Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread: sth2 wtr vs mnc toes
-
01-22-2022, 02:31 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 865
sth2 wtr vs mnc toes
Longshot, but anyone got the mnc version of the sth2 in their hands yet? Is the baseplate the only thing that differs? Looks like heels and the toe assembly other than the base are identical, but have only seen photos. Would be great to get new baseplates instead of a a whole new binding for my inserted sth2s...
-
01-22-2022, 02:34 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 865
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_l0v3AsRPY
F*ck answered my own question. Toe casting is of course slightly different to not accept swaps...
-
01-23-2022, 12:21 PM #3
-
01-23-2022, 12:29 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 865
-
01-23-2022, 06:10 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 1,421
-
01-23-2022, 06:50 PM #6
From my understanding, new 16 binding should be wtr, GW, and touring compatable, so I'm not sure why you'd need to change baseplates, but I'll admit I'm not all-knowledgeable on the subject. From my understanding the STH 13 is NOT MNC, where the 16 is. So I suppose we need to differentiate which binding we're talking about now - not all STHs are the same anymore.
Probably too early to tell. I haven't skied on it yet, but at first glance I'm not impressed with the little switch. Feels fairly chintzy. It's essentially a plastic block that fills in space between the binding and ski: binding>plastic>ski in "direct," binding>rubber>ski in "progressive." I'll refrain from too much more judgement until I ski it. I'm also not stoked on the toe height going to 20mm stack height compared to its previous 18mm. But again, I don't know how much I'll notice, so I'll save any additional judgement until I ski it.
Edit: can't find a lot of coherent agreement on the OG height vs. the new.
-
01-15-2023, 11:09 AM #7
Bumping this thread… anyone have strong preferences for or against the new STH2 MNC 16? Specifically, I’m curious if the “progressive” option provides a more damp ride than the STH2 WTR 13’s.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
-
01-15-2023, 12:44 PM #8I Like Snow
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Golden
- Posts
- 1,023
The sth2 16 was by default on the progressive setting all the time. When they introduced the progressive/direct switch it just gave you the opportunity to lock it out and make it direct.
-
01-15-2023, 01:04 PM #9
-
01-15-2023, 08:55 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Calgary
- Posts
- 1,888
Yes, rubber inlays on both 13 and 16.
-
01-15-2023, 09:38 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 865
I was able to fondle one of the toes in the last couple months, the switch is less gimmicky than people make it out to be, essentially rotates solid plastic between the afd and the ski, such that the toe forces bypass the TPU layer that all sth2 bindings have in the toes (and also the heels fwiw). Whether it has any effect on binding performance is hard to say, but it doesnt really add any weight, nor does it look particularly fragile or prone to icing.
-
01-16-2023, 07:32 AM #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Rossland BC
- Posts
- 1,879
Marketing the progressive vs direct mode makes no sense to me. The elasticity and dampening qualities are a big part of what I love (along with easy step-in and predictable release) about this binding, and I’m unaware of skiers asking for less? If using rubber soles adds unnecessary play that needs to be countered by blocking the dampening built into the binding, that at least seems coherent, but is contradicted by the marketing. Or is it that the sliding AFD fucks with the release qualities (it must change something) with alpine soles and needs to be countered? Any idea what’s actually going on?
Blogging at www.kootenayskier.wordpress.com
Bookmarks