Bindings for approach skis & mountain boots??

[Woodcutter]

Can anyone point me in the right direction.......

 

I need to know what bindings work on alpine or mountaineering boots for approach skiing on full length backcountry skis?

 

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Jake

Edited July 6, 2011 by Woodcutter

[layton]

silvereta 404s!

wait, do they still make them?

[OlympicMtnBoy]

A few options here that work with mountaineering boots: http://www.wildsnow.com/backcountry-skiing-history/binding-museum/

 

I think the only ones you can find currently in production are Silvretta.

[EastCoastBastard]

yes, have a look at Lou's website and then try and find those models on ebay or something. I've had excellent performance with Fritschi FT88's. a little heavier than the 404, but much more reliable.

[OlympicMtnBoy]

I just used my late 80's Salewa Tour bindings to ski 2800' down the Interglacier on 130 cm skis with my Nepal Extremes. Thank god for soft spring snow!

 

Also not as light as the 404/505s but they work and I got em super cheap.

[Dane]

I have a pair of lg 404s I am selling.

[Woodcutter]

That's a really great website, thanks everyone for the input.

 

Dane, appreciate the offer but right now I'm not ready to buy anything, just checking out what exists and how well it works.

Seems that the boots one is wearing dictate the ski-ability of the setup.

 

Watched a friend carry his alpine boots dangling off his pack nearly 15 miles a few weeks ago while we skiied into the Cirque of the Towers. Seems there should be an easier way.

Thanks again for the info.

Jake

[wfinley]

FWIW Silvretta 500s have a nicer release mechanism in the event of falls. The 404s were solid bindings - but many a climber has blown out a knee while flailing downhill with a heavy pack and sled in mountain boots. The 500s might be a couple hundred bucks more expensive but they're cheaper than a new meniscus.

 

[Matt Kidd]

I have a pair of lg 404s I am selling.

Weren't happy with them on the weekend? How much you asking?

[John Frieh]

FWIW Silvretta 500s have a nicer release mechanism in the event of falls. The 404s were solid bindings - but many a climber has blown out a knee while flailing downhill with a heavy pack and sled in mountain boots. The 500s might be a couple hundred bucks more expensive but they're cheaper than a new meniscus.

 

+1

[Dane]

Not a sales pitch, just my thoughts on skiing in most of them. I think the 404 is a decent binding for the price/weight between that and a 500s.

 

Matt, the TLT's have made the 404s redundant. Pulled then and used Dynafits last weekend for 10K down and a 20 mile tour.

 

Heavy packs, sleds and climbing boots? You kidding me? Knees and ankles are toast if anything goes wrong in any of the "modern" Silvrettas or modern touring/dh bindings for that matter.

 

Dynafit fan myself. But they won't save your knees or legs either when you throw a sled and a heavy pack into the mix.

 

FWIW I think the growing consensus is the Dynafit TLT boots and dynafit bindings ski, walk and climb better than anything previously. Eliminating the need to carry extra boots a bigger percentage of the time.

 

There will also be some new boots shortly that address skiing and climbing even better on the climbing side of it, than it is being done right now...but they won't be cheap.

[chris54]

I'm looking at getting some 404s or 500s, but wondering about the skis. Whats a good width for under the boot?

[Dane]

my 2 cents..ski width really depends on the boots and the power they will put down for you. Climbing boots? Go short and skinny. Better boots = fatter skis, may be longer skis that are easier to ski in bad conditions.

 

Worst thing you can do is mis-match ski, boots and bindings.

BTDT..expensive mistake and worse yet took the fun out of skiing.

 

How wide the ski also determines the use to some extent. But if your boots aren't up to the task..your intended use...you'll still be bummed.