hey, you want to go touring ?

[jmeb]

Anybody try the CAST system for small tours?

I haven't personally, but tour occasionally with someone who does.

For single-transition tours they are mostly fine. Sometimes icing issues, always slower transitions.

For tours that have more transitions, they suck.

I don't really see the point with the shift on the market. Not saving much if any weight, and adding complexity. Unless you looooove the Pivot 18.

 

[James]

I haven't personally, but tour occasionally with someone who does.

For single-transition tours they are mostly fine. Sometimes icing issues, always slower transitions.

For tours that have more transitions, they suck.

I don't really see the point with the shift on the market. Not saving much if any weight, and adding complexity. Unless you looooove the Pivot 18.

What's the sense of the Shift if one rarely tours? Eg, it would mostly be used resort skiing. Some seem to think it's not a good enough alpine binding.

 

[jmeb]

What's the sense of the Shift if one rarely tours? Eg, it would mostly be used resort skiing. Some seem to think it's not a good enough alpine binding.

This I think comes down to how hard are you on bindings in general. If you're the type of skier who breaks bindings because you ski hard and fast a hundred days a year, and you expect bindings to last, a shift inbounds is probably not idea.

If you've got a properly adjusted shift, tens of thousands of people are skiing them all the time. Breakage reports are relatively minimal. Most issues are with AFD setup or forward pressure setup (both of which shift is finnicky about) that cause premature release.

 

[James]

This I think comes down to how hard are you on bindings in general. If you're the type of skier who breaks bindings because you ski hard and fast a hundred days a year, and you expect bindings to last, a shift inbounds is probably not idea.

If you've got a properly adjusted shift, tens of thousands of people are skiing them all the time. Breakage reports are relatively minimal. Most issues are with AFD setup or forward pressure setup (both of which shift is finnicky about) that cause premature release.

Thanks. Kind of what I figured. I read through maybe the last dozen pgs of the Tgr thread. That's the sense I got despite dire warnings from some on this board.
How are those, "I forget the brand", unusual skis you were getting?

 

[scottyb]

The Grand

 

[James]

That was pretty cool. Wow, he was doing that 3x in one week for two weeks?

 

[scottyb]

gear queer chat, good stuff

 

[scottyb]

Aspeny stuff

 

[Ken_R]

Aspeny stuff

WOW

 

[James]

Another Colorado one in May.
Go to 3:30 for skin start.

 

[James]

What do people do with locking the toe of tech bindings? Do people ski locked out? Would seem to negate an airbag for avalanche as the skis drag you down.

 

[Analisa]

What do people do with locking the toe of tech bindings? Do people ski locked out? Would seem to negate an airbag for avalanche as the skis drag you down.

It's only intended for skinning so they won't pop off if you stomp out a good spot for a kick turn (or for bindings like the Dynafit Radicals/Rotations, the toe piece swivels and locking it keeps the ski going straight). I've heard a few horror stories about people who locked theirs out instead of finding a binding with the right elastic travel and DIN settings for them (especially pre-2010, before the mid-range touring gear was on the market). It's also somewhat common for particularly dicey ski mountaineering descents - steep, heavily crevassed terrain, exposed sections where you're skiing on belay.

 

[jmeb]

The only reason you should be locking your toes is if you're in a situation where it is more dangerous for a ski to come off, than it is for a ski not to come off. That is -- you fall you die type territory.

Anyone who says they need to ski with toes locked besides that type of terrain I refer to Eric Hoji's edits from the past few years filmed on Dynafit Beast 14s (which have a pretty traditional tech toe). He confirmed he skied with toes unlocked.

Locking toes doesn't actually prevent release. It just cranks the effective release value way up. And makes it less uniform/predictable.

 

[James]

The whole binding standards are questionable for alpine and even worse for tech. What a mess. Standards that don't mean much.
The comments thread from this goes deep in the weeds.
https://www.wildsnow.com/21152/ski-binding-release-avalanche-safety/

If people need convincing why not to use a touring boot in an alpine binding even if if fits, there's this video. He goes into what happens when you lock tech toes out and they release from force. Damages the boot.
From 12:15 on interesting discussion of tech bindings.

 

[Ken_R]

The whole binding standards are questionable for alpine and even worse for tech. What a mess. Standards that don't mean much.
The comments thread from this goes deep in the weeds.
https://www.wildsnow.com/21152/ski-binding-release-avalanche-safety/

If people need convincing why not to use a touring boot in an alpine binding even if if fits, there's this video. He goes into what happens when you lock tech toes out and they release from force. Damages the boot.
From 12:15 on interesting discussion of tech bindings.

Just do not fall at high speed.

When in doubt go slower...

 

[Ken_R]

The whole binding standards are questionable for alpine and even worse for tech. What a mess. Standards that don't mean much.
The comments thread from this goes deep in the weeds.
https://www.wildsnow.com/21152/ski-binding-release-avalanche-safety/

If people need convincing why not to use a touring boot in an alpine binding even if if fits, there's this video. He goes into what happens when you lock tech toes out and they release from force. Damages the boot.
From 12:15 on interesting discussion of tech bindings.

