Salomon Guardian/atomic Tracker vs. Tyrolia Adrenelin (and whatever fischer is calling theirs..) - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

I find it odd that the owner of an account made today has had significant time on BOTH of these systems. Even when credible reviewers such as the Wild Snow group has not. Also I cannot even begin to take in to account the review of someone who states they don't even own a touring boot.

I am inclined to agree with you in regards to the reliability of somebody with only 1 post, but honestly not owning a touring boot isn't a factor in the validity of somebody's review for me. I tour in a 130 Nordica Aggressor and know quite a few folks who tour regularly in non-touring boots. I honestly haven't found a touring boot that fits properly and feels solid on the descent. Besides, folks looking at these types of bindings aren't terribly concerned with weight, otherwise they'd be on Fritsches or Dynafits (and then have touring boots). Personally, I want a semi-burly binding and could care less if it's a few grams heavier, as long as it's reliable and provides a stable platform on the way down and in varying conditions (i.e. steep slopes populated with thick sludge or sun-cupped runnels).

One question which I cannot believe that nobody has posited is "How much do each of these bindings cost?" I would like to know how comparable they will be to one another. Will the Solly/Atomic binding be cheaper than The Duke and Dynafits? What about the Fischer/Tyrolia binding? I would like to know the impact on my wallet as well as how they perform.

Additionally, what's the ramp angle on these new bindings? Will they have negative ramp angle like the early Dukes? That has always been my gripe about the Dukes, personally. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

I am most likely going with a bindingfreedom.com plate and then Dynafit Radical FT's and a FKS.

So presumably you'll use the FT's for touring and swap in the FKS for sidecountry skiing at a resort? Only compromise here is the higher stand height because of the plate but seems like it'll give you the best of both worlds.

I'm having this same debate, but currently I'm leaning towards the Atomic / Solly version because of the lower stack height.  Jury is still out, however, so I'm glad this thread was started.

Are these going to be released in the fall or not until the middle of winter?  I've heard both answers, but fall would seem to make a lot more sense for marketing purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

yeah, 7mm's. I am also considering inserts as well but the plates do offer the ability to reuse with any size bindings without making the ski in to total swiss cheese. 

Buddy I just toured around Lassen with has the DynaDuke plate on his skis and digs 'em. He's had "regular" Dynafits in the past and hasn't complained about the increase in stack height. 

As for the whole argument about switching the walk mode easily (i.e instead of having to take the skis off a la The Duke) and the argument that you have to take your skis off to take off the skins anyway, one presumably has already taken the skins off and switched to ski mode before they are in a precarious spot (i.e. you've de-skinned and are no boot-packing up the final steep pitch of your ascent). That said, I have skinned all the way to the top of a pitch and then had to take off the skis, switch to ski mode, and take off the skins in not-ideal conditions (i.e. steep, firm snow with limited footholds). At any rate, I've been on first-gen Dukes and haven't really had a problem with the whole switching to ski/walk mode. My biggest complaint with the Dukes is the negative ramp angle. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

...

 

Are these going to be released in the fall or not until the middle of winter?  I've heard both answers, but fall would seem to make a lot more sense for marketing purposes.

Head said theirs will be out in the fall. I didn't email Salomon about theirs but I assume it'd be out in the fall as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexzn 

...

 

I also don't get the fuss with taking the ski off to switch to the ski mode.  Don't you have to take the ski off to peel the skin off anyway? So, what's the difference? 

 

...

I'm reckoning this'd appeal to us sidecountry skiers and even then it depends on the resort. There are a couple of long, flat, hikes out of Harmony bowl (one of my favorite parts of WB). THe track gets packed narrow and "skating" is not an option. It'd be nice to be able to switch stances on the fly. I agree with a few of you about the skins though - if you have to take the skis off to remove the skins this won't be of any help. 

FWIW, the bloke in the Sali video gets his skins off without removing his skis - but quite sure he's better than I'll ever be so don't think I'm saying this will be my way to remove the skins . I will have another look and try to get my head around how tough it'd actually be to do this. Right now I reckon it's probably safer to take the skis off to remove the skins. Being off-balance with 1000+ feet down on over 6 feet of powder does not sound like fun. Thoughts?

or useful with patterned base skis..... (no skins required).

