 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@AndreSilva, it depends on your skiing preferences (and abilities). F12 is a bit lighter and way more plastic one. My choice for 125mm skis where I have frame bindings on (mainly as that's ski for times when I go with lifts, and for that I want my race boots not touring boots) is Duke. If I would be happy with DIN13 (or 12) I would certainly take Baron and not F12. I just don't trust plastic bindings  Otherwise Baron is smaller version of Duke and with DIN13 compared to DIN16 of Duke, it is for "lightweight skiers".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@AndreSilva, you want the F12 Tour EPF, not the other models. No sane retailer is stocking the Baron/Duke as they're too heavy/more expensive and those that are stuck with stock are selling them off cheap but I'd still not be tempted.
The Baron and the Duke are the same design as the F12 and share the same EPF frame but their toe and heel, whilst looking similar, have greater elasticity and higher din ranges - but they're significantly heavier.
The F12/10 is the Squire alpine binding mounted to the frame. The Baron is a Griffon alpine binding mounted to the frame. The Duke is the Jester alpine binding mounted to the frame. And there's also a Duke Pro is the Jester Pro alpine binding mounted to the frame.
All of the models are virtually ALL plastic, the only real difference being that the Duke/Duke Pro has metal toe wings which offer no benefit other than give their marketing dept boys a hard on. The Duke Pro does have a bar across the toe (from the Jester Pro toe) to supposedly increase torsional stiffness but it has no benefit at all on the Duke as the weak point in this respect is the touring frame etc.
From a durability point of view they're all equal as all the breakages, which are few considering the numbers sold over the years, are either in the frame, ski/walk lever actuating bar, the heel base or very occasionally the pivot point - and these parts are identical across all the models. And this is why they're all rated for skiers up to 120kg in weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@spyderjon, you sure know your bindings sir, thanks a lot for the explanation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
.......In defense of frame bindings...
- they are DIN rated
- they ski better than a pin binding.
- they are safer than a pin binding.
- accept much wider range of boot size. so ideal for rental skis <etc>
FWIW : My favorite touring binding is the Dynafit TLT. Just 300g / minimalist perfection. |
- there are din rated pin bindings
- some pin bindings ski as well as an alpine binding
- safer in which respect? Yes, gonna be safer against a tib/fib fracture but if you want to help in protecting against an ACL/MCL injury then you're better off with a binding that releases laterally from the heel.
Basically you cannot make general statements like you've made. Tech bindings have come a long way in the last few years (since most of the Dynafit patents expired which allowed others to innovate) and the features/benefits of them both in general and when comparing against an alpine/frame binding is very make/model specific. And in comparison to the latest offerings in that class ye olde Dynafit TLT is a dinosaur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
Basically you cannot make general statements like you've made. |
Yes I can.
While frame binding are heavy they are DIN rated and ski well.
They can also be used with alpine boots.
For example : Marker Baron / F12.
| spyderjon wrote: |
| Tech bindings have come a long way in the last few years |
For sure - Touring bindings have improved lots in last decade.
There are DIN rated options (shift / kingpin / marker duke PT) which can be used for skiing in resort.
Though at 800g+ i would still maintain they are still too heavy for proper touring?
FWIW : from engineering perspective the only one that was really game changing, for a 50:50 ski, is the Salomon Shift.
The removable toe on Marker PT is simply unnecessary paff : I believe to get around a Salomon patent on transformable toe?
| spyderjon wrote: |
| ... And in comparison to the latest offerings in that class ye olde Dynafit TLT is a dinosaur. |
Disagree.
The majority of ~300g touring bindings (say Marker Alpinist, Plum, G3 ion) are basically ripping off the original TLT design.
That category of bindings are great for touring specific ski.
But lack of DIN release means its disingenuous to suggest they could / should be used for everything.
FWIW : I have skied on pin bindings for about 15 years now - for touring I am a huge advocate.
However (... and this is important) users need to know what the appropriate time & place for them is.
You misread my post as someone who suggest frame bindings are better.
Rather I reckon they are still OK for specific circumstances - particularly if on a budget or primarily skiing lifts.
Again we come back to the question of how many people actually tour regularly on Shifts / Kingpins / PT ?
As ever touring gear is all about compromise.
Primarily between up vs. down. But also for many cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| .....You misread my post as someone who suggest frame bindings are better....... |
Ok, I did.
And yes, bindings like the Shift and PT are competitors to frame bindings not to lightweight touring bindings and make an ideal 'one binding solution' for many UK based skiers who have to travel to the snow.
Re lightweight tech bindings: I suppose that every tech binding is essentially a rip-off of the orignal Dynafit design but other brands have now made significant improvements over the last few years that do put the TLT Speeds into the dinosaur classification, ie, you can now get bindings that are sub 300g but have low delta, independently adjustable lateral & vertical release, significant longitudinal elasticity, significant length adjustment & removal brakes. Unfortunately the one company that has had liitle innovation in this area is Dynafit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Haggis_Trap, I’m still happily using mine 
Wouldn’t buy them now but for EUR199 they’ve been pretty good
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Well : I still have skis mounted with TLTs, Barons, and Rottefella cable telemark |
I'm much more aligned with Haggis Trap on this. I have been using TLTs since the late 90s. When they became generally available pretty much all the serious Grenoble ski touring scene moved over to them. There has been a tendency in recent years to move to race bindings for some users.
With hundreds of millions of vertical meters by local skiers there are very few problems either on the ups or downs - from mellow meadows to the extreme of extreme. The fact that the binding hasn't changed much (more metal in the toe and a wider platform for wider skis recently) means that the price is low: street price under 200 euros. As the name suggests: they are a ski touring binding: light and reliable with very little to go wrong but not adapted to a lot of piste wear and tear or cliff hucking.
but hey, what do I know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
FWIW : from engineering perspective the only one that was really game changing, for a 50:50 ski, is the Salomon Shift.
The removable toe on Marker PT is simply unnecessary paff : I believe to get around a Salomon patent on transformable toe?
|
You can't patent the concept of a transformable toe, that's not how patents work. You can only patent a specific implementation of an idea. The BAM Pindung is ample proof of that as it is a different implementation of a convertible toe piece with it's own patents is possible. You could probably make the toe piece on the Marker PT just hinge out the way and lock if you wanted. Presumably Marker decided it would be more sensible to make it removable. With the amount of time usually spent transitioning from skiing to climbing clipping your downhill toe pieces back on is not going to make one jot of difference to anyone not involved in a race. One would note that the PT goes to a DIN of 16 which is higher than the Shift. One would suspect that a DIN of 16 is simply not achievable in a Shift style of design so Marker are placing themselves in a slightly different part of the market (aka slightly more towards the big downhill), which from a business perspective is probably a good idea.
My view is that the existence of the Shift, Pindung, CAST and PT show the direction of travel for the industry, and frame bindings are going the way of the buggy whip. They will still be around for many years to come but they will be an ever decreasing segment of the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'm only going to throw my honest TLT opinion in here.
The system is extremely elegant, that is why in 40 years nobody came up with a better system to avoid the patent and then when it lapsed made a bunch of copies.
The modern radicals and old TLTs are extremely reliable and as John said, there is some good evidence for better knee protection from a rear release.
If money is no object (or you find a used Radical 2) then the Dynafit Rotation is my go-to allround binding for free touring. TÜV certified release, easy use and reliable construction for around 600g
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
... I do use the shifts and Technica Mach1s for my 195 Hokkaidos though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
You can't patent the concept of a transformable toe, that's not how patents work. You can only patent a specific implementation of an idea. |
Dyanfit patents on the original TLT design basically prevented anyone else making pin bindings until about 10 years ago.
Now, I have no idea how water tight the Salomon / Amer Patents on the Shift Binding are - but they certainly have them.
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| One would note that the PT goes to a DIN of 16 which is higher than the Shift. One would suspect that a DIN of 16 is simply not achievable in a Shift style of design. |
It is simply a pragmatic view that mere-mortals really dont need high DIN.
I am 6 foot 3 / 88kg and ski with just DIN 8. Above DIN12 your leg is going to break before the binding releases.
Unless skiing a world cup then DIN16 is just a bad idea.
