UKC

All

I am looking for a complete ski mountaineering setup (boots, bindings, skis) that takes in the best of both resort and backcountry skiing (I don’t want to end up with more than one set of skis). I anticipate to split by time 50/50 between on-piste and touring, so need something versatile.

So far I have narrowed my search down to the following:

Boots
• Scarpa Maestraele RS
• Scarpa Maestraele
• Dynafit TFT5
• Dynafit Vulcan

Skis
• Dynastar Cham 87 (good all-rounder?)
• K2 Wayback (perhaps too lightweight for resort skiing?
• K2 Hardside
• Scott Crusairs

Bindings
• Fritschi Eagle 12
• Fritschi Freeride Pro
• Dynafit Radical FT

Keen to find out more about the pros and cons of each of the above.

Does anyone have any recommendations, based on their own their experiences?

Many thanks

In reply to climbhead:

This has been discussed many times on here so it might be worth doing a search for previous threads to give you some more background.

What is your skiing experience at the moment? And, honestly, at what level do you ski, and want to ski?

Having one setup for all situations is going to mean you make pretty serious compromises somewhere, primarily in terms of weight compared to a 'true' ski touring setup orcontrol/technical spec compared to a piste setup. How relevant this is will depend on your skiing ability and how much you want to improve; you won't become a great piste skier using touring bindings, for example. Competent certainly, but you won't be able to compare with someone skiing with downhill boots, bindings and skis.

I have tried to have a one-rig for all in the past but have now given in and have a dedicated touring setup and one for piste smashing. I also have an old setup that I use for teaching on.

In response to your specific questions:

Scott Crusairs are beautiful skis - I would recommend them but they're pretty fat for general piste skiing. You might find the dynastars and the waybacks a bit flimsy for hard piste skiing. I have no experience of K2 hardsides though I do have K2 ski's myself (extremes) and think they're pretty great.

I wouldn't recommend dynafits if you're going to use them 50:50 on:off piste. Others will disagree but they aren't designed for that type of skiing and I don't think you'll get the best from them. Great for touring though. FWIW I use fritschl freerides on my touring set up - personal preference but I am prepared to sacrifice the weight saving for the reduced risk of injury if I fall.

I haven't used any of the boots you are considering.

Hope that helps. I'm sure others will be along to offer their opinions, some of which will no doubt differ to mine. General point - I'd seriously reconsider a one-rig setup, especially since you can get a decent set of skis (with bindings) on ebay for less than £100.

In reply to climbhead:

Those two boots are pretty different. That's not really a very narrow selection at all! Is this really a 'list of things I'd really like'?

My 2p worth: avoid touring boots lighter than 1500g if you want all purpose gear. I might not consider skis under 1800g each either, but ymmv. 90-100mm skis are fine for resort use... if the pistes get really horrible and icy you can always hire some normal pistey skis, but you'll be fine otherwise. The K2s (andpossibly the crusairs) are quite light skis, so they'll be chucked about a bit more by cut up snow and they'll got a bit flappy on hardpack at speed.

Don't use dynafits for piste skiing. You can do, but consider this:
- they'll wear out faster than alpine or frame bindings, and they're expensive to replace
- they're a lot less forgiving than alpine or frame bindings, and your legs will really feel any surface texture on packed, icey pistes
- they're probably not as good as DIN bindings when it comes to safety release, and they're more likely to suffer unwanted releases.

You can get swap plates or binding mount inserts that let you swap bindings on a ski. Read up on them, they'll be well worth a few minutes of research.

If you're using dynafits for touring, you can get away with heavier skis, cos they're so much nicer to tour on. Unless you're doing long days and big summits and not taking your gear on the piste, don't bother with the super lightweight skis.

Also consider the Marker touring bindings as well as the Fritschi ones. They might not be quite so nice on the up, but they're a little better on the down. Worth a thought.

In reply to climbhead: Hi, as others have said, don't invest in Dynafit and then trash them on piste. I echo the Marker F12 tour for a good compromise. My finance uses them and drives some pretty meaty skis on and off piste.

Like everything, you'll never get one to do it all. Be honest with your situation and ambition, get what suits you now and then you'll be more informed when you come to buy the next set.

In reply to climbhead:

I used my 1.5kg touring skis on piste for a week, but it spoiled the fun.

