Standard tech - vertical and lateral release at the heel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
Printable View
Standard tech - vertical and lateral release at the heel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
... Thom
Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk
Combed the thread, don’t see it.
What do we know about the the delta between toe height and heel height? 10 mm like vipecs? Or closer to neutral like the alpinist or zed?
Here is a marketing text about Xenic that actually has some interesting details
Fritschi have announced a new lightweight pin binding for next winter. Called the Xenic 10, this binding will be available from autumn 2019.
We were lucky to have a good look at these bindings at the ISPO trade show in February, and will be testing these bindings early March. Please see the video for more details.
Fritschi wanted to make a lighter "efficient" category binding for skis up to 105 mm at the waist. The Xenic 10 weighs in at only 280 g per ski and will be competing with the Dynafit's TLT Speed Turn 2.0 and TLT Speed Radical, and Marker's Alpinist bindings. Fritschi don't produce many different binding models and take the time to develop technical innovations that offer real advantages. The Xenic 10 incorporates several interesting and unique features that will make these bindings easy to use, with precise downhill control and more reliable safety release.
The innovations start with the toepiece. The Xenic 10 is the first pin binding with jaws that open and close laterally. (All other pin binding jaws open by rotating around an axis). This lateral open and closing mechanism offers two advantages, with much easier boot entry and much greater resistance to vertical upward forces that can cause inserts to open unexpectedly. Boot entry really could not be easier. Simply place the boot toe behind the red blocking plate and you're aligned with the pins. Press down lightly and the jaws slide inwards to clamp the boot toe. This jaw design also makes these bindings more resistant to pre-release. Traditional pin bindings can open unexpectedly when the skis have an large shock from below, for instance when taking a heavy landing. Since the jaws of the Xenic 10 only move laterally, the toepiece is much less affected by vertical forces an so does not pre-release. The toepiece includes a slot for ski crampons, which slide in laterally. It's the same design as Dynafit and we understand that Dynafit crampons will be compatible. Fritschi will produce ski crampons for the Xenic in three widths, 85, 95 and 105 mm, but having the wider choice of sizes chez Dynafit is a plus. The toepiece also includes a slot to attach a ski leash.
The heel unit combines low weight with several features normally seen on heavier bindings, to ensure both good control when skiing and a high level of release safety.
Fritschi have cleverly separated the lateral and vertical release functions, saving weight and improving binding rigidity. The base of the heel unit is wide, giving good stability and power transfer to the ski. Lateral release can be adjusted between 4-10 DIN using the screw at the back of the base. The narrower upper part contains the heel pins. These are separate pins that rotate freely to avoid friction and are more durable than the "U" type springs used on many lightweight bindings. Vertical release is also 4-10 DIN.
Changing between walk and ski modes is quick and easy. Just rotate the heel unit 180° in either direction. In walk mode there are two positions, flat and one heel riser.
The Xenic 10 is supplied without ski brakes. These are available as options in three widths, 85, 95 and 105 mm. In walk mode the brakes are locked up as the heel unit is turned, it's very intuitive and easy.
Fritschi have designed the Xenic 10 to combine low weight with a high level of skiability and safety. The heel units can twist 13 mm laterally to absorb shocks before releasing. Fritschi call this higher level of safety "defined release"by which they mean that the binding releases correctly in any skiing situation independently from the flex of the ski. To compensate for changes in length as the ski flexes the heel unit of the Xenic 10 can move 10 mm backwards, the same length compensation as the free-rando Vipec Evo and Tecton bindings.
Many lighter bindings either do not offer any length compensation, or offer insufficient to be considered “defined release” bindings.
Another important safety consideration is forward falling frontal release. First, the boot is released from the heel unit and the boot falls forward. As the boot rotates forward it presses on the toe unit and opens the jaws, letting the boot exit. All Fritschi bindings, including the Xenic 10, free the boot at an angle of about 65 degrees (this does depend on the boot model; for most boots this is 65 degrees). This is earlier than other bindings and offers higher safety. Many pin bindings release at 90 degrees and then you can imagine where your knees and head are.
Weighing only 280 g per ski without brakes, the Xenic 10 is packed with practical innovations to increase ease of use and safety. Built to the usual high Fritschi standards, it should provide many years of reliable use.
Love to see the engineering goals of every feature clearly stated like this. I wish more manufacturers did this. Thanks for posting!
Only one 11° climbing riser (2° without) for a binding in this category? Riser preferences have been discussed ad nauseam, but there's obviously a large portion of the market that feels strongly about having a second riser. One of the features I really like about the Zeds is the reduced ramp angle (previously on Rad 2.0s) but I find myself using the second riser more frequently as a result.
Reporting this with different formatting, so people don't need to highlight it to read (on desktop). Thanks for posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by HukuTa_KydecHuk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a marketing text about Xenic that actually has some interesting details
Fritschi have announced a new lightweight pin binding for next winter. Called the Xenic 10, this binding will be available from autumn 2019.
We were lucky to have a good look at these bindings at the ISPO trade show in February, and will be testing these bindings early March. Please see the video for more details.
Fritschi wanted to make a lighter "efficient" category binding for skis up to 105 mm at the waist. The Xenic 10 weighs in at only 280 g per ski and will be competing with the Dynafit's TLT Speed Turn 2.0 and TLT Speed Radical, and Marker's Alpinist bindings. Fritschi don't produce many different binding models and take the time to develop technical innovations that offer real advantages. The Xenic 10 incorporates several interesting and unique features that will make these bindings easy to use, with precise downhill control and more reliable safety release.
The innovations start with the toepiece. The Xenic 10 is the first pin binding with jaws that open and close laterally. (All other pin binding jaws open by rotating around an axis). This lateral open and closing mechanism offers two advantages, with much easier boot entry and much greater resistance to vertical upward forces that can cause inserts to open unexpectedly. Boot entry really could not be easier. Simply place the boot toe behind the red blocking plate and you're aligned with the pins. Press down lightly and the jaws slide inwards to clamp the boot toe. This jaw design also makes these bindings more resistant to pre-release. Traditional pin bindings can open unexpectedly when the skis have an large shock from below, for instance when taking a heavy landing. Since the jaws of the Xenic 10 only move laterally, the toepiece is much less affected by vertical forces an so does not pre-release. The toepiece includes a slot for ski crampons, which slide in laterally. It's the same design as Dynafit and we understand that Dynafit crampons will be compatible. Fritschi will produce ski crampons for the Xenic in three widths, 85, 95 and 105 mm, but having the wider choice of sizes chez Dynafit is a plus. The toepiece also includes a slot to attach a ski leash.
The heel unit combines low weight with several features normally seen on heavier bindings, to ensure both good control when skiing and a high level of release safety.
Fritschi have cleverly separated the lateral and vertical release functions, saving weight and improving binding rigidity. The base of the heel unit is wide, giving good stability and power transfer to the ski. Lateral release can be adjusted between 4-10 DIN using the screw at the back of the base. The narrower upper part contains the heel pins. These are separate pins that rotate freely to avoid friction and are more durable than the "U" type springs used on many lightweight bindings. Vertical release is also 4-10 DIN.
Changing between walk and ski modes is quick and easy. Just rotate the heel unit 180° in either direction. In walk mode there are two positions, flat and one heel riser.
The Xenic 10 is supplied without ski brakes. These are available as options in three widths, 85, 95 and 105 mm. In walk mode the brakes are locked up as the heel unit is turned, it's very intuitive and easy.
Fritschi have designed the Xenic 10 to combine low weight with a high level of skiability and safety. The heel units can twist 13 mm laterally to absorb shocks before releasing. Fritschi call this higher level of safety "defined release"by which they mean that the binding releases correctly in any skiing situation independently from the flex of the ski. To compensate for changes in length as the ski flexes the heel unit of the Xenic 10 can move 10 mm backwards, the same length compensation as the free-rando Vipec Evo and Tecton bindings.
Many lighter bindings either do not offer any length compensation, or offer insufficient to be considered “defined release” bindings.
Another important safety consideration is forward falling frontal release. First, the boot is released from the heel unit and the boot falls forward. As the boot rotates forward it presses on the toe unit and opens the jaws, letting the boot exit. All Fritschi bindings, including the Xenic 10, free the boot at an angle of about 65 degrees (this does depend on the boot model; for most boots this is 65 degrees). This is earlier than other bindings and offers higher safety. Many pin bindings release at 90 degrees and then you can imagine where your knees and head are.
Weighing only 280 g per ski without brakes, the Xenic 10 is packed with practical innovations to increase ease of use and safety. Built to the usual high Fritschi standards, it should provide many years of reliable use.
I do appreciate their content.
But there’s 2 answers I’m still looking for.
1) what is the ramp delta (toe height and heel height)
2) is this a “safe” toe like a vipec or Tecton that releases like an alpine binding and prevents spiral fractures? Or is it a standard tech toe a la Dynafit?
SupreC - #2: standard tech toe (not Vipec/Tecton lateral release/elasticity).
Great video from ISPO: https://youtu.be/HdKfFcgukp4 ETA: whoops, Peruvian already posted this. Anyway...
At 3:45, it shows pretty smooth and significant rearward compensation.
Curious about how the horizontal toe connection will affect the circumstances in which it releases. I understand it's designed to limit vertical release (from heavy compressions or similar). Wonder if that will have any other effects, intended or not.
Awesome design and safety for 280g! Me likey.
the video has already been embedded twice on the previous page - so we should be pretty well covered by now. :)
I still think these will hit a huge sweet spot in the market. Light standard tech binding that is very cheap and seem very easy to operate. All the plastic might scare some people off, but for first time tech users they should be awesome making the step into the world of tech bindings less costly. They should be an awesome non-Marker competitor at the entry price point, hopefully push product development and help lower prices. If Vipecs and Tectons are any benchmark, then they should also be fairly reliable. :)
Quote:
The innovations start with the toepiece. The Xenic 10 is the first pin binding with jaws that open and close laterally. (All other pin binding jaws open by rotating around an axis). This lateral open and closing mechanism offers two advantages, with much easier boot entry and much greater resistance to vertical upward forces that can cause inserts to open unexpectedly. Boot entry really could not be easier. Simply place the boot toe behind the red blocking plate and you're aligned with the pins. Press down lightly and the jaws slide inwards to clamp the boot toe. This jaw design also makes these bindings more resistant to pre-release. Traditional pin bindings can open unexpectedly when the skis have an large shock from below, for instance when taking a heavy landing. Since the jaws of the Xenic 10 only move laterally, the toepiece is much less affected by vertical forces an so does not pre-release.
Can someone translate the bold words into something more meaningful with comparisons to other bindings? I feel like im missing something.
Click on the link (it plays from the point of the video when your question is partially answered):Quote:
Originally Posted by margotron
https://youtu.be/HdKfFcgukp4?t=124
It is the same video that I posted on the previous page, that has since been posted two more times as a link. :) I am assuming you might have already seen the clip, so it and some logical thinking seem to answer the parts bolded out by you above.
The last bolded part: with Fritschi's design only moving horisontally, Fritschi seem to claim that forces acting on the toe vertically will not contribute to release up front - only forces working in the horizontal plane will. This makes sense when you think about the design - it has no vertical movement in the toe. That also means that there is none of the vertical compliance some traditional tech designs wrongfully label as elasticity.
The decoupling of forces acting on the toe in the vertical and horizontal plane is different from toe designs that arch into position - aka all other tech toes - where the arching movement of the tech toe pin elbows (or whatever you wanna call them) are susceptible to both vertical and hortizontal forces. In traditional designs forces acting on the vertical plance could make the toe pieces move causing release in situations where it is not warranted - aka unwanted horizontal release. Fritschi thus seem to claim that the sole relying horizontal forces to release the toe negates one of the causes of wrongful releases up front.
However, if this actually translates to a performance benefit is hard to tell. The differences in use might be negliable or could be meaningful - I have no idea, I am not a binding engineer. Also, it is not like all forces are either vertical or horizontal. A lot of forces will be x % in the horizontal plane and z % in the vertical plane. However, again - the vertical forces seem to be eliminated. How this affects comfort or predictability of release remain uncertain.
The design and its de coupling seem to make sense from my point of view though. A lot of thought seems to have gone into the binding :)
Thanks Kid. Your thinking matches mine...which still leaves me missing something. It seems this will make their binding even more harsh - no? And potentially more dangerous? If it only measures horizontal force, and as you pointed out, forces rarely occur in a single plane, what if there is sufficient force to break a bone but insufficient to release horizontally (but otherwise sufficient aggregate force to release if including the vertical plane). The faux toe elasticity you describe is not a bad thing. The Dynafit Rotation skis smooth - not Vipec smooth, but smoother than its no-traditional-elasticity implies.
i guess the Xenic mimics an alpine binding in this way. Only horizontal release at the toe. But you get none of the elasticity. They kinda seem like jaws of death.
that said I’m still prolly gonna snag a pair. Love my tectons
i dunno man. Like all other things it is a bit of a trade off. I dunno - I am probably talking out of my ass here.
The main issue as I see it is that it is very difficult to compare apples to apples here as we simply do not have sufficient data. For instance, G3 specifies that
Attachment 278549
without specifying what parts of this movement is in what plane. I am assuming it is horizontal. As such, it is hard to know what parts of the marginal elasticity that creates marginally increased comfort by vertical compliance, or marginally increased retention or what parts facilitates vertical release in the toe.
Granted, vertical release in the Xenic toe seems very limited in that vertical forces will have to be translated to horizontal forces before you it can release - aka the forward motion needs to be such and probably pretty significant in that it exerts sufficient horizontal pressures on the pins causing outward horizontal movement again causing release. I have no idea if that is even possible, or if bones will break or tendons rupture way before that happens due to the forces required to do this. As such, vertical release is a bit of an unknown where the binding could be perceived as marginally more harsh and potentially having a larger treshold that in some very specific cases could cause more forces to be exterted on your knees/whatever.
However, what complicates this further is that many skiers might opt to lock their traditional tech toes in certain applicable situations where a backward fall might cause frontal release in the vertical plane. If what Fritschi says is correct though, that this design is better at preventing pre-release due to vertical forces, the design might still come out ahead in certain instances by people opting not to lock the toe. Regardless, in these limited fall scenarios tech bindings are not your friend regardless.
I dunno, but the horizontal function might be better than other low tech bindings for all we know. The lack of vertical compliance should make for improved transfer of power.
I have no idea how much horizontal compliance the Xenic design has, or if it is even possible to feel the difference between it, a Marker Alpinist or G3 Zed in that regard. So what is best? I have no idea.
What I do think though, is that the number of scenarios where you have a backward fall where you do not cause lateral release due to twisting should be few and far between. As such, I am unsure if this is really much of an issue when comparing Xenics to for instance Zeds or Alpinists.
Again, I might be talking out of my ass here and what I tried to convey might be clear as mud, but I am unsure how much of an issue this really is.
Are the screw templates available yet? I see the heel is the same as Vipec and the toe is a tighter pattern longitudinally, but is the screw pattern on the toe at least the same on-center on the transverse axis of the ski? I'm between waiting for this binder and the ATK Crest (telemark-pyrenees has for ~$350 USD). I'd prefer the Crest ultimately (metal, simpler) but the target skis already have Vipec and I'd prefer fewer holes.
Just got some Xenic's to compare to Vipec's. Heelpeice seems to use the same mounting plate. Unclear if they mount at the same spot on the track, but looks like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaidormi
Toe piece has the same front toe holes, but rear are a 1/2 cm farther apart and ~3.25cm more compact/closer to the front holes. Pin distance from front is off 1.5cm as well
*EDIT Updated mm -> cm. Metric system....
This seems like a fuck up to me unless I'm missing something. That's a pretty unfortunate hole match-up with their own product sibling which means there is exactly zero chance I'd run these in tandem with a tecton via inserts, or even switch bindings to lighten up, unless i wanted a significantly different mount point.Quote:
Originally Posted by EricB
Did i miss something here?
My take is that they did their best to ensure comatibility (heel holes), but doing so with the toes compromised their weight target.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickel
Look at how much more forward the front set of Vipec/Tecton toe holes are and how much more rearward the rear set of holes are compared with the Xenic toe.
The Xenic's base plate would've had to been extended considerably - likely putting the binding above the "magic" 300g number.
I would have loved to try them on a pair of skis (to shave about a pound), without having to drill more holes as well, but that's how it goes.
... Thom
The other alternative is for the pattern to be different enough to not have so much overlap.
No big deal really as I'm not currently in the market, just seems like a significant oversight/missed opportunity.
Plastics are weird, but only touring bindings I have had without were race bindings. Fritschi seems to have a very active R&D department. Hopefully all the knowledge they gained developing the evo and techton bindings was used in making the Xenic their best binding to date. Luckily I am not in the market now, but will be in a year or two and this leads on spec for me
So that means the Xenic front holes are 1.5cm behind the Vipec front holes, and the Xenic rear holes are 1.75cm in front of the Vipec rear holes. Sounds like they dropped the Xenic pattern right in the middle of the Vipec. Makes sense to me, if you don't want to oversize the Xenic footprint.
this is very different to the measurements of the post above which states front two identical and rear two 3.75mm in front.
We're saying the same thing.
Front holes are the same distance apart on the Xenic and Vipec, however they are 1.5cm closer to the pins on the Xenic.
Rear holes are the same distance apart as the front (1/2cm farther apart than the Vipec which has a narrower pattern rear than front).
Rear holes are 3.25cm closer to the toe pins on the Xenic than Vipec.
Reading comprehension fail on my part. apologies for flying off the rails.
BumpQuote:
Originally Posted by SupreChicken