G3 ION tech binding

I have a couple of skis that I wouldn't mind mounting with inserts for both IONs and an alpine binder (preferably Solly).
One of the skis already has a Radical mount, the other one for a Guardian.
Regardless of existing holes, I was concerned that the aforementioned mount combo was problematic.

Turns out it looks like the two rear holes of the toe on the ION line up nicely with the two rear holes of a Solly's toe.
With the front two ION toes being forward of the solly front two toe holes by ~12mm (guess).

i think (but am not sure) that the +/- on the toe placement of the two different binders/boots should be damn close; actual measurements forthcoming.

BLOG:

Newski#1) Kusala Pow Pure with one mount for Radical @ 99 from tip (0).
I think that want Sollys and Ions (with inserts) @ 99.5/100 (-0.5/-1.0) which I think will work using the shared rear toe hole technique.

Newski#2) Vicik Tour Veneer top with one mount for large Guardians at unknown spot.
I'm not even sure what 0 is on this ski.
But there is a fair amount of open area for the ol' Solly/Ion one-two.

I've fucked around with having a quiver with plates and sharing binders.
Hated it, the fuck around factor the night before / morning of skiing didn't work for me.
But I've got a couple of other go to resort skis, so I think sharing binders on a touring quiver subset sounds reasonable.

Rear two holes on a Solly toe are only 0.1mm further apart than Ion, so plenty close enough. (I don't know yet how the boot position compares between the two.)

Each pair of Ion heel holes (37mm apart) are close enough to fit inserts for pre-EPF Duke/Baron/F12/F10 heels (36mm apart), since M5 machine screws are 0.5mm smaller in diameter than alpine binding screws. So if your ski is already inserted for Duke, you might be able to reuse one pair of heel inserts (depending on BSL).

Ion toe holes are 6mm to accommodate fat-thread AT binding toe screws, so an M5 machine screw is pretty loose in there. I ordered some 6mm x .45 wall aluminum tubinghttp://rover.ebay.com/roverimp/1/711...1;CACHEBUSTER] for a few bucks to cut into little sleeves to fill the gap.

^ good info

interdasting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

I've skied about 40 days on a pair of IONS. Today I noticed the Mz release value was backed off so far that the orange screw edge was not even visible in the window. The screw head itself was loose, under no tension. The same on both skis. Mz was set to less than 5. It was previously set on 7. In the last few days I noticed easy twisting heel pieces that I swear I did not notice before. The recent easy twist in my hand prompted me to investigate. Either:

1. I have an enemy with access to my ski room.
2. I am really stupid and never set the Mz value, and it never "pre-released" in over 40 days on the ski. What Mz do they ship with?
3. It worked its way loose on both skis.

---

I just swapped my IONs to another pair of skis and the Mz was dead on for one and the other not visible in the window and loose.

For wider skis the upper inside intersection of the brake arm and plastic end catches on the edge. Grinding the corner down will help it retract more smoothly.

Checked the position of the Ion toe mounted on inserts for Solly. If you use the rear Solly toe inserts for the rear Ion toe screws, you'll end up about 18mm forward of the line (assuming the Solly was mounted on the line). If you use the rear Solly toe inserts for the front Ion holes, you'll be 27mm behind the line. So you'll only be able to reuse toe inserts for Solly if they were mounted for a substantially different BSL than you.

Received that 6mm aluminum tubing today, and it fits the Ion toe holes perfectly. The M5 screws have just a bit of play inside the tubing, but you probably wouldn't want it any tighter anyhow.

^^^ yeah, I wasn't too pleased with that either.

if one share's the front two toe holes on the ION and the front two toe holes on a Solly the Solly mount is only 5mm behind the ION mount.
however, the ION CTC is 40mm, the Solly CTC 42mm.

drill @ 41mm, put inserts and hope that the smaller M5 screw size allow for a mm of wiggle before cinching down?


it's soooo close!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpinord

I just swapped my IONs to another pair of skis and the Mz was dead on for one and the other not visible in the window and loose.

---

Bummer. But thank you for comparing your experience.

This is potentially not a good development. However one interesting outcome has been learning just how much skiing I can apparently do with an Mz of <=5

I wonder how many other people bother to check their settings over time? I certainly never looked at my release values on other tech bindings once they were set.

Just checked mine, and after around 40 days, they're still at what I set them at (about 9). I checked them because I just had a knee injury and decided to lower them to 8. Yeah yeah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

... However one interesting outcome has been learning just how much skiing I can apparently do with an Mz of <=5
I wonder how many other people bother to check their settings over time? I certainly never looked at my release values on other tech bindings once they were set.

---

Amen, brother.

Cheers,
Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

Bummer. But thank you for comparing your experience.

This is potentially not a good development. However one interesting outcome has been learning just how much skiing I can apparently do with an Mz of <=5

I wonder how many other people bother to check their settings over time? I certainly never looked at my release values on other tech bindings once they were set.

---

You ought to try para-marking skiing bumps, breakable crust and powder with Mz = 0 for a real test. :D

Less is more in the thread locker department. I put too much on and some excess spooged on the inside of the gauge window AND it was harder to tell if the threads were engaged properly per Knut's recommendation. They feel like they're not going anywhere now. We'll see over time.

FYI: If someone wants different width on the brakes for their ION's, the G3 Onyx Brake has the same brake arms. They will fit the ION's just fine.

^ Yep, exactly the same arms. Taking the arms off the Ion isn't as easy as most bindings though, have to dissassemble the lower track and slide off the brake housing. Getting the forward pressure preload nut at 5mm during reassembly is tricky the first time you do it, but easy after you figure it out.

These things are still going strong for me. Interesting results over at wildsnow: https://www.wildsnow.com/16117/g3-io...gs/#more-16117

I've never had an issue with the toe of the binding, but have had some weird releases at the heel. Anyone else feel like they're popping out of the heel piece too easily? This is only happening for me inbounds on firm bumps (I know I know get an inbounds set up), DIN at 10+. 180lbs.

Been on mine since Dec so far so good, no weird releases, nice brakes and crampons. Ski well, easy to use and oh so orange and shiny.

Went for a short tour yesterday, first time out on Ions. Skinned up some stupidly-steep wet sno-cone slush with a kick turn every 15 feet and the toes unlocked (was worried I might tumble down the face a few times), and never had a toe release. Step-in is super-easy with the plastic guides, haven't had a release yet but so far am really digging 'em.

My twisting release setting on one heel piece has (again) backed off from about 7 to about 5 in 12 days of ski touring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neck beard

My twisting release setting on one heel piece has (again) backed off from about 7 to about 5 in 12 days of ski touring.

---

Thanks for keeping us apprised. As another first year adopter, I'm pleased that we're generally reporting good things with the bindings, in the sense that any problems we're seeing appear to have a simple solution and (for us) one that G3 can and will fix on bindings sold this season. Yeah, it kind of sucks to have to monitor it for the remainder of the year, but at least G3 seems to be good with issues like this.

Cheers,
Thom

Will be interesting to hear how the Ion compares to Radical 2.0 once people start getting some laps in on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powtario

Will be interesting to hear how the Ion compares to Radical 2.0 once people start getting some laps in on them.

---

The question is, do we purchase the ION at reduced price (425$ + tax) now or wait in the fall or early 2016 to get the Radical 2.0 FT (750$ + tax).

Read that the Ion is unchanged for 2016, except that they'll offer a brakeless version.

I'm just back (more accurately, sitting at DIA) from a week in the Selkirks and had no issues with the IONs. Everyone else was mostly on Dynafits. I loved the way they toured, skied and look. We had highly variable conditions, including low visibility, high winds, powder, warm soft, corn, breakable crust and one award winning face plant after hitting a compression in super low visibility where the heels came out cleanly as expected during my ejection and full roll. One toe released, while the other stayed on and it seemed correct under the circumstances. :o

The guides said they are also seeing more of them and seemed somewhat interested in them. On a couple descents in variable conditions one guide recommended to the Dynafit users to engage the toe lock to the first click. I did the same and noticed that the indicator is still sort of at the 'ski' mode on the lock indicator. I thought I recalled the instructions 'officially' saying not to do this, but it did add a little more confidence in binding retention. Still unsure, however.

As my first venture into tech pin land, I'm liking the G3 IONs. The previous issue of the Mz loosening wasn't one thanks to the Vibra-Tite VC-3.

Swapping them from one ski pair to another is a piece of cake for the toe, but somewhat more tedious for the heels due to the alignment of the screws under the brakes and the brake spring cover. I'm definitely interested in another pair for this reason if I can find a smoking deal. I've blown the toy and trip budget for a while. :rolleyes:

EDIT regarding going brakeless: it was stressed when making stops on the ridge top crust during high winds (and basically as SOP) to first release the brakes before setting the skis down. This was illustrated when this was forgotten and a diving ski rescue occurred by a group member. I'm not sure I'd want a pair without brakes, but possibly with a brake/brakeless option. What are other's opinions on pros and cons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cass

The question is, do we purchase the ION at reduced price (425$ + tax) now or wait in the fall or early 2016 to get the Radical 2.0 FT (750$ + tax).

---

At that difference in price I think it's a no-brainer. Ion.

Is the Radical FT 2.0 really going to cost $750? Seems way high to me, even for a tech binding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupdoc

At that difference in price I think it's a no-brainer. Ion.

Is the Radical FT 2.0 really going to cost $750? Seems way high to me, even for a tech binding.

---

The ST is going for 500 Eur on the Dynafit website which is ~675-700 CAD. I imagine the FT will run at least 50CAD more.

For $750 you could buy a pair of beast 14s