Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644

    Look 2015 - WTR & Touring Boot Compatiblity

    I couldn't find any thread titles on this topic, so have at it with this one. I stumbled on Look's site today and found the following:

    [edit on 2015-07-20 - updated url after initial posting]: http://www.dynastar.com/US/US/look-b...-dual-WTR.html

    They're making a 14-DIN, Pivot which is at boot compatible (ISO 9523) (95, 115, & 130 brake widths).
    [edit on 2015-07-21]: Read further down this thread. Inaccurate documentation on the website. They are not ISO 9523 certified.

    It's difficult to make out in the exploded view, but it may well have a sliding AFD.

    Cheers,
    Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 09-11-2015 at 11:48 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    They're making a 14-DIN, Pivot which is compatible with ISO 9523 WTR soles (95, 115, & 130 brake widths).
    I don't see the numbers "9523" anywhere on that link you provided, Thom. That's a good thing, because they are only indemnifying the binding for ISO Alpine 5355 and WTR soles (not the same). WTR requires a smooth plate over the AFD area and is slightly less rockered; ISO 9523 may include sticky lugged rubber over the AFD area and may also include tech inserts. Whether you can cram your 9523 Scarpa or Dynafit soles under there is another matter (I haven't tried yet).

    IMO the adoption of WTR soles/toepieces by the Lange/Rossi/Look people is too little too late, not even Salomon/Atomic really believes swap soles have a future. They should have taken the money they spent to license WTR and just developed a decent tech boot and binding setup on their own instead of buying rebranded Dynafits.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    One more thing - If they liked the concept that much, they should have gone all in and put the raise-able AFD on the FKS/Pivot 18.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    I highly doubt those new Look toes with sliding AFD's fit anything but WTR and similar soled boots, similar to Marker Lords. Fully rockered AT boots like the Maestrale are going to be a no-go, IMHO.

    Closest alpine binder to fit Maestrale-type soles would be the Warden, and even with those at maximum height you'll have to grind a tiny bit of rubber off the boot sole where it touches the AFD to pass the paper-slip drag test.
    Last edited by 1000-oaks; 07-21-2015 at 10:26 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,121
    18 din option would have been worth considering.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    I don't see the numbers "9523" anywhere on that link you provided, Thom. That's a good thing, because they are only indemnifying the binding for ISO Alpine 5355 and WTR soles (not the same). WTR requires a smooth plate over the AFD area and is slightly less rockered; ISO 9523 may include sticky lugged rubber over the AFD area and may also include tech inserts. Whether you can cram your 9523 Scarpa or Dynafit soles under there is another matter (I haven't tried yet).

    IMO the adoption of WTR soles/toepieces by the Lange/Rossi/Look people is too little too late, not even Salomon/Atomic really believes swap soles have a future. They should have taken the money they spent to license WTR and just developed a decent tech boot and binding setup on their own instead of buying rebranded Dynafits.
    Sorry, Greg. Their site organization isn't the best. I snipped the wrong URL. I updated the original post with this one: I'm somewhat agnostic about the height adjustable AFD feature, but I have to say that it's implementation on the Marker Duke (and others in that family?) was very nicely done.

    They seem to be adopting the term "Dual" for this family of bindings, but their nomenclature will no doubt generate a lot of confusion - especially their conflating WTR and ISO 9523. I dug a bit deeper and found this description for "Dual" in a popup button at the bottom of the page for the individual binding (not the summary page):

    "Compatible with traditional Alpine and "WTR" Rocker Soles (ISO 9462), DUAL WTR bindings are the only Dual Standard binding to offer quick, easy boot type selection between standards while retaining a consistent, natural ramp angle. DUAL WTR bindings offer compatibililty with traditional Alpine (ISO 5355) or WTR "Walk to Ride" Rocker Soles (ISO 9523)."

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Closest alpine binder to fit Maestrale-type soles would be the Warden, and even with those at maximum height you'll have to grind some rubber off the boot sole where it touches the AFD.
    Interesting. My 2014/15 Maestrales (size 26) actually have a bit of vertical adjustment range available on my Wardens. The soles don't have heavy wear on them.

    Cheers,
    Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 07-21-2015 at 12:39 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Their copywriters need to do some fact checking. ISO 9523 and WTR are not the same.

    ISO 9462 is a binding protocol describing how to test alpine ski bindings, I'm not sure it even describes the toe height/shape of any boot other than an ISO 5355 alpine one (although WTR's shape may fall within the prescribed limits, I haven't paid for the ISO PDF to read the complete document). At any rate, WTR soles are in a grey area somewhere between 5355 soles and 9523 soles, with slightly lower stand height, no tech inserts, and a teflon pad over the AFD area.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Their copywriters need to do some fact checking. ISO 9523 and WTR are not the same.
    OK, I"ve got the 2016 trade catalogs for both Rossi and Look in front of me, and neither mentions ISO 9523 soles in the copy, only WTR and ISO 5355. That aligns with what I was told, that they'll only indemnify for alpine and genuine WTR boots. There is a graphic that shows using a screwdriver to raise or lower the "2 positions: Alpine / WTR" AFD.

