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

Which inbounds touring ski & binding?

Casper

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
May 30, 2023
Posts
2
Location
New Zealand
I currently have a set of Black Crows Captis (90mm waist) for resort days and skiing with the kids and a set of QST 106’s with a Shift binding for deeper snow/back country touring.

I’m a 6ft/200lbs intermediate/advanced skier.

I also live at the bottom of our local ski field, and often tour up for a lap or two before work and before the mountain opens. I may also stay for a run or two after using the lifts. The snow is often firm and icy.

I’m after a lighter weight set-up compared to the QST/Shift, but I still want something that is fun to ski down.

I have previously had the Camox Freebird with Kingpin bindings and liked the way they skied for a lighter weight ski.

I’m considering either the Backland 95 or Wayback 96 (or maybe the Wayback 92), with either a Tecton, Vipec or ATK Raider Evo, as I want a binding that still releases as well as possible for safety reasons.

Does anyone have any advice as to which ski/binding combo I should go for? I was initially set on the Backland 95, then even considered the 85SL (but it may be too light?), then the WB96, and I’m now swinning back to the Backland. I’m finding it hard to make a decision without having skied either, or a having skied a true pin binding either.

Thoughts welcomed!
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
For a lighter setup, definitely go with a tech binding. I think the ATK's are about the best design out there. I personally would probably go with a lighter version of the ATK, but 370 grams for the EVO is not bad at all. ATK does make something called a free ride spacer that takes up all the vertical play in the heel so it skis down much better. Not sure if the Raider Evo design does what the spacer does automatically? The EVO doesn't seem to have that option?

I would suggest staying below 1500 grams for your ski, I always look for a 185ish ski, longest length, so skis that meet that are the Blizzard Zero G 95, Volkl Rise Beyond 96, and your Backland 95. The Wayback is a bit heavier I think. I have a Zero G 106 with shifts, and I like the way it skis. I use it inbounds too when snow is soft and I want a wider ski. Zero G's are light and stiff with enough rocker, but not a lot, so they ski very directional and are torsionally quite stiff. The Volkl is a much more forgiving ski, and I think the Backland is in between the the other 2.

SKIMO seems to be the best online resource of info on touring skis or Blister if they reviewed the product your considering.
 
Thread Starter
TS
C

Casper

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
May 30, 2023
Posts
2
Location
New Zealand
Thanks very much for coming back to me.

I’m a little paranoid about moving to a pin binding for safety reasons. Getting the Backland 95 and putting a Shift binding on it will save me about 630g on my current QST/Shift set up. Adding a Vipec instead saves about 900g and the ATK Raider Evo saves 1130g.

Will I notice a large difference saving 600g per leg along with having the feeling of being safer? Will saving another 300g for the Vipec be even more noticable, and the ATK more noticable again, or will I get the main improvement changing the ski, and the bindings will make incremental improvements - but with the potential of less safety as I get lighter?
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
A pound is 450 grams. I think you will notice 1/2 pound differences, so 600 grams will be quite noticeable, and another 500-600 grams extremely noticeable. You will go faster and be less tired.

I would not put a shift on a Backland, I would go tech. But its not unreasonable to do so. Its just a tech would compliment the weight savings much more and you might not ski hard enough on the backland to justify the shift. The shift on your QST or my Zero G 108 (1750 grams) makes sense, as those can be skied very hard inbounds. I would not put a shift on a Zero G 95 which weighs 1350 grams. I know someone who has tele on a Zero G 95 and skies inbounds with it. He likes the combo, but tele is another animal altogether.

Its hard to comment on your situation unless its understood your plan? Are you keeping the QST/shift skis and adding another "lightweight" setup, or are you remounting your shifts on the backland to save weight and cost. If remounting, then sure it will save 600 grams which is noticeable. If getting another setup and keeping the QST's, then go light ski with tech binding. The more I learn about AT gear, the less worried I am about Tech bindings. With lightweight skis and in the woods, I am not charging on skis, so Tech's are fine and the best way to go. If your doing jumps/crazy shit like in ski video's, then a CAST set up makes more sense to me. You really only have one situation that should be concerning, inbouds laps on your light gear. You could use your QST's on days where you want to charge. I find I adopt a style that works for the equipment I am on. I have no issue dialing things back a little when my gear requires it. With tech bindings, you do better going up and take it a little easier coming down. I would advise you to not be that worried about it, but I do think you should get a "releasable" tech binding, like the ones you are looking at for your piece of mind. The ATK seems like a nice combo of safety and light weight.

I also want to inform you that I do not own a tech binding (yet) but have used them a few times. So take what I am saying with a grain of salt. I was very worried about tech bindings too, but the more experience I got (mostly skiing with others) the less worried I became. The weight savings started to mean more to me and I am willing to accept compromise on the downhill part. A lot of times on my AT gear I am "walking/sking the dog" around a park, or just tooling around some woods when the snow is too deep for my Xcountry skis, so tech would be much better in those instances. Money is important, but I have settled on a 50/50 AT setup, which I have already, and a light weight setup as the ideal way to go. It seems that is where you are heading too. I assumed my lightweight set up will be my Xcountry gear, but they are old 60mm (tip width) skis that are too narrow in untracked conditions. No metal edges, either, but boy they are light and fast.
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
Definitely get a tech binding. Mtn is great on the up and down.
And if you're doing laps in the resort, you're probably in groomers do you won't fall.
I wouldn't go to light on the skis though. First place to save weight is the binding, then skis. Maybe 1700 g per ski
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Casper ,
I agree with @Rod9301 , that if you are skiing a familiar area, how likely is a fall? How much are you pushing the envelope?

If it is not super likely, then a true, lightweight tech binding is a great way to save a lot weight, as well as vastly improved ease of use vs a Shift.
The ease of use thing is especially important for “local laps”. If you are out in a new area, doing an all day tour, a few minutes extra to take skis off to transition, is no big deal, enjoy the view, catch your breath, etc.
But on your before work lap, you just want to get up, rips skin and get down.

I would not bother with the freeride spacer for skis 95 and under. It is a support block that fits next to the brakes, so you get wider support on the ski underneath your heel. Not needed on narrower skis.

Is a release value of 10 enough for you? Then you can get the RT10 or Crest10 if looking at ATK. No need to go for the Raider unless you have wider skis or need a higher release value.

Shift vs light Tech binding is about 500 g (per foot) difference, which, to put it in perspective, is the difference between a true touring ski and a true resort ski in weight!
That will make a far bigger difference in skiing feel than the binding.


On the other hand, safety is important.
So, if your terrain or skiing style are more challenging, then upping the safety is good idea.

In that case, especially if it’s a wooded area, a Vipec might be your best balance of safety vs weight/ease of use.

They have lateral elasticity at the toes, so less jarring over icy, rough snow. And more importantly, they release laterally at the toes (which an alpine binding does).
If you hit something in the front half of the ski (like a stump or fallen log), they are more likely to release there.
All other tech bindings release laterally at the heel. This means they have a ‘blind spot’ for lateral release in the front [and l
alpine bindings (and Vipec/Tectons) have it in the rear].

I don‘t know what boots you have, but since you already have a beefy set up, if possible I would go for a full tech binding (Vipec or regular), not a Shift or Hybrid like Tecton or Kingpin.
That way you have the option of switching to a lighter, better walking boot in the future, many of which only work with pins front and back.
Not only for your local laps, but also for longer (spring) tours in the future.
 

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
@Casper

You say you might often have frozen snow, which, even when groomed, is not super fun to ski on super light skism and you say ski-ability is high in your list.

So, I would look at skis in the 85-95mm range, that are on the heavier side for a touring ski, or even some of the lighter 50/50 skis.
The extra weight will help them be a bit more settled on frozen or rough snow.
Going a bit narrower helps shed weight (also from the skins!) without needing super light materials, so the ’suspension’ might be better.
So that can be a good way to save some weight without giving up ski performance.


And definitely don’t get the Backland 85 SL. They only go up to a 178cm, and are very light.
I have the Backland 85UL, the slightly lighter, more expensive version. I love them, but they are not for bigger skiers skiing hard in refrozen morning snow.

I have them for resort groomer laps, spring skiing, shallow, dense snow touring and long tours, where ideally, you skin/boot up frozen snow and ski down soft corn.
If I hit it wrong, and it is still frozen, or breakable crust, I am willing to dial it back, and just get down. That is not fun, but an acceptable trade off for skis that are that fast on the up (because of weight and narrower skis gliding faster) and easy to carry on the pack.

The older Salomon Mtn Explore 95 got high marks for good skiing (for it’s weight).

Faction Agent 2.0 is a fair bit heavier than claimed but a nice allround ski (my oldest has it).

Waybacks always get great reviews for being allrounders and predictable, which I think is very important for a backcountry ski, where the snow is not.

I have the Backland 100, which is quite the departure from the narrower Backlands.
It skis well, has great edge hold, but it is very light (<1500g in 188x101),
so again, it can get knocked around.

The Black Crows certainly seem to get good reviews, and they are not the lightest, so maybe sticking with one of them is your best bet?

And in the 50/50, how about a Blizzard Hustle or Volkl Blaze models?
 

Paul Lutes

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Posts
2,611
Inbounds touring? How much elevation are we talking about? With hard, icy conditions? Weight doesn't sound like it should be such a high priority, especially over safety. And falls will occur anywhere, anytime. I actually think I fall more in bounds than out - push myself more.

But I'm old and brittleogwink
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
I cannot fault you there, they were never designed for inbound skiing.
100% agreement with @Philpug. Tech bindings are not designed for inbounds skiing, including Vipec/Tecton and Kingpin bindings. The tolerances are very small, less than 1mm and are not built for the abuse that comes from laps on ice, hard snow, bumps, and frozen debris. Consider any Tech binding DIN setting as merely a suggestion.

I use Salomon Explore 95 for volcano skiing with tech bindings. These skis are light-weight and its my feeling that Shift binding are not appropriate for Salomon Explore 95 or Zero G 95 skis. FYI, my personal experience with K2 Wayback ski - they are soft and somewhat noodley - a perfect description.
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,688
Location
Mid-Atlantic
I’m a little paranoid about moving to a pin binding for safety reasons.

I cannot fault you there, they were never designed for inbound skiing.

100% agreement with @Philpug. Tech bindings are not designed for inbounds skiing, including Vipec/Tecton and Kingpin bindings.



Stand Height W/O Ski 24mm

Binding Weight 1000g (uphill) 1300g (downhill)

DIN 4.0 - 13.0
 

Sponsor

Top