This page compares:
- 21 lightest bindings that are suitable for light ski mountaineering and rando racing, and are currently on the market
- all under 200g (we believe all weights are provided without screws)
- technical specs (weight…) are from manufacturers’ websites and other official sources
- ISMF approved – binding does or does not comply with 2013/14 rules governed by the International Ski Mountaineering Federation (PDF of full 2013/14 rules)
- under ISMF 2013/14 rules lowest legal weight for a ski + binding (half pair) is 750g for men and 700g for women
- price shows a range in US Dollars in which you are most likely to find that product priced within
» Last updated on October 10, 2013.
This page will be updated as new models are released or whenever you suggest a ski in comments below or via email (please include a link).
If you find any mistakes please report them - comments below or via email (include your source’s link).
* The page is administered by Stano Faban and Jonathan Shefftz.
My name is Stano Faban and as a member of the Canadian National Ski Mountaineering Team I have been fortunate to compete in races like Pierra Menta or World Championships.
Great stuff Stan. One question though. Since many people are choosing to use these bindings for other mountain objectives other than racing, are there any indications that any of the models have user weight restrictions. For example, some light race-oriented mountain bike components have weight restrictions (pedals, wheels, tires). As you know, I am a bigger guy but I still like to move fast through the mountains!!!!!
Hi James, good question.
During the research I noticed that some had notices about person’s weight. I will go back, collect the info and put it in the notes.
From some that I recall there seem to be 70kg “threshold” that is common – that means that even me would be above, heck, the whole Canadian men’s team would be above
I’m pretty sure that the 70g split is for the Plum 135 vs 145, and is in reference to the lower effective forward release values for the Plum 135 Ti heel fork. (Lateral release values are the same for both bindings.) However, since Ti is stronger than steel, if anything the 135 would be more reliable for a heavier skier, although the 135 heel pins do become notched over time leading to some rattling (but they are replaceable).
The same is probably true of the Dynafit Low Tech race with its Ti heel fork vs the Dynafit Low Tech Radical.
Updated the bindings’ notes – Plum 135 and both PHK bindings are recommended for maximum 70kg (154 lbs) users. This should be the racer’s weight including anything he or she wears/carries above the bindings (boots, backpack…), I would imagine.
However, this does not mean other bindings have or don’t have such “restrictions”. It simply means that Plum and PHK are doing us a good services of letting us know.
Maruelli’s website is now updated for both the M2 and M1-FR … as well as for a 50% price increase in the previously published price for the M2.
Thanks Jonathan, will fix the price right away.
It seemed very low at 200 Euros for such a binding. 300 is seems more realistic.
hey everybody!
Brand spanking new Gignoux Ultimate 2 with ISMF toe releasability:
http://www.ski-alpinisme.com/actualite/2013/fixationGignoux2013.pdf (also has Morpho 400g boot closeups)
http://www.ski-alpinisme.com/article.php?id=4682
And a whole bunch of new Maruelli M2 toe and heel variations, seems all toes have “2 safety positions” = full ISMF toe releasability?
http://www.maruelli.com/NaturalWalkingPlate/PRICE-LIST/MARUELLI-PRICELIST.pdf
Price is now a whopping 500 euro incl VAT.
You need the traditional 70g m1 toe for downhill races.
m1 toe + m2 heel = 90g and the combo is ISMF approved for downhill?
http://www.skiforum.it/forum/discussioni-generali/63441-se-vi-interessa-un-attacchino-per-le-vertical-race-da-50gr.html
Maruelli is answering questions.
M2 only for vertical races and seems to take a sweet minute to get in and out of, you are actually hand screwing one of the pins in to your outer boot insert?
Excellent list! Another question: This one about heel lifts, and it’s not what you’d expect. Do any of these light bindings allow one to go “flat on ski”? For mellower touring? I’m in no need of stilettos, but being able to go flat would be nice for sections…
Jed, from what I know I don’t think any of these have a “flat mode”. However, the heel posts are so low that if you have a flexible enough boot (nice ankle movement) you won’t need a flat mode. But I understand your concern. My problem is that for some spring touring it would be nice if I could have a higher post
I answered my own question with the purchase of the Trab Race adjustable: The whole heel piece turns to give you a flat mode. And the heel piece moves a full 3cm, for what it’s worth…
just got that email from dD and what I noticed is that they have changed the binding rule AGAIN. They took out the 4mm gap, requirements for ski leashes, and have used less ambiguous wording regarding lateral release.
“ The front part must have a release system that allows the lateral exit of the boot from the rear
part of the binding. The front release system must have a lockable and un-lockable position. ”
My Dynafit lo-tech autos are still on the white list, and it appears they have updated the downloadable regulations to the 2013-14 version. So I’m not sure if anything really changed.
Peter, in my opinion they better change/simplify rules they cannot or don’t plan on enforcing. As if anyone was ever going to measure that binding-boot gap
And then I see a change about outside help – seems like now it is legal to receive outside help in terms of a broken ski or a pole, you can receive it from anyone and anywhere! That is a bit strange since you can end up skiing on unsafe equipment which the rules are trying to avoid