Lee - It looks like you've tried them with a beast-heel-spur equipped boot. Any issues with that?
Printable View
Lee - It looks like you've tried them with a beast-heel-spur equipped boot. Any issues with that?
None. Same setup as with other boots. G3 heel must just touch the back end of whatever boot you have. I also tried them with Tecnica Cochise 120 boots which didn't have the Beast fitting but are amazing performers. The Beasts feel like an alpine binding. Ion feels less twitchy then regular tech bindings with heel gap (ie think rattly) but not as solid alpine-feeling as Beasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Judo Chop!
I had a chance to try these bindings on the G3 Synapse 109 and liked it. Comparing to the Radical ST they feel more solid, especially stepping in the toe, it seems to clamp onto the boot with more force. There's not really much need to lock the toe for easy/moderate climbs, it takes quite a bit more twisting force to lever out of the toe piece compared to the ST. They have a more secure feel riding the resort runs than the ST. The toe lever is big/easy to grab onto and also solid feeling.
The heel piece works well with the twist-either-way tour mode, and easy return to ski mode with a boot kick or smack with a ski pole. The brakes staying deployed until ready to step in is a nice feature after de-skinning on a slippery slope. The heel lifters are easy enough to hook'n'flip with the pole. The pair I used was a bit sticky flipping them over, they weren't as light/snappy as the ST, but maybe with some time, or lube, they'd be better, but they were still ok. Forward pressure is a great feature. Overall, seems G3 did a good job with this binding.
How did that synapse ski?
Synapse was good fun in anything soft/deep/untracked. Very lightweight, easy to move around, semi-soft flex, but still lively (I'm 200lbs), reverse camber, very pivoty, super easy short turns, good med/long turns on edge to avoid feeling too loose at higher speeds. They kinda felt like Vectors but sportier, surfier and more fun in deeper, steeper, tighter places.
One day BC, one day at the resort. At the resort, by mid afternoon the deep, soft snow was sun-roasted, tracked and getting heavy, the skis still handled it well enough for slower, shorter turns, but were getting knocked around a bit, at speed it took some paying attention and getting tiring to keep them under control. The last few runs, I switched back to my Infidels, narrower, same camber, more weight/ramming speed, stiffer... all was good again, it felt like a fresh start to the day.
G3 also has the Synapse 101, which is similar, obviously narrower but with camber underfoot. I didn't try it but seems like it'd be more versatile and not so pivoty/loose feeling. Reverse camber is fun and all, but I like a bit more edge contact in the BC, which is where these lightweights work best anyway.
Has anyone here received one of these yet? I have one on order from a local retailer to go along with my new skis, and they got them in stock a couple of weeks ago. They haven't shipped them out to me yet however because they say there is something missing in the boxes; a plate that's supposed to go under the binding to protect the spring mechanism from snow and ice. They say they're awaiting an answer from G3. I'm wondering if this is global, or just something that has affected one shipment of bindings. It's really damn annoying either way.
Maybe this is in this thread somewhere...but does anyone know how much travel the "forward pressure" spring has on the ion? 10mm? It looks like the dynafit radical 2.0 is also mounted with basically no tech gap and has 10mm travel in the heal unit. Wondering how the Ion compares.
Wildsnow said the Ion spring was 6mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by garuda
I wonder if the boot stop guide things can be removed. It would be nice to lighten these up a little.
I'm pretty much sold on these. Mainly for the snow clearing channel under the toe. That's my one major gripe with my verticals. having a little 'elasticity' doesn't sound bad either.
IONs have a flatter ramp angle as well, don't they (thanks to the clearing channel under the springs?)
anyone have a comparison of Ion max heel lifter height vs dynafit vertical or radical? i have 29.0 boots and that's been one of my complaints w/ the dynafits...the heel elevators are seemingly designed for small european feet.
Just an FYI, B & D makes heel lift extensions for verts and rads
CorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
Yep aware of that option...need to buy a new topplate to go w/ the tall volcano though for the Verticals. Was just curious on the G3 Ion elevator height since it doesn't seem to get mentioned by reviewers AFAIKQuote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
From the G3 Digital Catalog:Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
https://www.tetongravity.com/images/..._am__forum.png
To help with accuracy and confirmation of this G3 Template, from those who have mounted and tested G3 IONs, please provide:
-BSL (measured horizontally, NOT what's marked on the boot)? ________
-Distance from BSC to Pin Line? ________
-Distance from BSC to closest screw line for heel piece? ________
-Approximate location of heel relative to center of heel adjustment area? ________
http://www.slidewright.com/Bindings/G3_ION_Template.jpg
Measured ramp by WildSnow is 13mm so maybe not so neutral ramp after all? The specs are a bit misleading if this is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord
Oh - and anybody know if it can be used with the Beast heel fitting?