    This is right up Xavier D's alley: The Rossi catalog lists part # FCEF002, a WTR AFD kit (FKS 180 specific)!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,298
    Lords and Wardens both fit heavily rockered touring boots just fine. They are on the snug side when everything is brand new, but adjusted all the way as high at they go, there's just a hair of clearance on the AFD on both bindings. Generally speaking of course, manufacturing tolerances are always going to lead to the occasional boot/binding that don't play well together, but most of them will fit.

    The Look binding, on the other hand, definitely will not fit anything other than a WTR sole. I haven't actually tried to put a boot in it, but just from looking at it at SIA last year, there isn't anywhere near enough adjustment to fit anything else in.

    Also, IMO, the WTR Pivot is the flimsiest toe design I've seen in a long time. No way in hell would I want to ski it.

    I really just wish they'd bring back the FKS 15 with the metal toe and forget this height adjustable nonsense.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    ^ Weird, when I put a new Cochise boot in a new Lord (on the high setting) a couple years ago, I had to bottom out the AFD to make it fit, and even then it was tight on the AFD. Thought I had the boot toe fully up against the wings, but maybe it wasn't.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,121
    Keep in mind there is a difference between 'fitting' and 'working with.' I have got my Tecnica Cochise rockered soles to 'fit' with my unmodified Look P18s. This does not mean they 'work together.'

    Just because a toe piece can adjust for different lug heights does not mean it is designed to work with an all rubber toe piece.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,298
    Both the Lord and the Warden are certified to work with ISO 9523 AT soles (which the Maestrale has), so yes, they both "fit" and "work with" and are designed with those soles in mind.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,121
    gotcha. All the literature and info I have gotten from look is that their WTR bindings are not ISO 9523

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,298
    That has been my impression as well.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    Their copywriters need to do some fact checking. ISO 9523 and WTR are not the same.
    Agreed. Their tech writers and engineers aren't talking.

    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    OK, I"ve got the 2016 trade catalogs for both Rossi and Look in front of me, and neither mentions ISO 9523 soles in the copy, only WTR and ISO 5355. That aligns with what I was told, that they'll only indemnify for alpine and genuine WTR boots. There is a graphic that shows using a screwdriver to raise or lower the "2 positions: Alpine / WTR" AFD.

    This is right up Xavier D's alley: The Rossi catalog lists part # FCEF002, a WTR AFD kit (FKS 180 specific)!!!
    What a missed opportunity this is for them. Granted, there aren't all that many touring boot owners (even in a growing market segment), and for whatever reason WTR specification came into existence for (as a gateway drug toward a touring boot, or an end in itself?), it makes little sense to ignore the 9523 specification as a means of future-proofing the design, if nothing else.

    I'm happy with my Wardens, but would always love to see a player like Look enter the fray.

    Cheers,
    Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    What a missed opportunity this is for them.
    Yes, pretty much misfiring on all cylinders IMO. A couple years late to the party, and only offering the second-tier toepiece at that. Forcing you to accept a mediocre range of cuff movement if you even want to deal with mounting a WTR sole and giving it a try. And limiting your AT binding choice for your "touring" setup to one of the heavy ass frame options.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fernie and/or Smithers
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    I really just wish they'd bring back the FKS 15 with the metal toe and forget this height adjustable nonsense.
    Ya, seriously. 6-15 DIN pretty much captures the whole market. Anyone who needs to crank their DIN higher than 15 either:
    -has crappy bindings
    -is racing the Hannenkamm
    -is too fat to ski

    Back on the topic....
    I haven't seen these dual toes but I'm surprised to hear they look flimsy. Look has always put out bomber stuff. (aside from their rebranded Naxos).

    And rebranded Dynafits, WTF. Come on Look, everyone is making a tech binding these days, what is the hold up??
    More importantly, why no tech boot from Lange?!?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,121
    I thought the Salomon/Amer WTR norm was cool with tech inserts? Am I mistaken?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    Not so sure Mastrale/Skookum/Mobe variety rockered soles are ISO 9523:
    http://static.evo.com/assetimages/fe...c_bindings.png

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I thought the Salomon/Amer WTR norm was cool with tech inserts? Am I mistaken?
    They offer 3 soles; see link below. The WTR one doesn't have tech fittings.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Not so sure Mastrale/Skookum/Mobe variety rockered soles are ISO 9523:
    http://static.evo.com/assetimages/fe...c_bindings.png
    Those are the Salomon offerings, the Scarpa tread looks slightly different but has the same rocker profile and toe shape as the 9523 one pictured.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,298
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Not so sure Mastrale/Skookum/Mobe variety rockered soles are ISO 9523:
    http://static.evo.com/assetimages/fe...c_bindings.png
    According to Scarpa they are.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    ^ Interesting, the curve under the arch of the foot must make the Scarpa AT soles look more rockered than they are.
    https://www.wildsnow.com/1165/randon...iso-standards/

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,121
    I believe the WTR soles that come with a quest BC have tech inserts:
    http://www.evo.com/alpine-ski-boots/...ax-bc-120.aspx

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I believe the WTR soles that come with a quest BC have tech inserts:
    http://www.evo.com/alpine-ski-boots/...ax-bc-120.aspx
    Dude, you believe everything you read on evo.com?

    The soles that ship with the Quest Max BC and the TR 110 have tech inserts, but they call them "Walk+" not WTR. The rest of the Quest boots ship with alpine soles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •