PSA: Mount your own fucking skis.

[~mikey b]

have you already filled the old holes?

[~mikey b]

Ratfarts! One insert is fucked up. Won't take a screw. How do I get it out?

[shafty85]

have you already filled the old holes?

Yep, filled them a while ago with epoxy and a wood dowel (couldn't find dowels of exactly the correct size, but they are close). Didn't get around to it last night - softball, ya know - hopefully tonight, but I'm in no rush; touring with the GPOs this weekend.

Ratfarts! One insert is fucked up. Won't take a screw. How do I get it out?

How off is the insert?

[~mikey b]

Threads are fucked up.

edit: on closer inspection, I can see there are no threads cut inside the insert. Can I tap it? God damn it.

edit again: finally managed to back it out with slotted screw driver

[shafty85]

Threads are fucked up.

Is there epoxy in it? Or are the threads actually damaged?

In my opinion, you have two options:

1) remove the same way you installed, just screw it out
2) Try forcing the screw in - assuming you have extra screws and can afford to lose a screw if it's threads get mangled. I would try this first because, if you break the bond of the epoxy and the insert is loosened, well, see option 1)

But, I haven't had to remove an insert before so couldn't say for sure and I'm sure someone here with more brains/savvy can chime in. Worst case scenario you wind up doing an insert helicol repair.

[~mikey b]

Lesson learned: double check EVERYTHING!

Never expected an insert without threads inside.

[~mikey b]

The good and the bad.

[Meadow Skipper]

Huh, that sucks. Weird.

[adrenalated]

Yep, I've had a couple BF inserts with no internal threads. I just went ahead and fixed them with a bottoming tap.

[sb]

Post season remount on the Viciks, removed STH16 clamps and Sollyfit plates, plugged holes, cut off plugs, redrill for STH16 and remount. Bake in sun till golden brown.

[Meadow Skipper]

Post season remount on the Viciks, removed STH16 clamps and Sollyfit plates, plugged holes, cut off plugs, redrill for STH16 and remount. Bake in sun till golden brown.

Thanks for those pictures - you made me feel a lot better about the organization level of my bench.

[Ted Striker]

Nice deck and backyard there though.

[sb]

Nice deck and backyard there though.

THX, better view.

[sb]

Thanks for those pictures - you made me feel a lot better about the organization level of my bench.

Your welcome

[angrysasquatch]

Anyone mounted up Dynafit low techs before?



Unless they come with a template in the box, I was thinking to use the Radical template from the paper templates thread, and then drilling and mounting toepiece. Then put boot in and heelpiece loose fit on boot, and marking the heel holes. I dunno, seems a bit loosey goosey, as it needs to be perfect on two dimensions (no BSL adjustment). Any other suggestions? What spacing do I need for the heel pins?

[gregL]

Anyone mounted up Dynafit low techs before?

I've done a few. There is a three-hole Dynafit plastic template, but I didn't use it - I did as you suggest, mounted the toes then pushed the heelpieces up to the boot heels with a 4mm spacer in place to mark them. Sounds sketchy, but it worked.

[XXX-er]

why not mount the heelpiece dead center 1st and then while sandwiching the boot & spacer mark/mount the toe with one screw?

I don't have any jigs so on AT mounts I always mount the heels 1st and then the toe's by one screw which lets the toe piece pivot around that screw and the boot or binding drops nicely into the heelpiece

[gregL]

why not mount the heelpiece dead center 1st and then while sandwiching the boot & spacer mark/mount the toe with one screw?

That could work fine, too. I was more worried about getting the fore-aft spacing right than getting the toe alignment right (there's usually some after-the-fact adjustability there even if all the holes are already drilled). As for jigs, I have access to them at work, but I mount all mine with jondrum's templates printed on clear projection film and they've been perfect.

As for marking the holes, I mark them once with an icepick dead center, then also trace around the outside of the binding plate hole with an ultra fine Sharpie and use the ice pick mark unless it looks seriously off center.

[JTrue]

Anyone mounted up Dynafit low techs before?



