Back/Slackcountry noob that needs help thread

[gapersarefriends]

Sup NS, i'm lucky enough to get a brand spankin new set up for school next year and i've pretty much decided on this years bents. To go along with my handy dandy shred sticks, i need some handy dandy bindings. im 6'2" and 185 lbs

I probably won't be touring that much this year, as i'm lazy, so i don't need a full blown tech setup.

I ski fairly fast and enjoy popping off random stuff, so i need something durable/cheap to replace.

if i get a regular alpine setup, it'll be a pair of fks 14/18 or sth's. i'll buy a pair of day wrekkers if i go that route.

How much will my inbounds skiing suffer if i go frame binding? i'm gonna go either aaadrenaline 16 or duke.

Can i land switch on not deep snow without blowing my bindings up? is there that big of a difference skiing an fks vs. a frame binding?

Is the tradeoff for the probably less than 20 days touring worth skiing a frame binding the rest of the time?

If it makes any difference i'll be touring around Boise, Mccall and SLC

 

[Dirty.Harry.]

I caution against Trekkers. They have the nickname 'day wreckers' for a reason. I haven't used them in years but I never enjoyed the experience. It's like taking that solid 7 home because you compromised and squinted your eyes just enough to justify it, but once balls deep you immediately regret the decision. It appears to me that the best options for you are the Duke/Baron, Guardian 16/13, or Adrenalin 16/13.

I haven't used either the Guardian/Tracker nor Adrenalin, but I can say that from a hiking standpoint the Guardian is a terrible design. It is very heavy, has no flat touring mode, and does not safely accommodate a boot with a 'tech' sole (the rubber AT-lugged soles). The Adrenalin looks like a more user-friendly design, but I haven't skied it so I can't give an experience-based opinion.

That leaves the Duke, which I also believe has a large design flaw in that the user must remove the binding to transition. Everybody (except the gifted and flexible few), regardless of the binding, has to remove skis to transition back to tour mode and put on skins so the real difference comes at the top when the skins come off. I'm aware that it's not a huge deal to remove your skis to transition, but it's not fun to wallow in tits-deep snow trying to rip skins while everybody else just reaches down and pulls theirs off. The Duke is also prone to icing (Duke Slap, anybody?) and doesn't have the the greatest riser system. The older versions can develop slop in the toes after a couple of years too.

That's the long-winded way for me to recommend the Adrenalin, which I haven't actually skied but is the best of 3 compromising options in my opinion.

I own Dynafit Radicals though, so I'm biased away from framed AT bindings.

 

[Loco-Deer-Slayer]

Metal frame bindings, in my experience are pretty good, and can hold their own to traditional alpine. They can handle switch, cliff drops, ect. They are notorious for breaking in touring mode though just be careful.
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/260930-Salomon-Guardian-BREAKING-needs-a-recall

If I'm ever touring in snow more than an inch or two I switch to the high angle mode to try and minimize the above. Kinda a pain the ass. You just gotta watch the snow build up.

Inbounds won't suffer, and there isn't much of a tradeoff except for weight. I really don't notice when I'm skiing with mine at resorts.

Also just a FYI: Salomon Guardians and Atomic Trackers are identical, part for part and screw for screw.

 

[Powstagram]

I haven't used either the Guardian/Tracker nor Adrenalin, but I can say that from a hiking standpoint the Guardian is a terrible design. It is very heavy, has no flat touring mode, and does not safely accommodate a boot with a 'tech' sole (the rubber AT-lugged soles)

I have the tracker and it does have a flat touring mode - just flick the climb bar forwards. Agreed on the rest though, it's heavy as shit so the uphill isn't fun. Good for the downhill part though.

 

[Dirty.Harry.]

I have the tracker and it does have a flat touring mode - just flick the climb bar forwards. Agreed on the rest though, it's heavy as shit so the uphill isn't fun. Good for the downhill part though.

'Flat' is when the binding is locked into ski mode (When I say flat I mean independent of the ramp angle built into the binding), but the lowest setting in tour mode is in fact a riser that gives the binding a forward angle. Every other binding has a much more true flat touring mode.

 

[gapersarefriends]

I caution against Trekkers. They have the nickname 'day wreckers' for a reason. I haven't used them in years but I never enjoyed the experience. It's like taking that solid 7 home because you compromised and squinted your eyes just enough to justify it, but once balls deep you immediately regret the decision. It appears to me that the best options for you are the Duke/Baron, Guardian 16/13, or Adrenalin 16/13.

I haven't used either the Guardian/Tracker nor Adrenalin, but I can say that from a hiking standpoint the Guardian is a terrible design. It is very heavy, has no flat touring mode, and does not safely accommodate a boot with a 'tech' sole (the rubber AT-lugged soles). The Adrenalin looks like a more user-friendly design, but I haven't skied it so I can't give an experience-based opinion.

That leaves the Duke, which I also believe has a large design flaw in that the user must remove the binding to transition. Everybody (except the gifted and flexible few), regardless of the binding, has to remove skis to transition back to tour mode and put on skins so the real difference comes at the top when the skins come off. I'm aware that it's not a huge deal to remove your skis to transition, but it's not fun to wallow in tits-deep snow trying to rip skins while everybody else just reaches down and pulls theirs off. The Duke is also prone to icing (Duke Slap, anybody?) and doesn't have the the greatest riser system. The older versions can develop slop in the toes after a couple of years too.

That's the long-winded way for me to recommend the Adrenalin, which I haven't actually skied but is the best of 3 compromising options in my opinion.

I own Dynafit Radicals though, so I'm biased away from framed AT bindings.

thanks for the help man, i'm definitely leaning adrenaline.

also, you got yourself a fuckin sweet taco!

 

[Powstagram]

'Flat' is when the binding is locked into ski mode (When I say flat I mean independent of the ramp angle built into the binding), but the lowest setting in tour mode is in fact a riser that gives the binding a forward angle. Every other binding has a much more true flat touring mode.

Ahh fair enough, excuse my ignorance

 

[Dirty.Harry.]

thanks for the help man, i'm definitely leaning adrenaline.

also, you got yourself a fuckin sweet taco!

Thanks. 216k miles and still running.

Ahh fair enough, excuse my ignorance

No problem. It's close enough to be comfortable enough for most people and for sidecountry laps. I think that's where this binding was really intended to be used.

For my purposes though I vastly prefer tech bindings. I can attest to their strength, I like how they ski, and they have held up to quite a few cliffs so far. I understand that its a steep cost to get into (most people need new boots and then the bindings) and what is frequently desired is a touring-capable resort setup, so enter Marker, Salomon, and Tyrolia.

 

[JibbaTheHutt]

how much of a difference does the higher stack height make on the adrenalin? im in a similar position in that next season will be my first season touring.

Pretty much although i'll be skiing mostly pow with my touring set up i do want to be able to occasionally rip on piste without feeling like super uncomfortable on my bindings. That being said im looking to move up from my SFBs to something wider (around 120mm) is the difference in binding going to be negligible on a ski of that width?

Is it worth going with the adrenalin 16 over the guardian/tracker 16 for an extra $50 or so?