I've been adding product pages for the 2013 gear and had the pleasure of fondling most of these at SIA back in January

With Marker making improvements on the Duke this year - (see tags on the right of the page) I'm wondering if this is an important market, or did Marker hit a bulls eye with the Duke in tapping into a market that was left in limbo.  Now there are a bunch of options, meanwhile people who've wanted to dabble in BC skiing with a Duke (or Baron) type of binding are making the investment into real BC binding/boot combinations.  Marker is "improving" the Duke to keep competing with this market

So here's a thought rambling around in my head......

Will all the new bindings in this category be seen as "also ran"(s) or is there a growing market for this set up? 

Same here.  I actually just pre-ordered some of the Atomic Trackers over the weekend.

The problem with plates is that you are talking about carefully designed very lightweight skis. Plates both add weight and impact flex --- in a situation where you already have a substantial and heavy binding. The techs I know claim it is a serious PITA to do inserts - but if I were gonna go the swappable heavy AT binding route (which I probably will not), that's what I'd do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trekchick 

...

 

So here's a thought rambling around in my head......

Will all the new bindings in this category be seen as "also ran"(s) or is there a growing market for this set up? 

 

My vote'd be on an expanding niche market. The hard core BC crowd are not buying these, they'll stick with the dedicated BC bindings like Dynafit and true AT boots. Dabblers like me will keep their downhill boots but these will open up more options for us.

But let's face it - most eastern skiers heading west for a week (or more) of skiing won't want to spend an hour or two hiking up a 40 degree slop for one run. 

^^ Yep.  I'm going to mount the trackers on a dedicated pow ski, which 90% of the time I'll be using inbounds.

BTW - the Cochise Pro 130 boot with swappable soles is actually low volume (97 or 98mm) and what I'll probably be switching to from the same boot that you're in, assuming the fit is similar to last year's Cochise boots.

This

http://www.epicski.com/products/2013-tecnica-cochise-130-pro

Only down side Finndog, is that the boots won't match the green in your jacket and helmet. 

Really confused why one would purchase the Tracker binding to mount on a powder ski that is only going to be used in the resort...what's the point of that?

I've had Dukes since they came out, mounted on a 94mm waisted ski that was dedicated solely for AT jaunts. I never used it in the resort and would never use a Duke/Tracker/Adrenelin as a resort binding unless I was going to go the route of 1 single dedicated ski for everything (i.e. a single ski for work/freeriding/touring). 

To each their own, but I fail to see the need to have an A/T binding, even one that's marketed to the casual skier, as an everyday binding on a ski that you don't plan to use for touring.

Additionally, there are very few hike-to spots in Tahoe at the resorts that would necessitate bringing skins. Most folks who hike for turns at the resorts just boot-pack. You're really only skinning on jaunts that are several miles to get to the goods and are not affiliated with any resort (i.e. true backcountry). 

That's just my 2 cents.

By all means, feel free to spend your coin as you see fit, but for me, the binding will go on a ski that will be dedicated solely to touring and patch skiing. Afterall, that's what the binding is predominantly geared for.

FWIW, I have been touring the past two seasons in Nordy Dobey 130s...not the optimal touring boot for the hike uphill, but way bueno for the ride down. I have a large number of friends who tour in "regular" boots and another contingent that are sworn Dynafit fanatics. It really depends on what you cotton to. I've never been on a Dynafit set-up, so I don't know what I'm missing in terms of weight. I do know the limitations of a race boot while touring (more apt to blister in certain spots). I've never done long (as in overnight) tours, but I have done all-day tours in a variety of settings (Carson Pass, Lassen), all on Dukes and with race boots, and I've survived them all. In the end it really boils down to what type of touring you are doing. With binding like Dukes/Trackers/Adrenalines, the target market is obvious: people who charge in the BC and want a burly binding. But there's also the wannabe Joey GoPro who is gonna buy the binding because it will make them look cool and feel like a BC charger whilst schussing the groomers at their favorite resort. That's fine, but again that's ultimately not what the binding is intended for (unless, again, you are gonna have only 1-ski that you plan to use 50/50 in the resort and BC). 

For me, I've tried a number of AT boots and haven't found one that I like and more importantly, feel comfortable and confident in (I'm a mere 155-165 lbs during ski season and I've crushed a couple of AT boots). In terms of binding, other'n Dukes I've ridden Fritsches and found them to be wonky and not the least bit confidence inspiring. 

