Printable View
So after extensive searching, I can't find an answer to this question either mentioned online, or from photographs. I also haven't been able to get my hands physically on a pair.
Is the there a heel platform in contact with the sole of the boot when in ski mode, or does it float totally suspended on the pins?
Thanks!
Floats
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Attachment 266517
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thanks! That shows it quite clearly. It does lead to another question though.
I read somewhere a vague reference to the fact that the brake version does make contact. Then I found this piece https://www.marker.net/en/products/a...platform-5217/ which they say is the same height as the brake, and must be used when you go brakeless. In which case, I would think maybe with that heel platform installed, there would be contact even brakeless.
Does that piece come stock with the brakeless version, and if so is it installed in that photo? Or if not, do you think it would fill in that gap?
Mine are just like Robs. The black piece out the front of the white is the platform. Does not touch boot.
Mine are the same as both of yoursQuote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Thanks for the info everyone. I just want to clarify. Everyone responding is using the brakeless version? Because it looks like that piece that I linked to goes over the top of the black platform, making it thicker. There appears to be an AFD on it and I don't know why there would be an AFD if it doesn't touch the sole. I don't believe that piece comes stock on the brakeless version, it is an add on piece.
Brake pad is in the way. You can see heel doesn't touch in brakeless version. The boot touches the brake pad if brakes are installedhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d44bbcbb34.jpg
Ok, so the boot does touch when there are brakes. So it sounds like this piece, https://www.marker.net/en/products/a...platform-5217/ that they claim is the same height as the brake pad, would touch if you install it on the brakeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Or maybe I'm just stupid and really not getting this...
I think that piece is on the brakeless. It’s on mine. And it doesn’t touch.
Gotcha. Thanks. The description on the Marker site wasn't very clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliBrit
Those of you who have used these bindings, what’s your thoughts? Rotating heel a pain in the ass or no big deal?
No big deal for me, but I don’t use my lifters as much as many do. I tend to just use the middle for whole climbs and set skin tracks appropriately. They seem to be harder to turn with your pole than the old volcano dynafits, but possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Pain in the ass. Hard well nigh impossible to rotate with pole so you have to bend down to rotate them. I just leave them not rotated when touring and remember not to bang down on them when skinningQuote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
monods has them in stock I think? go look?
Old thread bump... I’m pretty sold on the Alpinist for a new touring setup and was wondering about the heel support on brakeless and with brakes.
Good to know that there is a gap on the brakeless. Above it is mentioned that it touches the pad when brakes are installed - does it offer real support or are the brake springs not bottomed-out when in ski mode and therefore any support is coming from the springs and not the brake unit itself?
I added homemade heel pads to my current Plum setup and felt like they skied a lot more solid, so am wondering whether to go with brakes if I get the Alpinists or stay brakeless and add new DIY heel pads.
Just be aware that the Alpinist skis very flat which may be what you're looking for - or not. Compared to several Dynafit and other models (Plum Guide, etc), there is ~15mm difference in the toe-heel differential. For me, I've found this to be the #1 factor is how much I enjoy skiing a tech binding, YMMV. My personal sweet spot is around 8mm delta which is one of the reasons almost all my touring skis have the Atomic Backland / Salmon MTN binding. Skiing most Dynafits feels like I'm wearing high heels and Alpinists have me feeling like I'm tilted backwards. Practically, you'll probably get used to whatever binding your using regularly but something to consider. I'm currently in the process of shimming the heels of my Alpinists about 5mm to bring them close to the Backlands' delta.
Functionally, I don't mind having to rotate the towers. Everything since the old Dynafit volcano seems like a more a hassle so I guess I've accepted the inconvenience.
The brake for the Alpinist seems to be one of the worst engineered pieces of ski gear ever, IMO. Totally out of line with the rest of the binding which seems well designed and built. Especially when you see how cleanly, intuitively, and reliably the brakes on the Backland work - a binding of comparable weight/features. What was Marker thinking?
