Grip Walk sole dimensions?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Thanks for the pics. I can see the extra toe rocker, I think, but I can also see how it lines up with the afd of your alpine binding.

[Gray Lab]

ISO 9523 - Grip Walk
Grip Walk falls within the Touring Norm dimensions, looks kinda like WTR in that it is a rockered sole with hard AFDs in the toe and heel, but it has a uniquely shaped toe and heel that (when used with a "Grip Walk" binding) requires no adjustment of the toe piece when going from alpine sole to Grip Walk sole. So if you have an alpine boot and a Grip Walk boot, a race system ski with a Grip Walk binding and a powder ski with a Grip Walk binding, you can go from ski to ski without having to adjust your toe height, and use either boot. (If your boots have different BSLs, you still need to adjust forward pressure though). Grip Walk soles cannot go into a traditional alpine binding that has not been designed to accept the unique shape of the toe (the sole still has rocker and it simply doesn't fit). You will need a Grip Walk binding or a Multi-Norm Certified binding when using Grip Walk soles.

TL/DR: Grip Walk binding - fits both alpine norm and Grip Walk soles automatically, does not require toe height adjustment.

So I'm trying to visualize how Grip Walk will fit into an ISO 5355 binding and can visualize only two possibilities.

1. The AFD area on the boot is recessed.
2. The upper lip of the to is lower

I'm guessing that its #1?

Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
Does that mean that GripWalk works in non-wtr pivots/fks?
"Works" and "Is Indemnified" are not the same thing. For the time being, Look does not approve of that combination, only GripWalk/WTR Dual.

So now that Look is on board with GripWalk, what will it take for them to make P18's compatible with GW soles? Even if GW boots "fit" in current model P18's with the standard AFD (not the WTR AFD they have), it seems like there is probably a new AFD piece that will be needed to make the P18's "work with" GW soles and be indemnifiable. Is it as simple as them producing another AFD piece like they did to make P18's compatible with WTR? Here are some screen shots from the video on the GW site that might help:



I broke them down like they were the Zapruder film and it looks to me like a GW binding needs to:

1. Allow for the "deck height" of the boot toe to end up at the same for either the GW sole or the alpine sole (within the ISO 5355 requirement of 19mm +/- 1mm). (In the pics, the red sole is GW and the blue sole is traditional ISO 5355 alpine).
2. This is achieved by having the boot contact the AFD at a point closer to the toe than the point where the sole would cause the toe to be higher. You can see from the picture that the point that would make the toe highest is further back, toward the ball of the foot. This "drops" the rockered toe of the boot a bit to fit into the ISO 5355 standard.
3. Because the traditional alpine binding (blue sole), doesn't have that angle in the sole, it's toe height is pretty much at the highest point possible regardless of where the boot lands on the AFD.
4. The marker binding shown seems to have a sliding AFD, at least for the GW soles, but from posts above I guess that's just up to the binding manufacturer as to whether they want to do that and not a requirement?

So my take away is all Look would have to do is make a new AFD piece for the P18 that is like the one shown in the pics (just like they made a new one for WTR boots). Does that sound right or is there more to it (like issues with the heel piece)?

[Gray Lab]

Wow that’s long when you view it in the phone. Short story: can Look make the P18/FKS180 GripWalk compatible simply by producing a new GW AFD piece to swap in for the standard alpine AFD?

[dcpnz]

Anything (official or unofficial) out of Amer group yet on gripwalk compatibility with their bindings since they seem to be adopting GW as future for boots?
- Are/Can they retroactively add gripwalk certification to STH2?
- Will we see STH3?
- Or are they advocating MNC via Warden and Shift as the solution?

[markcjr]

So if I can technically use grip walk in my sth2 , (not indemnified) and it torque tests fine, shouldn't I be able to just use grip walk in my p18+ FKS 155 binders?
I know Xavier D has mentioned that he has been shoving At rockered soles in p18 for years. Has anyone ever torque tested this? Or do we have to get the new "dual" afd and has that been accepted for grip walk yet?

Sent from my LM-G710VM using TGR Forums mobile app

[::: :::]

I thought I saw that sth2 wtr had been ok’ed for gripwalk boots as is, no sth3 needed
(over at pugski)
https://www.pugski.com/threads/2019-...indings.11505/

[markcjr]

Hadn't seen that. Sweet.

