Printable View
Putting a feeler out there to see if anybody has possibly tested the new Dynafit ST Rotation 10 bindings. Was thinking about picking up a pair of Radical ST 2.0s and ran into these new bindings. Looks like they're about the same as the Radical 2's just a bit lighter, with equal performance.
Any thoughts?
The Rotation is a more expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist! I've used the Rad 2/Beast 14 toe for years and it's super easy to step in the toe. And if for some reason the user finds it hard to align their foot with the heel (say on some steep sketchy terrain) then all they need to do is to flick up the toe lock to fix the toe in the in-line position whilst they click in the heel. The Rotation toe basically has a ball bearing/detent in the in-line position to hold the toe straight whilst stepping in the heel - but it can't be that strong otherwise it'd effect the rotation of the toe.
Which also gives a you chance to clear the boot toe pin inserts from snow/ice by working the boot around the locked pins prior to stepping in the hees. I've regarded that as SOP when clicking into (Dynafits) Edit: any Pin tech bindersQuote:
Originally Posted by Spyderjon
Thanks for the words guys & the link.
Like Spyderjon implies, the Radical 2.0 was not really hard to step in to, it was just a bit disturbing to people used to a non-rotating tech toe. I thought the 2.0 itself was a solution to a problem that didn't really exist, as the elasticity problems with earlier Dynafit designs were mostly in the vertical plane, not the lateral.
My understanding of the Radical 2.0 toe is that it was designed to solve the problem of boots with other manufacturer's toe fittings, which would sometimes bind and affect the release of earlier Dynafit bindings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
I think Dynafit's point of view is that they don't care about other manufacturer's tech fittings since only the "real" thing counts, and the industry is coming around to their point of view. The current iteration of ISO 13992 specifies Dynafit fittings for the test, and the vast majority of new tech boots use original or Quick Step Dynafit toe fittings. My understanding was that the rotating toe was designed to allow the heel to rotate further off the center axis without forcing the jaws open, thereby creating more lateral elasticity.
^ Agree. In addition, allowing the toe to rotate allows the heel to handle 100% of horizontal release activity, which probably makes release more consistent and better for meeting DIN/TUV/etc standards. With a non-rotating toe, variation in pin movement in toe sockets of various states of wear (or manufacturing tolerances) adds a lot of variability to release at the heel.
I only have the beast 14, but since it is the same toe: I feel it has significant performance improvements over the old radical toe, especially in hard snow. I can ski hard in the resort, with no prereleases and significantly better dampening compared to the old rad. So to me the improved elasticity makes a lot of sense.
That’s just the forward pressure talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
well its speaking in tongues....Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
sorry for jongin,
i bought a stoeckli stormrider with dynafit st rotation 10... almost like new, like 10days on them.
the ski was to long for the 1st owner, she couldnt get the kickturns around and bought a smaller ski.
i can still return the binder and just keep the ski. but then i am in a whole conflict, what i dont like.
maybe i will return the binder and get the din12 and reuse the wholes.
it is not my binding of choice but a great deal.
it is going to be my lighter setup so i need to start somewhere.
i am struggling with the bsl adjustment to be spot on!
this is on my bench
everytime i get the length right i push the boot in and it is perfect.
if i release the boot and recheck the heel is further away like 1-2mm+
if i bend the ski and rattle the heel unit it moves in.
no i am worried....do i need to grease the spring... is the binding faulty
One more “agree” on the improvement from 1.0 to 2.0. Definitely rattled out on the 1 on a few hard snow occasions. 2’s are less harsh and knock on wood no pre release yet. I’m not great at lining up the toe to lock it out... but I should be
Ok i got it myself,
if i increase the forward-pressure value (small screw).... the carrier moves the heelpiece right were it belongs.
one thing less to worry.....
i have more dynafit questions, but i will ask them later ( is there a thread correct use of dynafit???)))
Tech bindings don't have forward pressure SO all you did is just move the heel piece which is how the clearance between the back of the boot heel and the binding is set
That clearance allows the ski to flex, every brand is different and it could be different between models of the same brand, some heel piece are spring mounted and use a minimum clearance
https://www.wildsnow.com/19791/dynaf...-1-comparison/
" Pictured here is a Dynafit Radical 2.0 heel unit (all black, later versions have green and gold components), with ‘kiss gap’ adjusted to what we think works best, a very small gap that just allows a sliver of light to come through. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Radical 2 & 1, as all versions of Radical 1.x need a 5.5 mm gap at the heel, including the versions with a flex compensation spring. In my opinion the reason Radical 1 still requires the 5.5 mm gap is the Radical 1 spring system is clearly not as robust as that of the Radical 2.0, which uses the “kiss gap.” More here covering the Dynafit heel gap setting "
it used to be fairly easy to find this kind of info but this^^ took me a long time to find, I assume becuz as i understand it Lou Dawson no longer owns this site and so the good tech info id not very well organized IMO
uhmm i am jonging here so bad....
i red the "kiss gap article" before so i got that. they are set like this now.
https://www.wildsnow.com/2599/dynafit-tech-heel-space-shim-gauge/
there is 3 adjustment points on the heel piece
1. to move the heel piece (lowest torx)
2. din value for horizontal release ( big screw flathead)
3. din value for lateral force /forward pressure (top small flat head) or am i wrong and this is something different??
thanks for helping me out
edit: ok i got it, the small flatheadscre is for the pin value (uspring)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordekette
the big screw is the side to side lateral value and the little screw is the up-down vertical release value
So I set the little screw one mark higher than the big screw and it keeps the heel from pre-release during high shock when I hit bumps and G-outs
Reviving this thread with a durability question. I was on a trip to BC last week (Spring break!) and a couple of us have radical 2 / rotation bindings. One guy's skis released weirdly and when we checked them out the heel had moved away from the boot, like we had adjusted the BSL for a bigger boot. A couple straps got us back to the hut and we couldn't diagnose any issue. My friend went to a local shop here which checked them out and diagnosed a bad/broken length compensation spring and told him that it was a common problem they've seen on high-mileage bindings. Apparently new heel units are required. His are the radical 2s, and I have the rotation 12s on my pow skis.
This was my first time hearing about this issue, so I wonder, has anyone else encountered this?
I probably won't buy this binding again (for weight reasons), but will keep using it until the setup I'm on is a little more beat. So I'm hoping to keep the bindings from exploding.
Thanks
Kind of sounds like what was going on for this person:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...43#post4963943
I know this is not helpful at all, but I do not get why people get Rotations or Ions.
These bindings add nothing but weight, and are closer to twice the weight to say ATK FR14s (a binding that has a ton of features and that you can straight up charge on) than they ought to. The Rotation's rotational toe fixes a problem (pre-release) most other tech manufacturers have figured out through just designing a better toe, not a swively part that does not even add any elasticity.
And if these heavy bindings also are prone to parts snapping after a lot of use, necessitating a full replacement - then what is the point?
Sorry to come across as negative here, but I just can't stand certain Dynafit products.
They are still used due to availability, cost, and reputation. Dynafit still has the best warranty and support. Also people like the robust brakes compared to the flimsy ATK brakes, especially those that use the bindings inbounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-kapow
Those of use who have them have/had our reasons... now has anybody else heard of this failure mode?
The "don't get" part was a figure of speech, not an actual puzzlement. I just wish that people would actually research these bindings and understand how the different bindings work before getting stuff, but then again the-should-be-dead-as-a-dodo Kingpin is still around, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneke10
That inferior products have superior warrenty still sounds like a loss to me. As for the brakes, sure - but you can replace the ATKs for pretty much any 300-350 tech binding on the market and the same point still stands - the same skiability without the extra weight. And if you want the bigger brakes, just get Tectons - sameish weight - way superior product (it much be fishy because of all the plastic assumptions included).
yeah, re above.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamtron
No, but a basic google search yielded some finds: search terms -> dynafit rotation failure site:www.reddit.comQuote:
Originally Posted by kamtron
I personally bought the rotations (years ago now, before ATKs were supported in the US and available for less than an arm and a leg) for the elasticity and quality of release. And cost was decent compared to other options... I think a friend was able to get them on pro form for me. I have not had any problems with them at all, the only thing I don't like is the weight and tendency of the heels to bite my hands while transitioning.
I don't think they're perfect but still not horrible. I must have close to 120 days on these bindings. For touring, they seem like they work a lot better than a shift, kingpin, or duke pt while still giving a freeride feel.
Those reddit results didn't come up with anything like what I'm describing. I'm still curious if any techs here have seen the problem of the heel elasticity "length compensation" spring breaking.