Dynafit speed superlite 2.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

So the Superlight 2.0 is Al? What about the Speed Turn 2.0 and Speed Radical?

---

Both are Al alloy. My Radical toes and Speed Turn 2.0 toes have held up fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DIYSteve

Both are Al alloy. My Radical toes and Speed Turn 2.0 toes have held up fine.

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.

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.

---

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 field

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

It's good to get that feedback from users like you who've skied other alloy toe bindings in the field

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevino

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 Driver

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.

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...

---

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 Lindahl

That toe cracked right at the screw hole. I remember wondering if maybe the screw was overtorqued causing stress damage in that area.

---

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 hole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

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...

---

It wasn't the 2.0 that cracked.
It was the red one. version 1.

jesus. read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TG

It wasn't the 2.0 that cracked.
It was the red one. version 1.

jesus. read.

---

True - I mispoke - but as discussed, the toe piece design is exactly the same. This is the genesis of this entire discussion on Page 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinch

Or under torqued

---

yup more likely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

How so? I don't really have any major complaints about the first gen heels.

---

I can skin flat with 2.0. The U shaped heel pins don't allow for any slop, like i had with the first gen. And also, it hasn't exploded like my buddy's first gen. All anecdotal evidence of course, but it works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinch

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 hole

---

well how many people check all the fasteners on their skis/boots/bindings on a regular basis, I'm pretty sure a lot of equipment breaks due to loose fasteners so I check fasteners at least once at the beginning of the season or any time the skis are on the bench

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

well how many people check all the fasteners on their skis/boots/bindings on a regular basis, I'm pretty sure a lot of equipment breaks due to loose fasteners so I check fasteners at least once at the beginning of the season or any time the skis are on the bench

---

Yup. I've been meaning to check the bf machine screws in my dynafits the last 6 or 7 days out. I guess I should do that tonight. I'll forget in 5

Bump for joining this lil club. Soon will be mounting on BMT 109s. This discussion was helpful, as were these:

http://skimo.co/dynafit-superlite-2-bindings

http://skimo.co/compare-race-bindings

http://skimo.co/tech-binding-hole-patterns

https://www.wildsnow.com/17837/dynaf...inding-skiing/

https://www.wildsnow.com/10733/get-u...for-your-ramp/

https://www.wildsnow.com/12762/volkl...strong-enough/

Speed Turn 2.0 is available for $192 (w/o VAT) from T-P. Very nice robust lightweight tech binding. Replace it with a B&D Comfort-style top plate and volcano for easier mode changes. With the retrofit it's my favorite tech binding of all time. (I make DIY Al alloy top plates and buy B&D volcanoes.) 1/4" (6.35mm) HDPE shim under toe gets the ramp delta just right for me. You can get the RA even flatter with 3/8" HDPE. If you're in the area, I have lots of HDPE stock in both sizes. I'll also make Comfort-style top plates in exchange for a decent bottle of red wine.

I like the Speed Turn as well, Steve. Trying something new and sexy with the Superlite 😁.

I still want a tour of your shop.

Plan for a stop by en route to May T-way tours bro

Will do. Should be an awesome season up there. 🎸🎸

I'm thinking of the Superlite 2.0 or the ATK Haute Route/Race Tour. Any thoughts?
Thiking of modding the lifter on Superlite if I get it so I guess something for the ATK as well if I get it. Can't say that I understand the lifters you can buy extra to the ATK, how do they fit? http://www.atkrace.it/categoria-prod...ories/?lang=en

I think the superlite 2.0 is unnecessary. Too much durability is sacrificed for the sake of adjustable release. There are about 10 bindings out there that are lighter and more durable, with fixed release. I don't think I have ever once adjusted my release value on any binding once it's set. I've been skiing plum race heels and I've never felt like I was missing out on anything but weight, and I'd rather not have any more of that.

Yeah, I'd rather have additional riser height options over an adjustable release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climber Joe

I think the superlite 2.0 is unnecessary. Too much durability is sacrificed for the sake of adjustable release. There are about 10 bindings out there that are lighter and more durable, with fixed release. I don't think I have ever once adjusted my release value on any binding once it's set. I've been skiing plum race heels and I've never felt like I was missing out on anything but weight, and I'd rather not have any more of that.

---

What bindings are "lighter and more durable" that feature 1) flat + riser 1 + riser 2 and 2) RV > 10? Agree re adjustable release: set it and forget it. But it's the risers that are tough to find, IMO.

I know of: ATK SLR Release, SSL 2.0, Kreuzspitze GT (durability questionable).

If you can live without the high riser your options open up considerably... Ski Trab Gara Titans have an RV ~11 or so, flat + 1 riser, something like 115g. ATK has something similar (whatever skimo.co brands as the Hagan ZR / Movement Light Tech) with apparently even greater retention.

I guess the higher risers put more weird pressure on the binding / these bindings have traditionally been marketed to rando racers who never change riser positions anyway? I will say anecdotally, despite fully acknowledging the usefulness of the high riser, I have not missed it on my Gara Titans... flat mode however I could not live without, for extended ingress/egress on snow-covered driving roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

What bindings are "lighter and more durable" that feature 1) flat + riser 1 + riser 2 and 2) RV > 10? Agree re adjustable release: set it and forget it. But it's the risers that are tough to find, IMO.

I know of: ATK SLR Release, SSL 2.0, Kreuzspitze GT (durability questionable).

---

So I just bought the ATK RT Race Tour and I want a high riser. I can't decide if I want the highest one so I have to turn the binding every time or if I want the high flip raiser.
Any advice?
The flip raiser is used as a high raiser when having the binding twisted and covers the pins like a race cover do if you want to do a quick change with no twisting of the heel.
http://www.atkrace.it/collezione-pro...aiser/?lang=en

With this one you have to turn the heel every time but you get a higher raiser.
http://www.atkrace.it/collezione-pro...aiser/?lang=en

^^First of all, I didn't realize ATK offered those riser adjustments, so that's cool. I wish the ATK site was easier to understand what the heel-toe delta and riser heights for each binding were, and which accessories worked with which bindings. Actually, I really just wish skimo.co carried them.

To answer your question, I'm no expert, and it really comes down to personal preference. The 1st one is 15 mm higher and the second one is 22 mm higher than the current riser height. If it were me, I would do some measuring to determine the total current heel-toe delta of my current tech setup in the middle and highest riser position, and decide if I could realistically be happy with the 15 mm one. But the inconvenience of having to twist is negligible if you really like having the 22 mm height. And it says in the description that you can twist with your pole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LawndartGustav

So I just bought the ATK RT Race Tour and I want a high riser. I can't decide if I want the highest one so I have to turn the binding every time or if I want the high flip raiser.
Any advice?
The flip raiser is used as a high raiser when having the binding twisted and covers the pins like a race cover do if you want to do a quick change with no twisting of the heel.
http://www.atkrace.it/collezione-pro...aiser/?lang=en

With this one you have to turn the heel every time but you get a higher raiser.
http://www.atkrace.it/collezione-pro...aiser/?lang=en

---

Looks like the high riser has a hole so you can rotate it with your pole. The problem with the other one (as I understand it's function) is that you lose the lower riser which I would use about 98% more than the high one. IMO the best thing to do with high risers is not use them until you don't miss them. The exception would be if I tended to ski in places (like Utah) with (stupid) steep skin tracks heading straight up from the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

The problem with the other one (as I understand it's function) is that you lose the lower riser

---

I don't think that's the case. It even says:
Height 1: 0 mm
Height 2: 15 mm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

I don't think that's the case. It even says:
Height 1: 0 mm
Height 2: 15 mm

---

Yeah, flat and 15mm if the heel unit is spun backwards? The riser only has one flap. I'd prefer the AL02 for usage with ski pole.

Video of the AL04 riser flap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMLW-CufzQ

^^Exactly. The listed heights are what's added to the general first riser height.

But frankly, I think manipulating risers with a pole basket can be tougher than turning them with a pole tip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

^^Exactly. The listed heights are what's added to the general first riser height.

But frankly, I think manipulating risers with a pole basket can be tougher than turning them with a pole tip.

---

Very true! It's more the quick use of it when you don't rotate the heel that had me interested but I think you might have me convinced now =)

auvgeek and I mounted his superlight 2.0's yesterday. Getting two OCD types in the same room must be hilarious to the outside observer.

Dawson's template is WAY off in terms of heel location for correct tech gap - as in interference fit instead of a 5.5mm tech gap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Mount the toes - they're just the radical 1.0 pattern. Click the boot in. Insert the heel pins into the boot at appropriate depth. Make sure the heel is squared off to the ski center. Then mark the rear heel holes, then remove the boot and mark the front heel holes. Drill and mount heelpiece. Done.

---

This is a good technique for this mount. The only challenge with lies in marking the heel holes accurately. There's not a lot of working space there.

I drew a template up for the binding. As long as you print at 1:1, you should be good to go - must measure the 4.0" by 4.0" box to ensure you've printed to scale.

Due to lack of heel adjustment and how differently people mark the heel line (I observed about a 1mm difference between how auvgeek and I approach it), a test mount on a 2x4 is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED.

Here's the link to the template: http://galibierdesign.com/images/other_forums/Template_Superlight-2.0_Thom.pdf


Edit (April 5, 2018):

auvgeek and I adopted a different technique for locating the heel.
We're using a carpenter's square to line up the heel (ledge) instead of scribing a line at the base of the heel. With sole wear and such (combined with the precision required for these heels) for this seems to be a more consistent approach. As always, do a test mount.

I uploaded a revised copy of the template to reflect this.

... Thom

^^Thanks, Thom. You really went above and beyond to help me out with the mount. I think we both learned some different mounting techniques, which was neat. Excited to ski them.

In the way Thom drew the template, you mount the toe by drawing a line 1/2 of your boot sole length forward from the mount point and mounting on the "toe" line (not pin line). You then drop the boot into the heel and mark the length of the actual boot on the ski, and that is the "heel" line. As Thom said above, this may be off by a mm or so (but hopefully consistently); a practice mount on a 2x4 is highly recommended to ensure you're happy with the template spacing. I mounted them on some relatively stiff skis, so I decided to err on the side of small rather than larger heel gap. I think we ended up at about 5.25 mm instead of the Dynafit recommended 5.5 mm heel gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by auvgeek

^^Thanks, Thom. You really went above and beyond to help me out with the mount. I think we both learned some different mounting techniques, which was neat. Excited to ski them.

In the way Thom drew the template, you mount the toe by drawing a line 1/2 of your boot sole length forward from the mount point and mounting on the "toe" line (not pin line). You then drop the boot into the heel and mark the length of the actual boot on the ski, and that is the "heel" line. As Thom said above, this may be off by a mm or so (but hopefully consistently); a practice mount on a 2x4 is highly recommended to ensure you're happy with the template spacing. I mounted them on some relatively stiff skis, so I decided to err on the side of small rather than larger heel gap. I think we ended up at about 5.25 mm instead of the Dynafit recommended 5.5 mm heel gap.

---

You're welcome! I had fun. It's one of the most adventurous mounts I've done ... mostly due to the fact that we're both so OCD (NTTAWTT). When one of us had a brain fart, the other one picked up the baton.

I definitely simplified my "find and verify the center" technique in working with you.

Now, if Dynafit would only adopt counterbored (instead of countersunk) toe holes as Fritschi has done, finagling the toe alignment would be so much more effective.

Both of our past experiences have shown that a perfect mount will be foiled by sample to sample variance in boots (and even between left and right boot) - mandating the finagling of toe alignment ... nearly EVERY time. Both of us mark our left and right ski for this reason.

How many "pre" releases are due to misaligned toes - either due to an imprecise mount or from not maintaining a consistent left and right ski (before you take pin cup icing into account)?

I debated leaving the pin-line window (box) out of the drawing, fearing that it would confuse matters. Since the intended user of this binding has a sophisticated experience level, I left it in so they could choose either one.

I never trusted templates that mimic a shop jig - with markings intended to reference from the boot center mark on the ski.

The boot is right in front of you to tell you how long it is. Why not just measure it to verify against the stamped length and plot everything out from your chosen boot center on the ski? We've learned with the Dalbello Lupo Ti ID's length was mis-marked in the standard location and correctly marked in a different place on the boot.

... Thom

See post #74. We made a minor revision to our mounting approach for the heel and uploaded a new copy of the template. Do I need to repeat that a test mount is in order :biggrin:

... Thom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un

Do I need to repeat that a test mount is in order :biggrin:

... Thom

---

Well, I've got a couple sets of SSL 2.0 heel pieces to mount...

I have the B&D adjustment plates that make the heel pattern the same as a Speed Turn/ Speed Radical, and add 9.6mm of fore/after adjustment (thanks truax). Anyone know if mounting with a Speed Radical template would put me in the middle of the adjustment range? Should I just try it and post the results?

Mounting might have to wait :(

Attachment 231353

Attachment 231354