Not referring to anybody in particular, but there's been a few posts in this thread where folks are saying they are gonna plunk down on the binding but put it on a predominantly resort specific ski, for which I don't see the point other'n to have the latest gear to show off in the lift-line. 

Again, there's no real need for a touring binding if you're skiing the resorts 90% of the time (I have never seen anybody skinning up at any of the resorts in Tahoe other'n folks hitting AM post and pre-season when the resort is closed). Of course if you're buying the binding to ease into touring, then that's awesome and what it's also intended for, though if I wasn't 100% sure I liked to tour, I'd rent some touring gear first and try it out; I've known folks that buy the full monty and then do one trip where they skin for a mile or so and realize that they just don't like working for their turns. If this is the case, why spend the coin until you know that you really dig this type of skiing? Me, I borrowed gear from friends for the first few times I toured (and we did reasonable day jaunts up on Tioga and down Mammoth way) until I knew that I dug spending a day to ascend a peak and then get 1 sweet run back to the bottom. I wouldn't have bought my Dukes until I knew that I actually liked to tour. 

In regards to the Solly and Tyrolia bindings coming out, for me, I've had issues with the Dukes in terms of negative ramp angle and am looking for a more "traditional" (i.e. like my Look Pivots) AT binding that I can still use with my race boots until I locate a proper AT boot that feels and fits right (I've skied in Garmont Adrenelines and Dalbello Virus and hated both and everything else I've tried hasn't fit properly or has been too soft).

Again, to each their own, but these are ultimately AT bindings intended to be used for touring, but providing a more burly feel than, say, Fritsches (again, I can't speak on Dynafits as I have yet to ski a set-up).

And as I stated, if you're gonna buy this binding to ease your way into touring, cool, but again, me, I'd borrow or rent some touring gear before pulling the trigger just to make sure that I enjoyed touring (it really isn't for everybody). 

Also, there were a few posts from EC skiers that seemed to assume that everybody out here in the West slaps on skins and tours around the resorts. That's not really the case. Again, most of the OB BC stuff at the resorts is accessible by boot-packing and traversing. You're only gonna slap on skins for non-resort days. So, if you're getting the binding because you think it's gonna make skiing slackcountry in the resort easier, it's really not.

:)

dookey - I casually threw out "90%" of the time.  Hopefully I'll be touring on them more than 10% of the time, but my point was based on what I've heard from several people it will still work great for resort skiing.  I don't necessarily want to buy an entire new setup strictly for AT, hence buying one that I can still use in the resort but elsewhere also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dookey67 

Additionally, there are very few hike-to spots in Tahoe at the resorts that would necessitate bringing skins. Most folks who hike for turns at the resorts just boot-pack. You're really only skinning on jaunts that are several miles to get to the goods and are not affiliated with any resort (i.e. true backcountry). 

 

. 

I think the AT/Alpine binding segment has a lot of uses.

     What do the skinless boot packers do when the last member of their party blows his ACL 500 feet above them on the way down?  How do they render assistance, if their exhausted from post holing up  through  three feet of snow?  I see this a lot and think that most people are totally unprepared, if the shit hits the fan.  

I also used Dukes on my single pair travel skis.  I mostly resort/cat/heli, but I have the option for short tours if necessary.  Heli down days, at least you can go for a hike?

Also use them frequently when I sled ski.  Sleds can break down and I don't want to spend the night out if I don't have too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

^^ Yep.  I'm going to mount the trackers on a dedicated pow ski, which 90% of the time I'll be using inbounds.

 

BTW - the Cochise Pro 130 boot with swappable soles is actually low volume (97 or 98mm) and what I'll probably be switching to from the same boot that you're in, assuming the fit is similar to last year's Cochise boots.

hey JayT and finndog (and dookie for that matter),

I spent basically all season in the Cochise Pro 130 (27), and then all spring in the Cochise Light (26).

I typically ski in a 27 Head RD 150 95mm (312mm BSL) w/ lots of punches (thanks to jeremy at sport loft, great boot fitter for the SLC folks), and have basically always skied in 27 shells for non-race applications for as long as i can remember, though it is worth mentioning the head RD 95 150 toe box and flex is really more like a 98/130 boot.  

i feel that the 26 size cochise (310mm boot sole) fits more true to a 27 alpine boot.  I am SUPER pleased with my cochise lights (with a few mods) in the 26.  anatomically thru the lower shaft of the leg, instep, and ankle fold, the cochise/light is most similar to a 27 salomon falcon or a 98mm head raptor.  The 98mm cochise pro (when fit with a shorter shell size) is more similar, fit-wise, to a lange l10, doberman or inferno. i personally cannot fit the cochise pro 26 without a massive amount of boot fitting.  

the toe box is a tiny bit shorter on the short-shelled cochise, but at least for me, totally fine, and would easily take a small punch forward if so required. 

if you are coming off a more relaxed fit alpine boot (krypton, full tilt, x-wave/impact, 100+mm last, 120 or lower flex boot), i would suggest sticking with the same size shell in the cochise.  

obviously the heel pocket is no where near as tight on the cochise compared to the above race boots, and you really don't want it to be, but they certainly offer more heel hold than a krypton as an example.  my point is that if you are in the above alpine boots, i would at least start with my suggestions in terms of trying stuff on, and go from there.  

finally, i would suggest the cochise pro light over the regular cochise (*caveat* no idea what the MSRP difference is for these 2 boots), IF and only IF, you plan on ditching the stock liner anyways for an aftermarket liner, and the purchaser has slight mcguyver inclinations.  The cochise light does not have a softer spot over the instep the way the cochise does, which makes the cochise light a bit more responsive on firm snow.  The cochise light benefits greatly from the addition of the caming power strap buckle to stiffen the initial stroke of the boot off a cochise or cochise pro.  the cochise light's liner is a super thin, sort of weird palau liner.  save it for an old pair of plug boots or something, but i would not use it in this particular boot. I went straight to a intuition dreamliner HV to get maximum compression and minimum weight.  perfect compliment.  

the new 2012 cochise pro and cochise liners are both very nice.  most users do not need to switch these out IMO, unless one is very particular about their gear.  The cochise pro IMO really benefited from switching away from the caming buckle strap and going to a WC 3-layer Booster strap. I felt the forward flex was not progressive enough with the caming buckle setup.  

i did add a pretty substantial spoiler to the back of both cochise boots to take up volume and add cuff angle.  

as a small point to mention: the tecnica tech toe and heel blocks both passed vermont testing in a salomon driver binding, and the heel block passed vermont testing in a P18, so i personally just run the tech heel block full time and switch toes only in my alpine bindings... and am *almost* tempted to switch back to 916's so i don't have to swap blocks at all. 

for me, anyway "at boots" that are not tech compatible are a joke.  they are alpine boots with a mode to walk around the parking lot. if you are serious enough about touring to want a specific boot for it, why in the world would you want that boot to rule out the by-far-and-away most superior binding system for skinning and skiing in the backcountry?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by msolson 

for me, anyway "at boots" that are not tech compatible are a joke.  they are alpine boots with a mode to walk around the parking lot. if you are serious enough about touring to want a specific boot for it, why in the world would you want that boot to rule out the by-far-and-away most superior binding system for skinning and skiing in the backcountry?  

I agree - I'm still surprised the new Lange XT doesn't offer the swappable sole option.  Even though I don't have any tech bindings currently, should I go that route in the future it would certainly be nice to be able to do so without also having to buy another pair of boots.

Thanks for the info Marshal - I remember reading your initial write-up on the the Pro 130 on Blister last year.

To speak to Marshal's post, I know that Technica boots tend to run smaller (i.e. Phil put me in a 25 Inferno last season and I'm in a 26 Nordy, he basically stated that you go one size smaller for this brand). As always, danke gracias for the tech info (though I still need to find me an AT boot that fits near well enough to my Aggressors, which, btw, have become really comfy after about 500 days...almost perfect for touring as long as I keep 'em unbuckled on the way up!

:)

To JayT, yeah, when I saw your post I was like "WTF?"

My comments should be caveated by the fact that I don't know JayT. We met once last season in passing, introduced ourselves, shook hands and that was that. Thus, I have never skied with JayT. I do not know what type of gear he uses, what type of conditions he skis, or, more importantly, how he skis.I also have no idea what JayT's AT background is. I only know that he skis at Northstar and Northstar doesn't have any terrain that would warrant the use of an AT binding.