Ion pin delta is pretty high:
http://skimo.co/pin-heights
About the same as the final generations of the Speed/Classic, although less than all the current Dynafit touring models.
thx for the link to the table. generally speaking it seems most people (incl me) are happy with a 5 mm shim under the toepiece of the dynafits on that table that have an inherent delta of 15-16 mm. i.e. a pin delta of 10-11 mm feels about 'neutral' and similar to the mild ramp of a typical alpine setup. so I think the g3 Ion pin delta of 11 mm probably support their claim of "3 degrees (or 'neutral'), matches ski boot mfgers intended angle".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
The 13mm is the difference in pin heights on the pre-production model, that seems to be different than the pin heights listed in the skimo link that Jonathan provided. While comparing the Radical ST vs. the ION(production version for sale) the flatter ramp of the ION is easy to visualize without measuring and looks to be minimal like the specifications from G3 posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by superdigg
Interestingly that's quite different to the 5mm pin delta of the Onyx. Which I thought was pretty perfect.
Perhaps, but that still means most skiers don't know how much better they might ski with nearly zero pin delta (especially since that still imparts some binding delta because of the interface placement on the boot).Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
I would be nice to have an essentially flat pintech touring binding other that the Beast. I might shim the ION if I buy a pair, 5-6 mm would give a flat Delta I think.
Wild snow measured the Onyx pins as 12mm height difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knut
Its easy to change delta with a toe shim but on many boots its not always easy to change forward lean but the change in delta changes the forward lean SO is it about the delta or the change in forward lean ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan S.
They're all different.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
They interact with other of course, but ideally you want each one set, well, ideally.
I agree with you 100% ... ideally ;)
Would be cool if there was a program that you could put in your vital information (guessing leg bone length, foot size), the way you like to ski and the boot you have and it would spit out a ramp delta that works best. Myself I have been moving towards less cuff lean and less delta in my bindings over the last 5 or 6 years as I try to find a more neutral/relaxed/upright skiing posture. Just kind of guessing at things and how I want my skiing style to feel. Since changes often happen between seasons it is a bit difficult to tell the impact on my skiing. The other problem is that the gear has improved so much (big part of the reason for changing body posture) that that as well makes comparisons difficult.
Thread drift I know, but since doing yoga I pay more attention to these things and it all seems a bit vague in terms of real information.
I think starting with a flat delta angle would benefit most people and that should be the starting point. I think one of the reasons that STH/FFG and LOOK/Rossi(some) are popular is that they have flatter delta angles and they "feel" more natural when skiing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cat in january
My bad, I confused PIN delta with ramp angle (with the latter being the only valuable information for the user, imo)Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildsnow
Delta of the boot soles front-to-heel: yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Delta of the pins: no!
(the toe pins are considerably lower in the boot than the heel pins. A zero pin delta would result in a negative sole ramp. --Which would probably still result in a positive foot ramp, given that most ski boots have a considerable sole ramp angle in the inner sole themselves. But that's alright and what we generally want.)
A pin delta of around 10 mm is in my eyes optimal and results in just a minimal sole ramp like most alpine binders have it. The beast with 8 mm pin delta results basically in a flat shoe position on the ski.
I agree that ramp angle is the valuable information but pin delta is the only thing you can measure without bringing a whole lot of other factors into play. Ramp angle is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knut
Since ski thickness and boots are different I like the concept of pin delta as it gives me a possibility to compare for my gear.Code:Ski thickness toe + toe pin height + "front boot inserts" (inserts location, bootboard, liner etc)
-
Ski thickness heel + heel pin height + "boot heel inserts" (inserts location, bootboard, liner etc)
=
Ramp angle
As toe and heel insert hight are fairly standard (albeit not an ISO standard unfortunately), I think it's fair to use ramp delta, as it can be calculated by pin height.
Plus it allows a direct comparison with alpine and frame bindings.
Of course there are a few boots that vary. But weird variations do exist also for Alpine bindings (actually, the most odd candidates are generally performance/race touring boots in my experience) and it's more important to know which boots are odd. Because that knowledge is anyway needed, regardless whether pin height or binding ramp delta is being used. And it allows to compare with other binding systems.
Binding ramp delta is also independent of ski or boot.
Real ramp angle between the ground and your foot is a different thing, though and of course depends on the whole setup.
Ramp angle is most sensitive to BSL changes. Of course different types of boots with their foot bed ramp angles play a big role, too.
But I'd neglect ski thickness entirely. I don't know a single ski that differs significantly in thickness over the stretch where the binding will be mounted.
Ramp delta is the number that allows best cross-binder comparison. Period.
Ions for $399 at Campsaver using code blizzard20... Just picked up a pair.
Thanks, just ordered a pair. $400 shipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWskier
Whoa, not bad. This is making my credit card hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWskier
After ordering the IONs I had some time to kill while my daughter was at dance class and I went to the shop next door to check out the ION again. They are really nice when put next to Radical ST/FT, I don't really see any downside to these bindings over comparable offerings from Dynafit. Very easy to operate. I can't wait to try them on snow, I'm putting them on my older pair of Lhasa Pows.
Just saw a pair of ions mounted. One worked ok, the other one wouldn't stay open in the toe?
Maybe a bit early in the product development process?
Just mounted some today on Koomback 104's. Will report back after some days on em.
I'm sure Doug Koombs would approve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stowelen
:nonono2:
Did he know Shane McKonkey?Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit