• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Gear Light weight AT ski and binding for NE backcountry

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Seeing some really good sales on right now on last years and discontinued AT skis. They don't get discounted often, so now is the time to make a purchase if your a discount shopper.

I have Atomic Hawx XTD 130 boots with Blizzard Zero G 108mm skis (185cm) and Salomon Shift bindings. This is my only AT setup and it works great for me. Considering a lighter weight ski binding combo to make uphill easier. I am looking at the Salomon Mtn Explore 88mm skis and the Volkl Rise Above 88mm skis. Will put ATK pin bindings (Raider 12 w/spacer) on them. I a big guy so need a reasonably stiff ski. Will get 185cm ish length. I like the Zero G 108 a lot, but wouldn't mind a slightly more playful ski and I think the two above fit the bill. I also like the Movement 95 Alp Track ski, but a lot more $$. Can't seem to find the MTN Explore 95mm ski in my length either.

My goal is very light weight with still reasonable downhill performance for a lightweight touring ski, no SkiMo for me.
Weight: existing Zero G 108/Shift bindings 1750g +900g = 2650 g = 5.8 lbs
MTN Explore/ATK bindings 1455g+365g = 1825 g = 4.0 lbs
Volkl Rise Above/ATK bindings 1335+365g = 1700 g = 3.7 lbs

so looking at about 2 lb savings per foot. Not getting new boots, which are in the 1400g range at 26.5, mine are 29.5 so a lot heavier, but not sure how much.

Appreciate any feedback on the ski's or other skis with good sales going on now. The skis I am looking at can be had for $350 shipped right now, which is outstanding deals.
 

clewis

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Posts
60
Location
Alberta Rockies
Will this be for full-time touring? Could shave some weight with a slightly lighter binding if it is for just back country. I think the skis are very similar. The volkl might get a bit more float and quicker in the trees. Very minor differences and both would be a good set up
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
There is also a small savings in skin weight with the smaller ski.
In My case (106mm x 185cm <versus> 86mm x 177cm), it’s only 23g/ skin.
The material is a little bit thicker on the smaller skins, and maybe the tip hardwear.
 
Last edited:

slow-line-fast

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Posts
932
Location
snow
Good choices for what you describe. You'll save a lot of weight and will still get good downhill performance given the weight savings.

You might find those 108s with Shifts spend a lot of time in the rafters of the garage...
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
One of the big reasons for me to go narrower was skinning comfort on firm snow. With wide skis, sidehilling on firm snow is more tiring on your feet and knees, and (with my bony ankles), less comfortable. A touch more grip on the skins too, so you can hold off on putting on ski crampons a bit longer.

I would consider going lighter on the binding too.
Listen to the Blister interview with ATK: basically he said they made the Raider more because people thought they needed a beefier binding, and it was not beneficial below ~95mm Waist widths.
The biggest benefit I see to the Raider is the Freeride spacer under the heel, to transmit edging power on a wide ski. This does not apply to a ~88mm ski, so save some money and weight, and go for a regular brake** and heel, or brake less*

I have skied my 106 Waybacks with regular ATK Crests with Zero G Tour Pro boots inbounds in hard snow (in moderate terrain) and not felt an issue with heel edging power, but I am sure the Raider would be better.


*I have heard arguments for and against brakes, from experienced casual users and guides alike, and they are all true, on both sides of the debate, so I will stay away from that.

** ATK Evo models, and maybe some others for ’23, have the auto locking/unlocking brake for coming season. Might be worthwhile. Or save money and buy the older style.
 
Last edited:

slow-line-fast

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Posts
932
Location
snow
I have Atomic Hawx XTD 130 boots ... This is my only AT setup and it works great for me.
That's a great boot for uphill+downhill performance, especially for a big guy, keep the boot and look toward lighter ski-binding setups as you list above.
 

Pequenita

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Posts
1,613
On brakes….I found that some of the lighter bindings surprisingly do not come without brakes/brakes cannot be removed. When I asked whether the dynafit rotation lite 7 could be sold without brakes, I was told no. I dunno, maybe because it’s a kids/small adult binding and they think we’re more prone to losing stuff. ogwink
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I would make sure to get bindings with an adjustment for boot size, and mount them in their ‘longest‘ setting.
Once you have some skinnier, lighter skis and easier bindings, you might end up wanting to do some longer tours, or playing around in the woods (which I do here in my backyard in MN too).
For that, you just might end up getting lighter weight boots.:ogbiggrin:
Not just because of the weight savings, but because they walk so much better and transition so much quicker.
Most of the lighter boots will have a shorter BSL, sometimes much shorter , especially if they don’t have full norm compatible heel and toe lugs.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I think with ATK the bindings can be removed from all of them, but then you might have to get a heel pad or cover plate , and you just paid for a brake, so I would choose brakes or no brakes, and then just buy that one.
 
Last edited:

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
K2 Wayback 88?

I thought I remember hearing the Salomon Mtn Explore in the narrower widths were a bit less stiff, and that the Waybacks were stiffer. K2 also measures longer than other brands (they measure after pressing, straight tape pull), so keep that in mind.

