Touring bindings: they offer a lot of possibilities, but choosing the right one makes a significant difference. The right choice varies for everyone, but here is an overview of the options.
The history of skitouring bindings
Let’s go back to 1984 when Dynafit obtained the patent for the tech binding, marking the beginning of the evolution in ski touring. Before that, there were already touring setups, but this marked the start of touring as we still know it today.
In the 90s, the first frame bindings also entered the market; the Fritschi Diamir was the biggest success among them, and you can still come across versions of it on the mountain today. Nowadays, the popular models are primarily the Atomic Tracker/Salomon Guardian and Marker F10/12 and Baron.
After 20 years of Dynafit’s patent, around 2004, the tech market saw a resurgence, and many other companies started producing tech bindings. This has resulted in a wide range of tech bindings today, ranging from ultralight bindings like the 150-gram Dynafit LTR 150 to more downhill-oriented tech bindings like the Dynafit Beast 14 and 16.
In the 14/15 season, Marker introduced the next innovation: the hybrid binding, the Marker Kingpin. Most people are familiar with this; a tech toe for uphill walking, but a back with a DIN release for downhill skiing. The following season, Atomic/Salomon introduced the Shift, and then came the Marker Duke PT and Fritschi Tecton. All these bindings are lighter than frame bindings, making uphill walking easier, but they also provide a form of DIN release for downhill skiing.
After the rise of hybrid bindings, the development of frame bindings has almost completely stopped.
Which binding is the best?
Frame binding.
In my opinion, this is the easiest choice to make. The only argument for frame bindings is the cost. You can put them on your “regular” freeride skis and continue to use your “regular” boots. However, there are also many disadvantages: touring in your regular boots is far from optimal because you have very limited freedom of movement. Touring itself is also much heavier because the binding is heavy, and the pivot point is way too far in front of your toes. Lastly, skiing on your “regular” skis is less enjoyable because the frame binding raises you higher on your ski. Overall, this is the budget option with many compromises.
Tech binding.
By far the best option for uphill. If your goal is beautiful long ascents and controlled skiing downhill, the choice is simple: always go for tech. A lightweight tech binding weighs around 150-300 grams, but most of us will end up with bindings between 250-450 grams, which are more suitable for descending.
Hybrid binding.
This is a tricky one because, despite the hype and marketing, it is not the solution to all problems in my opinion. Do you want only one ski and use it for everything, and do you not plan to ski harder/steeper/extreme lines? Then a hybrid binding is certainly an option I would often choose over a frame binding. There is also a lot of variation within the bindings in this category. But essentially, you have a DIN-certified release, so the ski comes off at a certain force in a certain direction. For this, you take extra weight uphill. There are also other disadvantages. Bindings like the Kingpin and Shift are plagued by pre-releases, and due to their complexity, they are less convenient to use and more prone to breaking. Consider, for example, ice formation between moving parts!
The only exception here is the CAST freetour system. With this, you modify a Look pivot binding, allowing you to switch the front part to a tech toe. This allows you to tour uphill with it, but you have no compromises in the ski’s performance on the downhill and on days when you’re not walking. Although the price tag is substantial, for me, it’s the perfect solution for harder lines and when, for example, you’re flying with only one pair.
Tech vs Hybrid
Is your ski purely for touring, and you won’t do anything extreme? Always go for tech. Is your ski purely for touring, and you plan to do extreme things? Then my personal preference (outside of CAST) is still tech. You arrive with more energy, which is more enjoyable and safer. For me, the benefit of the DIN release is outweighed by the higher number of pre-releases; both types make descending more risky compared to an alpine binding. With tech, you also have less trouble with ice formation and parts breaking.
Bonus; the Shift controversy
The Shift and pre-releases? But all those pros really ski big lines on them, right? True, but not in the way Atomic/Salomon recommends skiing on them. Many of them screw the toe plate (ADF) fairly tightly against the boot and sometimes also set the forward pressure higher than recommended. For example, read this post by Craig Murray. Does it paint a fair picture of a binding if pros have to set them up differently than the company recommends? When asked if everyone should set them up that way, Atomic still said the old recommendations should be followed.
So, which one is it?
Before it becomes a book, I’ll end it here. As you can see by now, there is no clear winner for the best touring binding. Hopefully, this gives you a better idea of which direction to look!