• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Alpine-Touring hybrid setup

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
What was the change in adjustment the tech told you? Been a lot of talk of early binding pre releases on tgr. On the fence about Atk. Interesting company though. They make themselves most of the major parts. All their suppliers are within 50 km apparently.



Definitely agree with the on piste comment. I’m quesy every time I take it on hard snow. So much so that I didn’t even ski last season, partly because of a bad snow year. Moguls I’ve completely avoided. The Marker PT I’d trust but it’s so heavy you really have to have a specific use. I could see it as a European take lift, then skin 15-60 minutes option.
There are basically two things... one is gap between heel and boot, which is suppose to be around 4mm. Everyone (few ATK techs, and few ATK sponsored athletes) later suggested that in reality it should be 1 to 1.5mm. After setting it this way, and cranking up "DIN" to almost max (14), things were fine. Second thing was then DIN setting which is obviously anything else but anything DIN related. I have bindings on my GS skis set to somewhere between 13 and 14 and I'm "slightly" faster with "slightly" more force on those skis, then I'm on touring skis. So for touring, my standard 10 should be more then enough. But on ATK it's obviously not and numbers are obviously just numbers not based on DIN settings for sure. Before someone jumps, skis still release properly (still slightly too early and too fast for my feeling) with such settings, so for me it works. If it shouldn't work in theory is not really my problem, but when I set bindings like they were suppose to, I wasn't able to ski at all, so by the book or not, I really don't care much, but I'm certainly not suggesting anyone should follow, and if you do, it's on your own responsibility :)
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
What I don’t get is why there’s the standard 4mm gap anyway if you have elastic spring compensation. I read one guy measured his plastic shim and it was 4.4mm, so he was setting the binding to more like 5mm than 4.
interesting on the Din

I found this German test which seems to indicate the opposite? As in the release value is much higher than set? Weird.


I also thought Davide of Atk said in that podcast that one of the innovations was not having that tech heel gap. But maybe not. Poor interviewer imo, guy won’t shut up, and misses follow up questions like that.
 

Mothertucker

Sweep Dodger
Skier
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Posts
1,946
Location
Desolation Row
FWIW, I've had zero issues with the ATK FR14. No releases of any kind, they've been bomber.
Screenshot_20220421-152657.png
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
I have the impression that the DIN scale for a tech binging is not the same release level as the DIN scale for alpine bindings. It's a repeatable release, but the values don't cross over. I don't know how you "calculate" your tech DIN number. Maybe Phil can shred some light?
 

Doug Briggs

"Douche Bag Local"
Industry Insider
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
7,484
Location
Breckenridge, CO
I have the impression that the DIN scale for a tech binging is not the same release level as the DIN scale for alpine bindings. It's a repeatable release, but the values don't cross over. I don't know how you "calculate" your tech DIN number. Maybe Phil can shred some light?
In principal DIN is DIN. If they are calling it DIN then they have used DIN standards to test and certify it as DIN. If they are calling it DIN and they haven't actually gone through DIN certification, then it is just numbers.
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,693
Location
Mid-Atlantic
In principal DIN is DIN. If they are calling it DIN then they have used DIN standards to test and certify it as DIN. If they are calling it DIN and they haven't actually gone through DIN certification, then it is just numbers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the binding may bench test at DIN but in use, the DIN setting standard is compromised by a lack of the ATK low-tech binding's elasticity retention and release ability when compared to a Look or Salomon alpine binding with a high degree of elasticity.
In pt 2 of the podcast, Davide compares his ATK bindings to Marker Alpine binding philosophy. With that in mind, IIRC people are able to safely ski Look Pivot at DIN or an even lower DIN setting whereas I have read many accounts of people skiing Marker Alpine bindings at higher than recommended DIN to avoid prerelease:

 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
I have the impression that the DIN scale for a tech binging is not the same release level as the DIN scale for alpine bindings. It's a repeatable release, but the values don't cross over. I don't know how you "calculate" your tech DIN number. Maybe Phil can shred some light?
@ScottB - nice post. There are many articles that highlight the difference between release values (not retention) between alpine and tech binding. Similar to @ScottB, my personal feelings is that DIN numbers on a tech binding are merely a suggestion. I have never assumed the release value numbers on tech bindings are the equivalent of alpine bindings and tech bindings typically don’t perform equally, especially in terms of elasticity. In contrast, Amersports Shift have the same certification as alpine bindings. Salomon’s new Strive bindings are in part based on Shift binding technology.

Tech boots and bindings are way more complicated than their alpine brethren. The space between the boot heel and binding varies between different bindings by ~6 mm. In addition, different shapes or wear in the tech boot fittings will affect ski boot release. Its hard for me to imagine that tech bindings matching the consistency of release values in alpine bindings. What are other thinking here.

Click on https://www.wildsnow.com/14843/din-iso-13992-binding-release-safety-testing-summary/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the binding may bench test at DIN but in use, the DIN setting standard is compromised by a lack of the ATK low-tech binding's elasticity retention and release ability
No, that’s not right. Elasticity would not affect the force to release the binding on a bench.

I think we’re going somewhat off the rails.
What people turn their Alpine binding DIN to can be all over the map.

Unless the touring binding is TUV certified those numbers on touring bindings are just numbers as Doug says.
Wild Snow uses the term “RV”, release/retention value, to avoid calling it DIN values like an alpine binding.

If Cody Townsend didn’t do it, maybe Ski Alper will-
471F99B3-10C7-4542-B1BD-8C1D6A24AFC4.jpeg

2017 edition.

