Quandary

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Posts
296
Location
Colorado
I managed to get out on my new 175cm RC One 86 GTs. Just finished a couple of days skiing them here in Breck, consequently a very small window of experience on these skis in refrozen and spring mashed potato snow.

This is the first pair of "little" skis (otherwise the narrowest ski I have is 98 under foot) since I gave a pair of Rossi E88s to a friends son. In my view the E88 was not a particularly good ski, nervous at speed and didn't do anything all that well or poorly, just eh. I have generally stayed away from this category of skis as I don't find them particularly compelling, personal preference. However given the lack of early snowfall and day after day of soft to hard groomer skiing here in CO this year I thought a versatile "quasi carver" would be a good addition. Based on the reviews and posts here (and a screaming deal) I bought a pair of 175 RC One's with the system bindings.

Out of the wrappers I found the construction quality to be outstanding. I put the true bar on the bases and found them to be very flat, no pre-skiing tuning necessary. The base structure is very well done. The edges were nice and sharp. The system bindings are simple to mount and adjust.

Albeit it is not all that easy to judge a ski on spring snow I found these skis to be quit fun. The turn very easily (you think turn, they turn). It is easy to pop quick little turns or arch big long turns and everything in between. There is a lot of energy released when the pressure is taken of the edge. The like speed while at the same time the are very easy to wiggle into little turns at slow speeds. As to sizing while I went with the 175 after skiing it I suspect that the 182 would be equally fun, however I am happy with the 175. Overall really fun ski. Can't wait to ski them in a variety of conditions next year.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
Binding Question:

2022 Attack 14 GW with 85mm brake width.
or
2021 Attack 13 AT Demo with 95mm brake width

Which would you choose?
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
For the RC One 86 GT Multi-flex? It comes with a great integrated system binding that could not be better. Why not choose that?
Hey @ski otter 2 I found the ski at a good price flat and they will mount it for free if I buy the bindings from them. Those are the two in their inventory that I am considering.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
A. Better brake size, lower on the deck, lighter and a more connected coupling.
@Philpug I was thinking the same thing. Maybe subconsciously I put it first on the list because of that. I was just reading about how some people enjoyed having a demo binding because it allowed them to easily play with the positioning, sharing and reselling (it would be a first for me). Also reading how the Attack Demo bindings were pretty good and the little extra height helped them tip the ski's a bit easier. I think I may be spending too much time reading. Thanks!
 

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
1,811
Location
Ontario, Canada
Would also MUCH prefer an Attack 14 or 17GW(or last years 13/16 GW) on the ski vs the system bindings that those Fishers or Head Supershapes come with.

Lower stand height, flatter ramp(system bindings 5.5mm vs 2.5mm on an adjusted non demo), ability to adjust AFD, more natural ski flex and more solid connection with less play.
If you upgraded to the metal heeled Attack 17 GW(or last years 16 GW) for even more solid feel and better dampening, it’s still much lighter than the system bindings and plate.

Went to the Attack 16 on my flat eTitans and sold my Deacon 84s this summer as I disliked their system bindings so much.
 

Seldomski

Paralysis by analysis
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
2,137
Location
'mericuh
Yeah I just bought and returned a pair of these because I did not like the amount of play in the toe of the system binding. The sticker on the ski said made in Ukraine.

The toe of my boots may be weird though... or maybe the skis I bought were weird since @Philpug mentioned trying a few ISO 5355 boots in the system binding in his pair and saw no play. If you already have grip walk boots you may be fine with the system.

TLDR; YMMV with the system bindings on these skis.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
Would also MUCH prefer an Attack 14 or 17GW(or last years 13/16 GW) on the ski vs the system bindings that those Fishers or Head Supershapes come with.

Lower stand height, flatter ramp(system bindings 5.5mm vs 2.5mm on an adjusted non demo), ability to adjust AFD, more natural ski flex and more solid connection with less play.
If you upgraded to the metal heeled Attack 17 GW(or last years 16 GW) for even more solid feel and better dampening, it’s still much lighter than the system bindings and plate.