Ok, based on my experience with my Dynafit Radical 2.0 FT Tech Bindings with both Atomic's Hawx XTD boots and Dynafit Hoji Boots I have to say the bindings work MUCH better with the Dynafit boots. It is noticeably much easier to click in consistently with the Hoji boots than with the XTD's The fittings in the Hoji boots have a small notch that the fittings in the Atomics do not have and I suspect the width or DIM A (as shown in the image from the video) is also different.

Does that have an effect on how consistent and reliable the release and retention of that particular binding is? I think it might

I do know from my experience when using that binding that sometimes the pins did no go in all the way perfectly in the XTD boots. I had to be careful when transitioning to ski mode and click up the lever to make sure the pins went in properly before putting the lever back in ski mode. If I did not do that I was risking an unwanted release. Most likely on the first turn.

With the Hoji Boots I still look carefully and check that the pins are in right but they have been in there consistently every time. Clicking in is just more reassuring with the Hoji's I can hear and feel a more positive "click" when stepping in.

I did use the Hawx XTD with G3 ION bindings during one demo event and they worker a bit better with that particular binding. (when stepping in)

So one has to consider the Boot / Binding combination always.

@jmeb can probably explain this better


Regarding using AT boots (or boots with AT soles) in Alpine Bindings I think the guy in the video does an amazing job at explaining all the issues in detail. If I used that setup I would have to have it properly tested at a shop.

 

[jmeb]

The Atomic Hawx XTD have Dynafit certified inserts. So the dimensions of the actual socket will match any other Dynafit certified insert. Amer sports really f***ed up at one point with their tech fittings and I think they learned their lesson: use the Dynafit ones. That said, there are many tech inserts still out there that aren't the Dynafit certified norm.

As to the difference you feel between the Hawx and the Hoji if I had to guess it is two things: 1) the quick- or master-fit (can't remember which) of the Hoji which makes things much smoother, and 2) the difference in the sole. The sole making a difference sounds weird. But I've now personally experienced it (going from a K2 Pinnacle to a TLT6) and had multiple people remark to me that stepping into a pin binding with a thicker touring sole vs an alpine/WTR/GripWalk ISO sole feels better. This past weekend a partner was stoked about how much more positive the step in felt in her new Tecnica Tour Pros vs her older Cochise. My hunch is that it is due to the thicker sole making the springs depress easier and generally feel like they "fit" the binding more. I certainly notice a difference when stepping in (but not when skiing) between my Hawx and TLTs.

As for the difference with the Ion. The G3 toe designs is noticeably higher clamping forces than most Dynafit-brand toes. Lots of people feel more secure on G3 Ion/Zeds because of that.

All that said...yeah -- the standards are a mess and difficult to understand. And despite that, they perform remarkably well for what they are.

 

[Analisa]

I don’t think anyone’s advocating for skiing locked out. And FWIW, Jeff still tours on a tech setup.

 

[James]

From WildSnow.com :

----------------------

Early Dynafit tech insert (toe) remained virtually unchanged from 1990 to 2008, when the Quick Step In was introduced.

Only change with QSI is a lead-in notch or cutout, remainder of fitting is virtually the same as previous.

Master step fitting. On first glance not much different, but note the extra bit of steel above the socket, as well as a deeper incut.

All boot fittings made by Dynafit come with this certification seal.
----------------------------------
https://www.wildsnow.com/22982/history-dynafit-boot-tech-fittings/

From reading the Shift thread over there, the original fittings are much preferred. The little bump and pothole on the QSI or Masterfit causes issues with the roller on the shift toe. It's not just a notch difference on the QSI. Depends on the boot if it's below the rollers. . There's also an issue of sole thickness. Some need the sole to be shaved down or sanded down at the toe to fit.

Then there's different shaped boot toes. Some don't work in Shift.

Here's how Dynafit make the toe inserts.
https://www.wildsnow.com/22993/dynafit-inserts-manufacturing-3/

I don't think they "certify" other companies manufacturing of inserts. TUV would do that, like UL here. There's a written standard.

 

[Ken_R]

From WildSnow.com :

----------------------
View attachment 74841
Early Dynafit tech insert (toe) remained virtually unchanged from 1990 to 2008, when the Quick Step In was introduced.

View attachment 74842
Only change with QSI is a lead-in notch or cutout, remainder of fitting is virtually the same as previous.

View attachment 74843
Master step fitting. On first glance not much different, but note the extra bit of steel above the socket, as well as a deeper incut.

View attachment 74844
All boot fittings made by Dynafit come with this certification seal.
----------------------------------
https://www.wildsnow.com/22982/history-dynafit-boot-tech-fittings/

From reading the Shift thread over there, the original fittings are much preferred. The little bump and pothole on the QSI or Masterfit causes issues with tbe roller on the shift toe. Depends on the boot. There's also an issue of sole thickness. Some need the sole to be shaved down or sanded down at tbe toe to fit.

Then there's different shaped boot toes. Some don't work in Shift.

Here's how Dynafit make the toe inserts.
https://www.wildsnow.com/22993/dynafit-inserts-manufacturing-3/

So the Atomic Hawx XTD's definitely had the top insert without the notch and the Hojis the Master Step.