Sent from my LM-G710VM using TGR Forums mobile app

[ZomblibulaX]

So if I can technically use grip walk in my sth2 , (not indemnified) and it torque tests fine, shouldn't I be able to just use grip walk in my p18+ FKS 155 binders?
I know Xavier D has mentioned that he has been shoving At rockered soles in p18 for years. Has anyone ever torque tested this? Or do we have to get the new "dual" afd and has that been accepted for grip walk yet?

Sent from my LM-G710VM using TGR Forums mobile app

I put GW soles on my Krypton 130s last year; run pivots on everything. Ended up modding the toe lug to work with the standard alpine AFD rather than potentially replacing ten pair of AFDs. Just ground down the lug either side of the boot AFD where it contacts the binding AFD, and took a little off the lug behind it just to make sure there was no rubber in contact. Hard to see in pics how it lines up, but its plastic-on-plastic.





Torque tested within in-use range, which is barely higher than it was with the alpine sole installed on the same boot. Granted, binding is an FKS 155 from 2006(?). Newest pivot in my fleet is ca. 2010. So, a Dalbello Lupo GW sole works in a no-longer-indemnified pivot toe with some modification. Real world mileage may vary, but I've been skiing on it without issue.

Certainly can't recommend it in an official capacity, and I wouldn't bother to do it for a customer out of concern for liability, but it satisfies my expectations. YMMV.

[markcjr]

^^^ awesome, going to give that a go.
Unless Phil, you have any knowledge of a afd that will fit a p18 coming out that will accept Grip Walk?

Sent from my LM-G710VM using TGR Forums mobile app

[jdadour]

I put GW soles on my Krypton 130s last year; run pivots on everything. Ended up modding the toe lug to work with the standard alpine AFD rather than potentially replacing ten pair of AFDs. Just ground down the lug either side of the boot AFD where it contacts the binding AFD, and took a little off the lug behind it just to make sure there was no rubber in contact. Hard to see in pics how it lines up, but its plastic-on-plastic.





Torque tested within in-use range, which is barely higher than it was with the alpine sole installed on the same boot. Granted, binding is an FKS 155 from 2006(?). Newest pivot in my fleet is ca. 2010. So, a Dalbello Lupo GW sole works in a no-longer-indemnified pivot toe with some modification. Real world mileage may vary, but I've been skiing on it without issue.

Certainly can't recommend it in an official capacity, and I wouldn't bother to do it for a customer out of concern for liability, but it satisfies my expectations. YMMV.

So you didnt grind the white plastic, just the rubber around the lower side of the white plastic? This is very interesting to see, because it always seemed like Grip Walk is very similiar to normal Alpine Sole dimensions, as opposed WTR which is more a difference.

I think I'm going to try this out on my Lupos too. Thanks for sharing!

[ZomblibulaX]

So you didnt grind the white plastic, just the rubber around the lower side of the white plastic?

Affirmative, plastic plate remained intact. The contact between the boot and the AFD is limited to a ridge at the aft of the plastic plate, which sits in the back half of the AFD. Full disclosure, this contact point has a measured toe height >31mm on a flat surface, so falls outside of 5355 spec in yet another way. Not kosher per standards, but does technically function.

I’m not endorsing this or promoting it in any way; just detailing what I’ve done to circumvent an interface conflict. If you come in to my shop asking about it, I’m just gonna sell you some boot soles or bindings.

...but it totally works.

[jdadour]

Affirmative, plastic plate remained intact. The contact between the boot and the AFD is limited to a ridge at the aft of the plastic plate, which sits in the back half of the AFD. Full disclosure, this contact point has a measured toe height >31mm on a flat surface, so falls outside of 5355 spec in yet another way. Not kosher per standards, but does technically function.

I’m not endorsing this or promoting it in any way; just detailing what I’ve done to circumvent an interface conflict. If you come in to my shop asking about it, I’m just gonna sell you some boot soles or bindings.

...but it totally works.

Thanks. Just took a look at my Grip Walk soles, and that all makes sense. To even prove your theory that these are close to Alpine spec, when I adjusted the AFD on my Shifts for Grip Walk soles, it was raised to the "Alpine" position, and not down to the "Touring" position. I think as long as the white plastic of the sole is in contact with the white part of the AFD and can move side to side unimpeded (hence grinding off some of the rubber), its going to basically work fine.

[ZomblibulaX]

Thanks. Just took a look at my Grip Walk soles, and that all makes sense. To even prove your theory that these are close to Alpine spec, when I adjusted the AFD on my Shifts for Grip Walk soles, it was raised to the "Alpine" position, and not down to the "Touring" position. I think as long as the white plastic of the sole is in contact with the white part of the AFD and can move side to side unimpeded (hence grinding off some of the rubber), its going to basically work fine.

Yep. I posted some measurements in here last year off of a Lupo ax 120, and with the exception of the angled contact plate and the overall width, the boot toe falls within 5355 at some point. However, the sole has changed since last year, will likely change again, and is different from make to make and model to model. And it will come in to contact with different AFDs in different areas, meaning variable toe height depending on boot/binding combination.

I just want WTR to hurry up and die so we can run an actual standardized GW sole on everything that’s not just for racing or walking around in the woods and get on with our lives.

[m17a85]

... The contact between the boot and the AFD is limited to a ridge at the aft of the plastic plate, which sits in the back half of the AFD....

So glad to have found this thread. I've been trying to figure out what to do about my Nordica Strider / Marker Griffon (2016) "incompatibility".

Frustrating, because it looks like the only difference between the new Griffon ID and my old Griffon is a slightly different shape in the mechanical (sliding) anti-friction device.

The boots fit nicely in the bindings and the toe release feels smooth and re-centers normally. The only difference is that the plastic part of the sole and the AFD are slightly off-plane. I can't get a gauge in between the AFD and the boot sole, but it looks like shaving off a bit of the adjacent sole might help a bit.

Edit: After I spent way too much time stressing over this, Nordica stepped up and has offered to send me the alpine solekit. Solves the problem for now without having to get new bindings. I've always been a Nordica fan and am really happy with this level of customer service.

Next, I want to try out the Shift MNC bindings. (I haven't had a heavy-duty touring binding since my old Ramers, which must have been almost forty years ago.)

[margotron]

Independently of this thread, I modded my Lupo GripWalk soles to work with my FKS 18s. I can confirm basically everything in here. By 'mod,' I didnt alter the white plastic on the gripwalk toe, but took a fresh exacto knife blade and removed any rubber so it is white plastic on white plastic contact.

A couple clean releases and even a few park laps and no fireworks to report.

[Dan816]

Seems like a ton of knowledgeable folks in this thread, so please help me understand these 'standards.'

I'm under the impression that any binding with an adjustable toe height is compatible with both WTR and Gripwalk. Is this true? If not, what would make a binding (like an older marker baron) not compatible with WTR/GW?

[VTskibum]

Seems like a ton of knowledgeable folks in this thread, so please help me understand these 'standards.'

I'm under the impression that any binding with an adjustable toe height is compatible with both WTR and Gripwalk. Is this true? If not, what would make a binding (like an older marker baron) not compatible with WTR/GW?

Bump - Also looking for an answer to this exact question.

I did a test fit with OG Duke + GW and looks like it'll work fine, but curious if anyone knows an official answer to this.

[ZomblibulaX]

Dukes/Barons are MNC (multi-norm compatible if you're just tuning in), even if the older versions don't say it. They were designed to be compatible with 5355 and 9523 boots way back in 2007 before everyone became offended by the prospect of skiing a binding that weighed three pounds. Newer versions have a slightly different AFD, but overall the interface is the same as it was 13 years ago.

Markers that say Sole ID are MNC. Salomons that are marked MNC are MNC (Wardens, newer Guardians). Salomons marked WTR (STH2, OG guardians) are compatible with 5355, WTR and GW retroactively. Z series Sollys are 5355 only.

The only looks compatible with anything other than 5355 are newer Pivots with the GripWalk AFD, or NX/SPX/Pivots that have the dual AFD.

Tyrolias marked AT are MNC (AattackAdrenaline 13/14/16/etc. AT). Aattack 11 GWs are 5355 and GW compatible, but older styles are 5355 only. All older style "diagonal" toe tyrolias are 5355 only.

Last I heard Marker Volkl Dalbello is pushing for a new ISO norm for GripWalk and its going to happen, but not next year.

[gregL]

Markers that say Sole ID are MNC. Salomons that are marked MNC are MNC (Wardens, newer Guardians). Salomons marked WTR (STH2, OG guardians) are compatible with 5355 and WTR only. Z series Sollys are 5355 only. Before anyone asks, STH2s have enough toe height adjustment for almost all 9523 boots, but without a sliding AFD Salomon will not allow it.

Amer Sports changed their mind about the STH2. For confirmation, see the boot-binding compatibility chart in the 19-20 tech manual, page 9 - the STH2 has magically become GripWalk compatible with no changes in the mechanical function of the binding. Look changed their mind about the Dual WTR bindings and they became GripWalk compatible after the first year. There was financial incentive to make these changes.

FWIW, Markers and Tyrolias will never say "MNC" on them because it is a term invented by Salomon/Amer . . .

[onenerdykid]

Amer Sports changed their mind about the STH2. For confirmation, see the boot-binding compatibility chart in the 19-20 tech manual, page 9 - the STH2 has magically become GripWalk compatible with no changes in the mechanical function of the binding. Look changed their mind about the Dual WTR bindings and they became GripWalk compatible after the first year. There was financial incentive to make these changes.

In order to say a binding is certified for a certain norm, the binding has to go through the ENTIRE certification process, which is mad expensive and time consuming. When the STH2 was a "WTR" binding, it had not gone through the certification process for GripWalk, and therefore we couldn't say that the binding was certified for GripWalk.

This applies to all older bindings & binding companies too. So if you have an older Marker Duke with adjustable toe height, Marker will not say it is certified for GripWalk if they have not gone back to the TÜV and had the binding certified for GripWalk. And frankly, I don't see companies going back to the TÜV with old binding concepts to get them certified for GripWalk. They have invested too much money into new binding concepts to make old bindings relevant.

[gregL]

In order to say a binding is certified for a certain norm, the binding has to go through the ENTIRE certification process, which is mad expensive and time consuming. When the STH2 was a "WTR" binding, it had not gone through the certification process for GripWalk, and therefore we couldn't say that the binding was certified for GripWalk.

This applies to all older bindings & binding companies too. So if you have an older Marker Duke with adjustable toe height, Marker will not say it is certified for GripWalk if they have not gone back to the TÜV and had the binding certified for GripWalk. And frankly, I don't see companies going back to the TÜV with old binding concepts to get them certified for GripWalk. They have invested too much money into new binding concepts to make old bindings relevant.

Fair enough, Matt. Besides, when the STH2 was being developed, GripWalk didn't yet exist. Is there now a published "norm" for GripWalk soles - I assume you have something even if it doesn't have an ISO number yet?

[onenerdykid]

Fair enough, Matt. Besides, when the STH2 was being developed, GripWalk didn't yet exist. Is there now a published "norm" for GripWalk soles - I assume you have something even if it doesn't have an ISO number yet?

Of course. There's definitely a long, ISO-style document that Marker has made that goes over all of the dimensions. With any luck, there will be an official ISO within a couple of years.

[ZomblibulaX]

Thanks for the insight, I edited my earlier post for accuracy. Was spouting last night off the top of my head.

Matt, I agree there’s zero point in recertifying old bindings. An ISO spec sheet was the whole reason I started this thread. And I don’t mean to hate on WTR so much, but as it stands there’s too many people coming in with incompatible equipment from the internet (and from brick and mortar stores) and I’m just waiting for the industry to sort it out so things are easier for consumers. I’ve had to ruin Christmas for a few kids a couple years in a row because parents bought them new X and it’s not compatible with their old Y, or all new everything and nothing works together. It was easier back when we were waiting for wider brakes for everything because at least you could just bend a brake. Thanks for the input.

[GoldMember]

Okay, this whole Grip Walk phenomenon is pretty new to me so here's my question. I have a new pair of Lange XT3 that I'm using with a Look Pivot 14 from 2 years ago and a pair of Barons that are probably 4 or 5 years old. Am I going to die?

[bourbonisgood]

Okay, this whole Grip Walk phenomenon is pretty new to me so here's my question. I have a new pair of Lange XT3 that I'm using with a Look Pivot 14 from 2 years ago and a pair of Barons that are probably 4 or 5 years old. Am I going to die?

Sports Creel just sold me some DIN soles for my XT3s for about $20. They are slippery little bastards in an icy parking lot (compared to the gripwalk soles anyway), but should play nicer with non GW bindings