Shopping for Alpine Touring Gear

kingslug

Member
Well, starting to get some real outback gear...got the boots, endorphins, the bindings, Dukes, better poles...now need the avi gear. Found the level 1 course Mark recommended in NH...its on MLK weekend, have to see if I can swing it but I really need it.
And if I go to Killington this weekend...I'll have 2 days in...and there might even be hiking required.
 
Marc_C":o5a55gtn said:
You didn't exactly go lightweight, did you?

I tried to tell him...

The Endorphins aren't terribly heavy given their alpine style downhill performance but he didn't need the Dukes.
 
The Dukes are heavy..but I wanted something that could hold...me..and they where $200.00 cheaper than other ones...I could always change them if I don't like them...anyway, I'm going to be able to hike easier than before.
Outback...also a restaurant.
Just checked the weight diff between the Fritschi and the Duke...10 oz. per pair..I can deal with that.
 
There's that old truism from backpacking: a pound on your foot is equivalent to 5 pounds on your back. An extra 10oz. here, and extra whatever for Endorphins over Adrenalins there, a slightly heavier ski than another option - it all adds up.

As far as needing Dukes to hold you...are you planning on dropping 60 footers in the side country?
 
Marc_C, FYI Garmont dropped the Adrenalin after 2008-09.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
 
kingslug":2x61n9wj said:
The Dukes are heavy..but I wanted something that could hold...me..and they where $200.00 cheaper than other ones...I could always change them if I don't like them...anyway, I'm going to be able to hike easier than before.
Outback...also a restaurant.
Just checked the weight diff between the Fritschi and the Duke...10 oz. per pair..I can deal with that.

You could have done the barons. They are a little lighter. I've always thought that the dukes and barons were really side country bindings and not optimal for uphill travel. Of course, with what I've been told about Bobby Danger, perhaps there is no need for AT bindings and boots at all... of course,the rest of us are mere mortals.
 
rfarren":2ed1tuh3 said:
Of course, with what I've been told about Bobby Danger, perhaps there is no need for AT bindings and boots at all... of course,the rest of us are mere mortals.
Do not base your gear decisions on an outlier data point. Especially one that receives alien transmissions.
 
Well ..the skis ar lighter than what I used to go on..the boots are 2 pounds lighter..not sure about the bindings compared to what I have now though...
 
kingslug":y0titk2p said:
Well ..the skis ar lighter than what I used to go on..the boots are 2 pounds lighter..not sure about the bindings compared to what I have now though...

Not for nothing, but i dont remember you being a lightweight. Are you planning on skiing these boots full time, or just for tours? If the former...you're going to overpower them i think..they arent ANYWHERE near the flex rating Garmont thinks they are.

M
 
Admin":13makm7i said:
:bs: That's plenty of boot for him.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png

Sorry dude...you're 140lbs soaking wet and havent had a new pair of boots in years. If i remember correctly the Quests you tried last season we're too much boot for you and have the near same "flex rating" that Garmont puts on the Endorphin...BIG difference. You couldnt even flex them. I call :bs: on Garmonts flex ratings. I went through testing quite a few pairs this last year...this is NOT plenty of boot if you're near 200lbs...can you learn to live with them? Yes...are there better boots for his weight? Totally...

Remember im the "gear junkie" not you....

EDIT: Sorry Garmont lists the endorphin as 130 flex...LOL....Quest is 120 flex...you couldnt flex the quest but the Garmont is 130...again... :bs: on Garmont.
 
Skidog":3qowiwj1 said:
EDIT: Sorry Garmont lists the endorphin as 130 flex...LOL....Quest is 120 flex...you couldnt flex the quest but the Garmont is 130...again... :bs: on Garmont.
The flex ratings are relative to each manufacturer's line of boots and only comparable within their line. You cannot compare flex index between different manufacturers. It's just like ski run difficulty ratings.
 
Skidog, you'll recall that my biggest complaint about the Quest boots was their upright stance and inability to adjust forward lean. Had I not been placed so upright, with my weight on my heels, the boot's flex would've been far less of an issue. As it were, I needed to constantly force those boots into a flexed position, something I simply could not do.
 
At the risk of stepping into it, I'm looking at the Quests also. Shop fit seemed good. I just had the Marker Barons (located by Garry Klassen in Telluride for $260) mounted to the BD Verdicts. I tried on a pair of Black Diamond boots but the fit was not right. Other AT boot suggestions are welcome.
 
For what it is worth, I have the Garmont Radium and at 205lbs they are fine. I prefer the beef of my alpine boot but am willing to sacrifice some beef for tourability. Significantly less sacrifice on the down compared to the G-Ride. I ski pretty hard, too. I think Garmont's beefier end (which, as a touring boot, the Radium is not) should be more than doable for all but the heaviest and most aggressive skiers.

WildSnow.com just weighed in the Marker Tour F12 at just slightly more weight than the Fritschi Freeride Plus. I can't imagine that leaves much of a market for the Duke. Except for its current market... folks that want to look like they BC but really don't....

=; :lol: :rotfl:
 
Tony Crocker":xfdk8og7 said:
At the risk of stepping into it, I'm looking at the Quests also. Shop fit seemed good. I just had the Marker Barons (located by Garry Klassen in Telluride for $260) mounted to the BD Verdicts. I tried on a pair of Black Diamond boots but the fit was not right. Other AT boot suggestions are welcome.
Just like in climbing shoes, fit is absolutely everything and overrides all other considerations. Brand is irrelevant.
 
Except when it's Salomon, which makes defective AT boots, destroys a person's leg and life, and then does nothing about it, except release the boot again the next year.

I need to figure out an AT setup for myself this year. I'll just keep my alpine boots: Garmont Shamans. Who cares if they don't have AT soles or a walk function, they fit and I won't ever be touring for more than a few hours.

I figure I'll either get Barons or Dukes for the bindings since they'll be going on my Lhasa Pows, which I intend to ski almost every day this winter. I'll probably only get a few BC days (and those will be partially lift accessed from June Mountain), so I want something that will perform best for normal resort use. The weight difference is small, so that doesn't really matter to me at all. Barons are obviously a bit cheaper, but after running my DIN at 8.5 last year on alpine bindings, then putting on at least 10 pounds (and certainly more in the future, as I'm still just 145 at 5'10"), and becoming a more aggressive skier, I worry a bit about the durability of Barons and the greater potential for prereleasing.

A big part of skiing is having complete faith in your gear, too. After ripping a binding out last year and prereleasing many times even as I turned up the DIN, I never really trusted the bindings and I know my skiing suffered as I grew more cautious. Would the Dukes simply provide me with the piece of mind that the Barons wouldn't?

And then I have to find skins. Something that'll fit a 191 cm ski with 140-112-122 dimensions.

Keep in mind I have to buy pretty much everything used, so durability becomes even more important.
 
My main reason for getting the At bindings was to keep the rubber sole on the Garmonts which won't work with regular bindings. I don't want to change them back and forth. I have never done any skinning, would like to. I plan on keeping my Nordicas for east coast when I'm on my other skis. The Garmonts have 2 positions for lean , have to experiment with that. Hopefully they are enough boot for me at 225 lbs. Matt, which ones do you have??
 
Back
Top