Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 526
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Dynafit rotation toe has no lateral elasticity a la the Vipec or an alpine binding. It just rotates. Which is totally unnecessary.
    Agreed to no lateral elasticity at the toe but not to no lateral elasticity.

    My understanding is that the intent of the rotating toe design is to extend the degree of lateral travel at the heel before unintended release due to the toe cups slipping out of the toe pins.

    To the original frankenbinding question, I recall comments to the effect that a Kingpin heel and Vipec toe won't work. I can't remember if it was here or an experiment made by Dawson.

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Dynafit rotation toe has no lateral elasticity a la the Vipec or an alpine binding. It just rotates. Which is totally unnecessary.
    I personally think it makes them less chattery or rigid or whatever you wanna call it

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,176
    There is this...

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BbtVUHgg...en-by=skistore

    Not sure how well it'll work.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Agreed to no lateral elasticity at the toe but not to no lateral elasticity.

    My understanding is that the intent of the rotating toe design is to extend the degree of lateral travel at the heel before unintended release due to the toe cups slipping out of the toe pins.

    To the original frankenbinding question, I recall comments to the effect that a Kingpin heel and Vipec toe won't work. I can't remember if it was here or an experiment made by Dawson.

    ... Thom
    The toe swing is not for elasticity, and though I'm no ME it would IMO be silly to try for elasticity & min-tech simultaneously. Opposite schemes as primary assumptions. Elasticity is an evolution in alpine bindings & they got bigger & burlier & more complex as a result, yielding what we see today in alpine toes.

    The point of the Dynafit pivot is to change release from a forced rotation at the heel, a long-lever release where the forefoot is concerned, to a pivoted swing. This reduces axial torque on the tib/fib shaft. Conceptually, I mean.

    I'd want to use a VSS device or maybe something more finicky to "prove" it does what it says, though.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    ... The point of the Dynafit pivot is to change release from a forced rotation at the heel, a long-lever release where the forefoot is concerned, to a pivoted swing. This reduces axial torque on the tib/fib shaft. Conceptually, I mean.

    I'd want to use a VSS device or maybe something more finicky to "prove" it does what it says, though.
    Thanks creaky. I'm not sure I understand some of the terminology. Perhaps if I restate my understanding, you can confirm or correct my thinking.

    • Put a legacy Dynafit on the bench (Comfort, Vertical, etc.) and insert a boot (binding in downhill mode).
    • Rotate at the heel and watch the toe.
    • As the lateral heel displacement increases, the inserts/cups on the boot begin to cam the toe wings outward (spreading them apart).
    • At a certain point of heel displacement, the pins jump out of the inserts/cups and a release occurs.
    • This release point occurs while the heel still has some elastic travel remaining.
    • The rotating toes allow the toe pins to remain fully engaged through the rotational range of the toes' turntable, so the elastic limit is determined by the heel's elasticity.

    Did I get anything wrong? Aren't the pivot points of the two architectures identical (or very close to each other)?

    ...Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,881
    yeah I always thot the turntable thing was bogus cuz once the pins have released your boot heel its game over so all you get from the turntable is a few degrees still in the pins but that boot is releasing period
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    VSS = Vermont Ski Safety, function check tools for torsional readings. I learned on the old-school sideways-displacement tool, but they refined that with a dummy foot/leg shaft device at some point.

    Elasticity =/= mere ability to move. To me the concept implies assertive return to center, and maybe (if compared to its application in alpine toes) oscillating displace/return repeats.

    My understanding of Dynafit's swing toe is that it simply gives a little relief to the long-lever torque impact of heel-only. Some toe swing happens effectively anyway with the conical pins and the dimpled sockets they fit in.

    I haven't seen any of the Fritschi Tecton toes, so I don't know how they compare, nor how they are built mechanically.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Front Range, CO
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by nyskirat View Post
    There is this...

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BbtVUHgg...en-by=skistore

    Not sure how well it'll work.
    As stated above, it won't "work" at all. Put a boot in a vipec toe and try moving the heel laterally to the side. Not possible. The lateral release of the kingpin heel is defeated and so you just get back to the tecton release function anyway. No lateral heel release, only lateral toe release.

