Radical 2.0 toe shim?

[sethschmautz]

I've seen some different numbers on the ramp angle for the Radical 2.0, but most suggest slightly less than the Radical 1.0. Anybody shimming? Cutting board or other?

Seth

[Eluder]

B&D makes one that looks pro.

[Spyderjon]

Rad 2 delta with a Mercury boot is 9.5mm. Rad 1 was, IIRC, is 15/17mm.

[sethschmautz]

That's not nearly as bad as I thought. I'll ski them and see if I notice.

[Jonathan S.]

Heel>Toe pin delta is in the mid-teens for Radical 1.0, Radical 2.0, Vertical, Speed Turn, Speed Radical:
http://skimo.co/pin-heights

B&D shims (and longer screws) available here:
http://skimo.co/bnd-shims
... although if you make your own shims (and scrounge around for longer screws), I've always used LDPE (instead of a cutting board).

[GeezerSteve]

I use HDPE. 1/4" (6.35mm) or 3/8" (9.5mm) for Radical and Speed Turn 2.0 toes, depending on the heel piece and boot BSL.

[sethschmautz]

Other than Jon, has anybody measured these personally? I've seen the pictures of Jon's measurements.

Steve/Jonathon, where do you get the HDPE?

Seth

[sethschmautz]

Nevermind. eBay looks to be pretty cheap.

Seth

[GeezerSteve]

Steve/Jonathon, where do you get the HDPE?

Tap Plastics. I buy it in large sheets, use it for lots of projects. Very workable material, can be cut with a table saw or Skill saw. Drills and mills like butter.

If you have problems finding it, PM me and I can mail you some if you cover postage.

[Jonathan S.]

Wild Snow also has all those same models in the mid teens for pin delta.
I bought my LDPE sheets years ago from SmallParts.com but I don't know the best source now that they got bought out.

[Spyderjon]

Rad 2 is not mid teens delta. Dynafit quote it as 9.5mm with a Vulcan boot.
Here's pics of the toe & heel heights with my Mercury boot & they're the same for my Vulcans as well.


If I'd measured slightly further forward on the heel sole the height would be 0.4/0.5mm less but I've measured at the point on the heel sole that contacts the ground when the boot is sitting on a flat surface.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

^^^ Not sure why you're measuring the boot sole. Wouldn't measuring the toe and heel pins on the binding make more sense, as will never change, regardless of boot?

[Spyderjon]

^^^ Not sure why you're measuring the boot sole. Wouldn't measuring the toe and heel pins on the binding make more sense, as will never change, regardless of boot?

Because pin heights can very often be misleading, as can be seen from my measurements when the difference in the pin heights indicates +13.5mm of delta but in reality the boot only has +9/10mm of delta. This is why Dynafit don't quote pin heights but instead quote the binding delta with an installed boot.

It's also important as when assessing/measuring a skier for possible delta angle correction (for example when using a Neutralizer balancer or similar) the assessment/measurement is taken with the skier in their boots standing on the flat platform so any correction made is done from the starting point of the boot sitting on a flat horizontal surface.

[GeezerSteve]

+1 to what spyderjon says. Also, to get consistent ramp delta numbers from ski to ski, one should measure from the ski base to the boot sole. Some skis are taller (off the snow surface) at the toe than at the heel.

[Spyderjon]

...........Also, to get consistent ramp delta numbers from ski to ski, one should measure from the ski base to the boot sole. Some skis are taller (off the snow surface) at the heel than at the toe.

Yep. I've got one pair of skis with 4mm toe shims & another with 5mm to give me the same delta with the same binding due to differences in the ski thickness.

[sethschmautz]

Interesting points on both sides of the argument. Obviously bsl plays a big part in this also. As bsl increases, the heel height will play less of a role in the ramp angle.

If boot remains consistent as you move from binding to binding (as mine will), the data in the Wildsnow or Skimo.co charts could be helpful. However, as you can see in the chart below, there are a few "odd" things. For example, the toe height is not consistent between the Beast and the Radical 2. Maybe Wildsnow was measuring the Beast 16 and not the Beast 14. If the Beast and Radical toe heights are the same, it should bring the delta 2mm closer.

Seth

[Jonathan S.]

This is now mixing up two different yet related measurements:

• For any particular skier's setup, yes, what matters is the angle of the boot, which in turn is a function of the pin delta, bsl, ski thickness profile, placement of the toe divots, and placement of the heel sockets.
• But when focusing only on the effect of the binding (i.e., the subject of this thread), to compare the effect from different bindings models, what matters is the heel>toe pin delta.

As shown at:
http://skimo.co/pin-heights
... and also confirmed by Wild Snow, the Dynafit Vertical, Radical, Radical 2.0, Speed Turn, Speed Turn 2.0, Speed Radical all have pin delta in the mid teens, which answers the original question posed at this thread, i.e., no significant different between 1.0 vs 2.0 in the Radical series.
(I suspect Dynafit references the more complicated boot-specific measurement so as to reduce what would otherwise be an alarmingly high #.)

With the particular boot shown in this thread, that's jacking up the heel by almost a full centimeter.
With other boot models, might more like 2cm.
Refresh yourself with junior high school trig to determine the impart angle for any given bsl.

