Marker Duke/Baron/Tour to Plum Guide Adapter

[1000-oaks]

What do you AT guys think about this idea?

Rather than punch more holes in your skis to switch from heavy Marker Duke/Baron/Tour bindings to Plum Guide tech bindings (or to Dynaduke plates), why not install threaded inserts in your skis in your existing current Duke pattern and use a set of lightweight adapter pieces so the Plums fit the same holes? Then you can use the same pair of Dukes or Plum bindings on ALL of your skis, making it cheap & easy to have a big quiver.

** To minimize weight and keep the heel low, we don't want an adapter plate under the heel. Fortunately the heel track of the Plum Guide is easy to recreate on a CNC mill, with the symmetrical 71mm x 36mm Duke mounting pattern. (In fact, the rear two holes on Plum and Dynafit bindings already match the Marker pattern.)

** Tech bindings have a much steeper ramp angle compared to the Duke/Baron/Tour, so a 6mm or 7mm thick plate under the toe gets you the same ramp angle you're used to with the Marker AT bindings (at least with my 307mm BSL) and makes it easy to convert to the 69mm x 36mm Duke toe mount pattern.




Multiple tapped holes in toe plate to make it easy to adjust mount position on ski, and allows for different boot sole lengths.




No toe piece pull-out with this nice big 69mm x 36mm mounting pattern. And the screws holding the lifter plate to the ski are easily accessible, so the Plum toe never needs to be removed from the plate. Just Loc-Tite the attaching screws and never mess with it again.




There will be issues for some BSL users toward the long end of the Duke adjustment range (in both small and large sizes). These users should probably just spin the original Plum Guide track around backwards so the two 36mm-apart holes (which are normally the rearmost holes) can match up to the rearmost two Duke heel holes. Then add two additional inserts to the ski closer to the tail, just as if you were mounting the Plum heel backwards. (There is a small "no man''s land" about mid-range of the Duke binding, which will prevent using any of the existing Duke holes. These users should probably just get Dynaduke plates, or just add four new inserts for the Plum heel.)




Check THIS out, the boot is about 12mm closer to the ski than it is with a Marker Duke, and is now the same ramp angle as the Duke!




I'm going to mill a set of these for myself, but thought I'd post the idea in case Plum wants to start making them. I wouldn't be surprised if a whole lot of Plum's customers are current Duke/Baron users, so there would be a market for it. And Plum already has 99% of the heel plate done, all they have to do is shorten their demo heel plate and push the two front holes apart a bit.

What do you think of this idea? (Might not be enough volume to be worth the design/programming time for Binding Freedom.)

[1000-oaks]

Yeah I know all my junk is basically new, finally dialed for AT this season. FKNA!

[Knut]

Besides that it basically exists (http://www.bindingfreedom.com/DynaDu...lates-1001.htm), it's not a bad idea.

BUT: if you'll put the Plum toe piece onto a plate but the heel piece not, you'll change ramp angle in a very undesired way.

[1000-oaks]

So you're saying the factory Duke/Baron ramp angle is no good? And when used with AT boots, the Duke increases the ramp angle (compared to alpine boots) when you lower the AFD to fit the lugged sole.

The Bindingfreedom plates are great, but using them means drilling another sixteen holes in EVERY pair of skis you have, installing 16 more inserts in each pair of skis, adding weight, and lifting both the tech bindings and the Dukes an additional 7mm off the ski. Ugh.

If you only have new, undrilled skis it's not a big deal, but all of mine are already drilled w/inserts for Duke pattern.

[mikemcee]

I'd totally be in for a set of these but I'm a little worried about pulling out of the foam.

Seriously though, I love this idea.

[D(C)]

This is a cool idea. I have added 6 mm of shims under the toes of my FT 12s to mirror the ramp on my Dukes and alpine setups. So this really appeals to me.

Any chance of seeing a 5th toe hole for Dynafit users? Edit: nevermind - I just understood that you'd be replacing the stock Plum heel plate with one that shares the Duke footprint, so this setup probably isn't possible with Dynafit.

[Knut]

So you're saying the factory Duke/Baron ramp angle is no good?

Don't have the Duke delta in mind, but I thought, the Plum has rather neutral 4mm (like the Onyx and quite a few alpine binders), that's why it's considered waaay better than dynafit by the strange folks here...
I wouldn't want to go lower than that. But if you like it, fine.

And what's a good ramp angle in a binder is somewhat mostly set by the shoe used with it. With most AT boots, a higher delta is quite nice, while quite some alpine boots have more forward lean/foot bed ramp per se. Again, it's a combination thing, as the numbers between models or brands are all over the place. And of course a preference thing.

[1000-oaks]

It might be possible to do this with some Dynafit models, I only looked at the Speeds and they don't have enough heel track adjustment to get the heel back far enough (without adding more inserts to ski anyway).

The Plum heel post has the X-shaped foot to get maximum adjustment, Dynafit Speed has a big oval that can overlap the Marker drill pattern.

[D(C)]

^^^

How about a Sollyfit that uses the Duke mount pattern rather than the current proprietary one? You'd lose the advantage of your Plum setup of not having a heel plate, but you'd gain the ability to swap alpine bindings on there as well.

Sorry, this is divergent from the original purpose of the thread, and I think your idea is a great one. Just brainstorming.

[LC]

the Plum has rather neutral 4mm (like the Onyx and quite a few alpine binders), that's why it's considered waaay better than dynafit by the strange folks here...

Wildsnow's chart says 15mm delta. No? http://www.wildsnow.com/3822/tech-bi...summary-chart/

If I end up with an AT setup this winter I'm considering mounting with Sollyfit toe plates only; more neutral ramp and much wider screw pattern into the ski.

[1000-oaks]

It would be easy to make a toe plate that works with both Plum and Dynafit, just add a line of 5th holes down the middle.

[marshalolson]

1000-oaks, make this plate so you can go between an FKS and a PLUM, and you have a winner.

also, if you use cutting board, you can just drill and tap and use normal binding hardware, rather than metric goofy screws for the plate.

please do this. i would prefer plum holes in the ski/flat, and the risers associated with with the FKS, personally.

[D(C)]

btw 1000-oaks, your photos are consistently beautiful. nice work.

[PNWbrit]

sixteen holes in EVERY pair of skis you have, installing 16 more inserts in each pair of skis

dyna-duke plates AND inserts?

Huh?

[1000-oaks]

dyna-duke plates AND inserts?

Huh?

Unless you want to buy DD plates for every pair of skis you own. I have six pair of skis & one pair of Barons thanks to inserts.

[PNWbrit]

Unless you want to buy DD plates for every pair of skis you own. I have six pair of skis & one pair of Barons thanks to inserts.

Seems like a hell of a lot of screwing around to me. Taking bindings off plates then plates off skis then re-attach plates to differing ski and attaching your 1 pair of bindings to a different ski as conditions demand.

I just use them to switch out between dynafits and dukes on bigger skis depending on weather/plans. Sometimes put Dukes on skinnier boards that normally just have dynafits left on them. But most of the time I end up not bothering and lugging the Dukes along anyway.

[1000-oaks]

I have no plates, just inserts in the Duke pattern.

That's the beauty of adapting the Plums to the Duke pattern, you only have to do it once. Then it's just eight screws per ski to swap bindings, since the toe adapter stays on the Plum toe and the new heel track stays on the Plum heel. Easy.

[D(C)]

One more consideration - it would be good if this mod worked with the Plum brakes once they come out.

[Shorty_J]

1000-oaks, make this plate so you can go between an FKS and a PLUM, and you have a winner.

also, if you use cutting board, you can just drill and tap and use normal binding hardware, rather than metric goofy screws for the plate.

please do this. i would prefer plum holes in the ski/flat, and the risers associated with with the FKS, personally.

They don't have to be metric, but I think the reason for the machine screws is to have more threads to hold the binding to the plate in the shorter thickness of the plate (necessary to keep the stand height as low as possible). With regular threaded screws, you'd have much fewer threads engaged and much more force on each thread... or you'd need a much thicker plate.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but I think that's how it goes.

[marshalolson]

the threads are much fatter/thicker on the standard pozi-drive screws, so there is comparable surface area, and therefor comparable resistance to pull-out.

[1000-oaks]

1000-oaks, make this plate so you can go between an FKS and a PLUM, and you have a winner.

also, if you use cutting board, you can just drill and tap and use normal binding hardware, rather than metric goofy screws for the plate.

please do this. i would prefer plum holes in the ski/flat, and the risers associated with with the FKS, personally.

I believe cutting boards are usually polyethelene plastic (think milk jugs) and are definitely soft enough for binding screws, but might have some flex/deflection issues. UHMW would also be an easy-to-drill / cut material. But to retain the Plum rigidity, aluminum is the way to go.

Adapter plates to go from a Plum/Dynafit pattern in the ski to FKS are certainly possible, but I'd be concerned about the toe inserts being too close together and pulling out of the ski during hard use. (Unless t-nuts in installed through the base.) If the adapter plate was enlarged and two additional screws/inserts used to spread out the load, I think it would be fine.

A Plum-to-FKS heel adapter plate would probably line up and bear the loading well.

The critical thing is the strength of the threads in the 6mm or 7mm aluminum adapter plates. The aluminum threads are nowhere near as strong as the 5mm stainless steel screws used, in fact it would be about the same strength as if 5mm aluminum screws were used. But given the success of BindingFreedom plates, a 7mm depth of 5mm threads (times eight screws) in aluminum has been proven to handle skiing loads. Stainless steel t-nuts in the adapter plates would add weight and cost, but would definitely provide maximum strength.

[marshalolson]

i made maybe 10 riser plates out of cutting boards (PU i believe) for the original big daddies, to fill in the proprietary channel, way back when (2003-4 i think?). they all held up perfectly to several hundred days each being abused by top ranking free-ski tour cats.

andy made a ton of tele adapters out of either PU or UHMW (don't remember) as well for the sugar/big daddies as well, never heard of one failed either.

just FWIW.

[Knut]

Wildsnow's chart says 15mm delta. No? http://www.wildsnow.com/3822/tech-bi...summary-chart/

Thanks. I was looking for that chart. So I had it wrong in mind and the Plum delta is more on the dynafit-side. Just as a comment: Pin-delta is not boot delta, due to the higher pin position in the heel.

[1000-oaks]

I took that into account when calculating the 6mm toe adapter thickness, at least for Skookums. Other boots could vary, but it's in the ballpark. 7mm thick wouldn't be a bad idea for a little extra beef.

[LC]

Just as a comment: Pin-delta is not boot delta, due to the higher pin position in the heel.

True that. I know that boot delta will depend on the boot sole/boot internals/etc, but what is a typical boot delta (external or internal) when locked into a standard Dynafit or Plum setup? On 1000-oak's shot above with the Skookum, if we take the binding pin delta to be 9mm (standard 15mm minus the 6mm toe riser) then the external boot delta would be 4-5mm, if my Photoshop skills are correct.