Unless they come with a template in the box, I was thinking to use the Radical template from the paper templates thread, and then drilling and mounting toepiece. Then put boot in and heelpiece loose fit on boot, and marking the heel holes. I dunno, seems a bit loosey goosey, as it needs to be perfect on two dimensions (no BSL adjustment). Any other suggestions? What spacing do I need for the heel pins?

I would reccomend using plates for the heel. Gives you the option to use different boots, if you decide to upgrade and the bsl is different a remount isn't going to work usually with the 3 hole heel. I just mounted a set of low tech races on plates. Mounted toe first using a jig, then used included template for plates to get an idea of where the plate should be mounted relative to the toe for the bsl I was mounting for. Then made some lateral adjustments to the plate to get the heel pins to lineup with my heel fittings when the boot was locked into the toes.

[XXX-er]

That could work fine, too. I was more worried about getting the fore-aft spacing right than getting the toe alignment right (there's usually some after-the-fact adjustability there even if all the holes are already drilled). As for jigs, I have access to them at work, but I mount all mine with jondrum's templates printed on clear projection film and they've been perfect.
..

yeah of course its the fore-aft thing that is scary so putting the heel piece on a plate makes a lot of sense for how many grams extra weight?

I put boot on ski and position fore/aft with a t-square on the boot center mark to figure out where the boot should go and use the binding for a mounting template, I never bother with templates

[JTrue]

yeah of course its the fore-aft thing that is scary so putting the heel piece on a plate makes a lot of sense for how many grams extra weight?

I put boot on ski and position fore/aft with a t-square on the boot center mark to figure out where the boot should go and use the binding for a mounting template, I never bother with templates

I believe the plates weigh 18 grams each, nuts and machine screws aren't included in that weight. Unless you are using the setup for "race only" application a rear plate seems like a good idea.

[angrysasquatch]

I think I'll skip the plates, I've got tlt5m's now and they fit well, might move on to the 5p or 6p but they are the same bsl. Don't wanna screw with the height delta either. I think front first makes most sense for these bindings, the rearmost hole for the heel is a ways back, good access for screwing with it. Test fit by screwing down, tweak if necessary when opening up to insert diameter. I feel good about this now

[Jonathan S.]

I've mounted up four pairs of Dynafit three-hole heel units (two pairs of Low Tech Race, and two pairs of the Speed Superlight w/ a slightly elongated mounting pattern compared to the LTR), but with a jig.

However, before I collaborated on designing the JigaRex skimo mounting plates, I freehanded about eight four-hole race binding mounts (IIRC Plum 135/145, Plum 165, Sportiva/ATK RT, and older LTR).
For those jobs, I always mounted the toes first and then inserted the heel unit prongs into the boot interface for measuring.
This sequence was mainly out of necessity, as I couldn't use my Dynafit mechanical jig after the heels were mounted, yet I could use various random jigs for the heel unit's L<>R spacing after the toes were mounted (as I could flip the jig in the other direction).
But even if I were freehanding both the toe and the heel, I think mounting the toe first is best: you'll have a much more precise fit for the boot in the toe, as compared to the boot sliding around if instead inserted into the heel first.

As for the separate adjustment plates, remember that they also increase the heel>toe skiing "delta" and the skinning heel elevator angle.
Then again, some skiers might prefer that, especially given that the Dynafit LTR is among the lowest even for skimo bindings. (Various skimo race binding measuring calculating insanity here if you dare.)
Then again (again), all these plates kind of "bridge" a prior fixed-length mount, so although I'm usually nervous about Swiss-cheesing a ski, I suspect that plugged holes well within the mounting zone of a plate don't affect the ski strength.

[Ivan Oder]

This particular addition to the thread could be titled: PSA: Make your own fucking tech bindings and templates.

TL;DR? Just click the picture. I'm doing one of these dual insert mounts, with the Marker Lord and a what I'm gonna call a 'Radical Plum'

Attachment 157572

I like to mount bindings on inserts, even if I know I probably won't ever move them. Just because.

Sometimes I like to mount more than one binding set per pair of skis for versatility without sacrifices.
(eg. Dynafit / FKS)

It involves a lot of screwing around with templates, a ruler and digital calipers trying to find combinations that will work while maintaining reasonable center offsets, space between the holes ('taint'), reasonable future BSL adjustments and so on. I have duplicated most of the templates for bindings I own in AutoCAD. This way I can slide things around, take measurements and so on to see what will work and what will not.

I can print the designs out in 1:1 scale and use them as layouts for punching holes. (Always a 2x4 first.)

This time around I am designing a set of templates that should work for doing a dual mount for the new Marker Lord S.P. (or any frameless Royal series) swappable with a tech binding featuring the elongated Radical toe pattern.

Below is a screen shot of four custom made templates with two ideas I have for the design. (Screenshot for now because I don't want bitching if they're not quite right.)

Toe Option #1:
The first set of templates features mounting both the Lord and the Dynafit toes such that the inserts are in close proximity to each other, with the Lord being 1cm forward from center.
Each one of the Lord holes is 1.58cm center to center away from a Dynafit hole with a 'taint' of 8mm when using inserts.
I question this design because it may suffer rip out from accumulated tolerances. (Going Theory: 1.5cm spacing with an 8mm taint is okay in some holes, but not ALL of them...)

Heel Option #1:
With the Lord 1cm forward, there is now a hole conflict in the rear with the Dynafit pattern that requires too much range sacrifice on either binding to resolve.
This can be remedied quite elegantly by reversing the tech heel base (where applicable) and sliding Lord heel forward such that it shares a pair of the holes as shown in the drawing.
Of course, this eliminates heel models with brakes (ST) and the ability to use the Plum heel bumper, and probably any future binding tech that copies the Dynafit pattern.

Toe Option #2:
This template uses a SollyFit toe plate to accomplish two things: 1) it has wider mounting holes for less conflicts and more taint 2) it provides a base which can be used as a shim to add toe height to the Radical or any other tech toe.
It could be used by itself, with the ST 6.4mm base, or the ST base AND the 6.4mm B&D shim for three different toe pin heights which can be changed at will -- with various length metric screws -- depending on how much heel lift I want to sacrifice. (Theoretically -- more plates = more slop?)

With this toe template as drawn the Lord would be mounted 3.2mm behind center and only minimum taint tolerances present on two of the four front holes.
It can be slid even further back to -9.5mm for a symmetrical toe pattern with maximum taint. Not sure I am comfortable with that much deviation though, so 3.2 for now as drawn.

Heel Option #2:
The Lord heel is slid back 12.5mm from center so that it's front 32mm hole lines up with the Dynafit 32mm front holes.
Because the toe is also slid back anywhere from 3.2 to 9.5mm from center the sacrifice in range for different BSL's is minimal.
I may move the entire hole pattern back further such that the tech binding can accommodate a 305 and a 320 boot and not be at extremes. (Sacrificing more Lord range.)

I got all the parts coming in the mail to experiment with this. If it goes well on a 2x4 then it'll be what goes on my new DPS.

[auvgeek]

^^Having done the whole FKS + Speed Radical/Plum combo, I've come to a few conclusions:

1. Dual-use touring/inbounds boots are just not for me. Nothing with AT capability on the market has the fit, stiffness, or flex quality of a dedicated alpine boot.
2. Dual-use touring/inbounds skis are just not for me. Almost anything I'd want to tour on is too light to have fun skiing inbounds. I can only think of one or two exceptions, and they're on the heavier side of reasonable.

If I *really* wanted to use a ski for both inbounds and touring, I would mount a Dynalook toe and put inserts in for FKS and Plum heels. The Dynalook Toe would act as a 6mm shim for the FKS AND Radical toes. The FKS comes with a 5 mm shim to get it flat anyway, so an extra 1 mm won't make too much of a difference and saves mounting the FKS toes. FKS and tech binders have no heel conflict. The alternative would be to make an adapter plate that screws into the FKS inserts and accepts a Radical toe. Thinking like 15 mm thick to get the ramp angle down to something reasonable. Downside is obviously machining cost.