If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Greg wrote: Jonathan Shefftz wrote: The Silvretta 400/404/500/505/555 all lack a lateral release at the toe (instead placing it at the heel). No recent alpine downhill binding has ever lacked a lateral toe release. This strikes me as a significant Silvretta disadvantage. Not to mention that its a big pain in the but to put it back together after a lateral release. _ This is not true of the 500 series. They don't come apart like the 400's. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPy7WyGTWTAjn5N/lAQFpmgP+JHNjZoSLCG9XF2Um1k1aHKA19TQ6HpXP GnbbNJv2hAh1/daSsSNTotBfvejlXILpxf8+JQEtMhOCxANakE1AVzmV7NHrOz5 6 IpbRa+QT6ZVLxkko7h1Yvucxga0J/J33XfWnHwMK8NhKUVHnl4eRTCbXfLTWzMp+ F++3+gEgmYY= =j2gC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Jonathan Shefftz wrote: That is definitely the best and most-informed Silvretta defense I have ever read. Now back to the debate! Although I’ve attended clinics from: http://www.vermontskisafety.com/ ... and read many articles on alpine downhill binding safety, I will agree that I have no direct evidence that placing the lateral release at the toe is superior to placing it at the heel. _ Okay, got that one. But given that *all* recent alpine downhill bindings have a lateral toe release, and that very few bother with a lateral heel release (despite having all sorts of other innovative features), my conclusion is that a lateral toe release is a critical safety feature, while a lateral heel release is not a significant advantage. _ You're drawing some very spurious conclusions from very little evidence. Alpine bindings are driven by marketing as much as safety. A lateral heel release is not needed if you have toe release, but you could never sell a binding that didn't have a toe release so the point is moot. In fact if you think about it a bit, you'll release that having both kinds of releases would make the binding excessively complicated and make adjusting it reliablely quite difficult. _ Just because one set of design criteria leads to one class of solutions does not mean that a different set of criteria have the same solution. Also, as I try to envision it, the situation that a lateral release is trying to solve arises from the boot and ski diverging - the heel is aligned w/ the shaft of the leg, so the pivoting occurs there, and lateral pressure that the binding can sense occurs at the toe, not the heel. (Think about hooking a tip on a branch, a la a slalom race course: the Diamir toe will release laterally, but will the Silvretta heel release laterally in that situation?) _ Yes. The lever arm at the heel is shorter, but it will still release. I’ll agree that fixing crampons w/o exiting the binding is a nifty feature - I’ve been in many situations where that would have been a nice plus. Standards for alpine touring bindings though exist just like standards for alpine downhill bindings - you can order the DIN from that Euro website (though it costs a non-negligible sum, so I haven’t bothered yet). _ There are DIN standards for the shape of the boot. There are no standards for the release mechanisms. Read the fine print that comes with your bindings. As for the mode switch, I’ve played w/ it in shops, and it does indeed appear to be a par w/ the Diamir. Regarding durability, I heard some nightmare stories from these guys: http://www.andesmountainsports.com/ ...but that of course is just one step (barely) above anecdotal evidence. _ Of the old 404's or the newer 500's? The guys at thebackcountry.net also have bad things to say about silvretta that mostly have to do with the fact that the company is in Germany. And if I owned a shop I would probably have the same concerns. The whole liability problem with AT bindings should make any shop owner a bit nervous. If you can't get clear answers, then you don't want to take the risk of selling the binding. Adjusting the 500's is a bit complicated[1], I know I wouldn't do it for somebody that might sue me. Overall, I still think that for those most concerned about weight, Dynafit is the best choice; for climbing boot compatibility, Silvretta 500; everyone else, Diamir (or maybe the new Naxo). _ Well, that's certainly the common wisdom, but your entire argument boils down to "Well, it looks like an alpine binding so it must be safer." It's a good marketing ploy, heck it may even be true, but I have not seen anything that would prove it to me. _ Booker C. Bense [1]- The lateral release is dependent on getting the length of the boot adjustment correct first. With a regular AT boot, this is pretty straightforward, with a climbing boot you actually have to ski in the boots a bit to get this adjustment correct. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPy7nMWTWTAjn5N/lAQHdNwP+LlPB2GvoeLLCUETAooDH7zZthXf1Cl3A wa1Wf+Yrmhw8JD71SkcF53RN3Ie+f9KbVNlTUG5hPyVwSd7oGm ZScFL95IslqQyS moxJT6XFgaosfJofz1yiUAVaEukpIPfuiDH9O5XJqDofamO3WB apO7Z5cRN2S9Oa 1jHQTmOmqaY= =hN3z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
bbense+rec.skiing.backcountry.Aug.04.03@telemark. slac.stanford.edu
