• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Ski, binding and boot weight considerations

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
1,764
Points
38
Location
Swansea
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

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
944
Points
0
Location
Providence RI
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.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
11,880
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,852
Points
63
Location
Lehigh County Pa.
Website
www.youtube.com
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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,481
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,852
Points
63
Location
Lehigh County Pa.
Website
www.youtube.com
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 .
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,481
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,157
Points
38
Location
In the shadow of the moon.
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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
31,170
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
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.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
11,880
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
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

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
31,170
Points
113
Location
NEK by Birth
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

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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.

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.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
11,880
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
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.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,481
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.
 
Last edited:

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,792
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
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

Active member
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
4,882
Points
38
Location
Bangor and the state's woodlands
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...
 
Top