 108mm Likewise Völkl's touring line comes in 94, 100 something and 122mm flavours this year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
The guy is looking for bindings not skis
|
stop being so sensible!
But since you oblige me - if I was in the OP's situation I would definitely get some frame AT bindings on whatever he buys. Given what he wants to be doing he'll get seduced in that direction sooner rather than later. These days if you don't have a quiver of soft snow skis I can't honestly see why you would mount alpine bindings on your go to freeride ski (if you do have a quiver then you might well have a pure lift served powder plaything).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
Yes the Rando race skis are all minuscule toothpicks, but have you seen what people look like when actually skiing them - even the pro racers??
|
absolutely! they look like bambi on ice and seem to regard the downhill as an inconvenience to get out of the way as soon as they can so that they can get back to the fun stuff of running up a mountain in a spandex catsuit
there is clearly a masochistic element to the whole thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@clarky999, and very pretty the Zero-Gs look too. I am hoping to take a pair of 95s out in a couple of weeks.
I think I already conceded that 105ish probably isn't so nuts, in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Garethr,
For what it's worth, at your weight I would be tempted to go for a more svelte binding than the Baron. There are a fair number of bigger boned individuals posting on Snowheads (none of the above of course!), and in their circumstances I would go chunky.
But at 70 kilos? I am about 78kg and did all my first season on Marker F10's. Skis up to 105mm width (quiver killered a couple of different skis). I am still using them on my firm conditions ski and they are perfectly fine. Because my son is 6ft 4 inches, and was on 112mm wide Preachers, we went for F12 EPF for him. In your circumstances I don't see the point in any beefier and heftier than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Garethr, i skied and did short tours on marker baron 13 for the last three years , ,and found them very similar to the alpine flat bindings, i had them mounted on my 88 wide and 94 wide and 108 wide skis , they are pretty bomb proof and will take a thicker walking sole if needed , the extra height from the frame can help on piste with increased edge hold . you will instinctively know when and if you want to move to the lighter weight tech systems as when you walk further the lighter kit becomes so more benificial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Thanks for all the really great comments and input. It looks like gear choice is a hotly debated topic on snowheads! (it's my first time opening a thread)
For all the talk of touring, right now this isn't interesting for me. Perhaps in the future, though for now I'm more interested in using any skinning as a means to an end. The end being an awesome playful and fun downhill.
@HammondR, The reason i'm looking at the Baron (or similar) is that my current DIN setting is already at 9 and is likely to go up a bit as I get more adventurous with my lines. Therefore I'd like to have some headroom to increase the DIN setting a little in the future as I understand the DIN setting should be somewhere in the middle of the DIN range.
@Dabber, Thanks for confirming most of what I've read about the Baron 13 bindings. It seems they're the best compromise between a full on alpine binding and touring binding for a freeride skier who does short skins and spends most of the time pointing downhill.
One question. I noticed the Baron's come in short and long lengths. My Boot Sole is 316mm which could easily fit either length. Does it make any difference? Should I get the short length to minimise the amount of binding on the ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Garethr, short will be lighter , what the frame also does is adds a certain amount of stiffness under the boot area of the ski so depends a little on the length of the ski as well , make sure you get the eps version which is a little wider and better suited to a wider ski .
i see from a post above that your 70 kg in weight , be sure a get your din setting right as 9 seems high and not sure you need to go much higher ?? , also don't think you need a din in the middle of the range as they are certified to work across their whole range of adjustment , so going for a binding that goes up to 16 or 18 would just add to weight and bulk .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Thanks @Dabber, I'll make sure to get the wider binding. I weigh in 70kg before clothes. I ski with a backpack carrying water, spare layer, and any additional stuff I might need. With all that I guess i'm weighing in at more like 75-80kg by the time I click in.
9 seems ok so far, the few times they've released have been on high speed falls... which is exactly when I'd like them to come off.
It's good to know that bindings will work across the range. I was told the DIN setting thing by the guy who serviced my current ski's (the top of the range is 10). Perhaps he was hoping I'd come back and buy some new skis and bindings from them?
I'm heading to Zermatt next weekend to get the new ski's and of course christen them! Will post photo's of them and the conditions for anyone interested
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Garethr, good stuff , love zermatt , some great free ride opertunities there !! look forward to see some pics , have a great trip 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
). They are not that manoeuvrable CARVING on piste - you can rail them of course but that is not the same thing!
