Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 364
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,059
    A few points:

    1) Gap between boot heel and stomp pad isn't closed because of play in the binding, but flex in the ski.

    2) Stomp pad may provide some sort of structural structural support for heel tower without the boot ever hitting the stomp pad. This obviously doesn't mean the way these bindings broke is acceptable.

    3) Don't buy 1st year tech bindings.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,433
    Quote Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds! View Post
    3) Don't buy 1st year tech bindings.
    So, so many things boil down to this

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,139
    Doesn't the stomp pad gap increase when the ski flexes deeply?

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,981
    I have nothing to contribute to this thread except to shout out a big thank you to those who buy and break 1st year tech bindings so I don't need to do so

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    4,433
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    I have nothing to contribute to this thread except to shout out a big thank you to those who buy and break 1st year tech bindings so I don't need to do so
    lol yeah

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    599
    1) could be. Unless my understanding of how a ski flexes is way off, a ski flexing like a U due to a compression would most often then mean that the stomp pad flexes away no - especially if the floating design makes the rear slide back? With compressions being also what would cause the binding to potentially flex down, how does the pad then prevent the 5mm of downward flex? What am i not getting here?

    2) could be - i have no idea.

    3) hehe.

    and yes, i do realize the points were made in general and not necessarily at me

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    1) could be. Unless my understanding of how a ski flexes is way off, a ski flexing like a U due to a compression would most often then mean that the stomp pad flexes away no - especially if the floating design makes the rear slide back? With compressions being also what would cause the binding to potentially flex down, how does the pad then prevent the 5mm of downward flex? What am i not getting here?
    Unless you're stomping a landing on a hard snow or thin cover surface, then the boot will smash down on the ski..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,981
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    Unless my understanding of how a ski flexes is way off, a ski flexing like a U due to a compression would most often then mean that the stomp pad flexes away
    IME, overflexing a ski causes the stomp pad to compress into the boot heel. The apex of the arc is at or near the ball of foot.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    17,844
    "" Lost Secrets of ZED (the G3 Ski Touring Binding)

    While touring with “heel flat on ski” the binding tab supports your boot heel rather than the pad. In alpine mode, the pad is ~5 millimeters below your boot heel and presumably supports it when you do something forcefull that causes the binding heel to bend and deflect. During normal skiing, with most tech bindings you want your boot suspended between toe and heel, touching nowhere else. I’m finding it hard to imagine the binding deflecting enough to drop the boot heel 5 mm, but stranger things have happened in Canada. (smile)

    Uphill touring mode, heel flat on ski. Binding is properly adjusted for boot length, with the “kiss gap” between heel and binding (you adjust so it lightly touches, while on bench).

    Note: If your ski is flexed, for example, while standing in powder, the kiss gap may result in your boot heel hitting the binding as you attempt to stomp-click into downhill mode. This syndrome is detailed here. Factors such as your boot model, weight, and ski flex influence this. But most importantly, it’s good to have a small ramp at the top of the binding heel to lead your boot down when you stomp for click-in. Zed (proper case intentional) lacks this. Whether that will be a problem for Zed (proper case intentional), consumer testing will tell the tale.
    Ski flex compensation system.

    ZED’s Ski flex compensation system and boot length adjustment is typical of this binding genre, G3’s appears well designed, allows a centimeter of movement. ""




    All shit breaks, so its not that shit broke its how a company deals with it so G3 did a great job of damage control and forget all that (other) shit about AI a friend of G3 lurking here tipped them off

    I am not that plastic adverse obviously G3 has tested a binding which uses a plastic heel tower, the RAD 2 also uses a plastic heel tower, in any case a defective metal heel tower can also break and so far we are talking about a sample size of one

    SO ... wait and see
    Last edited by XXX-er; 11-22-2018 at 12:12 PM.
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Unless you're stomping a landing on a hard snow or thin cover surface, then the boot will smash down on the ski..
    That is true, but in that scenario - were the ski is flat - the boot seeks the ski, not the other way around. Also, the camber will then be what little suspension there is, meaning the ski will flatten out, not bend towards the boot. Aka the 5mm flex will need to come from somewhere, that somewhere not being the ski.

    Landing controlled on your feet in such a scenario where the original shape of the ski is preserved should be well inside the design parameters of the binding, and is a bit different than the types of scenarios I am putting forth imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    IME, overflexing a ski causes the stomp pad to compress into the boot heel. The apex of the arc is at or near the ball of foot.
    In the case of a turn, the ski is bent into an arc/arch, meaning the bottom of the arc/arch will be further away from boot than the distance between the boot and the ski in the original shape of the ski. Again, the flex cannot come from the ski. (condition: perfect arc, which is not the case as skis being often significantly stiffer underfoot than elsewhere will not flex at an equal rate)

    In the reverse case, where the center of the ski flexes upward, yeah, sure, the center of the ski will move towards boot. But in those cases hitting the stomp pad should be the least of your worries as your tips are probably on their way deep, deep underneath the snow. In those scenarios the binding is meant to release above din anyway, a scenario which should also be way, way inside the design parameters of the boot.

    what am I not getting here? (honest question)

    That the stomp pad main function is for touring was a good clarification XXX, if I understood you correctly when talking about the Zed (see, I can do it too ).

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Doesn't the stomp pad gap increase when the ski flexes deeply?
    This was my understanding as well. I don't understand how the boot comes to take up the gap between the boot heel and stomp pad through normal ski flex because in a turn particularly on hard snow most of the flex comes as a result of side-cut causing the ski to arc up at the tips and tails. I think the only way you could ever have the slack taken out would be by putting significant force on the boots in the bindings with a solid surface directly below the binding.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Pass Rat View Post
    This was my understanding as well. I don't understand how the boot comes to take up the gap between the boot heel and stomp pad through normal ski flex because in a turn particularly on hard snow most of the flex comes as a result of side-cut causing the ski to arc up at the tips and tails. I think the only way you could ever have the slack taken out would be by putting significant force on the boots in the bindings with a solid surface directly below the binding.
    That does sound like what has happened here. A small jump over a water bar, landing squarely on the skis with a firm surface below. I'm hoping we get to hear what G3 thinks is the fault once they have the damaged bindings in house.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,182
    well, looks like I was wrong about the pad.

    - firstyearbinderhero
    .....I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record

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

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,263
    Doesn’t the stomp pad (or brakes) just act to dampen / lessen the downward force on the boot that would otherwise separate the pins and continue up the metal channel where it expands and would cause the pins to normally exit the boot?

    Maybe it also acts to dampen / lessen the ski flex?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,139
    Only upward movement of the boot heel insert spreads the pins apart, pins are trapped in place during downward force.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,981
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    what am I not getting here? (honest question)
    Have you toured in traditional design tech bindings? In flat tour mode, scraping the boot heel on the rear binding (i.e., closing the gap) when the ski decambers is a very common issue, especially with soft underfoot skis with Dynafit TLT, Comfort, Classic, Turn, Rad Speed, etc. It's happened to me thousands of times. No, I'm not exaggerating.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,139
    It's true the heel moves slightly closer to the toe when the ski is deeply flexed (into a U), but the ski between the bindings moves away from the boot at the same time.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,109
    ^unless i’m missing something i don’t think it works like that, if the heel moves closer to the toe on a radius that point would also be moving closer to the “floating” boot sole, otherwise the stomp pad wouldn’t be serving a purpose. think about it as though you have the circumference of a circle laid out flat, you have a heel and toe point offset from center. as soon as the flat line is bent into a radius the heel and toe points move up and closer together

    unless of a course a treadmill is involved

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    Have you toured in traditional design tech bindings? In flat tour mode, scraping the boot heel on the rear binding (i.e., closing the gap) when the ski decambers is a very common issue, especially with soft underfoot skis with Dynafit TLT, Comfort, Classic, Turn, Rad Speed, etc.
    no, I went straight to Vipecs when i made switch, and stay away from Dyna/(light weight) tech binders.

    That being said, are you saying that the ski decambers to flat the binding moves forward? I can understand how a ski the flexes past flat can cause the top of the binding to angle in making the distance shorter, but why would that occur when flat or as the chamber is pressed out? (honest question, not being willfully obtuse here)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    It's true the heel moves slightly closer to the toe when the ski is deeply flexed (into a U), but the ski between the bindings moves away from the boot at the same time.
    Quote Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
    as soon as the flat line is bent into a radius the heel and toe points move up and closer together
    yes, and with a floating design that would move the heel move further back, at an increasing angle (with a non-floating design, it could cause accidental release). Provided the stomp pad goes back with the rest of the heel, there should be a minuscule increase in any vertical gap (or larger increase if not), but surely most touring skis don't flex that much underfoot, making that scenario more of an theoretical than actual an eventuality?

    I still don't see how the distance between the stomp pad and the boot can be made less for most practical applications without there being flex in the binding itself (unless the ski flexes upward underfoot, say if you hit something or your tips submarine)

    I guess it would be useful if somebody from for instance G3 could tell me why I am wrong, and that the stomp pad is not just a fail safe to prevent the binding from flexing past its point of no return.

    thanks for all the replies thus far! I am learning more by the minute

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    yes, and with a floating design that would move the heel move further back, at an increasing angle (with a non-floating design, it could cause accidental release). Provided the stomp pad goes back with the rest of the heel, there should be a minuscule increase in any vertical gap (or larger increase if not), but surely most touring skis don't flex that much underfoot, making that scenario more of an theoretical than actual an eventuality?

    I still don't see how the distance between the stomp pad and the boot can be made less for most practical applications without there being flex in the binding itself (unless the ski flexes upward underfoot, say if you hit something or your tips submarine)

    I guess it would be useful if somebody from for instance G3 could tell me why I am wrong, and that the stomp pad is not just a fail safe to prevent the binding from flexing past its point of no return.

    thanks for all the replies thus far! I am learning more by the minute
    without having personally fondled the binding I would think any rearward movement of the heel piece is to maintain a constant contact pressure with the boot. technically speaking, the heel piece is never moving backwards, your toe is locked in, meaning your heel is stationary, the ski is really moving forward under the heel piece when bent into a radius. if the heel was completely fixed more pressure would built up on the boot, and in an extreme case this would continue until something breaks. the stomp pad seems to be a key component because at a point it eliminates downward (or upward depending on how you look at it) movement and would force the heel piece to move along its track to dissipate the forces. like I said, I don't know jack shit about this binding or even if it is intended to have a heel piece that slides, that is just how I logically see it working and from the G3 video on youtubes there does seem to be a spring in the heel piece for that purpose

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 5.54.58 PM.jpg 
Views:	90 
Size:	251.0 KB 
ID:	256864

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,059
    When the ski flexes the angle at which the pins enter the heel changes. Under boot center the gap increases. Right by the back of the heel the gap gets smaller as the binding heel piece rotates upwards with respect to the boot sole.

    Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,139
    ^ Correct, and for that to happen the so-called "stomp pad" simultaneously rotates away from the boot sole.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,059
    I think the front of the stomp pad gets further and the back closer.

    Sent from my Pixel using TGR Forums mobile app

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by east or bust View Post
    maintain a constant contact pressure with the boot. technically speaking, the heel piece is never moving backwards, your toe is locked in, meaning your heel is stationary, the ski is really moving forward under the heel piece when bent into a radius. if the heel was completely fixed more pressure would built up on the boot, and in an extreme case this would continue until something breaks. the stomp pad seems to be a key component because at a point it eliminates downward (or upward depending on how you look at it) movement and would force the heel piece to move along its track to dissipate the forces.
    yeah, we are all referring to the same mechanisms here, just vocalizing it differently. It is all a bit relative - meaning does the binding move relative to the ski or the other way around (the binding does slide back on the ski, while the ski also flexes forward if you want to look at binding position as the constant), either is correct as long as you know which is the point of reference, the sole length being the overarching constant. Sorry if my statements above were not precise.

    anyway, I did not mean for this to turn into "TGR explaining kid-kapow how a binding maintains constant pressure", I am more not seeing how the presence of the stomp pad does anything more than limit, but not eliminate rear binding flex/play. Looking at the photo above there should be very limited play in that design, but perhaps the pins have a bit of play built into the design - i dunno.

    The most likely culprit is me not understanding or factoring in something, but alas, G3 has been mum in this thread after their initial show of interest/crisis handling mode. Understanding that the absence of the stomp pad made the breakage possible is not the same as explaining away vertical flex, flex that over the long run could potentially cause or increase the likelihood of material fatigue.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tahoe-ish
    Posts
    722
    This is a good discussion, but let's remember that the last few days have not been work days. This whole issue is not exactly a "work on Thanksgiving" level emergency...G3 might chime in when they get back to their desks.

    I was stoked to learn about the new binding, and am even more stoked to learn what the cause of failure was for this one. In the meantime, I'm going to stick with designs that aren't in their first year, as discussed above. I do like the Ions that I have on my fat skis, though.

    Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk
    ride bikes, climb, ski, travel, cook, work to fund former, repeat.

Posting Permissions

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