Went to the Attack 16 on my flat eTitans and sold my Deacon 84s this summer as I disliked their system bindings so much.
@GregK I read somewhere a long time ago that being closer to the middle of the DIN range of a binding is better. The 4-14 puts me closer to the middle of that range. I don't have any evidence of whether this is true or not, but it makes sense to me because some reviews have had different experiences when the bindings when used at either end of its range. Again, no personal experience with that though.
 

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
1,811
Location
Ontario, Canada
@GregK I read somewhere a long time ago that being closer to the middle of the DIN range of a binding is better. The 4-14 puts me closer to the middle of that range. I don't have any evidence of whether this is true or not, but it makes sense to me because some reviews have had different experiences when the bindings when used at either end of its range. Again, no personal experience with that though.
I’d say the only issue would be if you were at the top of the DIN range of an entry level binding when you should be in the higher DIN range version that also would have beefier components in addition to the larger spring.

For example, I wouldn’t want someone who needs an 11 DIN running an Attack 11 Binding as it’s designed for lighter weight, less aggressive skiers and it’s heel piece is not as substantial as the models above it.

An Attack 17 GW or the older 16/18 versions with their metal heels could be used by those near the binding’s DIN minimum but they usually would go to the 13 GW or 14 GW for the lighter binding weight and lower cost.

Lots of insane deals on the older 13 and 16 GW too right now with very little difference to the new models so inquire if the shop still has stock. I got my Attack 16 GW for about 1/2 price of what a 14 GW is going for now.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
I’d say the only issue would be if you were at the top of the DIN range of an entry level binding when you should be in the higher DIN range version that also would have beefier components in addition to the larger spring.

For example, I wouldn’t want someone who needs an 11 DIN running an Attack 11 Binding as it’s designed for lighter weight, less aggressive skiers and it’s heel piece is not as substantial as the models above it.

An Attack 17 GW or the older 16/18 versions with their metal heels could be used by those near the binding’s DIN minimum but they usually would go to the 13 GW or 14 GW for the lighter binding weight and lower cost.

Lots of insane deals on the older 13 and 16 GW too right now with very little difference to the new models so inquire if the shop still has stock. I got my Attack 16 GW for about 1/2 price of what a 14 GW is going for now.
With the pricing on the 14GW and free mounting it is close enough to deals on the 13 and 16GW that it's worth the convenience. They do have last year's 16 GW a little cheeper then their 14 GW.

The reason I am leaning towards the 14 is that I keep my DIN setting at a 6. Weirdest thing, I'm an advanced skier and like trees, charging and carving groomers, and have been getting much better in bumps the last couple of seasons. Never had an unintended release. Also like the idea of being on a lower DIN in case I get in trouble. I could move it up.

So I guess the real question is, ($10 difference)
2022 14GW
or
2021 16GW

Reasons for the 14GW.
  • The RC One 86GT is already heavy enough so the weight savings would be nice.
  • DIN is not a concern for me.
  • I've been on the Attack 13s (plastic heel?) for 5 years now without a problem yet.

Reasons for the 16GW:
  • More metal, more durable.
  • I don't change ski's very often so the extra durability is comforting.
 
Last edited:

GregK

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
1,811
Location
Ontario, Canada
With the pricing on the 14GW and free mounting it is close enough to deals on the 13 and 16GW that it's worth the convenience. They do have last year's 16 GW a little cheeper then their 14 GW.

The reason I am leaning towards the 14 is that I keep my DIN setting at a 6. Weirdest thing, I'm an advanced skier and like trees, charging and carving groomers, and have been getting much better in bumps the last couple of seasons. Never had an unintended release. Also like the idea of being on a lower DIN in case I get in trouble. I could move it up.

So I guess the real question is, ($10 difference)
2022 14GW
or
2021 16GW

Reasons for the 14GW.
  • The RC One 86GT is already heavy enough so the weight savings would be nice.
  • DIN is not a concern for me.
  • I've been on the Attack 13s (plastic heel?) for 5 years now without a problem yet.

Reasons for the 16GW:
  • More metal, more durable.
  • I don't change ski's very often so the extra durability is comforting.

The construction of the 14 GW is identical to the 13 GW except the 14(and 17) GW have a window in the heel release lever so that you could see the DIN window and adjust in the closed or open position. The “window” saves about 25gr per side too vs the 13 or 16GW. They also added a notched screw on the AFD adjustment screw so it can never move once set, although I’ve never had issues or confirmed anyone with that issue. Slightly different graphics of course now too.

The 16(and 17) GW goes to a full metal heel vs the metal parts with plastic body on the 13/14 GW. Weight goes up about 85gr per side over the 13GW or 110gr on the 14GW.

The hidden element that I didn’t realize till I got my new eTitan’s home was the weight of the track system that aren’t usually listed separately. I originally got 13 GW for my eTitans as the binding weights(system and 13 GW) listed online seemed similar. When I put them on a scale, I realized that the tracks must weigh about 150gr a side, so now I’m underweight and the skis themselves weren’t as heavy as I thought.

Weight is your friend in the resort if you’re not touring, so having a lighter ski is not always the best in variable conditions and crud.
I switched from the Attack 13 to the 16 on some other skis before and noticed an improvement in dampening so did the same thing on the eTitans.

So going to the 14 GW from the track system, you would notice a more solid connection and have the improvements in adjustability, stand height and ramp. The 16 GW goes another step above while still remaining lighter than the original track system bindings.
I’d go 16 GW.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
The construction of the 14 GW is identical to the 13 GW except the 14(and 17) GW have a window in the heel release lever so that you could see the DIN window and adjust in the closed or open position. The “window” saves about 25gr per side too vs the 13 or 16GW. They also added a notched screw on the AFD adjustment screw so it can never move once set, although I’ve never had issues or confirmed anyone with that issue. Slightly different graphics of course now too.

The 16(and 17) GW goes to a full metal heel vs the metal parts with plastic body on the 13/14 GW. Weight goes up about 85gr per side over the 13GW or 110gr on the 14GW.

The hidden element that I didn’t realize till I got my new eTitan’s home was the weight of the track system that aren’t usually listed separately. I originally got 13 GW for my eTitans as the binding weights(system and 13 GW) listed online seemed similar. When I put them on a scale, I realized that the tracks must weigh about 150gr a side, so now I’m underweight and the skis themselves weren’t as heavy as I thought.

Weight is your friend in the resort if you’re not touring, so having a lighter ski is not always the best in variable conditions and crud.
I switched from the Attack 13 to the 16 on some other skis before and noticed an improvement in dampening so did the same thing on the eTitans.

So going to the 14 GW from the track system, you would notice a more solid connection and have the improvements in adjustability, stand height and ramp. The 16 GW goes another step above while still remaining lighter than the original track system bindings.
I’d go 16 GW.
Thanks @GregK
Haha! I spent the last two nights reading many arguments about whether it's wise to use a bindings DIN range at its highest or lowest settings. Seems like one of those things no one really knows with valid points on all sides of this argument. My head is spinning from it.

I think I'll grab the 16GW and use it at my usual 6 DIN setting.

Now we can go back to talking about the RC One GT 86.
Sorry I hijacked this thread and almost devolved it into a binding discussion.

Thanks all!
Carry on.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
15,090
Haha! I spent the last two nights reading many arguments about whether it's wise to use a bindings DIN range at its highest or lowest settings. Seems like one of those things no one really knows with valid points on all sides of this argument. My head is spinning from it.
It’s likely most of the statements are from conjecture. When you talk to people who actually know bindings, there’s not much confusion.

You’re too focused on DIN. It’s a spring, and the release force is standardized. So in terms of DIN, doesn’t matter if you’re top, middle, bottom. But if at top for your standard setting, that leaves no room for turning it up in dangerous terrain. Plus it’s highly likely if you’re at the top the binding really isn’t meant for you.
Focus on construction and clamping.

So going to the 14 GW from the track system, you would notice a more solid connection and have the improvements in adjustability, stand height and ramp. The 16 GW goes another step above while still remaining lighter than the original track system bindings.
How much more info do you need?
 

Seldomski

Paralysis by analysis
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
2,137
Location
'mericuh
Thank you @GregK for your detailed info on bindings and for @blikkem asking the questions. I found it very informative.
:beercheer:

Looking forward to skiing these in the next couple months, then I can actually contribute relevant info about it (skis and binding) on snow.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
1,637
Location
Front Range, Colorado
@blikkem. What length version did you get? (Or did I miss you giving that info somewhere?)

I understand your starting point, having a flat pair of these skis to deal with. In this case, the heavier, and higher, the binding you choose, probably the more you would get the intended range of performance from this ski, matching the system binding in these ways. I'd guess that especially the 175 would be responsive to this solution. It does bumps and trees better, unless you are bigger.

I have both the 182 and the 175. The 182, for me, is an improved GS ski (the multiple radius), heavy and meant to be heavy, especially at the feet. It makes very pronounced, easy, GS type turns with power, no effort, in most all conditions but powder/deep chop - as powerfully, and more so unless one is at high angles, as a true GS ski, at GS length. Typically, the system binding was prototyped with the ski, to fit the ski, and visa versa. In such cases, the modifications and fine tuning of the ski from prototypes were in all likelihood done with the system binding, taking its basic characteristics into account experientially - even fine tuning the system binding to match the ski, occasionally. The 182 is not a bump ski, or tree ski: it is a front-side bias ski that can carve/handle some bumps, and some trees, some variable conditions wonderfully - especially chop. It carves groomers on corduroy or some variable conditions exceptionally - and is aided in doing this by the greater stand height of the system binding, the toe-heel angle, weight, and integration into the ski. That prototype package is very dialed in, amazing, in this particular ski.


With this typical proto development background, to me, what would make replacing the system binding make sense - if you had complete freedom about this - is if you intend to stretch the range of performance of the ski, into more bumps and trees, and more off piste gnarliness - what this ski was not necessarily intended for, but could handle. In that case, being closer to the ground, having less heel/toe angle, lighter weight at the feet, all would help this ski perform better outside its intended range.
 

blikkem

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Posts
67
Location
NYC
It’s likely most of the statements are from conjecture. When you talk to people who actually know bindings, there’s not much confusion.

You’re too focused on DIN. It’s a spring, and the release force is standardized. So in terms of DIN, doesn’t matter if you’re top, middle, bottom. But if at top for your standard setting, that leaves no room for turning it up in dangerous terrain. Plus it’s highly likely if you’re at the top the binding really isn’t meant for you.
Focus on construction and clamping.


How much more info do you need?
Hey @James
Everyone on the internet talks like they know about bindings, confusing.

Yes, It's the construction that brought me to getting the 16GW. Durability is good because I tend to use my gear for a long time, that went in the plus column. I brought up DIN because everything else made sense to me, I needed to fill some gaps in my knowledge about DIN. Specifically if there are ramifications from keeping them at the low end all the time. Seems to be a fringe case, everyone wants to talk about how high they can go. There I am asking how low I can go. I focus on things I don't know.

How much more information? Lots, first time I'm researching bindings. My first 2 skies came with system bindings, my next two skis came as a package, one with Attack 13s and the other with STH13s. All new to me. If I didn't read and ask questions I would have gotten the 14GWs because I'm using the 13s and have not had a problem with them. Glad I did, I came to what sounds like a better solution with GregK's help and a couple of nights of reading reviews and forums.

RC One 86 GT with Attack 16 GW bindings mounted coming my way!
 
Top