Tech bindings for resort skiing?

[jmeb]

If I were able to cough up the $ for the Shifts, should I do it? Seems like it would make everything a bit easier...

Initial impressions of most are favorable. I only have one run on them and can say they ski like an alpine binding. But they are a brand new product, so of course can potentially have gremlins.

Given you're not focused on big tours right now, the weight penalty and unknown field-repairability don't seem like they'd be big concerns for you. And of course, require a pin-boot to tour, but you've already got that covered.

So....yes?

 

[Doug Briggs]

I use Kingpins in the resort but mostly just for the option of being able to use my Fischer Ranger 98s. To want to take out the Fischers there has to be some soft snow about. I wouldn't use them (regardless of binding) for full on hardpack days; I have other skis for that.

I've skied the Shift and thought it was a fine alpine binding. I'll get a pair this winter. I agree they are a frame binding killer.

...

My general thoughts on pin vs alpine (vs frame):

...
- Frames kill the natural flex of the ski underfoot.
...

I'd like to debunk that myth. All frame bindings I've worked on (Fritschi, Marker, Atomic, Solomon) permit the ski to flex under the foot. The frame, while rigid/fixed at the toe allows the heel to float/slide within the heel hold-down piece. The float/slide prevents the pressure that would otherwise buildup between the rigid toe connection and the heel hold-down. I suspect it has as much to do with not breaking the binding as it does with not restricting the flex.

I'm not advocating for frame bindings as the Shift and tech bindings have much better touring characteristics. I will keep my Barons in the fleet until they break as backups and loaners.

This is a Marker Baron (short model) on a Rossi B4 (184cm). I'm applying moderate pressure on the binding while supporting the tail on the floor and the tip in my hand. I don't see any issue (flat spot) with the flex of the ski under the binding.

 

[jmeb]

I'd like to debunk that myth.

Interesting....this is a complaint I've commonly heard -- and I think maybe from @Philpug ?. Personally, the stack height was more an issue for me w/ Barons than the flex.

 

[Doug Briggs]

http://www.bindingfreedom.com/




http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/skiing-101-at-boots-bindings


http://blistergearreview.com/recommended/bindings-201

That video is a real eye-opener.

 

[neonorchid]

That video is a real eye-opener.

I've been reading about everything he spoke of for years, always seems to get glossed over and forgotten about ... Jeff Campbell's video is two years old!

RE: Tech inserts acting like speed bumps.

Rudimentary expirement but when I place the Scrapa Maestralle 2 in a Look Pivot WTR toe piece, I do not see the tech inserts coming into contact with any part of the toe piece unless I move the boot 45º to the outside with the Pivot's toe piece stationery. I don't think a ski boot releases like that, and if it were to happen I would think the boot is too far out of the binding for it to affect further release. IDK, perhaps it is something @ Doug Briggs can play around with at the shop and get back to us on?

RE: movable AFD's.

I never liked the idea of Marker's "Metal" movable AFD, however the Look Pivot movable AFD is made of teflon so should be just as slippery as a fixed teflon AFD if it where to bind and cease moving.

I'm only citing the above two products because I have them to play around with. This will be one of the first things I will look at when the Shift binding makes an appearance at my local ski shop.

Such a detective game!

 

[Doug Briggs]

I've been reading about everything he spoke of for years, always seems to get glossed over and forgotten about ... Jeff Campbell's video is two years old!

RE: Tech inserts acting like speed bumps.

Rudimentary expirement but when I place the Scrapa Maestralle 2 in a Look Pivot WTR toe piece, I do not see the tech inserts coming into contact with any part of the toe piece unless I move the boot 45º to the outside with the Pivot's toe piece stationery. I don't think a ski boot releases like that, and if it were to happen I would think the boot is too far out of the binding for it to affect further release. IDK, perhaps it is something @ Doug Briggs can play around with at the shop and get back to us on?

I was working while he was talking about that I guess. I'll have to watch it again. I'd need a high speed camera for that. It'll be a good use of my new phone's camera. I'll use the VT Calibrater.

