WildSnow Reader’s Rides — Ed’s Stokes


This post by WildSnow.com blogger  
Dynafit Stokes

Ed's Dynafit Stoke backcountry skis, ready for prime time fluff or whatever else the clouds bring.

Lou,
Thanks for the post and thread on mounting Dynafit bindings when the mounting insert holes are filled with factory resin – I had to drill out four on one ski and two on the other so took your advice and did all of them. Five min epoxy (all I had around) made the job really fast – like really fast. Next time, I might be tempted to use 15 min or even half hour setting goop just for a bit more open time. Also, when doing the toe and the heel units, I found that torquing up the screws on opposing corners as you would a set of rims or heads on an engine, kinda did the job more smoothly if I can use that term. This is absolutely the slickest binding mounting system I’ve used to date. The Dynafit guys have it together in my books.

So, in amongst the disaster of a major plumbing job (out with the grey Poly-B and in with good old copper), a main floor flooring job pre-Christmas (keep the chief of 30 yrs happy . . . ) and experimenting with stains for a friend’s job – voila — The Edwardian Stoke-o-tronics are born!

Thanks for the website and your articles for us do-it-yourself types. Was the best part of my day today.

Kindest regards,
Ed

See other Stoke review here.

Shop for the Stoke.

Comments

48 Responses to “WildSnow Reader’s Rides — Ed’s Stokes”

  1. Lou March 3rd, 2011 10:05 am

    The question I forgot to ask Ed was exactly where on that workbench did he set the skis while mounting them? And is that a paint can impression in the Ptex (grin)?

  2. Ed March 3rd, 2011 12:53 pm

    Hanging on for dear life, out of sight, there are actually two ski vises – as for clearing the bench, that’s what the Binford leaf blower is for . . . :-)
    Cheers
    e

  3. John S March 3rd, 2011 3:26 pm

    Lou – Your article on how to mount when using Dynafit inserts was a LIFE SAVER for me recently. My Mustagh Ata SL skis arrived with every mounting hole filled with resin. My ski tech has done many Dynafit mounts, but Dynafit skis are very rare in my parts, so his experience with the inserts was minimal. The two of us were able to mount the STs onto my new skis without one error, and they ski great.

  4. Lou March 3rd, 2011 3:41 pm

    Fantastic! Glad we could help out!

    Cracks me up the way this stuff has become so tricky that the customer has to help the tech do the mount (grin), two brains and all that (grin).

  5. stephen March 5th, 2011 12:44 am

    The paperwork that comes with the bindings (and indeed most things these days) basically contains no useful information. They should just include a piece of paper with the appropriate WildSnow URLs – and pay you a commission!

    What I’d really like to know is how the workshop people are supposed to find out anything. I’ve worked in another sports-related industry, and the manufacturers and their agents there certainly never told us anything useful; perhaps the ski industry isn’t as bad, at least in North America. IMO, in many cases it’s impossible to find anyone who knows anything useful, with everything having to be done from first principles by trial and error..

    Lastly, a plea. Could Lou et al please write a piece about expanding boot shells, including a list of what tools and supplies are required and where they can be found, what temperatures and precautions are needed for which plastics and pictures of both the procedures and tools. Any links to such info would be greatly appreciated. As far as I can ascertain, there is NOBODY on the Australian continent who can or will perform any such mods to anything other than heavy alpine boots. It’d be nice to have enough info to have a go at doing it myself.

  6. Tim March 6th, 2011 9:12 am

    Hi Lou,

    I am thinking about buying a pair of Stokes now. As far as I can tell, next year’s will be the same, and the current ones have the mounting holes drilled more forward than the originals. Is this true? If so no reason to wait for me but how do I tell that I am buying the ones with the more forward holes?
    Thanks,
    Tim Whalen

  7. Lou March 6th, 2011 2:29 pm

    Not sure, call Dynafit customer service? Lots of folks are very happy with the original Stokes…

  8. Thom Mackris March 6th, 2011 8:21 pm

    Hi all, and thanks to Lou and Jonathan over the years for all of the great, geeky, Dynafiddle tips. The arrival of a pair of TLT Mountains prompted a few re-mounts. I’m coming to the conclusion that you don’t get the grok on mounting these babies until some 5-7 mounts. The light bulbs went off on the most recent mount.

    While I think the Portman template is great, I’ve arrived at using it for only the front (center) hole of the toe piece.

    I start off by opening up the holes in the plastic base plate as was covered several times in various posts on this blog.

    1. I drill and tap the front center hole as located by the Portman template.

    2. I mount the toe piece, insert the boot, and line the center of the boot heel up with a centerline drawn on the ski.

    3. Holding the boot in place, I center punch one of the two exposed holes. For a center punch, I use a 7/32″ drill bit (in a drill), and give it a couple of spins – just to create a dimple and no more. Be careful. A 7/32″ bit is almost a perfect fit for the holes in the Dynafit base plate – centering the hole nicely. You can likely get closer (either metric, or a numbered bit), but this is plenty fine.

    4. After checking that I didn’t move anything while center punching, I drill and tap this hole, and insert the screw, and reinserting the boot to check that the boot heel center is still on the centerline of the ski. If it isn’t, the opposite hole gets drilled slightly to the off-center, to allow for pulling everything back on center.

    5. The remaining two holes in the toe piece mount are trivial, but I still use the 7/32″ bit to make the center punch mark.

    Two drills come in handy for this (at least if you’re doing production work), but one will do … albeit with quite a few drill bit changes.

    The jury is still out on mounting the heels, but I’m leaning toward continuing with the eyeball technique, using the 6mm spacer between heel and heel piece. My first attempt at this was a success. This takes a bit more finagling for reasons you can guess, but I’m finding that I get a “squarer” fit between heel and heel piece this way.

    If you’re doing a re-mount, you should use the Portman template as a reality check – in case you’ve adjusted the heel (fore/aft track adjustment) to one extreme end or the other. Unless you have a couple of different boots in mind for the skis in question, it’s a good idea to position the heel piece near the center of its track.

    Tips on Quiver Killers.

    This re-mount project prompted a purchase of some Quiver Killers. I’m still figuring these out (not enough ski cores experimented with), but it seems as if three turns of the tap is the absolute maximum you want. Anymore, and the inserts get fairly loose – sometimes wanting to come back out as you back out the screw (used for insertion). The key (if this occurs) is counterintuitive – push down on the screwdriver as you back out the screw.

    I have an old pair of Atomic Kongurs I’m going to install some inserts into tonight, and I’m going to try only 2-1/2 turns of the tap.

    Cheers,
    Thom

  9. Lou March 7th, 2011 7:07 am

    Thom, good point about not over-tapping the insert holes. You do want those inserts to go in nice and tight…

  10. Thom Mackris March 7th, 2011 8:28 am

    Thankss, Lou. Here’s to JB Weld (used it in place of the supplied expoxy).

    The challenge of course is that you can’t use a scrap piece of wood to experiment with, because the tapping operation is specific to the density/hardness of the core material in your ski.

    Compounding the challenge is that you can’t easily remove an insert that won’t seat flush with the top of the ski (too few turns of the tap).

    I suggest tapping a single hole to test how many turns of the tap are ideal (start with no more than 3) before tapping the remaining holes for a binding part.

    The least critical hole would (fortunately) appear to be the front, center hole on the toe piece (the first one I’d normally drill), as it isn’t subjected to upward pressure. Also, any rotational forces on the toe are shared by all 5 screws.

    This shouldn’t scare people off from using any of the threaded insert systems. The key challenge is in precisely locating the holes. The above, is one more thing to pay attention to, however.

    Cheers,

    Thom

  11. Kent March 8th, 2011 3:18 pm

    I have a question that’s a little off topic.
    First some important background: I recently got a pair of size 27.5 TLT 5 boots with a 297 mm BSL. I want to use them with skis that were mounted at a local shop with ST 10 bindings for my 312 mm BSL Zzeus. The heel pieces were mounted such that they fit my Zzeus (what’s the plural) when adjusted about 10mm from the farthest forward (shortest BSL length) position. In other words, I can’t adjust the bindings to be small enough for my new 297 mm TLT 5s. I decided to move just the heel piece forward first, and see if I minded having the TLT 5 centered 7.5 mm (< 5/16”) in front of the ski’s boot center mark. I didn’t want to move the toe just a few millimeters back, in order to center the boot, because of how close the new and existing screw holes would be. I know there are ways to deal with that but didn’t want to hassle it if I didn’t have to.
    Anyway, while preparing to move the heel, I discovered that the centers of the boots’ heel tech fitting screws are off center by about 2 mm. That might not sound like much, but it looks like quite a bit to me when I look at how far the binding heel pins are from centering in the boot heel slots. The toe piece looks a tiny bit out of alignment, but not more than about 0.5mm max (my ruler has a 1mm resolution). Both my Zzeus and TLT 5s are off about the same, and the condition is about the same with both skis.
    Is this a big deal? Should I remount the toe? I’m dying to get these skis out with the new boots, and don’t want to take the time to hassle with the shop (which I won’t be using again for other reasons as well). Thanks for any solid input.

  12. Lou March 8th, 2011 3:46 pm

    1. Place boots in the same binding to see if your mis-alignment is the boot or the binding.
    2. If it is the boots and 2 mm or less, simply compromise both bindings to be off 1 mm, by loosening and re-tightening the toe unit, while placing boot in binding, locking binding, and pushing boot heel to side to slightly shift the screws as you put them in.
    3. If boots are good, simply loosen and retighten toe unit screws while tweaking binding alignment by locking boot in binding and pushing heel to side.

    This is basic stuff for any shop that knows what they’re doing, and is fairly easy for the DIY person as well.

    As for your binding position on ski, as a rule of thumb it is usually better to move back rather than forward. Perhaps you can get that toe farther back than you think, by asking more of the heel adjustment?

    As for boots being out 2 mm or less, when I punch my boot shells for more toe room they frequently end up that much out. I split the difference between bindings and no problem. Much more than that, however, and I don’t get a good feeling about what’s going on.

  13. Kent March 8th, 2011 4:49 pm

    Thanks Lou. Switched to AT from tele not long ago and your site has been extremely valuable. A great service you provide with this blog. Cheers

  14. Kent March 8th, 2011 5:48 pm

    Lou -regarding moving the toe piece back. I might still want to use the Zzeus, so I don’t want to go back too far. At one point I was thinking of splitting the difference between centering the two boots – Zzues sightly back, TLT5 slightly forward. Maybe it would be better to go with the tlt 5 centered and the Zzeus back a bit more. The skis are Atomic RT86 with a Densolite foam core. How close together do you think I can place the new and existing screw holes without reinforcing the fill job on the old holes? I’m sorry to ask this because I think I’ve seen it posted somewhere else on wild snow, but I’m having trouble finding it now. Thanks again for you time and knowledge.

  15. Lou March 8th, 2011 5:58 pm

    Kent, personally I’d set it up so the boots were either on center or back, not forward. Those alpine skis are usually pretty beefy. If you don’t tend to have problems with binding pullout, new holes a few mm from the old should be fine. Just fill the old ones with good epoxy, and epoxy in the new screws. If you’re a big, agro skier you’d need to be farther than a few mm…

  16. Thom Mackris March 8th, 2011 7:52 pm

    I had almost the identical problem. An old pair of G3 Barons was mounted up for a pair of Megarides (BSL = 300mm). My TLT mountains are 287mm.

    Well, I couldn’t get quite enough forward movement on the heel piece to fit the TLT Mountains.

    For reasons I can’t explain, I located the front hole of the toepiece a few mm too far forward (too close to the old holes).

    Full speed ahead, I employed an old trick of making a matrix of steel wool and JB Weld to fill the old holes – a tedious process involving kneading a small bit of steel wool and JB Weld at a time, and poking repeatedly into the old holes with a nail. Latex of vinyl gloves are recommended.

    I’ve yet to take them out, but here’s a shot of one of the toepiece sections before I buttoned it up:

    http://www.galibierdesign.com/images/forum/G3_Dynafit_Quiver_Killer_Inserts.jpg

    The old and new holes aren’t quite as close as they appear to be, because some of the fill area you see includes the old countersink. I’d say that edge to edge the holes are about 3mm apart.

    Of course, I compounded the problem as this was my first Quiver Killer install, and I spun the tap about 3-1/2 turns, making for a loose fit with the inserts. JB Weld to the rescue. I ain’t skiing these babies in a no-fall zone until I get some time under them 8O

    We’ll see how they hold up … I’m no hucker these daze.

    Cheers,
    Thom

  17. Lou March 8th, 2011 7:57 pm

    Thom, I’ll buy you a sixer if you have any problem with those pulling out. JB, indeed!

    Those of you who do the steel wool thing, remember that with JB you don’t need much steel wool, just a bit does the trick. The JB is super strong.

    Check out the following, where I actually tapped one insert into another:

    http://www.wildsnow.com/4004/backcountry-skiing-binding-swap/

  18. Thom Mackris March 8th, 2011 9:20 pm

    Hi Lou,

    Here’s a case where I want to lose the bet (the sixer) :mrgreen:

    Cheers,
    Thom

  19. Lou March 8th, 2011 9:59 pm

    Indeed!

  20. Kent March 9th, 2011 2:52 pm

    Thanks for all the info, Thom & Lou.

  21. Thom Mackris March 10th, 2011 8:18 pm

    A quick follow-up. I mentioned that I’d try 2.5 turns of the tap to install the Quiver Killers into a pair of Atomic Kongurs I had sitting around. In tapping for the inserts into a pair of G3 Barons, I found 3 turns of the tap to be a bit too much.

    The binding mounting area (top plate) on these Kongurs is a bit beefier than the G3 Barons, so I was concerned that dropping back half a turn of the tap might create too much resistance. The answer is “no”.

    One thing is clear – it’s a good idea to have the tap run through the entire reinforcement layer – the fiberglass or whatever your ski’s top sheet is comprised of.

    After two successful(?) re-mounts, I want to raise your confidence level with a Quiver Killer or Binding Freedom mounting process. I have a reassuring anecdote. As you fiddle with orienting the toepiece to get the heel centered on the ski, the inserts using the insert system provides you with a second opportunity to get it right (not that I’ve ever screwed up a mount :mrgreen: ).

    Scenario:

    You’ve drilled the front (center) hole on the toepiece and then, one of the other 4 holes. After tightening down and checking, the boot heel is off center, and no amount of finagling will bring it on center.

    Remove the screw from the second hole you drilled (not the front, center hole). Center-punch and drill another one, thread it, and tighten down on both this screw and the front/center one. At this point, this is still a conventional ski mount – no inserts have been installed.

    What to do about the mis-drilled hole? Here’s where your 7/32″ drill bit comes into play. Since you’ll be opening up all of the holes to mount the inserts, you have a second chance at success. The challenge in re-positioning the hole lies in the tendency of the existing hole to act like a center-punch, pulling the larger bit to its center.

    So, after verifying that everything’s nice and square with the two, well located screws tightened down, drill through the binding hole with your 7/32″ bit to open up (and re-center) the bad hole. The binding keeps the bit located on its new center.

    Drill down maybe 1/4″. Be careful with this bit as well as with the bit that comes with the inserts. They catch hold and take off quickly. As I mentioned (above), I’m in agreement with everyone who has posted, that one of the first things to do with a Dynafit mount is to open up the 5 holes in the plastic base plate of the toepiece. IIRC, the final drill bit size is ¼”, but check me out on this one. I’m going from memory.

    Cheers,
    Thom

  22. Lou March 10th, 2011 8:27 pm

    Thom, your contributions here are very appreciated. Thanks! Good tip about how to correct things as you go…

  23. Tim March 11th, 2011 12:27 pm

    Lou,
    I called Dynafit customer service and they will have to measure a pair of Stokes to see what the forward position fitting measurement is. While I am waiting for that I naturally want to get my new skis mounted and out there. ;-) Does anyone reading this have a pair of 182 Stokes that they know have the forward drilled holes? If so and you could give me a measurement from the tip to the first toe hole I would greatly appreciate it.

    Also, I am planning to use two pairs of boots with these and the BSLs fall a mm or two on each side of where Dynafit transitions from mounting in one set of holes to the other. (One boot is a bit shorter and the other boot a bit longer.) Any thoughts on how to split that hair? My inclination is to use the most forward toe holes and see which heel holes then work best but my gut might be wrong on this so any thoughts are also much appreciated.

    Thanks for, as so many have said, providing such a great source of Dynafit and BC info!
    Tim

  24. See March 12th, 2011 8:34 pm

    I’ve been a bit disappointed that Dynafit has seen fit to put inserts in skis that I would rather mount with my own choice of bindings, where I want, and how want.

    It seems that there are a couple of different ways to view the ski insert issue. One is to view inserts as good because they simplify and idiot proof the mounting process. Another is to view them as bad because, among other things, they limit the mounting options.

    I would like to suggest that there is another issue that might be worth considering– if a product is idiot proof, does that not encourage shops to employ mostly idiots because they don’t have to pay them as much as skilled technicians?

    As a former (not ski) shop mechanic, I think about this sort of thing, and when I read dismissive comments about the level of knowledge to be found in shops these days, I wonder if we aren’t at some sort of turning point where we have to look at our own purchasing behavior and decide; are we going to go down the big box retailer path where most of the employees are low wage and low skill, or are we wiling to pay to have skilled people at the shops we depend on for our equipment?

    And, given the conversation regarding shills and sock puppets, I might as well say that I live in Northern California, and I’ve found the local shops to be quality operations, although I mostly do my own mounting, bootfitting, etc..

  25. Lou March 13th, 2011 9:35 am

    See, good thoughts, thanks! I’d agree that the inserts are not a slam dunk. But, to your point of them of being more idiot proof, I’d say that’s not the case and that dealing with the Dynafit inserts requires just as much expertise and mechanical skill as starting with a binding mount from a drill jig. The main thing they do in a shop is save a bit of time. They might be easier for the DIY person, but due to their quirks I’d say that’s more theory than fact. My opinion, anyway.

    In general, I’d agree that there is indeed a trend for shop mechanics to be less skilled. Not sure that’s driven by the gear, however, but might just be more of a cultural thing. I mean, how many kids now come from families where hand skills are passed down through the generations? It still happens, but less and less is the stats I’ve heard, and make sense.

  26. See March 13th, 2011 8:29 pm

    I really must learn to read first, post second.

    In any case, I have now learned that the inserts are thought to be stronger and lighter, in low core density skis. I’m not sure I believe this.

    If one were to take the material in the insert module and the resin used to mount it, and use the same amount of material to reinforce the deck of the ski, I believe that a regular binding screw mount (with epoxy to create a composite plug under a reinforced deck) would likely be as light and strong (if not more so) as an insert mount.

    This is all just “imagineering” on my part, but multi-position inserts would seem to have a lot of extraneous material (extra weight) and disadvantageous structural complication for the ski as a whole.

    Thanks for helping me get over my cold, time to go skiing.

    Cheers,

    See

  27. aviator March 14th, 2011 12:18 pm

    @see

    Modern light weight skis don’t have enough structure inside to support mounting in just a reinforced deck, they will delam.

    You have to spread the load much deeper down in to the ski.

    Ski’s will get even lighter in the future, that means there won’t be any proper reinforcements or inserts, like there is effectively none on Goode an Merelli 100% carbon skis.
    I think manufacturers will have no other choice than to educate shops and consumers how to PROPERLY work with fiber and epoxy for mounting and ESPECIALLY remounting/repairs.
    What has held them back so far I think is no one wants to stand out as the only one with really complicated mounting instructions. Look at the Goode instructions for example compared to what really needs to be said. Ridiculous.

    And I think we will see more of binding screw patterns getting spread wider and wider (new Dynafit toe pattern) and using more screws (new rottefella ntn 6 screw toe pattern).
    This spreads the load over a wider area.

  28. See March 14th, 2011 7:18 pm

    Hi Aviator,

    I think we’re saying approximately the same thing.

    As cores get less dense (lighter/weaker), one can get a satisfactory mount by having a strong deck and using epoxy (and, perhaps, other materials) to create an anchor for the mounting screw below the deck. This effectively through-bolts the binding to the deck. Thus inserts are not really necessary to get a secure mount on a light ski.

    So why is Dynafit going with inserts, if not to reduce the skill required to do the mount?

    Perhaps not a big deal in the grand scheme of things (especially lately), but I’m glad you think the trend toward devaluing certain skills may be reversing .

  29. Lou March 14th, 2011 8:23 pm

    Again,despite all theory, Dynafit did go with the inserts at least in part so they didn’t have to build a heavy long length reinforcement plate into the ski. Official sources and insiders told me so and they were credible. Believe me, those binding mount reinforcements are heavy. And sure, perhaps both things could be left aside if binding screws were perfectly done with epoxy etc, but no way a company who has to warranty skis and defend their reputation could depend on that getting done correctly. Heck, Dynafit can barely get people to mount their bindings straight in numerous cases (which we’ve dealt with regularly for the last then years via email and how-to website posts.)

  30. stephen March 17th, 2011 6:53 am

    Dear Dynafit,

    Please use metal inserts which can reliably take multiple mounts and enable the bindings to be removed for easy transport. Since the Quiver Killer inserts weigh ~1.3 grams each I expect we can all tolerate any weight penalty over the plastic ones. Even if the latter are weightless this is only ~23 grams for 18 holes…

    Thank you.

  31. aviator March 17th, 2011 7:58 am

    @stephen
    That’s lighter than I thought. are u sure? stainless and the thread is M5? they must be really thin…
    Still with double toe and heel positions that’s 36 inserts for the pair =47 gram
    It adds up. I wouldn’t want any skis to come with all those inserts pre installed

  32. Lou March 17th, 2011 8:08 am

    I’d agree with aviator. Inserts are one of those things that sound good on the surface, and sometimes they’re really great, but they should be installed at the option of the ski owner, not something you get stuck paying for and hauling around if you don’t need them.

    I noticed up in Aspen at Ute Mountaineer they’ll install a set of inserts for $100, that sounds very reasonable if it includes the cost of the inserts as well as removing and replacing binding.

    BTW, While doing inserts is one of those things that seems to be promoted and web-chatted about as a DIY project, in my experience doing them well is not for everyone.

  33. aviator March 17th, 2011 8:14 am

    The main problem with dynafit inserts is they were called inserts.
    It gives people false expectations. They shoulda called them pre-drilled instead.

  34. stephen March 17th, 2011 8:59 am

    Totally agree with the above posts; (partially) pre-drilled would be closer to the truth. Still, if we have to have something Dynafit choose to call inserts to save a bunch of weight otherwise required for reinforcements, it’d be nice if they made them easily re-usable, i.e, metal.

    My theory is that Dynafit inflict their plastic lumps on us in an attempt to: 1) force people to buy their bindings, 2) prevent the bindings being easily swappable between skis, and 3) guarantee ongoing binding sales by changing the hole pattern for the new bindings, thus making it difficult/impossible to put current or older bindings on any new Dynafit skis. Of these, #1 is by far the least objectionable sales tactic. Maybe I’m being overly cynical but maybe not too.

    aviator: I cannot remember where I saw the weight/insert quoted but the QK’s are definitely ~1.3 grams each. There isn’t much metal in one insert.

  35. Lou March 17th, 2011 9:54 am

    Stephen, interesting theory but the Dynafit hole pattern, at least up to next season, fit numerous other binding from different companies, including G3. More, since the original Dynafit hole pattern is now a standard, it could be easily argued that changing their pattern will actually result in Dynafit selling FEWER bindings since there are so many skis out there drilled in the old pattern, which people might want to upgrade but won’t due so due to the hassle of drilling new holes. As to intentionally trying to prevent easy swapping between skis, that’s ridiculous. A very small percentage of skiers out there will ever mess around with swapping bindings between skis, and besides, all a swap would entail is making an extra pair of holes in each ski, 6 mm ahead of existing front holes. Swapping bindings is a cool thing, but not a market driver or something that corporate greed heads would worry about. Point 3 is weird as well, as changing the hole pattern is simply an engineering necessity due to the elimination of the 5th, centered front hole/screw.

    Walmart might be a corporate conspiracy to take advantage of consumers, but I really don’t see Dynafit as in that class (grin).

    FYI, I don’t shy away from calling it like it is with Dynafit. For example, we’ve long railed against the unnecessary cosmetic connector strip between toe and heel units of FT12 binding. Even that, however, appears to have been changed to something that’s at least intended to have a function (testing to ensue at some point). Also, I’m a skeptic about the Power Towers, and need to get some of those bindings here for testing and evaluation. The Power Towers could be great, or could simply be a cosmetic marketing thing. Unknown at this point.

  36. stephen March 17th, 2011 10:18 am

    Okay, fair enough except that just about all the other bindings that fit to the “standard” Dynafit pattern are expen$ive, and mostly race bindings, Plum Guide and G3 excepted

    Still, am I correct in thinking that Dynafit skis from fall 2011 onwards will use the new toe hole pattern? Either way, this will create a bit of angst while skis and bindings for both patterns are out there at the same time.

    Lou, I hope you’re right corporate types might not bother trying to prevent binding swaps, but am less confident about this! FWIW, it’s important to me, as it means that I can carry (and buy) less bindings and make the total package smaller. Where I live, *all* skiing means driving 500km each way minimum, or else flying overseas, so less weight and bulk is a really good thing. (And carrying less stuff means lower airline and physiotherapy/osteopathy charges too.)

    Like you say, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with the new bindings…

  37. Lou March 17th, 2011 10:31 am

    Stephen, I hope yours and other folk’s angst doesn’t prevent simply buying some inserts or grabbing an electric drill and configuring your skis however you want (grin)!

  38. stephen March 17th, 2011 10:55 am

    It won’t, but I expect that Dynafit will be enjoying a bit of schadenfreude courtesy of myself and others…

    It’d be easier if we didn’t have to work around those plastic things though! :roll:

  39. Lou March 17th, 2011 11:06 am

    I tend to agree about the ‘plastic things’ as now they even have to be checked for resin and drilled out anyway, and if improperly handled become spinners. In an ideal world I’d rather just drill holes, and place my own inserts if desired. Again, and I tell the truth, the advantage of the plastic inserts is they enable the making of a very lightweight ski. For that reason, I’m still willing to work with them. I stripped one on my Manaslus a while ago and just put in a steel insert. Worked fine, on them about 30 days of skiing later and not problems.

  40. stephen March 17th, 2011 11:36 am

    “I stripped one on my Manaslus a while ago and just put in a steel insert.”

    Lou, did you just fit it into the existing plastic insert? I presume you tapped the hole, but what glue, if any, did you use? Thanks very much indeed for any info on this!

    I still cannot see that the ~1 gram/insert extra for SS would be a deal killer. However, if they thought it was, they could drill and tap the holes in the skis and supply inserts to be glued in as required – thus saving a few grams by not fitting any surplus, or else leave the reinforcement plates off, allowing users to fit the inserts before bonding them on; I’m assuming they are meant to distribute the pull-out forces applied by the end of the inserts to a larger area.

    Surely there must be a better way.

  41. Lou March 17th, 2011 12:03 pm

    Hi Stephen, yeah, I drilled and tapped the stripped plastic insert for the ss insert. I should have only given the tap three turns or so, as the insert went in so easily that it tended to come back out with the insertion tool. I used epoxy that was specified to bond to plastic, though most of such will still not bond to nylon as used for the inserts I figured it wouldn’t hurt. Was a bit tricky of a process, but it worked. Better technique would probably be to drill out the plastic insert, fill with JB weld steel wool mix, re-drill, then tap and do insert. Tedious.

    BTW, I stripped the Manaslu insert intentionally, when I did my experiment to see how many times they could be used. See:
    http://www.wildsnow.com/4400/dynafit-binding-screw-inserts/

  42. stephen March 21st, 2011 6:09 am

    Thanks again! I saw the other thread(s) – also very helpful. :D

    Haven’t yet got around to removing the bindings and trying to fit the SS inserts, but it’s got to happen some time in the next few months. I figure I’ll wait until I have as much data as possible before I do something I might regret!

  43. Keith de Wit December 26th, 2011 11:19 pm

    Hey Lou:
    Mounting position question for you. If I have a 310 BSL and I mount to the Dynafit spec, that would be in the rear position, I wonder if I should consider the forward position since the next larger BSL (318) is specified for the forward position and I want to be nimble and quick on the ski. I am 165 lbs and a strong skier. Just don’t want to end up too far back on the ski. Also, I assume it would be OK to use the forward toe mount and the forward rear mount together, correct?
    Keith from Portland

  44. Lou December 27th, 2011 6:08 am

    Hi Keith, any combo of mounting holes will work so long as the binding mounted on the holes will fit your boot. Since the holes can be reused several times, I’d just start with the ones you’re attracted to. At 165 and strong skier I think you’ll find the sweet spot in either position, and yes, being forward will feel more nimble. Personally, I tend to use the rearward mounts but that’s because I’m definitely not as aggressive a skier as I used to be.

  45. Lou December 27th, 2011 6:09 am

    And, hey Ed, if you’re reading this, how have the Stokes been?

  46. Robert Lee October 29th, 2012 11:10 am

    Just wondering,
    i am thinking about adding some Stokes to go in my quiver with my K2 backups,

    do i need to use the Dynafit FT bindings og can i get by with the ST version

    was thinking about using vertical st with 100mm brakes, porbably need a bit of bending,

    will this work ?

  47. Lou Dawson October 29th, 2012 11:14 am

    Robert, yeah, you can get those bindings to work. A tiny bend as well as file some of the plastic off the inside of the brake legs. If you don’t have success, you can always buy some wider brakes. Lou

  48. Robert October 29th, 2012 1:13 pm

    thanks Lou,

    ill try, i dont really need the FT bindings, i useually ski on around 7-8din , with out any problems

    have Vertical STs on my backups.

    they are a bit cheaper than the FT

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 approval. Comments with one or more links in the text may be held in moderation, for spam prevention. If you'd like to publish a photo in a comment, contact us. Guidelines: Be civil, no personal attacks, avoid vulgarity and profanity.
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 Mobile Version