wrote: _ You're drawing some very spurious conclusions from very little evidence. More to the point, the evidence points in the other direction. There must be tens (hundreds?) of thousands of man-days on the Silvretta design in the past two decades. Yet no rash of spiral fractures or blown ACLs. You can bet your sweet-bippy that lawyers would have been all over it if the binding were inherently unsafe. Silvretta has long argued their design is safer because the pivot point is closer to the leg axis so less knee torque. And nobody pushing Fritchi should even be talking about past reliability issues, puhleeze. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , Jonathan Shefftz wrote: I think this is becoming (if it hasn’t already become) the definitive Silvretta-debate thread. Andes commented negatively on both the 404 and 500/505, but that’s just anecdotal. I’ve read thebackcountry.net comments on Silvretta, but don’t give them much credence, as they also claim the Diamir can’t be torque tested - the only conceivable reason for this claim is that they don’t own a shop torque tester, as a standard alpine downhill torque testers would work just find for the Diamir. _ Does Diamir claim this in their binding literature? I know that Silvretta explictly states that you can't use a torque tester reliably. Reliable binding testing only became a reality when the boot manufacturers defined a precise standard for the boots and bindings. A big part of this is the friction where the toe of the boot rests on the binding. It's not clear to me that this is standardized in any way with AT boots. Just because you can put in a machine and get a number back doesn't mean that number is repeatable. _ I know the guys at Backcountry.net and have no reason to doubt them when they make that claim. They may not have a torque tester, but there is no shortage of them in the neighborhood. It makes no sense for them to say that if it's not true. Heck if it was true then much of your arguement that the diamir is safer would hold more water. The heel hold down mechanism is capable of mangling the plastic end of the central rail, but always cleaning away any compressed snow/ice before locking down into ski mode will prevent that. _ This is one of the things I really like about the Silvretta system you don't have to baby it in any way. If there's snow in the heel piece, just stomp on it to clear it and away you go. The only alpine downhill or alpine touring binding I know of that is virtually breakage-free is Dynafit. _ Dynafit has had their problems as well. See Lou Dawson's page on the Tri-step. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPy/YwmTWTAjn5N/lAQE6rQP8D1YzEwdJob2hRC85BBwS7/LkvbfiGZwI oKPi97Gf9o1MdCoijNaCaYjcn+N+QMhdk1nBcXLCYJUvp2BpR/aCKTr7Xrozs9zj YVTPBdikP9o8BCvvv+kDuXtgI40bKlZoNc8piDJwTqI86UHqby Jn72leQRu17ZeP wi8cKXDz6pE= =AArQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I don’t understand why a torque tester would not be valid on the
Diamir, since the whole point of the test is to determine whether the digits on the binding setting really do correspond with decanewtons of torque, correct? Now of course just because the binding releases within the expected parameters in a shop setting does not mean it will always perform properly on snow (i.e., exposed to complicated combination loads and multiple contaminants), but that’s the same problem with alpine downhill bindings, not just with the Diamir. I did check some binding manuals: my Rossi alpine downhill race bindings and Diamir II manuals never refer to testing the release settings, just vaguely instruct the user to bring the bindings to a specialized shop each year for inspection and readjustment. The Rossi and Diamir manuals provide identical release setting charts. By contrast, the original Diamir instructions were more lengthy (maybe Fritschi wanted to cut back on paper costs in later years?!?), and after explaining to the user how to select the correct value from the setting chart, section 4.5 states, “Check of binding setting to make sure that it is in acccordance with ISO standards: adjust if necessary.” That sounds like a reference to a shop torque tester to ensure that the #s match up with physical reality, but then again something could be lost in the translation from the original Swiss German. Another tidbit: the Fritschi Rave alpine downhill binding uses the same heel unit as the Diamir. The toe unit is somewhat different, but has the same design of placing the release spring inside the central rail. The odd part about the DII/III/FR heel lockdown is that the original Diamir had a design that was immune to such mangling. I don’t see why Fritschi made such an “improvement” (unless they had to pare down weight somewhere to offset the heavier central rail on the DII). Re Dynafit, I’m familiar with its many annoying inconveniences (based both on Lou’s excellent website, other stories, and some - unintentionally - hilarios stories from friends) and also long-term wear issues, but I’ve never heard of a sudden breakage that signficiantly impaired its functionality. I guess w/ so few moving parts, there’s just not much to break! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Booker
do you mean this: http://www.telemark-easygo.com/ ? _ Yes, that's exactly what I mean. In addition to getting a better climbing mode, you also have a very easy to use ski crampon available. I did one testtour with a borrowed telemak-easygo and it is perfect. Since it is sold out - as Ulrich mentioned - I started to try a diy version. It bases on the frame of my old Silvretta 400. The heel piece is removed, but I kept the small plate which provides the left/right motion of the heel piece. The toe piece of the Silvretta is replaced by two metal plates that enclose the the frame like a sandwich. On these metal plates I will fix my 3G. I did not finish it until now, but I hope to do this in the early September. Florian |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WANTED: Burton Mission parts... | toddjb | Snowboarding | 0 | May 5th 04 05:34 PM |
Heavy parts? | Terje Henriksen | Nordic Skiing | 6 | April 11th 04 06:26 PM |
FA: 3 auctions for parts rollerskis: Karhu, Exel, Roleto | Jeff Potter | Nordic Skiing | 0 | March 22nd 04 06:36 PM |
What ski-pass system in Iscgl Silvretta? | STREBOR | European Ski Resorts | 2 | January 16th 04 10:42 AM |
K2 Clicker Spare Parts | Geoff | Snowboarding | 3 | October 7th 03 05:18 PM |