The Skinny on Skinning

[Ken_R]

After some offline conversations I'm going to go with my current boots, frame bindings and some skins.

I will also do some hiking up in instances where the lower mountain has dirt but other than that I now know what I need.

I will still have to pick which skis will be the lucky recipient of the frame bindings but I have time.

Thanks to everyone for their input

Do your boots have a walk mode? If not the setup wont work. I mean, I tried it once, ONCE. (Frame bindings with Alpine boots sans walk mode unbuckled...)

 

[Primoz]

@Ken_R it works, not great, not even good, but it can be done. I have done quite few 3-4h tours with my race boots (sure they were "soft" Rossi ZC not ZE boots, but still rock hard compared to what most people ski) and frame bindings on my wide pow skis. As I wrote, it's not fun for up, but for down it's pure perfection, and if you do it on more regular basis then just once or twice a season, it's definitely worth getting anything that is even just remotely considered as AT boot, and anything that's not frame binding But just to try out, it can be done. Question is, what you expect out of it, and how strong character you are, as there's pretty big chance you will hate going up with setup like that, and will start to hate touring, even though it's not touring that you really hate but current equipment setup

 

[ScottB]

After some offline conversations I'm going to go with my current boots, frame bindings and some skins.

I will also do some hiking up in instances where the lower mountain has dirt but other than that I now know what I need.

I will still have to pick which skis will be the lucky recipient of the frame bindings but I have time.

Thanks to everyone for their input

Surfsnowgirl,

Not be be a PITA, but as a fellow New Enlander, I feel the need to chime in and say you are making a poor choice. You have much better options based on what you have said in your earlier posts. With the gear you have your best decision for now is:

Buy a used backpack that can be used for ski touring in the future, put your boots in it, strap your skis to it, and hike up in your hiking boots. Change to alpine gear when at the top and ski down. Total cost for now: about $50-100 or less for the pack. Why? doing any skinning in Alpine boots sucks. You will hate it. If you skin, you need boots with a pivotable cuff, its called a "walk mode". Without it, you don't want to skin (you can do it, but nobody likes it). Your feet will be mad at you and its not fun anymore.

Next year, when buying new boots: get a boot with a walk mode and with pin inserts in the toe. The one you mention will be fine. There are others to consider when its time for you to shop. Now its time to decide on new frame bindings or the shifts you mention. Either works for a skinning setup. You will need skins too. If your new boots have the pin inserts, you can use the shifts or you can go frame, both work. Without the pin inserts your new boots will work in all your alpine bindings (and the frame bindings) but won't work in a shift binding or a lighter weight touring binding. You are now getting into a lot more $$ but you will have a real skinning setup. Most people who get frame bindings, move on to "pin" style bindings due to the weight and less than optimal pivot point placement. Not all move on. If you go the shift route, they work great on the up and the down, so no need to move on unless you become a weight weenie or do much longer tours, I suspect you won't, for the same reason I won't either. (I enjoy life too much to want to test my limits all the time). The cost for what I am describing is approximately:

Boots: $300-500 (on sale)
skins: $150
frame bindings: $250 (on sale)
Shift bindings: $550

Deals or used is always a good way to go.

The important decision factor for this set up is weight. Alpine style boots with a walk mode and pin inserts are heavier and cost less. They will ski better on the down, not as well on the up (more friction in the cuff). Hybrid style boots (my Atomic Hawk Ultra XTD's) give up a little on the the down, but are much much lighter and work great for the up. Frame bindings are less $$ but heavier and don't pivot as well. From my point of view, the only reason to buy them is if you already have an alpine boot with a walk mode that you want to use and you are doing mostly side country skinning (short tours). The shifts are game changers and if you can get them for $300 or under, buy them now, you will thank yourself later.

Weight of the gear makes the difference between getting tired very quickly and sucking wind the whole way up, or feeling like you are hiking uphill in hiking boots and just sucking wind moderately (at least at my fitness level). If you go too light (weight weenie light) you won't like the down part of the skiing.

For reference my setup which I really am pleased with is:

shift binding
Atomic Hawk XTD 130 (hybrid boot with walk mode and pin inserts, pretty light 1400 grams) (about 2 lbs per boot lighter than alpine boots)
Black Diamond mohair/nylon skins
Blizzard Zero G 108mm skis (185cm) These filled a quiver hole, I could have used a pair I already had to save $$ I like them as an inbounds ski as well, they are that good.

 

[James]

How are skis with a fair amount of rocker for skinning? Like a Dps Wailer 99. It's really an extended curve tip. Blister calls the effective edge 149cm for the 184 size ski.

 

[Rod9301]

How are skis with a fair amount of rocker for skinning? Like a Dps Wailer 99. It's really an extended curve tip. Blister calls the effective edge 149cm for the 184 size ski.

Not good

 

[Ken_R]

How are skis with a fair amount of rocker for skinning? Like a Dps Wailer 99. It's really an extended curve tip. Blister calls the effective edge 149cm for the 184 size ski.

It doesnt matter much in soft snow but in hard snow it might a bit, specially in the tail. Generally when skinning the traction is more towards the center of the ski and towards the rear. Where the weight is.

I have skied the Wailer 99 and it is an awesome ski for the backcountry. I would use it no question.

 

[Rod9301]

It doesnt matter much in soft snow but in hard snow it might a bit, specially in the tail. Generally when skinning the traction is more towards the center of the ski and towards the rear. Where the weight is.

I have skied the Wailer 99 and it is an awesome ski for the backcountry. I would use it no question.

Interesting, i never liked the 99, because it got deflected a lot in bad snow.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

How are skis with a fair amount of rocker for skinning? Like a Dps Wailer 99. It's really an extended curve tip. Blister calls the effective edge 149cm for the 184 size ski.

https://www.momentskis.com/products/wildcat-tour-108

Been using those all season. It is my first season touring so I can't tell you definitively whether something else would be better, but I have had no issues with back sliding down a track. They are very good coming down in anything at all soft and not scary in hard snow (you're not doing super high energy carves on them but I can't say I've noticed that as a problem).

 

[Ken_R]

Interesting, i never liked the 99, because it got deflected a lot in bad snow.

Yeah, they are mainly skis for good snow but still hold an edge in harder snow, specially if one is not super heavy. They are great in powder, which is plentiful in the backcountry.

 

[Stacks]

Tons of good information on this thread, so keeping it alive. I've just bought the Fischer Ranger 120 which seems to me a crazy light boot. I've got frame bindings (Marker F12) currently but will look to change to a tech binding if this is working for me and I can get a bit of a crew together, which is the great challenge.
I was looking at the Shift but the Fischer rep who I got my boots from recommended the Fritschi Teton as the way to go. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Rod9301]

Anything would make more sense than the shift.

 

[Analisa]

I was looking at the Shift but the Fischer rep who I got my boots from recommended the Fritschi Teton as the way to go. Any thoughts on this?

Both are great bindings, and sit on the “ski well and impressively safe but rather finicky” end on the scale of tech-compatible bindings. Shifts are a little heavier & more work to transition, but ski like an alpine or frame binding.

It’s mostly a weight/downhill performance trade off with the winner really depending on personal preference (unless you do lots of yo-yo laps with frequent transitions or >6-7k vert in a day - in those cases, I’d lean towards the tecton)

 

[pais alto]

If you ski hard on tours and would want/need the most alpine binding-like ‘feel’ for the downhill, then Shifts. If you want lightness (ie. you don’t like carrying heavy things uphill) and ski somewhat less than balls-to-the-wall on your tours then the Tecton (or any other ‘classic’ tech binding) would serve you well. Distance is also a factor - longer tours benefit from lighter bindings (Tecton/G3/Dynafit/etc.)

 

[ScottB]

Tons of good information on this thread, so keeping it alive. I've just bought the Fischer Ranger 120 which seems to me a crazy light boot. I've got frame bindings (Marker F12) currently but will look to change to a tech binding if this is working for me and I can get a bit of a crew together, which is the great challenge.
I was looking at the Shift but the Fischer rep who I got my boots from recommended the Fritschi Teton as the way to go. Any thoughts on this?

