Yep same as the trofeo.
Printable View
Yep same as the trofeo.
Also, the delta numbers you posted are from the ski deck. Many (all of my) skis are thinner (on vertical axis) at the heel than at the toe. If you want to sync up all your skis, the better way to measure delta is from the ski base, which will usually result in lower delta numbers than those posted on skimo or Wildsnow. All my touring skis are 2-3mm thinner at the heel than toe and all have Turn or Turn 2.0 bindings. I shim the toes with 1/4" (6.35mm) HDPE stock. The combo results in ramp delta measured from ski base at around 7-8mm on all my touring skis, which works fine for me. YMMV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
To further confuse things: The same ramp delta will result in more ramp angle for a shorter boot, less ramp angle for a longer boot. Also, internal boot ramp angle varies from brand to brand and sometimes model to model.
Interesting. I'll measure tonight. Wonder if the difference will be noticeable with a tape measure or if I'd need calipers.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeezerSteve
Also interesting about the difference between stack height (delta) and the ramp angles. I guess the one blessing in having Clydesdale feet is the distance from toe to heel mitigates the ramp angle.
I hadn't looked up Tecton ramp since I received mine. 10mm. I hadn't looked them up because I hadn't given them a second thought.
Coincidentally, that's a similar angle to my old Verticals shimmed with a DynaDuke toe (should be ~9mm after shimming). Using the same 27.5 Scarpa Maestrale RS. I hated the ramp angle of the unshimmed Verticals using the Maestrales.
ATK Crest 280 bindings
I measured this at 286g for a half pair including 102mm brakes, 311g including screws and crampon attachment (removable 7g).
Attachment 258559
Made of Aluminum and Steel
Fully and independently adjustable lateral and vertical retention settings DIN 5-10 (no u-spring!)
4mm gap + 5mm forward travel (Elastic Response System)
20mm of BSL adjustment
Precision bomber construction
Flat + 2 heel elevator settings
Nothing else has the combination of forward travel, underfoot brakes, and infinite/independent release adjustment for its weight range.
They are basically inbetween a BD Helio 200 (aka ATK Haute Route 2.0) and the Hagan Core 12 (aka ATK Raider 12). They should offer the downhill performance of a Core 12 (at DIN 10) at a few grams less weight than the Hagan Ride 10 (aka ATK RT 2.0). Vs the Ride/RT, the Crest is slightly lighter while gaining the smoothness/retention of 4mm "elastic" forward travel and has underboot brakes for better power transfer while sacrificing the touring mode retention adjust and 10mm of BSL adjustment (30mm vs 20mm).
Crest 280 are new this year. Hagan Mountaineering is happy to import these for you otherwise you must order direct from Europe shop that ships transatlantic.
These were exactly what I wanted for my 99mm underfoot patterned bases from Voile (Hyper V6 BC) which are soft and have camber, as I need the pin gap 4mm to float for decambering in touring plus 4mm more of forward travel for skiing and dampness. I didn't think the Marker Alpinist would have sufficed for flex on this soft cambered ski and the Zed would have added notable weight, so my next choice would have been the Hagan Core 12 without a doubt, particularly if I wanted DIN 12 and some extra length adjustability + more riser settings.
Just mentioning this, but one of the really cool features of the ATK Rader/Hagen Core is the way the front brakes work so well.
It is pretty cool. However, underboot brakes can help with power transferQuote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
True, but they do have the "freeride spacer" for that same spot to give that solid feel. I didn't order it because it screws into the ski, (I thought it clamped on the binding somehow.) Now that I have a gazillion days on them, I'm not sure how much difference they'd make, as they feel so much more solid then my Dynafits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
1) I haven’t seen anyone other than 1 (random) person claim improved power transfer from brakes or a freeride spacer. I’d hold off on tooting that horn right now - its a bit premature. Its a lot of speculation at this point. The theory makes a bit sense, but it hasn’t been vetted.
2) I’ve skied a lot of bindings with forward travel (what some of you are erroneously calling forward pressure), and can’t say that it does anything with respect to ‘smoothness’ in how a binding feels in rough snow (for example, I felt that the ION is one of the harshest bindings). Anyone that says otherwise I’d take that opinion with a grain of salt until you try it yourself. It DOES help with retention however.
3) The brakes with adjustable baseplate on the ATK Crest are available as an aftermarket piece, weigh (supposedly) 80 grams each. They work on the entire family of ATK/Helio/Hagan bindings, which is pretty cool.
https://www.atkbindings.com/en/prodo...i-brake-80-gr/
bigger the feet, bigger the meatQuote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
Lindahl - can you drop some knowledge on everyone re forward travel vs forward pressure? Purpose, retention, ski feel, binders that have one the other or both, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
don't talk about my cock like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeezerSteve
I believe I've felt a difference, but it is hard to say because I've only compared across binding/ski combos and not back to back. However, I'm certain when I blew heel pins on a huck, that transferring energy through brakes or a spacer would have likely saved the pins. Or another pair of Dynafits where the pins blew through the top of the Scarpa boot heel, I'd rather have that energy transfered to the ski. I deduce the same transfer might help my skiing when nondestructive forces are involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
Forward travel (which is spring loaded) should theoretically supply some damping in its course of supporting expected release characteristics. You could call it elastic travel in ski flex but you'd rightly say that is a slight abuse of the term, but it does communicate the message. As I have not A-Bd underboot support for power transfer on the same binding model, I suspect you have not A-Bd the Ion with a binding that was identical except that it relied solely on a pin gap instead of forward travel? Sam Shaheen credited the forward travel of the Marker Alpinist to dampness in his Blister gear review.Quote:
2) I’ve skied a lot of bindings with forward travel (what some of you are erroneously calling forward pressure), and can’t say that it does anything with respect to ‘smoothness’ in how a binding feels in rough snow (for example, I felt that the ION is one of the harshest bindings). Anyone that says otherwise I’d take that opinion with a grain of salt until you try it yourself. It DOES help with retention however.
@margotron here is how forward travel assists with retention:
When the ski decambers the straight line distance between the front and rear binding screws decreases slightly. If you have a heel gap on the pins like most tech bindings, the pins simply go further into the boot heel inserts to compensate for the distance. You can only have so much heel gap (or the pins hit the boot). So, if instead (Zed/Ion/Tecton/Vipec) or in addition (some ATKs) you have a spring loaded track that moves the binding heel back when pressured, this is "forward travel." On alpine bindings you also have "forward pressure" by applying preload to that spring so that when the ski gains extra "camber" in rebound (think in a hop turn) and the front and rear screws move farther away from each other, then the binding heel can move forward for consistency, but in tech bindings forward pressure is not used because modern heel pins compensate (they are usually long enough not to come out of the heel fitting except in extreme circumstance) and the boot is fixed to the binding at the toe, unlike in an alpine binding. (That is why vipecs/tectons/ions/zeds have no heel pin gap, but also have no extra pressure applied).
At a certain point, though, you could experience prerelease or inappropriate retention by too much decambering of the ski because the boot heel will bind and push against the binding heel causing it to bind or turn depending on design. Similarly, you can get a prerelease by too much temporary camber on rebound of loading ski causing the heel pins to to come out of the rear fitting which was a problem with older tech bindings like the Comfort which had shorter pins.
Dunno if I am that random person, but I based my claim on a boot in a speed radical on my workbench, where I could move the boot laterally quite a bit before the movement was transferred to the ski. I then installed ATK spacers and the this 'play' was gone. Again, on the workbench. So in that sense you are right that it is theoretical, although it did practically eliminate some slop. Did I feel a massive difference on snow? Can't really say I did. But I try to avoid skiing speed-rads inbounds, where I think one would notice the biggest change (i.e. edge to edge changes on a smooth groomer).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
I tend to think forward travel has little to do with why Ions, for example, ski better than Verticals or Radicals. Ions have less rotational play at the heel than Verticals and similar Dynafit bindings (and I'm not referring to increased play that develops as thimble bushings wear). If you grab Vertical or Radical 1.0 heel piece and wiggle it from side to side you will notice that you can move it with less effort than an Ion, Plum Guide or SSL 2.0 heel piece. I'm not talking full rotations, just a few degrees from side to side.
Bindings with less play feel more connected to the ski in certain types of turns on certain snow. It is subtle, but I noticed an increase in connectedness when switching bindings (on the same pair of skis) from Comforts to Plum Guides and from Speed Radicals to SSL 2.0's and Plum Race. I remember Marshall Olson years ago saying Plum Guides ski better than Verticals, and I thought it was BS since the former is essentially a copy of the latter. But he was right. Some folks may not notice this because of the way they ski, or they may not care. I liken it to switching from Dukes to, say, P18's. Some people will find little difference while others will notice a significant improvement, whether because of stack height or the way the Duke plate changes how a ski flexes.
