Poster: A snowHead
|
dandurston wrote: |
....Conversely your earlier post is not consistent with this, because you refer to the original Radical as having 15mm of ramp, but that spec is actually the pin height difference. Thus you conclude there is a big difference in ramp between the original Radical and the new 2.0 Radical, when the actual difference is 1mm.... |
I disagree.
And I never quote/trust manufacturers specs. All my figures are measured off the actual bindings.
The ramp angle on my Radical ST's mounted on a PM Gear Bro 183cm ski with my Mercury boot is 15mm when measured from the soles to the underside of the ski. I've never ever bothered to measure the pin heights so if their difference is also 15mm then that's coincidence. I mounted some Rad ST's last week & the ramp angle measured out at 17mm on that particular ski with the customers Scott boot installed.
The ramp angle of a Radical 2 ST mounted on a Volkl Mantra 184cm also with my Mercury boot is 7.5mm, also when measured from the soles to the underside of the ski.
That's a difference of 7.5mm not 1mm. And the difference in the relative ski thicknesses would only account for a mm of that at most.
Also, and which is important to note, is that the lowest point of my Mercury toe & heel soles (ie where I measured from) when installed in a Beast 16, a Rad ST and a Rad 2 ST are in the exact same positions on the soles, and they're also the exact contact points when the boot is placed on a flat surface. Therefore the ramp angle of the binding lifts your heel upwards when compared to standing in your boots on a firm flat surface.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 11-11-14 22:01; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
clarky999 wrote: |
@spyderjon, out of interest, do you know how much that ramp would then vary across common boot models? Cochise Pro Light, fr'instance? More or less than the Vulcan? |
I've got a pair of Cochise 120's which have the same sole blocks & zeppa/footboard angle as your Pro Lights so I'll measure 'em in my Beasts tomorrow & let you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
mishmash wrote: |
......Is there any hope that the Beast 14 could QK over a Pivot at 330 BSL by any chance? |
I'll check tomorrow & let you know.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@spyderjon, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Perhaps part of my error was believing most boots are like mine and have the heel fitting quite a bit higher than the toe. Thus my disbelief that boot sole ramp could equal or exceed pin height difference.
Working through the math, credible sources measure the pin difference of the Radical FT at 15mm:
http://www.skimolife.com/journal/2013/12/28/binding-ramp-angle.html
https://www.wildsnow.com/10733/get-up-rise-up-stand-up-for-your-ramp/
Ignoring ski thickness variation, the formula for boot sole ramp is Pin Height Difference - Fitting Height Difference. So a pin difference of 9mm will yield a flat mount (no ramp) if the heel fitting is also 9mm higher than the toe.
So using this, your Mercury Boots must have equal fitting heights for the boot sole ramp (15mm) to equal the pin height difference (15mm), while the Scott boots you mounted must have the heel fitting 2mm lower (-2mm) than the toe fitting to raise the ramp to 17mm.
If the above is true and your Mercury Boots have equal fitting heights, then the pin difference of the Radical 2 would also equal your observed boot ramp (7.5mm). Thus the error was my 13mm spec for the Radical 2 pin height difference, which in hindsight should have been the suspected culprit all along.
Applying this to my situation, I have Black Diamond Factor boots which have the toe/heel fittings at 15.5mm and 21.5mm (shown) for a +6mm difference. Thus in a Radical FT binding I would have a boot sole ramp of 9mm (15mm - 6mm), while in the Radical 2 I would have a boot sole ramp of 1.5 mm (7.5 mm pin delta - 6mm boot fitting delta). That is indeed a substantial and welcome difference.
Can you confirm your Mercury boots have equal fitting heights? As this assumption is what allows me to adjust your measurements to my circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I guess I can crudely figure out the fitting heights of your Mercury boots myself.
As shown below, the front fitting is 31 pixels above the red line, which is similar or slightly higher than the rear fitting (28 pixels). The actual difference is likely no greater than +/- 2mm, which supports why your observed ramp equals the pin difference. This is radically different than my Factors with a much higher rear fitting (+6mm). Thus my boots will sit quite a bit flatter. Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dandurston, the two sources you've quoted do indeed compare the pin heights however this is a thread about Dynafit bindings & that's not how Dynafit measure it. It's also not the 'boot fitting industry' method (which is measured how I've described) which allows the delta's of any binding (ie alpine or tech) to be easily measured/compared and to enable people who have been 'boot balanced' for delta can come away with a practical measurement for correction etc. Trying to compare insert locations makes everything overly complicated, especially when there's no industry standard for the dimensions of the actual tech fittings in the boots let alone their location! It's really very easy, just go to a Dynafit dealer who all (should) have a demo binding & stick your boot in it & measure the delta.
