Dynafiddle Mounting Options

Personally I'd put them on the PB&Js and use them as my go to touring skis, then keep the Guardians on the Bibbys for pow day tours. I'd mount the CRJs with alpine bindings and keep them for inbounds shredding, they can get a bit funky on variable snow from what I've heard. I wouldn't really want to be out on the bc on a pair of skis that don't really perform on anything other than perfect pow.

At your size radical STs will be fine, not only are the beasts overkill DINwise, but they're also heavy and not hugely functional.

If CRJs aren't as good on hard snow, and they are comparable to your bibbys, why is there even discussion?
Mount the CRJs with fiddles. I like having similar skis in pow, so you dont sacrifice comfort on the down but can your much longer with one pair over the other.

VD.Personally I'd put them on the PB&Js and use them as my go to touring skis, then keep the Guardians on the Bibbys for pow day tours. I'd mount the CRJs with alpine bindings and keep them for inbounds shredding, they can get a bit funky on variable snow from what I've heard. I wouldn't really want to be out on the bc on a pair of skis that don't really perform on anything other than perfect pow.

At your size radical STs will be fine, not only are the beasts overkill DINwise, but they're also heavy and not hugely functional.

This is what I've been leaning towards. I already have the original CRJs in a 164 and they got beat up, so I ordered the 172 (the 164s were too short anyways). I kind of like the idea of having the PB&Js with dynafits and keeping the CRJs for alpine shredding. I'd probably feel more comfortable on the PB&Js in tight/steep chutes/couloirs and whatnot for spring touring than the CRJ's. I'd keep the Bibby/Guardian setup for deeper powder days and sled accessed stuff.

snomasterIf CRJs aren't as good on hard snow, and they are comparable to your bibbys, why is there even discussion?
Mount the CRJs with fiddles. I like having similar skis in pow, so you dont sacrifice comfort on the down but can your much longer with one pair over the other.

Huh?

I'd put them on the CRJs. They might not be your first choice on hard pack but they're a very easy ski to ski. Very swively and intuitive and with the bindings, stance and boots you'll likely be using on the tour, that's prime. I for one really like mixing light gear and easy slarving swively skis like that.

Keep your alpines on your PB&Js tho IMO. They're too cambered and piste oriented to get much out of low techs.

Thanks Huck. Any other opinions? Seems like you guys are split on this, which his the same problem my brain is causing on the issue too.

ThaLoraxThanks Huck. Any other opinions? Seems like you guys are split on this, which his the same problem my brain is causing on the issue too.

I just feel that the body position most AT boots give you along with the super light weight of the bindings and skis, you would appreciate the rocker front and back. It's not that you wouldn't have fun touring on the PB&Js, but I always tend to lean more towards the "I tour to pow" crowd than preparing myself for sketchy coolie turns or something. That and PB&Js are pretty heavy for what they are. Those CRJs should handle even funky crust really well.

Huck_NorrisI just feel that the body position most AT boots give you along with the super light weight of the bindings and skis, you would appreciate the rocker front and back. It's not that you wouldn't have fun touring on the PB&Js, but I always tend to lean more towards the "I tour to pow" crowd than preparing myself for sketchy coolie turns or something. That and PB&Js are pretty heavy for what they are. Those CRJs should handle even funky crust really well.

So, I completely agree with your logic, but I'm not sure you've actually seen the PB&J in person or skied them based on your description there. It's only a 102mm waist, but it has a huge tip and tail rocker. Not very cambered at all, except for underfoot. It's just more cambered than the CRJ, which is almost flat underfoot. The PB&J is a 172 length ski but only has 140cm of effective edge. For the deep powder days, I do have the Bibby with Guardians already as well at a 116 waist for the powda dayz.

Just throwing that out there ya know...

ThaLoraxThanks Huck. Any other opinions? Seems like you guys are split on this, which his the same problem my brain is causing on the issue too.

I think the thread really highlights how key personal preference is. There can be a great deal of disparity between what one guy likes and what another guy likes, and you won't really know what you like until you've definitively worked out what you don't like. ...If you've got the resources, it might be worth using inserts, that way you don't have to commit to something you're not too keen on.

ThaLoraxSo, I completely agree with your logic, but I'm not sure you've actually seen the PB&J in person or skied them based on your description there. It's only a 102mm waist, but it has a huge tip and tail rocker. Not very cambered at all, except for underfoot. It's just more cambered than the CRJ, which is almost flat underfoot. The PB&J is a 172 length ski but only has 140cm of effective edge. For the deep powder days, I do have the Bibby with Guardians already as well at a 116 waist for the powda dayz.

Just throwing that out there ya know...

Haven't skied them but I've fondled them many times. It's a tough call for sure but I'd go fatter.

PB&Js do seen like a good all a rounder though.

Huck_NorrisHaven't skied them but I've fondled them many times. It's a tough call for sure but I'd go fatter.

PB&Js do seen like a good all a rounder though.

So, you don't think that the CRJs would be too much overlap with my Bibby's? All 3 skis are actually pretty similar weight.

ThaLoraxSo, you don't think that the CRJs would be too much overlap with my Bibby's? All 3 skis are actually pretty similar weight.

Well yes actually and TBH after really thinking about it isn't the CRJ really noodly? That probably wouldn't jive too well with the pins either. They're better on a ski that's a bit stiffer underfoot.


It really depends on what you like to ski and how you feel on the skis you've got. If you like bumps, jumps, trees and all the rest at the resorts I'd just say fuck it and put the alpine binders on the PB&Js, frame bindings on the CRJs (or swap that to alpine CRJ/ frame PB&J depending on how you feel on them??) so you can still drive them with alpine boots on pow days despite the noodleage and put the low techs on the Bibbys because that would probably be the standout money touring rig that you could still insert if you wanted the option to switch back for resort shredification in alpine bindings/boots.

*phew*


It's definitely a tough puzzle. What do you use them/plan to use them for individually?

Huck_NorrisWell yes actually and TBH after really thinking about it isn't the CRJ really noodly? That probably wouldn't jive too well with the pins either. They're better on a ski that's a bit stiffer underfoot.

CRJs are very noodly and for that reason alone I strongly caution OP against putting tech binders on them. I have skied with 2 different folks that had CRJ/Dynafit setup (one with Rad FTs, the other with Verticals), and they both did not enjoy it. The noodleness of the CRJ often causes the heelpiece to bump the rear of the boot out of the pins and into free pivot mode. I have witnessed this and it doesn't look fun for the skier nor is it confidence inspiring for them when they could lay into a turn or bump and lose their heel at any moment.

The dimensions of the CRJ are good for a tech setup, but its just too damn soft.

Huck_NorrisWell yes actually and TBH after really thinking about it isn't the CRJ really noodly? That probably wouldn't jive too well with the pins either. They're better on a ski that's a bit stiffer underfoot.


It really depends on what you like to ski and how you feel on the skis you've got. If you like bumps, jumps, trees and all the rest at the resorts I'd just say fuck it and put the alpine binders on the PB&Js, frame bindings on the CRJs (or swap that to alpine CRJ/ frame PB&J depending on how you feel on them??) so you can still drive them with alpine boots on pow days despite the noodleage and put the low techs on the Bibbys because that would probably be the standout money touring rig that you could still insert if you wanted the option to switch back for resort shredification in alpine bindings/boots.

*phew*


It's definitely a tough puzzle. What do you use them/plan to use them for individually?

Well for boots, I have the Cochise 110, which I'm getting the tech toe/heel pieces for. I can't find any other AT boots that both are small enough for me (24.5) and fit my wide, high volume foot, so I'll just use the Cochise boot for both alpine and the dynafits.

Ya, the CRJ's are pretty noodly. They're super in the tail, soft tip but pretty stiff underfoot. I like your idea though. If I put the dynafits on the Bibby's, would it even be worth putting the Guardians on the CRJ? Should I just put dynafits on the Bibby's, keep the alpine bindings on the PB&J and put another alpine binding on the CRJ? I feel like a heavy/stiff frame binding like the Guardians wouldn't do so well on the CRJ.

Dirty.Harry.CRJs are very noodly and for that reason alone I strongly caution OP against putting tech binders on them. I have skied with 2 different folks that had CRJ/Dynafit setup (one with Rad FTs, the other with Verticals), and they both did not enjoy it. The noodleness of the CRJ often causes the heelpiece to bump the rear of the boot out of the pins and into free pivot mode. I have witnessed this and it doesn't look fun for the skier nor is it confidence inspiring for them when they could lay into a turn or bump and lose their heel at any moment.

The dimensions of the CRJ are good for a tech setup, but its just too damn soft.

Good to know. Thanks for the input. Sounds like putting dynafits on my Bibby's is the best option. Especially since I already have skins for it. I guess the question now is what to do with my old Guardians and whether it's worth putting them on my CRJs or selling them. If I sold them, I guess it'd be alpine CRJ, alpine PB&J, and dynafit Bibbys.


Also, any suggestions for really wide lasted, high volume touring boots? My boss came back from SIA this year and said next year's Solomon touring boot is on point. Especially since it's got that moldable plastic shell.

Also, for the dynafit bindings (I get 45% off pro deal), should my lightweight, but hard charging self get the Radical FT, ST, or Beast 14? The only difference between the FT and the ST is the carbon plate right? And the Beast supposedly doesn't have a flat mode?

ThaLoraxAlso, for the dynafit bindings (I get 45% off pro deal), should my lightweight, but hard charging self get the Radical FT, ST, or Beast 14? The only difference between the FT and the ST is the carbon plate right? And the Beast supposedly doesn't have a flat mode?

That's a nice deal. I advise you to get one of the Radical models. The Rad2.0 looks like a good idea with the semi turntable toepiece but I have no experience on them. The other offerings are great though.


The Rad ST and FT models differ in 2 ways: the FT has that carbon 'stiffening' plate (I don't know if it actually does anything though) and the heelpiece release values go to 12. The ST only goes to 10.
I have used Rad FTs for 3 seasons and over 150 days. I'm a pretty aggressive skier and they've held up nicely. The difference in release values doesn't matter much in my opinion and you won't be disappointed with either those or the ST.

Dirty.Harry.That's a nice deal. I advise you to get one of the Radical models. The Rad2.0 looks like a good idea with the semi turntable toepiece but I have no experience on them. The other offerings are great though.


The Rad ST and FT models differ in 2 ways: the FT has that carbon 'stiffening' plate (I don't know if it actually does anything though) and the heelpiece release values go to 12. The ST only goes to 10.
I have used Rad FTs for 3 seasons and over 150 days. I'm a pretty aggressive skier and they've held up nicely. The difference in release values doesn't matter much in my opinion and you won't be disappointed with either those or the ST.

The 2.0 models of both the FT and ST are sold out on Dynafit's pro-site. I was looking at them today. On alpine bindings, I ski about a 7.5 generally (depending on the binding), but I know that doesn't translate to dynafits. For a big ski like the Bibby, would the ST be OK? They're only like $250 on the pro-site. Should I throw the Guardians on the CRJs or just sell/trade the Guardians for an alpine binding?

ThaLoraxThe 2.0 models of both the FT and ST are sold out on Dynafit's pro-site. I was looking at them today. On alpine bindings, I ski about a 7.5 generally (depending on the binding), but I know that doesn't translate to dynafits. For a big ski like the Bibby, would the ST be OK? They're only like $250 on the pro-site. Should I throw the Guardians on the CRJs or just sell/trade the Guardians for an alpine binding?

I'm not surprised that they are sold out. The ST should be fine for your purposes. For the release values, Beginning with the equivalent DIN from the table is a good starting point, and then make small adjustments from there. The ST will be fine for the Bibby. I have skied them on ON3P Caylors, which are also 120 underfoot, with no problems. Just order the 130 brake.

If it were my skis, I would ditch the Guardian completely. I think it is too heavy and approaches MFD+FKS territory in the weight category. If you are using boots with tech soles, the Marker Lord or Tyrolia/4frnt Attack are great options (although the Attack is not truely certified for tech soles but has an adjustable AFD). But that requires selling or trading a binding that you already own and that would work just fine on the CRJs. I'm just saying what I would do personally.

Dirty.Harry.I'm not surprised that they are sold out. The ST should be fine for your purposes. For the release values, Beginning with the equivalent DIN from the table is a good starting point, and then make small adjustments from there. The ST will be fine for the Bibby. I have skied them on ON3P Caylors, which are also 120 underfoot, with no problems. Just order the 130 brake.

If it were my skis, I would ditch the Guardian completely. I think it is too heavy and approaches MFD+FKS territory in the weight category. If you are using boots with tech soles, the Marker Lord or Tyrolia/4frnt Attack are great options (although the Attack is not truely certified for tech soles but has an adjustable AFD). But that requires selling or trading a binding that you already own and that would work just fine on the CRJs. I'm just saying what I would do personally.

I'd prefer to order the 120 brake for a 116 waisted ski if I can find it, not a 130. That would stick out way too far.

Anyways, the guardians are lighter than the baron/duke, but your suggestion goes in line with what I was thinking already. I do get prodeal on both tyrolia and salomon though, so I could get either the Attack (are you sure that binding has an adjustable AFD/toe piece?) or the Warden. As for boots, I have the Technica Cochise boot, so I can just switch the toe/heel pieces between DIN/tech soles. I'd like to get a better touring specific boot, but I can't find any that fit my foot right (super wide, high instep, narrow heel). I recently got some intuition liners through work for the cochise, and it took at least a pound out of each boot. Those stock liners are so damn heavy.

Out of curiosity, why do you guys suggest the ST for me over the FT? Also, how hard can I ski dynafits? We might be skiing some BC jumps this spring. I've heard they're great for pillows/cliff drops, but is jumping beyond the dynafit capability?

ThaLoraxYa, the CRJ's are pretty noodly. They're super in the tail, soft tip but pretty stiff underfoot. I like your idea though. If I put the dynafits on the Bibby's, would it even be worth putting the Guardians on the CRJ? Should I just put dynafits on the Bibby's, keep the alpine bindings on the PB&J and put another alpine binding on the CRJ? I feel like a heavy/stiff frame binding like the Guardians wouldn't do so well on the CRJ.



Good to know. Thanks for the input. Sounds like putting dynafits on my Bibby's is the best option. Especially since I already have skins for it. I guess the question now is what to do with my old Guardians and whether it's worth putting them on my CRJs or selling them. If I sold them, I guess it'd be alpine CRJ, alpine PB&J, and dynafit Bibbys.


Also, any suggestions for really wide lasted, high volume touring boots? My boss came back from SIA this year and said next year's Solomon touring boot is on point. Especially since it's got that moldable plastic shell.

I was was pretty much just suggesting the CRJs w/ guardians since they're a pretty competent downhill binding too- it would let you drive them well enough, and still be good for all around jibby side country pow day rig and still leave two fully dedicated rigs for other shit.

ThaLoraxI'd prefer to order the 120 brake for a 116 waisted ski if I can find it, not a 130. That would stick out way too far.

Anyways, the guardians are lighter than the baron/duke, but your suggestion goes in line with what I was thinking already. I do get prodeal on both tyrolia and salomon though, so I could get either the Attack (are you sure that binding has an adjustable AFD/toe piece?) or the Warden. As for boots, I have the Technica Cochise boot, so I can just switch the toe/heel pieces between DIN/tech soles. I'd like to get a better touring specific boot, but I can't find any that fit my foot right (super wide, high instep, narrow heel). I recently got some intuition liners through work for the cochise, and it took at least a pound out of each boot. Those stock liners are so damn heavy.

Out of curiosity, why do you guys suggest the ST for me over the FT? Also, how hard can I ski dynafits? We might be skiing some BC jumps this spring. I've heard they're great for pillows/cliff drops, but is jumping beyond the dynafit capability?

If Radicals come with 120 brakes then get those. I've only seen 130 and 110 but 120 would be better.

The Guardians are ~230 g heavier than the Dukes (2990 vs 2760) with some variation based on sizes. That may not seem like much, but it's almost half the weight of 1 ST binding (~560 g each or 1100 pair). Additionally, you won't be picking up that heavy frame and heelpiece with every step on the STs and the difference becomes clear. I don't meticulously count every gram, but I make an effort to know the general ballpark of what I'm carrying.

I can verify that the Attack has an adjustable AFD. At the SIA demo days this winter, a number of companies (ON3P, Fischer, DPS, etc) put Attack demo bindings in their fleet to accommodate people with touring boots, including my Vulcans. I didn't know that you had Cochise boots. If you don't mind swapping soles a bunch then you could get whatever bindings you want (or keep the Guardians, obviously). The threads in the boot sole are metal so you don't have to worry about stripping them easily. The Cochise doesn't have the biggest cuff pivot in walk mode and you're right that they aren't the lightest boot, but they're a good boot for touring. If they fit well then you may as well use them.

The ST is pretty much the same as the FT. The carbon plate on the FT doesn't really do anything and the difference in heel release values (FT = 12, ST = 10) is small as well. 10 would work for you just fine, and you could lock the toes if you really wanted to stay in the binding (not recommended). The ST is a little lighter and cheaper than the FT. If you wanted to forgo brakes altogether you could get Speed Radicals, which are lighter and cheaper than the ST. It really comes down to what you want to pay for (release value 12 or 10, carbon stiffening plate, brakes).

The Radicals are fine for drops/cliffs/pillows and even for going off a jump, but they might not do so well with spinning off those jumps and drops. It can done and has been many times, but it certainly won't be as good as using a traditional alpine or framed touring binding.