or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Touring bindings for daily use?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Touring bindings for daily use?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Just got the 187 Blizzard Bonafides for my new daily driver and my friend is trying to convince me to throw a pair of touring bindings on them... which seems pretty intriguing. Does anyone here use touring bindings for their daily driver? If so, which bindings do you recommend? Anyone recommend against doing this? One thing that concerns me a little bit is that I'm a pretty big guy at 6'4" 210 lbs. Will I be able to trust a touring binding for everyday use in-bounds, landing cliff jumps, etc..?
I'm taking a look at the Marker Kingpin as well as the more burly Salomon Guardian. What do you guys think? I would love to have the flexibility of a touring binding, even though I would only be taking advantage of the "touring" capabilities a few times per season.
post #2 of 18
Salomon Guardians are more than capable of handling what you describe. They are solid (heavy) frame bindings.
Kingpins have tech toes so you would need AT boots. I'm interested in further responses re: kingpins as I'm also think inking about a pair. I'm your height and 5kg heavier, but I don't drop cliffs unless by accident.

2015 guardians are MNC which means you can use both AT and alpine boots.
post #3 of 18

Tyrolia Adrenalins are also good and MNC compatible.

post #4 of 18

I've been skiing 1st Gen Marker Dukes on my (almost) daily driven 189 4frnt Turbo.  I got them in 2011, and I've had no issues with them, and I'm 5'11/195.  I use Tecnica Cochise 120 boots with both the DIN and tech sole.

post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 

I've been skiing 1st Gen Marker Dukes on my (almost) daily driven 189 4frnt Turbo.  I got them in 2011, and I've had no issues with them, and I'm 5'11/195.  I use Tecnica Cochise 120 boots with both the DIN and tech sole.

 

How awkward is the stack height? Is it fairly noticeable?

post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZERSTIMBERS View Post
 

 

How awkward is the stack height? Is it fairly noticeable?

 

Not at all.

Or maybe I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me. 

Or it's a figment of peoples imagination.  People that think too much and just need to get out and ski.  The kind of people that believe the hype about bindings with wider mounting footprints.  And performance socks.

 

My other skis are mounted with 916s with no riser plate, and I could switch back and forth with out missing a beat. 

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post

Not at all.
Or maybe I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me. 
Or it's a figment of a figment of peoples imagination.  People that think too much and just need to get out and ski. people that believe the hype about bindings with wider mounting footprints.  And performance socks.

My other skis are mounted with 916s with no riser plate, and I could switch back and forth with out missing a beat. 

^^^^^^
post #8 of 18

I have the Guardian bindings I put on an old pair of Rossi Sin7s and they're as solid as any other binding I've used. I did notice the height difference the first time, but after one or two turns it became a non-issue. They're definitely heavy and I can see the appeal of a lighter, Dynafit setup, but they work well. Also, when touring, they're loud - lots of click/clack sounds that the other guys' setup didn't have, but again, you get used to it.

 

As mine are the older model Guardians, I can only use alpine boots (currently have Technica Ten.2). My boots don't have a hike feature, so the few times I've done short tours I just unbuckle the top buckles. It's not ideal (or even that comfortable), but it's manageable. I'll be upgrading to Salomon Quest Pro 130 boots this week, which should help. Given that 90% of my skiing is inbounds, with occasional side-country excursions, I wanted something that performed well as a binding first, but had touring ability - the Guardian bindings fit that need pretty well.

post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 

 

Not at all.

Or maybe I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me. 

Or it's a figment of peoples imagination.  People that think too much and just need to get out and ski.  The kind of people that believe the hype about bindings with wider mounting footprints.  And performance socks.

 

My other skis are mounted with 916s with no riser plate, and I could switch back and forth with out missing a beat. 

 

Amen!

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyja View Post
 

I have the Guardian bindings I put on an old pair of Rossi Sin7s and they're as solid as any other binding I've used. I did notice the height difference the first time, but after one or two turns it became a non-issue. They're definitely heavy and I can see the appeal of a lighter, Dynafit setup, but they work well. Also, when touring, they're loud - lots of click/clack sounds that the other guys' setup didn't have, but again, you get used to it.

 

As mine are the older model Guardians, I can only use alpine boots (currently have Technica Ten.2). My boots don't have a hike feature, so the few times I've done short tours I just unbuckle the top buckles. It's not ideal (or even that comfortable), but it's manageable. I'll be upgrading to Salomon Quest Pro 130 boots this week, which should help. Given that 90% of my skiing is inbounds, with occasional side-country excursions, I wanted something that performed well as a binding first, but had touring ability - the Guardian bindings fit that need pretty well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 

 

Not at all.

Or maybe I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me. 

Or it's a figment of peoples imagination.  People that think too much and just need to get out and ski.  The kind of people that believe the hype about bindings with wider mounting footprints.  And performance socks.

 

My other skis are mounted with 916s with no riser plate, and I could switch back and forth with out missing a beat. 

 

Huge help, thanks guys! Sounds like I'll be buying the Guardians.

post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 

Well sometimes I wish I wasn't so OCD about researching gear! Just when I thought I was set on the Guardians I find this:

 

 

Did this guy just get a bad pair or has this common with all Guardians? I'm definitely having second thoughts.

post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZERSTIMBERS View Post
 

Well sometimes I wish I wasn't so OCD about researching gear! Just when I thought I was set on the Guardians I find this:

 

 

Did this guy just get a bad pair or has this common with all Guardians? I'm definitely having second thoughts.