Zeroing out the delta has become fairly common for alpine ski racing.
Helps many skiers enormously.
Doesn't make any difference with others.
But I doubt anyone skis any better with the boot up on stilettos.
(Except for those skiers who think a highly flexed position with hips shifted aft of feet is somehow more ... "aggressive"?)

Some old discussion threads:
http://www.skimolife.com/journal/201...amp-angle.html
https://skimoves.me/tag/ramp-angle-posts/
http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2014...ings-part.html
http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2014...bout-this.html
... plus many more here at TGR.

Note though that where this gets complicated is trying to compare a Tech binding's pin delta to an alpine downhill or plate-style AT binding (or even the Marker Kingpin), since that has to be a boot-specific comparison.

[brown9]

So if it helps skiers enormously, why does Dynafit force you to source shims and longer screws in order to ski "better?"

[GeezerSteve]

So if it helps skiers enormously, why does Dynafit force you to source shims and longer screws in order to ski "better?"

My theory is that current Dynafit ramp deltas are a holdover from old tech non-rockered skis, when ramp angle helped get keep the ski tips up.

[Jonathan S.]

So if it helps skiers enormously, why does Dynafit force you to source shims and longer screws in order to ski "better?"

I had the caveat of "many" skiers in my statement.
But turning it around, why do so many Tech bindings -- and also alpine downhill bindings -- have so much heel>toe delta that hurts the skiing of many skiers?

I can only speculate, but:

• Many other skiers ski pretty much the same no matter what.
• Sometimes the thinking has simply been that an inclined ramp will get you more forward (even though the opposite can be demonstrated inside with wedges -- as shown here in the three pictures that were part of a published article originally, or just through the analogy of downhiking), as [briefly] promoted by one company (and uncritically promoted by the industry of course).
• Otherwise it's just a function of binding mechanics, so a Tech toe is inherently low in stack height, and Tech heels have become increasingly jacked up over time b/c of adjustable forward release values (as opposed to a simple U-shaped spring/fork), fore-aft adjustment tracks, brakes, etc. (In the reverse, race bindings ditch all of that, including even the large lateral release spring, so the delta is mitigated.)
• An interesting "natural experiment" in this is when Rossignol/Dynastar bought Geze/Look. Sponsored Rossi racers were encouraged to get the new Rossi binding -- before it became popular with the TGR scene -- which paired the high-stack Look turntable heel w/ the low-profile Geze toe w/o any add'l shim. Racers started complaining about that "going over the handlebars" feeling and the race department quietly starting providing toe shims.

[Jonathan S.]

[...]However, as you can see in the chart below, there are a few "odd" things.[...]

I'm seeing only one odd thing there.
(And it is indeed odd!)
But it's a problem either with WS's measuring and/or reporting, not the metric.

Meanwhile, out of curiosity, I quickly tested two different boots in the same binding:
Dynafit LTR/SSL toe combined with Plum 165/170 heel
(Please don't report me to the ISMF for this rule infraction!)

Pin delta is 2mm, so roughly in the middle of my quiver (4mm for Plum 165, 2mm for Plum 145, -1 for LTR 1.0, and outlier of -4 for Plum 145 with Dynafit toe plate).
Imparted delta was 3mm for PG race boot and 6mm for Alien 1.0 race boot.

Spyderjon found a ~4mm mitigation in imparted delta on a Dynafit Mercury/Vulcan relative to the pin delta.
By contrast, my Alien 1.0 has a ~4mm increase in imparted delta relative to the pin delta.
So that's a ~8mm differential in imparted delta from any given binding on those two boots.
All of which shows that the boot model can play a big role in the imparted delta (even setting aside other stance alignment issues like the angle of the boot board and the forward angle of the upper cuff), but also that comparisons across different binding models are far less confusing if the focus is solely on the pin delta (as opposed to what happens with particular boot models).

[sethschmautz]

You're right. The only odd thing was the difference in pin heights for the Beast and the Radical 2.0. Well, the other odd thing was my use of quotation marks - usually that "drives me crazy" when I see "other people" do it. :-/

I also agree with the idea of leaving the boot out of the equation - that opens up the discussion to too many variables/assumptions that may not be clearly communicated.

I'm expecting ~5mm difference in heel pin height between the Beast 14 and Radical 2. But at the end of the day, it will probably come down to how it feels on the snow.

Seth

[Solesides]

Question for people that have shimmed the radical 1.0 with 6.4mm B&D plates: are you using the 28mm screws also sold by B&D? Any modification required to those screws? Thanks

[1000-oaks]

Boots vary a ton. With Maestrale RS in Ions, I'm pitched waaay forward and it's aweful. With 2017 Cochise boot in Ion, the boot has 1mm less ramp than when in STH.

Just made 1/4" toe shims for use with Maestrales, but it would be a mistake to shim binding toes with Cochise or other tech/DIN sole boot.

[auvgeek]

it's just a function of binding mechanics, so a Tech toe is inherently low in stack height, and Tech heels have become increasingly jacked up over time b/c of adjustable forward release values (as opposed to a simple U-shaped spring/fork), fore-aft adjustment tracks, brakes, etc. (In the reverse, race bindings ditch all of that, including even the large lateral release spring, so the delta is mitigated.)

It'd be cool if someone figured out how to put the toe on an adjustment track to minimize stack height and the need for shims.

Also: some people are more sensitive to overall stack height than ramp angle.