I think the benefit of the spring loaded tech heel is real, but it lies in preventing a particular type of prerelease as described by Summit above. If you are a large human, tend to land hard off airs, or tour on soft-underfoot skis, you are more likely to benefit from forward travel. It's a bit like how some folks can force open lightly sprung tech toes on a hard turn, while others, even folks who weigh over 200 lbs., never have this issue.
Regarding SSL toe breakage: There are a lot of these toes out there, not only on SSL's and SSL 2's, but on variety if race bindings as well. And they've been around for a while. If it was a common problem we'd hear more about it. I certainly check mine regularly though.
For the record: I wasn't trying to fear-monger, and I wasn't saying don't use the SSL 2.0. I was just saying *IF* you are concerned about it, it's easy to purchase SSL 2.0 heels and speed rad toes separately from skimo.co for about the same price as the SSL 2.0 with not much weight penalty. Frankly, the SSL 2.0 heel isn't that light so a few more grams at the toe doesn't bother me much. YMMV.Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
Yup. I was just making it clear that those toes aren't as fatally flawed as Kingpin toes, OG Plum toes, or Radical 1.0 heels.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
I actually have a Radical Toe, SSL 2.0 heel w/brakes Franken-binding, as well as 2 full pairs of SSL 2.0's I run brakeless. I put the Franken-binding on Zero G 108's which i ski pretty hard in funky condition, while the full SSL 2.0's are on some skinny, ultralight sticks and a pair of pow-touring skis which tend to see less in the way of impacts.
If I were the sort of person who breaks lots of ski gear, I would avoid the lighter toe altogether, because, why not? I think the weight penalty is 60 grams.
I’m pretty sure it was someone else - a low post count non-regular.Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth operator
It sounds like you have another definition of power transfer. By power transfer, I mean how much energy you can load up into the flex of a ski. As we’ve written, the Tecton and Kingpin are noticeably better here on firm snow.
What you’re talking about on the workbench MIGHT translate to a less vague feeling in the heel, but we really don’t know.
I designed some 3D printed stomp blocks a couple years ago, but have since sold the setup. I was skiing a lot on the volcanoes then, and the block also served as a low riser for long sloggy slopes. I put inserts in the ski for easy block removal.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2821/...93f7f9bb_c.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2851/...9207d25e_c.jpg
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2931/...13104853_c.jpg
I noticed a more solid feel, even with the Speed Turn heel, which is of course designed to take pins-only forces. The boot just touched the block when clicked in. Probably made the lateral release less safe... shrug. They are probably minimally useful except for the hard-chargers. I liked them enough to run them all the time.
Nice rig. Sorry for the thread drift, but what bindings are those? Trying to source a manual as a friend just sent me a pair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Those are speed turn heels. The most inexpensive tech binding you can get it seems. And one of the most tested and reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
Put brakes back on all my dynafits about 4 yrs ago and havent had a pre-release at the heel to insta-tele mode since. They *feel* more secure.
I have recently mounted Zeds that I haven't skied on yet. The lateral tension on the heel piece doesn't seem to change when I adjust the DIN level. Feels like a lot of slop when I turn them side to side by hand. Am I thinking wrong about how it's supposed to work? Is it supposed to be a progressive spring tension or something? Or maybe there's a second adjustment that I'm missing? Unless I missed, the manual didn't indicate a second adjustment screw. Out of the box they were both set at 9 or 10, which seemed odd to me. I'm old and have big feet and bad knees, so I usually aim more for the 6.5 to 7.5 range.
Agreed... prefer something underfoot. Plus leashes are fucking annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
Zeds only have one adjustment I believe -- and it adjust both vertical and lateral simultaneously.
Yup, yup and yup. Norseman's pic is of >2018 Speed Turn heel. Starting sometime in 2017, Speed Turn 2.0 heels started coming with a black top plate with no button hole. The black top plate is a bit lighter and much easier to change modes with a ski pole. For older Turn heels, a B&D top plate + Comfort-style volcano is a worthy upgrade if you want to switch modes with your ski pole. (FWIW, for my older Turn and TLT Speed heels I fab my own Al alloy top plates for use with B&D Comfort-style volcanoes.:Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Pic of newer Turn 2.0 heel with black top plate:
https://www.skimo.co/image/data/dyna...urn-2-heel.jpg
If only Dynafit would sell a pairing of the radical toe (ideally with the gen 1 baseplate) and the speed turn heel w/ volcano.
