Looking to purchase my first AT Setup--read some wonderful/informative forum posts by tyler4588 / spiritualspatula

I've rented a couple of times: dynafit bindings the first time / diamir fritschi's the second. I preferred the diamir fritschi's but I find myself wondering if it's just because of my lack of experience. Ideally I am going to be skiing in the backcountry more often but it would be nice to use my setup on some groomed runs. I don't ski very aggressively nor am I looking to huck anything in the near future. Any advice as to which way I should go?

Leaning towards the fritschi's I realized I also have no idea as to which size I should go with. My boots are 26.5 (sole length 300) and the short bindings say they go from 245mm - 300mm. I called a few ski shops in the area and none were very helpful. Diamir says to go with the smallest binding possible (Can anyone explain why that is?). One person said I should go with the medium bindings (280mm - 335mm) in case my feet get bigger/I want to let someone else use my skis. I don't see either of those scenario's playing out but if there is a performance related explanation I'd really like to know.

If I do end up going with the dynafit--which break size should I get. My ski waist is at 92... is it possible to have a 92mm break as well, or is that cutting it too close? (I read that bending can compromise the metal)

Am I on the right track here? Any advice/wisdom/knowledge would be greatly appreciated!

I can't comment on the size of the Fritchi's, but I really like my Dynafit binders. Very light, and plenty tough. I weigh as much as 185lbs and ski them moderately hard, not hucking cliffs or anything, and they have held up fine. A swiss mountain guide who has a guiding and ski shop near me and designs skis for K2 said Dynafits were the one binder they got right the first time and didn't screw up.

I also like my Dynafit bindings a lot. But I've actually got more friends over here (Europe) who don't like them. Two problems:

1) If you've got a bit of snow around the binding holes in your boots it's easy to put them on "wrong" and not know it. The binding will later come off when doing an icy switchback or otherwise placing the ski under oblique pressure. On my particular model (2006) I've learned that the signal for this is that you can't lock the toe binding all the way into x-country mode.

2) Putting the ski back on after a wipe out in deep snow takes effort and patience. In an environment with snow "in everything" the binding will not take as well. Expect to spend 2+ minutes where the Fritchi people need 10 seconds max. My Fritchi friends look at this and just shake their heads.

On the other hand, and this is why I'm a fan despite 1) and 2), the Dynafit bindings are really, really light. I spend a lot more time skinning uphill than dealing with these annoyances. I am happy to optimize for the uphill travel, betraying my real interest in backcountry skis (in other words, I'm a hiker, not a skier).

I have skied on Fritschis and Dynafits.

For backcountry, the Dynafits are so much lighter, that I pretty much ski Dynafits exclusively in the BC now.

As far as the reason for getting the smallest bindings possible, smaller bindings weigh less.

I've bent my Dynafit brakes a few cm without any problems. It's pretty common to bend them a bit.

I would highly recommend not getting fritschis...heavy, breakage issues, and awkward stride. Dynafit bindings have been proven over the last twenty years with basically no changes. People that say they are hard to use or have icing problems obviously haven't spent much time in them. I have skied dynafits for the last nine years with well over 3 million vertical and have never had an issue. I ski aggressively and have no hesitation dropping cliffs in dynafits. Trust me you won't be disappointed. The brakes can be bent out slightly with no problems. Let me know if you have any other questions.

fforcella wrote:
Leaning towards the fritschi's I realized I also have no idea as to which size I should go with. My boots are 26.5 (sole length 300) and the short bindings say they go from 245mm - 300mm. I called a few ski shops in the area and none were very helpful. Diamir says to go with the smallest binding possible (Can anyone explain why that is?). One person said I should go with the medium bindings (280mm - 335mm) in case my feet get bigger/I want to let someone else use my skis. I don't see either of those scenario's playing out but if there is a performance related explanation I'd really like to know.

You probably shouldn't get the small binding if your boots are at the absolute maximum of its capacity. There is some variance in true boot sole length vs marking by a few mm. Or you might decide to get another pair of boots and they have larger sole length for the same size. I would guess that one reason to get the smallest binding you can is because the shorter rail should flex less (if you aren't really big and aggressive this probably isn't a huge issue).

Obviously you need boots with Dynafit fittings to choose the Dynafits, but you probably have that covered already.

Nearly all brakes can be bent out by a little without harm.

coldfoot wrote:

You probably shouldn't get the small binding if your boots are at the absolute maximum of its capacity. There is some variance in true boot sole length vs marking by a few mm. Or you might decide to get another pair of boots and they have larger sole length for the same size. I would guess that one reason to get the smallest binding you can is because the shorter rail should flex less (if you aren't really big and aggressive this probably isn't a huge issue).

Thank you--that makes a lot of sense!

FWIW, I find my Dynafits much easier to step into than my Silverettas.