Silveretta bindings

What are your thoughts now on these bindings with so many newer stuff out there?  Specifically talking about those long approaches for ice climbs/alpine nd you don't want to carry your climbing boots.

There's someone local selling for 35 just for the 505s.  Are these the best models?

Thanks

IIRC, the 505s have a carbon fiber frame. Not sure how well that holds up two decades later, I’d be super diligent in checking for damage.

Eli Wwrote:

IIRC, the 505s have a carbon fiber frame. Not sure how well that holds up two decades later, I’d be super diligent in checking for damage.

What's the better model then?

The 505s are a good binding, as said just look for any damage on them. Specially the rails. The 404 are metal.

You’re good on 505’s.  Would be my choice.  
I have 404, 505, and modern light weight ATK AT bindings (Fischer Travers boots)

I’d go modern AT for altitude, steeper approaches, decent skiing opportunity, less technical ice climbing.

I’d go Silvrettas for lower altitude, flatter terrain, emphasis on the climb, a more difficult/technical climb, and shittier ski opportunities.  

The 404’s are heavy tanks and what I loan out to others.

Mark Pilatewrote:

You’re good on 505’s.  Would be my choice.  
I have 404, 505, and modern light weight ATK AT bindings (Fischer Travers boots)

I’d go modern AT for altitude, steeper approaches, decent skiing opportunity, less technical ice climbing.

I’d go Silvrettas for lower altitude, flatter terrain, emphasis on the climb, a more difficult/technical climb, and shittier ski opportunities.  

The 404’s are heavy tanks and what I loan out to others.

Awesome thanks!

I did the math a couple years ago and my lightweight tech bindings and boots were lighter than a pair of silvrettas.

It obviously personal preference, but I’ll take the ability to actually make turns, the walking efficiency, and the weight savings versus having silvrettas.

The inconvenience of switching boots at the base is very minor and I’ve done it in some absolutely heinous weather without a problem. 

NateCwrote:

I did the math a couple years ago and my lightweight tech bindings and boots were lighter than a pair of silvrettas.

It obviously personal preference, but I’ll take the ability to actually make turns, the walking efficiency, and the weight savings versus having silvrettas.

The inconvenience of switching boots at the base is very minor and I’ve done it in some absolutely heinous weather without a problem. 

Thanks, what is your setup, including ski and length?

No question NateC is right on the lightness.  My tec AT setup (Voile Objective BC skis) feels like they are helium filled.  And the boots are feather weight and climb surprisingly well.

That said, I do hate switching or carrying another set of boots.  For me, the degradation of performance under conditions where I just don’t care as much or even notice it at all, I prefer to arrive in my pre-warmed, ready to go, climbing boots.  the simplified and lighter weight pack,  cancels out the less ideal ski performance under some conditions.   I may be a dinosaur, but I’m not sold on modern AT for the 100% solution for all climbing access  

Assessing all the variables…

• The approach length
• The terrain
• The ski aspects 
• The climb aspects 
• The temperature 

I think a case still exists for Silvrettas (or similar - like the Voile VPIII) to be in your quiver.   If you’re a decent skier, you can ski anything, anywhere, pretty cheaply with a pair of 505’s on a set of Fischer S-Bounds 

But…..if you could only have one set up, modern AT tec boots and bindings are the way to go overall.    You will be amazed and absolutely love the super light weight and performance….even as your wallet screams in pain.  

GNNwrote:

Thanks, what is your setup, including ski and length?

The setup I would be using in this situation is:

K2 Wayback 80 170cm

Ski Trab Gara Ti binding (111g)

Dynafit DNA Boots (780g, sz 26)

MikeJ disagrees on the weight. That's fair, it may be dependent on boot size, but in my situation I have 404's and 505's sitting in my garage that I was actually able to weigh compared to my bindings and boots. There was a bit of a weight savings, and a functional gain by going with this setup. 

I can also see other people's point about not wanting to switch boots. Personally, I have skied enough that I cannot stand skinning with Silvrettas and bad boots anymore, and the swap at the base adds 3 minutes to my transition to climbing (partner and I are nerdy like this and have timed it). I've used this style everywhere from Alaska, to Chamonix, to cragging in the US. My take on it is that if I'm to the point that I'm having to skin in to something, I'm already faffing quite a bit. The extra effort to swap boots is negligible but the ski setup is easier to work with and I don't have a Silvretta setup sitting around for the handful of times a year where I need skis to go climb ice. 

NateCwrote:

……I cannot stand skinning with Silvrettas and bad boots anymore…

that’s a good litmus test in my book that fits or summarizes the variables.   If I need skins, I go with AT setup.   If it’s rolling and never exceeds ~35 degrees angle (like skiing up rivers/creeks, etc) I use fishscales and get better performance than skins.   As for “bad boots” I think you only mean on the downhill performance side…Otherwise my G-tech’s are as light and comfy if not better everywhere else.  

