Frame AT binding review

Hello,

I just bought my wife some Tyrolia Adrenaline AT bindings, as we are getting touring set-ups for next year. They are frame bindings, and when we went to visit the Skimo-Co shop in SLC to try on some boots the sales associate told us that frame bindings are the absolute worst thing ever and that even the strongest climbers can't handle the weight that they have. Does anyone have an opinion on what this guy said?

Obviously, frame bindings don't sound ideal, but is there anyone who used them for a starter touring setup? 

Thanks for the input!!

There are lots of people who have started or still tour on frame bindings. A question is how much fun are they having, considering the weight. I did a quick search and the binding you mention weighs a bit under 6 pounds per pair. The skis I typically tour on weigh 7 lbs. 14 oz. per pair, including bindings. They are a light setup, though not super light. A lot of new backcountry skiers do not pay much attention to the combined weight of their equipment, but how much you carry on your feet makes a huge difference as to how much energy you have and what one can do.

I started out with used frame bindings.  They're clunky but they do the job.  They also allow you to switch into downhill boots for resort skiing on the same setup.  Nowadays I use a touring boot for all my skiing and occasionally ski on dynafit bindings in the resort.  There's nothing magical about modern equipment -- I did my first few tours in old downhill boots! -- but it's definitely better.

They're outdated and quite miserable.

I've never used one but in addition to weight I've heard having a pivot point even farther ahead of your toes than the pin slots on touring boots (which are already farther ahead than the pivot point in regular boots) make your stride even more awkward. That said, I'm of the mindset that anything anyone is using now is almost certainly light years ahead of whatever people were using a few decades ago. And people skied all kinds of big and gnarly stuff back in the day! 

Frame bindings are heavier, clunkier, and more prone to icing up. 

But they’re often times a little cheaper than pin bindings and generally fit any pair of alpine ski boots and they ski and tour just fine. The ability to use normal alpine boots often makes frame bindings a nice price point entry as you don’t need two different pairs of boots. 

I started out touring on an old pair of tele bindings that didn’t even have a free-pivot. It didn’t kill me, and it was what I could afford at the time. 

That sales guy honestly sounds like a jerk. It’s not his place to talk trash on your gear decisions. 

If I were in your shoes, I’d ski the frame bindings next year, and if you get the chance, demo a pair of pin bindings. If you and your wife are spending enough time touring that you want a touring specific set-up and the weight savings of a pin set-up are worth it after you demo a pair, swap over to pin bindings.

The sales associate at Skimo-Co is right on. I had frame bindings (Market Barons) for about half a year of touring before buying a tech binding setup and relegating my Marker Baron set-up to inbounds use (and then selling to my brother who only occasionally skis). In addition to weighing, as the above user pointed out, roughly the equivalent of skis+bindings for a lightish tech setup, the fact that the pivot point far forward of the toe of the boot, and the fact that you are picking up the weight of the platform binding with each step, make them heinously inefficient and totally unenjoyable.

I'd say it depends on what you want to do, and what your current level is. 

Option 1) If you want to primarily ski in-bounds, but very occasionally take short laps up the resort, or short ski tours in the "side country" of a resort, then frame bindings could work. Any kind of real ski touring/backcountry skiing will have you wanting a tech based setup, at least for the uphill, very quickly. Still not as good as option 2.

Option 2:  The much hailed and equally maligned Shift binding. These bindings do truly cross over resort binding performance with a tech binding on the uphill. While heavier than the average tech setup, the weight is not carried on the heel while touring, which makes a big difference. The binding is alpine certified. However, they can be a bit involved to configure correctly and have some quirks. You may have to learn those quirks and how to trouble shoot for them in the field, and therefore some people have had issues with them since they are far from a "set it and forget it" resort binding. Personally, once I figured out how to properly adjust them (and its not as easy as most bindings) they have worked great for me. This is a great option if you want to ski 50/50 resort/backcountry. Also a great option if you are a new skier (for the releasability) or want to charge hard (but maybe not pro level/Look Pivot hard). Big tours will still leave you wishing for a real lightweight tech binding.

Option 3) A tech binding. Many different companies/models exist. The pros/cons of each are too many to list here. These are best suited for 100% backcountry. While people do ski tech setups inbounds, it is generally not advisable. It is also generally recommended for people who already know how to ski - for the sake of your knees I could not recommend someone learn how to ski on a tech setup. However, if efficient, enjoyable, longer tours in the backcountry is the ultimate goal, pretty much all dedicated AT skiers use a version of tech bindings.

Personally, I use a Shift binding for resort/short tours, and a couple different tech setups for bigger touring days. I would never spend money on a frame binding. That's just me however.

Hope that helps!

^ Nice write up, Tim N! Am in complete agreement.

get the new hybrids(Shift, or eq.)... best of both worlds

Big B wrote:

get the new hybrids(Shift, or eq.)... best of both worlds

The Shifts are heavier than any backcountry oriented binding I want to climb uphill with, but I understand why people buy them.

A pitfall I see with some people buying non-tech bindings is they often end up with heavy boots, some which don’t even have “walk mode” or “walk mode” with little articulation. Ski tourers need to think about the TOTAL COMBINED weight of boots, bindings, skis and skins.

I have a pair of frame bindings but haven't used them for alpine touring yet. Just downhill resort skiing. From what I understand is that frame bindings are optimal if you're using them for a short tour (less than 5 miles) out and back for an afternoon of backcountry skiing on low-angle slopes. They're not ideal for steep ski mountaineering or serious backcountry. The upside of a frame binding is that you can tour (although in a limited capacity) while not having to sacrifice any downhill performance on your bindings. 

Terry E wrote:

A pitfall I see with some people buying non-tech bindings is they often end up with heavy boots, some which don’t even have “walk mode” or “walk mode” with little articulation.

A related pitfall is that many AT boots have rockered soles that won't work properly with frame bindings. They might fit into the bindings, but they may not release safely or consistently. There are some exceptions – see https://www.evo.com/guides/ski-boot-sole-binding-compatibility for a detailed explanation – but you may find that if at some point you want to switch to lightweight touring boots then you might have to replace your frame bindings as well.