Grip Walk sole dimensions?

[ZomblibulaX]

Tried searching, maybe its in one of the this-boot-vs-that-boot mega threads.

Does anyone have dimension data for grip walk soles? Tried marker tech manuals as well as grip-walk.com, all I see is marketing hype. Looking for something like this:


Thanks in advance.

[XavierD]

I’ll dig around and bug MDV. I know it falls under 9523. I believe the heel height measurement is also 30mm, but with less restrictive on the length of the firm plate (not 100, or 120mm). The toe is at one point 19mm thick, which I believe is at the 35-40mm depth but could be wrong. Less restrictive on curvature but still 8mm of lug for binding retention. Please don’t quote me on that.

[ZomblibulaX]

I’ll dig around and bug MDV. I know it falls under 9523. I believe the heel height measurement is also 30mm, but with less restrictive on the length of the firm plate (not 100, or 120mm). The toe is at one point 19mm thick, which I believe is at the 35-40mm depth but could be wrong. Less restrictive on curvature but still 8mm of lug for binding retention. Please don’t quote me on that.

Yeah, no worries. I'll be doing the same when I get back in the shop next week. I was just surprised there wasn't anything in the literature, but that makes sense if it falls within 9523. Thanks.

[Flexon Phil]

It is different than WTR for sure but since there is technically not a standard, there are some variances. It is interesting that Look Dual bindings now accept Gripwalk, but not in the WTR position but the Alpine one. Here is a Venn Diagram I made that might help with some of the compatibilty questions.

[XavierD]

Phil, both WTR and Gripwalk are 9523 conforming, however 9523 is so loose it only really specifies the lug depth for AT frame binding comparability.

$20 says gripwalk wins the HDDVD vs blueray battle. I bet Lange/Rossignol/Look adopt it fully in the next two years and eventually Amer gives up on WTR.

Hopefully brands start adopting the heel pay arm on the Dalbello GripWalk soles, allowing for better energy transfer. I think Dalbello owns that design however, and others would have to pay up.

[Flexon Phil]

Phil, both WTR and Gripwalk are 9523 conforming, however 9523 is so loose it only really specifies the lug depth for AT frame binding comparability.

Yes, but the are different.

[XavierD]

Yes, WTR is distinctly thicker with more volume in the sole, making it not play nice with Marker’s SoleID bindings.

[gregL]

Yes, WTR is distinctly thicker with more volume in the sole, making it not play nice with Marker’s SoleID bindings.

Which makes me wonder if a Lange XT Freetour will have problems. The range of acceptable ISO 9523 sole heights is huge - 28mm plus or minus 5mm. Has anyone tried a super thick old 9523 sole like a Nordica TR12 in a SoleID or MNC binding?

I am guessing the GripWalk sole, due to the AFD pad being slightly recessed and angled, has an effective height within ISO 5355 spec (19mm plus or minus 1mm) and so works with certain ISO 9462 toes, but I haven't checked. Nothing we carry really came with GripWalk soles until this season.

The whole boot sole/alpine binding compatibility issue is a shitshow and smelling worse by the day.

[XavierD]

I think Lange FTs have been real snug in SoleIDs, potentially leading to issues with the heel lug wearing out too fast due to the excessive tightness and pressure the marker’s place on it.

My guess is the binding shitshow is gonna get a little sunnier for the next year or two and then come clean with three standards and some non conforming boots. 5355 for race boots and solid lug performance options, GripWalk for most everything else, 9523 for a couple dedicated AT boots, and non conforming options for the light pure tech options.

[ZomblibulaX]

The whole boot sole/alpine binding compatibility issue is a shitshow and smelling worse by the day.

That's where I'm at.

Thanks, Phil, I figured I should have just taken this to pugski in the first place. That was what sparked this whole thing, is that Look says it only works in alpine setting on their dual afds, but every other manufacturer says it's MNC or AT.

I agree, 9523 is way too broad. I'm just trying to prep for the future, when inevitably a customer will come in with a worn grip-walk sole and want some binding work done. We haven't done the grip walk "shop certification" yet, so I have to assume they will provide more info when we get our little stickers.

[gregL]

That was what sparked this whole thing, is that Look says it only works in alpine setting on their dual afds, but every other manufacturer says it's MNC or AT.

Look only had 2 choices, whereas Salomon/Atomic have infinite adjustability between the extremes of ISO 5355 and ISO 9523.

As I've been suggesting to reps and PM's for a couple years, the boot and binding manufacturers need to sit down over a nice lunch in Montebelluna and lay down a framework of standards for compatibility. The philosophy of trying to promote your own set of standards should be pushed to the back of the bus. Every binding manufacturer should make an "Omni-Norm" binding that will work with all boots, and specs should be set and regulated for height, AFD plate position and angle, sole lug shape, etc. for anything that isn't 9523 or 5355.

[Flexon Phil]

Look only had 2 choices, whereas Salomon/Atomic have infinite adjustability between the extremes of ISO 5355 and ISO 9523.

As I've been suggesting to reps and PM's for a couple years, the boot and binding manufacturers need to sit down over a nice lunch in Montebelluna and lay down a framework of standards for compatibility. The philosophy of trying to promote your own set of standards should be pushed to the back of the bus. Every binding manufacturer should make an "Omni-Norm" binding that will work with all boots, and specs should be set and regulated for height, AFD plate position and angle, sole lug shape, etc. for anything that isn't 9523 or 5355.

It is rediculous. I have talked to 5 product manager and received 7 different answers. They don't know. Reps don't know. Shops don't know. Consumers? They're screwed. The bad part is, this is a hangover that is going be be around for the next decade. Amer needs to waive the white towel with WTR, they tried but no one else fully took the bait. Look blinked and wisely hedged their bets and designed their Dual binding to take both WTR and GripWalk. For the sake of the consumer come to one platform and make it simple.

[gregL]

It is rediculous. I have talked to 5 product manager and received 7 different answers. They don't know. Reps don't know. Shops don't know. Consumers? They're screwed. The bad part is, this is a hangover that is going be be around for the next decade. Amer needs to waive the white towel with WTR, they tried but no one else fully took the bait. Look blinked and wisely hedged their bets and designed their Dual binding to take both WTR and GripWalk. For the sake of the consumer come to one platform and make it simple.

Ridonkulous it is. I have an internal compatibility chart that we use and I've updated it ten times this season.

I don't have a problem with more than 1 sole shape (in addition to 5355 and 9523) but they need to be precisely defined and the spec available to everyone. This needs to be done at an industry level, not just within a single company with its "affiliates." Tester sole blocks for the different shapes should be available for anyone wishing to test a binding for compatibility.

While they're at it, they need to redefine the ISO 5355 toe shape spec to allow tech fittings (at least classic Dynafit) and they should probably redefine the 9523 toe height (I think anything over 30mm is no longer relevant).

When you end up buying a customer a new ski because the combination you said would work doesn't (in this case a Hawx Ultra XTD with Griffon SoleID) it becomes more than annoying.

[gregL]

I have talked to 5 product manager and received 7 different answers.

I know most of these people lurk on this site regularly (the English speakers at least); maybe one of them should take the bull by the horns and set up a meeting at ISPO. Hammer out some standards over a few liters of good Bavarian beer, maybe.

[Flexon Phil]

I know most of these people lurk on this site regularly (the English speakers at least); maybe one of them should take the bull by the horns and set up a meeting at ISPO. Hammer out some standards over a few liters of good Bavarian beer, maybe.

Yes, they lurk here and on our site. I am in direct contact with them whenever I need clarification. I agree, there needs to be a specific ISO standard for WTR or GW whatever they want to call it. It's like two divorced parents fighting over who is going to get the kids on what weekends.

[selle]

It is different than WTR for sure but since there is technically not a standard, there are some variances. It is interesting that Look Dual bindings now accept Gripwalk, but not in the WTR position but the Alpine one. Here is a Venn Diagram I made that might help with some of the compatibilty questions.

Question here: if the Gripwalk soles are thinner than WTR then they should work flawlessly in the STH bindings (toe height adjustable to every height between alpine and WTR).

And slightly related question: do WTR soles work with the old STH1 or even 914/997 Driver toes? Or do the STH2 have more toe height adjustment range than their older siblings?

[gregL]

Question here: if the Gripwalk soles are thinner than WTR then they should work flawlessly in the STH bindings (toe height adjustable to every height between alpine and WTR).

And slightly related question: do WTR soles work with the old STH1 or even 914/997 Driver toes? Or do the STH2 have more toe height adjustment range than their older siblings?

Straight from one of the aforementioned PM's: Salomon will not indemnify GripWalk soles in the STH or STH2 bindings for the 2018 season (whether or not they work flawlessly). WTR soles are only compatible with bindings labeled "WTR" or "MNC" - that includes the STH2 but not the STH or 9xx Driver models.

[gregL]

Curiously, Look says GripWalk soles are compatible with their Dual WTR bindings when set at the "alpine" height . . .

[ZomblibulaX]

Curiously, Look says GripWalk soles are compatible with their Dual WTR bindings when set at the "alpine" height . . .

That's why I started this thread; it's completely nonsensical. If Dual WTR AFDs can accommodate a gripwalk sole in the alpine setting, then any automatic toe should be able to do so, not just Sole ID. The only thing I can think of is the angle of the plate in contact with the AFD must be what is in question, because it's not flat like a 5355 sole. Hence Sole ID's angled AFD. I can understand if Salomon won't indemnify it for STH because rubber could be contacting the non-sliding AFD, but a simple explanation and some actual standards sure would help.

[ZomblibulaX]

Took some measurements off a Dalbello Lupo AX120 in a Tyrolia Attack 13 AT.

Toe height will fluctuate based on where the boot contacts the AFD, i.e., the further back the contact point, the greater the height due to the angled contact plate. At 37mm depth from front of toe, toe height is 19mm. It was back to 68mm depth before it fell out of spec (>1mm). In other words, almost the entire contact plate on the boot falls within range of 5355, but is still out of spec due to the angle, and the width (>69mm, +/-2) of the sole. Heel lug height is 30mm.

Also took the opportunity to test a Lange XT 130 with a WTR sole in a Salomon STH 16 (not STH2), and it ran right up the middle, with the exception of a minor deviation (-0.5 DIN) on one heel. However, since the rubber alongside the contact plate sits flush, it is in contact with the non-sliding AFD, so real world results could be very different. Same can be said for any boot/binding combination.

[gregL]

. . . Also took the opportunity to test a Lange XT 130 with a GW sole . . .

GripWalk on an XT 130? Regular XT 130 ships with ISO 5355 soles, WTR is available separately; XT 130 Freetour ships with WTR (2018 models have ISO 5355 soles included in the box).

[Dee Hubbs]

ZomblibulaX I’m so proud of your metric measurements!
I have a whole bunch of measurements in 2m increments for us to work with next week!

[ZomblibulaX]

GripWalk on an XT 130? Regular XT 130 ships with ISO 5355 soles, WTR is available separately; XT 130 Freetour ships with WTR (2018 models have ISO 5355 soles included in the box).

My apologies, it was a WTR (aka Walk To baR) sole.

DeeHubbs, let's see some maps! I don't have time to do it twice!

[dcpnz]

Little thread bump since it seems the industry might have finally got its shit together and agreed to move forward with gripwalk.

So if lange/rossi and amer (atomic/salomon) now dumping WTR and on board with gripwalk what does that mean for bindings.

E.g. The one i personally care about is STH2 not certified as of now but can it be retroactively certified for gripwalk??

Seems no technical reason for the toe height to not work if gripwalk is not as tall as wtr but do the hard plastic areas line up??
Possibly more problematic for look wtr bindings with a two position adjustment not a screw height adjustment.

What you industry guys hearing?

[oftpiste]

Not an industry guy but I put Tecnica branded GW on my Kryptons and ski pretty much all Sally clamps. AFDs line up just fine.