    Regarding the rotation toe, I'm no expert either, but I see it as preventing pre-release that could otherwise occur with a normal tech toe. When the heel of the boot moves laterally, the spring in the old-style dynafit toe begin to open and, fairly quickly, they open wide enough to pre-release. With the rotation toe, the heel can move laterally to the extent of the retention range of the heel without causing the toe springs to start opening.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,985
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    The toe swing is not for elasticity, and though I'm no ME it would IMO be silly to try for elasticity & min-tech simultaneously. Opposite schemes as primary assumptions. Elasticity is an evolution in alpine bindings & they got bigger & burlier & more complex as a result, yielding what we see today in alpine toes.

    The point of the Dynafit pivot is to change release from a forced rotation at the heel, a long-lever release where the forefoot is concerned, to a pivoted swing. This reduces axial torque on the tib/fib shaft. Conceptually, I mean.

    I'd want to use a VSS device or maybe something more finicky to "prove" it does what it says, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    VSS = Vermont Ski Safety, function check tools for torsional readings. I learned on the old-school sideways-displacement tool, but they refined that with a dummy foot/leg shaft device at some point.

    Elasticity =/= mere ability to move. To me the concept implies assertive return to center, and maybe (if compared to its application in alpine toes) oscillating displace/return repeats.

    My understanding of Dynafit's swing toe is that it simply gives a little relief to the long-lever torque impact of heel-only. Some toe swing happens effectively anyway with the conical pins and the dimpled sockets they fit in.

    I haven't seen any of the Fritschi Tecton toes, so I don't know how they compare, nor how they are built mechanically.
    Creaky's on the right track. The concept is called "return to centre".

    For Dynafits, the rotating toe allows for some deflection and elasticity at the toe and because a boot connects the toe and heel - also some elasticity at heel. Dynafits with almost no heel gap and some spring at the heel have added elasticity.

    For Fritschi one of the toe levers holding on the boot at toe has a built in adjustable release value letting the toepiece mechanically absorb vibration and hits. So, same principle as Dynafit but with adjustability.

    For Kingpin the toe is not elastic but the heelpiece has a lot of engagement so the elasticity is in the system rather then split between toe and heel.



    I wrote about it using Marshal's concepts here - https://www.tetongravity.com/story/s...013-Review-353. TGR's front page articles are all screwed up and pics lost from some data migration so here is what I wrote with the citation to Marshal

    What does it mean when a binding is elastic?

    This article by Marshal Olson in Blister Gear is a good reference. To paraphrase, a binding which is elastic allows a boot to deflect from a point where the boot is held on the ski (sometimes called the centre) and then either return-to-centre or, if force is sufficient, for the boot to release. The spring tension in a binding controls what force is required for the boot to deflect following a hit and either release or return-to-centre.

    In almost all bindings, the spring tension is adjustable (release value is related to binding spring tension). So when one says that the Dynafit Beast is adjustable from 8 to 16 that number relates to spring tension. The higher the number, the greater the force required to release from the binding.

    Following on this it's no surprise that earlier generation tech 1.0 Dynafits (Verticals, Comforts, Radicals) basically had almost zero elasticity; the toe piece had almost no spring tension while the heel pieces have tiny little wee springs which simply don't have the capacity to absorb or adjust to high delta forces. This is why there's no give or elasticity on previous generation Dynafits and that is why relatively small hits would deflect ones boot enough for the boot to release (this is called pre-release).

    All the absorption in previous generation Dynafits were in your knees, ankles or the rattling of the fillings in your teeth. Many people (myself included) ran higher release values on our previous generation Dynafits and/or locked the toes out when in high speed chattery snow conditions and/or backed off our speed..

    As to positive engagement the previous generation bindings were works of minimalist art that necessarily had compromises. In powder and soft snow the vagueness of the heel engagement isn't readily apparent but consider that previous generation tech bindings spec 5.5 mm gaps at the heel. This is a design consideration to allow the binding to release vertically due to there being no forward or downward heel pressure in such bindings (topple forward and the two pins would allow for vertical release given sufficient force; the 5.5mm gap allows the boot to clear the heel if the ski is cambered/decambered such as in a high speed tomahawk).

    Consider too that the pins in a Dynafit binding are designed to slide back and forth on the heel fitting (there's that lack of forward pressure); again a necessary design consideration to accommodate skis cambering/decambering. Finally consider that the pins/heel fitting interface are round on half circles. There's not a lot of mechanical interface between the binding and the boot. Again, these are just nitpick observations about a fine system that has served skiers for a long time but which Dynafit felt can be improved (albeit at the cost of weight) and which have been improved with the Dynafit Beast.

    All the design considerations listed below help explain how the Dynafit Beast is much, much, much (I tell you three times!) improved in terms of elasticity, small bump absorption and solidity of engagement.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    The toe swing is not for elasticity, and though I'm no ME it would IMO be silly to try for elasticity & min-tech simultaneously.
    I'm still not getting it, but don't bother to reply (Creaky) if this is getting too time consuming. The way I see it, the evolution of the toe designs support the elasticity/return characteristics of the heel. IOW the toes aren't elastic in and of themselves, but they do have a range of "engagement" before the boot pops out of the binding.

    The admittedly small angular rotational elastic limit of the Comfort/Vertical generation's heel to deflect laterally and return to center seems to be greater than the ability of the toe pin to remain fully engaged in the boot fitting through this angle of deflection.

    Definition: I think you're calling "toe swing" this angular limit of the toe pins to remain engaged in the boot fittings.

    I just pulled my wife's Verticals out and played with them. Nothing scientific, but it appears as if there's marginally more angular elasticity/return in the heel than the ability of the toe pins to remain fully engaged, and I can see where with the right shock applied, that the difference would be greater.

    In other words, if the heel can deflect and return "X" degrees, the toe pins are beginning to disengage from the boot fitting a bit sooner - at a deflection point of "X minus Y" degrees .

    The numbers look really close however, and my quick bench-top check was anything but scientific, but this points toward the thinking behind the rotating design concept they came up with - to increase "toe swing".

    I think we've been saying the same thing, and if we haven't it doesn't really matter much to me, 'coz I'm a Fritschi fan boy now

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyWong View Post
    I charged my Kingpins for 8-hours, and still go the same speed without a charged.

    I think they're broken.
    Did you use a USB-C cable?
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    Kingpin charging

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    I'm still not getting it, but don't bother to reply (Creaky) if this is getting too time consuming. The way I see it, the evolution of the toe designs support the elasticity/return characteristics of the heel. IOW the toes aren't elastic in and of themselves, but they do have a range of "engagement" before the boot pops out of the binding.

    The admittedly small angular rotational elastic limit of the Comfort/Vertical generation's heel to deflect laterally and return to center seems to be greater than the ability of the toe pin to remain fully engaged in the boot fitting through this angle of deflection.

    Definition: I think you're calling "toe swing" this angular limit of the toe pins to remain engaged in the boot fittings.

    I just pulled my wife's Verticals out and played with them. Nothing scientific, but it appears as if there's marginally more angular elasticity/return in the heel than the ability of the toe pins to remain fully engaged, and I can see where with the right shock applied, that the difference would be greater.

    In other words, if the heel can deflect and return "X" degrees, the toe pins are beginning to disengage from the boot fitting a bit sooner - at a deflection point of "X minus Y" degrees .

    The numbers look really close however, and my quick bench-top check was anything but scientific, but this points toward the thinking behind the rotating design concept they came up with - to increase "toe swing".

    I think we've been saying the same thing, and if we haven't it doesn't really matter much to me, 'coz I'm a Fritschi fan boy now

    ... Thom
    Totally agree with Thom here. The rotational toe doesn’t add elasticity. It reduces the chance of pre-release at the toe when in the elastic range of the heel rotation. It serves no other purpose (it is not more damp, etc.). It was added for TUV certs.

