New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Equipment Advice - getting into AT - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Originally Posted by Andy Carey View Post

:dunno In what way?  




Originally Posted by raspritz View Post

 , while modern AT gear has come a very long way, it still provides less downhill performance than alpine gear; obviously, World Cup racers don't use AT gear. 


How many World Cup's, World Freeride Tours or Pro Mogul events have been podiumed on Tech Gear?

post #32 of 38

I still see no conflict with what I wrote.  The OP is talking about being able to go backcountry.  Raspritz was talking about the same thing and that he could use his tech bindings lift-served as well but they aren't that well suited to certain types of lift-served skiing.  Who is talking about wanting to do "World Cup's, World Freeride Tours or Pro Mogul events ... on Tech Gear?"  I said frame bindings are good for sidecountry.  I said nothing about  "World Cup's, World Freeride Tours or Pro Mogul events" or any other professional skiing and I excluded extreme skiing. Anyhow, have a good day.:)

post #33 of 38

Because my feet are so hard to fit, I actually bought AT boots first, then chose the binding based on the boot. As it turned out, the boot didn't do tech, so I got Fritschis.


I realize my feet are an anomaly, but it's something to consider. Also, I have used them only a handful of times, whereas it sounds like you plan to use yours a fair amount.

post #34 of 38
I didn't see any conflict either. The statement puzzled me.
post #35 of 38
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

How many World Cup's, World Freeride Tours or Pro Mogul events have been podiumed on Tech Gear?

And this is connected to backcountry touring how? Focus. Imagine a different set of goals and a new gear reality emerges.
Edited by markojp - 12/5/14 at 2:43pm
post #36 of 38

Back to the OP and my journey from lift-bound alpine skier to backcountry AT skier....  I dabbled and wasted seven years and a lot of $$$ with frame bindings and beefier boots, thinking that is what I needed for my backcountry skiing.  It took a long time to realise the backcountry is as much as being out there and as much about the journey as it is about the downhill experience.  Finally ended up with a full tech (Dynafit) conversion two years ago and a couple of months ago spent and awesome week ski mountaineering (crampons, ice axes, climbing harnesses, the whole kit) and the skiing was done on DPS Wailer Pure carbon skis, Dynafirt TLT Vertical bindings and Scarpa Maestral boots.... in all a pretty light set up.  And not once did my gear limit my skiing.  In the last two years, except for two weeks in Telluride, I have skied almost exclusively in the backcountry and on my AT gear.


So if you don't mind the effort and find that the backcountry is your thing, ditch the heavy gear early and embrace tech.



post #37 of 38
Originally Posted by shortyski13 View Post

So, to clear up confusion, and after thinking about it a little more, this is what I currently plan on using this setup for:


-occasional saturday nights skinning up Killington (VT) at the end of the ski day and skiing down the trails which will probably be hardpack. Probably only do 1 run a night, for maybe 3 nights a month.  However, it will be a very easy going run down the mtn, in addition to being in touring equipment, because it will be at the end of the day, I'll be tired, it will be dark, and there will be no ski patrol.

- On-piste at Killington the few and far between major powder days (6"+, probably closer to 10).  I will probably want to be able to ski somewhat hard. When I say hard I mean pushing my turns and working the least for what my 135lbs can do.

-My once every 2 year trip for 4-5 days to Utah or Colorado.  I will also want to ski hard too, but I also imagine this being soft snow.

-Skinning and hiking up Mt Washington, and other non-lift served "backcountry" east coast mountains, up to 4 days in a row, but usually 2. I say Skinning and Hiking because it's a nice long skin up to the base of the ravines and then boot-ladder type climbs up the ravines on Washington and neighboring mountains.

-Possibly weekend overnight in the same areas listed above, since I have most of the equipment already for it.

-Skinning around some other small mountain ranges/areas, such as Acadia where the mountains are very small, but I'll probably still be out all day, just cover more ground.

-One longer 4 day trip to Mt Katadhin (Maine) and back. (1-2 day skin to the base of the mountain. On skiing days it is still another short to medium length hike/skin to the mtn before climbing up the steeps. Stay in huts near the base of the mountain). I don't plan on doing this right away...but every year I put it off is another year older I am when I do it.




-All the skinning and actual 'east coast' backcountry stuff, except Katadhin, would be out on the mountain all day, then get back to the hotel at sunset (currently for mt washington I hike up in hiking boots with my ski equipment on my back. We literally race the last bits of daylight while getting off the mountain).  Generally I dial it back a little since there is no ski patrol readily available to take my remains back to my family.

-I don't plan on pushing it in hardpack with this setup at all.  

-When I say 'hardpack' I mean east coast hardpack. Ice is literally Ice. Hardpack is hard snow packed down from lots of skiing. Softpack is snow compacted somewhat, but not really hard and dull edges can grip very easily. Like after they groom after a 3" snowfall. Powder is fluffy stuff dreams are made of.

-As far as hucking off cliffs go.  It's hard to say what I will feel like doing until I'm there but I'll tell you what I currently do.  I currently only go off cliffs no higher than probably 15 feet.  Unless the landing is soft and steep, I usually keep it to a minimum.  The only times I could see myself feeling like going off cliffs is when the landing is soft. When landings are hard, I will generally already be on my on-piste alpine skis (unless in the backcountry, but then I usually dial it back a little anyway).

-I only weigh 135lbs.  BUT, when skiing on-piste I typically have a camelbak on with 1-2 Liters of water (overall not very heavy).  In the backcountry, I typically carry a larger pack with more food, water, and supplies.


Do you think I would have a problem with tech bindings in any of these situations? If not, should I go for beefier, heavier tech bindings? What would you suggest.

The one thing Bob never mentioned as well was skiis.  I really have no idea on the performance of lightweight skis or really even the width I should be going for.


Side note regarding the CAST system: I had ready 2 articles where the people reviewing them really liked them. However they seem to be too much work A and fuss to me, just based off reading how they work.




A few thoughts:

Don't expect anything that hikes/climbs well to ski like your regular alpine boot.  After you use AT boots for a while, you may find you like them as much, or better.  More likely, you will always have 2 pair of boots.


If you like the idea of soul 7s, Voille V8s might be worth a look.  Or V6.


My personal opinion on a set up for what you described:

BD Carbon Converts

Dynaifits (Speed Radicals if you don't care about brakes) Other tech binding options as well.

Vulcan/Mastraele RC/Cosmos, or whatever stiffish boot fits well.


To make it the dream set up, get a set of plates, and some Marker tour f10/12s.


The Markers will accommodate touring or DIN sole boots.  For a short skin up a ski hill with no rolling terrain and only one transition, they are fine.  For anything more, swap in the tech bindings.

post #38 of 38

The biggest issue with tech bindings inbounds is the play that will develop over time by the abuse that inbounds terrain puts on minimalist gear.  Dynafits (vertical and radical - the most predominant series) and the new G3 bindings both utilize a vertically compressed spindle system (single medial structure and support rather than 2 lateral supports).  When edging on hard snow at high speeds the levering of the heel connection from side to side will cause play and will reduce the life of a high price/specific intention piece of equipment.  Excepting the Dynafit Beast (and maybe Marker Kingpin) the world of tech bindings ski very well, albeit with minimal elasticity.  But do you really want to take your $500-$600 binding and kill it using it for a purpose that you could be using a $150 alpine binding for?  If you really think you will be touring for 75% of days on snow, go tech.  But for anything 50/50, save some coin (for the tech bindings you will eventually buy) and get some Marker Tours, some Fritschi Freerides, or something similar.  Those will be the best touring framed bindings, at much lower cost (especially on used market) and better built to deal with resort skiing physics.   

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home