Printable View
I did, and now I just re-read it. Folks just said they disliked the u-spring, but not why. Must be another thread. Anyhoo....Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Thanks Trog for the rando-view, and SFB for the comments on the Alpinist. Pretty much sold if I can squeeze another mount into these protests.
Circling back. Has anyone seen the Crest in person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I ski them. So does the wife. Good binding.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
My bad we ranted on about it in a different threadQuote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...-binding/page3
for me I would fall between ranges of a U-spring so do I ski slower on a medium U spring or put on 50lbs and use the heavy spring ?
and then I always set the vertical DIN 1 higher cuz it stops pre-release and I can't do that if seperate adjustment ( or any adjustment ? ) is not possible
SO, I would say some are into light weight at any cost, some are into pretty light with as much safety as the Tech design can offer ... do whatever works for you
IMHO, u-springs suffer three major problems, though most of them are (at least partially) alleviated in the new class of "speed touring" u-spring bindings:
1. Lack of adjustable release value (RV) aka DIN on an alpine binding. Race bindings have zero adjustability -- the RV is what it is. Speed touring binders have a different options for some form of adjustable release: some offer adjustable lateral release with fixed vertical release (Dynafit SSL), some offer different weight springs (MTN, ATK/BD Helio 145 ), etc. For some people, this lack of adjustable release is less safe. Others (like myself) use various explanations/rationalizations to make themselves think it's fine. Some take a SSL and dremel the U-spring until the vertical release is where they want it. Yikes.
2. Lack of riser heights. Race bindings have a single flap = one riser height. Speed touring bindings get pretty close to a classic tech binder with flat + 2 heights, though sometimes this requires rotating the heel by hand.
3. U-springs wear = slop. Again, more of a problem on race bindings with titanium u-springs, but steel wears out, too. Yes, you can replace the u-spring, but that kinda sucks to do. Though frankly, I'm not sure if this is worse than slop in the bsl adjustment worm screw...
In the other thread, Summit mentioned a research paper that concluded U-springs were less safe than non-U-springs, even when the RV was set perfectly. But I can't speak to that because I can't find the paper.
Personally, I'm really excited for the newest class of 200g - 300g non-U-spring options, mostly from ATK it seems. The BD Helio 200 (ATK Haute Route) without adjustment plate is 165g and features adjustable lateral and vertical release with 3 riser heights. The ATK Crest is 280g with integrated adjustment plate with forward travel to prevent pre-release due to ski flex and a brake. Really awesome at 280g. Unfortunately, neither of these options have been out that long and I don't know personally anyone who's opinion I trust who owns them.
And then we have this new 49g monstrosity from Dynafit:
Attachment 268900
https://skimo.co/dynafit-p49-bindings
Any concerns with them being so new? Think I could bend the brakes wider? I have eyes on a pair for $350Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
LOL. DyingQuote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
The Dynafit package for dental surgeons, not lowly dentists. $3300 w/ the batman slippers? WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Yeah, but you get a free pair of Batman slippers for that price ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinevibes
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
Thanks for the post auvgeek! What is the "auv" anyway?
FYI the ATK Haute Route, also known as the ATK RT with a race toe has been out for a very long time. I would consider it very well tested and reliable. Just because it has a new name and now being distributed by BD as of this year does not make it a new productQuote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
so what are the sub 300g options for heavy guys? mtn with the expert spring, tlt speed, superlite 2.0 what else? most of these bindings seem to specify an rv of 10 max. what would you pick if it needed to go to 11 or 12 and keep it under 300g?
I believe the MTN with an expert spring is supposed to be an RV of 11 or 12.
BUT I think smooth skiing becomes the biggest factor. I am 165 lbs and I've done a couple 15+ foot drops on my MTN's with the stock spring but that margin for error is much slimmer than burlier touring bindings. With no elastic travel at a certain weight, you will likely to blow out of a lighter binding in variable snow at inopportune times.
It might be worth looking at the Ion LT 12 which is heavier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickel
I ski both the g3 ion and the mtn, and i see or feel no difference in elasticity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
In the g3 there is a spring that supposedly keeps the heel flush against the boot, but it's very week so it really doesn't work like an alpine binding as far as elasticity is concerned.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
I don’t think the Ion will be significantly better but you can adjust the rv to ‘12’ whatever that really means and the toe piece is slightly burlier. I would still consider the Ion to have no real elastic travel.
The lightest bindings with ‘real’ elastic travel would be a Vipec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
No, I understand that BD just rebranded existing ATK bindings that have already been released. I had forgotten that the Haute Route was the same heel as the RT 2.0. But still, I thought that heel was in it's third season, which isn't new but isn't a "very long time" to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by timmaio
But frankly, you're correct: my view is biased because I don't know anyone who skis ATK bindings and they don't seem to have a big following here (either in NA or TGR-land) so they could have a whole slew of failures and I wouldn't really know about it. I'm excited for the BD distribution because then we might see widespread adoption, and I can get a better handle on their failure rate firsthand.
Lindahl was selling some ATK Raider 14 (OG, not the new version). Light and goes to 14. But yeah, not gonna ski like a Tecton.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickel
Have one day on them in rental boots and they were great. Not enough time to give an accurate assessment, but my limited experience was good.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailwind
Fair enough, I would imagine that the internals of the RT and RT 2.0 are the same. I believe that all changed was the integrated heel lifter and the corners rounded off. And RT heel has been around for a long time. Early on there were toe failures from the RT and I have had a heel lifter failure on the original RT heel(since replaced with a better designed version) but I have never had any misgivings about the heel structurally. I ski them on my 'resort' powder skis and my wife skis them on her no fall mountaineering skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Just sold them, but yeah, they fit the bill. I like em better than the new ones FWIW. They have the rolling heel pins instead of the U spring too, which is a nice plus, and are compatible with those heel brakes from the Crest series.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
My short list for a lightweight Spring ski has come down to the Crest 280 & Haute Route 2.0 (thanks, @grinch for the awesome deal on those Praxis EXPs).
It looks as if both binders use the Trofeo Monolink toe (springs on only one side).
@Summit ... was the elastic travel at the heel of the Crest your deciding factor over (for example) the Haute Route 2.0? I realize it's hard to compare if you haven't extensively skied both binders, but I'm curious about any further thoughts.
Over in this thread (https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...e-Route)/page4):
- Post #34, I note that @stuntmanbo commented that the Crest and Raider have elastic heel travel (a combo of spring loading + 4mm gap).
- Post #62 (@plugboots linked to a Wildsnow photo) - showing the spring.
- Post #81 (the spring apparently adds 4mm of travel)
I suppose the conservative approach would be to go with the RT 2.0 (toe having in production for a longer time). I hate being a beta tester, but ATK gives me the same confidence I have with Fritschi (famous last words).
Thanks!
Thom
Does anyone know what the delta/pin height on the ATK Crest 280 is? Just did a quick scan of the website and the skimo chart but couldn't find it.
https://www.atkbindings.com/en/prodo.../crest-280-gr/
They use different toes. Crest uses the same toe as Trofeo(Helio 145) and HR 2.0(Helio 200) uses the same toe as the race binding(Helio 110, SL Evo WC)Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
This is why the Helio 200(HR 2.0) is so close in weight to the Helio 180(Trofeo Plus) while having fully adjustable release.
Thanks! That's really helpful.
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
So what is the real difference between the two toes? I can tell from the website that the SL Evo WC toe is lighter and more expensive, but not much more than that since the description for both is the same and they both use "monolink 1.0 technology"Quote:
Originally Posted by timmaio
And what’s up with this mono link business. Good in theory and good in practice?
No commentary about how well this works... but that is a terrible name for new design, esp. one that isn't intuitively wholesome. I'm almost reading it as "monolink public beta technology". Maybe they shouldn't draw attention to it being the first iteration.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
I like the theory - fewer parts and less possibility for icing - hopefully with no clamping compromise. The latter is easy for a good enngineer to design (i.e. lever arms), and the ATK guys seem really solid.Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
So much for prognostication ...
I'm hoping @Summit (or snyone else) can pass some field experience to us.
I'll bet the majority of the intended user base is unlike us - that they could care less about being early adopters.
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
Crest 280, about 5 days on them... as user friendly as a non-Vipec/Tecton can be ;)
Easy step in, easy transition, no prereleases (but really only used in pow and groomers)
Ramp angle, its ~12mm difference between the front pin center (28mm) and back pin center (40mm). So look at Lous chart for reference: https://www.wildsnow.com/10733/get-u...for-your-ramp/
Skiing with Alien RS on a Voile Hypervector V6 178... so damn light compared to Technica ZG TP on a DPS Wailer A112 184 with Tectons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Thanks for the info!
