If your touring is limited to shorter climbs and you are reluctant to shell out for tech binding compatible boots, then stay with the frame binding and tour in any old alpine boot, even a race boot. You will pay a bit of a price on the up, by lugging extra weight, but unless your tours are beyond 2 hours ad your pace is slow and steady, you'll be fine. Then you'll enjoy the ride down on gear that you are comfortable on.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Gear Marker Kingpin Advice
- Thread starter Lauren
- Start date
I just purchased some of the new Fritschi Tecton's. They may be the mythical "best of both worlds" binding by having a tech toe piece with elasticity, as well as an alpine style heel for vertical elasticity + lateral power transfer (and allegedly lighter than the Kingpin). I'll post up my thoughts once I get a few days on them. That being said, I have never skied on Kingpins, only old Dynafit's (which always felt a little harsh in hard snow/variable conditions), so I won't be able to provide a direct A/B comparison.
1) KingPins have always been available here all throughout the spring and summer and even now. I purchased a pari of KingPin 10 in july as a snap price...
I Initially planned to replace the Barons on my Gotamas with those, but I am having second thoughts about that.
I now think I will keep those aside for my GF and wait for a snap price on KP 13 or a combo of new freeride skis+KP13 and keep the Barons on the Gotama.
2) Skiing the Gotama w/ Barons with the Tecnica Plug boots (old XT17) on groomed terrain is very close to ski a GS setup, with the difference that one had to meticolously plan when and how to turn, then commit to that turn and do not play with it. Off piste , in powder...a joy. I purposedly chose the Gotama over the Mantras that were also being offered, because I wanted a more powder oriented ski, being prepared to suffer a bit on the transfer to "the fields of joy" on the groomers. I found out, with pleasure, that the Gotama are also good on the groomers, on almost any snow condition but the hardest ("barred" slope or blue ice)
3) I have skinned with Gotama and Baron in that pair of Tecnica plug boots, it's a hog of a thing to do, but it is doable. Liners did not have laces, and that was a minus. Best case I found it is short,steep approaches (1800 to 2500 mt asl in a black run after season, boring but doable, used short strides). Long treks on flattish terrain, where I used long strides, led to blisters on my feet (1200 to 1850 asl on a blue with red portions...a huge PITA, I felt like I was crossing the whole of Siberia). Still it can be done.
4) At last I pulled the trigger on a sale offer on Tecnica ZGGP boots to use with the freeride setup (and these have laces on the upper portion of the liners)
5) In any case I plan to spend the minimum necessary time skinning (or skinning+climbing with skis on shoulder/backpack) uphill in any occasion. And even then, only if I absolutely have to (or need to climb back up of, say, a cul-de-sac) what with the goal being the descent. Approach will be "mechanized" most of the time.
I Initially planned to replace the Barons on my Gotamas with those, but I am having second thoughts about that.
I now think I will keep those aside for my GF and wait for a snap price on KP 13 or a combo of new freeride skis+KP13 and keep the Barons on the Gotama.
2) Skiing the Gotama w/ Barons with the Tecnica Plug boots (old XT17) on groomed terrain is very close to ski a GS setup, with the difference that one had to meticolously plan when and how to turn, then commit to that turn and do not play with it. Off piste , in powder...a joy. I purposedly chose the Gotama over the Mantras that were also being offered, because I wanted a more powder oriented ski, being prepared to suffer a bit on the transfer to "the fields of joy" on the groomers. I found out, with pleasure, that the Gotama are also good on the groomers, on almost any snow condition but the hardest ("barred" slope or blue ice)
3) I have skinned with Gotama and Baron in that pair of Tecnica plug boots, it's a hog of a thing to do, but it is doable. Liners did not have laces, and that was a minus. Best case I found it is short,steep approaches (1800 to 2500 mt asl in a black run after season, boring but doable, used short strides). Long treks on flattish terrain, where I used long strides, led to blisters on my feet (1200 to 1850 asl on a blue with red portions...a huge PITA, I felt like I was crossing the whole of Siberia). Still it can be done.
4) At last I pulled the trigger on a sale offer on Tecnica ZGGP boots to use with the freeride setup (and these have laces on the upper portion of the liners)
5) In any case I plan to spend the minimum necessary time skinning (or skinning+climbing with skis on shoulder/backpack) uphill in any occasion. And even then, only if I absolutely have to (or need to climb back up of, say, a cul-de-sac) what with the goal being the descent. Approach will be "mechanized" most of the time.
I just sold my Kingpins and replaced them with Tectons. I'm a noob ( old guy, been at this a few years now, never skied before ) so take my comments accordingly.
The Kingpins were solid enough. My issue was ease of use. Switching from walk to ski while still on the skis was difficult for me ( flexibility is not what it used to be ). Most the time I just got out of the ski to switch modes. Not a big deal, but there was a better solution for me.
I set up a second set of skis where I used Vipec black bindings. These were easy to use for me, can do everything standing up in ski. I don't think they would be near as connected for real downhill skiing ( well beyond where I am skill wise though ). They fit what I needed for the second set of skis ( more tour ).
