Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 364
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    342
    I am impressed with g3s prompt recognition of a potential future ongoing problem as well as offering a solution moving forward. Sticking with the ions until more folks beta the zed
    Last edited by roverdoc; 12-07-2018 at 10:19 PM.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    57
    While their response is admirable, Iíd be very interested to know how they didnít catch this issue earlier in the engineering stages. Iíd also be very curious how G3 managed to put out a huge amount of media of the binding without the stomp pad pictured. Most of the pics of the binding with the leash Iíve seen on the internet do not have the stomp pad pictured. Iím not sure Iím totally buying G3ís response here in blaming it entirely on the lack of stomp pad/different boot heights.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,307
    Quote Originally Posted by flowing alpy View Post
    love how this thread has brought out the 1 post jongs
    Heh. It's a pet peeve

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    529

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    529
    Boo.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Boots are fucked up. There is no standard for where the pin sits in the toe height-wise. There is no standard for where the heelpiece sits on the heel heightwise. There is no standard for the shape of the toe-box. It's a freaking nightmare
    Yeah, but they either knew that or should have known that. Should have been factored into the design. No other tech binding has this requirement, at least not that I've ever heard of. What happens if you wear down the boot rubber on the heel too far? If there's a catastrophic failure due to "compatibility gap" is it your fault?

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,195
    Is there really 1.5mm of flex in the heel assembly? Seems like the boot sole gap needs to be less then that if the stomp pad is actually going to do anything. What other binding heels rely on a stomp pad? Seems like most heels are designed to not require it, and it's generally only added as a heavy-duty / high-performance option, such as ATK.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    606
    I did not know G3 has hired Winnie the Pooh as their lawyer, but the clarification from G3 is one of the more "eating ones cake and having it too" examples I've read in a while. Yes I am pretty critical when I read this, but I find the way the case is presented to be manipulative and an attempt to shift blame - where both might not be conscious efforts or lawyer talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by G3
    It is clear from details the user provided directly to G3 that his bindings were not installed correctly and this clearly lead to the failure...
    G3 quite effectively undermines their own presentation when they then go on to say (after pointing out that they are the good guys here...)

    Quote Originally Posted by G3
    G3 replaced the userís bindings nonetheless and we believe he is now back on his skis enjoying the snow. .... Being deeply curious about these things, we looked at this incident further and we uncovered some interesting facts....After collecting data on 32 models of alpine touring ski boots we noticed there were some big discrepancies in boot sole height when measured from the tech insert at the heel. ....
    Ok - so G3 pretty much flat out admits to not taking the actual designs of boot soles into consideration when designing the binding, but referred to an assumption that non enforced industry norms were the norm. As such, the issue here is not the lack on an industry norm (even if that is a major issue as well), but the assumption on G3's part.

    Quote Originally Posted by G3
    we also tested for a hypothetical scenario where a larger than normal skier, using non- conforming boots, creating abnormally high loads such as from unusually high jumps, landing flat on very firm conditions and in very cold temperatures. In this almost-worst case scenario...
    Say what? Are G3 meaning this seriously? They market the Zed as pretty much the equivalent of a Ion, only optimized for weight - just listen to their marketing videos and the Blister podcast - and they then go on to describe the incident in this way? Are they serious?

    The lack of knowledge of boot sole variance ultimately goes back to poor research on their part. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing this when designing a binding after being a binding manufacturer for years and years. I would be very very surprised if their "we assumed" defense would shift the blame of the design from them to the end user or boot manufacturers.

    Secondly, I read this as an attempt at a pretty giant cop out (in the light of point one) while presenting themselves as the goods guys. Not only do they go out of their way to label things as being outside of the norm, they actively use what sounds like a pretty normal scenario - big guy lands flat on a hard surface during cold temperatures - and label it as "nearly worst case scenario". Are you freaking kidding me?

    In other words, G3 takes the reader on a journey where they actively shift the blame from themselves through a faulty design, the potential lack of clear or disambiguous mounting instructions (for instance through photos online showing differently than what the mounting instructions might specify (i have not read them)), to first lack of boot sole norm, to freak user installing the binding wrong, to freak use (in spite of the use being well inside of normal and also well within the outlined use of the binding in their marketing), to wonderous solution by us the good guys, who have been made to look bad by the actions of others. I wonder if it was only the engineers and marketeers who were involved in writing that update...

    Yeah, I am reading this pretty critically, but it seems like a pretty concerted attempt to shift blame to avoid liability while maintaining and even building good will towards their brand. While I think it is good that a solution has been identified, I also thinks this press release reeks.

    Oh well. It is not like I was going to buy Zeds tomorrow, and now I def will not.

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    I did not know G3 has hired Winnie the Pooh as their lawyer, but the clarification from G3 is one of the more "eating ones cake and having it too" examples I've read in a while. Yes I am pretty critical when I read this, but I find the way the case is presented to be manipulative and an attempt to shift blame - where both might not be conscious efforts or lawyer talk.



    G3 quite effectively undermines their own presentation when they then go on to say (after pointing out that they are the good guys here...)



    Ok - so G3 pretty much flat out admits to not taking the actual designs of boot soles into consideration when designing the binding, but referred to an assumption that non enforced industry norms were the norm. As such, the issue here is not the lack on an industry norm (even if that is a major issue as well), but the assumption on G3's part.



    Say what? Are G3 meaning this seriously? They market the Zed as pretty much the equivalent of a Ion, only optimized for weight - just listen to their marketing videos and the Blister podcast - and they then go on to describe the incident in this way? Are they serious?

    The lack of knowledge of boot sole variance ultimately goes back to poor research on their part. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing this when designing a binding after being a binding manufacturer for years and years. I would be very very surprised if their "we assumed" defense would shift the blame of the design from them to the end user or boot manufacturers.

    Secondly, I read this as an attempt at a pretty giant cop out (in the light of point one) while presenting themselves as the goods guys. Not only do they go out of their way to label things as being outside of the norm, they actively use what sounds like a pretty normal scenario - big guy lands flat on a hard surface during cold temperatures - and label it as "nearly worst case scenario". Are you freaking kidding me?

    In other words, G3 takes the reader on a journey where they actively shift the blame from themselves through a faulty design, the potential lack of clear or disambiguous mounting instructions (for instance through photos online showing differently than what the mounting instructions might specify (i have not read them)), to first lack of boot sole norm, to freak user installing the binding wrong, to freak use (in spite of the use being well inside of normal and also well within the outlined use of the binding in their marketing), to wonderous solution by us the good guys, who have been made to look bad by the actions of others. I wonder if it was only the engineers and marketeers who were involved in writing that update...

    Yeah, I am reading this pretty critically, but it seems like a pretty concerted attempt to shift blame to avoid liability while maintaining and even building good will towards their brand. While I think it is good that a solution has been identified, I also thinks this press release reeks.

    Oh well. It is not like I was going to buy Zeds tomorrow, and now I def will not.
    Good analysis.

    I sure wouldn't touch the Zeds with a ten foot pole given my read of G3's response.

    IMHO it sounds to me like they could EITHER have a sturdy heel turret OR a brake assembly and still meet their lower weight requirement/goal for this binder, but not both.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by reckless toboggan View Post
    Good analysis.

    I sure wouldn't touch the Zeds with a ten foot pole given my read of G3's response.

    IMHO it sounds to me like they could EITHER have a sturdy heel turret OR a brake assembly and still meet their lower weight requirement/goal for this binder, but not both.
    Thereís also the issue of all of their marketing materials for the brakeless binding very clearly omitting the stomp pad. Based on this statement it was obviously clear from the beginning that G3 knew the pad was required but never showed it. Also interesting is their new kit to modify the stomp pad. The fact that this modification kit has come out after the fact I think really demonstrates the lack of proper engineering going into this binding.

    I suspect you might be getting to right spot here with weight targets. I strongly suspect G3 had a weight goal and did everything they could to achieve that goal even if the product was not reliable.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,984
    The reg ion with brake is 585, the Ion LT without brake is 456.

    The Zed is 345 with brake. I'm guessing that if they added 50 or a hundred grams to make the heel turret more sturdy, it would put the Zed weight too close to the Ion LT.

    I'm thinking it's pretty hard to market a brand new binding that weighs the same as the old binding, but now includes a break. Woopie. So instead they go for super light and make the compromise on the integrity/durability of the heel.

    Note: The above is all total conjecture, speculation and opinion late on a Friday night and has no basis in reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    Yeah, but two G3 engineers said even without the stomp pads it still shouldnít have exploded. Confusing.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by lucknau View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lucknau View Post
    Boo.
    Seems like such an obvious design requirement to accommodate this variation. Bad "gotcha" for the designer.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by hafjell View Post
    Yeah, but two G3 engineers said even without the stomp pads it still shouldn’t have exploded. Confusing.
    Agreed, the root cause of the problem is independent of the stomp pad. The stomp pad greatly reduces the stress on the weak link preventing the problem from causing catastrophic failure... at least they hope that is the case.. Too soon to tell. Give it 5 years for the plastics and composites to become more brittle like they tend to do and we'll know for sure. Have fun rocking these in high exposure, fall and you die terrain..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    OOTAH
    Posts
    2,479
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Agreed, the root cause of the problem is independent of the stomp pad. The stomp pad greatly reduces the stress on the weak link preventing the problem from causing catastrophic failure... at least they hope that is the case.. Too soon to tell. Give it 5 years for the plastics and composites to become more brittle like they tend to do and we'll know for sure. Have fun rocking these in high exposure, fall and you die terrain..
    Lot of fall and die terrain in the Carolinas?
    Samuel L. Jackson as Jules Winnfield: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?

  16. #241
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    529
    Yeah. They screwed up and they should admit it and own it and take the hit. Really they should have hired a disinterested third party to develop the root cause analysis. At this point they've publicly committed to a line of bullshit that rewrites the laws of physics.

    My expectation is that with the new, raised stomp plates, turret failures will not go away, but the frequency may reduce. At the same time we'll see an increased frequency of release failures due to boot soles getting hung up on stomp plates when they should be turning out of the bindings. The plates, or at least the originally issued ones, have a small contact surface, and zero vertical play, and I fully expect them to get swallowed by the soft tread of a touring boot.

    The idea that the stomp plate was a planned structural design element is absolutely absurd. It's only there as a surface for walk mode. Also I find it impossible to believe that brakes, which will touch the bottoms of thinner soled boots, will provide any real mitigating structural support. It's not like they're locked in place when retracted. They will have as much additional vertical play as the boot allows for. It's clear to me that no actual mathematical analysis was involved in that write up. If there is, I would like to see it, so I can check its validity.

    Also, there's no industry fucking standard for touring boot sole thickness. The bindings were designed for the thickest soled boots or they would be unmarketable. That's the bit that just makes me mad.

  17. #242
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Do the mounting instructions make it clear that either the brake or stomp pad is required for the structural integrity of the binding?

  18. #243
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    529

    G3 Zed Heel Turret Failure

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    Do the mounting instructions make it clear that either the brake or stomp pad is required for the structural integrity of the binding?
    The ones I downloaded yesterday do, but I'll have to check when I get home and see if my printed copy does as well.

    Edit: actually, no there's nothing regarding structural necessity. Only a statement that you MUST install either brakes or the stomp plate.

  19. #244
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,301
    i should have kept the instructions but itís not entirely clear. the stomp pads come in a bag with the leashes instead of with the hardware so i could see people thinking theyíre superfluous.

    mine are still skiing well so far with mango maestraels in the meadows but iím going to give them another look before i get on steep stuff.
    .....I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record

    http://procatinator.com/?cat=80

  20. #245
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    28,839
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    I did not know G3 has hired Winnie the Pooh as their lawyer, but the clarification from G3 is one of the more "eating ones cake and having it too" examples I've read in a while. Yes I am pretty critical when I read this, but I find the way the case is presented to be manipulative and an attempt to shift blame - where both might not be conscious efforts or lawyer talk.



    G3 quite effectively undermines their own presentation when they then go on to say (after pointing out that they are the good guys here...)



    Ok - so G3 pretty much flat out admits to not taking the actual designs of boot soles into consideration when designing the binding, but referred to an assumption that non enforced industry norms were the norm. As such, the issue here is not the lack on an industry norm (even if that is a major issue as well), but the assumption on G3's part.



    Say what? Are G3 meaning this seriously? They market the Zed as pretty much the equivalent of a Ion, only optimized for weight - just listen to their marketing videos and the Blister podcast - and they then go on to describe the incident in this way? Are they serious?

    The lack of knowledge of boot sole variance ultimately goes back to poor research on their part. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing this when designing a binding after being a binding manufacturer for years and years. I would be very very surprised if their "we assumed" defense would shift the blame of the design from them to the end user or boot manufacturers.

    Secondly, I read this as an attempt at a pretty giant cop out (in the light of point one) while presenting themselves as the goods guys. Not only do they go out of their way to label things as being outside of the norm, they actively use what sounds like a pretty normal scenario - big guy lands flat on a hard surface during cold temperatures - and label it as "nearly worst case scenario". Are you freaking kidding me?

    In other words, G3 takes the reader on a journey where they actively shift the blame from themselves through a faulty design, the potential lack of clear or disambiguous mounting instructions (for instance through photos online showing differently than what the mounting instructions might specify (i have not read them)), to first lack of boot sole norm, to freak user installing the binding wrong, to freak use (in spite of the use being well inside of normal and also well within the outlined use of the binding in their marketing), to wonderous solution by us the good guys, who have been made to look bad by the actions of others. I wonder if it was only the engineers and marketeers who were involved in writing that update...

    Yeah, I am reading this pretty critically, but it seems like a pretty concerted attempt to shift blame to avoid liability while maintaining and even building good will towards their brand. While I think it is good that a solution has been identified, I also thinks this press release reeks.

    Oh well. It is not like I was going to buy Zeds tomorrow, and now I def will not.
    enjoyed how you were able to use *shift blame* 3 different times, real time appropriate reference in recent binding tech discussions.
    .

  21. #246
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    2,572
    Quote Originally Posted by lucknau View Post
    Yeah. They screwed up and they should admit it and own it and take the hit. Really they should have hired a disinterested third party to develop the root cause analysis. At this point they've publicly committed to a line of bullshit that rewrites the laws of physics.

    My expectation is that with the new, raised stomp plates, turret failures will not go away, but the frequency may reduce. At the same time we'll see an increased frequency of release failures due to boot soles getting hung up on stomp plates when they should be turning out of the bindings. The plates, or at least the originally issued ones, have a small contact surface, and zero vertical play, and I fully expect them to get swallowed by the soft tread of a touring boot.

    The idea that the stomp plate was a planned structural design element is absolutely absurd. It's only there as a surface for walk mode. Also I find it impossible to believe that brakes, which will touch the bottoms of thinner soled boots, will provide any real mitigating structural support. It's not like they're locked in place when retracted. They will have as much additional vertical play as the boot allows for. It's clear to me that no actual mathematical analysis was involved in that write up. If there is, I would like to see it, so I can check its validity.

    Also, there's no industry fucking standard for touring boot sole thickness. The bindings were designed for the thickest soled boots or they would be unmarketable. That's the bit that just makes me mad.
    Correct

    Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app

  22. #247
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    whistler
    Posts
    975
    Seems to me the likely reality is that g3 are in damage limitation mode. Aggressively get the word out to use a stomp pad which reduces but does not eliminate the problem. Rabidly attempt (but probably ultimately fail) to remove any and all marketing copy that contains original images without stomp pad.

    It's also likely that they will develop a fix for this issue. Interested parties should watch for slight weight changes for next year, if not late this season. This doesn't seem like the kind of thing you just leave alone.

  23. #248
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by hafjell View Post
    Yeah, but two G3 engineers said even without the stomp pads it still shouldnít have exploded. Confusing.
    I get the strong sense from their statement that those engineers were not supposed to say that.

  24. #249
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by teleee View Post
    Lot of fall and die terrain in the Carolinas?
    Plenty, but not enough snow to ski it most of the time. Highest lift served elevation east of the Mississippi. But we have to travel west or north for harder lift served or hike to with snow terrain. I wouldn't ski that binding down the magic carpet run without having another pair of skis handy.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  25. #250
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,020
    Pins at the front & rear of the binding suspend the boot and thats how the design has worked for 20 yrs so I don't buy G3's take that anything is needed to support the boot heel especialy when the 200lb OP broke both heelpieces going mach nothing for 1 run

    my first take is that plastic should not be used for a binding post and then I go back and look at the picts to note that it appears to be the heel piece that cracked NOT the post and BTW Dynafit are also using plastic for the binding post ... fucknose eh

    so then what happened? It would appear to be either material or a design failure of the rotating part of the heelpiece to me, so all we can do is wait and see if there are any more cracked heel-pieces
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

Posting Permissions

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