Updated Dynafit Binding Mount Template Jig


This post by WildSnow.com blogger  

I made a new Dynafit mounting template that includes hole positions for Radical series Dynafit backcountry skiing bindings. Don’t have any Radicals here at the moment, but last winter I verified the 12 mm dimension for how much farther forward the front/front pair of holes is, so I put those on the template. It’s linked from our Dynafit home mounting instructions. Would rather not link to it directly, as it’s best all users are routed through the mounting instructions page. Just a heads up for all of you WildSnowers, as I know our templates get used quite a bit. If you use the template, as always verify scale of printout as well as hole positions by comparing template to physical binding as well as measuring the scale dimension box included on the template.

Comments

58 Responses to “Updated Dynafit Binding Mount Template Jig”

  1. Charlie October 7th, 2011 4:23 pm

    Nice! Might differentiate the hole patterns somehow (Color? One dotted, one solid?)? It’d be a shame if someone accidentally put extra holes in a ski….

  2. Lou October 7th, 2011 5:13 pm

    Charlie, thanks, a good mechanic can just compare binding to the marks on the paper, and X out the wrong holes. I’ll look at making the new ones look a bit different, but no color as plenty of these are still printed on greyscale laser printer.

  3. Darrell October 7th, 2011 7:05 pm

    Hi. Nice Dnynafit template. It seems as if the new updated template does not have a pivot point line on it. Am I missing it? I assume it might be halfway between the font and back holes for the older 5 screw pattern. What about the new pattern?

  4. John Gloor October 7th, 2011 11:05 pm

    Thanks for the info Lou. I bought a really nice Plum jig last season, but it has the old Dynafit pattern only. I will probably drill some holes in it to match the new hole pattern.

  5. Rik October 8th, 2011 2:25 am

    Hi Lou,

    I mounted a pair if Dynafits before with a paper template, and noticed that after mounting, the heel plate of my boot was about 0,5mm out of center in relation to the pins of the backbinding. This was not a big problem anyway, the binding worked.
    Probably this is because it was the first time i done this… I think this must have been caused by drilling the front holes where the drill bit(s) did not grabbed exactly into the centerpointed marks on the ski.

    Now i’m planning to mount my new pair of skies, and the perfectionist in me wants to be sure that it’s absolutely perfect this time.
    I was thinking of making first a jig from +/-30mm multiplex woodplate, which i can make over and over , and try it on a test ski or woodplate until perfect .

    I would be happy with some advice about what went wrong the first time, and what my new plan is.

    Greetings,
    Rik

  6. Lou October 8th, 2011 5:24 am

    Rik, where things go awry in Dynafit mounting usually comes from holes being drilled slightly off and then inserting crude wood screws that can even shift farther in the wrong direction. Also, all ski bindings have manufacturing tolerances that are not exactly aerospace spec. Thus, ski binding mounting is really not a precise system, and the Dynafit/tech bindings show error much more obviously than other bindings. What I suggest is just do the best job you can, then correct by shifting the toe unit till everything lines up. I cover that in my binding mount instructions. Even when using a commercial mounting jig for Dynafit, I still find that almost every mount requires a fine tune of alignment.

    Darrell, I’ll put a pivot point line on the template, but it’s really not that important to the mounting process. Instead, you can simply place binding toe on the boot, set the boot on the ski in position, mark screw locations for toe unit, line template up with screw locations, etc.

  7. Mike Angle October 8th, 2011 7:54 am

    Hi Lou. Thanks for this – you posted it just in time! I did find that the front-back spacing of the toe holes on my speed radicals was 1mm greater than the template (39mm vs. 38mm on the template). Don’t know if you had a beta pair and they changed it or whether my printer was doing weird things (although everything else lined up and the box was 1″ square).
    The other thing that surprised me about the speeds is that they do not seem to come with the steel crampon plate shown mounting on top the toepiece. I received two different pairs from two different retailers like that. I have a query into Salewa about this – any insight?

  8. Lou October 8th, 2011 8:36 am

    May have to just do a different template for the Radicals. Dang. Next week.

  9. Darrell Finlayson October 8th, 2011 10:30 am

    Thanks Lou.
    Actually, It does matter to me as I’m mounting up a pair of Beta test TTS telemark bindings.

    http://www.wasatchski.com/index.htm

    I know… eventually I’ll discover a heel unit that attaches directly to the ski and it will be this really cool eye opening experience. Me and the other 8 tele skiers that visit this site will then be conflicted and loose sleep over what to do next.

    Thanks

  10. John Milne October 8th, 2011 2:15 pm

    @Lou/Mike, I just put it up against our jig and can confirm that the Radical toes appear to be about a mm too short on your template.

    Mike, send me an email with your contact info and I’ll make sure you get some crampon attachments.

  11. XXX_er October 11th, 2011 10:11 am

    “” What I suggest is just do the best job you can, then correct by shifting the toe unit till everything lines up “”

    I used the same idea to mount free rides so the bar comes down dead centered in the heel piece

    1st mount the heel piece dead center on the ski then mount the toe piece with 1 screw and let the toe piece pivot to line up perfectly with the heel piece before I drilled

    I didn’t need or use a template

  12. Lou October 11th, 2011 12:17 pm

    John, I’m changing template today. Thanks for the feedback.

    Just moved the forward pair of Radical holes 1 mm forward. Working on pivot/pins line, as some folks like having that.

  13. Biggsie October 12th, 2011 11:53 am

    Lou – Somewhat off-topic but can you direct me to any posts that talk about using AT boots in an alpine bindings? I’m sure the topic has been covered.

    My wife loves her BD Shiva’s but I’d like to lighten up her BC setup by ditching her Fritschis and going Dynafit. This would mean using a vibram sole with her Salomon mounted Volkls. Ideally, she’d have some light, BC-dedicated AT boots but that’s not in the budget right now.

    Is this still a no-no with newer movable AFDs and toe pieces that accommodate the increased height of AT soles? Euros run this all the time, no?

  14. Lou October 12th, 2011 12:48 pm

    Biggsie, we used to cover that quite a bit. It’s usually a simple matter of 1. Using a binding with a good sliding AFD that interacts with the AT boot sole correctly, and 2. Having an adjustable toe height for the binding toe unit. Even after that, sometimes it just doesn’t work all that well due to sole rocker and such. As a result sometimes the sole has to be ground down.

    We’ve stopped talking about it much because bindings such as all the Markers do such a good job of being alpine bindings.

    I’d suggest just going with one of the Marker bindings for the alpine setup, even if you don’t use it for touring. Just get the Tour F 10.

  15. Rik October 15th, 2011 12:22 pm

    I just finished my dynafit mounting job today. I drilled & screwed only the front hole with the paper jig, positioned the boot and used the toe binding itself as jig to pre-drill the other 4 front holes (& finished the drilling without toe unit). The holes in the plastic toe piece are exact 4,1mm, so perfect as jig for a bit of 4,1mm! For the heel i used the paper jig. Now the winter cannot come fast enough to try my new setup!
    Greetings,
    Rik

  16. Biggsie October 21st, 2011 6:41 pm

    Thanks Lou. We’re already partial to the Marker Griffons so maybe we’ll see if a shop is willing to run them through some tests for us. Most here in CA aren’t willing to run an AT boot in an alpine binding through their test rig.

  17. stewspooner November 28th, 2011 7:07 pm

    Lou, I’ve mounted multiple pairs of Dynafits using the technique detailed on Wildsnow. Now I’m holding a pair of speed radicals, and without a front center screw to pivot off, I’m am wondering if you’ve any advice on lining up the heel?

  18. John Gloor November 28th, 2011 7:19 pm

    Stew, if you are in the Aspen area you can borrow my Plum jig to perfectly center the holes for the front screws. You would have to space them front/rear as the spacing is for the older Dynafit pattern. I’d drill the front screws, mount the binding, and then mark the rear two screws of the toe piece after aligning your boot heel.

  19. Norqski November 28th, 2011 10:13 pm

    Lou, got a Dynafit toepiece conundrum. I have some first generation Vertical STs mounted on a pair of last year’s Manaslus. These bindings probably have 50 days on them, so they’re not new, but definitely not ready for the big box o’ binding parts. So, here’s the deal. The tour lever now flips all the way vertical with almost no resistance, and they pop off whilst touring (usually on sketch sidehills, of course). I don’t remember this happening on the skis that I took them off of… I can’t see any physical problems… what am I missing?

  20. John Milne November 29th, 2011 11:34 am

    @John – The new toepiece still has the same position for the back holes. I would drill those first then move the jig forward to drill the very front holes.

    @Norqski – the toepiece probably isn’t sitting flat on the baseplate or the baseplate isn’t sitting flat on the ski. Check your mount.

  21. Lou November 29th, 2011 11:44 am

    Norq, sometime on remounts you get some goobers in there that hold the components up from seating, as John alludes to. Also, if you have not done so drill out the base plate holes so the screws don’t thread in the plastic (but still fit tight), which sometimes causes a very annoying “double thread” effect that holds the base plate up off the ski. (This is less of a problem with Radical than with previous ST/FT, but I still carefully drill out the base plate holes). Use a bit of epoxy in everything, to fill spaces and seal from moisture.

    Stew, just pick one of the 4 holes and start with that one. Be extra careful that 4 holes are on layout since you don’t have the 5th to rely on for reference.

  22. Norqski November 29th, 2011 12:02 pm

    Ah, I did in fact not pre drill the inserts, and I do see a tiny bit of gap below the base plate. Will re-mount…. but it just doesn’t seem like a little bit of “base plate lift” should cause this kind of malfunction – they don’t seem related. Will let you know the outcome in a day or two… thanks

  23. Jonathan Shefftz November 29th, 2011 7:03 pm

    Just noticed this interesting document:
    http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/uploads/black-diamond/files/F11_BD_Mounting_Specs.pdf
    Mainly specific to BD skis and their tele bindings, but some interesting points in general.
    Here’s one thing I’ve always wondered about:
    “Don’t re-use old screws that have c… plugged in the threads. When you screw that into a new ski you are cutting c…py threads into the core and compromising strength.”
    So okay, that makes sense. But what’s the solution, buy a new set of binding screws each time you transfer bindings. Or how about a [relatively] easy way to clean the threads of old screws?

  24. Lou November 29th, 2011 7:45 pm

    Easy solution, wire brush the threads. I stick the head of the screw in my bench vise or a pair of vise grips, and use a small wire wheel on an electric drill. I almost always clean out my screw threads, these especially necessary when using epoxy, though if the screw it heated before removal it sometimes comes out nearly totally clean. Lou

  25. Jonathan Shefftz November 30th, 2011 5:46 am

    Super, thanks — off to the local Home Deposit store!

  26. Lars February 27th, 2012 9:39 am

    I just had a pair of K2 Sidstash skis mountaed with a pair of Tri Step Dynafits I had on a pair of BD Mira’s. I the bindings have little time on them. I skied them three or four times with no problem pre-releasing and took no falls that would require a release. Then I noticed that he gap between my heel and boot was only about 2 -3mm. I backed the adjustment out to about 6mm using the three nickle suggestion you gave in one of your articles as I couldn’t find my gap shim. Now when I stomp down on the ski after getting in the toe mount, it opens up causing a release. Of course I won’t ski on the skis until I rrecktify the issue.
    My concern is that the shop that mounted the bindings didn’t check to make sure the gap was right and mounted the heal too close to the boot. After I backed the binding back the to 6mm there is a pre-release problem. Would I be accurate in that assumption? I hope not as I don’t want to have the skis re-mounted…they are brand new. Thanks, Lars

  27. Rik February 27th, 2012 1:41 pm

    Hi Lars,
    I just measured my shim, it’s 5,25mm thick. It’s a little ball shape whith a thinner plate.This ball makes sure that you have only a little point of contact for adjusting the position. It’s maybe better to use something else than nickles?
    Regards,
    Rik

  28. yodavemac March 6th, 2012 7:36 am

    I just got a pr of 178 Manaslu’s with Dynafit bindings mounted in the position indicated on the ski. The problem is they seem to be pretty far back on the ski. When I compare the centerline on the boot to what I assume is the boot center line on the ski (red line across one ski), the boot center in about 20mm aft. Also, when compared to the same length alpine ski, the Dynafits are again about 20mm aft. Any insight? Can I move these forward without damaging the ski?

  29. Lou March 6th, 2012 8:59 am

    Yoda, they should have two options for which inserts you use, try using the forward set. Lou

  30. Geof March 29th, 2012 6:41 pm

    Oops. Rear hole spacing on the latest Wildsnow Dynafit mounting template is just over 37mm. It should be 36. All other dimensions are perfect (Radical and Vertical).

  31. Lou March 29th, 2012 7:39 pm

    Thanks Geof, I’ll work on that tonight or tomorrow! Someone else pointed that out as well.

    What’s weird, is I verified that with a binding. Perhaps I had a binding that was out of gamut….

    ‘best, Lou

  32. Lou March 29th, 2012 7:49 pm

    Geof, I fixed it (I think), please check. Be sure your browser cache is cleared so you get the latest.

    My drawing grid shows the rear holes to be at 36 mm wide spacing.

    Lou

  33. Geof March 30th, 2012 9:11 am

    Did a fresh download and checked: 36 mm, on the money. Thank you!

  34. phil June 6th, 2012 7:48 pm

    have you had a look at the paper templates on quiverkiller and binding freedom web site

    while I haven’t used the binding freedom it has boot lenght, pin line and marks to centre. they look like should be reasonable straight forward to use

    http://www.techinfo.bindingfreedom.com/uploads/dynafit_radical_paper_template_R2.pdf

  35. M.Ar. November 28th, 2012 1:34 pm

    Q about mounting: I just purchased some new Skis and had Dynafit Speeds mounted on them. At home, I recognized that the position of the toe pieces differs about 2 – 3mm (lengthwise) on the left and right ski. So, what should I do now? Should I bring them back? Or am I too anal about it? I know 3 mm is not that much, but a bad mount on a brand new package for 830 bucks really pisses me off! Could I get an advice from the wise community please?
    Thanks!

  36. Greg Louie November 28th, 2012 5:49 pm

    Chances are the skis are not identical either. Is the heel gap set correctly on both bindings? If so, take the ski with the bindings mounted further forward and grind 2mm off the tail bumper . . .

  37. John Gloor November 28th, 2012 5:53 pm

    I would not go in asking for new boards for that small of an error, but others would. I really do no know if you can even notice the difference. Are you measuring from some pre-printed topsheet mark, or from a measured point from a tip or tail? I personally measure all my skis and do not trust the manufacture’s markings. Maybe negotiate a couple of free tunes or something if you cannot let go of it, but definitely bring it to their attention.

  38. Tyler Beck January 31st, 2013 10:49 am

    Hey Lou,
    Would you use a 5/32 drill bit for all mounts Dynafit (old pozi and new torx) and Sportiva bindings? The screws seem to vary a tiny bit so curious if there is a rule of thumb of how much bigger your threads should be than the drill bit.

    To the same point, do you like the fancy ski bits with steps? Lot more options there. 4mmx9 and so forth….
    Thanks!

  39. Mark McIntyre April 6th, 2013 12:45 pm

    I am trying to figure out if I am dumb or somehow ended up with two defective pairs of Dynafit skis. Here’s the story:

    End of season time so I buy the wife a pair of Womens Manaslu 161 and a pair of Radical ST bindings. I get the bug myself and buy a pair of Stokes and a pair of Radical FT bindings.

    I get tired of stepping over them in the entry way hall and I decide to mount both pairs this morning. I get her first ski done (the right ski if you look at the graphics) and go to mount the using the same set of holes in the insert plate but no! The hole pattern on the left ski toe is off (toward the center of the ski) by one cm and I have to use the outside set of four holes to mount the binding in the same position as the right. You can even see a small set of drill points where the correctly located holes should have been. I am thinking I have a bad pair of skis but I figure that if everything mounts up correctly using different holes – oh well.

    Then I go to mount my Stokes. Right ski first, everything is fine and then here comes the left ski and sure enough EXACTLY the the same situation.

    So is this:
    1. Just a crazy bad incidence of poor Austrian workmanship
    2. A wild quiwinky-dink
    3. Completely intentional and the reason for this eludes my simple mind?

    Any thought from anyone with an explanation would be great.

    Mark

  40. Mark McIntyre April 6th, 2013 10:07 pm

    Been thinking this over and have decided that what I have are two identical manufacturing problems on different skis from different sources.

    If we have hole sets A thru D with A closest to the tip, then set D is in the correct location. All the hole spacing is off (reduced) so that set A is in the correct position for set B. This allowed me to mount the bindings in the correct position for smaller boots but you would need to drill another set for the larger boot position.

    I can’t believe that I got two pairs like this if it wasn’t somewhat common problem. Anyone else see this?

  41. Lou Dawson April 7th, 2013 7:41 am

    Mark, I understand what you’re saying, I think: The set of inserts in one ski is in a different location than the other ski of your pair?

    Whatever the final result, NO, the location of the inserts in the left and right skis should be the SAME. This is a no brainer. You need to return your skis to either the dealer or to Salewa NA on warranty. What you have is a simple manufacturing defect (and more proof that inserts are a great idea that never really worked.)

    I hope you are joking when you ask if this is an intentional feature of the ski design!

    Lou

  42. Mark McIntyre April 7th, 2013 8:12 am

    Thanks for the reply. I will be calling Salewa here in Boulder on Monday.

    The comment about the intentional feature was primarily humorous but when you have two different skis from two different sources purchased at different times arrive with exactly the same defect – you just have to ask “am I missing something here?”

    Mark

  43. Mark McIntyre April 12th, 2013 10:37 am

    OK – Mystery solved.

    I talked to John at Dynafit/Salewa. The sticker that comes on the skis describes the mounting holes used for mounting VERTICALs not Radicals.

    So if you look at the ski, the toe mounting has 4 sets of holes. Set A closest to the tip and set D closest to the center line. Depending upon boot length you would use either set A/C or B/D to mount the binding toe. Except if you are mounting Radicals. Radicals use holes A/D only. If you need to mount the toe farther forward you will need to drill a set farther forward of A. And in fact there are small drill marks on the binding plate for this.

    Here is where the mind game (that I failed) comes into to play. Not realizing the above info about mounting Radicals, I pierced the skin of set B/D on the skis. I drove the screws through the binding just enough that they were slightly proud on the bottom and put them on the ski feeling them align with a set of holes that I assumed were the B/D set when in fact it was the A/D set.

    Having mounted one successfully that way and not being able to see (Radicals have a larger plastic plate) which set I had mounted to I assumed it was the B/D set. When I go to mount the second ski what happened was the forward screws this time fell into the B set first which put the rear binding screws on the ski not in any hole. This made me think that the ski had been mis-drilled.

    Any way it works out the both pair of skis are mounted correctly in the correct set of holes. Just wish Dynafit had seen fit to add a note or another sticker about Radical mounting.

  44. Anders B December 7th, 2013 12:56 am

    Hi!
    Thanks for the Dynafit template!
    I am going to put a pair of Radical FT on my old DPS skis.
    Does anybody know the exact distance between the mounting holes on front and rear piece of the binding as it needs to be correct due to the damper plate.
    Thanks!

    Regards Anders B, NORWAY

  45. Lou Dawson December 7th, 2013 5:37 am

    Anders, just leave the plate off, it does virtually nothing except add weight. Lou

  46. Hannes December 23rd, 2013 12:01 pm

    This is one of those questions that may seem inconsequential, but which has become quite important for a mount I’m working on. Does anybody know if the heel piece has the same range/throw on the Veritcal ST and Vertical FT 12 in reference to the position of the mounting screws?
    What I mean is: if I put one or the other binding into the same exact drilled holes (in my case, quiver killer inserts), will the heel piece fall into the exact same place along the length of the heel throw?
    The reason this may be important for a mount: because of a boot change, I ski my heels at the FARTHEST BACK position (ie the longest bsl that they will accomodate at current mounting points, although I have room to skootch it a few mm’s forward so as not to stress the binding components). So there is not much room to go any farther back. If I switch STs for FT12s in the same holes, will I fit? Thanks!

  47. Lou Dawson December 23rd, 2013 3:47 pm

    Whew. Hannes, both are the SAME. Lou

  48. Rick Boebel February 8th, 2014 5:57 pm

    If this is not the proper place for this post I apologize in advance Lou.
    I recently had a shop in Colorado Springs install the Vertical ST’s on a pair of Voile V8′s and they seem to work a charm until I had a runaway ski on Thursday in spite of having ski brakes. When I looked at the position of the heel piece it was adjusted 4/5′s of the way forward, towards the tip. Adjusted in that position the ski brake does not fully extend downward, in fact the arms just goes down at about a 45 deg angle. This is due to the ski brake part that is released by the boot heel going up and back but making contact with the heel unit before it can extend fully.
    Is this a “feature” of the binding that requires the heel unit to be installed with the adjustment backed off towards the tail to leave room for the ski brake to extend upward fully?
    It appears the fix for this is to re install the heel further forward, towards the tip, thus causing the actually heel piece to be adjusted more towards the rear. Has anyone come up with a better solution?
    This is what I get for not doing things myself.

  49. Daniel February 9th, 2014 3:59 am

    Brake should deploy whatever the setting of teh heel piece is. A friend of mine had a similar issue, has to do with the machanism that holds the brake in place. It is fixable. See a skilled Dynafit technician.

  50. Lou Dawson February 9th, 2014 8:58 am

    What Dan says. Me, I’ve never had this problem, my guess is it would be easy to fix. What’s interesting to me is how/why you would end up a the ski slope without the ski shop doing a bench test of bindings, including safety release and brake deployment? As specified in all user manuals as well as our advice here at WildSnow.com, always always bench test ski bindings before actually skiing them! Your life and limbs are worth it.

    Rick, let us know if the shop that created the problem can fix it. If not, we’ll do a blog post about it.

    Beyond that, do we need some sort of wall-of-shame for these ski shops that simply can not seem to get how to mount and test ski bindings? Every time I hear about a binding maker or a ski shop whining and moaning about do it yourselfers, I think back on these sorts of blog posts.

    Lou

  51. XXX_er February 9th, 2014 9:15 am

    “I had a runaway ski on Thursday in spite of having ski brakes. When I looked at the position of the heel piece it was adjusted 4/5?s of the way forward, towards the tip. Adjusted in that position the ski brake does not fully extend downward, in fact the arms just goes down at about a 45 deg angle.”

    I thot the same thing at 1st glance BUT if you move the heel piece anywhere on the adj. track you will see the brake assembly is fixed TO the heel piece assembly and will follow so Dynafit brakes only deploy at 45 degree, fact is they really don’t stop very well compared to the average alpine binding brake and so I have seen a couple of dynafit equiped skis go a very long way with the brakes deployed

    this is of course assuming the brake did deploy, even if the brake is working correctly its a good idea to cycle the brake at the same time you cycle the toe piece to clear ice

  52. Lou Dawson February 9th, 2014 9:50 am

    Sheesh, apologies for the rant about something that is normal (grin)!

  53. XXX_er February 9th, 2014 10:29 am

    In 2 instances using properly functioning Rads & Verts on Stokes I was surprised to see how poorly dynafit brakes stopped a ski on an easy black run at the ski hill and on an inch or 2 of pow on hard crust above treeline, the ski just goes forever with the brakes deployed … they did stop eventualy

    Both instances were in not much snow, I haven’t notice poor brake performance in pow

  54. Rick Boebel February 9th, 2014 10:37 am

    Thanks for all the reply’s to my post, first off everyone is right, Lou you didn’t over react I just didn’t give the right info or look carefully enough. My ski brake did deploy, just not far enough to do any good. I guess for Dynafits this is something we used to call a “feature” in software.
    As far as cycling the brake and toe piece I typically do this whenever I put the skis on.
    XXX_er pointed out my major mistake in not giving the mechanism a proper inspection. The brake is indeed attached to the heel piece and moves as the heel piece is adjusted, so moving the binding forward would be not cure the problem the way i thought it would.
    Another problem on further examination is the deployed brake is stopped by the new anti-rotation plastic bit on the brake assembly hitting the heel piece which means when deployed it doesn’t go down as far as would without it.
    XXX_er is also right as far a Dynafit ski brakes are concerned, they are not nearly as good as Alpine brakes. I have a picture I took of the difference with two skis next to each other. A Marker alpine brake is typically 50% longer and deploys to 75-80deg.
    Does anyone know of a fix for this problem other than going to leaches? Where i ski there are at times multiple conditions including hard snow that would lead to runaways,not worried about anyone getting hit but don’t want to lose a ski down a place that would be very hard to get to and then take a long, long time getting back.
    Rick

  55. Lou Dawson February 9th, 2014 11:35 am

    Rick, good points all.

    The design philosophy driving all this is weight. Dynafit could have made as huge a brake as is conceivable, instead they chose a compromise. This is old news. For comparo, look at ATK, an even smaller brake, or G3 Ion, bigger but still not a massive ski brake. These are touring bindings, not alpine ski bindings. If you want full-on there are plenty of options, Marker Duke for example. And Vipec has a fairly large brake that they test with the same machine as is used to certify alpine bindings.

    Fix? For starters the Dynafit brake _will_ stop your ski in most situations. In places where it does not stop it, sometimes a bigger brake would help but in steep hard-snow terrain I’ve seen plenty of alpine skis with brakes make their way to the bottom of the pitch with braked deployed and skidding over the hardpan.

    Again, I’ll repeat the song we sing here often: Tech bindings including Dynafit are not for everyone, especially when pressed into service as resort bindings (not necessarily your situation, but the point should be made). It could be you simply need a different brand/model of binding.

    And to sing the other verse: None of the pintech tech bindings have any sort of “official” certification to standards. This means that you have to be careful about what you’re used to with alpine bindings, which are all certified to fairly exacting DIN/ISO standards, including brake performance. In other words, you can’t make assumptions about how the brake should/will perform, or for that matter the safety release. This is reality. I’m just the messenger (grin).

    P.S. To be fair I should add that some of the early Dynafit Vertical and Comfort series bindings had a defective brake that sometimes stuck without deploying at all. What is more, all ski brakes can ice and not deploy. Beware of all. In the former case, bench testing tells the tale and a swap to later dated brake is the fix.

    Lou

  56. XXX_er February 9th, 2014 12:11 pm

    Well, I was a HW guy Rick and from what I can see thats how the engineers built it SO … give the problem back to the marketing & software guys ;) eh ?

    IMO the dynafit brake does function quite elegantly, the arms tuck in niceIy it just doesn’t work that well, you could make the arms longer but at a 45 degree angle deployed you only get half the length you extend, as I see it the main problem is the brake on a light setup only deploying to 45degrees ?

    I seen the exact same ski go very far with Verts that don’t have the anti-rotation clamp and with Rads that do have … so it isn’t that clamp IMO

    I have thot about it lots but haven’t come up with any ideas to fix the problem, a guess would be that dynafit could play with pivots on that stomp pad to get more angle of deploy, maybe put more surface area on the ends of the brake arms instead of having them pointed to get better performance ??

    YOU could probably use a leash with a split ring that will pull out & let go under big load

    most of my skiing is in pow, so far I haven’t worried too much

  57. Rick Boebel February 9th, 2014 12:53 pm

    Thanks for the comments Lou & XXX_er.
    The brake is indeed elegant in the way the arms come up and retract in. And it doesn’t weight very much. That said I don’t think any of this matters if when one needs it to work it doesn’t. In deep pow skis won’t go far very often and on ice they will whatever brake you have. It is the area in between we care about.
    I have skied Dynafits for the last 4 years between the US and New Zealand where I live part of the year. Before this was on Marker Dukes but their weigh is crazy. So I am used to tech bindings. My failure was not examining the brake properly and perhaps testing it in deployed mode.
    As far as a fix goes the best would be for Dynafit to move the brake a bit forward of the actual heel piece and allow the brake arms to go to 80deg or so, I would think with no weigh gain.
    My personal fix will be leaches on trips longer than a day or so when I can’t really afford to lose a ski.
    Thanks for all the good info I always get off WildSnow Lou, you do a great service to the community.
    Rick out

  58. Ben2 February 9th, 2014 3:51 pm

    It’s not fully fair to compare the Dynafit brake to an alpine brake or even a Fritschi brake; the Dynafit brake has to incorporate an extra function so that the brake can be stowed in tour mode. It’s a parallelogram formed by the brake arms and the U-shaped piece that the heel piece rides against to force the brakes to stow. So if they simply made the brake arms steeper angled, the U shaped piece would be steeper too and it would be harder to turn the heel into tour mode. The alternatives would seem to be a more complex mechanism or a different way of tour/brake switching, which I guess the G3 Onyx has? But then you get into a different set of compromises. You have to choose the right set of tradeoffs for your use and concerns. That’s engineering.

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