Dynafit Beast Binding Elasticity & Touring Lock — Beast Week Part 3

Charlie, as far as I can tell, Beast easily has the elasticity and retention of an alpine binding — or even better. Only glitch is that yes it does release at BOTH toe and heel, in a sense like the “diagonal” alpine bindings or the Knee Binding. That could make it safer, or it could continue problems people have with pre-release unless they run at high release values. Lots of testing will tell the tale. Last winter’s reviewers gave the binding high marks, including myself, Joe and AJ skiing it here at WildSnow, but I didn’t ski it enough at low release values to get a read on it, and Joe dialed it up out of habit and to be safe from the dreaded “test binding pre release.” Skiers such as Hoji are swearing by it, but one wonders if they’re setting it at 16, or something that would actually protect their legs? Thus, it’ll be an interesting winter once the retail version is out! Lou

Bryan, that’s a super good point. If the lock broke, you’d not be able to tour as your foot would pivot all over the place. You’d have to strap the binding toe to be stable, perhaps by wrapping a strap around the ski.

However, “terrified” is a pretty strong word. Any touring binding out there has parts that if broken would disable it.

With Beast 16, provided the touring lock parts are made with high quality non-defective plastic, it’ll work fine. And let’s not get into the plastic vs aluminum debate. Plastic can work fine and be durable, that’s why we ski on it and in it. Lou

Well Rolf, we are all entitled to our opinions about how a business should be run. I certainly have mine (grin).

I can tell you that the issue of non-standard boot fittings has been HUGE for years. For the usual Dynafit binding to work correctly, the boot fittings have to be very exact, many many have not worked correctly. Even some of Dynafit’s fittings over the years have had problems. Testing them is easy if you know what you’re doing.

Mail-order internet sales have not helped with this situation. Especially when the adoption of the system was accelerating, I can’t tell you how many people were trying to use the binding with absolutely no knowledge or help with how it’s supposed to work. These days it’s better, more experts out there, and the ski shops tend to know more. But if someone goes out touring on a binding and it doesn’t work, due to a problem that is easily checked on the workbench, whos’ fault is that? The binding maker’s?

And, the issue of the binding being blamed for problems that are actually sourced by the boot is also HUGE.

If a boot maker can’t make a boot that fits in a binding, after 30 years worth of stuff to look at and copy, it is the boot maker’s problem, and not Dynafit’s, not ATK’s and not Plum’s.

For example, what do we expect? Every time a boot maker wants to fool around with the shape of the fittings or the boot toe, Dynafit is supposed to re-design their binding?

It is very nice of Dynafit to redesign their binding. I hope they create a lot of good will, and of course sell more bindings since they’re ostensibly work with more boots. But as long as their bindings work with their own boots and with Scarpa (because of “certification”), that’s all they are required to do in my opinion. Beyond that, the boot makers need to get their act together.

Lou

Rolf, it’s not that boots are heavier, it’s that some of the makers ignore the de-facto standard for boot toe shape and fitting dimensions. Really, be reasonable, you can’t expect any binding maker to produce a binding that will work with any shape of anything? For example, what’s next, we require Dynafit to make a binding that fits rock climbing shoes and we complain when it doesn’t?

As for telling retailers about problems, yes, I agree that in most cases (and not just with Dynafit) it would be better if these situations were communicated earlier in the process.

But even then, who should communicate? Dynafit makes a binding that’s guaranteed to only work with their certified fittings. A boot company makes a boot that doesn’t work in the binding. Should not the boot company who made the dysfunctional boot be the one to alert the retailers? Not to mention fixing it?

For example, Scott had a batch of Cosmos boots that simply did not work well in Dynafit bindings (or any tech binding, as far as I could tell). Did they expect Dynafit to entirely redesign their binding so it worked with Cosmos boot? Of course not. To Scott’s credit, they manned up and made better fittings, ones that work quite beautifully.

I still don’t understand why you are placing the onus entirely on Dynafit. They should do the best they can, but be reasonable, they’re making a very tricky machine that is designed to work with carefully designed components. If a boot company can’t take the small amount of effort for their engineers to learn how the toe of a boot should be shaped, or a tech fitting to be made, I think that indicates a flaw at the boot company, not at the binding company.

Another example. Alpine bindings only fit certain boot shapes. If a boot company made a nice boot that didn’t work in an alpine binding because of a different sole shape, would you expect the binding company to re-design their binding to fit that boot?

It’s nice of Dynafit to do what they’re doing, but totally optional and not something to scold Dynafit about. Instead, one really has to wonder to what extent the boot company tested their boots!!