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| My view is that the existence of the Shift, Pindung, CAST and PT show the direction of travel for the industry, and frame bindings are going the way of the buggy whip. |
As I see it...
Shifts are a credible replacement for frame bindings (i.e something you mount on a 50:50 ski to ski in resort).
However all the options you list above are still too heavy for a proper touring set-up.
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| They will still be around for many years to come but they will be an ever decreasing segment of the market. |
Frame bindings will still exist for obvious reasons.
Mainly cost. But they can also be used with alpine boots.
Plus they are ideal for rental fleets (larger boots sole adjustment).
| jabuzzard wrote: |
That's for conversion of a boot that has already been manufactured. I was talking about putting pin inserts into a ski boot during manufacture being pennies. Basically you would have a piece of diecast metal that you put in the mould prior to injection of the plastic. Maybe add 20p to the bill of materials if that. The manufacturing know how is there as it's how they make touring boots. It is just until recently there has been no reason to have pin inserts in the toes of Alpine boots. The introduction of the Shift changed that calculation and now there is. They will start appearing in due course mark my words. |
Believe it or not : Pins are actually one of the most expensive pieces of a ski boot.
Listen to 1hr30 onward from this podcast with Atomics main boot designer.
The metal casting process used to ensure they dont break is very expensive.
https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/a-very-deep-dive-on-ski-boots-part-7-atomics-21-22-lineup-ep-165
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
1)Pivot and CAST system
2)Shift
3)ATK (elastic travel models)
Why buy anything else, anything else is a compromise.
Budget is compromise but get you if that's top of your priorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
1)Pivot and CAST system
2)Shift
3)ATK (elastic travel models)
Why buy anything else, anything else is a compromise.
Budget is compromise but get you if that's top of your priorities. |
I kind of agree:
- Shift for a ski that will be used in resort
- 300g pin (non din rated / no brakes) for touring.
Anything else is just noise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahh yes the elastic travel ATK bindings that are mounted with a gap between the insert and heel.... legit length compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have a set of Market F12 bindings (replaced them with a Shift binding). Lightly used (about 10 days) so in good nick. If interested let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
I kind of agree:
- Shift for a ski that will be used in resort
- 300g pin (non din rated / no brakes) for touring.
Anything else is just noise |
More like
Alpine binding and ski for resort
Light tech binding for touring (if it is DIN rated I'm not going to bin it but it is not a biggie for me)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
The TL;DR IMHO he was clearly talking cods wallop when it comes to the theoretical cost of putting tech inserts into boots when doing it volume in any boot that might be used in a hybrid binding. |
^ Man on internet accuses Atomics head boot designer of talking "cod's wallop"
Peak snowheads ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
But if he does so when claiming they have to use investment casting to make them because "tolerances" then why should I believe him? He is clearly not telling the truth when making that claim so why should I believe him about any other claim? If he where a witness on the stand his credibility has just been utterly destroyed.
Anyway
https://www.skiequipmentuk.co.uk/product/brands/tecnica/tecnica-spares/tech-heel-insert-for-ski-touring-boots/
As spare parts two dynafit heal inserts for £15, that's not expensive. I think he is talking about using investment casting because they don't have the volume to justify the tooling for multipart diecasting and blowing smoke about the reasons. At a minimum he is utterly uninformed on the subject of metal castings. If they did have the volume then it would be cheap as chips to make toe inserts to the point where you could put them in all boots for a couple a quid a pair tops in the BOM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| ....because they don't have the volume to justify the tooling for multipart diecasting |
Atomic don't have the volume?
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| . and blowing smoke about the reasons. |
See above for example of that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
I listened to that and he said they *had* to use investment casting (aka lost wax) to get the tolerances. Thing is die casting gives *better* tolerances than investment casting; just google it if you don't believe me. So right off the bat as he made a demonstratively false claim have to take everything else with a shovel full of salt.
|
When I listened, he mentioned tolerances, overall shape, finish (and maybe something else). So I googled how tech inserts are made. Dynafit seem to use lost wax casting:
https://www.wildsnow.com/22993/dynafit-inserts-manufacturing-3/
Now, I have zero expertise in casting and no idea whether die casting could also be used. But the Atomic designer doesn't seem a million miles off the mark to me. At the very least, he knows how his competitor does it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
That is what happened. It was the Silvretta SL but as with a lot of touring gear the initial implementation needed improvements. |
That is a cool binding & boot. Ahead of its time.
