UKH

I'm a climber turned skier. That's lazy code for "I don't ski like a french 11yo", or "it's not pretty". I am however objectively pretty fit.

I have a pair of touring skis that I'm going to mount some pin bindings to. I have in-bounds skis with WTR alpine bindings, but might occasionally just bring one pair of skis with me so they may get skied occasionally inbounds (read: I don't plan using them as my only alpine skis).

Does (for example) a Marker Kingpin offer a significantly improved skiing experience over a lighter weight binding (for arguments sake, an Alpinist)? Does this change if I'm not a great skier? Is this somewhere I should 'spend' weight, or should I spend it elsewhere - on boots (I have vulcans) or skis (I have MTN 95s)? For what it's worth, the thing I struggle most with is being knocked out of control (often backwards) on difficult lumpy crud.

Cheers ahead gang.

In reply to neuromancer:

I think the biggest difference is not robustness, it's how easy the binding is to get in to. Light bindings have virtually no guidance to assist this so if you come off your skis frequently in deep snow it can be a proper ball ache to get back on them.

In reply to neuromancer:

I think there won't be a definitive answer for years (if ever?) to the binding we're all looking for (lightweight, go anywhere, do anything)

Some of the bigger names have recently got in eg. the Salomon Shift, but there's a lot more discussion to be had...

Anecdote is never data but I've been skiing Vipecs happily for a while now and a friend (excellent skier) ripped her ACL on a regular slope for (seemingly) no reason using the lightest Dynafits...

This always seems to be worth a good read https://www.alpine-guides.com/ski/insider-knowledge-ski/ski-touring-equipme...

A suivre

In reply to neuromancer:

Something like a kingpin, vipec or shift will have a lot more elasticity and therefore provide a less harsh feel. A lot of the minimalist tech bindings have 0 toe elasticity. 

In reply to Oli:

The newer Dynafit rotation/radical 2 have good elasticity 

In reply to kevin stephens:

Yes, but I'd be tempted to put them closer to the 'robust' category than the more lightweight options such as Plum Guides/more skimo oriented bindings which I don't believe have any toe elasticity

In reply to Carless:

Anecdotal reference point: I got a pair of shifts mounted to my blizzard bonfires just before Xmas. Haven’t skinned in them yet but have played around with the transition and it seems very simple. Skied down hill inbounds with them 4/5 times with no issues. When I finished up yesterday after some fairly spicy side country and piste charging I realized that for the first time I hadn’t Thought about the binding all day. I’m sold.

In reply to wildebeeste:

The Shift does look like a game changer, I would put them on a pair for resort based touring no problem.

I have Vipecs with no brakes for Lakes and Scotland touring and they are pretty light and have decent toe release.

In reply to wildebeeste:

I’ve got that exact set-up, I think, if bonfires is autocorrected bonifides and not another model of blizzard skis. It’s a great set up for side country and I use it for on piste.

My “in between” set up uses G3 ions, which I find a good compromise between light and robust skiing, certainly for what I do, no cliff drops!

My lightest set up is blizzard zero Gs 85 with Kreutzspite GT bindings, amazingly light, but I ski more cautiously on them.

In reply to neuromancer:

Just as long as you're not tempted to go for the new B.A.M "pindungs" - five of us have just had a week of off piste with them and none of us is keen to repeat the experience. Great in principle, crap in practice.

In reply to neuromancer: I’ve got a pair of Shifts mounted on Scott Slights. I’ve skied 16 or so days downhill on & off piste with no issues - they work. I’ve also done 8 days touring with them - while the transition is simple, in touring mode the ski brakes occasionally flick down if clipped by the opposite ski creating drag which is proper pain as it’s difficult to push them back up without removing the ski.  The solution is either better technique or a buy a couple of thick rubber bands designed to hold ski brakes up! The Shifts also have a single 10 deg(?) riser which some might say is not ideal. Overall, for me the benefits of an alpine downhill binding (simple to step-in & release) outweigh the additional weight & brake niggle.

In reply to Steveb27:

I've recently mounted some shifts on some wider skis to use both in and out of bounds. They ski really well and are much more robust than pin bindings for drops /rotations etc. 

I think if the riser is down, you can just stamp down with your heel to stow the brakes. I did find that the action was occasionally affected by icing, as was the toe piece switch but a poke with a pole solved that. 

In reply to neuromancer:

Difficult to really know what your ski level is. I would say if you imagine you will be falling over or falling over a lot, you're probably better off with at least a more robust pin binding with some give in the toe, e.g. Radical 2 and heavier. That will be more appropriate for your skis/boots and a set up of the type that many people would use as their only set up.

A more lightweight binding will of course work, but it's probably better to be a very good all conditions skier and/or to ski them more conservatively, so that you are falling over not at all or only very occasionally.

With a heavier binding you can push yourself with more confidence when skiing piste, sidecountry etc., which will help you become a better skier etc. They will have a slightly better feel when skiing.

Anecdotally, a lot of pin-binding injuries seem to be low speed, awkward falls where you don't generate enough force to release the binding.

Skiing crud is easier on a heavier, stiffer ski.

Don't buy a binding that has been released in the last 1-2 seasons. There are always problems and you're better with a more established model.

In reply to damowilk:

Correct!

In reply to neuromancer:

If the ski is going to be used as an alpine ski some of the time maybe a frame binding would be another option, if the ski is being used for long distance touring it might be a non-starter.

In reply to neuromancer:

As above - not used as alpine really at all. Just touring, albeit some lift assisted. 1480g skis and free touring boots.

In reply to John Ww:

Have Salomon ripped them off with the design or the other way round ? They look very similar...

In reply to fibonacci moose:

This problem is not isolated to pin bindings alpine bindings and hybrid bindings all suffer from this.

In reply to neuromancer:

I would say the short answer would be no. I think the downhill performance of lighter (to a point ~250g) bindings is not that noticeable to most people. What you might be sacrificing instead is features (brakes, risers, safety? etc.)

In terms of spending weight I find the ski has the biggest effect, followed by the boot then the binding.

In reply to random_watcher:

 A more heavier/freeride oriented tech binding will be also better to ski. The only reason it has generally more elasticitt than a lightweight tech binder (pretty much none).

simply put, the lighter you go the more binary the binding will feel. It’s either on or off. The heavier ones have a much more even character, so will feel easier to ski. 
 

One of the reason Look Pivots/Rossi FKS is universally loved on the hard skiing crowd. Pretty much more elasticity provided by any other binder on the market. 
 

that being said, my choice has been Dyna Beasts, as they can be had for peanuts. But they might be a tad too beefy for some (Din 14 or 16 models, do best to have yer Dins st 8/9 or above). I also have older TLTs on my misery stix (only used for pure skinning).

In reply to HeMa:

I agree that there is a difference in ski performance between lightweight tech bindings and hybrid/freeride touring bindings, but my personal experience is that the weight difference by changing ski is more noticeable than changing bindings.

I have skied a reasonable range of lighter weight bindings and skis and feel that I notice the difference much less between a 300g and 600g binding than between a 1200g and 1500g ski and would say this difference is much more significant.

In reply to random_watcher:

True. 
 

But 1.3 is not really light. So a beefier binder will be a better much. And as said, nicer features so nicer to use. 

In reply to Dark-Cloud

Sorry, don’t know the answer to that one.

In reply to HeMa:

I guess that is where personal preference comes in, for me if I am skiing a 1300g ski I have already accepted the downhill performance has already been restricted enough by the ski that I feel a lighter weight binding is not going to be the thing that makes the difference.