As a shift owner, I couldn't be happier. (well, if they cost less I would be happier) I have no desire to experience what a tech binding feels like as I come from a downhill perspective. If you know how you feel about downhill versus tech, then go with your feelings. If you don't know, then it might be worth it to try/rent a tech binding setup for the experience. You save some weight, as much as 1 lb per ski, so you have to look at the total weight of your setup and decide what makes sense for you. I bought fairly light weight boots and skis, so the 300-400 grams of extra binding weight for the shifts were worth the downhill binding like performance to me. I used my AT setup a lot in the resort for downhill skiing, so the shifts kill it for me. My AT Blizzard Zero G 108's are my favorite spring skis in my quiver and I ski them with my Lange RS140's as much as I ski them with my Atomic Hawx XTD 130's. I push them as hard as any downhill ski, so the shifts do what I want them to. I don't do long tours yet, but I don't see the overall weight of my setup holding me back. (as long as I am on the Hawx, not the Langes)

Since you are on frames now, I assume you are coming from a downhill setup. I think the last two posts are good advice to guide you. I am much more downhill oriented than Analisa or Pais

 

[ScottB]

Stuart,
Did you get the Ranger Free boots? that have pin inserts in the toes? If not the Free version, you can't use shifts or tech bindings and need to stay with your frame bindings.

 

[Ken_R]

As a shift owner, I couldn't be happier. (well, if they cost less I would be happier) I have no desire to experience what a tech binding feels like as I come from a downhill perspective. If you know how you feel about downhill versus tech, then go with your feelings. If you don't know, then it might be worth it to try/rent a tech binding setup for the experience. You save some weight, as much as 1 lb per ski, so you have to look at the total weight of your setup and decide what makes sense for you. I bought fairly light weight boots and skis, so the 300-400 grams of extra binding weight for the shifts were worth the downhill binding like performance to me. I used my AT setup a lot in the resort for downhill skiing, so the shifts kill it for me. My AT Blizzard Zero G 108's are my favorite spring skis in my quiver and I ski them with my Lange RS140's as much as I ski them with my Atomic Hawx XTD 130's. I push them as hard as any downhill ski, so the shifts do what I want them to. I don't do long tours yet, but I don't see the overall weight of my setup holding me back. (as long as I am on the Hawx, not the Langes)

Since you are on frames now, I assume you are coming from a downhill setup. I think the last two posts are good advice to guide you. I am much more downhill oriented than Analisa or Pais

Your setup is awesome. For a do it all binding the performance of the Shift is unmatched. It truly is a unique product.

That said, it is not only about weight but personal preference out in the backcountry, specially when making transitions, skinning up and being out there for more than a day. Once you get some more experience you will know what you prefer and if something about a particular setup bothers the heck out of you.

To me the simplicity of the Dynafits I have make my days better. I might even consider getting a simpler model (I have the Radical 2.0 FT's with the rotating toe piece) or a G3 Ion/Zed. The Radical 2.0's ski fantastic but they do have a MUCH more direct feel (harsh) on snow compared to an alpine binding or even the shifts which is increasingly felt the more firm the snow gets. Some people can't deal with this at first.

I have pushed my AT setup HARD at the resort and it has held, no release, but I do ski a bit gentler with it most of the time since it indeed has a lower speed limit (at least to me and what I am comfortable with). In the Backcountry I am also MUCH more conservative since one doesnt want to get into a bad situation out there.

 

[Rod9301]

I bc ski a lot, mostly steep couloirs, and i definitely put the downhill performance way ahead of the uphill.

I ski the Salomon mtn and 8 charge hard in slip snow conditions. I never felt that it doesn't ski well, yes maybe a little harsher, but most of the time i focus on staying alive in steep terrain, that the presumed harshness doesn't even register.

Watch the cody Townsend 50 episodes and you will notice he's not skiing shifts, he's on the mtn.

For all the good reasons.
Much simpler, more reliable, much more bomber, and lighter

I think Salomon did a great marketing job with the shifts, but this doesn't mean it's the right binding for Backcountry.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

I am convinced that in s year or so you will switch away from the shift. Unless you like unreliable bindings that pre release.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Watch the cody Townsend 50 episodes and you will notice he's not skiing shifts, he's on the mtn.

If only he made some sort of bonus video explaining his binding choice so we could learn from him...

If such a video existed it might explain that the weight considerations dominate given the size of his ascents and length of some of his trips, but that he has a ski with shifts mounted up. He even used it on a shorter tour.

I am not presently doing 26 kilometer tours with 2000+ foot boot packs so I am not convinced I need a mtn binding. If/when I'm doing that I will keep the mtn line in mind as a really excellent lighter choice.

 

[ScottB]

Watch the cody Townsend 50 episodes and you will notice he's not skiing shifts, he's on the mtn. For all the good reasons.
Much simpler, more reliable, much more bomber, and lighter

I think Salomon did a great marketing job with the shifts, but this doesn't mean it's the right binding for Backcountry.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

I am convinced that in s year or so you will switch away from the shift. Unless you like unreliable bindings that pre release.

Interesting post, Rod9301 you seem to have a problem with the shifts. Have you tried them and they failed on you??

FWIW, I am not against using tech bindings for backcountry, they have advantages as you mention. Ken_R did a good job explaining his viewpoint on why he uses tech bindings. If I was doing long backcountry tours, I might want to go tech as well for the simplicity and reliability. I agree the shifts are a fairly complicated binding.

For me, the shifts are the right binding for the backcountry skiing I plan to do, which is really side country mostly. The other main factor for me is they allow me to use my other boots to match the days plans. For me it is about adaptability and personal safety, especially skiing fast in the resort without getting injured. If I only did backcountry (or wanted a dedicated backcountry setup) I would be a lot more interested in tech bindings.

Since I am new to AT, there is a good chance my preferences will change over time. It won't happen next year for sure, but I can't predict the future, can you?

To focus on Stuart, it sounds like he is fairly new to backcountry gear, so it would make sense for him to consider all the choices and figure out what works for him.

 

[jmeb]

Interesting post, Rod9301 you seem to have a problem with the shifts. Have you tried them and they failed on you??

FWIW, I am not against using tech bindings for backcountry, they have advantages as you mention. Ken_R did a good job explaining his viewpoint on why he uses tech bindings. If I was doing long backcountry tours, I might want to go tech as well for the simplicity and reliability. I agree the shifts are a fairly complicated binding.

For me, the shifts are the right binding for the backcountry skiing I plan to do, which is really side country mostly. The other main factor for me is they allow me to use my other boots to match the days plans. For me it is about adaptability and personal safety, especially skiing fast in the resort without getting injured. If I only did backcountry (or wanted a dedicated backcountry setup) I would be a lot more interested in tech bindings.

Since I am new to AT, there is a good chance my preferences will change over time. It won't happen next year for sure, but I can't predict the future, can you?

To focus on Stuart, it sounds like he is fairly new to backcountry gear, so it would make sense for him to consider all the choices and figure out what works for him.

There are numerous reports of users pre-releasing in the Shifts. It's likely a setup or worn boot problem that is exaggerated by the Shift's demanding exact setup to work correctly.

I will agree that the Shifts are pretty much objectively safer from a skiing downhill perspective. However, after experiencing a failure of an almost-as-complicated-as-the-Shift binding in the backcountry, I disagree with people rending them as a safer binding en total. In the backcountry, reliability is a critical component of safety. Breaking down in a remote location can be just as dangerous as not releasing cleanly.

In my estimation, backcountry bindings safety should be considered as a mix of its proven reliability and durability, alongside its release characteristics. Using such a metric, simple bindings like the Salomon Mtn or the Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0 are proven choices.

As for Cody -- his choice of the mtn is pretty clearly due to the size of his skiing. When skiing "just" a 3000ft line, he hauled up the Shifts.

I always look to guides before anyone else to see what they trust. Their gear not only gets worked harder than most, it is what they rely on for their safety and their client's safety. The most common tech binding on guides feet I saw in Europe? Dynafit Vertical.