I love how much effort the SkiAlper guys put into their binding evaluations. With the permission of SkiAlper, please see their binding testing introduction below. With a nod to the effort our Italian friends devote to their mag, this intended as a teaser, and to encourage discussion regarding tech binding retention/release. If at all possible, obtain the magazine for the total picture — of bindings — and all other essential hardgoods.
SkiAlper Buyers Guide Fritschi Binding presentation. Note the binding test histogram, the Xenic is one of the bindings that more closely matches its displayed release values with those derived from the test described below. Interesting.
Skialper presents all their binding reviews as compact capsules. For example, the first of several Fritschi reviews is pictured above. Text translation: “Fritschi has reworked the light full-pin[classic tech] binding with its own original solutions. The front arms are opened by the locking lever, but they slide horizontally instead of rotating on pins like all the others. This prevents unwanted openings when skiing with the lever open. The heel rotates on a large diameter shaft, stable against rolling deflection. All the mechanics work on special plastic shells, and the heel unit also includes 10 mm of cushioning as ski flex compensation.”
Buyer’s Guide 2021 ATTACCHI [bindings, translated and edited by Lou]
This year we used the Wintersteiger Drivetronc to test how well the binding “DIN” release values matched the numbers printed on the bindings. With the help of the XL Mountain shop staff, we did hundreds of tests.
Note that with most bindings, the advertised release values are not required nor do they promise to conform to any specific standard or regulation (and those that are TUV certified are still allowed a significant amount of deviation). Thus, our results don’t indicate a “good” or “bad” test, nor do they prove that what you buy in a shop will give similar results. If anything, these results prove you should be careful with your binding settings.
That said, our Wintersteiger test method is the only reliable, calibrated and irrefutable way with which we could compare the various models as to how the release/retention function interacted with boots/fittings.
As with our past Buyers Guide binding tests, we mounted the bindings on hardwood planks, so that the result was uniform and not influenced by the consistency of ski top-sheets (not to mention that it would have taken 35 pairs of identical skis). We mounted the bindings with care, using the original manufacturer templates, while centering and lubricating perfectly. In short, a work of perfection. The tests were done with ideal conditions, with new boots, pins and bindings fitted to perfection.
We tested each binding with the most popular types of boot inserts on the market: Quick Step-in and Master Step by Dynafit, La Sportiva, and Salomon/Atomic. So for each binding we performed twelve release tests (four front right and four front left on the toe, four front on the heel). Total, for lovers of numbers, 240 paper “card” receipts from the Wintersteiger and almost two days of tests. The data collected by the Wintersteiger were first evaluated, then averaged and combined to obtain eight values/percentages, illustrated with histograms that use the same three-color scale (green, yellow and red) that the Wintersteiger prints on the test cards. The value percentages are the result of a weighted average.
This data is not definitive — for example we tested a limited selection of bindings, on one machine. Consequently it can mean everything or nothing, depending for example on your interpretation and needs. [Lou’s take: the data proves what we’ve known for years but bears constant repetition: don’t trust the numbers printed on the bindings.]
Remember this all is rapidly complicated in real life. For starters, things drastically change when the ski is flexed and the boot heel hits or presses against the heel unit (e.g., while hard cornering or landing jumps). We did some simulations and they weren’t very reassuring.
Adding to the fray, just imagine how worn inserts, pins and loose, unscrewed attachments must influence things. Moreover, there are a lot more people than you can imagine who’s bindings have play in the mounting screws. Perhaps even you. Go check!
Beyond all this, the worst inconsistency happens when bindings are skied with the touring lock engaged. Doing so usually sets an ultra-high resistance to sideways release, and yet eliminates the small amount of elastic movement you get with the classic tech-toe system, thus making for a harsher ride and possibly damaging equipment — or bones — if you do happen to fall.
[As we have repeated too many times to count here on WildSnow, ski with locked bindings only for good reason — not because you’re lazy about tuning your binding adjustments.]
Over the years we’ve seen an a incredible amount of improvement in ski touring bindings, in the mechanics, in the reliability, in the care of details. There are now bindings that seem to operate nearly at the peak of mechanical perfection. You enter, you hear a reassuring clack, then enjoy smooth touring lock levers and easily positioned heel lifts.
It’s on the subject of release and retention where the story of the future will probably be written. We will watch what happens over another year. And as our industry progresses, we’ll be the first to cheer when downhill performance and safety are finally the words associated with ski mountaineering bindings. When the deviation from the ideal value becomes noticeable.
[I’ll leave you guys with on thought: SkiAlper picked the same brand for their Race Binding of the Year, Light Binding of the Year, and Tour Binding of the Year. Care to guess what brand that might be? Hint, they’re influenced by Ferrari.]
See a selection of our WildSnow tech binding release information.
And see Brono’s SkiAlper review. It’s wonderful. Makes me want to leave for Italy tomorrow. Maybe I can get a job as a translator for next year’s book. Though full disclosure: The only Italian I know is grazie mille, scarponi, and AI is my. friend.
18 comments
“SkiAlper picked the same brand for their Race Binding of the Year, Light Binding of the Year, and Tour Binding of the Year. Care to guess what brand that might be?”
ATK is my guess. Just picked up a set of their Crest 10 bindings..
I’m guessing Ski Trab, with the Titan Gara, Titan Vario and TR2
I’m thinking “Lorenzo”. But you might like my new book on alpine ski touring.
I can send you the ebook when its ready. Thanks–Jean Vives
Hi Folks–Bruno here. After writing the review for this years’s magazine, I reached out to Davide Marta with some binding questions. No answers yet, but perhaps he will write here? I know he visits and comments occasionally. Other might have some interesting perspective on these bindings tests and questions as well.
1) What do you use as a reference value? The binding results are red/orange/green from a standard. What is the standard? Many touring bindings do not have adjustable DIN values. Do you use the weight and ski level of a tester? What tester? Do you use the average values? I hope that makes sense. Basically, when you say that a binding is “out of range” what do you use to define the range?
2) With a machine like a Montana or Wintersteiger, I think the lever arm pushes on the boot near the toe, to test lateral release at the toe, like an alpine binding. You can see this with the picture in the Buyer’s Guide of the G3 binding in the test machine with the lever arm near the toe. But most classic pin bindings release laterally at the heel. Do you change the position of the lever arm so that it pushes on the boot near the heel? Or do you use the machine in a standard alpine configuration?
Bruno has the question I had too, how do you test lateral release?
I have had my Vipers tested in the regular alpine boot tester.
I think I have seen a Vermont tech adapter for their manual tester?
More to the point, anyone know of any shops that can test release torque of classic tech bindings?
Bruno, my understanding after speaking with Davide a few years ago is that the bindings are set to a release value number printed on the binding housing, that’s the reference value. I was never clear on if they always used the same number, but got the impression they used a mid-range number in every case. The Wintersteiger then indicates how far from that number the actual release torque occurs. In other words, as I mentioned in my take above, what this is telling us is to be danged careful in making assumptions of binding settings. As for how they test classic tech bindings, my understanding is the upward/vertical is easy, and the sideways/lateral is done by setting up the Wintersteiger in a specific way that’s designated for heel release touring bindings. As with many tests of this sort, the main thing is that all the tests are done the same way, and it sounds like they certainly do that. Then, as for knowing what actually DIN equivalent your own bindings test as, yes, the Vermont tester has a way of doing this, as does the Wintersteiger. And if you really want to get it right, bring two sets of skis to the test, one that’s tried and true, the other new. Test the tried-true first and use it as a basis of comparison. And lastly, know that even the DIN/ISO standard allows significant variation in the real-world test results from those printed on the binding. Throughout the many years of “modern” bindings, the correct way of setting binding tension has always been to test with machine, using the numbers on the binding only as a starting point. In real life, this is of course not the common way, but it’s worth noting that’s what was always intended by this big mess.
As Skialper cautions in the translation above, the thing is not to read too much into this. All it’s telling us is to be careful about assuming the numbers on the binding are the actual release/retention tension we are skiing on.
As for bindings with fixed release, for a reference number they’re using the number claimed by the manufacturer. For example, the Plum R99 shown in Skialper has a fixed upward release claimed as “7” and lateral adjustable 6-8. So they set the Wintersteiger to test deviation from 7 in upward testing, and probably set the binding to 7 as well for the side testing.
The only part of this I find confusing is they tested the Salomon/Atomic MTN, and don’t provide any numbers for the various U-spring tensions, nor say which spring they tested.
As I don’t know Italian and Davide is not a fluent English speaker, I have trouble clarifying things sometimes, but I’m fairly certain my take above is the deal. Happy to stand corrected. Am planning on attending ISPO next winter, perhaps that’ll be the time to get total clarity.
“For example, the Plum R99 shown in Skialper has a fixed upward release claimed as “7” and lateral adjustable 6-8. So they set the Wintersteiger to test deviation from 7 in upward testing, and probably set the binding to 7 as well for the side testing.”
R99 is either 6 *or* 8, no in between, so could not have been set at 7.
Jonathan, you’re right. So they must have picked either the 6 or the 8.
Lou
Race Binding of the Year: ATK Revolution
Light Binding of the Year: ATK Haute Route 10
Tour Binding of the Year: ATK Raider 12
Freeride Binding of the Year: Salomon-Atomic Shift
My guess was right !
Hi. Thanks for the clarification Lou–that makes sense. I have a follow up observations and questions. I don’t have the guides in front of me (I’m on a weekend trip) but I do remember that, in last year’s guide, there were two bindings from the same manufacturer which tested with different toe lateral values, even though they had the exact same toe (only the heel pieces were different). This could simply show that two toe pieces of the same make/model can have very different release characteristics, something which you and Skialper have pointed out. Or it could be a hint about how they test lateral toe release. It’s possible that they test toe lateral release with the heel engaged. In this case, what the toe lateral release is measuring is the spring strength, geometry, and friction at the toe piece, as well as the same parameters at the heel. This could explain why two bindings with the same toe piece and different heel pieces had very different lateral toe release readings. I think it’s important to differentiate testing the toe piece alone vs. testing with the heel engaged. The former gives you specific information about the toe piece; the latter gives you information about the integrated binding system. How would you test lateral toe release alone? Well, I suppose in many cases you could simply rotate the heel piece away, and test only the toe. In other cases, you could remove the heel. And this might be what Skialper did–but I suspect not. I think the lateral toe releases are “integrated” with the heel function. And this makes it a little more difficult to evaluate the many competing toe designs in terms of their release function. For a “classic” pin binding, I still think the Dynafit rotation is notably superior to others (at least in terms of smooth and predictable release). For two years in a row, this binding has shown the most consistent release across a variety of tech fitting, and this “tolerance of differences” leads me to believe that this binding would also likely provide the most consistent release in real world conditions. Anyway, it’s fun to dive into these details.
Bruno, I’ve observed the use of Wintersteiger in testing of classic tech bindings. It is done with a boot in the binding, engaged at the heel and toe, in downhill skiing mode. Simple as that.
I’ve tested just the toes, with a boot in them, there’s a blog post somewhere (smile). Doing so was interesting, and had some bearing on the binding’s resistance to premature release and how well it toured uphill without being locked. But testing only the toe was not a test of the actual binding tension settings when in downhill mode.
As for variations in results, again, what all this is saying is that each boot/binding combo, each unique one specific to each skier, and their right and left feet, is going to have its own numbers. Those numbers are only approximated by the numbers printed on the bindings.
I agree the Rotation toe probably helps with release and retention consistency. On the other hand, binding engineers I’ve spoken with tend to agree that a binding that provides 100% of lateral tension via the heel may be prone to premature release when set to DIN chart recommended settings, due to the ergonomics of skiing, specifically the sideways heel thrust and pressure of the boot against the binding. Thus, I think the jury is still out on real-world performance of the Rotation. But the jury hasn’t exactly reached a verdict on other bindings either… Other than the fact that millions of skiers use them successfully, year after year, season after season.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Anecdotal observations show that most skiers dial up their tech bindings pretty high, or ski them with the locks engaged, and thus obviate any meaningful observations of how the binding actually performs in terms of resistance to premature release or injury prevention. I know that in my case, I ski with classic tech bindings at least one number higher than I do alpine bindings. Otherwise I pop out at the heel, especially vertically. I know this mainly because over many years it’s been a very consistent thing. But I’ve also employed a variety of binding testing methods so I could measure what I was really getting from my settings.
Lou
VT, you are psychic! BTW, I found it highly disappointing that G3 was nowhere to be found in the 2021 Buyer’s Guide. I’ve been meaning to ask around about that. Will do so today.
“I know that in my case, I ski with classic tech bindings at least one number higher than I do alpine bindings. Otherwise I pop out at the heel, especially vertically.”
Interesting. I ski alpine and Dynafit bindings at the factory release settings.
I used to prerelease in the Verticals in bumps pretty reliably when pushing the toes through the gullies. The “tower of power” fixed that, and I haven’t prereleased since I the Verticals broke (the brake) and I got Radicals.
I’ve never prereleased at the heel.
Mostly resort skiing, I will confess, in Garmont Radiums and now Hoji Frees, on BD Verdicts circa 2012. Boy those are great skis!
Surprising to see Salomon/Atomic Shift still gathering top awards. Seems like every time I turn around, I see a post complaining about pre-releases, brakes unexpectedly deploying, and other icing problems. Maybe it’s just a function of a bias of negative comments being vocalized versus positive. Don’t know.
Rotation is the only tech binding I’ve owned that has never pre-released so far, after a year of steady touring. I ride them at the same DIN I use in resort, which is +1 from what it “should” be and what I find I need to stay in. On other Dynafits, I would get prerelease in icy chunder, narrow icy chutes that grab tips and tails, or in deep, heavy Cascade snow that pulls on the skis. It seems to take pretty aggresive skiing to get prereleases, or just the right bump from something icy.
I don’t know if its the heel elasticity or the toe that keeps me in, but I like the way the Rotations ski. Yet I’m not really sure the weight penalty is worth it. ATK bindings offer heel elasticity at about half the weight.
Sad to note that a snowbiker died here in WA yesterday…. Stay safe everyone
Have about 12 days on the ATK Raider 12 (Hagan Core 12 Pro) and have been really impressed. Decently light for a full featured binding. Released a few times exactly when I would expect and want a binding to release. So far so good.
The R99 has a fixed forward release at “7” (fork rigidity), the lateral release can be chosen when mounting the heel block of the binding (the construction of the heel is asymetrical). Basically, mounting it on one side you’ll get a “8” release value, if you mount it the other way around (switching 180°) the release will be at “6”. Hope this helps;).
Comments are closed.