The Marker Duke and Baron bindings have proven to be very popular over the last few years, so it certainly shouldn’t be a surprise that some of the other big players on the downhill binding market are now providing some competition. This class of binding deserves its own name- perhaps “Downhill Touring” (DT) or “Freeride Touring” (FT). Another player in this category is the MFD Alltime, a hinged plate that you can attach almost any standard alpine binding. Yes, they tour to an extent, but not like a Dynafit/tech binding or even a Fritchi. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like the category.

First, some thoughts on my Dukes. I actually like them a lot. Unlike my Fritchis or Dynafits, I can ski them inbounds with 100% confidence. Additionally, unlike my Dynafits I can quickly change from my alpine boots to my AT boots. When I’m unsure if I’ll be touring or skiing inbounds, I can limit myself to the Dukes without compromising too much touring or aggressive skiing inbounds. But any tour more than a couple of hours is just plain brutal.

They’re also very useful for the lazy man’s versions of backcountry skiing- namely slackcountry and sled laps. This is a topic that is rarely discussed, but should honestly be on your mind when you do tours of this type. Let’s say you’re in Jackson Hole and you head out the Rock Springs gate and hike up the pre-existing boot pack. You ski first and then watch your partner get caught in a slide above you. If you’re in standard alpine bindings and you have no skins, you’ve basically signed your partners death certificate- you’ll spend an hour postholing up to the debris just to break out your beacon/probe/shovel to find a corpse. So please, if you find yourself skiing slackcountry make sure you have some sort of backup plan (a touring binding of some sort plus skins) to reach your partners.

Enough of that, let’s get to the Tyrolia/Head offering, the Adrenalin, complete with a high DIn setting of 16.

Tyrolia’s offering seeks to differentiate itself through a “floating” heelpiece. All the cool new ski designs are rendered somewhat moot if a DT binding, with its huge rigid zone, doesn’t allow the ski to flex the way its designers intended. So the Tyrolia binding doesn’t fix the heel of the binding in place- instead it has 2 small cylindrical tabs mate up with two similar tabs on the fixed part of the heel to lock it down while still allowing movement. Even a quick hand flex of a ski will show the system works. The system is visible on the brushed metal fixed part of the binding and the “rail” of the binding above it. Also, unlike the Duke, you don’t have to step out to go from ski-hike-ski modes. The question we’d like to see answered in real-life usage is whether or not the system ices up during the skin, making it difficult to get into ski mode (the duke requires careful cleaning of its track to lock it down).

Does it work in practice? We won’t know unless we get a chance to try the binding out on the snow. Another feature of the binding is that you can adjust the binding length without tools- but really, how hard is it to use a leatherman, even out on the trail? Then there’s this:

Yes, that’s plastic connecting the toe and heel. Not a single bit of metal in there. Now, I had the original white Fritchi Titanal binding, and I broke the metal connecting rod on that binding in relatively short order. The next Fritchi, the blue Titanal 2, had a much stronger and heavier connecting bar that I never did break. I can only hope that Tyrolia did their homework- if that plastic breaks on a skier somewhere exposed, it’s going to be a nasty accident. I’m not sure I trust it, that’s all I can say, but time will tell with this binding. Reported (unverified) weight is 40g more than the Duke, and well over 100g lighter than the Salomon.

Speaking of which, on to the Salomon Guardian.

Like the Tyrolia, the Guardian lets you switch modes without stepping out. This is something that drives me crazy about not only my Dukes, but also my Dynafits. Hit the flats at the end of the run- boom, go to tour mode. It gets steeper again- boom, go to ski mode. This feature alone gets me excited about this binding. The “teeth” that lock the binding down in ski mode look less prone to ice and snow buildup as well. Also like the Tyrolia, this binding isn’t entirely “fixed”, allowing the ski to flex naturally. It’s interesting to note that both bindings addressed both of these Duke downfalls. Still, I’ll take a wait and see approach with this binding given Salomon’s other ill-fated forays into the touring world.