    Note that the design still suffers from another form of pre-release, when you get side impacts near the toe (ie landing on edge on firm snow, from the air). I had this happen just the other day on some Rad 2.0s - sent me for good 300 foot high-speed slide down a groomer because I forgot to lock out (scary!). Only the Vipec/Tecton is immune to this. You can adjust the release value to suit your skiing in the Vipec toe. You can’t do this with a traditional tech toe. You’re subject to whatever non-adjustable clamping force the manufacturer has chosen. For many Dynafit, the clamping force is weak. For ATK (and Marker? and G3? IIRC) the clamping force is quite strong.

    Note that this form of release IS often desired. However, pre-release occurs when the non-adjustable clamping force is lower than desired. Tib/fib or ankle fractures happen when the non-adjustable clamping force is too high (and even when it’s not - in certain circumstances!!!). Check out my Vipec review on Blister for some videos illustrating how this works. I intend to write an article about this at some point in the near future (I want data to back it up first). Note that this form of release illustrates the total lack of elasticity and damping in traditional tech toes, even for Rad 2.0. Not so, for the Vipec. The practicality of this changes, of course, when you take it switch, to the road.

    On a side note, I don’t believe TUV tests this type of release? Their location of applied lateral force is too far from the toe piece?

    On the other note in your quote, Lee, the zero-gap fore-aft travel allows for consistent release - no matter how the ski is flexing, the heel pins are engaged to the same depth, and thus a consistent force is required for release. It serves no other purpose. Not sure if you said this or more, but it wasn’t entirely clear to me.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 12-01-2017 at 06:42 AM.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Swiss alps -> Bozone,MT
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyWong View Post
    2.0 USB from the wifes 65' double headed vibrator.
    But that vibrator sees so much action that the charging cable is most likely worn out. I would try again with a new cable. Charged kingpins are the shit. So much more elasticity and return to center. I ski way better with charged ones. I even haul up massive battery packs these days so I can charge on long missions.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by smooth operator View Post
    But that vibrator sees so much action that the charging cable is most likely worn out. I would try again with a new cable. Charged kingpins are the shit. So much more elasticity and return to center. I ski way better with charged ones. I even haul up massive battery packs these days so I can charge on long missions.
    I'm working on a design that will allow you to mount the big battery directly in front of the binding for all day charge. Will update when prototype is complete.

    Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

  15. #65
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Totally agree with Thom here. The rotational toe doesn’t add elasticity.
    Funny, Thom was arguing with me when I said it didn't add elasticity.

    And you're an ignorant putz with an ego 1000x the substance that otherwise might back up that self-impression. I don't care if Jonny Dbag Smellsworst uses you for "reviews," you're a dbag yourself with all ego, and little tech knowledge or skill. Stay out of this discussion, you don't know what you're talking about.

    ************

    Thom -- you're quarreling over semantics, which suggests you don't know the concepts, regardless of whatever degree you hold. I said I'm no ME but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant. It means I don't know the Insider Lingo used by slide rule dweebs. I doubt you have my mechanical background, even if you do build overpriced turntables to fleece Richie Riches.

    So tell me, Thom... how many hours did you spend working on the alpine bindings of the 1960s and 1970s, the old toes with no elasticity, basically on-off switch toes? And then how many hours did you spend working on the evolved toes with elasticity, like the first Geze on which present Look toes are based?

    LP Turntables don't mean jack here, Thom.

    *****************

    The marketing label attached to the function IS NOT THE FUNCTION. So let's not bicker over "elasticity" vs "return to center" and if you're an ME and you split hairs over "elasticity" the word as applied, I'd suggest your vocabulary is too narrowly enginerd.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    You can adjust the release value to suit your skiing in the Vipec toe. You can’t do this with a traditional tech toe. You’re subject to whatever non-adjustable clamping force the manufacturer has chosen. For many Dynafit, the clamping force is weak. For ATK (and Marker? and G3? IIRC) the clamping force is quite strong.
    Lou has tested it

    https://www.wildsnow.com/16117/g3-io...tech-bindings/

    https://www.wildsnow.com/18803/compa...er-g3-dynafit/

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    13,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    On the other note in your quote, Lee, the zero-gap fore-aft travel allows for consistent release - no matter how the ski is flexing, the heel pins are engaged to the same depth, and thus a consistent force is required for release. It serves no other purpose. Not sure if you said this or more, but it wasn’t entirely clear to me.
    What I was trying to say was that the elasticity of the entire toe heel system of binding retention is better because of the rotating toe.

    Re the zero gap; Dynafit actually made that argument to me about and it seemed true so I wrote about it. I can't take credit for the thought experiment about the concept

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Hi Creaky.

    I'm scratching my head as to what set you off. All I’ve been trying to do is to arrive a common language because I suspected that for the most part we were saying the same thing, but were talking past each other.

    Call it arguing with semantics if you will.

    Lee came along and put my long-winded attempts (guilty as charged) into one concise statement (key words: "toe heel system").

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    What I was trying to say was that the elasticity of the entire toe heel system of binding retention is better because of the rotating toe ...
    You're right about my time spent as a shop rat. The last time I did this was when Carter was president, and yes, I've spanned the period of old-time cable bindings with the likes of the Northland "Ski Free" and Marker Simplex toes, up through the era of the mid-70's Looks, the Salomon 555 and such, although I don't quite know what this has to do with this conversation.

    For the record (not trying to be pedantic), can you confirm my understanding of the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    ... My understanding of Dynafit's swing toe is that it simply gives a little relief to the long-lever torque impact of heel-only. Some toe swing happens effectively anyway with the conical pins and the dimpled sockets they fit in.
    Is this another way of stating what Lee stated above? Does "swing toe" = new, rotating toe design?

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 12-01-2017 at 11:09 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    Kingpin charging

    Thanks for the links!

    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    Funny, Thom was arguing with me when I said it didn't add elasticity.
    Funny, I was agreeing with what he said in that post, not necessarily disagreeing with what you said in some other post. Perhaps that was unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    I'm scratching my head as to what set you off. All I’ve been trying to do is to arrive a common language because I suspected that for the most part we were saying the same thing, but were talking past each other.
    Yeah, you two did seem to be talking about the same thing. Basically, as you mentioned, it avoids pre-release when the elasticity in the heel is engaged by providing solid pin engagement until the heel fully releases. The way creaky worded it wasn't very clear at all, imo:
    "The point of the Dynafit pivot is to change release from a forced rotation at the heel, a long-lever release where the forefoot is concerned, to a pivoted swing. This reduces axial torque on the tib/fib shaft. Conceptually, I mean."

    Dynafit states that the rotational toe was added specifically for one reason:
    "Pivoting toe piece for optimum combating of pre-release following sudden impacts (patent pending)."

    However, it doesn't combat the arguably more dangerous form of pre-release (lateral forces near the toe causing the jaws to open).

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau
    the rotating toe allows for some deflection and elasticity at the toe
    I don't think this is correct? It doesn't add elasticity at the toe. It assists the elasticity in the heel.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 12-01-2017 at 11:26 AM.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Hi Creaky.

    I'm scratching my head as to what set you off.
    Yeah, still superior aren't you? My eyes, the rolling of my eyes....

    What does it mean when you PROJECT the idea that you "set me off"?

    I'm clarifying, which is something enginerds are ill-equipped to do given their obsessive binary thinking. Like Lindahl, you are far far far far too impressed with yourself. Can't admit being wrong even when glaringly so.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Call it arguing with semantics if you will.
    Fairly certain I did just that.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Lee came along and put my long-winded attempts (guilty as charged) into one concise statement (key words: "toe heel system").
    Funny how you would listen to Lee but not me. Being diplomatic, Lee says I'm "on the right track" because he doesn't want to offend you or Lindahl. I don't carry the same fear of offense, because (1) i'm not Canadian, and (2) I don't like pretentious putzes and don't tolerate them well. Usually, I call them out and clarify where they're mistaken. As I've done here.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    For the record (not trying to be pedantic), can you confirm my understanding of the following:

    Is this another way of stating what Lee stated above? Does "swing toe" = new, rotating toe design?

    ... Thom
    You dumpling, I can't confirm your "understanding" because I'm not inside your mind. Maybe if you spent a bit more time learning logic, reasoning, writing, speaking, rhetoric. And a bit less time designing puffery paragraphs to sell overpriced turntables.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    Funny, I was agreeing with what he said in that post, not necessarily disagreeing with what you said in some other post. Perhaps that was unclear..
    Wait. Is King Ego doing a backpedal? Or just lying?

    Must resist the temptation to further smack your pathetic ass to the pavement.

    Go ski a girder and run up Annapurna, little Journet.

    ***************

    This is what happens when you let "kidwoo" and "stuckathuntermtn" and "Danno" tell you that creaky is an insane ignoramus.

    You believe those three douchebags, and in the process, get it completely wrong.

    Kudos.

    You have fake experts like Lindahl being heard and believed. This must be the greatest achievement ever found after Jer created this place.
    Last edited by creaky fossil; 12-01-2017 at 01:00 PM.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    Kingpin charging

    Quote Originally Posted by creaky fossil View Post
    Wait. Is King Ego doing a backpedal? Or just lying?
    I could neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote because your phrasing and use of terminology was so convoluted and atrocious. The best that Thom or I (or anyone) could do was make an educated guess as to what the fuck you were talking about and try to clarify. So yeah... neither.

    Go take a lap. Your schtick is old and I don’t see anyone paying attention to it. Hurling repetitive insults everywhere doesn’t add credibility. It just makes you sound pathetic and lazy, like all childish bullies - akin to 'oh yeah? you suck'. Stop shitting your pants and dropping turds everywhere you go - grow up or let the grown ups talk.
    Last edited by Lindahl; 12-01-2017 at 02:00 PM.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    4,644
    Cranky fossil.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  23. #73
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    where the rough and fluff live
    Posts
    4,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
    I could neither agree nor disagree with what you wrote because your phrasing and use of terminology was so convoluted and atrocious. The best that Thom or I (or anyone) could do was make an educated guess as to what the fuck you were talking about and try to clarify. So yeah... neither.

    Go take a lap. Your schtick is old and I don’t see anyone paying attention to it. Hurling repetitive insults everywhere doesn’t add credibility. It just makes you sound pathetic and lazy, like all childish bullies - akin to 'oh yeah? you suck'. Stop shitting your pants and dropping turds everywhere you go - grow up or let the grown ups talk.
    Schtick? I'm not a Jew.

    Piss up a rope, Ego King. You are the one playing a role: Uberstud.

    Not convincing either.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,749
    My $0.02 is that rotating toes are designed to remove a major variable in the horizontal release process, for consistent release values at the heel for TUV certification. Without the rotating toe, the interaction between the toe pins and boot sockets can vary tremendously due to different brands of boots, different amounts of pin or socket wear, debris in the sockets, BSL (leverage), etc. Some pin/socket combinations might add a considerable amount of force to the tested heel release value, and some pin/socket combinations might pop right out. The rotating toe makes all of those pin/socket/toe-spring-strength variations irrelevant.

    All the jazz about "increased elasticity" or "reduces vibration" is marketing BS, IMHO. If there is any reduction in felt vibration, it's only due to the inherent slop in the pivot mechanism, and who wants more slop in a binding.

    When Dynafit designed models with rotating toes, I wonder if they had to increase the heel spring force for a given release setting, since the toes no longer assist with resisting horizontal movement at the heel. If they did, it could explain why some users of these bindings feel like the new toe improved the performance, when they might really be feeling is a more rigid heel.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    5,868

    Kingpin charging

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    All the jazz about "increased elasticity" or "reduces vibration" is marketing BS, IMHO. If there is any reduction in felt vibration, it's only due to the inherent slop in the pivot mechanism, and who wants more slop in a binding.
    The funny thing is, is that it’s not even marketing BS! To my knowledge, Dynafit has never made these claims. Those statements appear to have been conjured up by monkeys looking at the design and saying, ‘ooo, it probably does this or that!’-confirmation bias type crap. This industry is rife with that kinda thing, just like the audiophile world (except marketing plays into it more, there).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •