Alpine-Touring hybrid setup

[neonorchid]

Why do you need/want that, in place of the PT 12/16 already here? For the weight savings? Is that what's holding you back from just getting the current PT?

Correct, entirely for weight savings. Isn't that the point of V-werks?

My Mid-Atlantic geographical location is what's holding me back. I don't feel the PT or Shift are something I'd really want to be banging around the resort on with an intended 50/50 setup that in reality may only end up being a 10/90% resort setup due to lack of opportunities for BC adventures.

 

[locknload]

Blister has a podcast with a Lange Manager about the new XT3 series. Very informative. It was also said in the podcast that Lange is coming out next year (maybe 2021) with a much lighter boot more aimed at dedicated touring, but still very good downhill ability. My take was the XT3 boot is more of a sidecountry boot, more resort focused with "good but not great" uphill capability and reasonably light weight. I use a Atomic Hawx Ultra XTD which is pretty light weight and very very good uphill and very good downhill. I think Langes new boot that is not out will compete with the XTD boot I own. I ski a Lange RS140 in the resort.

Thx, Scott. Had my eye on the Atomic for awhile as well. The Lange's fit my foot/ankle really well so it keeps me mostly committed to them. I listened to the Blister guys' previous podcast last year that talked about the Grillamid vs the PUP. I will definitely go dig up this latest version. "Good but not great" uphill capability is good for me assuming that I'm satisfied with its downhill capability. I prefer to only have 1 boot to keep it simple. Willing to accept some tradeoffs as you have to when you choose 1 tool to do multiple jobs but just have to make sure the tradeoffs are acceptable. BTW...there's been some other chatter about the grillamid and its relationship to heat retention. I can state my XT Free's were brutal when the weather is cold (say single digits or low teens)....my feet were uncomfortably cold.

 

[markojp]

Personally, I would

Correct, entirely for weight savings. Isn't that the point of V-werks?

My Mid-Atlantic geographical location is what's holding me back. I don't feel the PT or Shift are something I'd really want to be banging around the resort on with an intended 50/50 setup that in reality may only end up being a 10/90% resort setup due to lack of opportunities for BC adventures.

Personally, I wouldn't have any trouble skiing the shift for an inbounds binding. Our regional atomic rep is a very strong skier and has a lot of days on them without issue. When I've skied them they felt fine and are TUV certified and DIN testable.

 

[Noodler]

I also went with Option 3, twice over:

- Blizzard Rustler 10, Marker Duke PT 16, Nordica Strider 130
- Black Crows Corvus Freebird, Salomon S\Lab Shift 13, Fischer Ranger Free 130

Would you please provide some info on comparing/contrasting the Nordica Strider against the Fischer Ranger Free? I'm interested in fit volume across ankles/instep/toebox, flex, RoM, warmth, performance, etc.

 

[AlpedHuez]

Would you please provide some info on comparing/contrasting the Nordica Strider against the Fischer Ranger Free? I'm interested in fit volume across ankles/instep/toebox, flex, RoM, warmth, performance, etc.

As you saw my ski quiver post, you would not be surprised that now have both the Strider and the Free. But due to the curtailed season, I have not had a chance to ski in either. The Strider liner is definitely more cushy, and yet I have the impression between the two that the toe box and the heel pocket is narrower. It is also a heavier boot. Of the two, the Free has more of the wow factor for me. The Strider could be an every day resort alpine boot for someone (as it is for a Blister guy), whereas the lightness of the Free lends itself to more of a side/backcountry touring feel that still delivers all the downhill performance you could want.

Free has the superior flex, RoM, Strider the warmth. I would give uphill performance to the Free, due to its light weight, RoM, and the innovative horizontal walk/ski flip switch under the top buckle. Downhill performance would be closer between the two, but the Free is the boot I would keep in Europe, and I could take the Strider back to my folks in Tahoe without a bother.

I forgot to mention that I do not like the Strider's hook-buckle system. It is fussy and not easy to fasten on the fly. It was no small reason why when I came across the Free I could not pass up adding that to my quiver ahead of the Strider.

 

[ScottB]

2. Cody failed to mention (probably cause he was many drinks deep) the Vipec and Tecton. Both have lateral toe release a la alpine bindings. Both were DIN certified to the touring release standard. So they are "DIN toes".

I did a quick web search and I found the Vipec and Tecton have user adjustable toe releases. It didn't mention any DIN settings or standards, so I assumed the opposite as you. I am not sure what is correct?

I never ski with my toes locked; only when I'm climbing are the toes locked. I don't bump up the release settings with them, either. I ski than at the recommended setting for a Type III skier. I've never had an unexpected/undesired release. I have had them release when appropriate

Good to hear you don't lock them and they have released properly.

The Lange's fit my foot/ankle really well so it keeps me mostly committed to them. I prefer to only have 1 boot to keep it simple. Willing to accept some tradeoffs as you have to when you choose 1 tool to do multiple jobs but just have to make sure the tradeoffs are acceptable.

If you want 1 boot for both, I think the XT3 is the boot you want, especially since Langes fit you well. I have always skied Langes myself, but I found the Atomic XTD's fit quite well also. I think LV boots from different companies are much more similar these days. It used to be Langes were narrow, brand X was medium, and brand Y was wide. They all seem to be moving to offering 3 widths in their most popular boot line. Atomic might be the leader in width offerings and heat moldable offerings these days. I still think Lange makes a great boot, the contrast between what the Lange boot guy says on Blister and the Atomic boot guy on Blister is noticeable and interesting.

 

[jmeb]

I did a quick web search and I found the Vipec and Tecton have user adjustable toe releases. It didn't mention any DIN settings or standards, so I assumed the opposite as you. I am not sure what is correct?

TUV stopped offering the test that certifies to touring DIN norms. Since it is relatively meaningless anyways, Fristchi stopped doing it. Prior versions of the Vipec toe which has no functional differences passed TUV DIN test.

Fritschi Vipec 12 Binding

Fritschi officially calls the Vipec a “Safety Tech” binding. While we don’t think it’s a good idea to label any binding “safe”, it does have very different release characteristics than most other tech bindings. That’s because the binding releases laterall...

skimo.co

Black Diamond still calls it DIN, although I don't know that the Evo version of the toe has technically passed -- again, the release mechanism is mechanically the same.

https://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en_US/ski-bindings-BD101256_cfg.html

And Fritschi themselves calls it DIN

• Lateral release at the toe with DIN setting and 13 mm elasticity for the toe-cap

VIPEC EVO 12

Ski touring with safety and comfort With the unparalleled technology of lateral front release. Safety at the highest level, maximum comfort and easy step-in. The easy step-in and the practical use of all functions provide security, especially in challenging terrain. The prompt release based...

fritschi.swiss

An here we are in another problem -- DIN is a testing standard. But who does the testing and certification to that standard can vary significantly. So they can call it "DIN" if it meets their internal testing to the DIN standard. But that doesn't mean it has independent certification.

But here's the rub -- that DIN test that the Vipec previously passed? So did the Dynafit Radical 2 and Marker Kingpin. But the latter two have an entirely different release mechanism with no lateral toe release like the Vipec/Tecton.

This is why it is factually incorrect to say "there are no tech bindings with DIN toes". Because you don't get a DIN cert for a toe or a heel, you get it for a binding. The correct thing to say is -- "the shift passed the alpine DIN norm as certified by TUV" and "other touring bindings have passed the touring DIN norm as certified by TUV".

 

[BMC]

I did a quick web search and I found the Vipec and Tecton have user adjustable toe releases. It didn't mention any DIN settings or standards, so I assumed the opposite as you. I am not sure what is correct?



Good to hear you don't lock them and they have released properly.



If you want 1 boot for both, I think the XT3 is the boot you want, especially since Langes fit you well. I have always skied Langes myself, but I found the Atomic XTD's fit quite well also. I think LV boots from different companies are much more similar these days. It used to be Langes were narrow, brand X was medium, and brand Y was wide. They all seem to be moving to offering 3 widths in their most popular boot line. Atomic might be the leader in width offerings and heat moldable offerings these days. I still think Lange makes a great boot, the contrast between what the Lange boot guy says on Blister and the Atomic boot guy on Blister is noticeable and interesting.

Don’t make me listen to both podcasts! could you elucidate on what is interesting in the differences?

 

[BMC]

Cody said more in the Podcast to explain and qualify his remarks and that is important to include in any discussion. No Tech bindings have a DIN toe, only a DIN heel. (I am surprised at this, but probably is true) The toe is the most important part for safe release. All tech bindings either have the toe "locked out" or not locked. When locked out, you better not need to release, cause it won't and your body will break first (or the bindings rip the screws out of the ski). So big safety risk must be accepted if locking out the toe. If the toe is unlocked, all tech bindings will have an inconsistent release. There will be a good chance you release when you don't want to at some point. This will probably cause a fall, so whatever the consequences of that fall is the risk.

Personally, I would never ski tech bindings locked out in the resort. I would consider skiing them not locked out, but would ski very conservatively and on low risk terrain. I don't own tech bindings, so I don't spend any time thinking about it. If all you own are tech bindings, then you have some choices to make about skiing in a resort. I would say there is an approach that has lower risk than skiing "locked out", but much higher risk than skiing an alpine binding in the resort, so why do it. Get an alpine setup if skiing in the resort. I think that was Cody's point about resort skiing.

I didnt feel he limited his observation about tech toe safety issues to just locking out the toe, and pre release. I’m not sure if that’s what you were intending to say, and if I have misinterpreted, my apologies. He did discuss the toe issue and the locking issue, no doubt. But there are other features of tech toes that cause safety issues beyond just locking out the toe. While he I didn’t discuss them I didn’t feel like he was seeking to exhaustively list all of them. And a key one is one featured in a video on this thread. That definitely goes to the inconsistent release issue you mentioned, but in some instances that can lead to no release when it ought to, lead to (I believe) tib/fib fractures as a primary injury.

To be honest I didn’t think he could have been more emphatic about the unsuitability of tech bindings for the resort.

 

[locknload]

Went back and listened to the Blister interview with Thor...Lange's head product manager. He seems to reinforce that they will continue to focus on the "skiing down" and accept compromises on the "going up". This boot is targeted to that segment which fits me. Dudes with the super lightweight setup are going to blow by me going up and I'm ok with that. It sounds as if it is creeping closer to an RX with a decent walk mode.

 

[Cheizz]

Quick question:
When you guys say 'skiing in a resort', do you mean 'skiing on groomers'? In this context (Townsend saying that you shouldn't use tech bindings in the resort) I would understand. If you guys mean skiing in soft, ungroomed snow (inside or outside the boundary, wouldn't matter, I guess), then I would not understand Townsend's statement.
I ask, because in Europe we only have on-piste or off-piste. There are no boundaries that define a 'resort' (a term which is often used to refer to a village)... Just looking for some clarification here.

 

[neonorchid]

Personally, I wouldn't have any trouble skiing the shift for an inbounds binding. Our regional atomic rep is a very strong skier and has a lot of days on them without issue. When I've skied them they felt fine and are TUV certified and DIN testable.

Only I value the muti-directional release toe of the Look Pivot 12/14 bindings on my inbounds lift serve skis which Shift and PT lack.

I'd hope for a lighter weight PT V-werks to blur the line between the breed and a Vipec/Tectron/Kingpin V-werks type touring binding.

At present, I have a new pair of pin-tech compatible AT boots but still need skis bindings and skins to get me going in the East where avalanches are not a huge concern.

If the East were to end up gettin a stellar unicorn of a snow year not ruinned by Covid restrictions etc., and I'm stuck, I could swap out the Look Pivot 12's on my Volkl 90eight's for a Shift 10 ...

 

[BMC]

Quick question:
When you guys say 'skiing in a resort', do you mean 'skiing on groomers'? In this context (Townsend saying that you shouldn't use tech bindings in the resort) I would understand. If you guys mean skiing in soft, ungroomed snow (inside or outside the boundary, wouldn't matter, I guess), then I would not understand Townsend's statement.
I ask, because in Europe we only have on-piste or off-piste. There are no boundaries that define a 'resort' (a term which is often used to refer to a village)... Just looking for some clarification here.

He wasn’t that specific. the way I heard his statements was that he was saying pin bindings are dangerous. Full stop. Indeed that’s a direct quote except just add an expletive before “dangerous”. The way I interpreted his statements is that there is a good use case for pin bindings while touring, provided the user understands and accepts the risks. And I think it’s fair to say that he says skiing more slowly in soft snow is a strong mitigant of the risks. Whether he said that last bit outright or that is my interpretation I can’t clearly remember. But I also “heard” his comments as being there is no strong use case for using a pin binding in-bounds as they offered lesser performance to an alpine binding, and were more dangerous.

Thats what I heard.

How that would be applied in Europe I can’t say but I suspect his advice would be to use a pin touring set up touring, an alpine set up in bounds, and 50/50 go a Shift or Duke or Tecton (or frame or day maker or cast).

 

[anders_nor]

inbound, on groomers, is what I described as resort. and you will se TONS on pin bindings on groomers, in resort here.

 

[jmeb]

inbound, on groomers, is what I described as resort. and you will se TONS on pin bindings on groomers, in resort here.

Seeing them there, and them being the right tool for the job are totally different things. That's Cody's point -- and a good one I think.

 

[Slim]

1. "DIN" toe and heel isn't a good way to say it, we need to drop this lingo when what we mean is "Alpine DIN standard". DIN is too generic because there are handfuls of DIN standards to ski bindings, only one of which is the common Alpine release value.

2. Cody failed to mention (probably cause he was many drinks deep) the Vipec and Tecton. Both have lateral toe release a la alpine bindings. Both were DIN certified to the touring release standard. So they are "DIN toes".

Haha, I thought those same exact 2 things while listening!

 

[Choucas]

Piste skiing on pin bindings is not fun. I don’t have stats to prove how dangerous it might/might not be, but my bet is that it is dangerous, particularly as speed goes up and snow becomes firmer. I’ve certainly done it and seen plenty of folks do it (sometimes quite well), but I would do it as infrequently as possible, and wouldn’t recommend it as a quiver of one option. You are better off skiing an alpine boot in a plate binding as a do it all option for shorter off piste hikes. Many years back, I did a week long traverse of the Dolomites in a pair of Lange race boots (not plugs), with no problems. Hikes were short(ish) most days and we rode lots of lifts along the way. So it was very doable and tons of fun on the down part. This was well before anything like today’s 130 level hybrids boots existed. I owned touring boots at the time, but they were extremely soft and non-supportive.

 

[jmeb]

I don’t have stats to prove how dangerous it might/might not be,

I think this is one of the problems -- no one has data on it. We *know* that lateral release at the toe in alpine bindings massively reduced tib-fib fractures. We *know* that theoretically, lack of it at the toe should create more tib-fib fractures. But no one is collecting sufficient data on user days to injuries to study it.

 

[Slim]

Quick question:
When you guys say 'skiing in a resort', do you mean 'skiing on groomers'? In this context (Townsend saying that you shouldn't use tech bindings in the resort) I would understand. If you guys mean skiing in soft, ungroomed snow (inside or outside the boundary, wouldn't matter, I guess), then I would not understand Townsend's statement.
I ask, because in Europe we only have on-piste or off-piste. There are no boundaries that define a 'resort' (a term which is often used to refer to a village)... Just looking for some clarification here.

Yep, what @BMC said.

Resort: would mean both groomed and ungroomed ski terrain. The difference is not the snow you encounter, but the style of skiing. That is directly related to risk-tolerance.
Inbounds, ski patrol is only a call away, and there is an ambulance accessible road nearby. Often there is even a clinic at the base! At least a patrol building with high level first aid equipment.
In the backcountry, if you have an injury, you are reliant on yourself and your partners to get yourself out. Maybe you can get a hold of search and rescue, and maybe they can reach you and get you out. It will usually take hours.
Because of this, most people ski much more cautiously in the backcountry than inbounds.

If you are skiing the backcountry like in the movies, hucking cliffs etc, then you need a rescue plan, a rescue team, and you should be using appropriate gear for that.
In fact, that was one of the primary drivers for pro skiers like Cody to push for the Shift binding: they wanted somehting that was easy to skin on, yet they needed all the safety and bombproof retention of an alpine binding.

So, Cody wasn’t speaking to skiers in the Alps, but here is how I would translate his statement for there:
”Don’t ski tech bindings if you are using lifts most of the time”. “Only use tech bindings if you are doing big days of skinning uphill.

This is not a new sentiment. Wildsnow’s Lou Dawson, a tech binding evangelist if there ever was one, has always advocated not using tech bindings inbounds.

 

[ScottB]

I agree with the other posts, I would translate in the resort to mean lift serviced terrain. If you don't have to skin up, use alpine gear. That is why I like the shifts so much, pin for skin, din for down. I may have to copyright that phrase.