Fritschi Xenic - 280g claimed weight tech binding

[SupreChicken]

Wonder if the brakes will be the stated width or somewhere random between 80 and 150 mm wide.

Edit: looks like a new crampon attachment mechanism at the toe - looks specifically like it works with dynafits, rather than current Tecton/vipecs.

NBD either way, but I’d love not to have to spend $100 on another accessory.

[NorCalNomad]

So real question. Does it really matter to have different vertical vs horizontal release values at the heel?

[XXX-er]

With Dynafit Verts and rads I dial in 1 DIN extra on the vertical setting, it keeps me from stepping out in bumps and G-outs

with frame bindings I also go for 1 DIN extra on the heels if I am using Vibram AT boots, my theory is the soles compress and release energy which causes step outs, frame bindings used with plastic alpine boots I don't step out so I can set front and rear the same

I sometimes ski Tech bindings at the hill when there is a good dump SO ime YES it is very important !

i guess I could go slower to not pre-release but what fun is that ??

I don't need anymore touring bindings but it makes me more interested in the XENIC than any of the newest bindings that don't have it

[summit]

So real question. Does it really matter to have different vertical vs horizontal release values at the heel?

Hell yes! It mattered when I was riding Verticals and Comforts. It matters for my ATKs. It matters in Alpine bindings. And it matters in Vipecs/Tectons.

I don't like the Zed and I'm leery as hell of U springs.

[margotron]

When release? I am waiting for spring sale on MTNs

[auvgeek]

Hell yes! It mattered when I was riding Verticals and Comforts. It matters for my ATKs. It matters in Alpine bindings. And it matters in Vipecs/Tectons.

Most people run the values the same, so I would argue that if you have to ask the question, it doesn't really matter.

I'm leery as hell of U springs.

Why?

[XXX-er]

besides not allowing independant vertical and horizontal realease vales U springs ^^ are what 3 set values so you can't adjust them which I assume means I have to ski to them ?

IMO a ski binding is suposed to be a safety item, take a somewhat sketchy design safety wise ( any Tech binding ) compared to alpine bindings, make them lighter by removing features is nothing ground breaking but a 300G binding that does it without compromise is ground breaking

[summit]

Most people run the values the same, so I would argue that if you have to ask the question, it doesn't really matter.

Fair enough, even if they probably shouldn't...

Why?

Say you can set your binding to 12 or 9 or 6... no problem? Unless you match up just right with the retention characteristics of that binding combined with its defined U spring values, you are either running risk of overretention or prerelease. As xxx-er says, you have to ski to that sketchiness. Screw up and it might be surgery time. People do it to save some $ while saving some grams and because they don't know better.

[auvgeek]

besides not allowing independant vertical and horizontal realease vales U springs ^^ are what 3 set values so you can't adjust them which I assume means I have to ski to them ?

I can't understand what you're trying to say here.

IMO a ski binding is suposed to be a safety item, take a somewhat sketchy design safety wise ( any Tech binding ) compared to alpine bindings, make them lighter by removing features is nothing ground breaking but a 300G binding that does it without compromise is ground breaking

What makes you think any tech binding is less safe than a standard alpine binding? Toe release vs heel release has their trade offs, but I don't think it's fair to say one is inherently less safe, especially now that we now have tech bindings with toe release (Vipec/Tecton). But frankly, I don't disagree -- a 300g binding that skis with the power transfer and safety characteristics of an alpine binding while touring like a standard pin binding would be near end game.

[summit]

I can't understand what you're trying to say here.

Many U spring bindings model (usually the lightest ones) have a fixed RV for twist and then forward lean is determined coarsely by the U spring. Most have variable adjust for twist and only granular adjustment for forward lean (U spring).

What makes you think any tech binding is less safe than a standard alpine binding? Toe release vs heel release has their trade offs, but I don't think it's fair to say one is inherently less safe, especially now that we now have tech bindings with toe release (Vipec/Tecton).

Seriously? Two models out of several dozen tech bindings have toe release and you are questioning safety difference in release characteristics for tech bindings as a class? What you, xxx-er, and I are discussing here is bindings that no only don't have toe release, but often don't even have fine adjustments to RVs!!!

There are research papers about this problem, even one that specifically addresses the hazards of U springs even when you happen to have just-the-right RV from the U spring (it varies over time).

[auvgeek]

Many U spring bindings model (usually the lightest ones) have a fixed RV for twist and then forward lean is determined coarsely by the U spring. Some do have variable adjust for twist (heavier and/or more expensive).

Okay, I understand this. Assuming by "forward lean" you mean vertical release. I own U-spring bindings, regular tech bindings, and alpine bindings. But I don't think it's a huge deal, personally -- IME the chart is pretty much a guess, and, quite frankly, I think you run the risk of pre-release or non-release every time you step into any binding. Maybe I'm wrong, and this isn't true for your average person. But then again, your average person isn't out buying U-spring bindings...

Seriously? Two models out of several dozen tech bindings have toe release and you are questioning safety difference in release characteristics for tech bindings as a class?

There are research papers about this problem, even on that specifically adresses U springs.

I have read a fair amount about this, and AFAICT, toe release vs heel release both have "blind spots" in their release curves. Toe release favors saving the tip/fib from a spiral fracture while heel release favors the ACL in a backwards twisting fall. But I'd love to read more about it, so if you wouldn't mind linking the research papers, I'd read them and be appreciative.

PS. Citing those two models was just because XXXer said "any tech binding." (emphasis mine)

[summit]

IBut I'd love to read more about it, so if you wouldn't mind linking research papers, I'd read them.

