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

By: stephen

stephen — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:08:21 +0000

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.

By: Edge

Edge — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:55:58 +0000

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!

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:57:17 +0000

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.

By: Lou

Lou — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:07:39 +0000

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/

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:54:40 +0000

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.