I bought a set of new skis off ebay (Dynastar outland 80 for 100 euro), & some used marker baron bindings (£120) & now use that set-up with my Maestrale boots - which is fine (given my meagre skills)

In reply to Edradour:

Thanks for thoughts.

My experience so far is limited to about 2 weeks telemark many years ago and some on-piste in Scotland on-and-off over the past few years. On a scale of 1-10, I would probably rate my level 4 or 5 - so not the most experienced but not a complete beginner too. In terms of aspirations, currently I would say going downhill comfortably on most black pistes, but not in any rush to get to that level. Otherwise, my main focus is on touring, partly to keep my running fitness up in winter.

I will have a think about getting some cheap skis for downhill in addition to a touring rig. I assume I could use the same boots for both?

In reply to Shearwater:

TFT5 vs Vulcan - are they really that different? I am looking for a good boot I can use for both downhill and touring, which is what led me to the Alpine Touring Ski Boot range at Dynafit's website, where the list the Vulcan.

Similarly, the TFT5 I understand is one of the classic touring boots?

In reply to climbhead:

If the bindings are suitable, yes. You can jam touring boots into downhill bindings, but there's no guarantee of a safe release in a fall. Fritschi and Marker bindings can take any sort of boot.

Consider boots with swappable soles. The Tecnica Cochise range is good. Scarpa's new Freedom looks okay too.


The TLT5 is very light, somewhat softer, and definitely less robust. It makes a good ski mountaineering boot, with an emphasis on the mountaineering bit. If all you're doing is human-powered touring, this would be a good choice... pair it with dynafit bindings and don't use it on piste all the time.

The Vulcan is a heftier, tougher and much stiffer bit of gear and makes for a much more sensible choice for an all-round boot. It'll be waaaay better on the down, and probably last longer, and it is pretty lightweight for a ski boot even so.

Neither are a great choice if you want to use em in alpine bindings, but you might not care about that.

In reply to climbhead:

My experience with your dilemma is as follows

After a couple of years on piste skis and badly fitted normal boots I took the plunge and bought an Alpine Touring set up; Scott Mission skis (90 under foot), Fritschi Eagle bindings and Scarpa Denali boots ( these have all been discontinued but you will find similar counterparts). I found them great for all my skiing, piste, off piste and touring, particularly the latter due to relatively light weight.

More recently as my off piste skiing improved I wanted skis with more surface area and stiffer, and stiffer boots too, so I bought some Whitedot Preachers with Marker F10 bindings and Black Diamond Factor boots; all fantastic fun for steep and deep stuff. They are for lift served off piste but I will be buying skins for them for the forthcoming season to access some challenging skiing.

However for long climbs and always in Scotland I will always go back to the Scarpa/Scott/Fritschi set up. Unless I've been really unlucky I don't believe I would often get the conditions in Scotland to benefit from lugging up the heavier Preachers etc. Re the bindings, I find the Fritshi heel lift adjustment on the move very useful especially for Scottish undulating terrain.

I

I'd say 'yes you can'. I find my Maestrale boots (which I had fitted properly at Backcountry at Ilkley) superbly comfortable. I ski some pretty rorty off piste in them fine (The boots are fine, I am crap I should clarify!).

A touring set-up is going to be close to a thousand quid I'm afraid, can you afford some piste skis as well?

In reply to climbhead: Oh, and to state the obvious you will need to budget for an avalanche transceiver too (also spade and probe)

In reply to blurty:

Not really, which is why I am hoping to get away with a single set.

I will probably use them mostly for touring in Scotland, with the occasional on-piste, so it might not be a 50/50 use, probably more like 70/30 or 60/40 in favour of touring.

(at least that's where my aspiration lies)

I can get a set of Maestrale boots, Dynastar Cham 87 and Fritschi Eagle 12 bindings for 1009 euros at Conrad Sports

In reply to kevin stephens:

thanks, yes, and skins too

In reply to climbhead:
I think it would be a big gamble to get the boots on-line. If you want them comfortable for touring AND also responsive for down hill performance (on and off piste) custom boot fitting (and foot beds) is essential. Well worth the extra cost of buying in a real shop (you're based in Glasgow?). They may be able to do a good deal on the whole package too.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Yes, I would actually prefer to get them locally and have them fitted. Could potentially get the skis+bindings online separately, depending on package price

In reply to climbhead:

I'd just get the touring set-up you can afford at this stage, get the piste skis in a year or two.

Personally I wouldn't buy boots mail order; I'd get them from a decent bootfitting shop like Backcountry, or Sole in Chamonix. (Unless you're totally confident you know the size/ shell size you need, then pay to have the boots fitted in the UK (assuming the boots have moldable liners))

In reply to blurty: DO NOT use touring boots in an alpine down hill binding. you will break your knees because the vibram sole (high friction) on the touring boot will make the downhill toe release unreliable.

down hill boots have smoooth plastic on the toe. Hense why you can know by multi sole boots.

fritchi originally had a spring loaded toe floaty but on the front to solve this problem I think now there is some sort of low friction pad.

regards
AL

In reply to climbhead: One piece of advice, buy it from sport-conrad.com you will save hundreds of pounds, even with the costs of getting it delivered from Germany.

In reply to climbhead:

Whatever you get, will be a compromise as others have said, but to be honest, don't worry about it. I have one set of skis to do everything. Ideally, i'd have lots of pairs, but I keep only getting 3 or 4 numbers on the Lottery.

For what it's worth, I've got Scott Crusairs and Fritschi Freeride Pros. I use them for piste days/weeks, gully skiing and touring, and they are fine for that. Sure, a long tour, I guarantee I would be wishing for a lighter set up, but I tend not to go on long tours, so it's not much of an issue. I think they are fine, and I would buy another pair of Crusairs if I needed to. Given the state of my bases, I may need to sooner than I would like to...

As for boots, these are the most important bit. Go to a good boot fitter and invest the time getting a pair that fits. Even then, you might not get it right, but you are more likely to than if you buy off the internet without getting them fitted. Sure, but the skis and bindings that way, but not the boots.

In reply to climbhead: I have used fritschi freeride pros with scarpa spirit 4 boots for piste and touring for last 4 years and have done ok. The maestrales and eagles seem like a similar set up which would work well for both?

In reply to climbhead:

I have both your K2 ski options.

Unless your 50/50 is made up of fairly gentle piste cruising and long distance touring then it has to be the Hardside.

In reply to climbhead:

Just read the rest of the posts...

My opinion is that if you want one set of skis for everything then go for about 90mm underfoot, get something slightly beefier than a pure touring ski and pair it with a dynafit binding to claim that weight back. You see this kind of combo a lot in the alps in the places where people do a bit of everything. It wont (can't) be perfect on everything but unless you're a ski tester you're unlikely to notice the difference.

Boot wise, if they fit your feet you can't go wrong with a pair of Maestrales but then I've never tried the others.

Get on the likes of Sport Conrad for deals.

In reply to climbhead:

Like others have said, forget your shopping list of preferred boots. I see you're up here in Scotland... go to a decent shop like Braemar Mountain Sports, tell them what you're after and try on a selection. I have RS's. They're really stiff. You're probably after skis <100mm, so don't need such a beefy boot. Something more forgiving will probably be nicer, unless you eat a lot of pies!

And if your touring is likely to be mostly day tours in Scotland, don't fret too much about getting all lightweight for touring. Similarly, no need to go overboard with macho freeride bindings. Will you ever need DIN 10+? My girlfriend has Eagles, they're great - probably spot on for what you're after. And the (easier than Marker) ski/tour transition is good for shuffling along on high Scottish plateau terrain.

Hope this helps!

In reply to climbhead:
FWIW I just invested in my first b/country set up.

I got Dynafit TLT5-M's, Manaslu's and Vertical ST's w/skins. Initially purchased for accessing mountain routes in winter and ski touring when not climbing. I'll echo what previous posters have said about the TLT's; they are not as robust and not as responsive as heavier boots, they also flex significantly compared with a d/hill boot. They are an AWESOME svelte technical climbing and touring boot.

I want to avoid using them on piste or for dedicated decent days and so I purchased some Dynafit Titan's at NZD550.00 that's ca. GBP300.00 and fit my current sleds/bindings.

Next on the list for me is LaSportiva Hi5's and coupled with the titans will be my dedicated side-country set-up.

If you can afford; the Vulcan should be a good all-rounder. Or the Scarpa's with 120 flex index (RS model?) will fit the bill. As above, correct fit should be the decision maker not what looks best on paper or in photographs.

In reply to climbhead: I have one set of skis usually, always with Fritchi Freeride Pros. You dont need more than one pair, and I agree dont buy less than 90 underfoot.
Get your feet measured etc in a good shop, try a few pairs of boots on then buy them from Sport Conrad.I have the Maestrale boot which is good for me.

In reply to Gael Force: Sorry to the thread grouch and I know this comes up loads and has been discussed endlessly , but why not go to good retailer for the fitting and then say "these boots are £xxx at sport Conrad , I appreciate the time and effort you have put in to helping me but is there Any chance of coming Close to that price ?" . Problem is if the tell you to f@£k off you will then need to get the liners fitted elsewhere ". I took my current Denali tt s back to the shop three times for tweaks because they said bring them back in as many times as you like. <They didn't really need it but I fancied the girl In the shop >. Echo ing what has been said , ski s bindings off the net , boots from a good shop.

In reply to rlines:

Why is piste skiing any harder on gear than touring? Skiing is skiing no?

In reply to mike123: I agree I would ask them to price match, if they don't why would I pay more?
They dont fit boots because they like you, its so they get a sale, part of getting a sale is being competitive on price. You can fit liners yourself anyway, I think boot fitting is load of bollocks anyway , who tells the bootfitter if the boot fits, is that not the customer, so what does the boot fitter do apart from get another pair out the cupboard?

Hi everyone - thanks for your comments. I've got plenty more to think about now

In reply to Gael Force: Boot fitting is not bollox and a great deal more than getting different pairs out of the cupboard. A good boot fitter will first get an understanding of your skiing ability and aspirations, then examine your feet, posture etc. The recommended boot will then be heat moulded to fit your feet and skiing needs, this can often be an interative process over a number of hours to make sure the boot allows you to control and drive your skis effectively without painful pressure points. Similarly foot beds (liners) need to be moulded to your feet using a heat and vacuum process, not just passive but often using a laser to ensure your ankle and foot bones are supported and aligned in the most effective and comfortable way. Changing from poorly fitted boots and foot beds were a big factor in helping me to make a big step forward in skiing ability. Of course you could just buy off the shelf and hope for the best.

In reply to alasdair19:

Sorry, yes, to be clear you need a Marker type binding of the skis. Apologies for any confusion caused.

In reply to Gael Force: to be honest i would have agreed with you until i got my touring boots fitted by a young be dreaded guy and his helper, he was clearly passionate about what he did, and had i think , at the time, had a bit of a reputation in cham as being the person to go to. this was luck not design . to my shame i dont remember his name, but then i m often not sure what day it is. any road up , the boots had just gone on sale so they had all the sizes. once he had decided the size i should have he then spent a about two hours moulding the liners , blowing one of the shells out a bit and generally fiddling and faffing . he was fitting 3 people at the same time , all at different stages, with the help of er a helper, and was happily chatting away to all. i think i had the boots 8 years and they re getting a bit tired but i m loath to change them . honestly , next time you get boots, get them properly fitted.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Do you ski the same way on piste as you do when you are touring ? Hopefully not. And in touring you might perhaps descend 1000-2000m per day compared to 5000-10000m maybe on piste. More stress on the gear.

In reply to kevin stephens: Most boot fitters are in the end of the day salesmen/woman, they're trying to sell you a boot they have in the shop, and in some circumstances wither it fits you or not. To think anything else is being a bit naive in my opinion. I've heard people get some really bad advice in shops.
Has anybody ever been told by a boot fitter, actually go down the road to our competitors their boot will fit you better?
I'm not saying don't try various pairs on in the shop, just be wary about biased advice from any salesman.
If you bought boots that didn't fit you, then its down to you really, glad you can ski okay now though.

In reply to Dave:

That would only make a difference if the touring bindings were somehow engineered to be weaker and they aren't. Like all bindings Dynafits have some known points of failure and all bindings will break in the right circumstances. The downside for Dynafits as an everyday binding is that they are a bit more expensive to replace, have less elasticity, aren't DIN certified, have a pretty big ramp angle and require an often expensive specialist boot.

If anything I'd want my touring bindings to be more robust than an alpine binding as the consequences of a failure can often be very bad in the middle of nowhere.

In reply to climbhead:

a few years back I bought a package from sport Conrad.

k2 waybacks, fritschi eagle, scarpa boots, skins. I took a chance on the boots because I figured the discounted was so big that the boots were basically for free anyway.

needless to say, the boots just a little off on the size. they were great for touring and extremely comfortable and were quite good to climb in. but there was just weren't tight enough to ski well in.

I ended up selling them on the net and went to footworks in Chamonix and got myself a pair of Dynafit One boots. The difference was unbelievable and I took them to Alaska in June of this year. Excellent to ski in and with Dynafit you generally get the best range of ankle motion than any other boot.

But you need to be careful because something like a Vulcan is well stiff and probably skis aggressive terrain well, but tours less so. Similarly at the other end you have the Rando race boots which will be a nightmare to ski in.

The skis are chatterie on piste and noodly. But after a few days in skiing on piste I generally end up skiing them well. Of course for sliding up hill theyre nice and light.

My biggest regret was not getting Dynafit bindings as I could have easily dropped a kilo off the set up.

If I was going to buy again I would buy everything in Cham as they have a much greater selection and your much more likely to end up with the setup that's right for you.

In reply to Dave:

You could argue that skinning up places more "stress" on your bindings than sitting on a chairlift. I don't think there is such a distinction between touring and piste skiing anyway. Most of what i do is lift serviced off-piste and I would happily do this all day for weeks on my dynafit kit. The only thing that has broken on them is the harscheisen attachment which broke off after skinning up a hill.

In reply to climbhead:

I wouldn't narrow boots down to just 2 brands, though of course your choice will be dictated by what's available. Dynafit tend to have a narrow last so not everybody fits them well. Scarpa might be a different story. The TLT felt good in the shop, and very light, like something i would like to do the haute route in but not charging hard off-piste because they are too soft. Maybe work out what you want to do, then get something that suits that purpose and fits well.

I have the crusairs and they are a really good touring ski but not something i like in deep powder. Modern, rockered 100-110mm skis can be considered all rounders so consider something wider and longer. They manage most conditions fine but make deep snow so much more fun.

I got into Ski Touring last season and ended up with the RS Maestrale's/Crusair's/Dynafit bindings. I wanted something for mainly touring but a bit burlier than a really light set up for a bit of off piste. For resort skiing, I'll use dedicated downhill gear.

I bought the boots in the UK and had them fitted. The rest of the kit I got mainly at Au Vieux Campeur in Alberville en route. They are much, much cheaper than the UK and saved me a few £100.

There really isn't a correct answer to 'what's the best setup' as everyone has a different opinion usually starting with the kit they last bought.

In reply to boblo:

I take it the Maestrale is an tongue (ie cabrio) design which I think is better in a lot of ways than overlap boots.....certainly for getting on and off :p

In reply to climbhead: ok having read through the thread this would be my advice...

For a one ski set up don't get something super skinny and light, they just don't ski as well and are less fun. If I could only have one pair of skis they would be 100-110mm underfoot, have positive camber with a progressive rocker in the tip . Recently there are these types of ski at very modest weights. My pick of the bunch would be the whitedot ranger (carbolite ones if you are happy to pay more to reduce the weight).

For bindings as others have said I don't think dynafit style binding are less robust than alpine bindings, I have some still going strong after over 200 days on them. However the have no elasticity and I always ski them locked, not something I would advocate due to risk of injury. Having said that not lifting a plate style binding with every step is a huge advantage. The new dynafit beast has hight din retention and elasticity but at a huge cost. In your position I would be looking at the new Fritschi tech binding, a lot cheaper than the beast but still with elasticity in the toe, no 16din but most won't need that anyway.

For boots I can't state enough how important a propper fit is, don't have any preconceptions of what you think you need, go to a good boot fitter tell them how and where you want to ski, what your going to be skiing on and let them do the rest.

In reply to Ben Briggs:

Http://gb.whitedotskis.com/ranger-carbonlite/

http://www.wildsnow.com/9176/diamir-zenith-fritschi-review-skiing/

In reply to climbhead:
Lots of very good advice - from some very good skiers !! Check Mr Briggs website!!! I got my first touring set up in Cham & knew absolutely nothing about skiing - like you to approach routes & do a bit of offpiste. Interstingly when it came to bindings the guy in the shop said a friend of his - a doctor in the local mountain rescue- said he saw a lot less knee injuries etc from people with dynafit bindings!!! In places like Cham almost everyone uses dynafit for touring, it seems like Britain is still in the stoneage. I was more or less a beginner when I started with dynafit bindings & have never had a problem with them releasing. There are a few quirks & they are a LITTLE bit more fiddly to get into but the weight difference is massive. I have done all my skiing on/off piste with dynafits no problem. Unless you are a real speed merchent/very good skier/ or hucking big cliffs I doubt very much you will notice a difference. Re skis I had Scott missions & now have Dynastar Cham 97`s which are a lot heavier but also much stiffer & perform much better on hard snow - which if you ski in Scotland/Europe you will encounter a fair bit. Soft light skis are much harder to ski on this stuff. The dynafit bindings mean you can go for a heavier ski. Would aslo say I only do day touring & this weight is OK. Lastly as Ben says on steep ground most people who can ski that sort of ground lock the dynafit bindings ( our guide in Cham last year insisted we do this!!) which is not reccomended if you might fall!! Good luck with your choice its always a compromise!!

In reply to Ben Briggs:

Do you really always ski with Dynafits locked out even for less serious skiing? I'm 80kg and happily ski hard and drop off stuff without feeling the need to lock the toe out (RV screwed up to max tho).

Anywho I can second the recommendation for the Whitedot Rangers, just got the 195 CarbonLite version delivered the other day. Lovely ski that I can't wait to get on a nice open face to let rip!

In reply to meh:

Yeah, I find I come out of any 12 din binding a bit too easily, even when maxed, alpine or touring so just always lock them. Normally when I'm on dynafits I'm skiing pretty serious terrain though and I wouldn't advise it as a good idea, a friend destroyed a knee doing exactly this.

In reply to Ben Briggs:
Yeah that and the risk of horrible fractures puts me off locking the toe unless the terrain warrants not losing a ski.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Skiing is skiing, but not all skis and bindings are created equal.

You can cover a hell of a lot of vertical distance in a day of lift-served skiing. Much more than you could if you were entirely self-powered, and the odds are good you'll ski harder too because you don't have to worry about navigation or surprise drops.

Tech bindings are smaller and lighter and have stress concentrated on relatively small bits... heel pin breakages aren't exactly common, but whenever a mention of one pops up, seems that the usual story is that it broke whilst skiing on piste, something the rider did often. That's not to say that breakage is guaranteed, but ultimately those dinky little touring bindings just can't absorb nearly as much punishment as chunky alpine bindings do. Don't hear many stories about mid-to-high-end alpine bindings failing through overuse, do you?

In reply to Ben Briggs:

Sounds like your skiing technique could do with some work, unless you're a big chap dropping off big cliffs all the time? Walking out of RV12 alpine bindings sounds like a warning to me.

To be fair, RV12 tech bindings aren't really that much better at keeping you attached in all circumstances than lower RV models, because you're still at the mercy of those fixed-strength toe springs (which are allegedly around RV7, but that could just be a made up number). That's the most interesting improvement in the new tech binding models (zenith/vipec, TR especially... beast not so much), because they let you adjust toe release.

In reply to Gael Force:

Yes.

They had about 15 types of touring boots in the fitter - but after looking my feet sent me to the shop down the road to buy boots then bring them back for fitting.

Boot fitting is the best investment in ski-ing you can make imho. Completely transformed ski-ing for me after years and years of painful boots.

In reply to Shearwater:


Um, you do know who Ben Briggs is? - I'm thinking maybe not..

http://ben-briggs.com/2013/05/06/les-courtes-n-ne-face-cordier-gabarrou/

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC:

Nope, I did not.

Still doesn't explain why he just walks out of bindings though.

In reply to Shearwater:
>

Normal skiing:
http://cf.ltkcdn.net/ski/images/std/146360-425x282-skier_yellow_coat.jpg

What Ben skis down:
http://tetonsandwasatch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/dave-downc...


Yeah, perhaps the strain on them binders is a tad different.

In reply to HeMa:

It may startle you to learn that there are actually some folk out there who do some quite serious ski mountaineering on Fritschi bindings. Those bindings don't go past 12 and you can't lock yourself into them. Somehow, these people don't just walk out of their bindings in no-fall-zones and die.

In reply to Shearwater:

Why would that startle me, as I've skied quite a bit on Diamirs (Titanal IIIs and Freerides). So yeah, some stellar stuff can be done with non-optimal gear, like Bill Briggs soloing and skiing Gran Teton N-face in early seventies... with a fused hip none the less.

In reply to HeMa:

Splendid. So, we've established that this sort of thing can be done on bindings like that which don't have super high release values and don't lock you in.

So, under what circumstances will bindings at the same RV totally fail to hold someone in place? Perhaps they're doing massive jumps. Perhaps they're just really big. Perhaps its something else. But clearly something is unusual, hence my original comment.

In reply to Shearwater:

Not really, skiing has evolved quite a bit in the last 20-15 years. In the past billy goat jump and peddle turns were to norm, where as now it's more speed and real turns.

It's the same with climbing, you still climb in hobnail boots and only tie a hemp rope around your waist? Or do you use climbing shoes and a proper harness?

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC: Yeah of course they did.

In reply to Shearwater:

I can't think of anyone, tech binding or 16din touring binding seems the norm but I suppose that depends on your definition of serious. I wasn't trying to advocate locking dynafits it is dangerous for normal skiing, just noting that the toe releases quite easily when they are not locked and the added elasticity of the new Fritschi tech binding may help to eliminate this for people not wanting to lock the toe making them a viable option for a one ski quiver.

As for alpine bindings I'm big but not huge (6'1 and 85kg) and find jumping of even relatively small drops at high speed a binding set at rv12 will release when I don't want it too, I know because its a good idea to set the RV value as low as possible and found out through trial and error, increasing it slightly until reaching a point I was happy. It's not perticullly relevant to the OP but was more to illustrate the point that just because I lock at dynafit it doesn't mean that a lot of people would need to, if the toe springs do have a RV value of 7 unless your big or skiing really hard that's going to be fine.

It's always a good idea to keep an eye of the condition of your gear and maintaining it by changing heal pins, I have never broken a dynafit but have snapped a duke so Personaly I think they are pretty robust. Chance of rip out is a bigger concern and depending on the construction of the ski over 100mm ish underfoot it's probably a good idea to use a freeride style plate under the binging, like on the Plum Yak or this- http://www.atkrace.it/eng/r03-xxl-plates.html

In reply to HeMa:

The style has changed a lot since those days, it's all about freeriding these things now putting very different strains on equipment.

In reply to Shearwater:
"Tech bindings are smaller and lighter and have stress concentrated on relatively small bits... heel pin breakages aren't exactly common, but whenever a mention of one pops up, seems that the usual story is that it broke whilst skiing on piste, something the rider did often. That's not to say that breakage is guaranteed, but ultimately those dinky little touring bindings just can't absorb nearly as much punishment as chunky alpine bindings do. Don't hear many stories about mid-to-high-end alpine bindings failing through overuse, do you?"

Yes, people break alpine bindings all the time! Anecdote is hardly a good way way of assessing failure rates for various uses.

In reply to Ben Briggs:

Interesting. I suspect that modelling forces on a binding when landing a jump on softish snow is probably a bit of a nightmare, but it seems likely that some folk tend to land in a way that puts more stress on the bindings.


That always seemed like an odd design choice to me. Contrast with the Look Pivot which seems super popular with the FWT folk, and has a pretty narrow mount pattern, no?

In reply to Ben Briggs: Great old-school steep skiing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX6CROt-UpQ&feature=share

I'm an 80kg skier, 100 days a winter almost all on Dynafit, only 2 pre-releases that I can remember. I ski with locked toe-piece on steep ground, but open everywhere else, RV 9.

In reply to Shearwater:


Interesting point, in the toe mount pattern the screws are defiantly further apart than on a dynafit but yes they are very close in the heal, more so than other alpine bindings. It's what I'm going to use on my redeemers. Interestingly it was the dynafit toe piece that I have ripped out before, I wonder if it's the same for others?

I'm no engineer but it makes sense to me to spread the force over a larger area. I think the elactiticty of an alpine binding would also mean that less force is transmitted to the screws making rip out unlikely compared to a tech fitting. The construction of the ski will also play a big part,an alpine ski is heavier but gives the screw more to bite into. if you have a metal sheet and a beefy wood core you are not going to pull a binding out but with light weight skis, which you are more likely to mount a tech fitting on the chances would be a bit higher.

In reply to Shearwater:

Am I right in saying that you think the Technica Cochise is good as an "only boot" for both downhill/AT stuff? I assume the Salomon Quest falls into the same category, are there any others?

A bit like the OP (whose thread I'm attaching myself to rather than start a new similar one), I'm looking at getting one do-everything boot (though no skis/bindings yet, just the boots), having rented uncomfortably for years.

Level-wise, I'd describe myself as experienced - blasting down red, will ski black but a bit cautiously, and loving what off-piste I've done. While I'm in Sweden this winter, I'm looking at getting a lot done - including some touring in Lappland later in the season, but also the traditional week in the Alps with the parents.

In reply to David Ponting: it's the origional but there are a bunch now, K2, BD, Salomon and Scarpa I think, probably others all have a model designed to meet both norms for alpine and touring bindings.

In reply to graham F: yep great video an cool descent, other than the use of the heli! using the top of the route he skied and traversing onto the east face I think it would be possible to make a complete descent of the Matterhorn without rappel. See from your profile you are base in Switzerland, are you in that area a lot? Would be nice to have someone to tip me off to conditions

In reply to Ben Briggs: I talked to the PLUM guy the other day as he fitted my bindings. He says every ripped-out binding he's seen (not many)was a toe-piece and was skied locked or badly mounted. Stiff ski+skiff boot+locked toe can put lots of extra force through the toe. Ski design is important, screw length is crucial, not over tightening screws, always glue screws etc. Wood cores/metal sheets don't always go full width of the ski so wider mounts might not be better. Lots of interesting points.

In reply to Ben Briggs:
>

I would say so. As for the Pivots being popular with parkrats and freeriders, well it is a well proven high DIN design, with pretty much the most elasticity on the market. Hence more likely to stay on yer feet.

In reply to Ben Briggs:
>it's the origional but there are a bunch now, K2, BD, Salomon and Scarpa I think, probably others all have a model designed to meet both norms for alpine and touring bindings.

In terms of crampon fit and abiltiy to climb in these boots, are there any that are significantly better than the others? I'm about to buy a pair of Maestale RS because of being fairly good for climbing in as ski boots go. But if I can get a boot with changeble soles AND be able to climb in it then I'd reconsider! Thanks for any tips.

In reply to NottsRich: I have the technica's but wouldn't do any proper climbing in them, they will probably all be similar. If the Maestale climbs any where near as well as TLT5's which I suspect they do then they will be much better for climbing than any of the overlap style boots with changeable soles.

In reply to NottsRich: having said that if it was just for moderate pure ice and no mixed or rock they would be fine.

In reply to Ben Briggs: Many thanks. Apparently the RS are similar to the TLT5 for climbing. The crossover boots are much heavier I've been told, so I'll not worry too much about them as they'd be for ice and mixed, but nothing too technical. Any benefit I can get would be useful!

In reply to Ben Briggs:
Speaking of crampon fit, I have pair of Camp XLC 390 crampons that I would like to use with my TLT5s. I notice that with this pairing there is a gap between the boot heel and the two wee metal posts at either side of the crampon. This worries me that the gap could create a bit of play and cause the crampon to come off in certain conditions. Anyone come across this problem and have a solution? Thanks.

In reply to graham F: Brilliant video of skiing down the Matterhorn, was interested to see he kept an ice in one hand most of the way down!

In reply to craigloon: just had a look at my tlt5s and my petzle crampons I use with them, there is also a small gap due to how narrow the heal is, never had a problem with them coming off so you should be fine as long as you fit them correctly. You don't want do be doing anything that puts too much stress on an ally crampon anyway they will break.

In reply to Ben Briggs:

Cheers Ben, this would be for booting up icy slopes, not rock. However, having experienced one unplanned slide on hard neve, I don't fancy a repeat.