More on the Tyrolia:

More (a lot more, at almost a half hour) on the Salomon:

Brittany headed down to Denver last weekend to attend the SIA show and check out some new gear. We have a lot of “quick-look” products to show everyone, and hopefully we’ll get a chance to thoroughly test and review some of these products in the near future. We’d love to throw in some fun stoke from the backcountry as well, but we’ve pretty much cut out backcountry skiing for the time being thanks to the horrible snowpack we have here in most of Colorado. At least we have Alaska to look forward to in the near future.

In any case, one of our first stops was the Tecnica booth. I’ve been extremely happy with my Cochise boots (REVIEW HERE), but I wanted to learn more about them as well as some new offerings in the Cochise line-up. In my review, I stated that the Cochise boot was the first AT boot I’ve skied that truly skied like an alpine boot, something I’ve always wanted and hadn’t previously found. So why do they ski so well?

Not surprisingly, they ski well because Tecnica did their homework. AT boots present a bit of a challenge for boot designers. After all, they’re supposed to be light, have a tremendous range of motion, grippy soles, and then turn around and perform well on the descent. In an alpine boot, the upper and lower cuffs work as one unit, and inputs from the leg are quickly and decisively transferred from the boot to the ski. AT boots, on the other hand, have to separate the upper and lower in order to achieve a range of motion while in walk mode. In general, the upper and lower are connected in three places- the two hinge points at the ankles, and usually with a metal bar or rod in the back of the boot. Just how much lateral stiffness does that provide? Even rearward in some cases? Not much, in my experience. That’s great if the latest greatest stiff boot claims a forward flex of 200- if the lateral flex doesn’t match it, you might as well put some dynafit fittings in your street shoes and ski that way.

Tecnica tried to mate the upper and lower cuffs of the Cochise, and I think they’ve made some great strides in that area. Here’s the lower- notice the metal “H”:

Here’s a combo view with part of the lower cut away. There’s a lot to look at- notice for one thing that the screws on the replacable soles go into T-nuts. Then there’s the Tech fitting (sitting by itself in the heel pocket) that also has metal reinforcement. But you’ll really want to check out the “T” fitting tied to the string in the middle of the boot. This is the part on the upper that fits into the “H” seen above. Click, click- upper and lower mated so much better than before.

Read more

I’ve never considered my dream AT boot to be that difficult to find. More than anything, I just want an AT boot to perform on the way down in the same manner as an alpine boot. If I can’t tell that I’m in an AT boot, then my dreams have been fulfilled. Just add a good walk mechanism and a rubber sole with tech fittings, and I’m in heaven. Did Tecnica fulfill my dreams… read on.
L-R: Dynafit Zzeus, Tecnica Cochise, Tecnica Diablo Magma (alpine):

In 1985, as a J3 racer at the Winter Park Comp Center, I started skiing in my first pair of Tecnica boots- the neon Grand Prix racers. Since that time, I have skied Tecnica boots almost exclusively. Yes, I’m a Tecnica fan. They fit my foot and the flex is natural for me. So to say I was excited about the Cochise AT boot is a bit of an understatement. As I slid my foot into this boot, it indeed felt like coming home to an old friend. Still, like other reviewers of this boot, I noticed that they have a lot of room- but that’s easily remedied with some shims under the liner. That’s about all I had to do to get them dialed with my feet.

The ski/walk mechanism on this boot is a thing of beauty- simple, easy to use with gloves, with a solid, positive click between modes. What was more impressive, however, was the smoothness of the boot in walk mode. After dealing with the clunky, herky-jerky motion of my old Dynafit Zzeus boots, the Cochise felt amazing in comparison.