Most of the US Mountain west, Alaska, for sure Chamonix and most of alps, etc I’d be choosing AT more than 90% of the time.   Outside the mountain ranges though, (and even in the mountains), some approaches and climbs are more on the “Cross country ski” end of the spectrum and a light weight ski with scales and no skins, modern climbing boots like a La Spo G-Tech, and a binding that works with that boot, wins the day for me.  

Just depends on how much shit ya wanna have, and where you do most of your business.  I think most Minnesotans own 9 pairs of skis minimum to account for locations and conditions, lol.  

Mark Pilatewrote:

that’s a good litmus test in my book that fits or summarizes the variables.   If I need skins, I go with AT setup.   If it’s rolling and never exceeds ~35 degrees angle (like skiing up rivers/creeks, etc) I use fishscales and get better performance than skins.   As for “bad boots” I think you only mean on the downhill performance side…Otherwise my G-tech’s are as light and comfy if not better everywhere else.  

Most of the US Mountain west, Alaska, for sure Chamonix and most of alps, etc I’d be choosing AT more than 90% of the time.   Outside the mountain ranges though, (and even in the mountains), some approaches and climbs are more on the “Cross country ski” end of the spectrum and a light weight ski with scales and no skins, modern climbing boots like a La Spo G-Tech, and a binding that works with that boot, wins the day for me.  

Just depends on how much shit ya wanna have, and where you do most of your business.  I think most Minnesotans own 9 pairs of skis minimum to account for locations and conditions, lol.  

Location variances makes total sense. I think a lot of us easily get into a bubble and forget how different things can be elsewhere. 

What I mean by "bad boots" is that an uphill oriented ski boot feels like there's no cuff and has next to zero ankle restriction in the walking stride. Even my ice boots can't get close to my DNA boots.

The 505s are still solid, especially for long approaches where you want to avoid carrying climbing boots. They offer good performance and comfort for alpine and ice climbs. At $35, it seems like a decent deal, but check the condition of the bindings. Newer models might offer improved tech, but the 505s should still hold up well for most climbs. As a student, I often found myself overwhelmed with assignments, especially when multiple deadlines clashed. My friend recommended oxessays.com and I was initially hesitant but decided to give it a try. The process was incredibly straightforward, and I was impressed by how professional they was. The team helped me craft a well-researched paper that exceeded my expectations. I’ve shared this resource with classmates who have also praised it for its excellent quality and timeliness.

Unfortunately, there's no better binding to mount to ice climbing/mountaineering specific boots unless you climb in ski boots. In Alaska, this is what we use. $35 for Silvretta 500/505s w carbon rails is a killer deal. They work great for approaching and they ski...well...they ski. They are approach bindings, but I've ripped more than a few shoddy turns on them.

Clint Helanderwrote:

Unfortunately, there's no better binding to mount to ice climbing/mountaineering specific boots unless you climb in ski boots. In Alaska, this is what we use. $35 for Silvretta 500/505s w carbon rails is a killer deal. They work great for approaching and they ski...well...they ski. They are approach bindings, but I've ripped more than a few shoddy turns on them.

I checked again their 404s, do they fit all boot sizes?  I'm a 43 in alpine boots and 26.5 mondo in ski boots

Based on my research the 555s won't work on alpine boots, can someone confirm?

I’ve never seen that toe and heel configuration on Sivrettas like in your picture. It looks like it is for an alpine boot as opposed to a welted boot. Mine have a wire bail for the toe and a different heel throw.

Mark Pilatewrote:

If it’s rolling and never exceeds ~35 degrees angle (like skiing up rivers/creeks, etc) I use fishscales and get better performance than skins.

Pallavacini at A-Basin averages 32°. Much as I love my fishscale skis, I'm not getting up that with them. 

GNNwrote:

I checked again their 404s, do they fit all boot sizes?  I'm a 43 in alpine boots and 26.5 mondo in ski boots

If you're a 43, you will be a medium or sometimes an "S" for standard in the 404s. 

I still have a Silvretta 300 set up for my climbing boots. Good for the flats especially longer road type approaches in a couple feet of snow.  They're kinda collecting dust (mounted on an old pair of BD synchro X skis).  Made pretty good turns on a few Alaska range trips (used on half dozen AK range trips and a few in the St. Elias).

That said, I've done snowy steeper approaches several times with a tech binding and ski boot and no doubt prefer that especially if the skiing is good and the climbing isn't that hard.

As far as how well Silvretta bindings ski...look at the Chuting Gallery and Alex skiing 404's on Dynastar Verticals and the number of hairball descents...they can work pretty well (not that a binding really skis at all...more the boot/ski in my opinion).  Sold my similar set up a few years ago...(those Dynastars were a really popular backcountry ski here in Utah for awhile)...

Pic borrowed from Andrews website (NW Couloir of the Pfiefferhorn):

They fit my boots! So who wants to head to Alaska:)

My first handful of ski tours were with these bindings.   I'm old.