Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 159
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    I didn't measure the respective pin heights, which of course remain constant. However the actual delta effect on the user is boot specific as it's essentially comparing the angle of the boot when in the binding to that when stood on a flat/horizontal surface. So my method is to measure from the lowest part of the sole at the toe and heel vertically down the the ski base. The Neutralizer balancer that my customers use to determine their ideal delta is based upon this method as it then encompasses the internal board angle and the forward lean of the cuff of their specific boot so that's why I use this method. So whilst the pin heights are constant different boots will measure differently in the same binding depending upon their sole profile.
    Spyderjon. Please explain how the neutralizer balancer works. I'd like to be able to get an idea of my optimum delta in my touring boots. I am getting new touring bindings this year and would like to see if I can get one's with a delta that is on or close to my optimum. Any info on this appreciated.

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    849
    Choucas, Here's a pic of the Neuralizer balancer - it's the aluminium platform in the left hand pic: https://www.solutions4feet.com/servi...ce---alignment

    The centre platform tilts laterally both ways to assess +/- canting. The skier stands barefoot on their foot bed and performs slow one-legged squats whilst the platform is adjusted to find the optimum canting angle on each foot, ie were the knee is tracking straight up/down.

    After correcting the canting the skier gets booted up and then stands on the outer platforms. The outer platforms can then be tilted simultaneously fore/aft to determine the ideal delta angle. The fact that you're in your boot means that the zeppa/boot board angle and the forward lean of the cuff are accounted for.

    The whole thing is damned accurate and the user can go from being perfectly balanced to falling over with just a 0.5 degree change etc.

    I don't sell/fit boots. The page I've linked to above is my buddy Colin's shop and he's the top guy in the UK and one of the top guys in the EU. Very few shops offer this over here but in the past I've been set-up in the USA by Steve Bagley at Superior Ski at Snowbird and by Bud Heishman in Reno who both used the same (or a very similar) system. In the EU the only guy I know of that does this is Steve Rooke at Sole on Chamonix.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    278
    Thanks. Very impressive. I have had my alpine boot soles canted (via cantology wedges) by a top US boot guy which takes care of lateral issues, but the fore/aft/delta part always leaves me scratching my head. I'm in Europe for 3 weeks this winter, but not near Chamonix.

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by Choucas View Post
    Thanks. Very impressive. I have had my alpine boot soles canted (via cantology wedges) by a top US boot guy which takes care of lateral issues, but the fore/aft/delta part always leaves me scratching my head. I'm in Europe for 3 weeks this winter, but not near Chamonix.
    Do some delta testing yourself. First measure what your existing binding delta is - as per my post #109. Then find some thin strips of hard material (wood/plastic etc) that you can place under the boot heels when standing on a firm surface, thus replicating your binding delta. Now you can play around by reducing that delta (either by lowering the heel or shimming up the toe). For most people anything more than about 6mm of delta (ie the heel is 6mm higher than the toe) is adversely noticeable but boots with a steep zeppa &/or forward lean can make even a shallow delta feel pretty shit. With my Mercury boots, with the more upright forward lean setting, I'm spot on at 2mm of delta but I can adapt to anything from zero to 4mm without issue but more than 4mm and I can tell I'm getting back seat even with good ankle flex.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,115
    Very few shops go into fore-aft alignment of the boots other than adding a heel lift. There is such a variation in bindings (more than in boots) and boots are all pretty flat it’s generally a waste of time reserved for particularly gullible customers who didn’t need those extra $200 anyway. Keep in mind with tech bindings you won’t be able to cant the boot at all but will need to shim the bindings. Honestly, unless you’re alignment is really fucked up, lack any athleticism whatsoever ever, or trying to win make the WC, the $200 for canting would likely go further with some high end instruction.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Posts
    24
    This question is slightly off topic, but does anybody know if the Xenic will be compatible with boots like the TLT7? I know that it doesn't have frontal release like the Vipec or Tecton do, but I'm wondering if the speednose will fail to trigger the 60 degree release mechanism in the toe.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,333
    Pictures.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	04xenictoe.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	86.1 KB 
ID:	301289

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	05xenicheel.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	111.8 KB 
ID:	301290

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	06xeniccrampons.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	107.3 KB 
ID:	301291

    Stream of consciousness impressions cut and pasted for some other site

    More here https://fritschi.swiss/en/produkte/xenic/

    - Claimed weight 280g. Actual 296g (maybe add 20g for binding screws?)