In fact, the smoothness of the Cochise walk mode made me assume that the range of motion was far greater than that of the Zzeus. Turns out it’s about the same in a rearward motion, but less than the Zzeus in the forward motion. Still, in practice I would say that the Cochise is a far more capable touring boot than the Zzeus. Comparison shots:

So, the question remained… would the Cochise ski as well as my Magma alpine boots? The answer, I’m pleased to report, is yes. I’ve skied the Cochise boots inbounds quite a bit this season, something I wouldn’t even consider with my Zzeus boots. They handle it well. Still, I will always have alpine boots for inbounds days- for someone who skis as much as me, it makes no sense to ski an AT boot inbounds except when traveling. In my view, any time you add moving parts (the ski/walk mode), you’ve got a part that can wear out or break, so why stress it pounding out more vert in a day than one might get in a month of touring. The same goes for touring bindings, in my opinion. And then there’s the folks who insist on skiing rubber soled boots in standard alpine bindings- might as well just put a bullet in the chamber and play Russian roulette with your knees. But I digress…

The liner is mediocre. I’ll use them for the rest of this season, but then I’ll upgrade to an Intuition or Palau liner next year. One problem has been a fold in the tongue which is meant to help the touring motion. While it sounds good on paper, in practice it ends up being a part of the tongue which always wants to fold over produce a sharp pain. The tongue needs to be positioned perfectly for me to avoid this. The oval area in this photo by my finger is the area I’m talking about:

The other issue with the liner is the plastic liner covering clashes with the plastic cuff of the boot in tour mode. This produces an annoying click from time to time when the boot is getting the maximum range of motion, as on a flat section of skintrack or while walking. Look at the red spot on the liner and I think you’ll see what I mean.

Still, these are minor quibbles thanks to the downhill performance of the boot. Last season, I found myself using my alpine boots for short tours, not willing to sacrifice performance for the sake of touring comfort. Thankfully, that will not be a type of torture I will endure any longer. Surprisingly, with all this performance they’re still lighter than many other boots in the same class, including the Zzeus and Titan boots from Dynafit, and Black Diamond’s Factor boots.

In summary, I am extremely pleased with these boots. The downhill performance was somewhat expected- the touring capabilities of this boot are much better than I could have even hoped for. They’re the boots I’ve been waiting for. It’s been a long wait.

Brittany and I have both been using the CAMP XLC 390 Crampons for a number of years, and both of us would place them near the top of our lists of ski mountaineering gear that we love, for their light weight, easy adjustabilty, and solid connection to our ski boots.

The XLC 390 is a lightweight aluminum crampon whose number, 390, refers to the number of grams a pair weighs (about 13.8oz for the metric-impaired). For comparison, similar steel offerings commonly weigh about 2 pounds, 2 ounces. We’re no weight weenies, but at less than half the weight, we wanted to at least give them a try. We have found over the years that these crampons perform beautifully- so long as they’re used as intended. These are not the crampons to take for a day at the Ouray Ice Park- they probably wouldn’t even last one pitch. In fact, they’re not a great choice for any route that contains a lot of ice or rock. But for ski mountaineering in places like Colorado, which are more often than not just simple snow climbs, the XLC 390 is a perfect choice.

Aluminum crampons definitely require a bit more “babying”. If you’re the type of climber who likes to repeatedly stomp their foot into the rocks to find a hold, you’ll wreck these crampons in a hurry. Same goes if you’re 6’6″ and 250 pounds. The only 14ers we didn’t bring these crampons on were Pyramid and Capitol. For everything else, they were a great choice and truthfully we could have used them on all the 14ers.

Where the XLC 390 really shines, however, is at the trailhead. You know the situation- you’re packing your backpack and out comes the question “Do you think we’ll need crampons?”. Colorado is full of moderate routes that may be safely climbed without crampons- so long as the snow is perfect and you feel completely comfortable with the route. Tossing a 2+ pound set of steel crampons in a pack when you’re not even sure you’ll use them is a tough pill to swallow. 14 ounces and it’s pretty easy to answer, “What the heck, I’ll throw them in.” That’s the real beauty of the XLC 390 crampons.

For those of you wondering, yes- those are the Tecnica Cochise AT boots. Review of these amazing boots coming soon…

Check them out: