I believe the plates weigh 18 grams each, nuts and machine screws aren't included in that weight. Unless you are using the setup for "race only" application a rear plate seems like a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Printable View
I believe the plates weigh 18 grams each, nuts and machine screws aren't included in that weight. Unless you are using the setup for "race only" application a rear plate seems like a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
I think I'll skip the plates, I've got tlt5m's now and they fit well, might move on to the 5p or 6p but they are the same bsl. Don't wanna screw with the height delta either. I think front first makes most sense for these bindings, the rearmost hole for the heel is a ways back, good access for screwing with it. Test fit by screwing down, tweak if necessary when opening up to insert diameter. I feel good about this now
I've mounted up four pairs of Dynafit three-hole heel units (two pairs of Low Tech Race, and two pairs of the Speed Superlight w/ a slightly elongated mounting pattern compared to the LTR), but with a jig.
However, before I collaborated on designing the JigaRex skimo mounting plates, I freehanded about eight four-hole race binding mounts (IIRC Plum 135/145, Plum 165, Sportiva/ATK RT, and older LTR).
For those jobs, I always mounted the toes first and then inserted the heel unit prongs into the boot interface for measuring.
This sequence was mainly out of necessity, as I couldn't use my Dynafit mechanical jig after the heels were mounted, yet I could use various random jigs for the heel unit's L<>R spacing after the toes were mounted (as I could flip the jig in the other direction).
But even if I were freehanding both the toe and the heel, I think mounting the toe first is best: you'll have a much more precise fit for the boot in the toe, as compared to the boot sliding around if instead inserted into the heel first.
As for the separate adjustment plates, remember that they also increase the heel>toe skiing "delta" and the skinning heel elevator angle.
Then again, some skiers might prefer that, especially given that the Dynafit LTR is among the lowest even for skimo bindings. (Various skimo race binding measuring calculating insanity here if you dare.)
Then again (again), all these plates kind of "bridge" a prior fixed-length mount, so although I'm usually nervous about Swiss-cheesing a ski, I suspect that plugged holes well within the mounting zone of a plate don't affect the ski strength.
This particular addition to the thread could be titled: PSA: Make your own fucking tech bindings and templates.
TL;DR? Just click the picture. I'm doing one of these dual insert mounts, with the Marker Lord and a what I'm gonna call a 'Radical Plum'
Attachment 157572
I like to mount bindings on inserts, even if I know I probably won't ever move them. Just because.
Sometimes I like to mount more than one binding set per pair of skis for versatility without sacrifices.
(eg. Dynafit / FKS)
It involves a lot of screwing around with templates, a ruler and digital calipers trying to find combinations that will work while maintaining reasonable center offsets, space between the holes ('taint'), reasonable future BSL adjustments and so on. I have duplicated most of the templates for bindings I own in AutoCAD. This way I can slide things around, take measurements and so on to see what will work and what will not.
I can print the designs out in 1:1 scale and use them as layouts for punching holes. (Always a 2x4 first.)
This time around I am designing a set of templates that should work for doing a dual mount for the new Marker Lord S.P. (or any frameless Royal series) swappable with a tech binding featuring the elongated Radical toe pattern.
Below is a screen shot of four custom made templates with two ideas I have for the design. (Screenshot for now because I don't want bitching if they're not quite right.)
Toe Option #1:
The first set of templates features mounting both the Lord and the Dynafit toes such that the inserts are in close proximity to each other, with the Lord being 1cm forward from center.
Each one of the Lord holes is 1.58cm center to center away from a Dynafit hole with a 'taint' of 8mm when using inserts.
I question this design because it may suffer rip out from accumulated tolerances. (Going Theory: 1.5cm spacing with an 8mm taint is okay in some holes, but not ALL of them...)
Heel Option #1:
With the Lord 1cm forward, there is now a hole conflict in the rear with the Dynafit pattern that requires too much range sacrifice on either binding to resolve.
This can be remedied quite elegantly by reversing the tech heel base (where applicable) and sliding Lord heel forward such that it shares a pair of the holes as shown in the drawing.
Of course, this eliminates heel models with brakes (ST) and the ability to use the Plum heel bumper, and probably any future binding tech that copies the Dynafit pattern.
Toe Option #2:
This template uses a SollyFit toe plate to accomplish two things: 1) it has wider mounting holes for less conflicts and more taint 2) it provides a base which can be used as a shim to add toe height to the Radical or any other tech toe.
It could be used by itself, with the ST 6.4mm base, or the ST base AND the 6.4mm B&D shim for three different toe pin heights which can be changed at will -- with various length metric screws -- depending on how much heel lift I want to sacrifice. (Theoretically -- more plates = more slop?)
With this toe template as drawn the Lord would be mounted 3.2mm behind center and only minimum taint tolerances present on two of the four front holes.
It can be slid even further back to -9.5mm for a symmetrical toe pattern with maximum taint. Not sure I am comfortable with that much deviation though, so 3.2 for now as drawn.
Heel Option #2:
The Lord heel is slid back 12.5mm from center so that it's front 32mm hole lines up with the Dynafit 32mm front holes.
Because the toe is also slid back anywhere from 3.2 to 9.5mm from center the sacrifice in range for different BSL's is minimal.
I may move the entire hole pattern back further such that the tech binding can accommodate a 305 and a 320 boot and not be at extremes. (Sacrificing more Lord range.)
I got all the parts coming in the mail to experiment with this. If it goes well on a 2x4 then it'll be what goes on my new DPS. :)
^^Having done the whole FKS + Speed Radical/Plum combo, I've come to a few conclusions:
1. Dual-use touring/inbounds boots are just not for me. Nothing with AT capability on the market has the fit, stiffness, or flex quality of a dedicated alpine boot.
2. Dual-use touring/inbounds skis are just not for me. Almost anything I'd want to tour on is too light to have fun skiing inbounds. I can only think of one or two exceptions, and they're on the heavier side of reasonable.
If I *really* wanted to use a ski for both inbounds and touring, I would mount a Dynalook toe and put inserts in for FKS and Plum heels. The Dynalook Toe would act as a 6mm shim for the FKS AND Radical toes. The FKS comes with a 5 mm shim to get it flat anyway, so an extra 1 mm won't make too much of a difference and saves mounting the FKS toes. FKS and tech binders have no heel conflict. The alternative would be to make an adapter plate that screws into the FKS inserts and accepts a Radical toe. Thinking like 15 mm thick to get the ramp angle down to something reasonable. Downside is obviously machining cost.
100% agree. The do it all boot fantasy just doesn't really pan out unfortunately. Maybe on perfect powder days but on an average day it's really not very fun. But it all depends on what you expect from your gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
I too came to that painful (and expensive) realization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier
In more relevant skis; I'm excited to mount my own fucking skis again this year.
Okay what about...
- A high end tour boot like a Vulcan / Mercury / Maestrale RS that supposedly compromises nothing on the up or down.
- A fat do it all fun resort / powder ski that is light enough to tour, eg DPS Wailer Pure 3.
- Radical Toe with 3 different adjustable heights, with either/or: Plum Guide Heel for brakeless light touring, or Radical FT/ST heel for braked.
- Swappable with Marker Lord S.P., adjusted to accommodate boots above. Or drag along favorite alpine boots.
All of this mix and matchable depending on what you want to do for the day.
Here's what I got so far.
A big whopper of a toe lift on a SollyFit plate, all the way to 48mm and with enough hole spacing in the toe area for inserts for an alpine binding.
Looks like almost 0 delta/ramp. Would be less, maybe even negative at this height with Plum Guide:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...psht2yjcjs.jpg
Three options for raising the toe, done with removable parts and stainless steel metric screws: 36mm no plates, 42.5mm one plate, or as above, 48mm (two plates):
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...psx4mgb8a4.jpg
Two of the three crampon daggers still bite. Climbing riser with the Radical has lost a bit but probably okay. Can buy lifts from B&D.
(Note this old FT sucks and probably won't be used. Just testing.)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...psp0jl9paq.jpg
Anyway back to the fucking mounting business.
Can't wait to punch hoes and do inserts, but its been a while since I swiss cheesed a ski, so gonna do several wood mounts first before touching the DPS. :)
I have always used slow cure epoxy for inserts... but have used marine goop for regular mounts and quick ski repairs. I love the stuff. fwiw outdoor goop is basically the same stuff... sometimes comes in a bigger bottle for cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by tavis
This is the epoxy I use:
http://www.mcmaster.com/#7538A31
Wide temperature range, 3 hour set time, 7 DAY cure time. If you're doing a dual mount like me, it takes a minimum of two weeks. :)
For absolute no-spinners (unless you fucked up your drilling/tapping) this is the stuff to use if you have the patience for it.
I apologize for a couple JONGy questions, but I would really appreciate the input.
Experience level: Mounted tons of skis in shops in the past, but always with a jig. So we will rank me as a tech gaper/worse than a JONG.
Size: 6'4" 180lbs, 336 BSL (standard alpine soles), finesse skier opposed to power, most skis are in the 185-196cm range. Next pair up for mounting are ON3P Kartels. I'd really like to not fuck those up.
1. I'm switching to a new model of binding, the Salomon STH 2 WTR 13. For years I've been moving a couple pairs of S912ti to new skis. I know it's only a mid level binding, but it's served me well. I tend to ski smoothly and at a low DIN, a 9. I haven't had significant prerelease problems or anything like that. I also generally prefer a 9 when I use Looks. Is it fair to assume a 9 DIN on a WTR 13 is fairly close, and therefore a good starting point?
2. Amazon has Roo Glue for $14 (16oz). It's kind of expensive, but 16oz should last a lifetime if I remember to put the cap on. I've always used glue at shops (without any issues). All my epoxy experience is in repairs not mounts. I'll probably be doing a couple mounts a year for my household, all standard alpine mounts (no inserts... yet). Searching around the internet shows type of glue is hotly debated. The results range from "Use cum" to "Glue? What glue?!" with a variety of products in between. I trust TGR more than most; Whats your consensus on Roo Glue?
3. We all know how shops use drivers (spinners!), but I'm trying to do a better job than they do. I have a shitty corded Ryobi drill with clutch or a Posi #3 screwdriver. The torque settings are 2-20 (plus one labeled drill), but I have no clue what each setting translates to in ft/lbs. What torque setting should I use, or should I just hand screw?
I think got the rest pretty well set up. I'm going to do some dry runs on 2x4s and then use some Lexan sheeting to make a template for faster future mounts. I have digital calipers (measure 3 times, and then again), a proper Tognar 3.6x9mm bit, etc. If anything I think I'm overdoing it, I'm just nervous without a jig holding my hand.
^^^ Can't speak to roo glue, I usually just use waterproof titebond 2 or 3 cause that's what I have laying around and it's been fine for me.
In terms of the screw gun, I'd say skip it. Doesn't take that long to hand screw and it does a better job, IMO. Just push down hard for the first few turns so the threads cut into the core nicely.
Good call on the Lexan sheets. I've done the same with some Luan and it makes everything nice and easy.
I ordered the glue. Can always send it back if someone else scares me off it. Sounds fairly similar to Titebond anyway (I'm not a chemist, so that could be way off).
Hand tighten, noted.
Thanks
1. 9 is actually perfect for the STH2 WTR 13 -- it's exactly in the middle of the adjustment range of 5 to 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGortex
2. Is it this glue? http://www.tognar.com/roo-ski-binding-glue-2oz/
I've never used that particular brand, but it seems like it would be up to the task.
3. The best way to not fuck up mounting is to not take shop shortcuts and do everything by hand, be patient, think about what you're doing and double check everything along the way and enjoy the experience with a few beers. No need to rush, take your time.
Only use a drill to make your holes, use a proper drill bit that has a built in stop and volcano remover. You can even get a thread tap bit for wood if you want, and you may need it if you have metal skis.
I don't generally make jigs for myself because I get more accurate holes with just taping the paper templates to skis.
When I do practice wood mounts, I use a small battery powered driver with a clutch -- this one: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-TEK...53LK/202351930
I still use a standard posi screw driver on the real ski though. Nothing beats the satisfaction of hearing and feeling that core material go crunch as you mount your own fucking bindings.
I meant to ask if a WRT 2 "9" DIN setting is comparable to a s912 "9" DIN. I don't know if they updated the torque specs in the past few years. This is two product generations (or three?) since my binding have been on the market.
That's the glue. Amazon was cheaper, and I didn't feel like I really needed to send Tognar extra money just to keep it core after buying a $20 drill bit.
I had the older dark blue version of that drill. Switched over to a corded model instead of replacing the batteries after they kicked the bucket. It's not actually that shitty for around the house, but still a long ways off top of the line stuff. http://m.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-3-8-i...7CK/100485417/
Thanks for the tips. I'll have to tape a post it note above my bench: "SLOW DOWN".
It feels like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'll reiterate that IMO there is NO boot that "compromises nothing on the up or down." That's just marketing spew. I've owned the Vulcan, Maestrale RS, and OG Cochise 120. Leavenworth Skier spent considerable time on the Vulcans. Dunno about Bobcat Sig, but it sounds like he's speaking from personal experience, too. None of the boots you listed ski or fit like an alpine/race boot. But, as was said above, it all depends on what you expect from your gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan Oder
Anyway, not trying to start anything, just my $0.02. Don't let our opinions dampen your enthusiasm, though. Really hope you enjoy the new setup!
I would agree with that. The Cochise has been as close as it gets to both. Still, you sacrifice both. I have the Maestrale RS because it's better on the up and gets me down, well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
^^Agree 100%. Maybe the newer Cochise comes closer with increased heel hold (my chief complaint), but I still don't plan to give up race boots anytime soon.
I personally found the Maestrale RS too soft and ended up upgraded to the Vulcan. I've only skied the Vulcans a couple times on corn so far, but initial impressions are VERY favorable for the tourability to downhill performance tradeoff. Lack of progression is the main complaint, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
Anyway, back to the ski mounting! I ended up picking up a JigaRex. Just got tired of how long it took to do mounts with a Dynalook toe with tech heel. Will report back with how much time (if any) it saves.
Finished the dual mount tonight. Thanks everyone for your input!
Cleanest most accurate one I've ever done and easy to swap, with no boot sole switching. (Unless I want to.)
I didn't like the looks of the boot heel resting only on the heel pins so I added the plum heel puck, which will provide for a better flat tour option and support if I decide to raise the toe any further.
If it sucks, I can remove it, add or remove toe height etc... Options, versatility, etc... The Lord accommodates the Maestraele RS with a bit of sole grinding.
In the event that inbounds on touring boots sucks and I find my self wishing for my alpine boots, a minute with a hex wrench and I'm in business.
If the weird removable Lord toe ends up sucking/falling off, I should be able grab a Jester from the nearest ski shop, drop it in there at lunch and go ski. (need to get some Jester screws.)
Both the alpine and tech options will accommodate boots 306-320 so I can put any of my current boots into it if the 'one' boot thing doesn't really pan out.
I'm not sure how much the tech bindings weigh but there are only two plastic parts, the toe lever and the Plum shell.
And finally, if the Plum just doesn't work out, I can pull that off and toss on any of the Radical heels.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...psfrq7y9yb.jpg
I was kind of secretly hoping that the new Marker Kingpin binding would have the same mounting pattern as the rest of the Royal family.
That's a sweet looking tool. Official Dynafit jigs are $$$. If I find myself doing more standard woodscrew/glue mounts for friends and family, I'm going to get one.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
EDIT. wrong post. Delete.
Here are some quick shots showing the current Jigarex plate design, the drill bushings are seriously beefy. (Is there not an official Jigarex thread in Tech Talk? I only see the two in Gearswap.)
Attachment 158245
Attachment 158246
I like that it has pins to measure the 'real' BSL instead of whatever might be misprinted on the boot.
Worked with an engineer friend today who was mounting his first pair of Dynafit bindings. After deciding not to buy a jig and that he didn't trust a shop, he came up with a pretty clever solution. He attached the bindings onto his boots, as they would be while mounted, and then scanned the whole thing with the boot sitting up on a flatbed scanner. He analyzed the image, finding the distances between the holes using software, and also the distance between the heel and toe holes, thereby generating XY coordinates for all the holes relative to the center line of the ski. He then put a ski bit in a CNC mill, found the center line using a feature of the mill, punched in the coordinates, and boom, done, perfect mount, didn't need to adjust anything.
Yah...
Now if I could only remember which pocket I left my CAD CNC mill in...
Sounds like this dude just streamlined and revolutionized the boot/binding to ski mounting interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_star
Good bye ski shop, hello machine shop!
You think that CNC mill can lay some sweet structure on my bases?
well if i'm put out of that aspect of da bidness by the clever kissless , enginerders
so b it.
so bout how long did the hightech mount take? - the part where you chemically forumlate and create the opimtum screw lubricant and adhesive watersealent compound?
fwiw if you need a mount in ski city feel free to contact me and i'll let you use my much lower tech shit to help facilitate this worthy psa.
obviusly not mad enough to search the webz to see if sum prepubescent teen made a cool story bro meme i could use
Rest assured that that was just one weapon in my GIF arsenal.
I heard that all happened while I was doing this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_star
http://www.freeskiers.net/community/...4&d=1272912996
followed by this:
http://www.canada.com/cms/binary/9279608.jpg
and when the CNC mill was finishing its magic I was probably joining this:
http://www.besportier.com/archives/h...lgates-diy.jpg
No, but do you think your buddy can come up with an algorithm for a more technical, yet less efficient, way to wipe my assQuote:
Originally Posted by dark_star
i wanna know how long it took
then i wanna see some viddie of the rocket scientist skiing
cause if i spent the past couple decades huffin ptex and performing carpal tunnel building menial ski tech tasks
and your bro slays the sickgnars pow better than i
i'm gonna be furious
The important thing here is how many beers did he drink?
With so much automation he should be consuming a 6 pack minimum per ski.
i doubt the marker cats read this drival
but fkna that is the shop manual other binding makers should strive to emulate
Just mounted 2 pair of Speed Radicals. Mounted them on early season beater skis, gonna move them to nice skis when it snows.
I have an older jig, which is awesome for the rear holes, and two of the front holes. I used it for the rear holes on the front binding. It's an old jig with some play, but this lined up the bindings perfectly.
What's the best way to use the binding as a jig? I eyeballed center, and it worked pretty well, but not perfect. Still required some monkeying around to keep binding centered.
When I move these, it will be to a brand new pair of Carbon Converts that I may want to insert, so I want the holes perfect (ish).
Got to be some way to center the hole exactly.
Any thoughts?
them front holes are 4cm apart on the radicals but the same width if ya got 2 holes right getting 2 more on a single plane shouldn't be tthat hard
jigs w/ play in em are gonna require measure twice drill once or a template w/ no play in it
calipers are a great measuring tools for mounting
as are new jigs
Gotta love those German engineers ... not so much with those damn French ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
it's funny cause they seem to have a hell of a time including and keeping all the screws in the binding box
but at least i now what screw shoulda been there and ordering is easier
Get some transparency sheets. Put the binding on top. Mark the holes. Draw a centerline on the sheet, then line it up with the centerline on the ski. Punch the topsheet. Recheck before drilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by hhtele