ON3P KARTEL 116 FOR TOUR??
- Thread starter momox511
- Start date
supersquid
Active member
Quiver kill it for shifts and your alpine binding of choice = money
shin-bang
Active member
^ no
if youre serious about touring, get the cast system.
if youre rocking the kartel 116 and will be occasionally touring. go sth2 16 or fks 180 with daymakers. I have experience with the daymakers and have a couple friends with the cast system.
I also have a friend with guardians. They work. but are heavy and bulky. Ive also used barons and have switched to daymakers + sth 2 and like it a lot better. But again im not doing multiple day tours
if youre serious about touring, get the cast system.
if youre rocking the kartel 116 and will be occasionally touring. go sth2 16 or fks 180 with daymakers. I have experience with the daymakers and have a couple friends with the cast system.
I also have a friend with guardians. They work. but are heavy and bulky. Ive also used barons and have switched to daymakers + sth 2 and like it a lot better. But again im not doing multiple day tours
supersquid
Active member
14006157:shin-bang said:
No why? do you have a mega boner for the cast system?
"if your serious about touring get this super heavy setup up that is only available with a full metal 16+ din binding, thats the only way"
OP why is your first thought to use the guardian? Do you really need all that or are you just trying to get into touring and came upon a frame binding for cheap? Are you limited by your boots (as in they dont have tech inserts)?
cydwhit
Active member
That's a really, really heavy ski to tour on.
If I was going to tour on that ski, I'd throw Shift or Cast on it, not a frame binding. Frames are the heaviest option out there for touring, and the least efficient.
That said, if you're just going to do like 20 minute skins, sure, a Guardian on a K116 isn't the end of the world, but it's a bit of a silly setup.
If I was going to tour on that ski, I'd throw Shift or Cast on it, not a frame binding. Frames are the heaviest option out there for touring, and the least efficient.
That said, if you're just going to do like 20 minute skins, sure, a Guardian on a K116 isn't the end of the world, but it's a bit of a silly setup.
cydwhit
Active member
14006160:supersquid said:
I mean, if you told me I was going to have to tour on a K116, I'd recommend CAST as well.
It's lighter than a frame binding, it walks way better, and you lose none of your downhill capacity inbounds, which, with the K116 is a big deal. CAST is for sure your best bet if you know you're going to ski inbounds a bunch, but might want to walk sometimes.
supersquid
Active member
14006191:cydwhit said:
Fair, but if op is truly serious about touring then he wouldnt be on an alpine binding. Theres a difference between being a serious tour only skier and someone who just wants to hit some big shit in the backcountry. Im picturing the first, you guys seem like your picturing more of the latter.
cydwhit
Active member
14006201:supersquid said:
Eh?
I know plenty of "serious touring skiers" who ski Shift or Cast. And for ANY touring skier, Shift or Cast is going to walk, and ski better than a frame binding.
That said, I don't think it matters what sort of touring skier OP wants to be. Frames are fine if you got them for super freaking cheap, and you want to dip a toe in the uphill water, while still skiing inbounds a bunch.
If you want to be a "tour only skier" K116 is probably not the best ski to be on. But if you want to earn your jibs and hucks, it's a rad ski to be on. Either way, frames if you got them for under $200, otherwise save up for Cast or Shift.
The more "tour-only" bindings like the Vipec, Techton, ION, Radical, etc are all well and good, but aren't analogous to someone asking about frame bindings in my opinion.
That make sense? Sorry, not feeling super coherent today.
supersquid
Active member
14006214:cydwhit said:
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. By serious touring skier i meant weight weenie ski-mo type dudes. Vs freestyle pros who just want to access terrain not available in resort to huck their meat off of. IMO Cast system seems a bit overkill for 70% of the population now that you have a kingpin 13 and 13 din shift available. Either option would be better than a frame though. Theres tons of options that would be lighter than cast and still perform. We would just need more info from op as the title and description do not provide very much info as to how much performance he requires out of his gear.
supersquid
Active member
14006211:shin-bang said:
that setup is more of my personal dream, read post above in reference to your first comment.
cast system upgrade kit is 375 and pivot 18 is 3-400 depending on where you buy from. scrath the inserts and a shift is still gonna be lighter and cheaper.
Comparatively though yes quiver killers and two complete sets of bindings + mounting are gonna be more expensive than cast
![.[sanhedrin].](/data/avatars/m/44/44552.jpg?1745610448){kind=avatar}
.[sanhedrin].
Active member
I read this as if the OP wants this ski for most of what he does which is inbounds, but either a) doesn’t have enough funds to also have a dedicated touring ski, or b) loves the way the kartel 116 skis and believes if would be a killer ski for backcountry use as well. Either way, it doesn’t seem as if he wants to have a resort ski setup as well as a backcountry setup. I went down this path myself and have come out the other side with the belief that I don’t do enough “long” tours each year to justify having a dedicated lightweight touring ski and bindings. I also realized that skiing inbounds with kingpins is not much fun either. Maybe for some it’s no big deal, but it’s not for me. If I could do it all over I’d buy the ski I love for resort skiing (in this particular case it would be the kartel 116), and invest in Pivots with the CAST system. It would be easy enough to tour on for what I do, and would still feel exactly like what I expect out of an alpine setup for the majority of days.