Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 20 21 22 23 24 25
Results 601 to 621 of 621
  1. #601
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by teamdirt View Post
    Review- BD Helio 180

    Solid few days smashing pillows, surfing turns and popping drops. Solid feel! No issues, I did install custom freeride spacer.
    What did you end up doing to get the freeride spacer to fit?



    Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app

  2. #602
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    give'er eh!
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by fleaches View Post
    What did you end up doing to get the freeride spacer to fit?



    Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app
    I ended up taking an old look p18 riser plate, cutting it width wise and grinding it down to the right height. I will post pics later. Worked great!

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    8
    Re ssl 2.0: I have now seen four instances of the ssl U spring shearing at the notch that holds the heel riser pin and u spring in place. The first place I saw this was at the bottom of a steep couloir in Cham, suddenly my heel was free... I wouldnít have liked my odds of survival had it happened ~1000í above. Since I have seen 3 more instances of this. Iím not a big guy- 160lbs. Skiing zerog 95s and alien rs when it happened. No more Dynafit bindings for me. Ski trab on the lightest skis and salmon mtn on everything else. Fully convinced that the MTN is the end of the conversation for a 300g touring binding right now.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    No longer somewhere in Idaho
    Posts
    1,105
    I really like them too but the lifters getting floppy loose after one season has me trying atk


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Gravity always wins...

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tahoe-ish
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by m04e1d View Post
    Fully convinced that the MTN is the end of the conversation for a 300g touring binding right now.
    I said this too after getting MTNs a couple of seasons ago. Then I tried ATK and, well, let's just say my new Movement Alp Tracks are going to get ATK.
    ride bikes, climb, ski, travel, cook, work to fund former, repeat.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,430
    Even as a gear head, i'm little baffled by the ATK line. Need to jump back in the ATK thread. Or not - maybe that is the problem heh
    single? always know what to say with Keys
    www.thekeysapp.com

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    3,124
    Quote Originally Posted by climberevan View Post
    I said this too after getting MTNs a couple of seasons ago. Then I tried ATK and, well, let's just say my new Movement Alp Tracks are going to get ATK.
    Why do you like them better?

    Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Even as a gear head, i'm little baffled by the ATK line.......
    So am I, and I'm an ATK dealer.

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    8
    Man... the R12/FR14 sure is a beauty. I have been steering some friends who can afford it that way. What is the next step lighter in the atk lineup from the R12? Iím having trouble understanding where the crest, haute route, etc fit in and what you gain/lose with those. It seems like a haute route/helio 200 style binding with 2x magnetic risers like the R12 would be pretty damn sweet

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by m04e1d View Post
    Man... the R12/FR14 sure is a beauty. I have been steering some friends who can afford it that way. What is the next step lighter in the atk lineup from the R12? Iím having trouble understanding where the crest, haute route, etc fit in and what you gain/lose with those. It seems like a haute route/helio 200 style binding with 2x magnetic risers like the R12 would be pretty damn sweet
    From the R12 itís the RT10 or Crest 10. Crest is a touch cheaper and heavier. Difference is less machining to cut weight. But itís pretty minimal basically same binding.

    Haute route gives up heel elasticity but is again lighter. Note you have to account for full weight if you want the heel adjustment plate etc. think they come in at 220 or so no brakes.

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,960
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliBrit View Post
    From the R12 itís the RT10 or Crest 10. Crest is a touch cheaper and heavier. Difference is less machining to cut weight. But itís pretty minimal basically same binding.

    Haute route gives up heel elasticity but is again lighter. Note you have to account for full weight if you want the heel adjustment plate etc. think they come in at 220 or so no brakes.
    ... and, in the middle of the active ATK thread, @Spyderjon has a download link to the 20/21 catalog which will help folks visualize the differences. @Spyderjon rocks (a man after my own heart)!

    It's real hard to tell the difference between the Crest 10 toe and the toe on my RT10s from the photos.

    My RT10 toe has the "Uphill Hardness Variator" (crazy name, eh?) which the Crest toe does not. The UHV is a simple, 5 or 6 sided cam/stop you spin with a screwdriver to change the clamping force on the toe (touring mode only). It's intended to accommodate toe socket/fitting wear on your boots. The UHV is a set and forget thing (very simple - not failure prone ... famous last words).

    I also guess that the RT10 toe has a bit more aluminum milled off, 'coz the binding is spec'd at 260g - 20g lighter than the Crest 10 ... 20g that I wouldn't worry about.

    ATK should just pick one of those models for sale and forget about the other. Too much consumer confusion.

    Edit: I put the link to @Spyderjon's catalog download in the first post in the ATK thread (lots of other links there as well). Here's the download link: https://www.thepisteoffice.com/image...%20web%202.pdf

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 11-20-2020 at 07:45 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,709
    Don't know why you wouldn't step all the way down to a 100-150gram binding.

    I ski heel pieces from a Plum Race/Kreuzspitze SCTT/etc, installed on a Kreuzspitze heel plate so the mount pattern matches a dynafit jig, and I have adjustment range. For toes I run Dynafit Ultralights or whatever I can get my hands on cheap (radical, speed turn, etc.).

    My bindings end up sub 200grams, and I like them better than any other tech binding options, for touring and skiing. All metal construction, simple, light, no slop.

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    8
    I certainly enjoy 100-150g bindings when I am on light skis and skiing my alien rs, but with my ZGPTís and bigger skis, having heel riser options and a slightly more solid feeling mount (wider mount pattern mostly) the extra 100g or so feels worthwhile

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,748
    Iím typically a ďlight is rightĒ kind of guy but Iíve been getting over that recently, and seeing all the rave reviews of the Alpinist has me interested despite my concerns over it being a marker product.

    Iíve got a pair of Backland 107 coming and I was going to put a pair of tectons on them, but saving 10oz/foot is tempting if Iím not giving up much ski performance. This is purely for BC use, well I regret going Alpinist instead of Tecton here?

  15. #615
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by bean View Post
    I’ve got a pair of Backland 107 coming and I was going to put a pair of tectons on them, but saving 10oz/foot is tempting if I’m not giving up much ski performance. This is purely for BC use, well I regret going Alpinist instead of Tecton here?
    I have never used Alpinists (but have a bit of time on MTNs and R12 2.0s, quite comparable bindings), but there is going to be a significant difference in skiing performance when you compare any 300-400gr tech binding and the Tecton, the latter being a binding with horizontal elasticity/release in the front and vertical elasticity/non rotating heel in the rear. The Tectons should be a lot smoother in more difficult snow and have better power transfer.

    Yet using the skis exclusively in soft snow applications will decrease how noticeable the difference is. The Alpinist will also be significantly lighter on the up and still pack a decent punch on the down. Backland 107s are quite light for their width/size - so for max versatility across most conditions Tectons could be a good choice, while for max focus on long days and ascents Alpinists makes a lot of sense.

    One could also argue that Tectons are a bit too "much" for B107s (Tectons perhaps makes more sense on a heavier ski) and that an Alpinist style binding compliments B107s better, so perhaps optimizing the skis for touring makes the most sense. A compromise could be Vipecs w/ or w/o brakes, to get the smoother toe while saving a bit of weight compared to Tectons.

    So a long winded way of saying that Alpinists could be the ticket I've chosen Vipecs for that part of my quiver (BMT109s), but then again I am no fan of the harsh feel of traditional tech toes.

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,748
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    I have never used Alpinists (but have a bit of time on MTNs and R12 2.0s, quite comparable bindings), but there is going to be a significant difference in skiing performance when you compare any 300-400gr tech binding and the Tecton, the latter being a binding with horizontal elasticity/release in the front and vertical elasticity/non rotating heel in the rear. The Tectons should be a lot smoother in more difficult snow and have better power transfer.

    Yet using the skis exclusively in soft snow applications will decrease how noticeable the difference is. The Alpinist will also be significantly lighter on the up and still pack a decent punch on the down. Backland 107s are quite light for their width/size - so for max versatility across most conditions Tectons could be a good choice, while for max focus on long days and ascents Alpinists makes a lot of sense.

    One could also argue that Tectons are a bit too "much" for B107s (Tectons perhaps makes more sense on a heavier ski) and that an Alpinist style binding compliments B107s better, so perhaps optimizing the skis for touring makes the most sense. A compromise could be Vipecs w/ or w/o brakes, to get the smoother toe while saving a bit of weight compared to Tectons.

    So a long winded way of saying that Alpinists could be the ticket I've chosen Vipecs for that part of my quiver (BMT109s), but then again I am no fan of the harsh feel of traditional tech toes.
    I'm very familiar with pin bindings (I've owned/skied Verticals, Radicals, SSLs, Vipecs, and Xenics), I asked about the Alpinist because it gets rave reviews along the lines of "I charged on these inbounds and it was great," not just 'great for a pin binding.' I'm skeptical, but really would like to hear from someone who can compare both.
    "High risers are for people with fused ankles, jongs and dudes who are too fat to see their dick or touch their toes.
    Prove me wrong."
    -I've seen black diamonds!

    throughpolarizedeyes.com

  17. #617
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,960
    Quote Originally Posted by bean View Post
    I'm very familiar with pin bindings (I've owned/skied Verticals, Radicals, SSLs, Vipecs, and Xenics), I asked about the Alpinist because it gets rave reviews along the lines of "I charged on these inbounds and it was great," not just 'great for a pin binding.' I'm skeptical, but really would like to hear from someone who can compare both.
    My take ... your skepticism is well-founded. Those comments are no doubt due to confirmation bias, but you probably knew that. I've heard that they ski pretty well, but to expect them to do more than a solid pin binding like a Solly MTN, ATKs, Dyna SSLs is a fool's errand, imo.

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

  18. #618
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    My take ... your skepticism is well-founded. Those comments are no doubt due to confirmation bias, but you probably knew that. I've heard that they ski pretty well, but to expect them to do more than a solid pin binding like a Solly MTN, ATKs, Dyna SSLs is a fool's errand, imo.

    ... Thom
    Yep. I've skied Alpinists a bit, and they're a pretty good pin binding. They're still a pin binding.

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by bean View Post
    I'm very familiar with pin bindings (I've owned/skied Verticals, Radicals, SSLs, Vipecs, and Xenics), I asked about the Alpinist because it gets rave reviews along the lines of "I charged on these inbounds and it was great," not just 'great for a pin binding.' I'm skeptical, but really would like to hear from someone who can compare both.
    There is simply no way a non elastic tech binding - be it Alpinist, ATKs, MTNs, whatever - is going to be comparable to a Tecton on the down, let alone an alpine binding, resort or backcountry.

    The reason I mentioned the MTNs and R12 2.0s is that Blister - in their light weight binding shootout - mentioned that the only way to really notice the minute differences between the bindings on test (including MTNs, R12 2.0s and Alpinists) was to ski them back to back on the same ski in identical terrain. That kinda sums it up nicely imho. I will venture that you are never going to get another answer to that question than "they ski well for what they are", again without having tried Alpinists (then again there is absolutely nothing in their design to suggest otherwise).

    Anyway, I'll stop trying to answer how a product I have not skied on functions right about now. Best of luck with your choice - should be awesome regardless

  20. #620
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,748
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    The reason I mentioned the MTNs and R12 2.0s is that Blister - in their light weight binding shootout - mentioned that the only way to really notice the minute differences between the bindings on test (including MTNs, R12 2.0s and Alpinists) was to ski them back to back on the same ski in identical terrain.
    I forgot about that part. Thanks for confirming my skepticism, I think I'll stick with Tectons for this one (especially since I already have them) and keep the lighter bindings for lighter applications.
    "High risers are for people with fused ankles, jongs and dudes who are too fat to see their dick or touch their toes.
    Prove me wrong."
    -I've seen black diamonds!

    throughpolarizedeyes.com

  21. #621
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    12,141
    I've skied Tectons and Alpinist. Whoever says the Alpinist and Tecton are comparable in ski quality is on some good crack

Posting Permissions

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