“But, does it go to 11?” G3 Onyx To Have Full Release Setting 12 — With Liability Coverage

Bookmark and Share
This post by WildSnow.com blogger  
New G3 Onyx binding.

G3 Onyx binding.

(Originally published July 29, 2010, redated for discussion of DIN/ISO certification of tech bindings, or lack thereof. If you’re in a hurry, start reading about half way down the blog post.)

I got an interesting press release yesterday, regarding G3. Rather than just blasting PR releases here like some kind of desperate blogger with writers block, I’d rather come up with a take (you can read the release at the bottom of this blog post). So here goes.

In a nutshell, the press release states that along with providing help if a retailer gets sued regarding the G3 Onyx binding, the Onyx this coming season will go to a full 12 on the release setting scale (both lateral and vertical, last season it only went to 12 on lateral).

When G3 released the latest itteration of their Onyx binding last season, many skiers were hoping for something that stood up to aggressive use and addressed some of the minor (as in never happens to most skiers) but nonetheless real pre-release issues that other tech bindings sometimes have. Onyx seemed to fulfill the beef side of the equation, but with a maximum release setting of 10 for vertical release it fell short of the magic number 12 that AT ski bindings must have to be marketable to the hard cores.

Now, fight me if you want but I’ll state as fact that for most average size skiers, falling and twisting a leg with your binding set at 12 is almost certain injury. Yet many skiers these days crank their bindings all the way up as a matter of normal practice, and they’ll go to 12 if they have it. More, for better or worse, the max release setting of a binding is perceived in the market as an indicator of quality.

While some skiers really do need a binding that goes to 12 (and at higher settings such as 10 or 11 it may be beneficial to have some “cushion” or “overhead” for the release mechanism), I find it appalling when numbers are used as a measure of quality (or machismo, for that matter). It’s like the guy in the old rock movie satire classic ‘This is Spinal Tap’ who says “these go to eleven” while bragging on his powerful amplifier that will easily cause hearing loss at the usual amp dial max of 10. I’ll embed a clip from Spinal Tap below. This is by no means meant to disparage those skiers who actually do need a release value (RV) of 12, but it fully intended to poke fun at those that don’t, and use it anyway (smile).

Thus, G3 now offering a binding that goes to 12 on all “dials” got my blog brain firing on all cylinders, so here goes some keyboard burn (I just wore out my last one, am on a nice new one now…).

Skiers max out their release settings for a number of reasons, top three being the following:

1. The occasional pre-release of any chart set binding, alpine or AT, can be rather annoying or even hurt you. Thus, if you don’t fall often, having a binding that’s set high but never comes off inadvertently can actually prevent injury. This especially true if you ski steep terrain where throwing a shoe could cause you to take a violent accelerating fall down a mountain. With more and more resorts offering steeps for our adrenaline pleasure, these types of falls are becoming as common in-bounds as they are in the backcountry.

2. The other most common reason for high settings is laziness. Many folks find that if they set a binding using the charts, they still pre-release too often. The safe solution is a tedious process of test skiing while you gradually crank the settings up a half turn at a time until inadvertent release stops or at least becomes rare. You adjust the upward and side release settings independently, based on what type of prerelease you had. All along, you try not to succumb to temptation and just dial the suckers up to 12 (or perhaps 11?) and be done with it.

3. Style and machismo enter the equation. Sadly, the maximum release setting of a grabber is a big part of how some shoppers read the overall cool factor of a binding. More, more than once I’ve heard skiers bragging about what release setting they crank their bindings up to, as if this indicates the power and skill of their skiing. Yep, overhead in ski shop: “But, does it go to 11?”

Hence, it sounds like G3 helping dealers with any liability issues is quite sensible, but considering the “does it go to 11?” factor one has to view it as a bit ironic as well.

G3′s announcement about liability makes even more sense if you consider another detail. You might have noticed in the above writing that I never use the term “DIN” as part of the release numbers as it’s normally used in the ski world, as in “my dial goes to din 16, dude!” (DIN is an acronym for Deutsche Institut fuer Normung, The German standardization institute that sources the standard for ski binding release settings). The reason I stayed away from the term is we need to be clear that the release setting numbers on any tech binding are not certified “DIN” numbers.

Rather, G3 and Dynafit both claim or at least imply their numbers match closely to international standards (DIN) for alpine ski binding safety release, and field testing on my part and many other’s shows this to be true (in other words, we’re getting safety releases when we expect them in comparison to alpine bindings).

That being said, it’s a well known fact among ski binding cogniceti that the release value of any tech style binding change due to the ski flexing and moving the heel pins in and out of the ski boot fitting, not to mention the influence of slightly different shapes or wear in the boot fittings themselves. Thus, at this juncture of design and function in the tech interface, any of the presently manufactured tech bindings could never match the consistency of release values in the best alpine bindings unless they are tested statically without much if any changes in ski flex or boot fittings (and in that case, could actually stack up just fine against alpine systems due to the consistent steel interface of the tech system). These are more reasons why it’s good to be careful with your release settings on a tech binding, and set them with at least a modicum of experimentation rather than blind allegiance to the manufacturer’s setting chart — or worship of a number such as the proverbial 11.

(To be fair, I’d also like to mention that I’ve got lots of insider information about both Dynafit and G3′s care for keeping their binding release numbers consistent with DIN alpine binding numbers, as well as how consistent their numbers are. From what I know, I’d say they both get good marks if used with consistently made and well made boot fittings, but as I’ve stated in previous posts, the boot fittings are super important and should not be overlooked as part of the system and a contributor to the safety of the system. Indeed, at least one boot maker has told me that in their testing of tech systems for release, they’ve found the values varied quite a bit given the use of different boots with different fittings, depending on the manufacturer, some doing better than others. Some independent testing of this would be nice, but until that comes about it would be inappropriate for me to mention any names, as the info I’m getting is from folks competing with each other, and is subject to interpretation.)

Sources tell me there are many reasons tech bindings are not certified, main ones being that any existing standards for touring bindings simply are not designed for the tech interface, and thus no extant testing methods can be used for certifications (though any product maker can take something to TUV and have it tested for whatever standard, and use the results to improve their design or manufacturing process.) I’ve heard that standards for tech bindings are in development, but they could take years to implement, if ever. Same goes for the tech boot fittings, by the way. There is no standard for those either as was so tragically demonstrated by Salomon last season.

The issue of product safety and liability is huge, and truly comes to the fore when you have a product that’s designed to save a person from injury. Like seat belts, child car seats, and yes, ski bindings. Many such products are highly regulated and adhere to any number of international standards. Thus, in the case of tech style skiing bindings, the lack of certification to the DIN or other standards must be a least a fleeting thought to any savvy retailer. So a bit of help from G3 in easing those worries is probably appreciated. Especially knowing that some of their customer’s main criteria will be “but, does it go to 11?”

Please see our backcountry skiing glossary for more about DIN standards and TUV certification thereof.

Comments, anyone?

By the way, I’m going to start using the acronym RV for the non-certified release numbers on certain bindings. Short for “release value,” e.g., “RV 10.”

More Onyx Backcountry Skiing binding information and reviews.


******************************************************************************
G3 Press Release from July 28, 2010

G3 becomes first alpine-touring binding manufacturer to offer liability reduction program to its retailers

New program for G3 Onyx, Ruby AT bindings applies best practices from alpine skiing to the backcountry world.

Vancouver , British Columbia (July 28, 2010) – This fall, G3, manufacturer of industry-leading gear for backcountry skiing, will become the first alpine-touring/backcountry ski binding manufacturer to offer a liability reduction and indemnity program to its North American dealers.

The program, the first of its kind in alpine-touring and backcountry skiing, is based off a system that is standard operating procedure among alpine-skiing binding manufacturers and retailers, reducing risk, and potentially cost, to G3 dealers in the process.

The basis of the program is that when G3’s Onyx and women’s Ruby alpine-touring bindings are installed and set in accordance with the company’s instructions, dealer agreement, and documentation requirements, G3 would take the lead in defending any legal case surrounding binding releasability or function involving a dealer and/or a sales rep. No other backcountry binding manufacturer offers such a program. G3 engaged risk-management attorney Jim Moss to develop the program.

“What we are doing is taking the best practices from the alpine-skiing world, and applying them to the backcountry world,” said G3 founder and President Oliver Steffen. “Given the very thorough process we use to test and document proper, precise releasability on every pair of bindings before they go out the door, we have extremely high confidence in our bindings, and extremely high confidence in stepping up to offer our dealers this added protection.”

The fact that G3 can offer this protection to retailers also speaks to and stems directly from the ground-breaking design used in the Onyx and Ruby, Steffen said.

The Onyx and Ruby are tech-style alpine-touring bindings with high-performance retention, dramatically reduced pre-release, and industry-leading releasability functions. They also offer the ability to switch from ski to tour mode without taking skis off.

For the coming fall season, G3 re-engineered and upgraded several components of the Onyx, including; increasing all release settings to 12; redesigning the brakes so they retract more fully; making the heel lifters more secure; and modifying the toe bale so it more effectively sheds snow. The Ruby is a women’s-specific version of the Onyx that is new this season.

The program also applies to G3 sales reps and retailers in ski-demo situations.

Comments

34 Responses to ““But, does it go to 11?” G3 Onyx To Have Full Release Setting 12 — With Liability Coverage”

  1. Chris Simmons July 29th, 2010 11:44 am

    A big eye-opener for myself was getting to have a beer with a professional ski film star last winter, who told me about how every season he started with his bindings set relatively low, but gradually cranked them up as the season progressed until they were at his preferred max in Alaska. He acknowledged that the max setting would destroy his knee before releasing, but that was a necessary risk for AK film shots.

    That gradual progression with mileage was a big lesson I took from the conversation – and that the release setting should be something constantly worked with and adjusted, especially with skiers getting a lot of mileage.

  2. moulton July 29th, 2010 11:46 am

    If you crank your bindings to 11 or 12 and get hurt it’s your fault, period.

  3. Lou July 29th, 2010 2:40 pm

    It was too much information to include in my post, but I also should mention that I spoke with the Onyx engineer about the new RV (release value) 12 binding. He said it was quite difficult to rework the binding to go to an RV 12 without the spring going solid, and that in the case of Onyx and possibly other bindings it’s still better to figure your most functional release settings are at least several below the max, due to how pre-loaded the binding springs are.

    Ultimatly, I was impressed by how much redesign G3 did to make the Onyx RV 12.

  4. Jim July 29th, 2010 4:18 pm
  5. Lou July 29th, 2010 4:32 pm

    Thanks Jim, I was thinking of embedding one of those “11″ clips but thought people might take it the wrong way. But after you suggested the link, I went ahead and embedded anyway. It’s just too funny and relevant :angel: not to!

  6. Jonathan Shefftz July 29th, 2010 6:31 pm

    That’s an impressively long post for leaving out the basic (and rather important) fact that the Onyx already does go to 12 . . . for the lateral release only.
    And most etailer descriptions leave out the fact that for the 2009-10 season, the Onyx was 5-10 vertical/forward release and 6-12 lateral release (as stated very clearly in the pdf file on the G3 website), thereby making it suitable only for skiers using a release setting between 6 and 10.
    As for the meaning of all these numbers, I’ve tested numerous Dynafit setups with an alpine downhill binding torque tester, and they all pass the alpine downhill spec just fine. (How they would handle complex loads while actually skiing is potentially another matter, but ditto for alpine downhill bindings.)

  7. Lou July 29th, 2010 7:43 pm

    Jonathan, you are so right. I got off on a tear about RV 12 and just kept going and going….

    My points are the same, that RV 12 can be unnecessary, and so forth and so on…

    Thanks for keeping us all straightened out. A few small edits at the beginning should prevent confusion.

    Shoot, I’ve even got a pair of Onyx out in the shop with the 12 on the dial!

  8. Lou July 29th, 2010 7:50 pm

    Jonathan, on a related subject, do you know if the DIN alpine binding release standard is open ended and thus includes the number 12, or does it just go to 10?

  9. Jonathan Shefftz July 29th, 2010 8:07 pm

    I remember years ago that the 10 setting was kind of a sharp dividing line between what was considered normal vs racing-only/at-your-own-risk/Danger-Will-Robinson, etc. But the last several years all the alpine downhill tech manuals just seem to represent a smooth continuum. (Buying the official DIN doc could verify all that.)
    Moreover, they now acknowledge a III+ category, which recommends further increases to only the heel setting, matching up well (I think) with the VSR findings as well as my own personal observations and practices from (too) many years as an NCAA ski coach.
    Also, although many skiers certainly do increase their release settings unnecessarily, for a skier with a relatively short BSL, it doesn’t take a very heavy weight to get into double-digit territory. And one description of III is “Fast skiing on slopes of moderate to steep pitch” which I think applies to any decent backcountry skier during some portions of any outing. (I mean, especially in the spring, if you’re not skiing fast on at least moderately pitched corn then what are you doing out there?!?)

  10. Lou July 29th, 2010 8:16 pm

    Jonathan, good, thanks.

    I should have mentioned that another area where things are falling short, in my opinion, is that if ski bindings had better elasticity they could hold a person in at lower release values, at least to an extent. Thus, AT bindings could be made safer if they had more elasticity. No one seems to care about this. In other words, a tech binding has very little elasticity in vertical release mode, thus requiring a higher setting than it would otherwise to hold in a given skier.

  11. Bar Barrique July 29th, 2010 8:35 pm

    Good topic as usual; I have seen a former industry professional injure themselves in a post- career injury by continuing to use very high DIN settings. It is an open question whether or not professional competitors need to use very high DIN settings, but it is a matter of common sense that recreational skiers use settings that will normally prevent serious injury.

  12. Qberry July 29th, 2010 10:05 pm

    Duuude, my snowboard goes to infinity.

  13. Mark W July 29th, 2010 10:06 pm

    Thought-provoking comments, Jonathan. Way back in the 1980′s, I recall a Salomon binding I used that would take a pretty massive energy fall, i.e. big huck, hard landing, before I would release at DIN 9. I’m about 150, have been since the ’80′s, but ski pretty hard (skied much harder back then). Going beyond ten would have to involve hard charging and speed, with aggressive technique etc. for me.

  14. Christian July 30th, 2010 12:56 am

    I am one of the guys that have had problems with prerelease (mostly due to a faulty binding). I agree with you that there is way too much prestige in tightening the bindings too much, and that people should try to find their own personal setting.

    This summer I saw a program with the skier Kari Traa teaching teaching jumping to kids. Guess what – she adjusted all the kids bindings to minimum. The reason is of course that landing a 360 incorrectly with your binding to tight would hurt you.

    That said…the process of finding the right adjustment can also be dangerous. I am 39 years old, have been on skis the last 37 andhave had +100 days skiing most of those years. Last year was the first year I actually broke a bone (have had numerous concussions, local paralysis etc)in my body due to a fall on skis. That happend on a new pair of skis, where I was working to find the correct binding setting. I had the binding at RV9 – higher than what the charts would recommend (I am 87kilo, 183cm and use 28.5 boots). In normal conditions RV9 would probably be good for me on that ski/binding combo (dynafit mustagh ata 187), but doing short turns on ice was what made the binding release. I have analyzed this quite thourougly now, and I think what happened was that I had a lateral release going into a steep section and as I stepped down I bent the stopper under the ski. This made me loose control, and the other ski released and I landed on top of one ski breaking a rib. I now have my bindings (ST) at 10 and have no problems. My others skis are set at 8 (race sl with marker), and 9 BC Corvus with duke – I have had no problems with these. Probably due to more elastisty… I used to race with Look bindings at din 8.

    BTW Isn’t one of G3s claims that the Onyx provide more elasticity than other tech bindings?

  15. Lou July 30th, 2010 6:29 am

    Christian, good stuff, thanks. Not sure about the elasticity claim by G3, but if it did have more elasticity my feeling is it couldn’t be much, due to the fact that in both vertical and lateral release the amount of elasticity is mostly dictated by how much the pins move in relation to the boot fittings, and the fittings are the same. If the binding tilted up in vertical release that could add more elasticity to vertical, but other than flex in the system I don’t think there is any kind of tilt mechanism built in to Onyx, but perhaps there is. I’ll look. Jonathan?

  16. Nick July 30th, 2010 2:36 pm

    I like the spinal tap reference.

    Good to read this sort of thing as I’m primarily on teles, but once in a great while I go to the dark side of my dynafits; where I get a little wierded out by the whole release setting thing.

  17. pioletski July 30th, 2010 5:21 pm

    Nice article, nice reference (It’s Nigel’s job to be confused) and nice discussion. I have long been in the habit of setting new bindings according to the charts (8.5 or 9) and then gradually dialing them up (usually to 10.5 or 11), and therefore insist on a binding that goes to at least 12 so as to allow a little headroom.

  18. Jed Ullrich July 31st, 2010 1:13 pm

    I find that either due to style or the bindings themselves I run significantly different dins on different setups. I’m 6’2″ ~240 325mm bsl on Karhu Storms with ST’s and Titans I’m at 9 vertical and lateral with no prerelease problems. But on Salomon bindings I walk out at less than 12-13 with Look/Rossi bindings 10-11 is fine. Regardless of what skis I’m skiing fast on steep slopes

  19. Jonathan Shefftz August 2nd, 2010 8:28 am

    re “Tech” forward elasticity, has anyone tried to measure this? (And relative to the range of results for alpine downhill bindings?) Dynafit & Onyx must be nearly identical in this regard since the heel unit functionality for forward release seems identical. (The heel unit also has an advantage in that it is not getting beaten up on while skinning with any sort of heel elevator, but then again that design is one of the major reasons for the Onyx’s substantial weight penalty.) Lateral has some interesting differences, although I’m not sure if they have any implications?

    Re elasticity in general, Tyrolia used to make a big deal of this way back when all skis were sold “flat” and corporate ties between ski & binding companies tended to be pretty vague. (Tyrolia of course didn’t bother to mention that even though its 360>380>480 lineage did indeed have more lateral elasticity, it had less vertical elasticity, although then again, with its unique heel height adjustment, all the vertical elasticity was available regardless of boot sole lug height, in contrast to other bindings’ stated specs for vertical elasticity that were used up to some extent by the automatic heel height adjustment.) The more intense competition in those days before our current “hostage” plates / “system” skis entailed promotional materials that often cited mechanical differences vis a vis competitors, and Skiing magazine even published technical articles including detailed diagrams of the inner workings and the results from complex load tests from Vermont Safety Research.

    Re alpine downhill bindings evolution, I find TGR Gear Swap resale values to be very telling: old Salomon bindings (especially those with more metal in the housing construction and with the worm drive forward pressure adjustments, as opposed to more plastic and the click-in-place adjustment) and old Look/Rossi turntables still sell for decent amounts. I don’t think this is just being “Maggot cool” but rather it reflects their reliable designs. (Which makes Salomon’s negligent try at copying the Dynafit “Tech” interface all the more shocking.) By contrast, Marker bindings are brutally disparaged there, and the Marker design for their consumer stock bindings does place more emphasis on release over retention. My understanding of the Marker toe is that it essentially clamps down on the boot, and then when the boot moves off center, the three elements of both toe cams and the AFD together move off center with the boot. When this “sandwich” reaches a certain point in its off-center movement, it decides to open up and release the boot. By contrast, all other bindings just keep functioning the same way as the boot toe moves off center, until finally the boot:binding contact is insufficient to retain the boot.

    Re RVs for backcountry skiing, I remembered that the Onyx pdf includes this passage, essentially providing backcountry skiers with different reasons to increase their RVs among the standard alpine downhill chart:
    *****
    • Note that release values selected using this
    practice may not be appropriate for circumstances
    in which:
    .. the skier carries an object that significantly
    increases the skier’s effective body weight,
    .. the skier grasps or in some manner controls an
    object such as a sled, or the skier encounters
    exceptional snow or terrain
    .. conditions not commonly found on developed ski
    slopes.

  20. Lou August 2nd, 2010 1:26 pm

    Good stuff Jonathan. Some time ago I “garage” measured elasticity in vertical release for Dynafit compared to some alpine bindings. In some cases the difference was obvious. I measured by simply prying the heel of the boot up till it released. As you point out, because of the inherent shape of the tech heel fitting, the boot can only move up a certain amount before, POP, it comes out. Alpine bindings if so desired by the makers can have quite a bit of upward movement at the heel, absorbed by a barrel spring, before they release. I’m not sure the difference is that big a deal for most skiers, but if one finds they pop out of tech bindings in vertical release mode, and they don’t with an alpine binding (given use of the the same RV values), this could be part or all of what’s going on.

    BTW, we all should keep in mind that in the DIN/ISO standard for binding release values, the tested value in comparison to what the binding numbers say can be something like fully one number off. Thus, trying to compare bindings in field use based on what number they are set on can be a bit of a waste of time.

  21. Jonathan Shefftz August 2nd, 2010 4:28 pm

    Forgot to include the url for a discussion of prerelease modes with alpine downhill bindings:
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/33a3g7x

  22. Walt August 15th, 2010 12:36 am

    I can’t wait to buy these and sell my pre-releasing pieces od s#*t dynafits on Ebay. Good ridence Dynafit. Welcome Onyx! Who cares if you are a pound heavier? I guess weight weenies might care. But really, that’s like only having an extra pint of water with you. Is that really going to matter? it will be well worth it to have something you can trust.

  23. Lou August 15th, 2010 6:50 pm

    Walt, that sounds like a good plan, but if weight is no big deal and Dynafits didn’t work, why were you usuing Dynafit instead of Fritschi or even Duke? Please explain.

  24. Walt August 24th, 2010 9:38 am

    The answer to that is easy. Nothing climbs like the dynafit style pivot. The other bindings don’t have that. These bindings are really for the uphill. Also, they do put you low on the ski, unlike the Fritschi. The Marker also puts you low on the ski, but you are lifting the entire binding when you ski. I said that 1 pound is not a big deal at all, but an extra 5 pounds would be on a long tour.

  25. Lou August 24th, 2010 10:50 am

    Walt, yeah, I take that for granted, so good to be reminded! I’d really really like to get your impressions of Onyx.

  26. Lou October 26th, 2010 2:29 pm

    I re-dated this thread for you guys, if you want to talk about TUV and DIN issues regarding tech bindings such as Plum, Onyx and of course Dynafit.

    See this post as well, for more backstory:

    http://www.wildsnow.com/2511/dynafit-tech-boot-fittings/

  27. Toby October 26th, 2010 4:16 pm

    Lou, god bless bindings but how about some early season trip reports, storm reports and what about the trailer build? You guys getting pounded with these storms? I’m locked in the flatlands staring at the wall of clouds locked up against the front range dreaming…. Show some of the goods!!

  28. Lou October 26th, 2010 4:24 pm

    Ah, the call for stoke! We’ve got it coming, even some reports from skiing volcanoes in Mexico!

  29. Daniel Dunn October 26th, 2010 8:11 pm

    “These go to 11.” Love it!
    Lou, I knew you were already one of the more hip and cool dudes around, but when I saw your post, starting the way it did, I now have even more respect for you. All hail LOU!!!!

  30. Charlie October 27th, 2010 2:54 pm

    I feel very strongly that a practical lateral elasticity limit for Dynafits is at the toe. I have big feet (335 mm BSL/Mondo 30.5, 175-180 lbs, 6’1″, DINs usually near 7).

    A few years ago, when stomping hard on fairly dull edges for purchase while sidestepping boilerplate ice in a no-fall situation, I clicked out at the toe, but not the heel. Two fearful minutes later, I locked my toes for the first time on descent.

    Over the following year or more, I tended to ski with the toes partially locked. I had a few releases that were a combination of vertical and lateral. In May 2009, I skied a big (7-10k’), fairly steep line in crevassed terrain with toes locked to the third click on carefully mounted bindings. Fatigue, skinny skis, knee deep slop, and a heavy pack added up to a twisting fall that applied pure lateral torque to the ski. Since the binding was locked, my fibula provided the release mechanism, and the rest of the descent was an arduous affair for my partner and the Rainier climbing rangers.

    The problem I was trying to solve by partially locking the bindings was fundamentally one of elasticity, not of maximum torque. I needed to increase the impulse (torque times time) and energy (torque times twist angle) the toepiece could absorb before release, not the peak torque. Since the horizontal travel of the toepiece is fixed, the only way I could do that was by locking the binding to the first useful click (and drastically increasing the maximum torque).

    I see in the Onyx the potential for somewhat greater toe elasticity simply because the toepiece doesn’t go over a “hump” and lock open. The “tech” toe fittings probably fundamentally limit guaranteed-retention travel to the depth of the toe sockets though, so it’s not totally clear how much of an advantage G3 has.

    Interchangeable (stiffer) toe retention springs (and a dialing down of the lateral heel release) might go a long way toward keeping folks from locking out the toe.

  31. Lou October 27th, 2010 5:07 pm

    Charlie, you are spot on, and yes, in my opinion if the Dynafit toe simply had more retention pressure it would help those who have an issue with it and tend to lock their bindings.

    Check this post out:
    http://www.wildsnow.com/2823/wildsnow-tech-onyx-and-dynafit-jaw-pressure/

    And this:

    http://www.wildsnow.com/2794/dynafit-binding-experimental/

  32. David October 27th, 2010 7:57 pm

    Lou, have you tested the new Fritschi Freeride Pro as yet. I am looking at them for a new set up. Not yet going to convert to the Dynafit as it would require new boots and my Garmont’s still have plenty of life inthem.

    I have heard of the toe piece breaking at the swivel pin. Is this a one off or a possible design flaw.

  33. Edge October 28th, 2010 9:55 am

    Just for clarification, G3 is not the first alpine touring/backcountry binding manufacturer to offer indemnity to retailers selling and adjusting their bindings. Naxo did this at the request of BCA for several years (before Naxo went bankrupt). Rottefella also did this with their TRP releasable telemark touring plate (before it was discontinued). I hope the Onyx’s future is brighter than these two bindings!

  34. stephen October 29th, 2010 9:08 pm

    IMHO, G3 should offer a “Nigel Tufnel Signature Series” binding, preferably signed, in limited edition packaging complete with a foil-wrapped cucumber. Derek Smalls and David St. Hubbins models could follow… :-)

    On a more serious note, while I could get away with using the much-maligned Marker alpine bindings on DIN 5 or 5.5 with zero pre-releases or other problems, Vertical STs pre-release vertically at the heel at the same values.

Got something to say? Please do so.





Anti-Spam Quiz:


If you need an emoticon for a comment just copy/paste off the following list, or use text code you might be familiar with.
:D    :-)    :(    :lol:    :x    :P    :oops:    :cry:    :evil:    :twisted:    :roll:    :wink:    :!:    :?:    :idea:    :arrow:   
  
Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after we approve it. Once you've had one comment published, your comments will be pre-approved and appear immediately if you're using the same computer and not blocking browser cookies. NOTE however that ALL comments with one or more links in the text will be held for moderation no matter what, again for spam prevention.
Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information opinion website and e magazine. Lou's passion for the past 45 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about backcountry skiing and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free back country news and information here, and tons of Randonnee rando telemark info.

All material on this website online magazine is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked.. Permission required for reproduction, electronic or otherwise. This includes publication and display on other websites by whatever means. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

Backcountry skiing is a dangerous sport. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. While the authors and editors of the information on this website make every effort to present useful information about ski mountaineering, due to human error the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions or templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow its owners and contributors of any liability for use of said items for backcountry skiing or any other use.

Switch to our mobile site