Here is a good one:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...dle/1773/38177

I'll have to go and see if I can find some of the others... read about a dozen back in October....

[auvgeek]

Here is a good one:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...dle/1773/38177

I'll have to go and see if I can find some of the others... read about a dozen back in October....

I read Jeff's whole thesis and haven't come to the conclusion you did...

[summit]

I read Jeff's whole thesis and haven't come to the conclusion you did...

I read all of his work and don't understand how you could read and note come away thinking that despite the shortcomings of any particular boot/binding combo, you wouldn't want the ability to set the RV at a great precision than 25% over/under that U springs often afford.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Love me some U-Springs:



Hopefully I don't sever both my legs or burst into flames. One thing I won't do is spray to the world about how my way of ski touring and the gear I choose is the only reasonable way of doing things.

[auvgeek]

I read all of his work and don't understand how you could read and note come away thinking that despite the shortcomings of any particular boot/binding combo, you wouldn't want the ability to set the RV at a great precision than 25% over/under that U springs often afford.

Tomato, potato I guess.

Still super curious about the papers specific to u-springs, even when set at the correct RV. I've migrated to u-springs cuz they're light and I typically set my touring RV to 12 anyway so the SSL 2.0 is just about perfect. If I went to a different model with a highest RV of 10, I'd modify my skiing accordingly. I'm a 9 on the chart, and have pre-released with alpine binders at 9, 10, 11, and 12 which I why I currently ski with them set to 13 and don't put much stock in the chart. That's me, though, not making any judgements about other people.

For the record: If you don't feel comfortable skiing a U-spring, then by all means don't. If you like independent adjustable RVs so you can set the vertical RV higher/differently than the lateral RV, then go for it. Not trying to talk anybody into or out of anything. My wife has an injured ankle, so it's nice to set her vertical RV on that side just a little lower. Totally see the value in that.

[XXX-er]

So Fritsch is making a safer binding but nobody needs it ?

Fuck we should all just buy a big bag of weed and telemark eh

You are the same people who don't Wana buy snow tires , probably buy cheap condoms as well ... that other life saving device

If you don't care then use whatever you want but somebody DID ask so I gave a well considered opinion

So now somebody is spraying to the world on what is not needed

[rod9301]

I tested my g3 ions for release and they came significantly under the specified torque.

I ended up buying the mtn binding for my spring touring skis.

I think that recommended release values are approximate, and if you really care about safety (perceived though), you should check the release values in a shop that has modern equipment.

However, the recommended release values are just that, recommended.

Bone density matters a lot more than what the tables say.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[auvgeek]

So Fritsch is making a safer binding but nobody needs it ?

Fuck we should all just buy a big bag of weed and telemark eh

You are the same people who don't Wana buy snow tires , probably buy cheap condoms as well ... that other life saving device

If you don't care then use whatever you want but somebody DID ask so I gave a well considered opinion

So now somebody is spraying to the world on what is not needed

I'm not sure where this is coming from. We have a difference of opinion on this particular topic, no need to make blanket statements about me. I own snow tires, carry a PLB in the backcountry, etc.

Like you said, someone asked and I gave a different opinion, while acknowledging the viewpoint that separate vertical and lateral release values might matter to some people.

And AFAICT, this binding isn't (theoretically) safer than what's already available on the market now. It's simply a light-ish, cheap-ish binding with independent vertical and lateral release that will be widely available in NA -- like others have said, another entry in the ~300g binding market, which will hopefully be a solid contender and drive prices down for everyone. Personally, I think it's premature to tout the "safety" of a new, untested product ... especially when there are other available options with a similar feature set.

But yeah, if Fritchi can figure out how to make a 300g-400g Vipec, that would be really sweet!

[auvgeek]

who sells them in Canada?

Google yields: https://www.vertical-addiction.com/c...-bindings.html

I'm sure there are other retailers in Canada. In the US, there are tons.

No personal experience with it, but it seems like a fantastic option, except the cost. 200g with bsl adjustment plate, 166g without. RV 5-10, vertical and lateral independently adjustable. Flat + 2 riser heights. That's almost half the weight of a speed turn with all the features. Lower heel-toe delta, too: 6.5mm with the bsl adjustment plate, 0.5mm without.

[XXX-er]

I'm not sure where this is coming from. We have a difference of opinion on this particular topic, no need to make blanket statements about me. I own snow tires, carry a PLB in the backcountry, etc.

Like you said, someone asked and I gave a different opinion, while acknowledging the viewpoint that separate vertical and lateral release values might matter to some people.

And AFAICT, this binding isn't (theoretically) safer than what's already available on the market now. It's simply a light-ish, cheap-ish binding with independent vertical and lateral release that will be widely available in NA -- like others have said, another entry in the ~300g binding market, which will hopefully be a solid contender and drive prices down for everyone. Personally, I think it's premature to tout the "safety" of a new, untested product ... especially when there are other available options with a similar feature set.

But yeah, if Fritchi can figure out how to make a 300g-400g Vipec, that would be really sweet!

That was directed at another comment on the thread

I have enough verts and a rad to keep me going but it's always good to see progress

[mall walker]

I have enough verts and a rad to keep me going but it's always good to see progress

yeah even when the new ones come out with no new features (the Dynafit Speed etc) it makes me happy because I feel like the cost of the bindings I do like will drop with all the other options... or that's what I keep telling myself anyway

[kid-kapow]

[margotron]

step in at 2:15 looks stupid easy. Really excited

[Shorty_J]

Not sure if I missed it in here or not, but anyone know the expected release date?

Also, am I correct that there is no adjustable release setting for the toe?

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk