# Ski, binding and boot weight considerations



## dlague (Jun 24, 2016)

Up to this point I have never really considered ski or binding weight.  However, after trying a pair of Icelantics I found the wight difference to be significant.  The ski was much more playful in bumps kickers and chopped up powder.  Browsing through shops I have started picking the skis I like and lifting them just to see the difference.  Bindings - well the Salomon z12 ti (868g) is pretty light as a binding and is what I got for my wife and I have had them in the past.  Recently I went to the Look PX 12 (1170g) which heavier by nearly 3/4 a pound.  Now this does not sound like much but it all makes a difference when added up.  I have them on a pair of Cham 96 which are also heavy.  Below are weight charts for various bindings but I have not found anything like this for skis.  From time to time under tech specs you find weights for skis and that is about it.

http://www.evo.com/ski-binding-weight-chart-for-alpine-backcountry-bindings.aspx 


It seems like a ski and binding combination on the light side is around 6 lbs maybe slightly lower and the high end around 9 lbs maybe slightly higher.  My current setup is around 8 lbs.  So, I am looking into lighter gear and wondering if any of you have ideas for skis 105-155 underfoot that are on the lighter side.

Boots appear to be in the 5kg to 6.5 kg range and does that make a difference.

Is weight of your ski/binding combo a consideration for you?


----------



## prsboogie (Jun 24, 2016)

J Skis stuff is pretty light. What length are you looking at because that makes a difference as well. I love my STH2-13s but Griffons are the lightest bindings I've owned and were very good as well


----------



## mishka (Jun 25, 2016)

lightweight binding with heavy skis only will change total weight and may or may not change heavy feel of the skis. 
2 kg for 110 is my goal while my skis comparatively stiff. Not easy to make wide, stiff and lightweight skis
6 pounds binding and skis for pair skis not  realistic. 6--7 pound only for skis 100 – 110mm doable but then need  to us  a lot of carbon fiber


----------



## JimG. (Jun 25, 2016)

prsboogie said:


> J Skis stuff is pretty light. What length are you looking at because that makes a difference as well. I love my STH2-13s but Griffons are the lightest bindings I've owned and were very good as well



+1 on Marker Griffons, on all my skis. 

I ski Ramps because they are made from bamboo which is very light but also very stiff when mixed with Kevlar.


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 25, 2016)

I remember years ago a ski manufacture that had a weight in the tip for vibration dampening forget who it was . Is there a difference West vs East . More weight for East coast harder conditions? 
My total weight for my daily drivers is 11.5 lbs , If the Dukes are anything like the Griffon's that would be my next buy. Even though the weights up there I don't have any problem in the bumps or turning quickly ,76 underfoot.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 25, 2016)

Can't say that I think much about weight with Alpine gear.  I just focus on the construction materials based upon the type of terrain and snow conditions I intend on using the ski on.  If it's a hard pack carving ski, I'll want some metal in it, which will naturally make the ski heavier. If it's a soft snow and bump ski, I won't want metal in it and it will  typically be lighter.   

Regarding Alpine bindings, elastic travel and appropriate din are what I'm concerned with, not weight. 

Weight would only be a concern of mine if I did a fair amount of touring, which Ive remained to lazy to get into even though I do have a set of skis mounted with Marker Dukes. The Dukes are probably too heavy anyways for someone who skins frequently.


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Regarding Alpine bindings, elastic travel and appropriate din are what I'm concerned with, not weight.
> 
> Weight would only be a concern of mine if I did a fair amount of touring, which Ive remained to lazy to get into even though I do have a set of skis mounted with Marker Dukes. The Dukes are probably too heavy anyways for someone who skins frequently.



"Elastic travel" That's what I like about Marker toe piece design , the whole add pad moves outward in an arc from the heel fulcrum . I Boot up in the parking lot and no doubt pick up some small gravel on the bottom of the part of the boot that the pad sits on . This could be trouble for bindings that have a stationary pad . When toe height is adjusted I used to use a pice of plastic the thickness of a credit card , so a stone needs to be a little thicker to cause trouble .

Dukes were my first Touring bindings . I just didn't know how much the extra weight can kill your day , maybe if I started in my 20's it wouldn't matter as much .


----------



## JimG. (Jun 26, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Can't say that I think much about weight with Alpine gear.



You are young; perhaps you will feel differently in 15 years.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 26, 2016)

JimG. said:


> You are young; perhaps you will feel differently in 15 years.



Could be. However, I do see a lot of guys in their 60s in NH skiing on heavy race skis as we have so many boiler plate days.  Probably not for next season, but I'll be replacing my Fischer Motives next and my desire is for a race ski with lots of metal.  The Fischers are pretty heavy as is.


----------



## Scruffy (Jun 26, 2016)

For lift served skiing, the weight you should be concerned with is swing weight. It can make a heavy setup feel light and poppy in the bumps. A lot of other build factors make a ski feel light and poppy. A heavy ski can be your friend in crud, so light is not always right.   Now, if you're touring then, of course you give up down hill power for uphill efficiency. Daluge, borrow someone's Dynofit rig and take the same runs as your favorite Alpine rig, you'll see what I mean. Dukes and Barons are heavy bindings for touring, they are made for the occasional tour, or to get back up from a backside run.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 27, 2016)

Weight does make a difference.  Used to have a system binding on my old Monster 75's.  The ski itself is heavy, but the bindings really made it heavier.  Next set of skis had just regular bindings put on them.  A lot lighter.  I've generally found that high speed rippers are heavier for dampening effect and with a system binding they are really hefty.  But all terrain skis need to be able to handle variable conditions and nimbler.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 27, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Weight does make a difference.  Used to have a system binding on my old Monster 75's.  The ski itself is heavy, but the bindings really made it heavier.  Next set of skis had just regular bindings put on them.  A lot lighter.  I've generally found that high speed rippers are heavier for dampening effect and with a system binding they are really hefty.  But all terrain skis need to be able to handle variable conditions and nimbler.



Yup.

A few pounds lighter is a few pounds lighter, forget everything else. The integrated binding systems really did add a lot of heft.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 27, 2016)

JimG. said:


> Yup.
> 
> A few pounds lighter is a few pounds lighter, forget everything else. The integrated binding systems really did add a lot of heft.



And as I saw in the thread after I posted, I believe that this is now we are all calling "swing weight" and it is now more of an issue that magazines discuss and review.  Years ago it was what it was.


----------



## dlague (Jun 27, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Could be. However, I do see a lot of guys in their 60s in NH skiing on heavy race skis as we have so many boiler plate days.  Probably not for next season, but I'll be replacing my Fischer Motives next and my desire is for a race ski with lots of metal.  The Fischers are pretty heavy as is.



As I mentioned in my opening, I tried Icelantics and found them to be playful and light.  Miska's skis are very similar.  DHS if you have a chance, get up to Cannon on the Icelantic demo day and you will be impressed.  My wife and I are both skiing Dynastar Chams which for both of us our heaviest setups ever or at least it seems so. They are great carving skis, float over crud and do decently well in powder.  My wife has probably skied her best on these.    Also the longest ski she has ever skied on 166 (she started skiing on 153 cm skis).

We are now going wider and are looking for lighter skis and bindings.



Scruffy said:


> For lift served skiing, the weight you should be concerned with is swing weight. It can make a heavy setup feel light and poppy in the bumps. A lot of other build factors make a ski feel light and poppy. A heavy ski can be your friend in crud, so light is not always right.   Now, if you're touring then, of course you give up down hill power for uphill efficiency. Daluge, borrow someone's Dynofit rig and take the same runs as your favorite Alpine rig, you'll see what I mean. Dukes and Barons are heavy bindings for touring, they are made for the occasional tour, or to get back up from a backside run.



Speaking of swing weight, my wife and I also have a pair of twin tip skis that are balanced and have great swing weight.  They definitely do better in the bumps but are not a great all round ski IMO.  My wife definitely feels better with these in the trees and on bumps as well.  However, our Chams kill it in straight up carving.

That being said, adding a more powder oriented ski to our quiver may have us drop the twins since they will be our narrowest skis at 85 mm.  I am targeting the Icelantic Nomads (4.53 lbs) or Rossignol Soul 7 (4.26 lbs) with Marker Griffon (2.22 lbs) or so far and Rossignol Saffron 7 (3.73 lbs) or with Rossignol Saphir 110 (2 lbs) for my wife (maybe Rossignol Savory 7).


----------



## JimG. (Jun 27, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> And as I saw in the thread after I posted, I believe that this is now we are all calling "swing weight" and it is now more of an issue that magazines discuss and review.  Years ago it was what it was.



I keep it simple...heavy or light.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 27, 2016)

JimG. said:


> I keep it simple...heavy or light.



That seems to sum up my quiver....got my heavies and my lighter skis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 27, 2016)

Dlague, always willing to try new skis and have heard good things about the Icelanntic.  That might be something I'd be interested in looking at for a replacement of my Nordica Steadfast.  That's my daily driver and it's just about the perfect East Coast all mountain ski by my tastes. It's a touch stiff in the bumps to run straight zipper and requires a rounder turn, but other than that, I love them. Almost thought about buying a second pair to "cellar."

Where I'm at is my Steadfast are great about 80% of the time.  My Vagabond from the same series are perfect for the roughly 10% powder days that I get during an average winter.

What I'm looking for is a ski for those 10% of days where the snow is blue and you can see your reflection in it. A near racestock speed machine. 68-72 underfoot range like a Head World Cup Rebel I.Race.  that type of ski the full weight or swing weight won't be of concern for me.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 27, 2016)

dlague said:


> ......My wife has probably skied her best on these.    Also the longest ski she has ever skied on 166 (she started skiing on 153 cm skis)..............



Congrats to her on the 153 to 166 move.....


----------



## dlague (Jun 27, 2016)

bigbog said:


> Congrats to her on the 153 to 166 move.....



It was an incremental 154 then 156 then 158 then 166 (rockered).  Every time I buy her gear, I advance her in some shape or form.  Just like waist width which started at 74 then went to 83 then to 87 now going to 98 or 106.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 1, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> For lift served skiing, the weight you should be concerned with is swing weight. It can make a heavy setup feel light and poppy in the bumps. A lot of other build factors make a ski feel light and poppy. A heavy ski can be your friend in crud, so light is not always right.   Now, if you're touring then, of course you give up down hill power for uphill efficiency. Daluge, borrow someone's Dynofit rig and take the same runs as your favorite Alpine rig, you'll see what I mean. Dukes and Barons are heavy bindings for touring, they are made for the occasional tour, or to get back up from a backside run.



+1
good stuff Scruffy....at least for me;-)
Can't wait to mount up my Tyrolia Adrenalin 16s...at least see how they hold me...


----------



## mishka (Jul 2, 2016)

what exactly you doesn't like in your current setup?

weight feel is very subjective. imo ways of mainstream skis made heavier is stiffer.... Lightweight is soft.
stiffness they get primarily from using metal. skis with it have certain feel to it… Some people like it some people don't.
To guy like you I would not suggest soft skis like soul7 regardless of popularity or review's

Weight alone cannot be taking our of context of how skis made, perform and feels.

I'm a strong believer in 2 pair skis quiver. One is daily driver which have to handle well everything except powder and powder skis

out West for daily driver skis in 95 range. Pow specific 115 and up.    100-110 is in between to  narrow for western pow skis to wide as a daily driver

Don't give up and find the best skis for you and your wife… It's take time


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2016)

I'm a believer in a 3 ski quiver. 

In the east, that's a daily driver around 90 in the waist. A powder ski in the 105-110 range. And then a dedicated ice coast carver in the 70s or lower.  

If you prefer groomers and carving, get a daily driver with some metal. If you prefer bumps, go with a straight wood core.


----------



## yeggous (Jul 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm a believer in a 3 ski quiver.
> 
> In the east, that's a daily driver around 90 in the waist. A powder ski in the 105-110 range. And then a dedicated ice coast carver in the 70s or lower.
> 
> If you prefer groomers and carving, get a daily driver with some metal. If you prefer bumps, go with a straight wood core.



I love to talk about my quiver! The niches that I try to fill:

1. Rock ski - Rossi Experience 88
2. Boiler plate carver - K2 Rictor 82 XTi
3. Variable (especially spring) conditions - Nordica NRGY 100
4. Tree ski - Liberty Sequence
5. Powder ski - Fischer Big Stix 110

I am on the market for a new carver. My Rossi E88s are dead and the Rictors are becoming rock skis.




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## drjeff (Sep 27, 2016)

If one is looking at all ways to reduce the total weight of their gear below their knees, and are looking for some new boots, check out the new Atomic Hawx ski boots!!







I had one of them literally tossed at me this past weekend by the owner of the local shop at Mount Snow where I get most of my families gear, as was expecting to feel the sheer mass of something like the Lange race boots I wear, but was amazed in that these, even in a 130 flex race boot, weighed what felt like 2lbs lighter per boot!!  And as a boot fitter, and a fitter who BTW has been invited by Atomic to travel over to Austria in a few weeks to participate in some R&D sessions with some other boot fitters from around the world, he is impressed with the adjustability these boots offer him as a fitter and also the on snow feel and response they had when he skied them last spring!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Sep 27, 2016)

I don't do quivers, although I may in the future.

This season my old 09 Rossignol Phantom SC80 185s get replaced with Atomic Vantage 90 CTi 184s.

The new skis seemed a tad lighter until I mounted the Atomic/Tyrolia STH13 bindings which appear to lack any kind of weight saving technology. However the swing weight on the new skis is better due to the way it's designed with weight saving tech at the tips.

Overall the weight wasn't a big consideration as I never had a hard time with jump turns in any ski I've used.

I would actually hesitate to buy a ski that was too light like the Fischer Ranger Ti because they seem too flimsy.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 27, 2016)

bdfreetuna said:


> I don't do quivers, although I may in the future.



A good reason to do a quiver! If I didn't have the steadfast's although mounted with Dynafits I would have been stuck renting the rest of the season.

As far as weight goes I wouldn't worry about weight for groomers but if you like moguls I would go light. Seems to me weight would help busting crud, JMHO


----------



## bigbog (Nov 10, 2016)

Dlague,
 Guess it depends on whether you're going to skin up with the ski, binding and boot.  As Scruffy had mentioned...those AT binders(ie Dynafit, G3 Ions, Adrenalins & Marker AT binders) are pretty incredible if you know of some places to skin up...out west...as the distances from base to summits out there are nothing to screw around with in fake AT gear.  Quite a few "touring" skis will work in decent western conditions although, as mentioned, if New England powder = crud is around...westerners, with room for larger turns, stick with a wider ski....as cruddy conditions seen to turn to more snow quicker than in New England.
For hardpack<-->crud...beats me, I haven't skied enough in the last decade to find my favorite...although the quiver seems to be the most enjoyable way....ie SBSP's and bdfreetuna's entries....


----------



## drjeff (Dec 3, 2016)

drjeff said:


> If one is looking at all ways to reduce the total weight of their gear below their knees, and are looking for some new boots, check out the new Atomic Hawx ski boots!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pulled the trigger on these bad boys today!! Really weird experience my 1st time in a fully heat molded shell fitting!!! Crazy when after the initial shell heating, my boot fitter (a GOOD friend of mine) had me go into a full forward pressure flex lean - I was expecting the full stiffness of a race boot type flex like I've been skiing in since the early 80's (The orange Lange ZR race boots that the Mahre brothers won Olympic medals in in the Sarajevo Olympics for those AZ'ers old enough to remember that long ago!! ;-) ) but when these shells are heated, before they cool back down they're about a 60 flex, I almost went head over heels onto my friend who was fitting me!! 

Can't wait to ski them next Saturday (the shells need to stay unmanipulated for 24hrs post heat molding and fitting before you can ski them, and I'm going to the Patriots game instead of skiing tomorrow to watch Tom Brady win his record setting 201st win!!) 

An equipment report to follow next week - will he curious as already during the fitting, these Atomics felt better than my previous Langes (and I had 8 pairs of Lange race boots over 30+ yrs prior to these Atomics!!) even over a new bone spur that my now heading on late 40's right foot is developing!! 

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## prsboogie (Dec 4, 2016)

drjeff said:


> Pulled the trigger on these bad boys today!! Really weird experience my 1st time in a fully heat molded shell fitting!!!
> 
> An equipment report to follow next week - will he curious as already during the fitting, these Atomics felt better than my previous Langes (and I had 8 pairs of Lange race boots over 30+ yrs prior to these Atomics!!) even over a new bone spur that my now heading on late 40's right foot is developing!!
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



It's pretty amazing how heat molding really makes it conform to your foot. So much more so than just heating the liners. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Dec 4, 2016)

drjeff said:


> Pulled the trigger on these bad boys...
> 
> Can't wait to ski them next Saturday...
> 
> ...



Interesting, looking forward to your next report!
Are the heat molded shells as customized to the foot as a custom foam liner?


----------



## Edd (Dec 4, 2016)

drjeff said:


> Pulled the trigger on these bad boys today!! Really weird experience my 1st time in a fully heat molded shell fitting!!! Crazy when after the initial shell heating, my boot fitter (a GOOD friend of mine) had me go into a full forward pressure flex lean - I was expecting the full stiffness of a race boot type flex like I've been skiing in since the early 80's (The orange Lange ZR race boots that the Mahre brothers won Olympic medals in in the Sarajevo Olympics for those AZ'ers old enough to remember that long ago!! ;-) ) but when these shells are heated, before they cool back down they're about a 60 flex, I almost went head over heels onto my friend who was fitting me!!
> 
> Can't wait to ski them next Saturday (the shells need to stay unmanipulated for 24hrs post heat molding and fitting before you can ski them, and I'm going to the Patriots game instead of skiing tomorrow to watch Tom Brady win his record setting 201st win!!)
> 
> ...



Ah shit, now I'm intrigued. I wasn't going to buy equipment this year but my boots are 5 years old. I wouldn't want the 130 without test driving them, which doesn't seem possible. Probably the 110. Dr Jeff, do you mind telling me your height/weight?


----------



## drjeff (Dec 4, 2016)

Edd said:


> Ah shit, now I'm intrigued. I wasn't going to buy equipment this year but my boots are 5 years old. I wouldn't want the 130 without test driving them, which doesn't seem possible. Probably the 110. Dr Jeff, do you mind telling me your height/weight?


I run 6'3" and about 230 - with a race background and a current propensity to ski most anything, but really enjoy making big GS arcs in the snow

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Dec 4, 2016)

drjeff said:


> I run 6'3" and about 230 - with a race background and a current propensity to ski most anything, but really enjoy making big GS arcs in the snow
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



Yeah, you're a bigger guy than me by far. I can see why you'd need a pretty stiff boot with your background.


----------



## drjeff (Dec 10, 2016)

Skied these for the first time today - I will preface it with the following. Prior to this pair of Atomic Hawx, I had been a devote Lange race boot fan, to the tune of 8 or 9 pairs of them over the last 30+ years! So when my local shop owner, fitter, and good friend, who has, and still does some work with Atomic on their boot design process, basically insisted that I needed these for my next pair of boots, I was a bit skeptical of what I would think of them, but as we all have heard is recommended, we should trust a good boot fitter to know what's the best boot for our foot shape, size and skiing ability, rather than us just wanting a specific boot, regardless of if it's the best shaped boot for our foot. 

As I unloaded the Bluebird at Mount Snow on my first run in the Hawx's this morning, I wasn't sure what to expect after 30+ years of skiing nothing but Lange's.

The first thing I noticed, was how comfortable they were! I have developed a bone spur near my right pinky toe over the last year plus, and in my previous 4 days on snow this season in my old Lange RS130's there was fairly regular discomfort in that area, even with having had some fitting work done to punch out the shell of my Lange's in that area this fall. I didn't have any pain in that area in the Hawx's at all today!  The fit is race boot snug with great heel hold and a snug feel from the cuff. The toe box was very comfortable and felt great from the first turn. 

The performance was great. Very responsive to both subtle and aggressive movements. A consistent flex pattern that felt just as solid as the Lange feel that I have been so used to and happy with for decades. I was worried about this, as the plastic the shell is made out of is much lighter than my old Lange, and I was concerned that this could make them less precise in their transfer of movements from me down to my skis - this proved to be a non issue!

What really surprised me, was how warm they were! I will admit that as I'm progressing through my 40's that I've started to have some issues with cold toes and fingers, issues that I never had while I was younger. Today was an air temp of the high single digits at the summit and middle teens at the base with maybe a 10mph wind.  I started off with my hottronics on level 3, as I usually would for my Lange's in similar temps. I actually had to turn the hottronics down first to level 2 and then level 1 as my feet were warm enough that they actually started sweating!! 

I am thoroughly impressed with the performance of these boots! And apparently Atomic is going to be expanding the number of models using these custom thermo molded shells into more models and performance levels for next season. As my friend told me, from his perspective this is a great thing, but also an issue for his shop. The great part is the level of fit, for feet of all shapes, from the moment the boots are done being molded, and in the 100 plus pairs he's fit using this system, only 1 person has come back in to have a little more adjustment to the shell done, so that has cut down his post fitting adjustment time dramatically. The issue though he's found is that it takes a good 45 minutes now to go through the thermo molding process, which limits the number of pairs a day that he can fit that way - not a big deal in a slow time in his shop, but much more of an issue in busy times 

I would encourage anyone who's fitter suggests a pair of thermo molded Hawx line of Atomic boots to give them a try as they managed to win over this 30+ year Lange fan!!  

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------

