backcountry skiing Dynafit Trip Reports resort Louie Misc Gear Reviews weather Black Diamond safety Binding Reviews skins backpack climbing skins avalanches video snowmobile snowboard food clothing Fourteeners camera Boot Reviews huts Fritschi alpinism Utah photography avalanche safety alpinist guidebook Cloudveil Silvretta Europe Technique kids Gear Mods Rando Racing Elk Mountains Guest Blogs training Aspen automotive Wyoming computer Chris Davenport music backcountry skier Christmas 10th Mountain Enviro Rants bicycle North America Avalung TGR GPS Austria Mountain Culture north face Everest Movie Reviews Canada gloves Aspen Mountain batteries Book Reviews lightweight gear News Backcountry History Alps Andrew McLean Salewa Alaska Carbondale Maps Dave Downing first aid helmets Bob Perlmutter pastry Denver Google Aspen Highlands Montana Forest Service Sean Crossen Televangelism snowboarding Mount Sopris rock climbing hunting Eulogies Diamir Greg Hill Craig Dostie Mike Marolt Salt Lake City Aspen Skiing Company Ortovox New Zealand thermo liner

Dynafit FT12 Undressed — Honey, You Look Marvelous

By Lou

I couldn’t find the garter at first, but I did see a few other interesting things. This is a full-on 2008/2009 retail ready Dynafit Vertical FT12 backcountry skiing binding. Number “12″ in name refers to max DIN release setting. Check out the show.

My first move, shown above, was a user-style maintenance breakdown of the heel unit. For comparo I grabbed a Vertical ST from last season and stripped it at the same time. It’s on the left above. Only difference in part count for mechanicals is a small washer (indicated by arrow) you’ll find in the heel unit spring cap. We assume this works in concert with stiffer lateral release springs to raise the lateral (side release) DIN level, by compressing the springs more for a given heel cap position.

On first glance FT12 looks good, with caps of thin but strong fiberglass over the toe and heel bases, nice graphics, and an overall impression that holds its own with any other current grabber. (Click image above to enlarge in all its glory.) They’d look foxy on just about any ski in our quiver, and we thank Skadi that the Dynafit industrial designers didn’t pick a sister color to that downright strange yellow shade one version of the ST comes in.

To open up the FT and ST series bindings you have to drive a roll pin out of the housing. This little bugger is a PITA compared to opening a Dynafit Comfort or TLT, but serves to good purpose as it unites the heel post with lower housing, thus providing extra beef for hackers who get too agro with their ski poles while rotating the heel unit.

(FYI, to get the pin out select a drill bit that’s close to the exact size of the pin and drive it inward with the butt of the bit, tapping with a brass hammer. There is just enough room for the pin to move in and free the parts. For reassembly you yank the driven pin out of a cavity with a pair of needle nose pliers, then replace it. The process is obvious once you dig in.)

Heel unit guts of FT12 (right) are nearly identical to ST (left). Arrows indicate one of the only differences in appearance of the mechanicals: small grooves in the heel pins which are probably just machine marks of some sort. Which begs the question, what makes this DIN 12 instead of 10 insofar as vertical (upward) release?

Adding even more Sherlock Holmes style details, vertical release springs in the ‘12 heel are about 1.5 mm shorter than those in the ‘10. For more DIN, I’d have thought they would be the same or slightly longer. Only guess I came up with is that the ‘12 springs are stiffer. I tested by pressing down into the benchtop with my hand, and they do feel slightly stiffer than those of the ‘10, so that must be the answer.

Most obvious difference with FT12 is the fiberglass shell that’s molded over the regular plastic toe and heel bases. This stuff no doubt adds some strength (especially to the plastic tab just behind the crampon mount, which does tend to snap off other models), but it’s obviously cosmetic as well and does look good. As the fiberglass doesn’t appear to add much if any weight, then fine — it all works together in the pleasant way most Dynafit gear has become known for.

Heel shell pictured above.