181cm K2 = 183 cm or more in other brands .

Skimo.co is a great shop, and have a large collection of bindings, and know how to mount them, so that saves you the hassle. They have small package discounts too.

 
Last edited:

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
I always used ZeroG 95 skis with AmerSports tech bindings, until they were stolen. I replaced my skis with Salomon MTN Explore 95/same AmerSports bindings with brakes. Although I prefer the ZeroG skis, the Solomon skis are fine. The biggest difference is the Blizzard has a stiffer tail that is sometimes punishing. If you get in the rear seat, your will probably suffer. These skis are my specific spring and summer volcano skis, corn, variable snow, and firm seasonal glacier snow.I pair these skis with light weight Atomic Backland Carbon boots or my ZeroG tour boot. My binding have a 30mm adjustable range and always mount in the mid-range. I can always adjust to a smaller BSL or larger if needed. From my limited experience, Waybacks are way to soft and perform poorly in variable and firm snow.

I am a bit surprised that the ZeroG was paired with a Shift binding - it seems to me that this ski/binding pairing is not that compatible - but if it works for you, great.

edit- I would not say the Salomon MTN Explore 95 are playful. They are a bit more forgiving than the ZeroG skis.
 
Last edited:

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@charlier , yeah I when I read: ‘light’ and ‘stiff’, the first that came to mind were the Zero G and Dynafit Blacklight Pro Skis.
But then @ScottB said: ’playfull’, so I figured those two were out.
To be honest, most of the lighter, narrower skis are hard snow, steep terrain focused, so far from ‘playfull’, except perhaps for some of the softer ones, but that doesn’t mesh with @ScottB ’s size.
 
Thread Starter
TS
ScottB

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Lot's of good feedback. Here are my answers and thoughts on what I am looking for.

Will this be for full-time touring? Could shave some weight with a slightly lighter binding if it is for just back country.
Yes full time touring. I don't do long days, but either go out in the woods next to my house, just tooling around and usually on xcountry gear unless a good dump and then I want a wider ski so I use my AT gear, or I do resort side country. If there is very little resort and mostly side country I will use these new skis. I will occasionally do a New England trail that leads to a Mtn top, such as Tuckerman Ravine on Mt Washington and use these new skis depending on conditions.

You might find those 108s with Shifts spend a lot of time in the rafters of the garage...

I use my 108's as a 50/50 ski, they ski well in the resort with a shift binding. They are a lightweight construction Cochise ski from Blizzard and work great in spring slush. I used them for 1/2 day at the NEG at Killington last spring. I don't bring them out on firm days, but soft days they are considered. I use them much more in the resort than in the backcountry. Black Mtn in ME has a skinning trail and you can go off the backside into the glades and skin back up to the top and ski back into the resort. They are ideal for that.

I would consider going lighter on the binding too.
Listen to the Blister interview with ATK: basically he said they made the Raider more because people thought they needed a beefier binding, and it was not beneficial below ~95mm Waist widths.
The biggest benefit I see to the Raider is the Freeride spacer under the heel, to transmit edging power on a wide ski. This does not apply to a ~88mm ski, so save some money and weight, and go for a regular brake** and heel, or brake less*

I am definitely considering lighter bindings. I like Pika and ATK since they are all metal. I really haven't figured out which one yet. I will hold off on buying the binding for a bit, as they are double the price of the skis, unless I find a great sale.

I always used ZeroG 95 skis with AmerSports tech bindings, until they were stolen. I replaced my skis with Salomon MTN Explore 95/same AmerSports bindings with brakes. Although I prefer the ZeroG skis, the Solomon skis are fine. The biggest difference is the Blizzard has a stiffer tail that is sometimes punishing. If you get in the rear seat, your will probably suffer.
I am a bit surprised that the ZeroG was paired with a Shift binding - it seems to me that this ski/binding pairing is not that compatible - but if it works for you, great.

edit- I would not say the Salomon MTN Explore 95 are playful. They are a bit more forgiving than the ZeroG skis.

By playful, I really mean less directional than a Zero G 95. More forgiving might be a better way to describe it. I want the ski to pivot a little easier than my Zero G. In deep soft snow, my Zero G 108 feels directional but its tail will pivot, but not as easy as on firm snow. I like the Zero G, but find it less "slarvy" than I want it to be in funky snow. Also my Zero G 108 weighs 1750 g, so not a real lighweight ski like the 95 and 88 models. I would have no problem owning and skiing a Zero G 95 or 88, but would like to try a MTN explore or Rise up ski that I think are less directional. For me, question is are they stiff enough so they don't fold on me.

Not planning on lighter weight boots, but could see doing that down the road to save another lb or so.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Every single review of the zero G 95 (even the new ones) and 85 mentions they are not for soft snow, not are they loose.
So those would indeed seem like a bad idea.

Bindings don’t have to cost that much. Check Telemark Pyrenees. Make sure you have USD and US shipping selected.

Thats pretty cool about Black Mountain!

Regarding boots: yep, I know you said you were sticking with these, just throwing it out there you might change your mind about that later, :ogbiggrin:
Not so much for weight, but more for ease of skinning and transitions.
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
Lot's of good feedback. Here are my answers and thoughts on what I am looking for.

Yes full time touring. I don't do long days, but either go out in the woods next to my house, just tooling around and usually on xcountry gear unless a good dump and then I want a wider ski so I use my AT gear, or I do resort side country. If there is very little resort and mostly side country I will use these new skis. I will occasionally do a New England trail that leads to a Mtn top, such as Tuckerman Ravine on Mt Washington and use these new skis depending on conditions.


I use my 108's as a 50/50 ski, they ski well in the resort with a shift binding. They are a lightweight construction Cochise ski from Blizzard and work great in spring slush. I used them for 1/2 day at the NEG at Killington last spring. I don't bring them out on firm days, but soft days they are considered. I use them much more in the resort than in the backcountry. Black Mtn in ME has a skinning trail and you can go off the backside into the glades and skin back up to the top and ski back into the resort. They are ideal for that.


I am definitely considering lighter bindings. I like Pika and ATK since they are all metal. I really haven't figured out which one yet. I will hold off on buying the binding for a bit, as they are double the price of the skis, unless I find a great sale.


By playful, I really mean less directional than a Zero G 95. More forgiving might be a better way to describe it. I want the ski to pivot a little easier than my Zero G. In deep soft snow, my Zero G 108 feels directional but its tail will pivot, but not as easy as on firm snow. I like the Zero G, but find it less "slarvy" than I want it to be in funky snow. Also my Zero G 108 weighs 1750 g, so not a real lighweight ski like the 95 and 88 models. I would have no problem owning and skiing a Zero G 95 or 88, but would like to try a MTN explore or Rise up ski that I think are less directional. For me, question is are they stiff enough so they don't fold on me.

Not planning on lighter weight boots, but could see doing that down the road to save another lb or so.
Thanks for the feedback and clarification. Your touring goals really help this discussion. Since you are touring close to home, a 88-95 mm ski would be fine. The Salomon Mtn Explore skis are a directional ski and not that playful, nor is it a good ski to starve (not my thing, as a former racer). The Salomon ski is more forgiving than the ZeroG. I would avoid super light-weight touring skis.

ATK binding are expensive and many other tech binding are just as good. My guess is that you will not be able to feel the difference between the different bindings. Apologizes to @Slim regarding ATK - they are still excellent bindings.

FYI, the brakes on the Pika bindings are a bit flimsy, one riser height, and only have a 18 mm adjustment range. Consider the AmerSports tech bindings, or Dynafit Radical ST.
 
Last edited:

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
I don't know why I didn’t think of these before:
Faction Agent 1.0. I have these and they do have more tail rocker than most narrow AT skis. I have them in a short size so hard to say exactly how they would compare in a similar length.
They are not light (mine way a fair bit more than listed), and the tail rocker might make them feel a bit shorter.
They are often deeply discounted. (Why I bought mine:ogbiggrin:).
 
Last edited:

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@charlier and @ScottB , apologize if I made it sound like only ATK bindings are worth considering. I certainly didn’t mean that. I disagree that they are expensive. Not the cheapest, that’s true (that would be Dynafit). See below (note Hagan and Black Diamond are ATK as well).

-@ScottB had mentioned the Raider, so I referred him to what The manufacturer said about those, so that was the reason for that.

-@Pequenita mentioned non removable brakes, and I am most familiar with the ATK line regarding removing brakes, so that why I answered about those. I am sure there are other brands and models where they are removable as well.

-We have 4 pairs of Crest bindings in our house, so I am simply more familiar with them, so that is why I referred to those, as an example of skiing a ‘regular’ tech heel on a wider ski.

I see quite a few bindings under $500:
Here are a bunch of models without brakes:
Marker Alpinist 12, Salomon/Atomic (Amer sports), Trab Titan Vario 2.0, Plum Guide 12, ATK Kuluar 12, to name a few well regarded models.
Similar can be done for models with brakes:

And not sorted at all, but some great prices:
 
Last edited:

ilovepugs

The human form of the 100 emoji
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Posts
908
Location
A cozy corner of Vermont
Just wanted to mention that Telemark Pyrenees (a legit site) frequently has ATK bindings at a discount. Not sure where you landed on brakes vs no brakes (too lazy to read this thread in detail) but right now they have the ATK Trofeo for about $250 shipped.


I bought ATK Crests for about $300 from Black Diamond over the summer. There are deals to be had on these bindings if you look for them.
 

slow-line-fast

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Posts
932
Location
snow
By playful, I really mean less directional than a Zero G 95. More forgiving might be a better way to describe it. I want the ski to pivot a little easier than my Zero G.

Then not the Rise Above, it is similar to zero G 95. Skis rounder, but the tail performs when pressured - very directional.
 

Sponsor

Top