Bang Burn and Mod — Dynafit Superlight 2.0


Post by WildSnow.com blogger | March 28, 2016      

Bill Bollinger sends over a cool adjustment plate. Other guys mod big while I sit here whining about legal issues. Sturgill Simpson is turned up LOUD. I have the best workshop of my life. Here goes.

B&D adjustable mount plate for Dynafit Superlite 2 at lower left.

B&D adjustable mount plate for Dynafit Superlite 2 at lower left. I’d used an old TLT heel with the Superlite toe due to the extreme vertical release spring shipped with the Superlite (I couldn’t step in). B&D plate uses the same ski screw holes as the standard original Dynafit TLT Low-Tech as well as Speed Radical and many other tech bindings, gives forward-back boot length adjustment to Superlight 2.0, lifts binding to same height as TLT, anything not to love? A few more grams…

 ramp created by using TLT heel with Superlite 2.0 toe. B&D plate brings me to virtually same height.

ramp created by using TLT heel with Superlite 2.0 toe. B&D plate brings me to virtually same height.

28 grams for easy mounting and a bit of adjustment for  different boots. Up to you.

28 grams for easy mounting and a bit of adjustment for different boots. Up to you.

Nice to have holes match up. If not, use a mechanical or paper jig for the 'classic' Dynafit 4-hole heel pattern. Hint, same as Speed Radical.

Nice to have holes match up. If not, use a mechanical or paper jig for the ‘classic’ Dynafit 4-hole heel pattern. Hint, same as Speed Radical.

Bill Bollinger machine work is amazing, check out these screw thread necks that increase thread count, thus solving a common problem with these types of adjustment plates.

Bill Bollinger machine work is amazing, check out these screw thread necks that increase thread count, thus solving a common problem with these types of adjustment plates (to few threads, stripping).

I used plenty of epoxy, including use as thread locker (adjusted for boot sole length before epoxy cures, reverse with heat).

I used plenty of epoxy, including use as thread locker (adjusted for boot sole length before epoxy cures, reverse with heat).

Who cares about screwdrivers, get out the grinder! Dremmel with grinding stone makes quick work of adjusting release tension.

Who cares about screwdrivers, get out the grinder! Dremel with grinding stone makes quick work of adjusting release tension. I have no way of measuring exact release setting, but with the stock spring I could not step into the binding without looking like some guy stomping invasive rats. I ground the inside of the arc down to 4 millimeters and the step-in feels right, lever test feels like about release value 7, perhaps 8. Warning, use water spray to prevent overheating and messing up the steel temper.As mentioned in some previous comments, I’m not convinced this mod is entirely wise (the spring could break), but it’s what I needed to make the binding functional for day-to-day skiing. Interesting how the ‘U-spring’ type vertical release mechanism keeps coming back more than 30 years after Fritz Barthel invented it. It just, works.

4.5 mm was still too stiff for my taste, so I took it down to 4.

4.5 mm was still too stiff for my taste, so I took it down to 4.

In case you're wondering how you get the U-spring out of the binding, easy operation with a pin punch.

In case you’re wondering how you get the U-spring out of the binding, easy operation with a pin punch.

More fun than a brake job on a 1982 Ford F-250, easier than a transfer case rebuild in a 1947 Willys, more fun than, skiing?

More fun than a brake job on a 1982 Ford F-250, easier than a transfer case rebuild in a 1947 Willys, more fun than, skiing?

No stopping. Bollinger is also making a nice little lift extender.

No stopping. Bollinger is also making a nice little lift extender.

Lifter fits over OEM lift, snugs down with a couple of screws.

Lifter fits over OEM lift, snugs down with a couple of screws. All this stuff is on long-term loan for durability testing, and we also have some anti-rotation gadgets that Bill came up with. We’re waiting on installing those until we feel the need.

Oh, also got some “anti rotation” gadgets from Bill. We’ll see how it goes without, then install if needed. Check out WildSnow supporter B&D Ski Gear.



IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE VIEWING SITE, TRY WHITELISTING IN YOUR ADBLOCKER, OTHERWISE PLEASE CONTACT US USING MENU ABOVE, OR FACEBOOK.

Comments

78 Responses to “Bang Burn and Mod — Dynafit Superlight 2.0”

  1. Eric Steig March 28th, 2016 8:42 am

    Those lifters look great.

    How do you guess your release value is ~7? Compares with “stomp-in difficulty” on other (adjustable) bindings?

  2. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 8:51 am

    Eric, totally by feel, stepping in as well as my lever test. Pretty crude. I’ll cobble up a release force tester this summer, since I’ve now got that cool force gauge… but for now, just seat-of-pants.

    Main thing is I could step in like a normal human.

    I’d imagine that exactly how the spring is ground, along with thickness, makes the final result. I stayed away from the existing notches.

    Lou

  3. Eric Steig March 28th, 2016 10:05 am

    Sounds good — thanks Lou. I have these bindings and like the idea of somewhat safer (lower setting) forward release so I’ll be keeping any eye on your findings.

  4. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 10:36 am

    If you’ve got the time, you could grind them down to 4.5 mm first and see how they feel. That’s probably still around RV 9 or something… I should have mentioned in post that I used lots of water spray during the grinding so I didn’t mess up temper. Lou

  5. Jason March 28th, 2016 11:12 am

    Lou,

    Is this anti-rotation device you speak of to enable a flat touring mode? Seems like it would not be difficult for dynafit to have incorporated that in the first place, and is the main reason I’ve shied away from these clamps.

    – Thanks!

  6. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 12:05 pm

    You would have to ask Bill to be sure, but the anti-rotation does seem to work to allow touring with the heel unit turned to side, thus allowing a heel-flat-on-ski. It’s only on one side and prevents the heel unit from turning to the point where the pins are forward, thus preventing that sickening feeling of your boot going into downhill mode as you’re striding across the landscape imagining you are Killian. It’s just a tiny little chunk of plastic that presses over one of the brake pins, pretty ingenious. Lou

  7. mike March 28th, 2016 12:30 pm

    Could you reduce release value buy adjusting heel to a bigger gap?

  8. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 12:33 pm

    You can to a very small degree, if the gap is more than about a mm bigger than spec the pins will pull out of the boot heel as the ski de-cambers. I’ve experimented with this quite a bit and enlarging the gap doesn’t have enough effect to be worth the downside. Lou

  9. mike March 28th, 2016 1:21 pm

    It seems that you would be better off just going to the ATK rt binding that has adjustable release and is in the same weight class and rotates for flat on heel to ski.

  10. Armie March 28th, 2016 1:28 pm

    I’m as happy as anyone to break out the grinder…but if you want a “superlight” binding with flat on ski, none extreme vertical release(adjustable even!) and “a bit” of adjustment; seems you want a kreuzspitze gt on the k11 plate which fits the holes the tlt hole pattern. Just saying..

  11. Armie March 28th, 2016 1:31 pm

    Oops …sorry…k14 plate!

  12. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 1:51 pm

    Appreciate you guys chiming in! Some of those binding options are indeed super nice. Lou

  13. Lindahl March 28th, 2016 2:23 pm

    How much adjustment do you get out of those plates?

    I use the plum race with kreuz k14 adjustment plate (tlt pattern) and the optional heel lifter, myself. Comes in at 175g post-additions. The Van Halen trick to switch from ski to tour mode on exit works also (with the optional lifter).

  14. Erin March 28th, 2016 2:23 pm

    Lou,
    Would this plate put the screw holes inside the ‘H’ binding reinforcement area on the Volkl VTA 88 Lite? And I believe you already covered whether the toe piece of the superlight 2.0 fits in that area, but could you refresh my memory? Thanks!

  15. Lou Dawson 2 March 28th, 2016 2:27 pm

    Hi Erin, yes, the Bollinger plate has same hole pattern as TLT and yes it does fit within H pattern on VTA88 Lite. Toe does as well. You thinking of getting some VTA88? I was thinking of giving them a “ski of the year” award, but we’ve got other skis here that deserve that as well (grin). Lou

  16. Patrick Fink March 28th, 2016 3:22 pm

    We’ve run into similar issues with the step-in force. Nice to know that it’s not just my girlfriend who has to do a crazy dance to get clicked in with these. I do think though that the lifter add is superfluous with quality, modern boots. If you want all of the doodads on your bindings to adjust your lifter to your exact comfort specs, then maybe the “superlight” model isn’t for you.

  17. TimZ March 28th, 2016 4:17 pm

    I’ll second the ATK RT option. It’s lighter than the Dynafit, is very easy to adjust RV without resorting to grinding, has a flat on heel mode, has optional race style lifters and has optional brakes like the dynafit as well.