BTW, Skimo has a nice chart on ski binding deltas for touring bindings. I had not idea how much range there was between different models:
https://skimo.co/pin-heights
Thanks, I know they're pretty flat. Good link from Skimo Co. I shimmed my Plums with 8mm cutting board so I'd be only a little flatter than those. Could shim the heel on the Alpinist if I feel like it after seeing them and measuring. I measured my shimmed Plums at about the same ramp as an STH16 years ago using the same boot so I'll do the same again.
Stokes (above) replied to me with some good info on the brake, fitted his brakes last night as says there was a very noticeable improvement in feel. I'm sold.
Armada Tracer 98s are leading my list as a heavier replacement of my Zero G 95s which I never really got along with. Can hopefully have a feel of those and others soon and order something up with the Alpinists.
Stokes probably already mentioned this but there's real support from the brakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LC
Agreed re the flat mode but it really didn't bother me. Even when skiing with the Tecnica ZGTP which doesn't have much forward tilt I was fine with it. But again ymmv
Here is the picture I text to Lorne, just in case anyone else is interested.
As Lee said, the brakes add a lot of support and imo the binding skis better for it. The brake is depressed as far down as it'll go with my hoji tour boot in there, so none of the gap is taken up by the rebound in the brake spring.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...dcf6e7eab4.jpg
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Mounted my Alpinists last night, with a heel shim from the get-go to have a more similar ramp to all of my other setups and with brakes to give a bit of support to the boot heel - I noticed a massive difference in feel when I added heel blocks to my old Plum setup so would have added something similar to the Alpinists anyway and figured why not just use the brake to do that job. 8-9mm heel shims would have pretty much match my Kingpins, 916s and toe-shimmed Plums but that's a massive stack and I was limited by the length of screws I had on hand so these shims are 5.5mm.
I made the shims long enough to support the brake pad in the same way that it would if mounted without the shim. As you can see in this photo, in this setup at least, the boot heel is supported by the brake AFD and the main brake housing behind that. Testing with a 0.5mm sheet of plastic à la Salomon Driver toes I can pull the plastic out with some resistance, equally so on both parts that the boot heel touches, so I think I'm good.
https://ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb19876638/p6pb19876638.jpg
LC curious if it affects feel for you. Thanks in advance
Well I haven't skied them at all yet - I mounted them with shims and brakes from new - so I can't give any comparisons of any other Alpinist setup. My Plums felt much less vague at the heel when I added heel supports so these should feel the same, maybe even more solid & consistent due to the no-gap design.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Stokes told me after day 1 on brakes that there was a considerable change in feel and he's probably had a few more days on them now so maybe he'll comment.
Interesting timing - I just got around to making shims this weekend. I made mine out of a plastic cutting board that measured about 4.5mm thick. I bought binding screws from Tognar that were about 4mm longer than the originals and figured 0.5mm less ski penetration would be fine. After I made the first one with a jigsaw, Dremel, and power drill, I used it as a template to make three more shims so I had shims for two sets of heels. I probably could have gotten a little fancier with shim footprint but I'm pretty happy with the result. As with LC, I haven't skied them yet but they should have about 7mm delta now instead of 2mm (and close to the 8.5 of my fave Backlands). Less than $10 for four heel shims, assuming the cost of my labor is $0. Fun project!
Attachment 353300
Attachment 353301
Attachment 353302
Attachment 353303
Did a search, couldn’t find much on this.
Picked up an Alpinist earlier this year to lighten up a setup.
I am new to U-Springs (been on Rad 2 for years) and I have read some articles on wear and issues with non-rolling pins.
I was planning on swapping the heel spring of the 12 to the medium (vert rv of 9) to better match my normal din but now wondering if the release values drop over time (as little as 50 step ins per blister G3 podcast) due to wear if I should stick with the hard spring or protect the body and make the swap.
normal din is 8.5 on chart and I run 8.5 in toe and 9 in heel on pivots alpine binders. 180lbs 6’2” with 325bsl.
For you guys that have experience with u-springs on previous binders or on the alpinist, what are your thoughts?
UPDATE: I searched on desktop and found this thread if anyone is interested: https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...e-Route)/page3
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums