Lightweight Touring Binding Shootout

Touring bindings are a hot topic right now. There is a lot of development going on and new technology coming out every year. Bindings like the Salomon / Atomic Shift, Fritschi Tecton, and Marker Kingpin have gotten a lot of worthy attention for bringing elements of alpine binding performance to the touring world.

But those bindings are on the heavier end of the touring binding spectrum, and they offer a level of downhill performance that many ski tourers and ski mountaineers simply don’t need (unless you are skiing fast and hard, jumping off cliffs, straight-lining chutes, etc.).

When it comes to surfing around in hippie pow on a storm day or touring for miles to reach high peaks, things like elasticity, maximum toe / heel release values, or having an alpine-style heel may become lower priorities.

For those backcountry skiers who aren’t as concerned with skiing super hard on the way down, weight, simplicity, and reliability are the features that make a binding stand out. A lighter weight allows you to climb higher, with fresher legs for the down; simple design is critical for things like transitioning to ski mode on a 50° slope; and there is nothing worse than an equipment malfunction deep in the backcountry.

So we’ve rounded up 4 of the most interesting lightweight touring bindings that will be on the market for the 18/19 season, mounted them on four pairs of the same ski (one of our favorite lightweight touring skis, the Salomon MTN Explore 95), and have been testing them head-to-head this spring.

How We Chose the Bindings

There are a staggering number of touring bindings on the market right now. Narrowing down which to choose for this test was not easy.

The main idea behind the test is that the bindings should be light enough to make a difference in your day (let you climb an extra peak, move fast enough so you can sleep in a bit longer on warm spring days, etc.) without taking too much from the enjoyment of the descent.

While most of the “freeride” touring bindings come in at well over 600 grams, the bindings in this test all weigh under 400 grams, with some coming closer to 300 grams. That can shave off over a pound per foot when compared to the Kingpin or Shift. That’s a big difference.

Here is some other miscellaneous criteria for the bindings included in the test:

(1) Robust feature sets

There are tons of ultralight bindings out there with fixed heel tracks, odd ramp angles, non-adjustable release values, and limited climbing riser options. All of the bindings in our test have adjustable heel tracks, adjustable release values (some have both vertical and lateral release values at the heel), a flat climbing option along with at least two other risers, and ski crampon slots. All of the bindings in this test also have the option of using brakes or leashes.

(2) Wide mounting patterns

There’s no use in getting a binding that allows you to go further into the mountains if you’re going to tear it out of your skis on the way down. Narrow hole patterns put more stress on the skis and bindings, and aren’t as well suited to skiing hard, especially on fatter skis. Sure, you can save some weight by switching to a 3-hole pattern on the heel, but for this test, we focused on bindings with wider, 4-hole mount patterns that are better suited to handle wider skis.

Below are the four bindings we’re including in this test. And when it’s ready, we will definitely be adding the G3 Zed to the mix.

We’ve already started getting time on each of these bindings, so over the coming weeks we’ll be dropping reviews of each individual binding, and then finish up with some in-depth comparisons to differentiate the four. Stay tuned…

NEXT: The Comparisons

10 thoughts on “Lightweight Touring Binding Shootout

  1. Really and truly who notices mounting pattern width? I went “back in time” in terms of pattern width, to the Plum RACE binding. I have run them on a range of skis from 100mm to 70mm and have toured both haute routes, the WAPTA with them. At 150 grams a binding I’m never going wider if it isn’t lighter…

    • Hey Apingaut, hole pattern width is more noticeable in terms of reliability and durability. The narrower the hole pattern, the more stress is put on the binding (and ski) — an effect that is multiplied by going to wider and wider skis. For things like mountain traverses and skimo races, narrow mount patterns tend to be fine because weight is at a significant premium, but for things like steep skiing and free touring, a wider hole pattern can increase the longevity and reliability of the binding.

      • Hi Sam. I have seen no real data to support your reliability or durability claim. The popular theory of “as we go with wider skis we need a wider binding” best I can tell it is all marketing with zero supporting data.

        In my experience I have never seen a tour binding rip out that wasn’t already compromised, ALA you can’t fix a bad installation with a wider binding hole pattern. In comparison a tele binding has less screws, a narrower hole pattern, and while tele has a low reliability rap; bindings ripping out isn’t very high on the list.

        • Hey millerb, you’re right that data on binding failure is tough to come by from the consumer side. I would recommend listening to the GEAR:30 podcast that we did with the binding engineers at G3, as we talked a bit about binding failure modes.

          When a ski is on edge, or otherwise experiences a force near the edge, a moment force (aka torque) is transferred to the binding. This size of this force is defined by: T = F x L (where T is the moment force, F is the applied force and L is the length of the lever arm)*.

          In the case of a ski being stressed, the force is the strength of the impact and the length of the lever arm is the distance between where the force is applied (usually the edge of the ski) and where the binding is fixed. The moment force experienced by the binding is calculated by multiplying those values together.

          Since the impact force is outside of our control, the only way to limit the moment force (torque) experienced by a binding is to decrease the length of the lever arm (L). There are two ways primary ways to decrease the lever arm length: make the ski narrower and make the binding hole mount pattern wider.

          Tele bindings don’t rip out as often because tele setups have an additional degree of freedom (the same reason why every tele skier hasn’t blown all of their knee ligaments). More degrees of freedom mean the system has more ways to accommodate or react to applied loads.

          In our conversation with the binding engineers at G3, they talk about how the majority of the binding failures they see are fatigue failures. These failures are caused by repeated loading that doesn’t necessarily cause plastic deformation (bending), but rather slowly wears down the binding components through any number of material failure mechanisms. The narrower hole patterns experience higher forces which accelerate this fatigue failure process.

          That’s quite a long answer to your question but I hope that all makes sense. Binding design is a complicated thing, it is not an easy time to be a consumer when it comes to tech bindings!

          Thanks for your comments,

          *I simplified the physics a bit to make it more clear, but the concepts all still apply

  2. You need the heel raisers for the ATK bindings to properly test them against other bindings that has a heel plate.

    Why not the ATK Haute Route?

    • Hey Gustav, are you referring to the freeride heel spacer? On each of the bindings in this test, the heel of the boot “floats” over the binding/ski (except with the Alpinist where the brake presses into the boot). The Raider 2.0 also comes in at a more comparable weight to the other bindings in this test.

      • Yep. You need contact under your heel on a 100mm ski in my opinion. For a ski waist of 85mm or less it’s fine to float in the air

    • At ~515 g, the Vipec EVO is far heavier than the bindings in this test. We already put the Vipec head to head with the Kingpin, Radical 2.0, and ION 12 in our Alpine Touring Binding Shootout a few years ago.

  3. Reliability of release and retention, when appropriate, is, of course, very important characteristic of a binding for many skiers. Currently that information is mostly missing from the shootout, but in the long term it would be a very valuable addition.

    Currently, there’s a mention of occasional pre-release with the Dynafit TLT Speed, and lack of similar incidents with others.

    Naturally, it takes time to properly accumulate the data.

Leave a Comment