CAST SI&I vs Beast 14

Che~

Che~

Active member
Looking to pick up some new bindings for a touring setup this year. Will be doing aprox 60% inbounds and 40% BC. These are the two systems I have narrowed it down to, and I cant seem to pull the trigger on one. Anybody have any views that would sway me one war or the other?
 
The SI&I would be paired with FKS 180s and the bindings would be mounted to ON3P Steeple 112s
 
13545916:KyleA said:
SI&I for sure. Or even Trekkers. I love my Beast 14's, but would never want to ski them in bounds.
Click to expand...

Care to share what you do and dont like about the Beast 14s both in as out bounds?
 
13546194:Ghini said:
Care to share what you do and dont like about the Beast 14s both in as out bounds?
Click to expand...

In bounds, I don't like anything about any tech binding. Whether it be a beast or anything else, they still lack elasticity and forward pressure and if you ski hard through chunder or bumps, you are very likely to have a heel release. The only time I ski mine in bounds is when we decide to take some laps after touring. I also don't care at all how heavy my bindings are at a resort.

Out of bounds I like Beast 14's a lot. I lock my toes out when I ski, so the 16 toe doesn't really do anything for me. The Beast heel definitely a bit heavier than the Radical, but it's lack of twisting means it won't break on you while climbing. The only downfall really is the lack of a flat walk mode, but nothing I do on a regular basis in Utah has a very flat approach, so it doesn't bother me much. They are also expensive af though. So if you are paying retail for a Beast or a Radical, I would go radical.

SI&I is dope, but expensive. I also wouldn't want to ski the boots that I had modded in bounds everyday so that would add another pair of boots to the mix, adding to the cost. If the Pinnacle boot doesn't explode this year and when the new tech Langes come out next year and accept alpine soles like the XT, the SI&I will be a more viable option imo.

If you are considering a tech binding for in bounds use, I would look at a Kingpin before a Beast. The heel on the Kingpin is a trade off. It's a bit more confidence inspiring due to it being an alpine style heel, but it is more annoying when touring. I personally would rather deal with some ice on my bindings when touring than release in a mogul field though, especially given the op's ratio of touring to in bounds use.

But if you are only going to have one pair of skis for touring and resort riding, Trekkers with an FKS would be my choice.
 
I still dont understand why people say "they (insert various ski equipemnt here) suck so much charging through crud and bumps". When the fuck do you want to do that!!! thats not something im searching for or riding daily. maybe one run a day if that. one run a week. fuck if I hear one more person say a ski or a binding or a boot are shit only because they arent good in "crud" im going to slap them silly and tell them to switch to race skis.
 
oh and im sorry OP. I dont have experience with either so im not sure.

guess it depends if you have a touring boot lined up for the beasts, or if your ready to ship your alpine boot right while ski season is taking off, and get it fitted for a tech toe piece. either way im curious becuase im on the fence for both as well.
 
All in honesty, I trust my beast 16's on more variable icy crud than a pair of fks 18's even though I would be riding the beasts with the forward release at 14 and the lateral on 11. They are comparable to riding fks with the dins set on 13. I don't notice that much elasticity in the binding, unless your riding a ski that is quite flexible then that is where you will encounter problems with elasticity. I would avoid anything that is under 12 din, I have my plums cranked out at 12/12 and you do not have a sense of 100% security in the binding.

Overall it depends on what kind of equipment/weight your going to be carrying out into the BC

The SI system would be good if you were carrying 40+ kilos of equipment or in a war zone.

You are on the right track to a primo set up whichever way you do go.
 
13546743:soup said:
I still dont understand why people say "they (insert various ski equipemnt here) suck so much charging through crud and bumps". When the fuck do you want to do that!!! thats not something im searching for or riding daily. maybe one run a day if that. one run a week. fuck if I hear one more person say a ski or a binding or a boot are shit only because they arent good in "crud" im going to slap them silly and tell them to switch to race skis.
Click to expand...

Nobody is searching for crud or bumps to charge through. Sometimes it just happens and that it when I don't want my equipment to fail on me. Like such as when you pop of a cattrack and didn't realize the landing was a mogul field and have no choice but to straight line through it. Or ski a line that is firm and smooth but when you get to the apron it is icy and chundery af. 95% of the time everybody will be fine with a pair of Griffons or Radicals in and out of bounds. I prefer to buy the equipment that will not give out on me when I actually need it.
 
anybody know if I can fit a Dynafit Titan sole into a WTR binding? CAST sells a WTR afd for the pivot 18, and was wondering if there would be an issue with it
 
If it don't fit just use a grinder and grind the sole, it would be an interesting system if you did end up losing one of the toe pieces in a no fall zone or in deep powder.
 
If it don't fit just use a grinder and grind the sole, it would be an interesting system if you did end up losing one of the toe pieces in a no fall zone or in deep powder.
 
I guess the Rad 2.0s also carry some type of ISO certification now. Not sure the details yet but I picked up a pair to see if they're just as good as the other tech options for everyday use.
 
the thing about cast if you don't have a touring boot is your have to get those inserts which i never thought was cool, but if you have a boot that can accommodate it i'd do CAST. For only 40% touring you'd be fine with that or a duke/baron/guardian
 
13554822:*cgski* said:
the thing about cast if you don't have a touring boot is your have to get those inserts which i never thought was cool, but if you have a boot that can accommodate it i'd do CAST. For only 40% touring you'd be fine with that or a duke/baron/guardian
Click to expand...

Except if you've already used or owned a tech binding for touring...then you can never go back to a framed AT binder.
 
13549341:Che~ said:
anybody know if I can fit a Dynafit Titan sole into a WTR binding? CAST sells a WTR afd for the pivot 18, and was wondering if there would be an issue with it
Click to expand...

I would definitely not recommend it. The Dynafit Titans have a fully lugged sole. The WTR bindings are designed for boots like the Salomon Mtn Lab, which only has a partially lugged sole. You may be able to jam the boots in with the toe height maxed out, but they won't have a reliable release.

If you already have the boot, just get a regular tech binding. If you already have the bindings, then either get a regular All Mtn/AT boot or a WTR boot.
 
I don't get the whole "Beast 14 sucks for inbounds" meme. I just switched from Guardians and Cochise boots as my sidecountry/resort "do it all" setup to Beast 14 and Mercury boots, and can't say I feel any less secure charging inbounds in variable conditions (or anywhere outside of the park really). Definitely can't say the same for my setup with Radicals, but I think part of the issue is the ski's heft/flex. Radicals on a light touring ski (Praxis Yeti) are a night and day different experience from Beast 14 on ON3P Billy Goat.

The major difference I've noticed has been the boots: Mercurys require a bit more technique/engagement/balance (especially without the tongue), whereas beefier Cochises allow for a little more laziness. That hasn't been a bad thing for me (it's good to be forced to step your technique up!), and it hasn't made me feel any less confident in sketchy/variable lines.

TL;DR: I was worried that switching from frame binding & sidecountry boots to Dynafit Mercury/Beast 14 would compromise inbounds riding, but it hasn't. Really happy with the upgrade, and I feel confident riding it under any/all circumstances (except park).
 
well i still dont have them mounted yet, but once i get my touring boots i will be skiing my kingpins inbounds a fair bit. im confident that they will hold up, especially since i only weigh 140lbs. i think they will be better inbounds than frame bindings even.

if any issues from high speed cruddy resort riding, or cliff landings occur, i will be sure to post them.
 
Hmmm I think I answer some questions here I owe both the Radical 2.0 and the SI System from CAST:

The touring tech binding difference is made in the BOOT not the binding. I coach in my Rad 2.0s and they ski the resort no problem, but I do not ski them in a soft touring boot. I ski them in a 130 flex K2 Pinnacle. However, the other day they did randomly release and it really sucked. Now I am a little less confidence skiing them in bounds. I will use this system the rest of my touring life for long tours as a lightweight setup. I should also point out that I broke the heel platform before even going uphill and warrantied. Dynafits can break just like a Marker Baron can.

The CAST System is flawless in its durability. It skis everything very well. It is SLIGHTLY heavier and slower to transition in the bc. It has never failed in the bc ever but ice can build up on the track. Most of the newschoolers crowd will benefit from the Cast System because that crowd likes to "backcountry jib." I hucked some wild shit on the cast system and nothing has gone wrong. One of the latest videos I posts that showed on the NS FB page was on the cast touring system, fairly large cliff in Utah. Theres your proof that it will hold up.....the price is tough but look at it this way, it will last a long time. The system will outlast the binding its set up on. I use it for shorter tours that involve deeper snow and for areas that I build jumps and send cliffs on.

In a perfect world, I would put the cast system on a mid fat park ski about 100mm, however, its nice having on larger ski 110mm underfoot because typically shorter tours involve deeper snow and longer tours involve long descents with firmer, safer snowpacks. I sometimes go back and forth in my mind because I could ski park on the same ski I tour with, but the park destroys your skis and I want my touring skis to last a long time, like a nice mountain bike. Then I tell myself to keep the radical 2.0 on a lightweight ski so I have super light setup. That is what I will stay with and I will keep my touring ski out of the park because I am certainly not jibbing on a radical 2.0 and my setup will last much longer.

If you have any questions, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top