    - DIN 4- 10

    - 30mm bsl adjustment

    - Toe mounts in different position than Vipec/Tecton toe. Rear mounts on same baseplate as Vipec/Tecton

    - Uses same crampon mount as Dynafit. Doesn't need a crampon place holder ala Salomon MTN/Atomic Backland

    - Widths for brakes 85 95 105mm ski waist width (but they're standard Fritschi brakes so will fit wide and can be bent to fit)

    - One heel lifter

    - No forward pressure per se but rather the tiniest smidgen of gap between heelpiece and boot

    - No lateral elasticity at toe like the Vipec/Tecton. Instead all the release is at heel. Vertical and lateral set separately

    If you run these without brakes and crampon holder they will be 276g

    These will be mounted on an Atomic Backland 107 previously mounted with Fritschi Vipecs. The Xenic mount being compatible at the heel means only the toe needs a few new holes - very thoughtful of Fritschi.

    Will be skied with Scarpa F1 and Tecnica ZeroG Tour Pro boots.

    Things to check further.

    - Toe is 34mm above ski topsheet. Heel is 48mm (both measured to middle of pins). Will check ramp angle when there's a boot inserted but first blush is that this is pretty old school. You can shim the toe a bit but it will then decrease the effective height of the heel lifter

    - Will they have issue if falling forward when skinning?

    Other reviews

    Atomic Backland ski - https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...Binding-part-2

    Fritschi Vipec and Fritschi Tecton - https://www.newschoolers.com/news/re...ouring-Binding

    Tecnica ZeroG Tour Pro boot - https://www.doglotion.com/tecnica-ze...ng-boot-2018-9
    Last edited by LeeLau; 11-08-2019 at 12:41 AM.

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,260
    So who will be the first to shim the heel, remove the brake, max out the horizontal release, and run it with a Vipec toe?

    Having to shim the heel does negate some of the weight savings though.

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,667
    I thought earlier in this thread it was implied that there was lateral elasticity in the toe even though it doesn't release?

    Maybe that graphic is just how the pins engage?

    The ramp angle is disappointing if confirmed at the current estimates.

    Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    I thought earlier in this thread it was implied that there was lateral elasticity in the toe even though it doesn't release?

    Maybe that graphic is just how the pins engage?

    The ramp angle is disappointing if confirmed at the current estimates.

    Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk
    I suspect Lee's measurements are very close, not only because he's Lee, but because of measurements that @spyderjon took in another thread.

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

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    I suspect Lee's measurements are very close, not only because he's Lee, but because of measurements that @spyderjon took in another thread.

    ... Thom
    Yeah fair enough.

    One downside to these huge threads is info gets lost in the shuffle... I probably just got my facts confused as I'm sure Lee has his finger on the pulse on these.

    Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk
    Goal: ski in the 2018/19 season

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty_J View Post
    Yeah fair enough.

    One downside to these huge threads is info gets lost in the shuffle... I probably just got my facts confused as I'm sure Lee has his finger on the pulse on these.

    Sent from my SM-A505W using Tapatalk
    You would have had a hard time finding it here. I recall it being a spinoff conversation in either the Shift mega thread or the one that started up on the new Marker binding ;-)

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

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    post #101: I've just mounted a set of Xenics and the delta is 7.5mm with a Scott Celeste AT boot.......
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    post #115: Xenic pin heights (from underside of binding to pin centre):

    Toe = 32mm
    Heel= 46.25mm (+/- a tad as it's a bitch to measure when mounted on a ski)

    And the QK/BF screw spec is the same as the Tecton/Evo/Vipec Black, ie 8no. 14mm pan heads for the toe and 8no. 12mm countersunk flat heads for the heel plate.
    So my pin height measurements are a couple of the mm different to LeeLau's however the difference between the toe and heel is the same, ie 14mm.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    So my pin height measurements are a couple of the mm different to LeeLau's however the difference between the toe and heel is the same, ie 14mm.
    I measured with calipers off the kitchen counter eyeballing the pin centres of toe and heel so there very well could be error on my part

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    Not that accuracy to .5mm really matters, but you can measure to the top of the heel pins, then measure the heel pin diameter and subtract half of that number.

    It's more difficult to do with the toe pins, but of course, anyone who beats you up for this should just go skiing ;-)

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

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Not that accuracy to .5mm really matters, but you can measure to the top of the heel pins, then measure the heel pin diameter and subtract half of that number.....
    That's what I did

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by nickel View Post
    This seems like a fuck up to me unless I'm missing something. That's a pretty unfortunate hole match-up with their own product sibling which means there is exactly zero chance I'd run these in tandem with a tecton via inserts, or even switch bindings to lighten up, unless i wanted a significantly different mount point.

    Did i miss something here?
    jumping in here. Yeah I think the piece you are missing is that the pins are in the same place on both. The entire binding is more compact. The toe pins on the tecton, in relation to its front holes, are set further back.

    I have both sets of toes (tecton and xenic) quivered. They have same pin point aka boot center on ski
    I started a dating advice app because I always need advice

    Charmed Chat lets you tinder for your friends

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyderjon View Post
    That's what I did
    I learned something new. Should have done that

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,260
    Received Xenics today, the ratio of plastic to metal (almost none) is shocking, even compared to Vipecs. Have faith in Fritschi engineers though, fingers crossed.

    Happy to see the toe hole arrangement, looks like it will be pretty easy to make 4mm adapters to correct ramp AND use Vipec pattern inserts already in skis. Adapter plates made of carbon fiber sheet would be nice (countersink the underside of the plates for M6 flatheads, and use ground-to-shape nuts on top of toe piece), but dunno how they'd hold up. Wouldn't trust Chinese CF sheet from China, might call a domestic supply house and see what they recommend. Or just use aluminum with some "speed holes".

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by 1000-oaks View Post
    Received Xenics today, the ratio of plastic to metal (almost none) is shocking, even compared to Vipecs. Have faith in Fritschi engineers though, fingers crossed.

    Happy to see the toe hole arrangement, looks like it will be pretty easy to make 4mm adapters to correct ramp AND use Vipec pattern inserts already in skis. Adapter plates made of carbon fiber sheet would be nice (countersink the underside of the plates for M6 flatheads, and use ground-to-shape nuts on top of toe piece), but dunno how they'd hold up. Wouldn't trust Chinese CF sheet from China, might call a domestic supply house and see what they recommend. Or just use aluminum with some "speed holes".
    Great idea, even if only a trial effort. Maybe a quick prototype using UHMW with T-nuts for the binding mount and through holes to mount to the inserts?

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; 11-09-2019 at 12:19 AM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    11,333
    Hey 1000 oaks! I was just going to ghetto some Walmart cutting board! Great minds

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    3,204
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    - Claimed weight 280g. Actual 296g (maybe add 20g for binding screws?)
    I suspect few people will use them without the screws, though manufacturers almost never include them in their quoted weights. Typically around 2.5 grams per screw.

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by gregL View Post
    I suspect few people will use them without the screws, though manufacturers almost never include them in their quoted weights. Typically around 2.5 grams per screw.
    Everyone except @swissiphic, with his double sided tape, that is ;-)

    ... Thom
    Last edited by galibier_numero_un; Yesterday at 11:50 PM.
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    5,260
    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Great idea, even if only a trial effort. Maybe a quick prototype using UHMW with T-nuts for the binding mount and through holes to mount to the inserts?

    ... Thom
    I have 5mm t-nuts, but the holes in the toes are 6mm, so might as well use a bigger screw with a bigger head, and get more bite on the adapter plate (assuming the screw head thickness is 4mm or less). Also, with such a thin adapter, a countersunk flathead screw might be a more secure attachment than a recessed t-nut that has a flat flange and might want to tear through the adapter at the flange OD. If the M6 flatheads are too thick and M5 is better, it's super easy to make sleeves for the toe holes using 6mm OD / 5mm ID aluminum tubing.

    The key to using the plate-to-toe screws upside down is access to the Vipec pattern after the toe is attached to the adapter, which at a glance looks like it could work.

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,098
    So Lou published his first (benchtop) take.

    He comes up with wildly different heel/toe deltas (in his linked page). I suspect he'll be remeasuring and correcting. His Vipec #s are within a half mm of what I measure. My money is on @LeeLau and @ spyderjon being the #s to go by.

    He has a good profile shot showing the lifter height.

    https://www.wildsnow.com/27135/frits...hnical-review/

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

Posting Permissions

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