Solly/Dynafit plates or similar???

[hutash]

Is anybody making, or plan on making a Solly dynafit plate like the dynadukes. Or any other alpine binder/Dynafit combo swap plate for that matter.

Is it possible to drill and tap a dynaduke plate for Solly or other alpine binder?

If none of the above what is the link to the binder insert thread?

[Camilo]

Speen. Don't know anything about them, but a friend showed me.

[brice618]

Not sure how they did the dyna/dukes, but it seems like these could probably be drawn in cad quickly then sent to a CNC shop somewhere and have a large number of these done in almost no time, with any binding combo.

[Poop~Ghost]

When this came up last time, I said I was in for a pair of solly/dyna plates... still would be.

[jondrums]

It'll be ready by the time the snow flies this fall.
How's that?

[Toby]

I'm investigating FKS/Dynafit. At this stage it looks like the cheapest/lightest option will be to use jondrums'/PuderLuder's inserts, drill the ski for Dynafits and have plates with FKS holes and countersunk Dynafit holes. Screw the toe plate into the Dynafit holes and mount the FKS on top. Same for the heel but the heel will require two extra holes drilled in the ski. I'll then use the front two holes from the Dynafit heel and the two new holes (in front of the FKS heel) to mount the plate.

All this means lots of screws when changing bindings but the alternatives cost too much.

Alternative (i) - a plate for Dynafit and a plate for FKS with common holes outside both binding holes. Bindings are permanently mounted to each plate and the whole plate screws on the ski using inserts.

Alternative (ii) same as Dynadukes - one plate, two bindings, plate stays mounted.

Alternative (iii) a base plate and a binding plate attached with one or two screws. Think Blizzard's IQ Max plate.

Problems with (i) - cost of two plates, Dynafit FT12 needs a continuous toe-heel section because of the "carbon" connector so weight issues, height. Easier just to go with my original idea.

Problems with (ii) - way different heel length due to short footprint of FKS, so extra plate sticking way out the back of FKS, extra weight, extra stiffening, etc.

Problems with (iii) - my favourite idea but I don't have the design skills, ensuring a tight interface, weight, height and above all, cost.

I'm sure jondrums has thought of all these problems though and will come up with a good solution to Solly/Dynafit. I have access to a machine shop guy and will go with my original plan unless jondrums decides to solve any of my problems elegantly. I doubt there's as much interest in FKS/Dynafit as Solly/Dynafit though.

[jondrums]

The major problem with FKS/Dynafit is that the heel holes for FKS are so damn far forward. Secondly, there is almost no adjustment in the heelpiece of FKS, so your mount has to be spot on for FKS in the first place. FKS don't fit touring soles, and most people have different sized touring/alpine soles so its a bit tricky to get a single plate that fits both BSL.

In summary, FKS are awesome bindings, but they aren't ideal for a dynafit swap system.

[Toby]

That's why I keep thinking a super low profile version of alternative (iii) would be killer. One ski, multiple bindings, slide them on and off and bolt them down. The base rails would be light weight so it wouldn't matter if they were much longer than FKS. It'd be nice if the toe and heel were tied together so you didn't have to set forward pressure each time, but that'd require adjustment in the binding plate == weight and a host of other problems. Maybe easier to have a bolt for the toe and a bolt for the heel.

[hutash]

It'll be ready by the time the snow flies this fall.
How's that?

Kool

[hoarhey]

Great to hear that you're planning to do this.
The solly holes will accomodate the three hole toe-piece pattern of the Z series, correct?
I assume so, based on your paper template.

[StroupSkier]

Can a Dynasolly plate be made into two plates, a heel and a toe, so that you don't have the feeling of riding a plate?

[Poop~Ghost]

Can a Dynasolly plate be made into two plates, a heel and a toe, so that you don't have the feeling of riding a plate?

do you mean the feeling that the plate's rigidity effects the flex of the ski?

Personally I'd rather be on a plate - it would help stop the issue of bending a ski to the point the dynafit heel pin gouges into the boot and breaks.

I believe that's how I broke a pin on my Comforts. Tough to know for certain, but it happened when I was fully bending a 188 coomba while skiing over a bump in spring conditions. There's a noticable gouge in my boot where the broken pin bottomed out.

[Toby]

Two plates might be incompatible with FT12s? I'm not sure having not looked at one in person, but I reckon the toe-heel connector needs support (virtually) its whole length.

[Beyond]

Alternative (iii) a base plate and a binding plate attached with one or two screws. Think Blizzard's IQ Max plate.

Problems with (iii) - my favourite idea but I don't have the design skills, ensuring a tight interface, weight, height and above all, cost.

Clearly the best alternative, since you could slide it in and out, even on slope (I've done this with Blizzards). You could use the existing IQ plate, which is sold separately, have one with alpine of your choice, the other with AT of your choice. Forget all the little screws and holes all over the ski, forget issues of weight or height (it's light and as I recall, only a few mm, 4-6 maybe, high). One large screw, period. IF:

You can fabricate railings. This has been done, actually, using old Blizzard plates that included the rails as part of a "U". Nowadays carbon rails come up out of flat ski body, like icebergs, so you'd need to have a machinist copy the sides of a current pair, could be attached permanently to flat ski. Unclear whether sides could be free, or would need to be part of "U", which would add stand height.

To preserve ski's flex pattern, you'd want a material that can run along sides without serious stiffening. Old narrower versions were plastic. Far as I can tell, the rails only align the plate as ski flexes around it; single screw takes most of the shear load. Rails might not have be continuous.

Thoughts????

[StroupSkier]

do you mean the feeling that the plate's rigidity effects the flex of the ski?

Personally I'd rather be on a plate - it would help stop the issue of bending a ski to the point the dynafit heel pin gouges into the boot and breaks.

I believe that's how I broke a pin on my Comforts. Tough to know for certain, but it happened when I was fully bending a 188 coomba while skiing over a bump in spring conditions. There's a noticable gouge in my boot where the broken pin bottomed out.

It's not neccesarily the flex of the skis that is of concern with me but how the ski feels under the foot. Without a plate it's easier to feel the snow under the skis and adjust if need be, where as every ski I've been on with a plate seems to buffer this and make adjustments more difficult. Maybe it's because plates were really designed for race skis and they are pretty much always on ice to begin with, but on variable snow I would rather not have the toe and heel tied together.

I don't think the pin breakage on dynafits is an issue unless you are skiing them inbounds where such hits on bumps can occur. I'd never ski mine inbounds.

[Toby]

Thoughts????

It's been discussed:

[ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178711"]http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178711[/ame]


Need to convince jondrums to copy the idea with his own rails and plate, or copy the IQ Max rails so we can all buy the Blizzard plate and make his own (better) plate later. He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of Blizzard's plate, but I reckon I'd certainly be interested in a rail/plate system, depending on stack height, weight, etc.

[Patches]

Just so everyone knows... you can make your own plates out of 1/4" aluminum with a hacksaw and a hand drill, the stuff is easy to cut. If someone makes the plates you want get those for sure but don't be afraid to drop $15 at mcmaster for some 2.5" wide bar stock and make your own, sure they'll be ugly but they'll work fine.

I'm doing exactly that for dynafit/FKS... skis are mounted for dynafits with inserts. So I'll make oversize plates, screw them on and take them to a shop and drill the plates with the official jig... take them home, saw them down and tap the holes. Should be easy, I'll post pics when done.

[Beyond]

Thanks for the link. Helpful. I can only add that

1) Core Shot's idea back then of enclosing the front wouldn't work because the plate doesn't move, the ski does around it. So the front and back of the plate need to be free of the ski to allow flex.

2) Because the plate doesn't move, and is fixed to the ski body, it doesn't have to bear much load independently of the ski or rail. Thin is OK. Depending on the choice of materials, a "U" it sits in could be thinner on the bottom than the sides, so less total stand height.

3) Plenty of skiers I know use the Duke/Baron on this plate. Some charge. Have not heard of 5th screw issues, FWIW.

4) The plate carries the bonus of having adjustable positions for the one center screw. So you could alter your + - cm from line based on conditions.

A lot of this depends on whether folks want to change their setup back at the house, or do it on-slope. If I were just trying to decide between AT and Alpine morning of, a Blizzard design is overkill. But if I wanted to decide at lunch, or conceivably in a warming hut, it'd be $$.

[Toby]

2) Because the plate doesn't move, and is fixed to the ski body, it doesn't have to bear much load independently of the ski or rail. Thin is OK. Depending on the choice of materials, a "U" it sits in could be thinner on the bottom than the sides, so less total stand height.

I would think it doesn't need a bottom at all, just two separate rails. The only issue is alignment when mounting, but maybe supply two measured shims to space the front and back or just use a plate itself to space.

A bottom would be easier for spacing the mount, and possibly help with rigidity of the whole system, but I'd prefer no bottom if it meant saving a few mm of stack height.

[hoarhey]

Can a Dynasolly plate be made into two plates, a heel and a toe, so that you don't have the feeling of riding a plate?

I don't see why it couldn't.
The Dynaduke plate is two separate plates, but I thought you already knew that.

[StroupSkier]

I thought the one I saw was a single plate, but I didn't look too closely as I'd never want any more stack than the Dukes already had.

[Mofro261]

plates... from Mc_roon's kashmir thread


I used these plates this year on dps120's.




Picked up a second pair to switch ft12's onto for my LP's for spring. Weight adds 2 oz per ski.


The FT12 "carbon" rib doesn't do anything for the binding, it appears purely cosmetic.
I suppose you could ghetto a pair together but jondrums did a really nice job setting these up and the tolerances are superb, bottom side of plate is machined out to reduce weight.

I'm sure the sollyfit will be quality too.

[jondrums]

Ding ding ding!

Sollyfit

I've been agonizing over what these need to be called. Now that we've settled that, on to more important discussions: what color should they be?

[hutash]

So, name and color decisions is what prevented these from going into production? No wonder enginerds need designers

My brother is an industrial designer, so I am aware of the long running battle between engineers and designers.

Engineer..."Designers design things that can't be made."

Designer..."Engineers are too stupid to figure out how to make it."

[Chugachjed]

I always wondered why people wanted to switch between 2 touring bindings on the same ski. So far as the duker is a touring binding. I'm down for sollyfits though makes more sense to me.