Dynafit speed superlite 2.0

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

Something broken? Not seeing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Something broken? Not seeing it

---

Crack through the metal by a screw hole, i.e. halfway to this problem:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiitsbetter

Attachment 196414

check your toes around the screw holes. Glad this didn't happen on something steep. just skating out at the end of the day. other toe has cracks on the screw holes. Out of warranty :mad:

---

Edit with big red arrows:

Attachment 231355

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mall walker

that is terrifying. how old are those?

---

Great question! Just purchased from truax on Gear Swap. I don't mean to smear the guy, since he probably had no idea the crack was there, but he probably knows how old they are.

Arrived broken? Sharks in the water

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norseman

Arrived broken?

---

yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toddball

yup

---

Are there cracks on the other hole in front too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

Are there cracks on the other hole in front too?

---

The other toe has a crack in the same location (forward side of the right rear screw hole) that hasn't made it all the way down to the base of the binding. Don't see any other cracks.

Toe #2

Attachment 231373

Toe #1, from a more obvious angle

Attachment 231374

Ok. Good to be reminded of that potential failure mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

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

---

Let's get the tools out and party!

... Thom

How are folks feeling about the 2.0 after some longer term testing. Thinking about putting these on my 112 waist powder skis. Liking the idea of a lightweight binding with brakes. Other bindings I should be considering for small airs and fastish skiing? 6'0" 170lbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skialpy

How are folks feeling about the 2.0 after some longer term testing. Thinking about putting these on my 112 waist powder skis. Liking the idea of a lightweight binding with brakes. Other bindings I should be considering for small airs and fastish skiing?

---

I've got 2.5 pairs (one has radical toes) with plenty of use. Best bindings I even had. There is some side to side play on the lifters on my most well used pair (around 100 days) but I don't notice it and they've never flipped between modes on their own. The other two pairs are still tight.

I've run one pair with brakes. Those work too.

I've had the "unofficial" flat mode autorotate into downhill mode once in all those days, which is a far better track record than many bindings I've owned with an official flat mode. They ski better than older Verticals and Radicals (less wiggle in the heel). More like a Plum Guide without the ridiculous ramp angle.

I keep checking the toes for cracks, but they haven't appeared yet. .

I've successfully skied a pair of SSL 2.0s in the spring for 3+ years without issue. That being said, I'd lean towards something more like the ATK RT10 for mid-winter touring, especially if jumping cliffs is part of the equation. I'm a big fan of heel elasticity for safety reasons too.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Anyone still ski these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTPOW

Anyone still ski these?

---

I've got 2 sets that get regular use. One set with leashes on a 124mm pow ski and a set with brakes on 99mm skis. Speed radical toes, Superlite 2.0 heels on top of B&D adjustment plates.

<p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTPOW

Anyone still ski these?

---

</p>
<p>
Yep. Have a pair mounted to BD Helio 105&#39;s. Very light setup for going uphill quickly and/or often. Ski well for what they are. Ramp angle doesn&#39;t bother me.</p>

I also still ski these but with B&D adjustment plates to fit Speed Radical heel mount pattern. I think it's still a solid option for a heel and has aged well. They ski very well - less lateral wiggle/play than a Speed Radical, still has adjustable lateral RV. For fat skis, definitely use a Speed Radical toe instead of the SSL toes. The SSL toes can develop cracks so they are best on skinny skis.