And anyway, with the use of Quiver Killer inserts & their infinite range of mounting screw lengths you can shim the bindings to give you any delta you like
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Jon. I understand why Dynafit and the boot industry have their methods. I still wish they'd report pin height though so the DIY'er could calculate these things from home.
And yeah, inserts are awesome. I just finished remounting my wife's skis last night.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I found the Wildsnow spreadsheet to be the most useful and objective source of information for comparing the delta on the different pin bindings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon wrote: |
clarky999 wrote: |
@spyderjon, out of interest, do you know how much that ramp would then vary across common boot models? Cochise Pro Light, fr'instance? More or less than the Vulcan? |
I've got a pair of Cochise 120's which have the same sole blocks & zeppa/footboard angle as your Pro Lights so I'll measure 'em in my Beasts tomorrow & let you know. |
clarky999, tried my Cochise's today in my Beasts/Rad ST's and they have one mm less delta than my Mercury (= Vulcan).
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
spyderjon wrote: |
mishmash wrote: |
......Is there any hope that the Beast 14 could QK over a Pivot at 330 BSL by any chance? |
I'll check tomorrow & let you know. |
mishmash, I did a quick check & initially I thought that the front toe holes were going to conflict but it looks like they're actually the same so they could share the same inserts. I didn't have time to do a full on measure/dummy mount which I'd want to do before installing any inserts but if they are out it's no more than half a mm laterally across the ski so opening the front toe holes out by 0.25mm on the Pivots would easily sort it. All the other locations are well clear of each other.
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@spyderjon, thanks, sounds promising!
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon wrote: |
spyderjon wrote: |
mishmash wrote: |
......Is there any hope that the Beast 14 could QK over a Pivot at 330 BSL by any chance? |
I'll check tomorrow & let you know. |
mishmash, I did a quick check & initially I thought that the front toe holes were going to conflict but it looks like they're actually the same so they could share the same inserts. I didn't have time to do a full on measure/dummy mount which I'd want to do before installing any inserts but if they are out it's no more than half a mm laterally across the ski so opening the front toe holes out by 0.25mm on the Pivots would easily sort it. All the other locations are well clear of each other. |
Thank you for that!
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@spyderjon, Hi! I've read your post about the new dynafit radical ST 2.0. I'm really interested in this binding but I have one fear. Is there a risk that the pivoting toe start to have some play and pivote a bit while in walk mode?
That would be really annoying. But as you have the binding, maybe you could explain me how the pivoting toe is locked in walk mode? Could you send me a picture maybe?
Thanks a lot!
Basilou
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@dandurston, who makes those inserts?
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Dynafit have announced today that they're delaying the launch of new Radical 2 ST/FT, probably until next season
Production was almost complete but apparently they are unhappy with some of the heel tolerances. Rather than issue a substandard product, and because the remanufacture time is so long, they've taken the decision to delay the product for another season.
Sounds mighty expensive to me & I would think that some heads are gonna role somewhere.
I've now got to phone everyone on my waiting list & give 'em the news.
The existing Radical ST/FT is now going to be continued longer until the 15/16 season but demand for the Beast 14 is likely to go up for this season.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 13-11-14 21:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@spyderjon, Any chance that means they'll be trying to get rid of rad 2 toe pieces?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
clarky999 wrote: |
@spyderjon, Any chance that means they'll be trying to get rid of rad 2 toe pieces? |
Doubt it, they're gonna need 'em in a few months & there's likely to be an increase in demand for the Beast 14 which uses the same toe. If I can snag a pair I'll let you know.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@spyderjon, thanks, appreciate all the help!
Mounted the L120s today btw and they look bloody hot! The toe shims make the ramp all but flat too; they work really nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
That's going to mess up a lot of peeps plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Radical ST 90mm Anniversary model now in stock. The other brake width won't be available until the autumn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|