The Tectons seemed that they would bridge the gap being much closer if not equal to the Kingpins. I have them mounted, but still waiting for good snow to hit where I go in Colorado to give them a try.
Touring and climbing in the Kingpins and the Vipecs is nice, the Tecton will be the same. The plus I see for the Vipec and Tecton over the Kingpin is the toe piece. Both have a real settable release for the toe and some float.
That's my short noob input. Of all of them, the Tectons seem the most promising to me. You do need a tech heel as well as toe for the Vipec/Tecton direction.
The Kingpins were solid enough. My issue was ease of use. Switching from walk to ski while still on the skis was difficult for me ( flexibility is not what it used to be ). Most the time I just got out of the ski to switch modes. Not a big deal, but there was a better solution for me.
I set up a second set of skis where I used Vipec black bindings. These were easy to use for me, can do everything standing up in ski. I don't think they would be near as connected for real downhill skiing ( well beyond where I am skill wise though ). They fit what I needed for the second set of skis ( more tour ).
The Tectons seemed that they would bridge the gap being much closer if not equal to the Kingpins. I have them mounted, but still waiting for good snow to hit where I go in Colorado to give them a try.
Touring and climbing in the Kingpins and the Vipecs is nice, the Tecton will be the same. The plus I see for the Vipec and Tecton over the Kingpin is the toe piece. Both have a real settable release for the toe and some float.
That's my short noob input. Of all of them, the Tectons seem the most promising to me. You do need a tech heel as well as toe for the Vipec/Tecton direction.
The king pin twist release setting is adjusted at the heel. I've calibrated mine and the release, both twist and forward, is reliable and accurate. I've not used the Vipec or Tecton so can't attest to their release characteristics.
Just wait for the Salomon Shifts next year.......... full on best of both worlds as the tech is totally going to change now.....and Salomon does not do the "Crash Test Dummy" phase w/ their first releases. Usually rock solid from the get go....... reported @$499.........not bad.....cheaper than Kingpins.... http://shift-bindings.salomon.com/en
I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.
Me too........ totally interesting development in BC. I listened to most of the interview linked by @neonorchid over in the other thread. From what those guys were saying they didn't give the Shifts the "Ok" until they were bulletproof and dead on target.
We'll see as I'm no longer loving my frame bindings! I did an experiment and took a set of frame bindings off of my BC skis Line Sick Day 102's, and put alpine bindings on them. OMG it's like a different ski! I HATED this ski w/ the frame binding. Now w/ the alpine binding, it's one of my favorite skis........... Hmmmm....... I had no idea the frame affected the feel of the ski to that degree! I'm thinking...........no more frame bindings for me.
On another note, I used to LOVE my 2016 Mantras..... then I converted them to frames ............ now a totally different feel to the ski.......... I don't like it! I'm also thinking of reverting those back to alpine bindings in addition to the other skis mentioned above. I've got some more testing to do and I'll report back.
The price point seems good if that's where they really land. I found some other articles online about them and they do look good. Functionally, seem very similar to the Tectons I just mounted. Will look forward to their release.
Just FYI, tech bindings do not have the release characteristics of an alpine binding. This thread https://pugski.com/threads/astm-binding-test-chairman-talks-about-at-bindings.6779/ discusses the differences and compromises that virtually all tech bindings have. My take away is this: use tech bindings for touring. If you are skiing in the area, use an alpine binding. If you really have to go only with one and you are only doing short and infrequent tours, use a frame binding.
I did ski a lot of backcountry in Kashmir with a frame binding and a race boot. Not the most pleasant uphill, but it did work.
Mike
I did ski a lot of backcountry in Kashmir with a frame binding and a race boot. Not the most pleasant uphill, but it did work.
Mike
Yes, but the idea behind the Salomon Shifts is Tech for uphill/ Alpine for downhill all built in to one mechanism. That's a win/win and will most likely raise the bar on BC designs overall.
Perhaps and hopefully so. But the kingpin isn’t such a design.
Is there more to it than the lateral release at the toe? The Vipec and Tecton do have this, and the Kingpin definitely did not. The biggest difference between the Vipec and Tecton is the Vipec is a tech pin heel, so it's suspended, the Tecton has more of an Alpine heel clamp.
The Vipec/Tecton toe now also has a catastrophic release in walk mode, which seemed interesting to me. The older Vipecs and Kingpin in walk mode were release when "something" breaks.
For me, I might never get to the skill level to care, but the technical/safety aspects are of interest to me.
The Vipec/Tecton toe now also has a catastrophic release in walk mode, which seemed interesting to me. The older Vipecs and Kingpin in walk mode were release when "something" breaks.
For me, I might never get to the skill level to care, but the technical/safety aspects are of interest to me.
Me too........ totally interesting development in BC. I listened to most of the interview linked by @neonorchid over in the other thread. From what those guys were saying they didn't give the Shifts the "Ok" until they were bulletproof and dead on target.
We'll see as I'm no longer loving my frame bindings! I did an experiment and took a set of frame bindings off of my BC skis Line Sick Day 102's, and put alpine bindings on them. OMG it's like a different ski! I HATED this ski w/ the frame binding. Now w/ the alpine binding, it's one of my favorite skis........... Hmmmm....... I had no idea the frame affected the feel of the ski to that degree! I'm thinking...........no more frame bindings for me.
On another note, I used to LOVE my 2016 Mantras..... then I converted them to frames ............ now a totally different feel to the ski.......... I don't like it! I'm also thinking of reverting those back to alpine bindings in addition to the other skis mentioned above. I've got some more testing to do and I'll report back.
Frame bindings tend to be tall. Most people prefer a flat mount on fat skis. That might be part of the difference you noticed.
It almost feels like the frame binding (Tour F12) gives the ski a dead spot in the middle of the ski. Then again I'm 210, skiing on a smallish ski w/ the Mantra (177 my preferred Mantra length for years) , and a lighter flimsy ski w/ the Sick Days (@ 186) ........ Would that make a difference??? At my size if I were skiing a ski more set for my size or a more burly ski, would I notice?
I went w/ alpine on the SD's and the dead spot is magically gone...
Last edited:
Doug, were you using a Vermont calibrator? with the touring binding adapter?
thanks,
Yes and no. I didn't know there was an adaptor for fitting bindings
It almost feels like the frame binding (Tour F12) gives the ski a dead spot in the middle of the ski. Then again I'm 210, skiing on a smallish ski w/ the Mantra (177 my preferred Mantra length for years) , and a lighter flimsy ski w/ the Sick Days (@ 186) ........ Would that make a difference??? At my size if I were skiing a ski more set for my size or a more burly ski, would I notice?
I ski on a pair of Gotama 186 w/ Baron, the feeling and feedback, when skiing on a groomed run or hard snow (all but except the hardest surface, blue ice and such), that I have from that setup is similar to that of a GS ski, I had my doubts when I first installed the Barons, having had a similar experience to yours years ago with a pair of K2 Hardside and frame bindings (I think the first version of the Marker Dukes), maybe the bad feeling was also due to the fact that I had skied the HS after having skied the K2 Coomba with flat bindings, Marker Jester IIRC (it was an on the hill demo day)..The HS felt "squirrely" and unstable compared to the Coomba. Must say that the feeiling is totally different with the Gotama and the Baron from what I remember of that day with the HS.
In deep snow, in their element, well, those Goat can give a lot of joy and satisfaction even nowadays. When I saw the sale at the shop, I specifically choose the Goat over the Mantra because I wanted a more powder oriented ski than the Mantra, knowing and accepting the fact that I would have had to "suffer" through the groomed runs before reaching the "out of boundary" section to ski powder, as sait, it has not been the case, moreover there are people at the area that ski Gotamas mounted with flat binding only on the groomed runs. Personally, so far I haven't regretted the choice.
BTW I am on the short side of 175 cm (5'7" ?) tall, and weight about 82 kg (181 pounds) depending on the season and training I do...
Stand height is a clear difference between frame bindings and tech bindings and most alpine bindings. Whether that bothers you is another question.
I had Aambitions on a 108 mm waist ski, and when I switched skis with a friend who had Look Pivots(about the lowest you can go) on a identically wide ski, I noticed the difference. But not bad vs good, they were just different. The taller stand height makes it easier to edge, less force required, that was actually a benefit.
Frame bindings don’t necessarily create a dead spot in ski flex, my Tyrolia Aambitions don't have one, the back end slides in and out of the the part that locks the frame down, so toe and heel are completely floating.
Regarding the efficiency gain of a tech vs frame binding. I think it’s not so much the forward location of the pivot point as the height. The pivot on the Aambitions is only about 5mm in front of the tech inserts on my boots.
I think the bigger issue is the height, with tech bindings the pivot point is at your sole, similar to walking on plain ground with the boots. With frame bindings, your boot is much higher above the pivot point, similar to walking on super thick soles (or snowclumps under crampons if you’ve ever had that happen).
I had Aambitions on a 108 mm waist ski, and when I switched skis with a friend who had Look Pivots(about the lowest you can go) on a identically wide ski, I noticed the difference. But not bad vs good, they were just different. The taller stand height makes it easier to edge, less force required, that was actually a benefit.
Frame bindings don’t necessarily create a dead spot in ski flex, my Tyrolia Aambitions don't have one, the back end slides in and out of the the part that locks the frame down, so toe and heel are completely floating.
Regarding the efficiency gain of a tech vs frame binding. I think it’s not so much the forward location of the pivot point as the height. The pivot on the Aambitions is only about 5mm in front of the tech inserts on my boots.
I think the bigger issue is the height, with tech bindings the pivot point is at your sole, similar to walking on plain ground with the boots. With frame bindings, your boot is much higher above the pivot point, similar to walking on super thick soles (or snowclumps under crampons if you’ve ever had that happen).
Last edited:
The primary gains come from not having to lift the frame and heelpiece on every stride. Longer the tour or climb, much more work. Does your Ambition pivot point move rearward when you place it tour mode? I believe the Marker frames do.