If you think about it dedicated touring kit not really changed that much in 30 years. Rather there has been a slow shift in public perception about benefit of pins. Plus lots of marketing hype about the latest greatest freeride options (diamir > duke > shift > marker PT etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
| Ahh yes the elastic travel ATK bindings that are mounted with a gap between the insert and heel.... legit length compensation |
The ATK models with independently adjustable lateral and vertical releases all have longitudinal elasticity in the heel in addition to the 4mm insert to heel gap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I know. But the elasticity in the heel was designed so that the lever arm of the side release remains constant during ski compression and the pins penetrate the heel insert the same amount to avoid clamping.
If you have a 4mm gap, then the elasticity isn't cleaning up the release it is just protecting the binding. This is especially relevant as the ATKs have a very short distance between the pivot point and heel insert.... so 4mm makes a pretty big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also proper dynafit inserts are expensive, for good reason and it's why I actually recommend making sure you get dynafit certified ones.
The toe insert has a big impact on safety, they have to be very exact, the surface has to be smooth and hardened to the same value as the pins, to a good depth which means they aren't useless when scratched, but not so deep they become brittle. Also every single insert is checked for certain tolerances.
Just all adds up, then you see how much an alpine boot actually costs to manufacture and the pins make a big difference 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| ....because they don't have the volume to justify the tooling for multipart diecasting |
Atomic don't have the volume?
| jabuzzard wrote: |
| . and blowing smoke about the reasons. |
See above for example of that! |
Do Atomic sell boots with tech inserts in the quantities in the order of "millions" per year? A little research shows that is extremely unlikely. Consequently as it stands Atomic don't have the volume to justify doing multipart diecasting which would be much cheaper but only if you have the volume.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dulcamara wrote: |
Also proper dynafit inserts are expensive, for good reason and it's why I actually recommend making sure you get dynafit certified ones.
The toe insert has a big impact on safety, they have to be very exact, the surface has to be smooth and hardened to the same value as the pins, to a good depth which means they aren't useless when scratched, but not so deep they become brittle. Also every single insert is checked for certain tolerances.
Just all adds up, then you see how much an alpine boot actually costs to manufacture and the pins make a big difference |
Only because they don't sell in volume needed to justify the tooling for multipart die casting and they are using investment casting which is inferior in every way apart from cost in low volumes.
As regards finish these days they cast/injection mould camera lenses to a standard where no polishing or grinding step is required. I think the requirements for surface finish on optical lenses far exceed that of a tech insert. I would have said looking at the inserts they are not actually steel and the pins in the binding are. As such hardening them to the same value is not going to happen unless you are aware of some physics that I am not, in which case why did you not win this years Nobel prize?
So while it might be true they are expensive today that is only because they are not manufactured in the volumes required to justify the tooling for multipart die casting. What I am saying is that if you assume down the line frame bindings are gone and it's either a hybrid binding like the shift or a full tech binding, then putting toe piece pins in any boot that might be used for a bit of touring becomes desirable from a marketing perspective. At that point you will have the volume to justify the cost of tooling to do multipart die casting and unit cost drops dramatically.
On the frame binding front, I would add in they have issues. One due to the frame you are lifted up from the ski which is not ideal and two the frame creates a dead zone underfoot. Hybrid bindings remove those compromises and are consequently much superior on all fronts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jabuzzard wrote: |
Do Atomic sell boots with tech inserts in the quantities in the order of "millions" per year? A little research shows that is extremely unlikely. Consequently as it stands Atomic don't have the volume to justify doing multipart diecasting which would be much cheaper but only if you have the volume. |
You do know Amer Sport (Atomic / Salomon etc) are one of the biggest ski / boot manufacturer in world?
I think the phrase you used was "blowing smoke"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
So yes for a full on touring setup you will still want a super light weight full pin binding system. However I would expect the Shift and others to nibble away at least some of the pure pin binding market. I however expect them to destroy the frame binding market in due course.
