Binding Reviews

How Elastic is the Plastic? Tech Binding Research

by Lou Dawson July 5, 2019

Hey all, summer boredom strikes the heart of the boldest skiers… time to measure more bindings so this post stays updated.

Below, a bit of bench work regarding “elasticity” and “elastic travel” of touring bindings, defined as how far your boot can move in the release function and return to ski mode without ejecting (i.e., “return to center”). Thus ostensibly “absorbing” shock and vibration, in turn making your day safer.

Fritschi Tecton has what I'd call 11 millimeters of travel, as it can go slightly past my measurement point.

Fritschi Tecton yields what I’d call 10.5 millimeters of travel, as it can go slightly past my measurement point. Excellent (and virtually the same as 10 millimeters).

July 5, 2019 24 comments

Scarpa Ski Touring Boots and Salomon-Atomic Shift Binding

by Lou Dawson June 26, 2019

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry. They’ll help you toss the ski binding salad.

“Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems… to characterize our age.”
— Albert Einstein

The perfection of means is the mission with ski touring gear. But sometimes the path to perfection has a few bumps.

Case in point: Which ski touring boots, exactly, will function correctly in a Salomon-Atomic Shift ski binding? And do the Dynafit fittings (Standard, Quick Step, Master Step) make the boot incompatible?

Short answer:Shift is built to a DIN/ISO standard that is specified as compatible with boots built to another DIN/ISO standard. So, if the ski boot in question conforms to the correct standard (ISO 9523), it is technically “compatible” with the Shift. The “Alpine Touring” category of Scarpa boots are built to match the necessary ISO standard (e.g, Maestrale, Gea). Those boots are thus “compatible” with the Shift. Read on.

Above, Scarpa Maestrale, with Dynafit Quick Step In (QSI) tech fittings, paired with Salomon Shift. The protruding steel rib on the fittings is located just outside and under contact with the binding roller, provided the boot toe shape conforms to ISO 9523, and is THUS COMPATIBLE WITH SHIFT BINDING (see below for more info about what ISO 9523 specifies).

This is child’s play to evaluate on the workbench.
(Note that the Dynafit Master Step toe fitting, according to our evaluations, is in our opinion NOT compatible with Shift, while in our opinion the classic type tech fittings function well due to their being flush with the boot toe surfaces. Again, MAESTRALE PICTURED HERE HAS THE QSI FITTINGS AND _IS_ COMPATIBLE WITH SHIFT.

The tiny logician living inside your cortex will latch on to the “official” verbiage. Specifically, Salomon’s statement: “Offering Multi-Norm Certification (MNC) and an adjustable toe pedal, the S/LAB SHIFT is the only hybrid binding that is compatible with all norm boots on the market.” This statement can be found here.

(Oddly, the Salomon verbiage goes on to state “The Shift is also TUV-certified, delivering the safety a skier needs regardless of the type of ski boot he/she uses.” Anyone see how strange that is? It says the Shift works with any ski boot, while it clearly does not — it only works with “norm boots.” Giving Salmon the benefit of the doubt, I’d suspect this contradiction is the result of the German language marketing spreech being ineptly translated to English. So let’s move along.)

June 26, 2019 45 comments

7 Deadly Sins of Tech Binding Mounting

by Lou Dawson June 17, 2019

written by Lou Dawson

Oh boy, mistakes were made? Hopefully you don’t hear that at the ski shop when you’re picking up your shiny new planks. More, let’s hope you are not shouting something stronger when you discover your binding mount is messed up and you’re standing on the summit of Denali — ready to launch — now you get to walk. Most shops (for example our publishing partner and sponsor of this post, Cripple Creek Backcountry) do a pretty good job of quality control. But human error happens. A few of the more common errors below. Some easy to check for, some presented as a warning as to why you should indeed trust your skis only to a top shop.

Boot off center at the heel, classic tech binding (exaggerated). Click images to enlarge.

1. Boot heel off center

Why is this deadly: Too much misalignment preloads the binding heel lateral release, might cause an imbalance in how much retention the binding provides, thus possibly causing accidental release. Less dire, can also make it difficult to step-clip into the binding heel.
How to evaluate: Easy to check when you pick up your skis from the shop. Place boot in binding, in touring mode. Drop boot heel down so it rests on the heel pins (or other, in the case of hybrid binding). Check centering of the heel. It’ll usually be quite close, usually appearing near perfect. That’s best. But being off by a small amount is ok; a millimeter or so.
How to fix on the bench: Assuming the ski touring binding screw holes are not entirely messed up, remove front unit screws, reglue, reinsert screws but leave loose, lock boot in binding, push heel of boot to side until aligned, gradually tighten screws while continuing to apply “English” to the boot.
How to fix in the middle of the Messner Couloir: Not gonna happen.

June 17, 2019 39 comments

Tossing the Insert Salad — ‘Dynafit’ Tech Boot Fittings

by Lou Dawson January 2, 2019

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Dynafit.

In the case of the three Dynafit type fittings we outline below, we recommend the Dynafit certified versions rather than those made by various second parties. With new boots, certified fittings are indicated by a red plastic clip-seal on the toe of the boot, as pictured above. Click images to enlarge.

In the case of the three “Dynafit” type tech fittings we outline below, we favor the Dynafit certified versions rather than those made by various second parties. With new boots, certified fittings are indicated by a red plastic clip-seal on the toe of the boot, as pictured above. Note the TUV badge as well, see note at end of this post. Click images to enlarge.

If you don’t chop your salad too fine, you can pick out those tasty chunks of artichoke. Likewise, we are in a good, but not exceptional place these days with ski boot “tech” fittings. Those little steel lugs at the toe and heel, designed to attach various binding options. We presently have five or six items in the salad (including La Sportiva variations). The four “Dynafit” types are detailed here, see this post for La Sportiva.

Following, official names with the shorthand we use while blogging (and making salad orders at our local ski shop).

January 2, 2019 9 comments

The Great Fritschi Change of 2018-19

by Lou Dawson December 17, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

Note: Due to my using several sets of bindings for the photos below, I got some of the “new vs old” confused in the photo captions. Should be fixed now. Apologies. Lou

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry. Let them explain the arcane differences between various Fritschi options.

The new Fritschi toe bumper (front) will with most boots allow better touring range of motion.

The new Fritschi toe bumper (front) will yield better touring range of motion with most boots. More, it’s less likely to dent your plastic.

Okay wunderkinder, it began with rumors, now the metamorphosed Tecton/Evo are in our scarred, sun burned paws. The change is subtle, a re-shaped toe “bumper” that nicely flattens when you shift the toe to tour uphill mode. Results: Less chance of your boot being dented during a forward “knee fall,” and more range of touring stride motion. The original version binding will be available as well, as it functions adequately with some boots — dealers can show you the difference. If in doubt, buy the new version. The two varietals will boast different SKU numbers, thanks Fritschi for that nice Swiss touch, instead of doing in-line changes and calling them exactly the same name and model number (as certain other companies are prone to foist on our poor overloaded ski touring brains).

December 17, 2018 39 comments

2018-2019 Fritschi Evo and Tecton Brakes – Improved

by Lou Dawson December 15, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry.

I’ve been playing around with the latest Fritschi Tecton and Evo binding versions. More coming, today a Friday briefing. As you may recall, a few folks broke the ski brake on their 2017-2018 Tecton-Evo. While there might have been an “in line” change to help with this, I’m not certain. But I carefully examined the 2018-2019 brake for changes that might cure the problem. It appears the brake assembly is mostly the same, with what appears to be one key change.

The brakes in question.

December 15, 2018 6 comments

G3 — Stomp Pad and ZED Binding Gaposis Breakage

by Lou Dawson December 8, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry.

G3 ZED in downhill mode, showing stomp pad gap exceeding their now recommended 1.5 mm gap.

