G3 ION tech binding

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

I'm definitely an Ion fan, but have had only one bad experience with my Onyx (first year model), which is hardly worth mentioning. People have a way of exaggerating this stuff. The long lifter popped off. They changed the plastic in the 2nd year, and the replacements have been fine since then. What new binding release from Dynafit, Marker, Vipec etc. hasn't had teething problems with their initial release?

I agree with (and believe I mentioned) that binding entry is a bit challenging in sketchy stances, but the flip side is that I have a lot more confidence as far as not pre-releasing in comparison with my Vertical ST's ... not a bad tradeoff in no-fall terrain :eek:

While I'd buy an Ion over an Onyx (even at the price premium), I think the Onyx has a place in their lineup. Not everyone enters 47 degree couloirs or counts grams in their setup :D

---

When I wrote that post I DID think about all the Tech binding failures since, perhaps taken in context at the time ONYX was one upstart with problems competing against the VERT at probably its highest level of refinement

Fast forward we have come to expect all those failures on a new tech binding including dynafit ... its always toughest for the 1st kid in a family ;)

I have actualy never tried the ONYX I think I could get by the toe piece entry thing but excess weight is excess weight in any case the 1st born in the G3 family the Onyx didn't fly very well but I think the ION will

I'm with ya on the excess weight which is why I paid extra for a set of Ions (as I would have done for Radicals or maybe even Vipecs - if they can get them sorted out). We get spoiled rather quickly, and the rig the Onyx's are mounted on is a pair of early generation K2 Coombas which feel like a boat anchors, although its retention capabilities are indeed confidence inspiring.

This whole first year thing ... I'm guessing that for the Vipecs, it's more of a first three or four years thing. Again, I need to be wary of said "Internet Amplification Effect";) Something tells me however, that there's a lot to sort out in that toe piece apart from the adjustable pins.

Putting all of this in perspective, I have a lot of respect for how much G3 gets right in their first year of a product release (as well as for Dynafit). It's clearly not easy for such relatively low volume manufacturers (all AT binding manufacturers).

Cheers,
Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by el hefe

The binding kept going from tour to ski mode by itself.

---

I've seen that - heel remained rotated, but brakes kept popping open. It required an extra hard twist to get the heel to lock home that last hair. The next day, it didn't require any extra effort at all. I've heard of one other with similar. If you are using the heel riser, apparently twisting the heel piece to the left can reduce the chance of it happening. Heel riser is not perhaps not perfectly square and puts some rotational force on the heel piece in one direction.

To be honest, I am using these every single day and it has only happened to me once, and for a short period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

To be honest, I am using these every single day and it has only happened to me once, and for a short period of time.

---

So, they're better than Comforts and Verticals in this regard?

Has anyone had luck getting the brakes to fit a wider ski?
IE: 115mm to 124mm?

In lieu of that, what's the widest ski anyone has fit a 115mm brake on?

Can they be jiggered a bit wider?


My initial plan was to buy some 95mm to fit on a 106 waist, thinking that ~6mm a side would be no big deal.
That however, did look good; so I traded the heels with 95s for some heels with 115s (thanks Aaron_Wright!).
They will definitely fit the 106s; but now some 124 waisted Kusalas happened to find their way to my house and it would be nice to put in inserts in both skis and ... badda-boom!

The 115 heels will arrive tomorrow so I can take a look then, but I'm bored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

but now some 124 waisted Kusalas happened to find their way to my house

---

yea, that kinda shit just happens all the time. :wink:

I have the 115mm brake on a 117mm ski. The metal arms still have a reasonable amount of clearance(2-3mm on both sides), so if you shaved down the plastic on the inside of the brakes a bit I bet you get the 115mm around a 124mm underfoot ski with little or no bending.

The plastic "feet" are pretty thick and closer to the true 115mm clearance width, although they're still around 118mm, but the brakes themselves are definitely a bunch wider than 115mm.

I would try to go as small as possible with the brakes. I ended up cutting the ends off of mine as they were sitting low and wide and actually dragging in soft snow when in ski mode. These are the 130mm on a 122mm ski.

I have 115mm brakes on a 116mm ski. It works, but the 115 brakes could pretty easily fit 120mm without bending / widening I imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

So, they're better than Comforts and Verticals in this regard?

---

In terms of auto-rotation of the heel to ski mode, like was very common with my Dynafit bindings: this has been very uncommon with my IONS, much better than Dynafit in that regard.

Follow up of a previous post, check you twisting release 'din'. I'm pretty sure mine auto-back off again from 7 to 5.

Yes, I ski at 7. You heard me TGR.

anyone mount these things with another mount already on the ski?
or do a ION and some alpine binder @ relatively the same mount point?

success / failure stories appreciated; i will be printing out some templates to check first hand soon.

I mounted them 1 cm forward due to an F10 hole conflict on BC Chargers. Both with inserts. All good so far.

This reminds me, I had to cut down some pozi lowheads for the heels because there is a gap in the BF line up. There may be new 'gap' screw lengths next season.

From notes to BF:

Quote:

---

I just finished an insert installation for my G3 IONs and feel fairly confident that the toe screws are 14mm Smallheads and heels are 12mm Lowheads. I cut down 16mm Lowheads. The 10mm LH were just a skootch shy of the 4mm minimum at about 3.5mm. Confirmation from others might be worthwhile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

So, they're better than Comforts and Verticals in this regard?

---

I personally think they are better than Comforts or Verticals in any regard.


It's especially unnerving after skiing a while with the Ion to have to step into other pintech bindings. Step-In with the Ion just works as a charm.
Climbing aides are super-easy and fast to operate
Front arm closure and thus retention is way better
Release seems to be way more reliable and I don't experience any pre-release issues -something that's notorious with my verticals
Ramp angle is way better
And they look quite sexy as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfluffenmeister

anyone mount these things with another mount already on the ski?

---

Yep, 1cm from plugged Radical and Vertical holes on two different skis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knut

Step-In with the Ion just works as a charm.

---

Yes, unless you have badly worn boot sole rubber at the toes.

So far, IONs are good bindings, I like them much more than Dynafit Radicals. Never having ice cake build under the toe springs is reason alone. Then the ramp angle improvement, functioning brake arm shape and rake angle, etc, etc. IONs feel like they were designed by backcountry skiers with engineering chops.

Just fitted the adapters for ski crampons on some spring skis. Lets see how they go. I also took a photo of the twisting DIN setting on these skis which I will use for the next 2 months. I'll be watching to see if it moves. This particular set of IONs have only had about 10 days use so far.

Interesting that the Ion has no heel pin spacing and only 5mm of spring-loaded rearward heel post travel, while the latest Radical has 5.5mm of pin spacing plus another 6mm of spring-loaded rearward heel post travel, for a total of 11.5mm travel (as of 2013/2014 models). The Ion's "better retention" must all be happening at the toe, because the Ion's meager heel travel can't be the magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knut

I personally think they are better than Comforts or Verticals in any regard.


It's especially unnerving after skiing a while with the Ion to have to step into other pintech bindings. Step-In with the Ion just works as a charm.
Climbing aides are super-easy and fast to operate
Front arm closure and thus retention is way better
Release seems to be way more reliable and I don't experience any pre-release issues -something that's notorious with my verticals
Ramp angle is way better
And they look quite sexy as well.

---

Sorry, I was being facetious. I like the IONS for all the reasons you state. Skied hard inbounds today really pushing it in some crappy snow, all is well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1000-oaks

Interesting that the Ion has no heel pin spacing and only 5mm of spring-loaded rearward heel post travel, while the latest Radical has 5.5mm of pin spacing plus another 6mm of spring-loaded rearward heel post travel, for a total of 11.5mm travel (as of 2013/2014 models). The Ion's "better retention" must all be happening at the toe, because the Ion's meager heel travel can't be the magic.

---

I'm not sure the IONS have any measurable better retention in the toe, they just close with a sharp hard snap, so you know they are shut. Rather than a Dynafit gentle and vague engagement, like shaking hands with an Emo cider drinking bisexual. If I had to guess, no first hand experience.

As for heel travel in the Radical 2... is anyone skiing them yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

Yep, 1cm from plugged Radical and Vertical holes on two different skis.

---

right on.
anyone have luck with a ION and an alpine mount (like a solly?).

quick question ...

I picked up a pair of 'new' (mounted, never skied) Ions in the Gear Swap. In getting ready to mount I notice that the heal plate has a sort of 'high spot' under the brake, to the right of the serial number in the picture. The plastic is easily compressed with my finger and I assume it would flatten out when the screws are torqued. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing another piece that needs to go in between this plate and the ski.

Attachment 164402

Does this look right?

^ That's correct, go ahead & mount it.

thanks 1000-oaks.
yes, mine have a plastic brake spring cover.

^ just chiming in... I noticed that when I took them out of the box. Once mounted it flattens out.

cool, thanks zero.

I just un-mounted a pair for use as backup whilst travelling. They have the same soft bump you described. Didn't notice it before. That bump is soft enough to flatten I'd guess, but it is in front of the mounting screws and not under direct pressure, so that may explain why I could not get the plastic section at the leading edge of the heel piece to sit completely flat against the top sheet.

Something else: Rusty water dripping from my heel piece. Likely from that adjustment screw. That is dirty/rusty grease from the screw and spring on the topsheet as well.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-u...o/DSC09760.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s...o/DSC09761.JPG

Finally, revisiting this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

I've seen that - heel remained rotated, but brakes kept popping open...

---

Update: The heel piece is totally rotating on one particular ski from tour to ski. I can use force to get the heel piece fully rotated and it stays put. But when comparing to other heel pieces it is obvious that this one heel is not positively clicking home into tour mode like the others do. This one is vague, positively doesn't snap into tour mode our snap out of tour mode. My guess is a slight deformity in the plastic molding of the locking bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N1CK.

thanks 1000-oaks.
yes, mine have a plastic brake spring cover.

---

Duh, the covers were in the screw bag, my mistake.

The soft bump is from a plastic carrier that rolls the brake latch forward when in tour mode. The latch mechanism really needs the ski to hold everything in place, so the carrier gets pushed into the thin section of the baseplate by the latch spring.

Hope that grey baseplate bottom isn't polyurethane (looks like it could be), PU often reverts to it's liquid components (melts) in just five to ten years. I loathe the stuff, hate seeing manufacturers use it.