Dynafit speed superlite 2.0

[smooth operator]

Ok, so maybe I missed it, but does this binding have its own thread yet?

I am curious what the experiences are, especially:
1. for riding a bit harder/ faster than what this thing was likely designed for. How does upward release behave (cant adjust)
2. durability: i've seen some reports of parts coming undone.
3. comparison to other lightweight bindings, esp. plum race 170

seems like a pretty sweet deal, lateral release up to 12 @ 175 grams, low ramp.

[auvgeek]

I'm also curious if any mags have been on this binding.

4. Real-world usability of the "flat" touring mode? (Yes, I realize there's no detent.) Estimated timeframe and performance of the B&D fix?

[Lindahl]

No direct experience with the 2.0, but, FWIW...

I used the Plum Race 165 heel a lot last year. A flat mode wasn't all that necessary. I rarely used it. It didn't make a big enough difference to hassle with - the difference from flap-on-pins was small. It was easier to just not mess with once I was moving.

The vertical release on the Plum was WAY weaker than my Superlight 1.0. Tested in a shop is was coming in.around DIN 6 or 7. The Superlight 1.0 was coming in around 11 or 12. My guess is that the 2.0 is modeled after the 1.0 in terms of release force, but I can't say for sure. If you don't have acess to a torque tester, I felt like a good subjective test was to compare step-in force between a Radical at a particular RV and the step-in force of the Plum Race 165 and Superlight 1.0. I was able to determine the RV within +-1 pt this way. I was told my Plum Race 165 was testing out of spec, but I only had one pair to test and I can't be 100% certain the source had accurate info. However, both were testing identically.

Also, I like more ramp than what the 1.0 and Plum Race 145 provides. Somewhere around 8mm feels good.

I'll hopefully be doing a deep dive comparison of many bindings in this class later this season.

[LC]

The vertical release on the Plum was WAY weaker than my Superlight 1.0. Tested in a shop is was coming in.around DIN 6 or 7. The Superlight 1.0 was coming in around 11 or 12. My guess is that the 2.0 is modeled after the 1.0 in terms of release force, but I can't say for sure.

Can anyone else comment on this? I might have considered Superlite 1.0 or 2.0s at the start of last winter if I had known that the vertical release value was equivalent to 11-12. At that time, a shop friend told me that most non-adjustable Dynafit models of 2014/2015 and older were about 7 or 8 vertical RV. Wildsnow said the Superlite 2.0 is about 9, and showed a grinding modification to drop it to 7-8. Didn't that Italian buyer's guide reportedly do some release testing on a lot of tech bindings?

[Jonathan S.]

With the major caveat that I have no personal experience with the 2.0:

[...] low ramp.

Compared to typical touring bindings, yes.
Compared to more stripped-down race or "near-race" bindings, on the high side.
Complete list of heel>toe pin delta here:
http://skimo.co/pin-heights

[...]I used the Plum Race 165 heel a lot last year. A flat mode wasn't all that necessary. I rarely used it. It didn't make a big enough difference to hassle with - the difference from flap-on-pins was small. It was easier to just not mess with once I was moving.[...]

That has also been my experience now that I've switched over completely to race bindings.
Sure, sometimes going completely flat would be nice, and sometimes a full elevator position would be nice, but not worth the bother for the former and not worth the extra weight for the latter.

The vertical release on the Plum was WAY weaker than my Superlight 1.0. Tested in a shop is was coming in.around DIN 6 or 7. The Superlight 1.0 was coming in around 11 or 12. My guess is that the 2.0 is modeled after the 1.0 in terms of release force, but I can't say for sure. If you don't have acsess to a torque tester, I felt like a good subjective test was to compare step-in force between a Radical at a particular RV and the step-in force of the Plum Race 165 and Superlight 1.0. I was able to determine the RV within +-1 pt this way. I was told my Plum Race 165 was testing out of spec, but I only had one to test and I can't be 100% certain the source had accurate info.

By "modeled" do you mean the underlying mechanical design?
Although I never disassembled the 1.0, sure seemed to be based upon the same design as more typical Dynafit bindings, i.e., adjustable spring assembly in between two completely separate heel pins.
By contrast, the 2.0 is based on current race bindings, which in turn are based upon the original (orginal (original)) Dynafit bindings that simply used the design where the heel pins and the "spring" are one & the same in the form of the big U.

Can anyone else comment on this? I might have considered Superlite 1.0 or 2.0s at the start of last winter if I had known that the vertical release value was equivalent to 11-12. At that time, a shop friend told me that most non-adjustable Dynafit models of 2014/2015 and older were about 7 or 8 vertical RV. Wildsnow said the Superlite 2.0 is about 9, and showed a grinding modification to drop it to 7-8. Didn't that Italian buyer's guide reportedly do some release testing on a lot of tech bindings?

You can still buy the 1.0 at EVO (page Greg!) but that tops out at 10.
As for non-adjustable Dynafit models of 2014-15 and older, setting aside the Expedition (no lateral release!), that's only the really old LTR "0.0" (low lateral release, forward release unknown, at least to me), and the still-available LTR "1.0": low lateral release (although compensated somewhat by the spring-loaded toe lever that increases the tenacity of the toe pincers), and forward release value that is probably relatively mellow with the stock Ti pins yet definitely stronger with the replacement steel pins.

[Lindahl]

I was told my Plum Race 165 was testing out of spec, but I only had one to test and I can't be 100% certain the source had accurate info.

I should say that I only had one PAIR to test - both were testing at the same Nm force. The chances that both were out of spec is odd?

[Lindahl]

By "modeled" do you mean the underlying mechanical design?

No, I mean they probably tried to keep release force similar? And are using similar/identical test equipment during design and engineering.

[Jonathan S.]

The vertical release on the Plum was WAY weaker than my Superlight 1.0. Tested in a shop is was coming in.around DIN 6 or 7. The Superlight 1.0 was coming in around 11 or 12. My guess is that the 2.0 is modeled after the 1.0 in terms of release force, but I can't say for sure. If you don't have access to a torque tester, I felt like a good subjective test was to compare step-in force between a Radical at a particular RV and the step-in force of the Plum Race 165 and Superlight 1.0. I was able to determine the RV within +-1 pt this way. I was told my Plum Race 165 was testing out of spec, but I only had one to test and I can't be 100% certain the source had accurate info.

I should say that I only had one PAIR to test - both were testing at the same Nm force. The chances that both were out of spec is odd?

I was told by Plum back in the 2010-2011 season that the steel pins were about 9 forward, and the Ti pins were about 7 forward.
So a 6 or 7 for a Plum race heel with steel pins is surprising.
I've had eight pairs of Plum race heels, two of which originally started off with Ti pins.
Haven't used my torque tester on them (as I don't have a good vise setup for that), but the Plum estimates seem about right.

No, I mean they probably tried to keep release force similar? And are using similar/identical test equipment during design and engineering.

So do you mean the SSL 1.0 tested out at about 11 or 12 when the release setting was maxed out at 10?

[Lindahl]

Yeah. I think. Its been a while. I'm pretty sure it was at least 11. Might have been 12. All I know is that I wanted at least 10 and I remember thinking 'oh yeah, no problem'. I think I still have all the Nm readings somewhere? Not really comparable though since anyone won't be testing with the same setup unless they go to Bent Gate and use my same boots.

[stinkyclimber]

I used 2.0 last season on longer tours and in the spring in my narrower (88mm) skis. My comments based on this limited experience:
- can't comment on upward release other than to say I never pre-released. But I wasn't charging either. It certainly FEELS stiff kicking into them, much stiffer than my Ions.
- durability: the press-pin that holds the elevator and the u-pin (!) in place loosened. I had to keep an eye on it while skiing because if it comes you, then out comes the u-pin. Dynafit sent me a replacement right away, no probs. Everything else has seemed oK. No probs with the brakes so far, either. easily removable in the field.
- no experience with other race bindings
- flat touring mode will not work unless you are on stiff skis and are a lightweight. Not enough clearance to prevent the ski flexing which will cause the boot to push back onto the binding, and then click, auto-rotate. But, as mentioned above, it really doesn't matter. The ramp is pretty minimal (half-way between Ion and some of the flatter race bindings) and the lowest position is close enough. I honestly don;t notice it, even skiing across lakes, and the second riser is a nice height. only having two choices forces me to constantly fine tune the risers.

The only issue I have is that on icy spring skin tracks where the track is canted outwards, forcing you to torque your ankle to keep the ski flat, it exerts a sideway torque on the heel which eventually forces an auto-rotation. super-annoying. I think, but haven;t tested to know for sure, that the brake unit forces the heel upwards a bit when you rotate the binding into tour mode, which makes auto-rotation easier.

It is awesome having a light binding with the convenience of brakes. If i could figure out the auto-rotate issue, i would probably mount a pair on my fatter skis for mid-winter skiing.

[smooth operator]

The only issue I have is that on icy spring skin tracks where the track is canted outwards, forcing you to torque your ankle to keep the ski flat, it exerts a sideway torque on the heel which eventually forces an auto-rotation. super-annoying. I think, but haven;t tested to know for sure, that the brake unit forces the heel upwards a bit when you rotate the binding into tour mode, which makes auto-rotation easier.

Thnx for the useful feedback. Regarding the comment above, have you tested if this auto rotation didn't happen without the brakes installed?

[stinkyclimber]

Not yet. I only happened on one tour. I was so pissed off and gripped getting my ski back on in the middle of steep sidehills above slots and drop-offs that I didn't want to fuck around with them anymore than I needed. Just looking at the bindings in tour-mode with and without the brakes, it is obvious that the heelpiece gets angled back a bit with the brake on. Can't be helping stop auto-rotation. I still think the bindings are worth it, even with this glitch. Pretty specific conditions and terrain. My Ions auto-rotate from time to time too. The one time I miss my teles. But man, the low weight (with bindings to boot!) is awesome.

[auvgeek]

Pretty specific conditions and terrain.

I dunno...icy sidehilling seems pretty common to me. What do you have the lateral RV/DIN set to? Low values are more prone to auto-rotation, IME.

Really appreciate your feedback on these bindings!

[stinkyclimber]

Hah, could be. I am in the PNW where 2ft of wet concrete is most common.

My lateral DIN is at 9. Not that high for me since I am a big guy and am usually skiing those skis with a big multi-day pack. Higher could help, but a real fix rather than a work around would be nice.

This thread over on Lou's site hints at a B&D anti-rotation device under development. When I asked about it, Lou said that B&D wasn't sure on timing. That thread may have useful beta for you more generally on release values, etc. Not much other info out there on this binding which is a shame since it seems like a nice compromise between race bindings and Ions/Radicals.

[fuac]

I was a little concerned about my 2.0s last spring because they were really hard to step into and I took a fall that left me sore for a few days when they didn't release. I got access to a Vermont Ski Safety Release Calibrator at SkiMo.com and tested my Superlight 2.0 upward release. For a baseline, I measured my Vertical ST bindings set to 8 - the measured release value was 8.5. The Superlight 2.0 unmodified had a measured release value of 11. Reducing the spring diameter from 4.9 to 3.7 mm dia, grinding just the outermost portion of the spring across the curved portion that I could access without removing the spring, reduced the measured release value to just under 8, right where I wanted it. I was careful to grind only longitudinally as smoothly as I could by hand to avoid creating any stress risers. No durability problems after a dozen or so days.

[auvgeek]

^^Good to know. Might go with a pair in hopes they have an upward RV close to 11...

[counterfeitfake]

Does anyone know of a paper template for these bindings? I found Lou's, but I was hoping one existed that had the boot center marks like the awesome ones here:

http://www.powderguide.com/community...montieren.html

Alternatively, does anyone know how to make the search function return posts that have both the words "superlite" and "template"? It always returns posts with either word, for me.

[Lindahl]

Mount the toes - they're just the radical 1.0 pattern. Click the boot in. Insert the heel pins into the boot at appropriate depth. Make sure the heel is squared off to the ski center. Then mark the rear heel holes, then remove the boot and mark the front heel holes. Drill and mount heelpiece. Done.

[zion zig zag]

Complete list of heel>toe pin delta here:
http://skimo.co/pin-heights
.

I ski the speed turn 2.0 and it has one of the biggest heel-toe differences. Do many of you add toe shims to even this out? This makes me wonder if this is why I sometimes feel like I'm fighting the backseat on my touring rigs (my skinnier pair of touring skis has comforts which is also heel high).

[cat in january]

Not this binding, but my speed radical and speed turn 2.0 I have added radical ST toe shims to.

[smooth operator]

I ski the speed turn 2.0 and it has one of the biggest heel-toe differences. Do many of you add toe shims to even this out? This makes me wonder if this is why I sometimes feel like I'm fighting the backseat on my touring rigs (my skinnier pair of touring skis has comforts which is also heel high).

try here:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...highlight=ramp
(yeah indeed, use shims)

[zion zig zag]

try here:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...highlight=ramp
(yeah indeed, use shims)

thanks for that, not sure how I missed it.

[skiitsbetter]

check your toes around the screw holes. Glad this didn't happen on something steep. just skating out at the end of the day. other toe has cracks on the screw holes. Out of warranty

[Moralkaka]

Ohh that sucks. How can that ever go "out of warranty"? Try calling them, because when I ripped the bindings of my Stokes they happily warranted them regardless of age..

[kevino]

Different binding though then the one being discussed in this thread...