I have no idea what that video is supposed to be telling us.

 

Is it that there is "play" in the binding when the guy is ARTIFICIALLY weighting the front of the ski with his other foot and then wiggling the heel back and forth with his weight UP on the binding/boot?

 

If so, so what?

 

I try to ski with my weight DOWN on the ski.  My own interpretation of this is that anyone who tells me that they can move their heel in the boot and their boot up and down when UNweighted seems to be telling me that they have a problem in a situation they would never run into in an actual on-hill skiing situation.This seems to me like a ridiculous "issue" and I wouldn't pay the slightest bit of attention to this video.  

 

I don't know anything at all about Guardian bindings, but there isn't anything in this video that would make me even slightly nervous about skiing that binding.  

 

Just my opinion, of course.

 

I've had lots of bindings over the years that had play in the system when I was applying artificially un-natural weighting on the ski.  Once you actually ski on the bindings on real snow, that problem disappears.

 

Seem like a bogus issue.

post #13 of 18

I'm 6'2" and 260# and have been skiing with Marker Dukes as my daily driver on my Wailer 112 Hybrids for 3+ season with no problems.  I also just upgraded my Wailers to the full carbon version, and thought pretty hard about the Marker Kingpins.  I didn't want the weight of the Dukes for these skis, but wasn't too excited about the tech toes of the Kingpin for all the resort skiing I do, so went with the CAST Si&I system and Marker Lord bindings.  I haven't toured with this system yet, but am loving it for skiing inbounds. 

post #14 of 18

I have 5 alpine days and several hikes on the Marker Tour F12's........... me 210 lbs, 6', 90% alpine, 10% uphill ......... they are pretty much bulletproof so far. They climb well, super easy to use and take both alpine and AT boots. Solid binding I would highly recommend. I don't even notice them on piste, which is the way it should be.

post #15 of 18

If you have a history of breaking stuff or just aren't sure, go with a beefier set up like a Duke. Otherwise, all of the above will work fine for everyday resort skiing and the rare tour as long as you're not hiking for more then a couple of hours or have really strong legs. 

post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
 


I have no idea what that video is supposed to be telling us.

 

Is it that there is "play" in the binding when the guy is ARTIFICIALLY weighting the front of the ski with his other foot and then wiggling the heel back and forth with his weight UP on the binding/boot?

 

If so, so what?

 

Agree with you, Bob, but OTOH, think he and you may be talking past each other. He discovers, correctly, that AT bindings have more play than fixed alpine bindings - not precisely an earth-shaking new finding - and assumes that means they are somehow defective or unsafe. Which does not follow. But he's correct that he'll get more play, artificially weighted or not, weight up or down, in an AT rig; it's just the nature of the leverage produced by the design. Landing airs will not exactly help the play, either. 

 

The real issue IMO is that about 2% of people who buy AT bindings actually use them for their engineering target: Day-skinning; sidebounds and back, hikes and walking back, some resort and some OB. They're not a alpine binding, they're a compromise that takes care of a little of this and a little of that and leaves no one quite satisfied.

 

The 98% mount them just cuz, oh, they look cool and full of risky intentionality. It's important to be able to skin in case, well you know, you ever get around to it:

 

First, though, gotta get that cool little pack - great for lunch and a camera, and for sure it promises risky business, and then (maybe) all that weird specialty AVY stuff, although got to say the mini-shovel is very sexy to the chicks, and finally some time must figure out those damn skins that keep getting stuck to each other wrong when I practice in the living room, and the one time I tried outside they kept coming off, and well, maybe next trip. Meanwhile, let's hit the groomers and maybe hike a little to ski back to the lift, feel like an backcountry adventurer, and worry about play in the design.... 


Edited by beyond - 2/8/16 at 8:38pm
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Agree with you, Bob, but OTOH, think he and you may be talking past each other. He discovers, correctly, that AT bindings have more play than fixed alpine bindings - not precisely an earth-shaking new finding - and assumes that means they are somehow defective or unsafe. Which does not follow. But he's correct that he'll get more play, artificially weighted or not, weight up or down, in an AT rig; it's just the nature of the leverage produced by the design. Landing airs will not exactly help the play, either. 

 

The real issue IMO is that about 2% of people who buy AT bindings actually use them for their engineering target: Day-skinning; sidebounds and back, hikes and walking back, some resort and some OB. They're not a alpine binding, they're a compromise that takes care of a little of this and a little of that and leaves no one quite satisfied.

 

The 98% mount them just cuz, oh, they look cool and full of risky intentionality. It's important to be able to skin in case, well you know, you ever get around to it:

 

First, though, gotta get that cool little pack - great for lunch and a camera, and for sure it promises risky business, and then (maybe) all that weird specialty AVY stuff, although got to say the mini-shovel is very sexy to the chicks, and finally some time must figure out those damn skins that keep getting stuck to each other wrong when I practice in the living room, and the one time I tried outside they kept coming off, and well, maybe next trip. Meanwhile, let's hit the groomers and maybe hike a little to ski back to the lift, feel like an backcountry adventurer, and worry about play in the design.... 

 

Very nice turn of a phrase, beyond.

 

Thumbs Up

post #18 of 18

I have been using Dynastar Early Tram bindings (rebranded Naxo NX 22) touring bindings for the past 7 seasons on my daily drivers and they work just fine.  I have not had a realease or retention issue and although they are not not quite as stiff as a regular binding, the lateral stiffness is quite acceptable and the slop (if any) is not noticeable when  skiing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Touring bindings for daily use?