What I didn’t know about the Fritschi Tecton, is that you don’t come out of the toe until the toe surface of the boot hits the lever, opening the pin arms. That is weird.
@Bruno Schull , was your accident/injury on the Tecton rearward twisting?
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
Most of my pro patroller co-workers are using the Shift binding for work. The AMER MTN binding is used primarily for touring and not for aggressive downhill skiing at the resort. I switched to the Shift bindings this season and I am very pleased. It is the best solution for me as they are very solid for downhill and I trust the release mechanism reliability.
Same page as @ZionPow AMER MTN for my touring skis, Shift for alpine/slackcountry. Alpine for fast I’m-bounds skiing. My pro-patroller friends use Shift bindings for work. I do no know any full-time patrollers on Duke PT or Cast binding - even more fiddle-factor than Shift bindings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMC

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
No, that’s not right. Elasticity would not affect the force to release the binding on a bench.

I think we’re going somewhat off the rails.
What people turn their Alpine binding DIN to can be all over the map.

Unless the touring binding is TUV certified those numbers on touring bindings are just numbers as Doug says.
Wild Snow uses the term “RV”, release/retention value, to avoid calling it DIN values like an alpine binding.

If Cody Townsend didn’t do it, maybe Ski Alper will-
View attachment 171177
2017 edition.

What I didn’t know about the Fritschi Tecton, is that you don’t come out of the toe until the toe surface of the boot hits the lever, opening the pin arms. That is weird.
@Bruno Schull , was your accident/injury on the Tecton rearward twisting?
This is good though. Tecton is less prone to pre releases, such might be the biggest problem in the backcountry. At least where i ski.
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
This is good though. Tecton is less prone to pre releases, such might be the biggest problem in the backcountry. At least where i ski.
I must be in the minority. I have rarely experienced pre-release issues with tech binding, over decades of touring. The biggest problems in the backcountry are almost all user errors or poor decision making skills.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
After listening to the second podcast, it sounds like the ATK bindings just have release numbers that are not DIN numbers. DIN was just used incorrectly in the OG post, and it was said as such, just didn't read it correctly
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
In principal DIN is DIN. If they are calling it DIN then they have used DIN standards to test and certify it as DIN. If they are calling it DIN and they haven't actually gone through DIN certification, then it is just numbers.
I sure can be wrong, but if my memory serves me right, there's no tech binding that is DIN certified.
I agree if it's DIN it's DIN. It's standard and has to be exactly same, but as tech bindings are not DIN certified (if I'm not wrong), then we (me included) just assume these numbers are "standard" even though they might have absolutely nothing to do with real standard and can mean whatever manufacturer decides. Just because they are ski bindings, it doesn't mean that numbers are same/standard (I came to this with tech bindings a bit harder and more unpleasant way).
 

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
I sure can be wrong, but if my memory serves me right, there's no tech binding that is DIN certified.
I agree if it's DIN it's DIN. It's standard and has to be exactly same, but as tech bindings are not DIN certified (if I'm not wrong), then we (me included) just assume these numbers are "standard" even though they might have absolutely nothing to do with real standard and can mean whatever manufacturer decides. Just because they are ski bindings, it doesn't mean that numbers are same/standard (I came to this with tech bindings a bit harder and more unpleasant way).
The settings on pin bindings are very close to din settings. It's just that they are not as repeatable and they are not certified.

10 on a tech binding should be similar to 10 on a din binding
 

charlier

Fresh Tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2019
Posts
607
Location
Seattle & Rossland, B.C.
I sure can be wrong, but if my memory serves me right, there's no tech binding that is DIN certified.
I agree if it's DIN it's DIN. It's standard and has to be exactly same, but as tech bindings are not DIN certified (if I'm not wrong), then we (me included) just assume these numbers are "standard" even though they might have absolutely nothing to do with real standard and can mean whatever manufacturer decides. Just because they are ski bindings, it doesn't mean that numbers are same/standard (I came to this with tech bindings a bit harder and more unpleasant way).
@Primoz, 100% on point. As mentioned earlier, the numbers are merely a suggestion and do not scale to alpine bindings. FYI, 4 mm gap for most ATK bindings. G3 Zed gap is minimal - only visible light /kiss thru the gap.
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
I sure can be wrong, but if my memory serves me right, there's no tech binding that is DIN certified.
I agree if it's DIN it's DIN. It's standard and has to be exactly same, but as tech bindings are not DIN certified (if I'm not wrong), then we (me included) just assume these numbers are "standard" even though they might have absolutely nothing to do with real standard and can mean whatever manufacturer decides. Just because they are ski bindings, it doesn't mean that numbers are same/standard (I came to this with tech bindings a bit harder and more unpleasant way).
Well as far as I see, DIN/ISO 13992:2014 would be the tech binding standard, with certification to that by TUV. The testing is fairly extensive for matching the number on the binding. But the leeway is 10-25% based on the test.

Of course tech bindings are a quagmire with the different boot fittings and soles.

Lou Dawson’s summary of the published document from 2014. (These are his words) You have to pay to get the published standard-
Lou Dawson’s summary of the published document from 2014. (These are his words) You have to pay to get the published standard-
————————
1. In both alpine and ski touring binding standards, the testing procedure begins with six bindings.

2. Four out of the six bindings are randomly chosen and tested for reproducibility of release values, as well as the accuracy of the release setting scale on the binding conforming to lateral (side) and vertical (upward) torque standards in the ISO specifications. When set to the same DIN number, upward and side release have to be within 10% of each other, as well as being within 10% of the standard value.
——————

Much more here detailing all the loading tests.


The standard-


I think these are now the only tech bindings available certified by TUV:

Dynafit Rotation ST
Fritschi -
Tecton, Vipec Evo
Marker Kingpin

So really for pin bindings only the Dynafit and the Vipec Evo
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Anyone have any input on the Duke PT12 vs 16? Any significant skiing difference with the 16 even if you don’t need the high DIN?

There’s a 150gm uphill penalty, and 190gm downhill.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top