In the fall I picked up the UltraVector BC 177 with Atomic Backland Carbon and Dynafit Speed Turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
It's insane how light the whole setup is compared to my 186 EHPs with Vertical FT12 (with brakes and toe shim) and Lange FT 130s, or compared to my 186 Renegades with Shifts and Lange FT 130s.
I did get the BC version... it's amazing what it will go up with no skins. I climbed Keystone without skins (sticking to the greens). It has more drag in packed dry snow than I was anticipating, but the ability to give it a kick definitely means it is at worst equal to the non BC base... and you get the bonus mobility to go up. Crest performs without adding any weight while the Alien makes you think you have no boots on during the ascent... little upright though.Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless toboggan
It IS amazing what you can go up on the Voile BC base. Not carrying skins drops significant weight too. Definitely some buzz and ski wandering on hardpack, but that's not really what I bought that setup for... spring corn might be a bit funky on them, I'll have to wait and see this spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
The Backland Carbon boot is pretty light, take the tongue out and it feels like a stiff backpacking/mountaineering boot, you could practically walk around town in them. Definitely stiff enough to drive the UV BCs, and they're undergunned but certainly manageable when driving my EHPs.
Real difference is one is lighter than the other through removal of material. No difference in function, the heavier may be more robust, and it is definitely cheaper. I ski both toes, don't feel any concern skiing the light toes, other than they cost significantly moreQuote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Big shoutout for the photos of the ATK RT heelpiece disassembly you linked to in the thread: "Ultralight bindings: Independent heel Pins vs U Springs (Alpinist vs Haute Route)" - https://photos.google.com/share/AF1Q...BZSVhPN0NUSTZnQuote:
Originally Posted by timmaio
Thanks! What beautiful machining!
@Summit/@timmaio - I saw in that thread that you (@Summit) were going back and forth between the Crest 280 and the Haute Route 2.0 (along with the Alpinist). Was it a coin toss in the end that tilted you from the Haute Route toward the Crest? The 4mm of spring travel on the Crest heel? The integrated brakes?
I've been having some private conversations about the ATK line and one thing that came up is the release catch (button) on the Crest's brakes. I realize you've only had them out for a few days, but do you have any thoughts on how the brakes stay locked, behave in conditions when some binders are prone to icing, etc?
Lastly, can the bindings be skied with the brakes removed? I'm starting to lean toward the Haute Route 2.0s since the application is a Spring ski and leashes are OK for me in this application.
Thanks!
Thom
Vs the HR2.0 it seemed like the Crest would have better transfer/durability with the brake underfoot (and had the brake), and it had the 4mm of spring travel. It also had more length adjustment.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
The Crest can be skied with brakes removed (I haven't). I haven't been in icing conditions.
Thanks. So the brake assy. on the Crest serves the stomp pad function that's available on the Freeraider? That's a potential plus. I got thes hawt lookin' Praxis EXPs from @grinch, and they're looking longingly at me ... wanting to be mounted ;-)
... Thom
Yes but unlike the add-it-on-stomp-pad which is height adjustable to boot contact, the brake pads do not quite sit in contact with my Alien RS heel tread when the ski is decambered to flat... but I think it does with more decambering found in normal pow skiing or carving which should improve energy transfer (and prevents boot heel explosion and pin shearing that some of us remember from the old Dynafit Comforts). It is also worth noting that I went with the very soft ultralight skis with patterned bases skis (Voile Hyper V6 BC 178) so I have above average toe-heel distance change with decambering for which I wanted the 4+4mm over just a 4mm gap on a HR2.0 in order to prevent release.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un
Thanks! I'm now back to leaning toward the Crest, although it seems like a "no lose" proposition either way.
... Thom
When I had some Charger BCs I thought they were the best in spring corn. Noticed them about as much there as I did in deep pow. It was variable stuff and styrofoam that I felt like I noticed the most. YMMV of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by reckless toboggan
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
No lose fer sure, but without the bsl adjustment, the HR 2.0 saves you 115g per binding = 0.5 lbs per pair. Not a ton, but certainly not negligible either if you're going light with skis and boots.Quote:
Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un