RE: movable AFD's.

I never liked the idea of Marker's "Metal" movable AFD, however the Look Pivot movable AFD is made of teflon so should be just as slippery as a fixed teflon AFD if it where to bind and cease moving.

I'm only citing the above two products because I have them to play around with. This will be one of the first things I will look at when the Shift binding makes an appearance at my local ski shop.

Such a detective game!

I frequently test my as well as my customers moveable AFDs. I like your thinking about Teflon as insurance.

 

[cantunamunch]

I like his idea of actually measuring the tech fitting spacing.

For pin hole radial wear, it seems like there should be some sort of wear tester in shops already; I'm picturing a set of milled measuring tools like old school spark gap testers.

 

[Brian Finch]

I’m calling caution on the Shift.....

Let’s give it a year.

 

[everest8850]

I'v used a Marker F12 Tour frame binding on resorts. Solid release and downhill with minimal slop. It's a compromise of course as goingup hill's heavier... I snagged a cheap 2nd hand Tyrolia Ambition which I'll be mounting on an approach ski. On observation, the toe clipin point seems to be almost directly ontop of the hinge, much more so than The F12s. This might suggest a more 'tech'like sensation when freeheeling and a more comfy motion when skinning long distances. I havent tried the Tyrolia's yet, but will check in again when I do.. Others who have used both tech and Ambitions might be better placed to share here on how that binding could be a good compromise - using on pistes and shorter BC trips. The stack height though - is a bit higher than the Marker 12s - about 38mm vs 34mm.

 

[everest8850]

I’m calling caution on the Shift.....

Let’s give it a year.

Touche. Gen 2.0 has most of the annoying quirks and issues ironed out, not to mention often sold slightly cheaper as much of the R+D costs might have been recouped on version 1.0

 

[Ken_R]

Interesting....this is a complaint I've commonly heard -- and I think maybe from @Philpug ?. Personally, the stack height was more an issue for me w/ Barons than the flex.

I definitely feel the difference in height on my Barons VS the Griffons I had previously (same ski, Moment Deathwish 190cm). Flex, not so much.

The video @Slim posted. Wow. Great presentation. On point.

 

[Brian Finch]

Touche. Gen 2.0 has most of the annoying quirks and issues ironed out, not to mention often sold slightly cheaper as much of the R+D costs might have been recouped on version 1.0

Part of the issue will be consumer selection and shop knowledge. FWIW, I’m a big Sali fan & am stoked to be running Wardens this year (*retail purchased Wardens).

We’ve seen in with Dukes, Kingpins, Crossover boots.......... poor paring with the end user results in a poor experience.

 

[Slim]

Interesting....this is a complaint I've commonly heard -- and I think maybe from @Philpug ?. Personally, the stack height was more an issue for me w/ Barons than the flex.

I have also pointes oud in otter Posts that thuis is not true.


OK, and now with English autocorrect turned on instead of Dutch...

I have also pointed out in other posts that this is not true.

My Tyrolia Aambition bindings are completely free floating in the rear, the clamp that holds the binding down on the ski in ski mode only applies pressure on the top, so the frame is free to slide in and out. If anything, these bindings offer far more freedom for the ski to flex..
.

 

[Slim]

I've been reading about everything he spoke of for years, always seems to get glossed over and forgotten about ... Jeff Campbell's video is two years old!

RE: movable AFD's.

I never liked the idea of Marker's "Metal" movable AFD, however the Look Pivot movable AFD is made of teflon so should be just as slippery as a fixed teflon AFD if it where to bind and cease moving.
!

Not quite:

1. He tested this, not just hypothesized. Perhaps the sliding AFD is pointing up and jamming in the sole, this is very different than a fixed AFD, even if both are Teflon
2. A big part of the reason for the sliding AFD’s is for use with rubber soled touring boots. Since the friction between boot and binding can’t be predicted due to sole variability, the friction is designed into the binding. If that mechanism fails, you are left without a controllable release.

 

[Slim]

Found it:


Here is Jeff Campbell’s thesis

 

[neonorchid]

Not quite:

1. He tested this, not just hypothesized. Perhaps the sliding AFD is pointing up and jamming in the sole, this is very different than a fixed AFD, even if both are Teflon
2. A big part of the reason for the sliding AFD’s is for use with rubber soled touring boots. Since the friction between boot and binding can’t be predicted due to sole variability, the friction is designed into the binding. If that mechanism fails, you are left without a controllable release.

- then he is wrong or he tested the wrong bindings.

To be clear I am talking about a sliding Teflon AFD / Alpine sole vs. Fixed Teflon AFD / Alpine sole. Look Pivot 12 WTR vs. Look Pivot 14 fixed teflon AFD.

I see no upward force from Pivot 12 sliding AFD. Teflon is Teflon, just as slippey fixed or sliding.

Teflon or not, an AFD pointing up and jamming in the sole would not work correctly either fixed or sliding.



@Doug Briggs can test this at the shop, just clamp or place a small wedge, such as a flat x-acto knife blade in the Pivot's sliding AFD to jam it so it wont slide and test release with a DIN sole Alpine boot, then test the same DIN sole Alpine boot with a fixed teflon AFD Pivot 14 and compare results.

 

[neonorchid]

Not quite:

1. He tested this, not just hypothesized. Perhaps the sliding AFD is pointing up and jamming in the sole, this is very different than a fixed AFD, even if both are Teflon
2. A big part of the reason for the sliding AFD’s is for use with rubber soled touring boots. Since the friction between boot and binding can’t be predicted due to sole variability, the friction is designed into the binding. If that mechanism fails, you are left without a controllable release.

Correction to the above post - He is talking about AFD's (sliding and fixed) in reference to AT sole boots, that was not clear in his video.

Still a dated study and equipment has changed, i.e., AT beef boots (Freeride), with hard rubber sections of the sole to interface with Alpine binding AFD's.

 

[cantunamunch]

@Doug Briggs can test this at the shop, just clamp or place a small wedge, such as a flat x-acto knife blade in the Pivot's sliding AFD to jam it so it wont slide and test release, then test the same boot with a fixed teflon AFD Pivot 14 and compare results.

The results won't be comparable to in-vivo release conditions - there is really no way for a regular ski shop to simulate weight/GRF loads, or the shifting of the effective pivot point away from the tibia. A rubberized boot sole shop-tested flat against the AFD will never be used flat, it will always have skier load on it. That's the difference between Campbell's research and shop tests - JC does simulate a loaded AFD.

A Teflon pad forced under body weight (and GRF) into a yielding, deformable surface does not have the same static CoF as a Teflon pad pressed against a perfectly flat surface.

You can observe this effect yourself by pressing a Teflon AFD pad against a freely spinning bike tire. If you are able to stop that tire by pushing harder and indenting it, you've demonstrated the reason mechanical AFDs were designed. Now do the same experiment with a 90A skate wheel - harder than an AT boot sole - and I wager you will still see it.

Now, mechanical AFDs are not necessarily good designs - especially with how many failure modes they have - but there is definite reason they were designed.

 

[neonorchid]

^Agreeed and I'm not an advocate of sliding AFD's, but am not fearful of my Pivot 12 WTR sliding teflon AFD creating problems release wise with my Alpine sole boots. Had the Pivot 12's sliding AFD been metal like the Marker Royal Family I wouldn't have purchased the binding. I'd have stuck with an older non-WTR fixed teflon AFD version Pivot.

 

[cantunamunch]

^I'm not an advocate of sliding AFD's, but am not fearful of my Pivot 12 WTR sliding teflon AFD creating problems release wise with my Alpine sole boots. Had the Pivot 12's sliding AFD been metal like the Marker Royal Family I wouldn't have purchased the binding. I'd have stuck with an older non-WTR fixed teflon AFD version Pivot.

'K, gotcha. Didn't realise you were talking about the Alpine race sole scenario.

AFAICT until we see new numbers for WTR/Gripwalk soles we might as well assume they're similar as for AT soles.