Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,531

    Walkn away from GripWalk. Anyone else?

    FTR, Ive been a huge proponent of GW & this may be its debutante season with the Rona........ yet Im heading back to DIN for the following reasons:

    Binding manufacturing never caught up: if I want to run GW on a technical ski, Carver- Race- Mogul, the toes overhang terribly & ya can have a bitch of a time sourcing narrow brakes (except Tyrolia). I realize the market for performance GW is supper tiny & not something everyone wants to chase down, but how about a narrow/metal/16-18 version?

    GW doesnt appear to be standardized. I had 3 sets of Lupos w GripWalk & each sole was slightly different. Got tired of adjusting the AFDs. Have seen similar across other boot lines.

    Mobile AFDs are No Beuno...... moving parts are never a good thing.

    Hostage Plates- too many of my front side skis have plates ; ive run Attack16s on my carvers, but then the toe drags.

    Vintage skis Rule for the WROD!! Also fun to blast on the OG stuff from time to time just for kicks.


    Anyone else feeling the DIN?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Down East
    Posts
    224
    I am not switching away from GW but I have had the same experience with in my opining lack of standardization. I have had experience with 4 different GW boots and none of the 4 had the same soles. Each were a bit different. I had AX 120s that were not “flared” out like the soles on my HD pros. Got a pair for a set of pentarras I had and they were different. I had to shave the flare on the heal of my HD Pros to make sure they didn’t hang up when stepping into my pivots.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,542
    I put ISO 5355 soles on my XT Free and XT3 "resort and demo" boots instead of GripWalk, mostly to avoid having to take two pairs of boots to demos and for reverse compatibility with skis already set up for my RS 130 plug boots. Other than that, all my boots have full ISO 9523 touring soles and don't get used in alpine setups.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,785
    I know, I know... its a marker.... but the XCOMP 16 is a good binding and GW compatible. It has a moving AFD but I have never had a problem with mine on my cheater race skis which are my front side carvers. I agree that for front side carvers the Attacks do suck... What about STH2's? still too wide?
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,531
    ^STH2 is a great clamp, 90mm brake is the narrowest offering.

    Not a marker fanboy... we’re a race family, so I have tons of Head/Tyrolia RDs in the house- seems a shame to recreate the wheel.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,785
    With sollys its easy enough to trade out brakes arms with old brakes though. I here you on the Markers, my skis came with Piston plates so I was a hostage victim but I have been very happy with them. It is odd that Tyrolia hasn't made a drillable FreeFlex that works with GW as a brand they seem on board.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,531
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FF218293-9DAC-4F82-BD86-61AF0E597522.jpg 
Views:	297 
Size:	540.2 KB 
ID:	350182

    They have a Demo FF GW & the Attacks

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,785
    You are definitely dragging toe on the Slalom skis, not fun.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,835
    Look and Marker both have GW comparable bindings for a race plate. Most non FIS systems are now GW compatible. Every demo binding is now GW compatible. Plenty of non moving GW AFDs available.

    I’ll still ski my 5355 RS on hard days but for most skiers who are sold skis 2-3cm too wide, it’s a win.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Masshole
    Posts
    2,355
    My new Panterra 130s came with both sets of soles to swap. I only have two pair of non GW clamps right now and neither are mounted so I don't really have an issue. I could always swap for a day if I did mount up the older clamps

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
    Why don't you go practice fallin' down? I'll be there in a minute.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vacationland
    Posts
    4,792
    Im sticking with GW for some of my quiver. Could use some tyrolia clamps for those skull laden zoomers I got from you tho. DIN is fine, got anything?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by phatboy64 View Post
    I am not switching away from GW but I have had the same experience with in my opining lack of standardization. I have had experience with 4 different GW boots and none of the 4 had the same soles. Each were a bit different. I had AX 120s that were not “flared” out like the soles on my HD pros. Got a pair for a set of pentarras I had and they were different. I had to shave the flare on the heal of my HD Pros to make sure they didn’t hang up when stepping into my pivots.
    And that is from the originator of Gripwalk as Marker and Dalbello are under the same ownership!!

    Some Grip was Soles AFD's don't even line up with the AFD of nonMarker bindings.

    Quote Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum View Post
    So I've been running Shifts with Lange boots and either WTR (first-year XT 130) or alpine DIN soles (140 Pro), and I've been happy with them overall—the only times I've come out before crashing involved waterbar impacts.

    Now I'm trying to set mine up for my new Hawx XTD boots, and the Shift AFD doesn't seem to contact the "contact rectangle" on the bootsole, as one of the sole lugs hits first:



    Does that look like a reasonable AFD height setting? If I go up to the next detent on the adjustment, they're decidedly tight; with the AFD down a detent, there's what appears to be a huge gap.

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
    And both of these are from the same manufacturer!

    This goes to show what a shitshow grip walk is. For markers with the AFD closer to the toe, It usually lines up ok. For other brands binding that have a more aft traditional AFD location, it often just doesn't line up. There are some theoretical thoughts that the more rear location provides better heel retention and edge control but I don't know if it actually applies in real life.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    468
    Sorry, don't know why this pic doesn't show. See post #2752 in the shift thread.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    468
    I have heard rumors of a new more walkable DIN Norm coming, anyone have any inside scoop?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    7B Idaho
    Posts
    518
    Touring: pin bindings, vibram or similar soles.

    Frontside: DIN soles all the way. 15y+ old Lange L10s still working well, even if they weight 8 lbs each.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    LV-426
    Posts
    18,848
    Quote Originally Posted by turnfarmer View Post
    I have heard rumors of a new more walkable DIN Norm coming, anyone have any inside scoop?
    There are DIN soles with vibram. Still flat, just have some grippy rubber for walking, and with hard plastic where it needs to be for binding contact.
    Quote Originally Posted by powder11 View Post
    if you have to resort to taking advice from the nitwits on this forum, then you're doomed.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by turnfarmer View Post
    I have heard rumors of a new more walkable DIN Norm coming, anyone have any inside scoop?
    They are working on creating an ISO standard (DIN will be the same) for GripWalk . . .

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,531
    A solution looking for a problem

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post
    Mobile AFDs are No Beuno...... moving parts are never a good thing.
    Actually, the sliding AFDs are way safer, they still have the UHMW or Delrin sliding patch, but also a redundant physical sliding mechanism to ensure the boat can still move out of the way of the toe piece in the binding. I.e. If for some reason the boot doesn't slide on the slick plastic, there is a second path to allow the toe of the boot to move laterally. And vice versa... is the mechanism is stuck, you still have slick plastic to slide on.

    I have spoke with two different ortho-surgeons who swear they have seen way less injuries knees with the Sliding AFDs, and they won't ski in bindings without them anymore... no matter what the boot sole is...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post
    A solution looking for a problem
    Given the existing diversity of grip walk soles I think ti is needed.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    135
    alpine all the time

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by ExPowderSnob View Post
    Actually, the sliding AFDs are way safer, they still have the UHMW or Delrin sliding patch, but also a redundant physical sliding mechanism to ensure the boat can still move out of the way of the toe piece in the binding. I.e. If for some reason the boot doesn't slide on the slick plastic, there is a second path to allow the toe of the boot to move laterally. And vice versa... is the mechanism is stuck, you still have slick plastic to slide on.




    I have spoke with two different ortho-surgeons who swear they have seen way less injuries knees with the Sliding AFDs, and they won't ski in bindings without them anymore... no matter what the boot sole is...
    This is a pet peeve of mine. People in the medical community are quick to judge others about anecdotal evidence(ie clinical experience) versus double blind studies. But if it fits their perspective, than their clinical experience counts. Especially if no double blind studies exist.

    Existing binding technology does nothing to prevent knee injuries. So their perspective is likely anecdotal and not applicable. If they were talking about tib fib fractures maybe it would apply.

    The Campbell study from what I could glean found that flat non sliding AFDs provided more consistent release with AT soles than sliding AFDs but hid what brands did what.
    Most of the sliding AFDs broke and failed under forward pressure loaded toe releases and failed release testing due to getting locked in by the breakage.

    The grip walk design from what I've seen often has an AFD that has minimal surface area as they are tapered(so they also work with 5355 which would focus the forces potentially causing the sliding AFD to fail sooner.

    YMMV

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    in the shadow of the white rocks
    Posts
    2,531
    * my comments on the mobile AFDs was related to those that raise & lower..... skiing hard, they always seem (on myself) to wiggle loose after a while. YMMV.

    FTR, I think its the limited call for a hi performance clamp that is the issue. No one on the WC is using GW for a reason.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Almost Mountains
    Posts
    1,194
    Quote Originally Posted by turnfarmer View Post
    Sorry, don't know why this pic doesn't show. See post #2752 in the shift thread.


    I think you were missing the IMG tags.

    But FWIW, I have one day now on my first pair of real race boots in a long time, and the edge-engagement precision is so much better than either pair of heavy AT boots I've skied (Lange XT 140 Pros, even with a DIN sole; and Hawx 130 Prime XTD). The general energy transmission is also more significant, which is generally better on firm snow but can be a little jarring on 3D surfaces. I'm looking forward to a chance to get out with the race boots on real race skis, hopefully later this week.

    With that said, if I had to live with one pair of boots for all my skiing, it would be one of the heavy AT boots—I like the way the Hawx works so far, and I really liked the Lange, and they're so damn close to skiing like a race boot while still being all-day comfortable (walk mode is huge if you spend any significant time standing on the side of the hill). I do think the GW sole gives up a little on ski/boot interface, and the Lange—a heavy, downhill-oriented AT boot with DIN soles—is probably the best overall compromise.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,292
    Quote Originally Posted by turnfarmer View Post
    This is a pet peeve of mine. People in the medical community are quick to judge others about anecdotal evidence(ie clinical experience) versus double blind studies. But if it fits their perspective, than their clinical experience counts. Especially if no double blind studies exist.

    Existing binding technology does nothing to prevent knee injuries. So their perspective is likely anecdotal and not applicable. If they were talking about tib fib fractures maybe it would apply.

    The Campbell study from what I could glean found that flat non sliding AFDs provided more consistent release with AT soles than sliding AFDs but hid what brands did what.
    Most of the sliding AFDs broke and failed under forward pressure loaded toe releases and failed release testing due to getting locked in by the breakage.

    The grip walk design from what I've seen often has an AFD that has minimal surface area as they are tapered(so they also work with 5355 which would focus the forces potentially causing the sliding AFD to fail sooner.

    YMMV
    Very, very well said. I keep typing out responses, but you pretty much covered it all. Great post.

    Like you said, the Campbell study was for touring soles, not GripWalk. On wildsnow, Campbell said he did not think the same conclusions re sliding AFDs would extend to GW soles.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

Posting Permissions

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