Duke PT hole pattern?

**Lord Thomas** · 12-02-2019, 01:38 PM

Does anybody yet have even the slightest clue if the new Duke PT will have a hole pattern that will overlap fully, or partially, with any other clamps?

**jondrums** · 12-02-2019, 01:48 PM

heel looks like it could probably be matching Jester/Griffon - it would be dumb if they didn't do that. Hard to tell on the toes

**Lord Thomas** · 12-02-2019, 02:59 PM

Well, if it isn't, it wouldn't be the first time they've done something dumb. I wish the the binding manufacturers would all work on standardizing their mount patterns

**SoooL** · 12-02-2019, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

Well, if it isn't, it wouldn't be the first time they've done something dumb. I wish the the binding manufacturers would all work on standardizing their mount patterns

That would be like socialism killing the Pivot. Just because of it's inability to comply with the governmental enforced mount pattern. Is freedom overrated or what?? Drop that idea please!

**XavierD** · 12-02-2019, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

Well, if it isn't, it wouldn't be the first time they've done something dumb. I wish the the binding manufacturers would all work on standardizing their mount patterns

I sincerely hope not. In the large picture no one cares about mount pattern similarity. Just a couple dozen of you nuts on here. Really would just place an unnecessary constraint on binding design. The vast majority of skis are only ever mounted once and those which are remounted are generally for a different boot sole.

“This binding seems unnecessarily heavy, why is that?”
“Oh yeah, we could have easily shaved a couple hundred grams off it but we needed to reinforce a few areas to make it work with a certain hole pattern to appease a couple dozen knuckleheads who use inserts. Sorry world.”

**Lord Thomas** · 12-02-2019, 05:11 PM

Relax a little guys. Would make things easier on the shops not having to buy new jigs all the time (thinking of my small, local shop that doesn't sell hundreds of pair a year like EVO, Starthaus, ...) and those of us who change clamps quite a bit. Having done some industrial design work you might be surprised what a little forethought in the initial design criteria can accomplish.

**kathleenturneroverdrive** · 12-02-2019, 08:30 PM

Won’t somebody think of the poor, small shops who are forced to buy jigs and then pretty much immediately recoup those costs when customers pay for a few mounts????

**Lord Thomas** · 12-02-2019, 09:43 PM

Yeah, those little shops. Try it with your own $, might change your view of the matter. Especially when those mounts are gratis with a ski purchase....or you don't sell any of those shiny new boutique bindings...or you have forums with threads like "PSA: Mount Your Own Fucking Skis." What I'm saying is that mount pattern interchangeability should be a design goal. If you have actually tried any product design you guys might actually not get so emotional about it and figure out that the seemingly unattainable is actually possible without compromise. Much more complicated things are accomplished everyday.

**ACH** · 12-02-2019, 09:45 PM

I pinged an associate in their organization, all I was told is that it will be unique mounting pattern. No surprises there.

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

What I'm saying is that mount pattern interchangeability should be a design goal. If you have actually tried any product design you guys might actually not get so emotional about it and figure out that the seemingly unattainable is actually possible without compromise. Much more complicated things are accomplished everyday.

Well, seeing as how I do have some experience with product design, I’ll add my opinion. The more constraints that are added to the development process creates higher probability of compromise. And, ski bindings are already dealing with a few of those, let alone adding another.

By you logic, all binding manufactures should choose one mount pattern, and to what end? To support what might be a questionable retail business model? I am all for supporting local (when it makes sense), however in the current world we live in, if you don’t have your business model dialed to the point where binding jigs aren’t a make or break, maybe you shouldn’t be in that line of business.

**onenerdykid** · 12-03-2019, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Thomas

Yeah, those little shops. Try it with your own $, might change your view of the matter. Especially when those mounts are gratis with a ski purchase....or you don't sell any of those shiny new boutique bindings...or you have forums with threads like "PSA: Mount Your Own Fucking Skis." What I'm saying is that mount pattern interchangeability should be a design goal. If you have actually tried any product design you guys might actually not get so emotional about it and figure out that the seemingly unattainable is actually possible without compromise. Much more complicated things are accomplished everyday.

If brands aligned on hole pattern for all of their bindings, it would completely stifle binding innovation and cause things to look the same. It would be like dictating the pivot location on all full suspension mountain bikes. To get any binding to work a certain way is a huge challenge, especially complicated designs like Shift, Duke PT, etc., and to dictate their hole pattern would completely change how the binding works, skis, and feels on snow. It is far more complicated than you think and will basically never happen in our lifetime.

**doebedoe** · 12-03-2019, 07:28 AM

For those unaware -- onenerdykid happens to run the boot program for one of the world largest boot and binding manufacturers.

**XavierD** · 12-03-2019, 07:48 AM

I’d prefer durability, reliability, energy transmission, weight and cost to be design priorities over mount pattern.

“Hey man, tell me about these two cross over bindings”

“Well this one is 100g heavier, tends to ice up more and costs an extra $50, but uses the same mount pattern as some other bindings they make”

Fucking SOLD!

If we’re gonna talk small shop business model they should selling Joey a new set of skis which would better match up with their new bindings. They should also stop giving away mounts. With MAP pricing for current year ski and online shops dominating the closeout market it’s time to for shops to stop giving away free labor.

**Eluder** · 12-03-2019, 10:17 PM

To be fair it would be easy for a lot of the common alpine bindings to share a hole pattern... Its not like there has really been much innovation in Alpine clamps in the last 30 years... Not that I think it should or would happen.

**onenerdykid** · 12-04-2019, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Eluder

To be fair it would be easy for a lot of the common alpine bindings to share a hole pattern... Its not like there has really been much innovation in Alpine clamps in the last 30 years... Not that I think it should or would happen.

When I first started working at Atomic, I was very surprised to find out just how sensitive racers are to changes in equipment, even in bindings. If you asked Atomic to change the X-20 hole pattern to be the same as the Look PX18, our racers wouldn't go for it at all- they're just used to the feeling of our binding and as soon as the change would be made, they would use the old original binding instead (this happened when we moved away from our own Race 9-18 binding to the X-20). Hole pattern (and number of screws) has a direct effect on the feel of the binding. Same goes for Look if the tables were turned.- they wouldn't do it.

Outside of racing, let's look at something more TGR-relevant- the STH2 16 and Pivot 18. MAYBE the toe pattern could be aligned but the heels would be impossible- they're just way too different. Each binding has its pros/cons and neither brand wants to lose their point of difference for the sake of aligning on hole pattern. Brand identity will always trump niche compatibility concerns.

**OldMil** · 12-04-2019, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by onenerdykid

Same goes for Look if the tables were turned.- they wouldn't do it.

I see what you did there.

**Eluder** · 12-05-2019, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by onenerdykid

Outside of racing, let's look at something more TGR-relevant- the STH2 16 and Pivot 18. MAYBE the toe pattern could be aligned but the heels would be impossible- they're just way too different. Each binding has its pros/cons and neither brand wants to lose their point of difference for the sake of aligning on hole pattern. Brand identity will always trump niche compatibility concerns.

Ok but a Jester and an STH2 could easily be the same... but yeah your last sentence is the one that matters.