What's wrong with the Speed Turn 2.0 toe? They work fine for me, surely better than old 5-screw toes. Do you like the bumpers?Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Agree re volcano, although the new black top plate switches modes fine with a ski pole. Nice improvement.
Nothing is wrong, but the bumpers are nice for ease of use and theoretically could prevent some types of pre-release.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeezerSteve
Do you know if the black top plate is backwards compatible with previous versions on the speed turn 2.0 heel (and if you can buy it separately)? Seems like Dynafit loves to tweak screw patterns...Quote:
Originally Posted by GeezerSteve
I don't mind the silver version but my wife is bound to stab me with a ski pole at some point when she has to tour on her skinny sticks with the old-style binding, she can't rotate them to save her life.
sorry I lol’dQuote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
I like the B&D ones — comfort plates + volcanos. Much easier to rotate. Direct replacement for the silver ones. My wife has them on her skis. Haven’t tried the new black ones, tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
https://skimo.co/bnd-binding-parts
Top plate screw patterns are the same for TLT Speed, Speed Radical, Comfort, Vert, Turn, Turn 2.0, Classic and TriStep heels. I have no clue if the new black top plates are available. Maybe check Skimo.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Boissal
Yup, B&D Comfort top plate/volcano combo fits Turn, Turn 2.0 and TLT Speed heels. Have you tried the new Turn 2.0 black top plate? IME, they rotate with ski pole pretty well and there's no risk of volcano screws loosening. (IME, B&D volcano screws kinda suck.)Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
No I haven't. I use SSL 2.0 heels exclusively at the moment. Haven't used the B&D top plate or volcano either, so good to know re screws loosening. And I'd prolly choose the Sally MTN or something lighter over the Turn 2.0 in the future. I'll take your word for it, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeezerSteve
Yeah, I may move to MTN if and when our Turn and Speed (hers -- I'm too big for flippers) setups shit the bed, although I don't see that happening soon. I replaced the pistons in one set of Turn heels last year and they function like new.
I've done the same to my speed turns.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
I used to only use speed turns and comforts, but I have to say I'm thoroughly happy with the Salomon MTN's I picked up last year and they are an improvement to me.
https://www.wildsnow.com/bindings/dy...ch-skiing-faq/Quote:
Originally Posted by hafjell
this ^^ should answer all yer questions but there isnt really much to know, the big aluminium screw sets lateral release, the little screw sets vertical release and you need to set heel gap
I set my lateral at about the same value as my DIN on alpine bindings, I set the vertical 1 higher than the lateral (or i step out on dips and G outs) I use the dynafit guage for the gap or I think its 3 American nickels between heel and binding
Some people broke the plastic towers on the Verts, I think they were trying to lever as oposed to rotating the heel piece but otherwise the design was bomber so I still have a couple pair of Verticals I plan to stick with (and a RAD1 that I don't trust), leashes ARE annoying and I went back to brakes on all 3 setups
IME you can really freak the guide out when you thro your ski down at the top of an exposed steep if he is not familiar with that 6' long B&D leash
I'm also a previous toe-shimmed speed turn 2.0 regular user. A tried and true setup. Arguably the best $$-to-weight-to-reliability on the market until recently. Or maybe still.
The last few years I've gone mainly to a non-shimmed speed rad toe and kreuzspitze sctt heels w/14mm adjustment plates. And then the Solly MTN/Atomic Backland came into my life.
While I still have the dyna/kreuz mashup for their simple, bomber, lightweight, and low ramp properties, the MTN has impressed me tremendously. Race binding functionality (flipper over heel fork) with a flat mode and a second riser, all while having a toe that *most* can tour uphill with unlocked. All at ~290g or less. Not to mention that the plastic heel base is not needed and drops a few grams as well as about 1.5-2mm of ramp. It also has a wider mount pattern than the Speed Rad/Turn, which in theory allows for a stronger mount with greater power transfer from binding to ski (please correct me if my understanding of physics is misguided here). If I were to start from scratch today, I think that the MTN/Backland could easily be on everything but a race-like ski for me. While I do not have long term use with the MTN like I do with the aforementioned clamps, I can say that my initial impressions are very good.
Anyway, I think this was a longwinded way of saying that quality, LW ski touring binding options are becoming most abundant. Praise Jah.
Is there a better source for screws for these bindings than Skimo Co?
I wouldn't call them better, but Binding Freedom and Slidewright might get you there. Options for pozidrive screws suitable for binding mounting are seriously limited in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by hafjell