Fritschi Vipec review thread

I'd imagine anyone who is on this thread also reads Wildsnow, but I'd figured I'd post this on here as well. Well the Tecton is definitely my next binding purchase. Especially because of this "Screw patterns for Tecton, Evo and prior Vipec are all the same". But bummed that the Evo's brake sizes only go up to 110 and not a 120 brake (but shit who knows what those values actually mean :rolleyes:). Wonder if just the arms would be interchangeable, seems like something the swiss would do.

https://www.wildsnow.com/21378/frits...-tecton-vipec/
Attachment 195822

Also I've been putting more use into my Vipecs (2nd gen) inbound skiing wet Mt. Bachelor powder and they feel just as good as the Marker Tour's I was also using the days before in wet Bachelor and Mt. Ashland snow. Love them more every time I use them.

Pssst....there's a thread already

Any one have access to a binding test machine? I'm really curious what the locked toe tests at.

FYI: I bent my 115 brakes to fit my L138's. Almost ripped some ligaments while bending them (they're stiff!), but worked out in the end.

So I have about a half dozen days in on the Vipecs and I like them better than my previous Dynafit clamps. Would not want to run them full time inbounds, but for a travelling ski where I may be skiing lifts and touring this one works well for me.

I bought and have used the crampons and although they have more moving parts and weight than I would like they seem easy to work.

Question: Sometimes when I step out of the bindings the brakes remain locked up. They seem to have plenty of room to clear the skis when released and engaged. Concerned because if I release from the ski and the brake does not engage, run away potentially lost ski. Saw where bobby had filed his brakes for clearance, but I don't think this is a clearance issue. Any thoughts?

Try filing in these two places. I talk about it in the review I wrote for Blister Gear Review, but they didn't publish the photo for whatever reason. Be careful and go slowly. If you file away too much material, you can make it so that the brakes won't stay retracted when in tour mode. The tolerances are real tight on these parts and Fritschi hasn't perfected it yet. These areas can also pack with snow and sometimes cause the brakes to fail to deploy. I experienced this over the weekend. I might end up filing a bit more. It'd be cool to see a functional revision here for next season to make them deploy more reliably.

Attachment 196972

cat and Lindahl I had the same issue the first 3 or 4 days I had them then the problem disappeared. I also shot those arms with grease and cycled them a few times to get them to deploy.

I'll have to try filing in that left place as I have that problem sometimes (or it only deploys 1/2 way). Had a nice downhill hike over in the west bowls of Bachelor before xmas because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Try filing in these two places. I talk about it in the review I wrote for Blister Gear Review, but they didn't publish the photo for whatever reason. Be careful and go slowly. If you file away too much material, you can make it so that the brakes won't stay retracted when in tour mode. The tolerances are real tight on these parts and Fritschi hasn't perfected it yet. These areas can also pack with snow and sometimes cause the brakes to fail to deploy. I experienced this over the weekend. I might end up filing a bit more. It'd be cool to see a functional revision here for next season to make them deploy more reliably.

Attachment 196972

---

I hadn't thought about this from the perspective of material removal, but rather from a spring tension perspective. The problem with that of course (adjusting spring tension) is that these are stiff mothers, and if you compound this with trying to bend the brakes, it's quite the challenge to either maintain the tension (assuming your brakes deploy consistently), or to adjust it in order to improve the deployment.

Edit: looking at this further, I can see how the hang-up is occurring in the left, circled area - the flat surface. I definitely don't want to mess with the right (grooved) section after watching how it engages in the touring position.

... Thom

I have the sticky deployment w 108 brake on 112 ski, I've just started expecting it to happen so I knock it down with my pole.

Thanks guys for your thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ticketchecker

I have the sticky deployment w 108 brake on 112 ski, I've just started expecting it to happen so I knock it down with my pole. Also having issue with brakes not staying retracted in tour mode, multiple stompings seem to get them to stay up.

---

I have stick deployment on a 105 convert. Just mounted some on 103 Kufos, the same. Bent thebrakes on both. work fine on the Converts, time will tell on the Kufos.

I just inserted some Vector BC's for tee so I could also run the vipecs.

The Jigarex plate is on the way, and I have a 1/4 bit with a perfect size sleeve over it to fit a jig bushing. Going to go for inserts using the jig for the first time.

Anybody using Vipecs/inserts? Any unusual issues?

Been using inserts with my Vipecs most of the season. No issues.

Inserts on both my amperages and some volk 70mm waisted things. No problems with either.

Cool.
As much as I like learning from my own mistakes, I prefer learning from others' mistakes. When possible.

Am getting Vipec 12 black to install on some BD Converts 105. Thinking of using inserts for mounting (have mounted alpine bindings in the past). Is there an alpine binding with compatible hole pattern such that I can mount alpine bindings on the Converts in addition to the Vipec's?

thanks.

- Phil

Phil,

No answer, but maybe try printing templates from here and mocking them up with the Vipecs on top? http://www.bindingfreedom.com/paper-tempaltes/

Out of curiosity, why Vipecs and alpine bindings on that particular ski? Given the nature of the ski, I'd think just Vipecs would be sufficient for inbounds because of the relatively low speed limit on the Convert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PCK

Am getting Vipec 12 black to install on some BD Converts 105. Thinking of using inserts for mounting (have mounted alpine bindings in the past). Is there an alpine binding with compatible hole pattern such that I can mount alpine bindings on the Converts in addition to the Vipec's

- Phil

---

Check out the PDF file to be found here under the link "Vergleich der Bohrlochpositionen für verschiedene Bindungen": http://www.powderguide.com/community...8d8abab15c36a5
(My apologies for not hotlinking it directly, but then the link would get broken the moment I update the file)

Keep in mind that you can often move the heel piece >1cm back and forth due to the heel's adjustment range.