I’ve never been entirely convinced on the use of stomp pads with classic tech bindings such as G3 ZED. (Stomp pad being a block of material under the boot heel, with a small gap that closes up when the binding heel flexes downward under high loads).

A couple of reasons for my skepticism: Mainly, I knew that boot’s vary in shape, so getting the correct stomp pad height is difficult (leading to the dread medical condition known as “gaposis). More, stomp pads are a kludgy solution to inherent binding fragility.

I’d rather see a binding be strong enough, and not need the pad for all but the biggest, most aggressive skiers.

Thus, while doing my examinations of the G3 ZED, I gave a sagacious nod to the stomp pad, figuring “well, here we go again, but I’ll shut up and see what happens.” Apparently, what happened is indeed the ZED fixed-height stomp pad ran up against the reality that the ski touring boot industry doesn’t have much truck with the DIN-ISO standard for ski touring boots. (In my opinion a good thing, as we wouldn’t have the plethora of cool boots if they had to conform to 9523).

December 8, 2018 22 comments

G3 ZED Anti-Rotation — A Winner?

by Lou Dawson November 19, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry.

The 2018-2019 ZED ski touring binding from G3 appears to possess an excellent anti-rotation (AR) feature. Simple. Yet like most things simple — that work — someone probably put a lot of thought into this. Similar in concept to a few other AR systems we’ve seen, but different in that it appears to be a more positive and stronger engagement. Perhaps “best in class.” Check it out:

ZED ski binding with rotation lock engaged. It’s a small notch and corresponding tang located under the heel-flat-on-ski support. Thing is, not only does it click in with plenty of tension, as you tour your weight comes down on it (whether your using lifters or heel-flat). My prediction: you will not have auto-rotation problems with this binding.

November 19, 2018 5 comments

Lost Secrets of ZED (the G3 Ski Touring Binding)

by Lou Dawson November 16, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

This post sponsored by our publishing partner Cripple Creek Backcountry.

G3 helped us out some time ago with a technical look at their ZED binding. Overall we were favorably impressed, but I wanted a little more time with the sweet thing. A pair is now living here at WildSnow HQ, so how about a few supplementary details before we get them on the snow?

The whole kahuna, sans brake. We’ll detail the brakes in another post. Know for now that they’re easy to install-remove, though to do so you remove the heel unit from the heel plate (which can remain screwed to the ski).

November 16, 2018 36 comments

Measuring Release Values — Salomon-Atomic U-spring bindings

by Lou Dawson September 13, 2018

written by Lou Dawson

We published this last spring. People missed it. Useful infos so we reup. The point of the exercise is you don’t want to be making assumptions about binding release and retention values. At the least, a hand check on workbench, better, actually measure. Exception being skiers who simply crank all settings to the maximum, as testing those rigs often requires excessive force, and they provide little to no injury protection needing verification. In other words, a binding set on release value 13 is about staying on your feet, not coming off.

And by the way… when you do your bench testing, be aware of gotchas such as the Fritschi Evo/Tecton offerings needing the boot toe actuation of binding toe opening during a forward release. Easy to check on the bench, major problem if this does’t function correctly.

‘Twist’ testing. (Binding shown is a Dynafit, while the binding we cover in this article is the Salomon-Atomic.

This project used a Vermont binding release checker. While this tool is designed for toe-wing (alpine) binding release checking of TUV certified DIN/ISO standard systems, it correlates well when used to evaluate lateral (twisting, side) release and retention of classic tech bindings. To verify, I checked a set of Dynafit Speed Radical I’ve got mounted up for my current Cosmos 3 boots, as well as testing with my quite used TLT-6 boots. Dynafit binding set on 8, checked out with release value (RV) of 7.5/8 on the torque wrench using my boot choices, other experiments showed good results as well. Thus knowing the Vermont instrument would give me usable results (at least for comparisons), I then played around with the Salomon-Atomic U-spring bindings.

September 13, 2018 36 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts