G3 Zed Heel Turret Failure

[pembyguy]

My bud just broke both heel pieces on his shifts skiing slow into man made slush/glue. Gleaming!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ex-powderbroker]

Pics?

[tuco]

My bud just broke both heel pieces on his shifts skiing slow into man made slush/glue. Gleaming!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Post this and pics in shift thread

[LeeLau]

Post this and pics in shift thread

Yah let's get pitchforks!

[tuco]

Yah let's get pitchforks!

I was thinking tar 'n' feather

[pembyguy]

Just got his permission. Having dramas uploading the pic...done


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[LeeLau]

Thanks Pembyguy

[EarlyWood]

My bud just broke both heel pieces on his shifts skiing slow into man made slush/glue. Gleaming!!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I'm not following gleaming

[lucknau]

I'm not following gleaming

Sarcasmcopter.

[pembyguy]

Sarcasmcopter.

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[andrewpringle]

https://www.genuineguidegear.com/lif...rvice-bulletin

We recently learned about a ZED user who experienced a product failure. Everyone at G3 takes any product failure very seriously and we were as surprised as everyone about the incident. 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. Neither a ski brake nor the stomp pad had been installed at the time of breakage. Without either of these two required components, the loads generated may not be supported adequately. G3 replaced the user’s bindings nonetheless and we believe he is now back on his skis enjoying the snow. We have not heard of any other instances of this sort of failure.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. We were unaware there are many alpine touring ski boots in the market that do not conform to the recognized industrial norm for positioning tech inserts in their boots.


Further, we did testing in the lab and found that there should be no binding durability issues with AT boots when the ZED binding is used with the ZED ski brake, despite many boots being out of the ski boot norm. The issue being that if a ski boot sole is too “thin”, it may not be adequately supported by the binding to withstand a significant downward force that may occur. Our lab tests show there should be ideally a maximum 1.5 mm gap between the ski boot sole and ski brake or stomp pad when unweighted.


When we reviewed and tested the ZED binding configured with a stomp pad we did uncover a potential issue if the binding is used in conjunction with ski boots falling outside of the acceptable ski boot dimensions of the industry norm. Given these non-conforming boots are in the market, 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, the user may generate enough force to damage the binding.


To address the potential scenario where non-conforming boots are used with the ZED binding, G3 has developed two additional stomp pad height options which will be available on December 19, 2018. The optional stomp pads will be 1.5 mm and 3.0 mm higher than the standard ZED stomp pad that has shipped with all currently available ZED bindings. These additional items should address any outstanding sizing needs at this time.


The current stomp pad, included with all ZED bindings, will be the correct solution for most boots that fall within the industry norm. But if you have more than 1.5mm of distance between the stomp pad and the heel of your boot (unweighted while on the ski bench) the stomp pads with additional heights of 1.5mm or 3mm are recommended. To determine which stomp pad should be installed there will be a ‘no go’ gauge, included with the stomp pad kit, to easily determine which of the three stomp pads should be used. Simply put, the gauge is a 1.5 mm thick piece of plastic (think popsicle stick) that either slides easily under the heel of the boot or doesn’t. If it doesn’t, you’re good to go. If it does, try the next higher stomp pad until the gauge no longer easily slides under the boot. It’s quite straightforward to check and install the correct stomp pad on the ZED.


With the correct installation of either ZED brakes or stomp pads, the ZED binding can be skied in very demanding conditions and scenarios.


Let us repeat for clarity:


If you have purchased ZED bindings and ski the binding with brakes you need not consider any changes.The ski brake works with current tech compatible boots.
If you plan to ski the ZED binding with stomp pads, we recommend you check the gap between your boot sole and the stomp pad and install the correct stomp pad height.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact your retailer, G3 directly at service@genuineguidegear.com or review materials at www.genuineguidegear.com.


Anyone requiring additional stomp pad options will be sent a ZED stomp pad kit, instructions and the installation gauge at no charge.We appreciate the ski touring community and the engagement on this and other topics. If you have additional questions please reach out to us by email.

[Wapow]

Just when you though pintech could not more fiddly! Measure your heel before each use.

[PowderWindWaves]

Ha ha...but that's not what it says.

[Meadow Skipper]

So, the stomp pad?

For the record:
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...74#post5504074

[LeeLau]

Just when you though pintech could not more fiddly! Measure your heel before each use.

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

[reckless toboggan]

love how this thread has brought out the 1 post jongs

I lol'd.

[roverdoc]

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

[Pass Rat]

While their response is admirable, I’d be very interested to know how they didn’t catch this issue earlier in the engineering stages. I’d 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 I’ve seen on the internet do not have the stomp pad pictured. I’m not sure I’m totally buying G3’s response here in blaming it entirely on the lack of stomp pad/different boot heights.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[LeeLau]

love how this thread has brought out the 1 post jongs

Heh. It's a pet peeve

[lucknau]

[lucknau]

Boo.

[Wapow]

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?

[1000-oaks]

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.

[kid-kapow]

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.

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...)

G3 replaced the user’s 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.

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.

[reckless toboggan]

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.