Boots are a concern also - I am/was seriously considering the Salomon Quest’s if they fit so I could change DINs to touring, but will probably still be doing much more downhill than touring, so I am not sure if they sacrifice too much, but would obviously rather not have two pairs of boots.
I’m using Quest 8s with an added Booster Strap, added spoiler and different liners (original liners didn’t fit).
I’m getting on well with them, but I’m happy with soft boots, my previous boots were an Atomic 80 flex, and I don’t find the Quest 8s much stiffer fore and aft, although the Quests are stiffer than my old Atomics side to side. The locking mechanism which holds the boots in skiing mode only stops the cuff moving backwards, it doesn’t stop the cuff moving forwards. I’ve also read on TGR that the forward flex of Quest 12s is similarly soft, so that might be a bit of a shock if you are coming from stiff Langes.
Also I guess you know already that the Quests can’t be used with Dynafit bindings.
Thanks for the input. The Lange’s are stiff, but I’ve done all I can to make them soft - I’ll probably take a while to get use to softer boots but happy to get used to it. Re: the Quests and dynafit - I didn’t know that - so many new terms now am looking seriously at the tech that I just never took any notice of before. How does “tech” binding relate to Dynafit?
If you are seriously worried about weight ...
If you are seriously concerned about weight, look into getting an NNN-BC setup.
I sorta remember hearing once that some sort of record for the Chamonix-Zermatt Haute Route was set by some Norwegians on NNN-BC gear.
We can’t know what would happen in modern rando races because the rules of most races forbid NNN-BC. So the Dynafit-compatibles are artificially protected against competition.
Anyway Dynafit-compatibles are just another compromise. A truly rigorous application of “Light is Right” leads somewhere else.
Personally I take my compromise level around the level of the Fritschi Eagle because seems like a better bet for preventing a broken leg out in the backcountry (arguably the latest light Marker binding also could provide this).
I also own very light Dynafit-compatible bindings + boots + skis, but I do my big long ski mountaineering tours on Fritschi bindings and 4-buckle boots and mid-weight skis. Bigger tours and more of them than most people on Dynafits.
I’m really not bothered by weight, more than is reasonable. I don’t want to be hauling 20kg of ski up the hill, but I don’t want my initial comments taken out of context. I really have no clue other than weight is probably more of a factor for going up than going down. My Omecarves have P14’s on them and together they weigh a ton.
… would obviously rather not have two pairs of boots.
Well it’s not “obvious”. I’ve accumulated about four different boots just for backcountry—and they all still work. Seems like it’s much easier to travel with an extra pair of boots than an extra pair of skis.
Which brings me to . . . If you’re going to try to travel with only one pair of skis+bindings to use for both lift-served and backcountry, that might change your decision. Since that’s my usual approach, it has pushed me toward a slightly heavier binding for (hopefully) greater release safety against bad bone + joint injuries.
If I normally could have two pairs of ski+bindings with me in France, I guess one would be a lighter setup for days with consistent easy-skiing snow conditions with very fast partners—where I’d be careful not to do tricky moves or tricky snow that might test the release capability of a perhaps less-release-reliable binding. For days with less confidence in snow quality + consistency I’d take heavier skis + 4-buckle boots to turn difficult snow into fun turning, or to enjoy some lift-served bump skiing, with a safer binding in case I hit some mogul the wrong way.
If you’re trying for a “quiver of one”, and lack experience with a wide range of backcountry snow, I’d say better to err on the side of heavier armament. It’s a compromise to ponder, because if you don’t tour much, or don’t train specifically for touring (as I do), then lighter skis-boots-bindings could make a significant difference in your uphill climbing speed. But most of the great ski tours in France + Switzerland can still be done without super-light gear by a reasonably athletic person.
In terms of safety etc, is buying second hand touring gear wise?
How about “not obviously unwise”.
I doubt most backcountry ski tourers do much maintenance on their bindings—maybe check the adjustment once a year. Seems to me if the bindings are not actually damaged, and you have a shop check them over at the same time they’re adjusting them to fit your needs, that would be sufficient.
Now you are getting to the meat of it - did I mention I was green?
Ideally, I want a single boot/ski/binding setup. This is what turned me onto the Quests, but I didn’t think beyond that to the bindings.
I probably would rather heavier setups more akin to downhill that could tour, than something really suited for the touring specifically. I want to mix alpine and touring, and see if it suits me for a multitude of reasons. If I find myself touring more, then I can look at a longer term specific setup.
So, is it possible to get a boot/binding combo for lift served + backcountry that’s in any way “step in”?