The new beauties. ID 2019-20120 Zed by the “grill” motif on the front of the heel unit. If there was a prize for best looking tech binding, I’d vote for these. Notice my pairing with skis in the same color space, or, are they?
The 2019-20 G3 Zed redeems its predecessor
Zed got me all frisky last year. G3 was heading back to the future with a classic tech binding: solid, light, clean, with G3 engineering behind it. But after an instance of consumer reported breakage I got the impression G3 was making some changes to the product. So I moved on to other shiny things. I’m back.
Enter Zed version two. Improved, stronger, as beautiful as the last one — the stunning twin brother you never met, until now. Along with strengthened internals, G3 made cosmetic changes that’ll easily differentiate the 2018-2019 Zed from the improved 2019-2020. The Canadian binding crafters have a blog post talking the details, worth a visit. Below is my tech-take, based on an afternoon of bench time.
Just to drive the point home. New version to left. Thank Skol that G3 made a new binding version that’s identifiable. Beats some of the other brand’s past foibles by a kilometer.
Flex compensation spring is stiffer, to help minimize movement of the binding while touring. There is also a subtle change the the small, shiny metal metal stop. It’s larger, perhaps more reliable.
Part of G3’s design philosophy is to make things duplicate, or standardized. No exception here. All the Zed binding mount screws are the same length, and every user serviceable screw head is Pozidrive 3.
The release value (RV) settings have a story. G3 goes the extra distance to test each binding’s RV and engrave the numbers so they match where the indicator/pointers is for each value. See our ZED tech look and factory visit from 2018 (warning, extensive gear geekage).
Likewise, mounting screw holes tend to cross over. My test skis had G3 Ions installed. Zed shouldered his heavier brother aside and hopped on with nary a whimper.
The gentle sound of shifting cardboard punctuated my excitement as I revealed the latest technological marvel from the savants of Vancouver. Standard unboxing shot, might as well have some fun.
If you opt to go brakeless, the stomp block/pad is now optional, and not included with the binding. G3 states it’s “…for skiers who ski without a brake, are 175+ lbs, plan to ski in and/or out of bounds, and generate larger loads during impacts when jumping and landing.” I’d recommended it for most larger skiers.
One of my favorite features, a plastic insert that fits in the toe unit, under the toe wings trigger. This has to be installed during mounting. Leaving it out is an easy mistake. Check your technician’s work.
The numbers
Heel weight, single, no brake, with screws: 246 grams (~4 grams more than 2018 version)
Toe unit weight, single, no brake, with screws: 130 grams
Total weight, one binding: 376 grams
Stomp block/pad (optional) weight: 8 grams
Brake weight: 115 mm, 90 grams
The summarized improvement list
— Added strength in the heel for the 19/20 version; thicker plastic in many locations, longer assembly screws.
— The stomp block/pad is no longer required to ski brakeless and is not included with binding.
— “Grill” pattern on front of heel unit, for increased durability and binding identification.
— Improved fit and finish of ZED ski brake eliminates play.
— Modified and stiffer forward pressure spring improves uphill touring with the heel lifts.
The conclusion
As always, my heart’s desire is that ski binding companies would do a better job of naming their products. Instead of this being called Zed2 or something equally is clear, this is just Zed. This despite it being a substantially changed product. I’ll move on from that gripe. Zed version 1 was a sweet, classic style tech binding. The improved version 2 is equally attractive, now mature, recommended. For a deep dive into the ethos of Zed see our factory visit, and more.
23 comments
Hi Lou! Great to see you doing what you do best; binding exploration/exposition. I posted the comment below about a week ago, but but it got buried with nary a trace. How could nobody be interested???!!! The only real link to the Zed review is about binding release values. G3 may well calibrate their bindings, but the Skialper testing appears to show that the actual release values for nearly every binding on the market varies significantly from the setting value. Furthermore, release values using different pin systems (Master Step, Quick Step, Atomic/Salomon, and La Sportiva/Trab) vary greatly. The new section is boot flex is also great. If anybody is interested in particular parts of the guide, let me know, and I’ll do my best to communicate what I understand…or buy the guide! It’s a masterwork.
Original comment: I’m sitting in an armchair, with a hot chocolate in hand, browsing through the 2020 Skialper guide–it’s available now. This year, the guide has been produced only in Italian, and in hard copy. As in previous years, the information is superb. In fact, I think this is the best guide yet. In addition to the wide range of skis, bindings, and boots reviewed, and the evident skill, passion, and experience of the team involved, they have broadened and deepened their quantitative testing. They measure ski flex in two axes, binding release values, which is extremely enlightening, and, for the first time, boot flex, which is also fascinating. There are accompanying essays about everything from the future of free touring to the temperature response of different plastics, as well as a long sections for women’s equipment, and a shorter and split boards. I don’t speak Italian fluently, but I can understand enough to make use of the guide. Even if you can’t understand a word, I still think it’s an amazing resource. With some study, the graphics are all perfectly clear. Very well done.
Thanks for this info, very important. I just got a pair of these and it was virtually impossible to find information on changes this yr. The manual did not clearly address stomp pad need or not, which is confusing given no marketing info on changes made this yr.
Thanks for the update Lou! I was really hesitant to ski this binding last season after seeing a few heel piece issues. In your opinion do you think this binding is on par with the Ion for reliability yet? Or does it need some more time?
I’m really looking for a lightweight setup for my daily driver.
Ben, I think it’s probably ready for prime time. With the caveat that no, it has not been consumer vetted. I’ll be using them on one of my ski pairs, bear in mind I’m not much of a durability tester, I ski too mellow. But I’ll wring them out in terms of function. Hope that helps. Lou
Bruno, I’ve stated over and over and over again, that best practice with any binding, tech, alpine or otherwise, is to actually test the release values. Hardly anyone does that with touring bindings, of course, but it’s important we all realize the engineering is done with this in mind. There are too many variables otherwise. For example, small variation in boot fittings will shift the values. Heel gap. Age of binding. I could go on. G3 does the best job I’ve seen of actually attempting to get numbers printed on their bindings to match actual ISO torque values (within the rather wide range allowed by the DIN/ISO 13992, but still… Lou
https://www.wildsnow.com/14843/din-iso-13992-binding-release-safety-testing-summary/
Sorry if this is off-tangent, but I have the Zed Version 1 and find it really hard to turn the heel unit from touring mode to ski mode (when the brakes are up). Anyone have the same issue? Could it have been improperly installed? My pair was the first Zeds my shop mounted and they seemed to struggle with them (had to do a do-over). And, after all that, they failed to put the plastic insert under the toe unit, which was disappointing. Otherwise I’ve been VERY happy with the bindings.
Hello Lou,
Thanks for the article on the Zed , I have been waiting for a review on the ZED’s after last winter and haven’t found much.
I bought a pair of ZED’s lasr year, and had two main issues: one was that i broke something in the heel piece, which made it
impossible to use. To that, G3 responded really well and changed both bindings.
The other issue, and this is why i am writing, is about losing ski brakes from time to time , although well mounted..
I wanted to know if you had any feedback on this issue, and if it was dealt with.
Thank you
Hi Phil,
I’ve had the same experience trying to turn the heel with brakes up. So much so i removed the brakes. I emailed G3 about this issue and the elastic travel spring in the heel. They acknowledged the rotation stiffness and offered to send me two new springs. I’ve contemplated sanding the plastic a bit to ease the rotation.
I was hoping G3 would raise the 2nd lifter height. I went from the ION to the Zed and noticed the lower max height. While, lower angle skinners are more efficient, they sometimes aren’t lower angle.
One of the things that appealed to me about the Zed is the really low ramp angle (small delta between toe and heel pins). And the G3 crampons are slick! So easy to install and remove w/o taking ski off.
Back to the release values, considering that the numbers printed on most pin bindings seem to bear little or no resemblance to actual release values, perhaps bindings should be marked with a +/- scale, so that people would not operate under the incorrect and possibly dangerous assumption that a “7” or whatever on their binding means anything. Maybe in this way people would be encouraged to bring their bindings/boots/skis into a shop to get them adjusted correctly. Just an idea. Then there’s the whole question of how these tests are conducted, even with the best machines, like a Wintersteiger or Montana. How would pin bindings operate if the system was loaded with a few hundred kilograms, the ski was twisted to introduce some torsion, the boot was deeply flexed/extended, and the pins and sockets were soaked with mud/sand/silt? OI guess you’d also have to freeze/unfreeze everything for a few cycles, and then test it when all the parts were at different stages of heating/cooling. My point is, I think these release values are incredibly variable. Testing is better than nothing, and it’s really all that we can do as consumers, but it’s definitely not the best the industry can do. The industry just doesn’t seem motivated to make bindings function in a more predictable, repeatable way, safer for both pre-releases and injuries. The same is true (to a lesser extent) of for alpine bindings. The industry has done a good job of reducing the incidence of tibia fractures, but soft tissue injuries of the lower leg remain common, despite existing technology that could likely prevent many of these injuries. Of course, I’m speaking about Howell ski binding and Knee binding, both of which would require dedicated L and R skis. But, then again, some skis are being designed wirh dedicated L and R shapes (Elan Amphibio and Blizzard Spur). The inside and outside edge of skis do different jobs, and I can envision a future where most skis are L and R, which associated bindings, and these bindings incorporate and added release function to prevent/mitigate/lessen soft tissue injuries. L and R skis? We do it for shoes and gloves…why not skis and bindings? What would you prefer? An L and R ski, or an ACL rupture?
Sorry, still have some rant left in me. Again, I get it, we should all test our boots/bindings. It’s the best/oply option we have. And yet, I find this advice somewhat unrealistic. It’s much like the common advice: go to a boot fitter. So you go to a boot fitter, they have a limited selection of boots that may or may not be what you’re looking for, you decide to go for one, which might already feel like a compromise, you invest hundreds of dollars in product, pressing, foot beds, and modifications…and what it it still doesn’t work? It’s a process with a huge up front cost for an unknown outcome! I guess the best shops offer 100% money back guarantees? But I bet you would often get into prolonged discussions about why and how the boot does not does not fit, whose responsibility this is, who should pay or not pay….and so on. Likewise with testing skis/bindings/boots. You’ve got some skis, or you buy some skis. You’ve got some boots, or you bus some boots. Bindings, too. Then you set it all up on a bench, and/or bring it all to a shop, and perform some testing, pushing the boot laterally to the side at the toe, lifting the heel with a pry bar, and so on. What if it doesn’t work? You could buy a new binding, but your skis have been drilled and mounted for a particular binding. ut you had all that boot fitting done. You could ask a shop to set all this up for you and check before you buy, but what shop is going to test a particular model of binding, mounted on a particular ski, with a particular model and size boot (all of which is going to influence release function) binding, before a sale? And of course, if the testing is done thoroughly, the boots probably going to spring free of the binding a few times, and that’s going to scratch the pins/sockets/shell…how will the customer react? Wat if the customer doesn’t like it, and they have to try to resell the (very slightly) used products? Anyway, I’m sure you get my point. Basically, I feel like the logistics, economics, and commercial aspects of all this make testing skis/bindings/boots for everybody extremely problematic. As you emphasize, the best we can do is test our own set ups, which might give us a heads up about potential problems, but won’t really help us prevent similar problems from occurring when we change our set up. And with ever more inexperienced skiers using pin bindings….I think these problems with release functions, and resulting injuries, are going to become more common. So go to a boot fitter! And test your bindings! but know the limitations….
I have the Zed from last year. I cannot use the Ion ski crampon, which is the recommended (and only) crampon G3 has for the Zed. The height of the toe pins relative to the top of the crampon when its installed is significantly different than for the Ion binding. The result is that the heel of my boot is several cm off the ski. I’m disappointed that G3 has not developed a fix for this problem. In various phone conversations with them I have been told that I should use heel lifters when I am using the crampons, or, that its really not a problem if I weight the boot to force it down onto the ski. Neither of these are adequate suggestions. If you are hoping to use crampons with your Zeds, make sure that your boot is compatible with the binding/crampon geometry. If your boot sole is flat you won’t have a problem. If your boot sole is rockered you may have a problem. My boot is the Hoji Pro Tour.
I’ve seen this problem on a friend’s bindings. Unusable with their crampons. Perhaps it is a boot-binding incompatibility, but it is a problem. I’m surprised this hasn’t been flagged by testers. Perhaps there are other issues involved? Does anyone have a solution?
This is a boot/binding/crampon incompatibility. No other issues, except boot size will be another variable. When I brought my skiis to the G3 office last winter to purchase a crampon adaptor kit (the piece that the crampon attaches to) it was clear right away that it wasn’t going to work. One of the engineers came and looked at it and agreed that there was a problem. He told me that they were going to be working on a fix, but later in the season when I called back a couple of times to enquire about the fix I got the answers I listed above. I explained that I would have to use the high heel lifter for my boot to get close, which is a completely unacceptable solution given that I would have little effective crampon at that point. G3 seemed to be in denial about the problem, and I haven’t bothered to call back this year, given the poor responses I got last spring. I can think of a couple of possible fixes, but none are ideal.
It is possible to mount Zed/Ion crampon adapter separately from the toe piece, closer to the heel unit. That way you will have more clearance between the boot sole and the ski topsheet to fit the crampons without using climbing aids. 3 more holes in the ski, I know. But works for me.
I ordered my Zeds two weeks ago directly from G3, got them mounted up and out for their first tour yesterday. I honestly was not aware of the changes for 19-20 but after seeing this post I check my shiny new bindings and see that G3 sent me last years version. Disappointing, but I shrugged it off and mounted them anyway. Well, as soon as I deploy one heel lifter on my first climb, the heel unit moves rearward each time its weighted, to the point that eventually the lifter gets stuck in the pin slot on my boot heel. No issue when climbing flat or with both lifters, but not having a mid height available sucks. It seems G3 addressed this issue with “modified and stiffer forward pressure spring improves uphill touring with the heel lifts”, but that doesn’t do you any good if they send you the old version. Currently waiting to hear back from G3 to see if they’ll ship me a full functional heel unit.
” best practice with any binding, tech, alpine or otherwise, is to actually test the release values. Hardly anyone does that with touring bindings, of course, but it’s important we all realize the engineering is done with this in mind. ”
IMO hardly anyone tests AT bindings cuz hardly anyone cares, they will ski bindings with no release adjustment that are lighter, they will ski bindings with no BSL adjustment that are lighter, I think a poll would show what people care about … is it light and whats the Ramp ?
Hi XXX_ER. Actually, in the new Skialper Buyer’s Guide, there is a reader survey that addresses your question. 2550 readers of Skialper. The majority were 25 to 44 years old, practiced ski mountaineering and freeride, and used skis from 80 to 100 mm wide (lots of other relevant statistics, too). One of the questions was, “How interested are you in the security of bindings with respect to DIN values.” The largest group, 46 percent, said that they were, “Very interested, and that they only used bindings that adhered to DIN norms.” The next largest group, 43 percent, said is was “not a determining factor.” There were two other categories, less than 10 percent each, that said, “not interested” and “other.” Hmmmmm.
yeah that ^^ survey could be a wide range of skiers, I’m talking about the BC skiers who go minimalist
I agree XXX_ER. Skialper being Skialper, I thought most of the readers would be in minamalist pin bindings, training for the Pierra Mentra. But it appears that, at least in this group of respondents, that was not the case. Who knew?
Is there any way to identify the new brake from the the old model?
I bought a pair of these recently and have skied them around 10 days. The brakes fell apart on me last weekend. Both brakes broke the same day, in different ways. I’ve only toured pow with them and I’m not much of a hucker. Anybody else have experience, good or bad, with the brakes? I really like the bindings, but I need brakes. If the brakes are garbage, I’m going to have to switch to Ions, which would be a bummer, weight wise.
Drag. How did they destruct? I’ve been using a set and haven’t had problems, but don’t have a lot of mileage on them. Lou
They broke 3 different ways on the same day! On one side the attachment between the top plate that the the boot sits on and the spring underneath detached (pressed in pin failed). On the other side one of the brake arms came out of the assembly (such that you could hand remove it) and one of the plastic bits at the end of the arm also broke off, although, that happened after the first two breaks, and after I had jerry-rigged it to keep skiing. I bought a new pair directly from G3 (first pair was from a retailer). Will post back up with results after some use. Hopefully I just got a lemon.