As shown in the total binding photo near the top of this blogpost, FT12 is connected for and aft by a skinny fiberglass strip (detail in photo above). Some alpine binding makers tout this configuration as a way of stiffening the ski under your foot, ostensibly to make the ski perform better, or to prevent the flexing ski from causing unseemly binding behavior such as pre-release. I’ve heard a bit of verbiage about this from Dynafit, but they never came on too strong with it. Since the connector is not fixed in length but rather slides back and forth in a slot on the underside of the heel unit, it would have no effect on ski flex, and we thus deem it cosmetic.

I left the best for last. A known weakness of earlier Dynafit bindings is the base of the heel “post” AKA “spindle,” (this is pretty much hidden on an assembled binding, and the heel unit rotates on it.) My theory about this is that some heel posts are cast or machined in such a way as to unnecessarily remove material that would otherwise provide strength. In the photo above, arrows indicate the area in question. Binding base to far left is an older Comfort model, you can see a large recessed area with less aluminum. Middle is an ST10 from last winter, notice how the larger recessed area is now tiny. On the right, FT12, with almost no material removed. Nice.

On the same note about strength, previous Comfort and ST heel units have an unthreaded hole that the threaded for-aft adjustment shaft runs through. With FT12, this hole is threaded and the shaft fits tightly. In my view this adds strength as not only do we have more alu around the shaft, but less potentially metal fatiguing play.

Not much to say about the for the toe unit. It’s the same mechanically as that of an ST10, with difference again being the fiberglass shelled base plate. We’ve always felt the ‘10 toe unit to be virtually perfect, so good on that.

As for the new FT being DIN 12, we have no doubt the binding does provide that level of release tension. That said, it is important to know that Dynafit bindings are limited by their design to less vertical heel elasticity than that of high performance alpine bindings. Most people never notice this, and having a higher DIN compensates to some degree — but know that in most cases the right binding for landing 75 foot cliffs is still an alpine grabber.

So why DIN 12 Dynafit? Simply because some folks need a DIN of around 10, and having a binding that goes above that allows some “cushion” without setting it to the limit.

Weight? At 560 grams (19.8 oz) per binding FT12 is virtually identical to ST10 in heft, so don’t swing your decision on that factor. (Weight details here.)

In all, while Dynafit FT12 is quite similar to ST10 in terms of mechanicals, it offers enough subtle changes to receive our initial nod. Moreover the new grabber looks great in terms of design. As is our style, such accolades are as far as we’ll go ’till we’re on the binding for multiple days as well as seeing some consumer feedback. I’ll get out on it for plenty of fun, but the big test will indeed be big Dave cranking out multiple days of high speed carves and drops. I’ll get Dave to guest blog a few times about his impressions, then we’ll do a final report near the end of the season.

As for the garter, we did find it. But I’ll leave the location up to your imagination.

Shop for Dynafit Vertical FT12 Backcountry Skiing Binding

Posted by Lou on October 2, 2008 | Filed Under Binding Reviews

Comments

54 Responses to “Dynafit FT12 Undressed — Honey, You Look Marvelous”

Tony October 2nd, 2008 9:38 am

Lou, how do B&D and Dynafit ski crampons work with the fiberglass plate between the toe and heel units? Can you remove the portion of the plate that would interfere with the ski crampons without effecting the funcitonality of the bindings?
Lou October 2nd, 2008 12:10 pm

Tony, first, Bollinger will no doubt respond to the market. More, the ‘12 would be easy to mod to fit any cramp that fits the ‘10 or Comfort. I thank Dynafit in my prayers every day (well, almost, and I mean I thank God for Dynafit) that they make most of their stuff somewhat backward compatible, and this is an example of that. For the mod, all you’d do is cut off the fiberglass aft of the toe unit, then re-shape the plastic to it fit with the shape of the cutout in the Bollinger crampon.

Now, you could also use the toe baseplate from a ‘10, that would be another solution for using aftermarket cramps that fit the ‘10.

Of course, I’ll get scolded by someone for even mentioning the word mod in association with an expensive binding. But then, mod and hack is the name of the game in so many arenas these days — I feel like it applies to ski gear just like it does anything else, cars and computers, for example.
Which
Graeme October 2nd, 2008 3:55 pm

I have last years FT, DIN 10 (yes, that yellow) on 2 sets of skis. I have B&D crampons also, so I can answer that question. The B&D crampons work fine on higher left settings, but on the lowest heel setting, the fiberglass plate mildy obstructs full lowering of the heel. The heel will go down, but it feels like there is upward tension on the toepiece to get it there. My answer – remove the fibreglass plate form behind the toepiece, which seems to have little function beyond assisting with lining up installation of the toe, and as Lou has pointed out above, protecting that tab (which does what?).
Tom G October 2nd, 2008 4:17 pm

Lou, it would be interesting to do an actual release test of both the 10 and 12 bindings to see if the advertised DIN is truly accurate. I’ll bet you know some shop over there that would let you do this. Even more interesting would be to know what the actual DIN is of a 10 binding that is set on 10 or maxed out. Inquiring minds want to know.
Lou October 2nd, 2008 5:10 pm

I know a couple of shops with Vermont release checkers. I might play around. Did this once when Dynafit first came out, and due to friction of metal on metal parts or amount of elasticity the readings were whacked out. Apparently the machine wasn’t designed for this type of release, though the TUV certification obviously can deal wtih it, or they wouldn’t certify the binding. TUV is pretty strict, so I’m not sure what value my testing would really have, especially if I can’t find a modern sophisticated release checker that can deal with it.

What I like to do is set binding a bit low and see if I ski out, then dial up gradually till I stay in during normal skiing. For extreme I dial up a bit more, then lock out if I’m in a no-fall zone. Funny thing is, this results in a DIN setting right in the range where the chart says I should be. Imagine that.
Tony October 3rd, 2008 9:15 am

Lou, can you tell us more about the TUV standard? How is it different from DIN?
Ken Gross October 3rd, 2008 9:28 am

Lou, Great Post! What it made me think of are potential hacks and mods that could be made to the Comforts or FTs. Namely the threaded heel post or spindle. I have had some issue with the heel post base twisting slightly especialy when using the heel elevator. It seems that the threaded post would tighten up this area of the binder and eliminate the play between the rod and the non-threaded hole. Did it appear as if the threaded adjustment rod was a bigger diameter than the previous models? I am thinking about tapping that hole and going to a bigger threaded rod. Your thoughts?
Lou October 3rd, 2008 9:30 am

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure TUV just provides verification/certification that a given item conforms to a DIN standard. DIN is the standard, TUV is the authority that stamps the item.

http://www.tuv-fs.com/
Lou October 3rd, 2008 9:32 am

Ken, the rod is the same. Tapping existing hole and going to bigger rod would weaken the heel post. The rod does nothing but provide for/aft fixation and adjustment, and it’s plenty strong as it. Any strength issue is in the post, and I’m guessing that’s now a non issue.
Jonathan Shefftz October 3rd, 2008 2:35 pm

Just to clarify a point that always seems to get confused: DIN designates the German Institute for Standardization, which promulgates standards for all sorts of things, not just skiing. And even within skiing, all sorts of standards exist — downhill, cross country, touring; skis, boots, poles, screws, etc.

The alpine touring ski binding standard is 13992:2006; the alpine downhill ski binding standard is 9462:2006 (and both cost a small fee to view, which is apparently too large for any of the backcountry ski magazines to pay as opposed to just baselessly speculating about differing release standards).
gonzoskijohnny October 3rd, 2008 3:01 pm

After a knee surgery due to a non-release of a demo dynafit at DIN6, I now get all my bindings torque tested, easily and cheaply done at most competent alpine ski shops. The Demo binings probably spent too much time on roof racks in the I-70 salt slushfests care of CDOT.

My old fav. dynafit setup gave irregular and unpredicatable releases in rotation when torque tested last fall- (test is supposed to be 3 consistent tests, not just 1- takes most of 45 seconds). Glad I checked, as spring cap was worn to nubbin, space jammed with colorful plastic shavings and NO LUBE WHASOEVER was in that binding. Easily reparied, lubed and re-set (thanks to wildsnow beta), tested fine and skied just fine last spring….
burgbilly October 4th, 2008 5:41 pm

OK, I’ll admit it I’m vain. I finally made the switch to Dynafit bindings. I bought the “strange yellow” colored FTs from last year at a pretty good discount. Is there anyway to combat the color? Can you paint them using one of those Krylon paint pens? Any other suggestions for a first timer on Dynafits?
Matus October 5th, 2008 3:32 pm

I am sure not to be the only one who sets the dynafits to max DIN just to make sure they will not release. I ride Comforts pretty hard and have never had any release problem. Considering that I am about 75 kg + pack and all, I think that FT 12 are aimed mainly to those big guys (90kg +) who were “forced” to buy Fritschi Freerides. I see this mainly as another attempt of Dynafit to broaden the marketing portfolio to please freeride oriented riders. However, although with fancy fiberglass and black color, the dynafits, still look like….dynafits. You knpw what I mean (usual set of FAQ, when talking about dynafits).
Lou October 5th, 2008 3:47 pm

Indeed, it’s pretty cool they got the binding up to DIN 12 without adding weight. I’m amazed at that. Just shows how Dynafit is always striving to give it. Since the binding has to use the boot fittings, and the configuration for that is so tried and true, I’m not surprised the 12 is so similar to the 10, I’d actually be pretty surprised if it was not. Keeping costs down from ridiculous levels is also a factor, and having some parts interchangeable between the two bindings is not doubt a plus in that way as well.
BStory October 6th, 2008 9:28 am

One minor factor in the post-Comfort dynafit designs that I have personally been disspointed with is the longer toe unit. Although it is easier to flip up into tour mode than the old Comfort/classic toe units, I had several occasions last winter where the toe unit on my FT10’s has flipped down out of tour mode while bushwacking and/or skinning over down trees. I have not had this happen with my TLT classics. This could potentially be a safety issue, with the toepiece snagginng on a ski pole or rock (while sidestepping) in no-fall terrain. I know Sky Sjue, Cascade skier extroidenaire, has expressed similar concerns. Anyone have an opinion on this?
jack October 14th, 2008 7:34 am

I’m thinking of making the switch from Fritschis to Dynafits. 85 kgs, 190 cm, no hucks, no jumps. About every Dynafit dealer and sales rep say I should go for the FT12. Some of my buddies say I should select Comforts, because my highest setting is 10 anyway, savins $$$$. A dealer here in Europe mentions the small price (about 29 euros) difference between ST (with separate 100 mm brakes) and FT (including 100 mm brakes) Who must I believe ?
Lou October 14th, 2008 9:33 am

Jack, if you’re using DIN 10 I’d get the FT12, that’s exactly what it’s designed for, so you don’t have to crank it to the max for your chosen DIN number. The other improvements I detailed above are nice as well.
Ira Edwads October 20th, 2008 7:07 pm

Lou, what about using the FT12 with flexible boots like the TX Pro (NTN boot) the F3 o the F1 from scarpa? they come with a block to mount under the ball of the foot and that woudl get in the way fo the “cosmetic” fiberglass peice. Just get rid of it and save a couple of grams or router out the Scarpa block?

Thoughts?

Ira
Lou October 20th, 2008 7:15 pm

Ira, sure, you’d just cut the fiberglass. But why not just use an ST or Comfort? Is having DIN 12 some kind of holy grail or something?
Ira Edwads October 21st, 2008 11:52 am

Lou,

that is the binding I am getting a good price on. not that I need a 12 DIN, as I’ll probably keep it at 8-9. Maybe I’ll router the Scarpa block to save more weight in the middle…

Thanks for the heads up…

Ira
GaryH October 29th, 2008 11:32 pm

Dittos on the great post! “folks who ride with DIN around 10″ so you think riding at DIN 9 would fall into this catergory and benefit by the cushion of having adjustability up to 12? In other words, if you are at DIN 9 on the ST10 vs the FT12 will there be any noticeable difference, such as more ‘elasticity’ in the FT12 springs if they are not close to max? Thanks, Gary H
Lou October 30th, 2008 7:21 am

Gary, I’d say that at using DIN 9 you’re right at the margin of seeing any benefit from going to the FT12. Do you already have ST Dynafits you’re skiing at DIN 9, or are you just wondering?
Magnus October 30th, 2008 7:50 pm

Like Ira, I’m also wondering about flexible bellow boots… I’m considering the Terminator X-Pro since I would love to have a boot for both tele and AT. Any thoughts on how they would perform on technically harder descent (since I won’t tele on those days) for a 90+kg skier with Dynafits? They obviously would skin very well and they’re fairly light. But how do they ski and how are they for scrambling and mountaineering? I wonder if the bellows are to soft for kickstepping and crampon use… Would be very interesting to see a review of the AT capabilities of the new NTN boots.
GaryH October 30th, 2008 10:33 pm

Lou, I’ve been skiing on older pair of dynafit’s at din 9, I think they are late 90’s vintage with yellow plastic; I bumped up the din to 9 after twisting out at 8.5 in deep pow too many times, 9 seems to work pretty good. I’m a bit nervous that they are getting old and sticky which I suppose servicing them would cure, but I also need brakes which I dont think these are compatible for, not sure. So I’m essentially looking for a 2nd pair, Comforts, ST or FT. GaryH
Lou October 31st, 2008 7:58 am

Gary, if you’re buying new bindings because of brake issues and such, I’d just go with the FT 12. But the ST or Comfort would work. All these bindings are more similar than they are different, so don’t get caught in over thinking your shopping.

Regarding older Dynafits. They usually work fine after being re-greased, but after years of the lateral release spring being compressed it has to loose some of its stiffness, so what you think is DIN 9 might actually be 8.5, for example. Not only that, but if the thimble bushing becomes worn (see FAQ via top menu), and this could lower the actual DIN value as well. And…a poorly lubricated binding can cause pre release because it lacks a snappy return-to-center.
BryanL November 1st, 2008 2:08 pm

In Europe, Dynafit offers the Vertical FT10, which seems identical to the FT12 except for DIN range. Are you aware of any other functional differences between the FT10 and FT12?
Lou November 1st, 2008 3:03 pm

Yeah, the FT 10 has yellow accents and a connecting plate between toe and heel and is indeed virtually the same as the 12, only it has a maximum of DIN 10. Or you could say the FT is virtually the same as the ST, only the ST doesn’t have the connecting plate. By the way, the yellow binding is not in Dynafit’s current catalog for Europe or North America, so any on the market are presumably just those remaining in inventory at Dynafit or at retailers.

So to answer your question, there are no functional differences between any of the FT or ST Dynafit bindings, function meaning how the mechanicals … function.
BryanL November 7th, 2008 9:30 pm

Thanks for the info. For what it’s worth, the heading for the FT10s on Telemark-Pyrenees said they’re ‘08-09s.
Lou November 8th, 2008 7:44 am

Perhaps they do still make the FT 10, if so I wasn’t aware of it… If so, it would be virtually identical to the ST only difference being s the yellow color and the connecting skin on top of the base plates. And would be even more “virtually” identical to the FT, only difference being the springs and perhaps a few tiny hidden improvements described in anatomy above.

In the Dynafit 08/09 catalog (118 pages), which they put a lot of money and effort into, there is no FT10, but there is an ST with yellow accents.

In any case, I’ll ask about this. Nothing like a bit of Dynafit trivia to keep the mind occupied (grin)!
Rusty Rigg November 11th, 2008 9:02 pm

Lou,

To your knowledge has there been any talk of longer pins in the heel assembly (to prevent pre-releasing from a “de-cambered” ski)?
Regards, and thanks for such an informative site.

Rusty Rigg
Lou November 12th, 2008 6:32 am

Rusty, the heel pins in Dynafit Comfort, ST, FT are several millimeters longer than TLT/Speed, and seem to be plenty long.
Gary Holmquist November 18th, 2008 12:47 pm

Lou,
I need to change the excenter levers on the toe pieces of a pair of Dynafit vertical FT bindings. Can you give me any pointers on how to do this properly? I understand the two ends of the pin are sllightly different diameters and that you can only remove this pin in one direction. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,

Gary
Lou November 18th, 2008 1:21 pm

Gary, Louie and I haven’t done that very frequently, but my recollection is that it’s not that tough. I think what worked best was to remove the tiny spring first via the end that’s hooked around a bar pin. And yeah, there is only one pin that needs to be removed, you just drive it out with a reversed drill bit or exact size punch, via the smaller end. Do one binding at a time, of course. When we were in Europe last winter, Dynafit inventor Fritz Barthel had Louie doing this in just minutes.
Fritz November 22nd, 2008 7:03 am

I wonder why my brand new Dynafit FT 12 is yellow because I can’t find it in yellow on the dynafit website.

Does anybody know?
jeff pfleger November 22nd, 2008 4:19 pm

dont see the ramer military mickey mouse boot adapter kit ? he ha fun for the whole family .
Lou November 25th, 2008 3:52 pm

Fritz, I spoke with someone at Dynafit and they said while there is no “official” yellow FT12, there might be some one offs out there or something like that. Where did you obtain your binding?
Samo November 30th, 2008 5:37 am

Hi, Lou! I have a doubt.
Have the springs, for horisontal release, the same force, strength? If springs are same and extra metal ring provides higher din, it mean thet ST10 and FT12 have same squeezing point from 6 to 10 din. So lateral release is not so better if you have set on 10?
Lou November 30th, 2008 7:47 am

The word I got is the spring is stronger, and the shim/ring is mostly there to add just a bit more and to fine tune. Makes sense, as the shim is very thin.
Samo November 30th, 2008 1:36 pm

Hi! I thought so.
Maybe the shim is there just because plastic is not so durable at higher din and it helps. Maybe I will get them to replace my Naxos on alpine set up. But I will certainly wait Daves review.
Thanks for your answer!
Lou November 30th, 2008 1:50 pm

Indeed, I think a big reason the washer/shim is there is for durability (against alu, not plastic).
Frank R December 8th, 2008 6:56 pm

So after a month of staring at them I have decided that I want to put ft12’s on a pair of BD Zealots. I am going to do the mount, first dynafit mount (first pair of dynafits), since the brakes don’t come in 110 are they easily removable on the ft12? I perused the dynafit faq and didn’t see anything regarding installation or removal of brakes.

Since I’d be losing the brakes, for your safety leash system, what is the benefit of having two metal rings? I’m assuming that in a hard fall or avalanche that it is the rings that are supposed to fail and not the cord (looks like you use 2 or 3mm?). Are you counting on the cord breaking or the clasps bending thus releasing the cord?
Lou December 9th, 2008 7:52 am

Frank, I typed “install dynafit brakes” in our trusty search box, and look what it found (grin):

http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/dynafit_faq/comfort-brake-install.html

Folks usually use metal rings so they’re easier to clip to. The failure point (fuse) can be any part of the rig. On mine, it’s usually the small clips I use.
Frank R December 9th, 2008 12:06 pm

ahh, search engine, novel…thanks for pointing me in the right direction. check on the clips, makes perfect sense now.
Jack February 10th, 2009 6:49 am

Hi Lou,

Had an uncanny experience with my Ft12’s. While doing shortturns inbounds on a fairly steep hardpacked slope in the Swiss Alps, I applied to much pressure and too much angle on my skis and they started to shatter pretty bad. Instead of releasing some of the pressure, I (an erring humanoid….) applied even more pressure. Two big bangs later both my boots came off in such way that I pivoted with the heelpiece as the center of the arc. Releasing as it did, the FT12 heelpieces LOCKED both brakes. With plenty of luck I recovered my skis (one within 100 yards, the other half a mile down the mountain). Question: Is this a one in million chance or did it happen to other FT12 users as well ? I tried to repeat the release + locking at the same time, but could not reproduce.
Lou February 10th, 2009 7:08 am

Jack, sounds like the toe units might have opened up somehow? Sounds like one in a million….
Jack February 10th, 2009 7:19 am

You mean opened up before releasing ? Obviously the toes released when the lateral pressure became higher than the setting (8) of the bindings. I am 6′2 and weigh about 190, but because I’m over 50, Dynafit advises to go one notch down (8 instead of 9). If you twist the heel unit with your hands and simulating the boot pivots from the heelpiece, you’ll find the brakes gets locked easier than you think…..
Jason Gregg March 1st, 2009 1:15 pm

On the issue of vertical release have you been able to determine how the FT12 generates the extra DIN?
Lou March 1st, 2009 10:01 pm

Jason, I asked the engineer, he said the vertical release springs are stiffer.
trollanski October 2nd, 2009 1:32 pm

Hi Lou and friends. We have shortened our Gotamas, modded our boots… What’s the chance of swapping out the verticle release spring on a pair of ST’s with those from the FT’s and ending up with DIN 12. I am skiing with my toes at about 8.5, however,my heels require 10.5-11. I am 45, 185, charge as hard as I can in heavy coastal snow. The added cost ($170 btwn. ads on web) of the FT’s begs the question of ski bums everywhere….
SB October 2nd, 2009 2:41 pm

I know this may sound a little overbearing, but I don’t mean it that way. You might want to look at the reason why you need din 11 before swapping out the spring — seems like their is either something defective in the heel piece or something odd with your technique. Of course, the latter could be really difficult to change.
trollanski October 2nd, 2009 6:22 pm

Thanks for the input. I use the time tested method of starting with the recommended DIN, and SLOWLY up-ing it till I am no longer blowing the ski off for no GOOD reason. I have been on skis since ‘71′, have always pushed my perfomance, never blown a knee, and am addressing the obvious questions such as why the binding is so much more costly, or why the brakes are $75. The oldest Dynafit devotee in town uses cheap brakes and a piece of cutting board plastic that swivels to hold them down in tour mode.
Lou October 2nd, 2009 9:28 pm

Trollanski, I supposed it’s possible in theory to put a stiffer spring in any Dyanfit binding. Where you’d get the springs is the question. As is if we’d be certain the binding could hold up to the force.

Also, did someone ask why this stuff is so expensive? I think you’d need a degree in economics to figure that out, and even then there are probably things no man can know. Start with the Euro exchange rate and go from there.

All I know is I just spent a heck of a lot more on my new mountain bike than the retail of a pair of Dynafits. A set of axle shafts for my Jeep also costs more. So does a plane flight to Europe. All is relative.
Scott Dresser November 1st, 2009 10:09 pm

Just wondering if there was any info out there to address the question of Magnus on October 30th, 2008 re: Scarpa TX-Pro bellows flex and the Dynafit FT12. Thanks.
Lou November 2nd, 2009 6:55 am

Scott, a bellows boot would perform no differently in the FT12 than it would in any other Dynafit binding.

When used in a Dynafit, bellows boots sag while in alpine mode and this not only can cause premature release, but changes the binding DIN setting depending on how much the sagging changes the position of the boot heel on the heel pins. This is prevented somewhat by attaching a “puck” to the ski under the forward part of the boot. Problem is, the boot sole ends up resting on the puck, which can introduce possibly release compromising friction into the otherwise beautifully friction-free Dynafit system (normally, the boot is suspended between the toe and heel units.)

Personally, while I can see that bellows boots might be slightly more ergonomic for lower angled touring and for walking around the parking lot, I don’t obsess on them. I’ve used them extensively (I have F1 and F3) and find that they actually take energy when used with binding heel lifters, as they sag at the bellows each step. And when used with crampons, while doing front pointing they’re definitely not as efficient as a stiff soled boot.

Where they shine, again, is in lower angled touring. That’s why I keep some in my quiver, and is why they’re popular with the race crowd, because most rando races do not have much steep skinning. Instead, racers use glide optimized skins and sometimes almost look like nordic skiers doing classic stride.

If your goal is to telemark and AT ski in the same boot, perhaps they have their advantages there. I don’t telemark ski, so I’m not up to speed on that aspect. Though I do have to think that any core telemarker would want a dedicated pair of telemark boots that are set up specifically for telemarking…

Fact of the matter is that building a bellows plastic ski boot has always been a challenge. In terms of doing it for AT skiing, it’s pretty much a solution without a problem — and just adds cost and complexity to an otherwise elegant solution.