    Only downside I know of is the availability in North America

  18. Erin March 28th, 2016 4:27 pm

    Lou,
    Thanks for the info on mounting pattern! The VTA is on a very short list of skis for me. Looking for a dedicated skimo set up and leaning in the direction of the superlight 2.0 for bindings and want to make sure the final ski selection will work with that binding.

  19. See March 28th, 2016 9:02 pm

    So what do we conclude about the reliability of tech bindings from this sorry business?

  20. See March 28th, 2016 9:22 pm

    Aside from the obvious— caveat emptor.

  21. Dan March 29th, 2016 5:39 am

    I’ve got the ATK Free Raider 14. It is the business. Costs a fair whack, but it is amazingly crafted and superb in use. No reliability issues after plenty of use.

  22. Lindahl March 29th, 2016 7:29 am

    How much adjustment do you get out of those plates?

  23. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 7:57 am

    Specs:
    Raises heel 4.7 mm
    Fore/aft adjustment 9.6 mm
    Screw pattern, original Dynafit 4 holes “TLT”

  24. See March 29th, 2016 8:46 am

    I’m talking about the reliability of release values, in case that wasn’t clear. Lou has repeatedly suggested that wear of fittings could change release characteristics, I have observed pretty significant variations owing to dirt contamination, and now we’ve got a binding apparently being sold where the vertical rv is fixed, high and unspecified. I use the things, but I do a lot of inspection and maintenance.

    The next test I’d like to see conducted in the Wildsnow lab is one where every set of bindings Lou can get his hands on is tested (if there are 5 sets of a given model, test all ten bindings) so we can see if the measured release values are near the expected values. And then try some tests of the same bindings with different boots.

  25. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 9:07 am

    Hi See, I’ve been planning on testing bindings with my instrument, mostly for lateral release consistency. It’s a tough test as the actual setting of the bindings to the printed numbers is pretty crude, I’ve got a way around that but it’s tedious.

    Thing is, all the manufacturers and “standards” already make it clear that for any sort of consistent release values the bindings have to be set by using a machine to verify values. The printed numbers are just a guideline to get the settings close, then you test on machine to refine. This applies to alpine as well as touring bindings.

    Thing is, hardly anyone does the above. It’s a failed system.

    If I measure, I already know there will be significant deviation. Even the ISO 13992 standard allows it.

    Again, the printed numbers are acknowledged within the industry to simply be rough guidelines.

    This whole system of “safety release” is a mess. Much imaginary stuff going on, much mythology.

    It’s still somewhat the same as it was in the days of beartrap bindings: Don’t fall!

    Lou

  26. See March 29th, 2016 9:41 am

    “Don’t fall.” Great advice, but just consider the number of people using this equipment that are new to skiing bc conditions.

    Assuming hordes of people don’t start purchasing the VT system, Wildsnow research could further demonstrate how the services of a good shop are important. (Also, I set my bindings under magnification).

  27. Wookie March 29th, 2016 9:52 am

    Lou! great work! You’ve made a……speed radical!

    🙂

    tell me how to take something off the superlight! oh wait….low tech race!

  28. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 9:54 am

    To the best of my knowledge, not one of our backcountry ski shops in this valley have a release checker, and I’m not sure which alpine shops even use one on _every_ binding that goes out of their shop… it’s a failed system, if it ever was a system… Not to be too negative, it’s true that when both AT and alpine bindings are set to “reasonable” settings based on chart, they are indeed much safer for your legs than non-release beartrap bindings of ancient days (provided you don’t get launched into a tree by a pre release)… What elicits a sympathetic frown are the stories I hear of guys and gals ripping up their knees and breaking their legs while on bindings that are “cranked up” or “locked” and most certainly have not been verified by a release check machine. Lou

  29. See March 29th, 2016 10:09 am

    “To the best of my knowledge, not one of our backcountry ski shops in this valley have a release checker.” It’s worse than I thought. Sometime this summer I hope to do some experiments with 2×4’s and a torque wrench.

  30. XXX_er March 29th, 2016 10:52 am

    I’m curious whether a tech binding releases the same way as an alpine binding at the same din or din-like setting, do they need a bigger/sharper force to move em?

    Most tech users I see do not properly clear a tech binding of snow every single time they use the binding, so I wonder if people ski their Techs cranked up or locked becuz they have come out

  31. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 10:58 am

    I’d add that if the ski shop knows what they’re doing and they perform bench tests on binding as well as using chart along with customer’s desires, I don’t think they necessarily need the release check machinery. Yet clearly, best case would be that every binding is tested. Not sure that’ll ever happen. It’s expensive and time consuming.