E.g. Rossi Axial1/2 and FKS would fit nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knut

Check out the PDF file to be found here under the link "Vergleich der Bohrlochpositionen für verschiedene Bindungen": http://www.powderguide.com/community...8d8abab15c36a5
(My apologies for not hotlinking it directly, but then the link would get broken the moment I update the file)

Keep in mind that you can often move the heel piece >1cm back and forth due to the heel's adjustment range.

E.g. Rossi Axial1/2 and FKS would fit nicely.

---

Geil! Danke!

do you have one for smaller BSL's as well (e.g. 295 mm)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Phil,

No answer, but maybe try printing templates from here and mocking them up with the Vipecs on top? http://www.bindingfreedom.com/paper-tempaltes/

Out of curiosity, why Vipecs and alpine bindings on that particular ski? Given the nature of the ski, I'd think just Vipecs would be sufficient for inbounds because of the relatively low speed limit on the Convert.

---

I second this.
I have Carbon Converts, and putting Vipecs on them has made them into a really versatile ski. I could insert them but don't really see any need to run frame bindings now that the Vipecs are on.

I'm considering replacing my solly fits on l120 spoons with Vipecs. They only get out when it's soft so might as well take advantage of the lightweight potential of that combo and I don't really like the verts after skiing Vipec on another setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smooth operator

Geil! Danke!

do you have one for smaller BSL's as well (e.g. 295 mm)?

---

As long as you don't want to compare frame bindings with normal bindings (i.e. bindings where toe and heel piece are mounted independently), the BSL doesn't matter. The pattern overlap will be the same for all BSLs, because toe and heel piece will be moved accordingly.

Unfortunately, making this one document is already a ton of work, so I didn't make more BSLs, sorry.

Vipec mounting came up in the Praxis thread, and I re-directed my answer to this thread. I found some minor errors in both the Powderguide and Dawson templates. As I recall (and documented in the template), the fore/aft hole spacing was slightly off. I recall each of the two templates had it partly right. I also made a minor adjustment to the fore/aft heel location:

Here's the template I drew (refer to the printing notes, below): http://galibierdesign.com/images/oth...Vipec_Thom.pdf

• I noted front to back hole spacing discrepancies in the notes in the upper right quadrant of the template and I believe this was the only key difference from the Dawson/Powderguide templates.
• I positioned the heel of the boot 18mm “behind” (closer to the tail) of the front heel mounting holes. As I recall, this was 2-3mm different from one or both templates. The goal was to end up with the heel in the middle of its measured 24mm travel range. I’d verify this, and of course, if you’re finagling for adjustment to cover two widely different BSL’s, I’d experiment on a 2x4.

The following may seem pedantic, but I received a few PMs about the template, so I included these clarifications.

Boot center mark scale: I didn't add one to the template. I’m old-school about templates and work off toe and heel marks instead of using a boot center-mark scale on a template. I use the two small, rectangular “windows” (toe and heel) on the template which I cut out with a double edged razor.

Locating the Toe: Use the “Boot Toe” line which bisects the rectangular window. The 15mm/.591” pin line is mainly informational. I measured the pin line on my Maestrales as being 15mm behind the front edge of the boot.

Heel: Use the heel line which bisects the rectangular window. I mark the heel position using a square which typically only differs by 1-2mm from the bottom of the sole (IOW, it’s not a big deal).

Example (using a 300mm BSL):

• Establish the boot center (e.g. the mark on the sidewall, top sheet, etc.).
• Measure forward by 150mm to locate the front of the boot.
• Locate the heel. I don’t like to stack errors, so I’ll then measure backward (300mm) from the toe. Of course, I double and triple check.

Printing Notes: Ignore the printing instructions and follow your normal PDF printing procedure to print at 100%. The printing instructions on the template are for my CAD tool. Check the scale of the template (measure the 4.000” x 4.000” box). Overlay the binding on the template to verify that the holes line up.

Notes:

• Make any fore/aft heel adjustments if you're trying to accommodate two sets of boots with a large difference in BSL.
• As always, be sure you've established the boot center correctly - checking for mis-markings on top sheets, etc.
• If in doubt, test-mount on a 2x4.

Cheers,
Thom

Nice template. And I am absolutely with you on mounting based on toe/heel edge positions. I do it the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

I noted front to back hole spacing discrepancies in the notes in the upper right quadrant of the template and I believe this was the only key difference from the Dawson/Powderguide templates.

---

The only differences I found with my template are 0.25 mm front/rear spacing on the toe and 0.5mm front/rear spacing on the heel. That are truly so minor differences that I would consider the templates to be identical for home mount precision range.
Furthermore, your toe line is a good mm further towards the tip, heel line is within one mm. Again a very minor discrepancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knut

Nice template. And I am absolutely with you on mounting based on toe/heel edge positions. I do it the same way.


The only differences I found with my template are 0.25 mm front/rear spacing on the toe and 0.5mm front/rear spacing on the heel. That are truly so minor differences that I would consider the templates to be identical for home mount precision range.
Furthermore, your toe line is a good mm further towards the tip, heel line is within one mm. Again a very minor discrepancy.

---

Thanks for the feedback! I should compare the PDF I posted against how I normally use the template (printing directly from my CAD program) - if only for self-knowledge, although (as you implied), this borders on being OCD.

Fritschi and Marker must be difficult to deal with, because the Dawson and Powderguide templates for these bindings were either missing some information, or were off in some regard. I'm guessing they did what I did - trace them out and iteratively adjust their drawings until things visually lined up. I should buy my machinist a 6-pack and use his tracing tool & software.

Cheers,
Thom