This guy. I really enjoy the ramp angle on my ft 12s mounted on my viciks. Maybe I am a total hack and need the ramp to keep me forward, whatever's it is I actually enjoyed skiing them all say in bounds on soft bumps.
Printable View
This guy. I really enjoy the ramp angle on my ft 12s mounted on my viciks. Maybe I am a total hack and need the ramp to keep me forward, whatever's it is I actually enjoyed skiing them all say in bounds on soft bumps.
I have no problem adapting to it.
Yes, I do.
Sent from my XT907 using TGR Forums
I don't even notice it.
Edited to add that I thought I didn't notice it, turns out I do.
Adding 6mm under my radical toe is the best thing I ever did!
actually a high ramp angle will put you in the back seat.your tibia shill be inclined forward, so in order to maintain the balance over the middle of your foot, you will need to stick your butt out.
Try skiing a few laps with the dynafits, then switch to an alpine binding, and you will notice that you will be way in the back seat for a few turns. Thats because your body remembers the butt out position.
I try to match the ramp angle and the forward lean of the
Boots between my alpine and my bc setups.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using TGR Forums
Subjective issue. Go with what works for ya. Speed Classic (my favorite touring binding) with 3mm shim is just right for me. Comfort and Vertical ramp angle is too much so I use a thicker (6mm-9mm) toe shim for those. I hear the Radical is a bit less than Comfort/Vert but more than Speed Classic so I would likely shim the toe on Radicals. FTR I have a big (30MP) boot.
Not a fan - too much angle makes the tails wash out.
But it's a godsend in another way - I have worn cartilage in my patellofemoral joint which hurts like a bitch on my alpine setup which has a more upright alignment. But when on my Dynafits the angle puts me out of the pain 'hot spot' so even though I ski like shit on them, it doesn't hurt.
Hate it. Switched from fks to ft12 on one ski and it totally transformed it for the worse, to the point that I hated using that setup afterwards. Constantly having to ski in the back seat to compensate.
Maybe I'm just not sensitive to these things but I never really notice.
Interesting. So I do have a problem with my hips back on my alpine setup maybe the ramp makes my poor position feel natural??? I messed with trying to keep my hips forward more last week but it caused me to not be able to absorb bumps with my knees. It's real counter intuitive for me, the athletic position for squats is hips back and natural arch in the back.
Doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't say I "love it." I switch back and forth between Dukes, STH's, Comforts and Plum Guides and seem to ski OK on any of them. Radical ST/FT have a 17mm ramp (same as Vertical/Comfort), Speed Radical has 15mm (same as Plum Guide), Speed Superlight is 3mm.
I tour for pow, so I'm generally only skiing Dynafits in soft conditions, and I don't notice ramp angle much then.
I haven't tried measuring, but: are the tech fittings mounted in the boots such that they compensate some for the binding's ramp angle? In other words, when a Dynafit-compatible boot is clicked into a Dynafit binding, is the sole of the boot elevated the same height for toe + heel?
Don't like it. It really fucked me up when I first tried it and put me on the crapper to compensate. I run shims under the toes and they feel much better, easier to pressure the tips and also to remain neutral in softer snow.
I don't notice a difference moving between Radicals and alpine bindings (Tyrolia or Look PX) - I did ski the dukes for a season (with alpine boots), and hated them. I felt like they put me in the back seat all the time.
YMMV.
That's a really good question, and I haven't figured out how to accurately measure this without cutting the boot in half. Ramp measurements for tech bindings are usually given as center of heel pins to ski deck/center of toe pins to ski deck, but I'm sure there's a variation in interior sole/zeppa angle and tech fitting placement. The thickness of the Vulcan/Mercury/One soles look normal, but standing around in them the heel feels low compared to other tech compatible boots. Anyone have any data on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chupacabra
Wildsnow commented something similar in one of their Mecury/Vulcan write-ups, figuring that was intentional to partly counteract most Dynafit bindings' ramp.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregL
Personally I ski Bodacious in alpine and Plum bindings, and shim the toes with Sollyfit plates to bring the net ramp more or less in line with my alpine setups.
^^^ I think that i might try a shim undertoe, as I felt a bit in the backseat on my set-up with Plums + RS vs. STH + alpine boot.
when i finally admonished myself : "HANDS FORWARD, BITCH!!!" turns became much easier.
Me no likey. But the things tour so damn well I sure ain't going back to my old silvrettas. Part of my adjustment has been skiing my boots in walk mode! Suppose I'll get with the program & shim the toes.
made some shims for the toes. much better.
Just got some radical fts and had the first day on them yesterday. Definitely felt the ramp compared to my fks, and wasn't a fan. Less of an issue on steeper terrain, but anything more mellow and it felt awkward. How much are people shimming the toes, and with what?
What is the “alpine binding” delta that so many posters mention? I have measured a wide range of deltas on alpine downhill bindings, even from the same company, and even on models that share the same toe and heel pieces.
Delta also varies widely across different Tech bindings, and even Dynafit bindings run a wide range (~15mm).
On my own setups, to achieve nearly zero delta, I have to shim all of my alpine downhill bindings, although some of the shims are trivial (once again, depending on the model).
For Tech bindings, the race and near-race bindings have almost no delta since the heel units don’t have to accommodate a brake. The Comfort, Vertical, and Radical designs all have much more delta, and their heel units are also all designed around a brake (although the Speed Radical is brakeless). Although those designs also add a toe shim, it’s not thick enough to fully offset the additional delta from the higher heel unit. Given the wide range in Dynafit delta, I doubt that they started increasing the heel unit stand height more in order to compensate (and if so, in a flawed manner) for some supposed tendency in AT boot geometries.
But anyway, adding a custom LDPE shim (from SmallParts.com) is pretty easy, although you have to scrounge around a bit for the correct longer screws (Slidewright.com is very helpful for that), and you’ll have to increase the post height on your ski crampons to maintain the snow penetration.
I prefer it to duke/baron/tour - which I feel forces me to focus too much on pushing the knees forward/getting the weight forward in order to get the ski tips to hold the edge. With the dynafit I can ski relaxed with a slightly lower stance than what I use when casually skiing my race (sl/GS) equipment - which suits me fine as the surface isn't as even, and the speed is probably half of what I have in a GS race. Also my rando shoes collaps/deform if I push them too hard...
The important thing is that I don't need to to use the back of my boots for support.
Skied them again today and they felt better. I think I'll need a few days to adjust to them. Though I do wonder how my alpine setup will feel when I go back
I'm glad people are talking about this. I'll be new to a Dynafit setup in a week or so, I'm really trying to figure out how or if I'll need to fuck around with shims to achieve the same ramp angle as my FKS. I never thought about how the tech insert placement on a boot will affect things either. Once I get my Mercury/ST12 setup, I'm really wondering what the ramp difference will be between each.
I had the same experience. Currently, I run a 7mm toe shim under my TLT Speed Classic toes with Titan boots.Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C)