    As for us testing at home, it’s a nightmare as what are you going to do, test with 2 different boots, or 10, or 20? And how do you set each binding with no error? Measure depth of adjustment screw with caliper? What I’m saying is that measuring to check consistency is going backwards and now that I think about it a waste of time. Reason, the whole system is designed for the binding to be set to a rough approximation of the value using thee printed scale, then refined by checking with machine — for a given boot.

    What’s testing at home going to tell us? That setting without machine check is inconsistent. We already know that…

    As for wasting time with fiddling, I’ve been known to do that (grin).

    Lou

  32. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 11:04 am

    Xer, YES, if you read up on the pre-release issue (see Vermont website) you’ll see there are many different causes but the usual user solution is to simply crank it up. I firmly believe that a big percentage of tech binding pre-release is caused by things other than the tension setting. Improper heel gap is another cause, along with icing. The icing issue is the most insidious as it’s possible to clip in and not even know you’re headed for a header. This is one reason why selling tech bindings to inexperienced skiers who will use them at a resort is in many cases just so wrong. Lou

  33. BigBlue March 29th, 2016 12:26 pm

    Lou,
    Would agree that testing all these binding/boot combos would be a waste of time. Nearly every boot/binding setup has different ‘release behavior’ depending on sole length and rocker shape to boots; as well as 3-D shape of boot toes and how they fit in binding toe unit. Often boot treads rub/interfere with toe wings or anti-friction plates, etc. The variables are so exhaustive – further proof of ‘no standard’ well beyond toe fittings shapes and geometry.
    While I can understand the interest folks have in these results — the results would only apply to the actual setup you’re testing.
    Working for years in a ski shop has shown so many examples of ‘what works for you doesn’t always work for your friend’ with regard to tech binding/boot setups.
    There are variables in manufacturing of boots, outsoles/treads, and bindings. Let alone skis.
    Even if there were more standards adopted — there will still be variables. Perhaps less. And maybe fewer safety concerns with more standards. But variables will always exist.
    Testing any of the 100’s of combinations of bindings and boots on a bench ends up meaning very little in ‘real life’ use. Ski flex plays a huge role in how all this works when in actual use – and there’s no way realistically to test every scenario – or extrapolate much from a bench test that really means anything.

    I think end consumers/users need to adopt similar mindset with their gear as with avalanche safety gear. Practice, practice, practice. And inspect. Know your gear. Know how it feels when everything is “in spec” and when not. For as much bashing as telemark gets these days — it seems modern AT gear isn’t that far removed from the problems tele skiers faced when picking gear. By mid-2000’s, there were over 20-odd tele bindings to chose from, with different resistance springs, pivot points, under foot vs. around the foot cables and many other variables. All of which skied differently and performed differently depending on the boot, ski, and skier. It took time dialing in the spring tensions and years of skiing different versions of boots and bindings to develop a sense for what worked for you. Much of the same is true with tech binding combos. But, prevailing perception is tech bindings are more similar to alpine style bindings because toe and heels are locked down. As if all ‘point and shoot’ cameras are the same …. just click and go. Clearly, that is not the case in bindings either.

  34. See March 29th, 2016 2:28 pm

    I don’t think it would be necessary to test all the zillions of possible boot/binding/ski combinations to learn something interesting. I would just test as many people’s actual bc setups as I could until I got bored. Test each ski with the boot it’s set up for and observe, 1) how the measured values correspond to the settings, 2) how the measured values correspond to what the users thought they had set, 3) if the numbers are approximately the same for both skis in a pair, and 4) if people are just cranking them up and hoping for the best. If the whole system is designed for bindings to be checked by machine and that’s not happening, gathering data about whether or not current practices result in inconsistent release values would not be a waste of time, imo. (But even more than a binding survey, I’d like to see the inside of a vapor nano).

  35. Lindahl March 29th, 2016 2:32 pm

    All the more reason that I set my release settings on both tech and alpine via trial and error. I set it to a reasonably low level and crank up the setting and aggressiveness as experience dictates.

  36. Lou Dawson 2 March 29th, 2016 3:45 pm

    Even the ski topsheet makes a difference. Skialper Magazine mounted all the bindings on wooden planks to eliminate that variable. They already tested and published, way more than we could do here. They termed the results “astonishing” in how much they varied. Again, lesson is that if you’re serious about your bindings they need to be machine tested so you at least know where you’ve really set them. And the machine has to be able to test bindings for ISO 13992.

    It’s also pretty clear from Skialper’s testing that Dynafit certified inserts are much more the way to go than attempts by other companies, that is is you choose to use the numbers printed on the binding as your settings.

    Remember that in the case of tech bindings the boot inserts are as much a part of the binding as anything else…

    Lou

  37. See March 29th, 2016 8:55 pm

    Back when I started using tech bindings I had a release caused by ice under the toe, and that was all it took to learn the lesson about clearing the binding. It was obvious to me at the time what had happened because it didn’t feel right when I clicked in and the binding let go for no good reason. It messed up a great line of deep powder and I had to flounder around looking for my ski while the rest of the group watched and waited.

    I don’t know, but I suspect that cranking the lateral rv doesn’t help much in the case of ice under the toe. And I have a hard time imagining people making that mistake repeatedly, given my own experience.

    Re. using techs at the resort: at least at the resort there are groomers, ski patrol and toboggans. But I only do it to test a touring setup before taking it into the bc.

  38. mitch March 29th, 2016 9:58 pm

    Just got off a few days in Myoko Japan on a setup with the superlight 2s. All the issues mentioned above I can contest to. Was concerned the whole time with release and climbing angle. Takes a real stomp in the snow to click into. The low climbing angle was a pain. And with the breaks in they release much harder! My bad, but I think I got the gap a bit narrower than it should be when I drilled them out. The fixes by B&D would solve much of this. Where/when can I get the plate and lifter? Went to their site but nothing there.

  39. Lou Dawson 2 March 30th, 2016 7:02 am

    See, yes, pre-release due to ice can’t be cured by dialing up the release values, but, it is tradition in the ski community that when you have a pre release with any binding, you just curse and dial it up at the soonest opportunity, as well as blaming the binding manufacturer instead of your own binding maintenance-mounting-adjustment-ice-removal-model-choice-boot-wear-etc

    Lou

  40. Lou Dawson 2 March 30th, 2016 7:03 am

    Mitch, I think you need to contact B&D by using the contact option on their website. Lou

  41. Jasper March 30th, 2016 10:12 am

    With all the talk of dynafit certified inserts does that mean we also have to use dynafit bindings. What of the other brand bindings in conjunction with a certified boot?

  42. Lou Dawson 2 March 30th, 2016 10:26 am

    In my experience, most of the other binding brands work fine in terms of release function, though sometimes they are not as true to the “DIN” numbers as one would expect (see Skialper magazine), also sometimes the binding toe pins seem to be shaped a bit odd, probably from manufacturing tolerances or excessive wear. Easy to check on bench. In terms of shopping, if you buy a name brand binding it’ll almost always work fine with good boot fittings, including Dynafit certified. Thing is, nobody is perfect, I’ve tested a few Dynafit boot toe fittings that were not correct.

    The tech binding consists of BOTH the machinery on the ski AND the boot fittings. Sometimes both could be off, sometimes the boot, sometimes the binding. If you slap it all onto the workbench and it all works, then carpe skium. Otherwise, you’ll need to do A-B testing to narrow down the problem or at the least to pick the products that work together.

  43. See March 30th, 2016 8:08 pm

    I guess I’m not a member of the ski community.

  44. Lou Dawson 2 March 30th, 2016 8:13 pm

    See, you’re a member, only you’re a non conformist (grin)!

  45. See March 31st, 2016 10:30 am

    Here in California, we’re all non-conformists.

  46. Mark Worley March 31st, 2016 9:21 pm

    Hate to suggest simplistic means to make stepping in easier, but what about some bike chain lube in terms u spring? I realize this might change release consistency, values, etc.

  47. Mark Worley March 31st, 2016 9:25 pm

    As to machine testing of bindings, I spoke with a fellow who used to do binding safety/ injury research tests, and only found one binding where he had never heard of any injuries related to the binding: Cubco. Interesting.

  48. Michael April 8th, 2016 12:11 pm

    Dynafit, if you’re listening, please sell the lower RV U spring in NA next year as an add on part – I’ve heard it referred to as the ‘women’s’ version.

    I’m digging the weight and features of this binding, but don’t want to resort to grinding the U spring to make the forward RV reasonable.

  49. Truax May 31st, 2016 10:08 am

    Just as a follow-up. I contacted Bill at B&D and he said that more adjustment plates would not be available until this summer. Too bad cause I’ve got some ZeroG 85s just itching for some couloir hunting!

  50. Erin July 12th, 2016 3:35 pm

    Lou,
    Was hoping for a bit of clarification with the H-pattern binding mount area on a Volkl VTA 88 Lite. In your original post regarding the H-pattern (https://www.wildsnow.com/12762/volkl-bmt-mounting-pattern-strong-enough/) you say that a Dynafit Radical toe unit does not quite fit in the pattern. However, in a comment above you say that a Dynafit Speed Superlite 2.0 would fit within the margins. I was hoping you could clarify, the mounting holes for the speed superlite and the radical toe unit are the same aren’t they? And if so why the difference in the first blog post saying they would not quite fit and the comment above saying they would? Thanks for any insight you can provide!

  51. Lou Dawson 2 July 12th, 2016 4:53 pm

    Hi Erin,
    Indeed, both binding’s toe screws fall just a few mm inside the Volkl H binding toe screw reinforcement area, the blank central area that’s not reinforced is 26.2 mm and the screws are at ~30 mm. Apologies for my various takes. Without going back and reading, I think I was probably figuring the Radical is a full-on ‘freeride’ binding and a strong mount might be more of a concern than using the Superlite, which is clearly more on the ski touring side and perhaps requires slightly less concern about this. In other words, I’d base my take on the style of skiing. If you’re aggressive with large skis and boots I don’t think using the 30 mm Dynafit pattern on the Volkl H is appropriate, but if you’re an “average” ski tourer I think it’s fine so long as the mount is done with care and epoxy.

    Does that help?

    The heel units are fine.

    Lou

  52. Erin July 12th, 2016 7:44 pm

    That answers my questions, thank you for the information Lou!

  53. joost frakking August 21st, 2016 2:04 pm

    Hi Lou,

    just had a pair of superlite’s 2.0 mounted with a dynafit plate beneath the heel piece if the binding to be able to use different boots (and maybe use the heel part on different ski’s combined with other toe pieces). I have got two questions:

    – I am preparing to take out te grinder to be able to step in to my binding (instead of stamp in…) Have you heard of any bad experiences from other people who have done the same thing (breakages)?

    – I have two dynafit boots (tlt 6 and the vulcans), with both shoes there is not enough space inside the back of the boots to set the bindng to the subscribed heel gap. In other words, the U spring is too long. Anybody with the same experience?

  54. Lou Dawson 2 August 21st, 2016 3:10 pm

    Joost, set the heel gap at what works, then try stomping in. The bigger gap = lower release value. As for grinding, no problems but be precise and water cool. Let us know how it goes.

    Test heel gap by flexing ski in workshop and make sure the ends of the pins don’t impact boot plastic in the fitting hole.

    You can also drill a mm or so deeper in the boot plastic to give the pins room if necessary.

    Lou

  55. See August 21st, 2016 5:17 pm

    It seems to me that if the pins on a pair of Dynafit bindings appear too long to set the correct gap with a pair of Dynafit boots (on the bench— skis unflexed), either there’s something wrong with the boots, there’s something wrong with the bindings, there’s something wrong with the gauge, or the tech is doing something wrong. In none of the above cases would drilling the boots be the right way to go, in my totally amateur opinion. (Maybe no harm if the problem is some slight weirdness in the boot heel cavity… but 4 boots? Seems unlikely.)

  56. See August 21st, 2016 5:20 pm

    Note: I’ve never had a pair of Dynfit boots, so what do I know?

  57. Lou Dawson 2 August 21st, 2016 6:52 pm

    The word “wrong” does not exist. Lou

  58. See August 21st, 2016 6:56 pm

    I’m just thinking that maybe Joost is not measuring right. Does “right” exist?

  59. Pablo August 22nd, 2016 2:51 am

    There is another interesting way to give the pins room:
    Replace the heel fitting plate with a Marker Kingpin adapter.

    It qives you few mm more and a strongest feel.

    I use it on Atomic Backlands and works fine

  60. Lou Dawson 2 August 22nd, 2016 6:48 am

    Pablo, yes indeed. Lou

  61. Lou Dawson 2 August 22nd, 2016 8:05 am

    Getting serious here in the workshop, I measured some pins. On a classic TLT with modern length pins, from the bump on the binding housing the pin length measures 11 mm, on the Superlight 2.0 I get 12 mm. Longer pins are better in my opinion (as is removing the bump) so good on the Superlight. Gapping the 2.0 at <>5mm (above the bump) results in everything working perfectly, pins have plenty of room between ends of pins and boot plastic.

    Joost, I suspect you are simply not setting heel gap correctly. But it could be the boots not having enough space. It’s not the bindings, they’re too similar to other tech bindings, nothing weird.

    https://www.wildsnow.com/2599/dynafit-tech-heel-space-shim-gauge/

    Lou

  62. joost frakking August 22nd, 2016 9:50 am

    Thanks for the suggestions!
    I seem to have found the cause. My pins on the superlites 2.0 measure 13,5 mm. Combined with a slight mismeasurement of half a mm (a wee bit wrong indeed 😉 ) explaines the cause.
    I am now considering to shorten the pins (using lots of water to prevent over heating).

  63. Lou Dawson 2 August 22nd, 2016 9:58 am

    Where did you measure the pins from? From the bump on the binding housing, or from the housing next to the pins? You should NOT need to shorten them! Like I said, if anything, tech binding pins could all stand to be slightly longer to allow more movement of the boot. Just adjust your gap so it works, it’s incredibly easy to test on the bench. Lou

  64. joost frakking August 23rd, 2016 1:35 am

    OK thanks a lot.
    I will wait with modifications until after the first snow.
    That means skiing with a 7,5 mm gap (to prevent impact between u spring and boots with a bit of flex on the ski’s). See how it works out. I switched from the ATK’s because it keeps rotating and it is very annoying to end up in skiing position while traversing a steep icy slope on the ascend (the flimsy ski brake which tends to flip open while skiing added to the decision to try the superlites:-)..).
    With a bigger gap I am a bit worried that the superlites will rotate as well (bigger momentum).
    Will keep you posted in a few months time. Meanwhile I will compare the length of the U brake with another pair at a ski shop (to see if I have got an anomalous pair).

  65. Smooth operator August 30th, 2016 9:02 am

    So if I understand correctly, with this adjustment plate the mount pattern will be the same as the (speed) radical?

  66. Lou Dawson 2 August 30th, 2016 10:01 am

    Smooth, yes, the B&D plate has same screw layout as the original “standard” Dynafit TLT Low-Tech bindings, as well as the Speed Radical and numerous other tech binding heels. Thanks for bringing that up, I’ll clarify in the post. Lou

  67. Mike August 30th, 2016 11:03 am

    Hey Lou, any beta on those “anti-rotation gadgets.” My 2.0’s definitely auto-rotate badly under specific conditions (icy skintrack torques outwards on a sidehill). I am thinking it could be that the brake is forcing the heel unit upwards and back a little in tour mode, which makes auto-rotation easier. In any case, a real solution would be awesome for what has otherwise been a great touring binding.

  68. Truax September 11th, 2016 9:42 pm

    Hey Lou or anyone using the B&D adjustment plates – what length screws for these?

  69. Lou Dawson 2 September 12th, 2016 1:28 pm

    Truax, not sure I understand the question… you just use the binding screws for the plate, then the supplied machine screws to attach binding to plate… ok?

  70. Truax September 12th, 2016 7:53 pm

    You answered it Lou, thanks. Just confirming that the OEM Dynafit binding screws will work just fine with the B&D plates.

  71. Lou Dawson 2 September 13th, 2016 7:52 am

    Truax, ALWAYS check screw length as compared to ski thickness. That’s SOP with binding mounting. The tool for the job is a set of calipers, cheap or expensive, either works fine for the job.

    https://www.wildsnow.com/20443/ski-binding-mounting-screw-length/

  72. Michael October 6th, 2016 10:20 am

    Hi Lou. I have a pair of Superlight 2.0s from last season. I really like the binding (I’ve had no problems with it) except the vertical release spring is way too strong for me. It’s difficult to step into and I worry more about not releasing when it should (boot top tibia fracture anyone?). I’ve read about your grinding mod but to be honest I’m a little wary to do this. I don’t really trust myself to get this correct and not break the U ring.

    I know Dynafit is now selling a 5-10 RV version with a weaker U spring, that I’ve seen referred to as the white version. Unfortunately Dynafit won’t sell the U ring alone. To remedy this I was planning on purchasing a pair of the white 5-10 bindings and just swapping the heels. I’ll sell the old pair with the new toes and hopefully not take too much of a hit.

    Anyways, my question is this. Is it easy to back the lateral release spring all the way out and just swap out the heel housing? I’ve done this before with standard Dynafit heel housings. Or would you recommend just swapping out the entire heel unit (reusing the drill holes with epoxy)? I’m leaning towards option #1 since I won’t have to reset the heel gap/pin alignment or anything like that. Seems easier. I just want to make sure there’s nothing special about backing out the lateral release springs and swapping the housings. I figure if anyone’s tinkered around with it, it’s you. Thanks.

    I’ve also considered the B&D plate you featured here, which looks very nice, just nowt sure which direction I’ll go. Leaning towards my plan above as it doesn’t require drilling 4 new holes. I’ll save that for when I get new boots and need to adjust the BSL.

  73. Lou Dawson 2 October 6th, 2016 11:35 am

    Hi Michael, I did a full take-apart of the 2.0 last season. I suspect the swap you suggest will work, but you never know for sure as most binding companies do make small “in line” changes to their products that can cause incompatibility.

    Reusing the drill holes isn’t a big deal, if done correctly.

    Lou

  74. Justin October 26th, 2016 12:12 pm

    I’m coming from a vertical ft ( that is set at 9, and I don’t prerelease from) that I am happy with. I’m getting fewer days on snow than I used to, and as it turns out, getting older too, so thinking lighter gear might be nice. Been thinking about the super lites, but haven’t really been able to find much in the way of longer term reviews. Also wondering, after putting on an adjustment plate, heel lifter (a lot of Uber athletes tend to set the skin tracks around here) and maybe anti twist gizmo, how much weight am I still saving? A related question is, can you still use the brake with the adjustment plate, or does it end up being unsupported/ susceptible to damage?

  75. John Baldwin December 3rd, 2016 10:49 am

    I’ve been using the white Superlite 2 for most of last winter. I really like the binding (and especially the lightweight removable brakes) but if I take a hard forward fall (you know skiing in a whiteout…) I do not release the bindings. I think the RV is supposed to be about 7 or 8. But I should be about RV 5 on a DIN chart. So I’m looking for a solution – either Lou’s grinding or a different binding.

    Has anyone figured out how thick the spring should be for different release values?

    Dynafit if you are listening, please make some softer springs for this binding. The white model is supposed to be the women’s model but if you want to set your bindings according to a DIN chart, how many women (or smaller, older men 🙂 can use a DIN of 7? Maybe those European women have stronger bones?

    In my opinion this is the big downside of this binding. What’s more dissappointing is that the Superlite 1 did have a fully adjustable release. How about bringing back the Superlite 1 heel mounted on the green Superlite 2 heel plate? That way you would have release and a brake mount. It would be brilliant!!!

    I’ve also looked into the Kreuzspitz brake that slips into the crampon slot. The brake is well made and lightweight. The only catch is it needs a certain gap under the ball of your foot and there is no standard here. Some boots have flatter soles and some have more rocker. It also depends on the toe pin height of the binding you want to use it with. For me I couldn’t get the brake to fit under a TLT6 in a Superlite 1 🙁

  76. Ryana March 10th, 2017 3:53 pm

    John, how about these as an alternative, they seem to meet your criteria. http://www.atkrace.it/collezione-prodotti/raider-12-330-gr/?lang=en

  77. John Baldwin March 29th, 2017 9:59 am

    Thanks for the link Ryana. Any experience using the bindings? They look really good.

  78. Richard Stum January 14th, 2018 12:05 am

    I know the Women’s U-spring has a RV of about 10, whereas the Men’s is 12. Is the spring thicker on the Men’s version or somehow stiffer at the same diameter? As a geezer, the charts say I should be using a DIN of 6 or 7 (based on my BSL etc.), so John Baldwin, I am with you in wanting a softer spring. I bought the Women’s version and ground it down to 4.0mm but I am finding I am now pre-releasing once in a while. (After grinding it down, I did a “step in RV test” comparing it to some Speed Turns and it felt the same with it set to 7.) Maybe I just need to crank down the rotation setting on the heel more or start locking my toe piece on the down.





Anti-Spam Quiz:

You can subscribe to comment notification by checking the box to left, but you must leave a brief comment to do so, which records your email and requires you to use our anti-spam challange. If you don't like leaving substantive comments that's fine, just leave a simple comment that says something like "thanks, subscribed" with a made-up name. Check the comment subscription checkbox BEFORE you submit.
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.

  Your Comments


  Recent Posts




Facebook Twitter Google Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed



 



  • Blogroll & Links


  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring 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 ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. 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. Due to human error and passing time, 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 templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version