Printable View
exact same toepiece design. Maybe there were slight differences over production runs. Admittedly, these are from 2012, but I'd guess less than 100 days on them. 2 year warranty. I'm disappointed in the short life of these considering the cost and that the standard dynafit toepiece seems to last forever.
well arent they made of aluminium vs the standard toepiece being made of steel ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevino
LTR 1.0 (both Manual and Auto), LTR 2.0 (ditto), PDG (ditto), SSL 1.0, and SSL 2.0 all use the same toe piece, except for differences in the lever. (Spring-loaded for LTR & PDG Auto, no spring for others. Metal lever for LTR 1.0 Auto, and plastic for all others.)Quote:
Originally Posted by skiitsbetter
I just took a picture of the three different toe designs in my quiver of eight pairs of such toes.
But turns out that all generations are represented here:
http://skimo.co/dynafit-binding-toes
The all-red LTR 1.0 is probably the original version, with the least amount of reinforcement.
(I'm pretty sure that ones I own are the oldest in my quiver.)
The red & black SSL 1.0 has small reinforcements around the holes ... but looks to be the same version that was broken here (arghhhh!!!!), so not such a successful reinforcement design?
The green SSL 2.0 has more substantial reinforcements (which predate the SSL 2.0, as I have at least one pair of LTR 1.0 with that same design).
Words of wisdom from Keith Bontrager
“Strong. Light. Cheap. Pick Two”
In general, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
But for an exception to that, combine the Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0 toe pieces:
http://skimo.co/dynafit-binding-toes
... with the Plum Race 150 heel pieces:
http://skimo.co/plum-binding-heels
... and for $320 (including crampon clips and mounting screws) at 14.2 ounces you have a reasonable combination of all three.
SO aluminium or not ? If an aluminium toe piece breaks my 1st response would be
well of course it broke ...its aluminium
and a a binding with no BSL adjustment sounds short sighted
but is light!
Yes, that broken toe piece is definitely aluminum.
I was at a race on the weekend and chatted with some racers and examined a couple of toepieces. Mine was a 1.0 LTR from fall 2012, I replaced the metal toe lever with a black plastic one to be ISMF compliant (?) for world championships. Others found cracks in their toe pieces of similar vintage or had already broken sets. Newer models look to have more reinforcement. My issues are therefore unrelated to the subject of the thread "Dynafit Speed Superlight 2.0", other than a caution against using light bindings in everyday skiing where you might find yourself in no-fall terrain.
yeah so if you race on that stuff maybe you got and excuse so check it often for cracks but why do weekend warrior/dentists who don't race buy super light bindings that will only fit one boot and probably break?Quote:
Originally Posted by skiitsbetter
at least one of them dentists last year got screwed or should I say screwed himself when Scarpa recalled his F-1's and so now what boot is gona fit this unadjustable binding ...remount time eh?
maybe a tech toepiece is not the place to use Aluminium for general skiing?
out of the characteristics strong/light/cheap ... you got one
So the Superlight 2.0 is Al? What about the Speed Turn 2.0 and Speed Radical?
I don't think all Alloy is bad in all bindings.
The Plum debacle soured a lot of people on shiny alloy toe pieces but IIRC Plum was CNC'ed Al. Dynafit toe wings are cold forged Al. Salomon toe wings are cold-forged 7075T6 alloy. Shimano uses that process in cranks and my uneducated mental ruminations are that their cranks seem pretty strong. Having said all this -I gotta say that it seems kind of silly to save weight in alloy toe wings when using steel would save what - 5, 10g?
Yeah this ^^ unless you are really gona put on the lycra and run up hillsQuote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
So how about those Plums, all aluminum the retailer tells me
to which I replied the body of that heelpiece looks aluminium but its plastic
maybe you wana check that out ?
I wouldn't go near Plums with their record. But if someone else wants to do it go right aheadQuote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
I agree, so If I was buying right now it would probably be the ION
interesting reviews on the Superlight 2.0s. Initially I thought these might be a good next kit to try vs. my trusted Speed Radicals - and maybe they still are - but agree the aluminum toe piece sounds less confidence inspiring. Otherwise they look great on paper, particularly given the weight and "DIN" up to 12. The climb positions appear to be something you can live with pretty easily, but how do they hold up to real skiing (beyond skimo but clearly not expecting them to send stuff). Curious to hear more reviews from people with some miles on 'em.
Both are Al alloy. My Radical toes and Speed Turn 2.0 toes have held up fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
It's more about design and cross section than Al alloy vs. steel. Have any Radical Al alloy toe wings failed? Speed Turn 2.0? None that I've heard about. 2000- and 7000-series Al alloy of the correct spec for the piece has higher strength-to-weight than carbon steel, similar to the correctly spec'd alloy steel but Al alloy would be stiffer for this application because a steel wing from, say, 4130, that's only 5-10g heavier would be thin and flex too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Plum toe wings failed because they had insufficient material around the tool steel pincer. I called that out when I first saw them. Contrast the material surrounding Radical and Speed Turn 2.0 pincers.
If you're attracted to the SSL 2.0 heel, but turned off by the potentially suspect toe, you can combine a more traditional Dynafit toe with the SSL 2.0 heel:
http://skimo.co/dynafit-binding-toes
http://skimo.co/dynafit-binding-heels
The more basic toes are currently out of stock, but when they're available, the Speed Turn 2.0 toe (slightly simplified version of Speed Radical) combined with the SSL 2.0 heel would be $440 for a pair, and include the toe's crampon clips too.
A mech engineer friend of mine said basically the same thing when I showed him the Salomon Mtn tech binding. Said that the material wasn't as important as good design. Visually the Solly, Dynafit toes look pretty substantial with a good amount of material designed into the spots you'd expect them to be present. It's good to get that feedback from users like you who've skied other alloy toe bindings in the fieldQuote:
Originally Posted by DIYSteve
Well if we are saying the SSL 2.0 is actually made out of the same aluminum alloy that the Radical toe is, quite a few people will have this experience. Radical toes are clearly trusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
I believe this discussion goes back to the picture of the cracked SSL 2.0 toe piece earlier in the thread. The question is: is material or design to blame, or was that instance just a freak accident...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
V good point... or perhaps even the new Radical 2.0 turnable toe... would have to check how the ramps match up...
For what its worth, I'm on my second season of the SSL 2.0 (green ones), going strong. I use them a lot, morning dawn patrols, skimo races and combined ski/ice climb stuff and they work great. No defects and the heel piece is WAY better than the first generation.
How so? I don't really have any major complaints about the first gen heels.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevino
That toe cracked right at the screw hole. I remember wondering if maybe the screw was overtorqued causing stress damage in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
Or under torqued. The only toe I've ever had a problem with was a dynafit speed. Not aluminum but the ski was thin and the screws needed to be ground a bit shorter. One in the toe wasn't ground down enough and it had a little slop I didn't notice. One day it started to creek and formed a crack on the base plate from that holeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
It wasn't the 2.0 that cracked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver
It was the red one. version 1.
jesus. read.