All I can speak to is that his comment of purchasing a >$500 AT binding to put on powder specific skis that would be used 90% inbounds at a resort perplexed me. 

For me, I tend to do most of my touring early season (Oct/Nov) and late season (March/April/May and into summer conditions permitting). I have never done an overnight tour, but I have done 6+ hour full day tours that probably ranged in the 6-12 mile roundtrip category. My two previous touring set-ups were Dukes on a 99mm waisted ski and then the same Dukes on a 94mm waisted ski. I had some Dalbello Virus for a season and hated them (too upright). I have also toured on borrowed AT skis that ranged from 88mm to 105mm. Most of my tours have been done in my race/work boots (size 26 Nordica Doberman Aggressor) because I have yet to find an AT boot that I like. Additionally, given the predominant conditions in/around Tahoe (where I do most of my touring, along with down Mammoth/Tioga/Sonora Pass way) tend to be very variable. Thus, I have yet to find the need to tour on a powder specific ski (again, this also plays to one's definition of what a "powder specific" ski is: to me that would be anything between 115 and 140mm underfoot). I've actually found that between 90 and 100mm is an optimal width for a touring ski in/around Tahoe. Additionally, the fact that local  Tahoe ski company Praxis, who were at the forefront of the whole fat ski movement, just released their first bonafide touring ski and it's 94mm underfoot, leads me to believe that folks are coming back down to earth and looking at skinnier (85-95mm) mid-fats as optimal touring skis for the variable conditions we have here in/around Tahoe. 

Additionally, if I were to purchase an AT binding, I would wish to put it on a versatile ski as opposed to a powder specific one. But that's just me. Plus, I'd make it AT specific (i.e. a ski that I would rarely, if ever, use at the resort). Again, these are just my thoughts based on how I ski, where I ski, what conditions I prefer, and the type of ski I like (I've spent the past 2 seasons on 86mm and 87mm skis as my everyday ski for both work, freeskiing, and boot-packing/patch skiing, borrowing a 99mm ski for touring from a friend). I'm not interested in going any fatter than 100mm for my AT specific set-up (in fact the skis I have been seriously considering for a new AT set-up are the Bushwacker (88mm) and the Bonafide (98mm). Given the propensity for Tahoe boilerplate or Sierra Cement to be the snow condition in the backcountry, I'm looking for a nimble ski that can handle those conditions and also be compatible for those sweet days of neo-blower (something between 85 and 105 with a short/medium radius and some rocker is optimal).

Again, this is all based on my personal experience and not knowing JayT's, just going with his original post earlier.

As for Shredhead's comments, sure, in extreme conditions, but the bit about your buddy blowing out his ACL above you infers that you are actually out on a serious BC jaunt, not a short resort side-county excursion, which is the scenario that I'm gathering most folks here on Epic are interested in getting the binding for. And those are the folks that I'm perplexed by. An AT binding at a resort is kind of pointless, especially if you are only taking a 1 week a year trip out west to ski in Colorado or Utah where most of the stuff you would probably be doing would be short boot-packs to terrain above the lifts. Again, folks rarely, if never, skin at the resorts in Tahoe unless the resort is closed (I have skinned Alpine Meadows both pre-lift-served season and post-lift-served-season).

I'm not trying to dissuade anybody from purchasing either of these bindings, but my feelings are that if you're not going to use them at least 50% of the time for touring, then why bother? Again, if you're unsure whether you'll like touring, then borrow or rent some gear first and try it out before laying out >$500 for a binding that is predominantly intended for touring but you plan on only using at the resort.

My long-winded monotribes aside, I'd still like to read some really in-depth reviews of the two bindings and how they stack up next to the Dukes (I personally don't see a need to compare/contrast them to Plumbs or Dynafits).

I ski all over Tahoe and head out to Colorado for at least one long trip each winter - obviously the Tracker is not intended for Northstar!  I'm looking at skis in the 114 - 118 range with rocker / camber / rocker, so it'll be versatile enough but obviously powder oriented.  Besides, it's not like I'm getting rid of my other skis with regular downhill bindings.

For flying out to CO, I'd much rather only have to haul along one setup for both resorts and touring.

If I thought I was going to be doing a ton of touring, I'd likely go dynafit / plum, but in reality for me that wouldn't make any sense.