EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › A new breakthrough in A/T technology?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A new breakthrough in A/T technology? - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Hey DoWork! Good to see you here So you're saying one doesn't ski downhill with the tech inserts?
Well that is a big misconception. Makes sense cause you wouldn't be able to get your heel flat + tech plate holes adhesion to boot is something I wonder about.

What about these toe plate tech inserts with a straight Dynafit setup??

Nice to see you're still here smile.gif

Well as it stands now, the tech inserts would be added only so you could use your dh boots to go uphill. They would not be safe to use in a downhill orientation in any setup as they are purely mounted on the face of the boot and are not anchored in a subframe as in a normal AT boot designed for downhill use.

On the same token if you were to shave down the vibram a bit on, say, a pair of cochises- you could just use them instead, but not with a low tech toe AND the fks heel. Thats just not going to work, otherwise people would already mount them that way. All in all I think it's a great idea for a slack country rig as is. Mix in the heel swap plates when they come out with them and you've got yourself something that's useful to people who will never tour.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

Well, I'll be.  That's the first I've ever seen of that.  Know anyone that's used that or seen any tests?  Kind of puts me in the mind of those Salomon touring boots that failed pretty badly a few years ago.  

I'm off to google up some research on those.  

Edited to add: awfully new system/procedure from what I've been able to pull up so far.

YOU DO NOT SKI DOWNHILL ON DH BOOTS INSERTED BY THIS PROCESS.

It is for uphill only, and completely for people who want the low tech stride uphill and also want to use the FKS on the downhill in the current iteration of the system.

 

Ah well, that's certainly a qualifier, but it makes a lot of sense.  There was a certain reluctance on my part to accept that as a downhill system...and I was right, if perhaps somewhat under-informed, as it were.

 

Quote:
I must say- I'm continuously baffled at how misinformed people are on this whole CAST thing. It's really not all that complicated. I'm kind of heartbroken that people are just waving off this extremely well thought out and executed plate system because it isn't exactly what they want right off the bat though. Shame. I really hope this emerging technology doesn't go to the wayside because people are so freakin shortsighted and Internet jaded to just expect instant perfection nowadays.

 

Hey, isn't it a brand-new system?  Give us a break here.  There's a lot to learn and absorb here.  And it may or may not work well...these sort of things can go either way.

post #63 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

On the same token if you were to shave down the vibram a bit on, say, a pair of cochises- you could just use them instead, but not with a low tech toe AND the fks heel. Thats just not going to work, otherwise people would already mount them that way. All in all I think it's a great idea for a slack country rig as is. Mix in the heel swap plates when they come out with them and you've got yourself something that's useful to people who will never tour.

 

cochise boot heel works just fine in a p18

post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

cochise boot heel works just fine in a p18

Yes I know I was saying it wouldn't work if you tried to use the FKS heel with the radical low tech toe, as tog had asked. (I think)

And Bob, it really wasn't a comment directed towards you specifically but to everyone scrunching their noses. It's as if someone just invented a lightbulb and the candle purists aren't interested. wink.gif
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

to everyone scrunching their noses. It's as if someone just invented a lightbulb and the candle purists aren't interested. wink.gif

 

I am the first to admit I wasn't impressed.  I have gear from the early '80s the effectively does the same thing.

 

Heavier of course.  But easy to tour in and easy to swap out when you pull your skins.

 

My original reluctance is I don't think the "idea" is the way to solve the problem.

 

"Problem" being tech bindings don't ski as well or offer the level of ski retention that a DH binding does.

 

I am sking in Tech Race bindings on half my quiver and would on all of it if I could afford the buy in. And they are only $500 or $600 a pair retail.  The newest Scarpa and Dynafit boots offer enough boot for "me".

 

I understand that others want the advantages of a full race boot and a full race binding.  And this is a good *short term* solution.  Just as the plate binding shown above and I used for years was. 

 

If it is truely all about the down, then the best answer is a helicopter, race boots and a DH race binding.  If it is all about the up then hard to beat a skimo race boot and and a 140g tech race binding.

  

I walk past a set of Epoke skinny skis every day with 3 pins.  Used that set up several times on Denali to get to 14K.   My current ski mo set up weighs in at 9# total..skis, boots and bindings.  Not a lot more than the Epoke set up did.  But I can ski something like 90% of what I am capable of skiing on that Skimo gear.   So the up is covered.  That last 10% of terrain and conditions I have to be more careful in on skimo gear and where pure DH gear would make things a lot easier or just more fun is a enticing carrot.

 

Enough so that I am tempted to help fund this project.  But then I start looking at what the current crop of DH boots weigh and worse yet what the DH race bindings weight even if they ae mounted to my favorite ski and I start thinking I would never  take that set up on Rainier let alone out of bounds at the local SA.   I'll stick to the 9/10# .boots, skis and bindings skimo rigs.

 

I see that one of the SI&I claims on the advertizing is a 10K foot ascent in a day of Rainier.  Can anyone clarify if that is a one day ascent from Paradise which is a 9000 of gain one way.....or the route from Muir ot the summit and back which is a "10K' tour" up and back...on a 2 day trip.

 

Because as a comparison...if you are in a hurry to ski down Rainier...sure dh boots and skis might make it a little faster.  But the current record on ski mo gear is 5 hrs and change ROUND  TRIP. for a 9000' UP gain and a 9000' DOWN descent.  And mid winter short one day skimo ascents of Rainier are common these days fro even mere mortals.

 

The real question I think is what is the "problem?  Is it all about the DOWN or more about the UP?

 

Having toured enough in full on race boots and DH bindings..and even on occasion DH race skis (on Rainier amif) ....I know I have no desire to go back. To heavy gear no matter what the little added performance is.

 

As I said..nice short term fix (very nicely done IMO btw) and I admire the engineering and thought process involved.  For a couple of hours I even thought about supporing the project.  But for me....it is basically another bandaid to keep some bad technology up and running.   That "bad technology" would be the current dh binding technology as a touring binding.  I think supporting new technology like the BEAST or what ever comes next that will actually cure the problem.

 

I am surprised that Black Diamond hasn't swooped in and bought this idea and the technology already.

 

For the right guy/gal this system might well be the perfect answer.  No question i was really tempted.   It certainly would have been for me at one time in the past.   The priorority them was "all about the down".   And it is tempting to go back there...to the dark side yahoo.gif.  But I simply find the up more of a challenge now.  duel.gif


Edited by Dane - 3/24/13 at 12:12pm
post #66 of 74
Dane I will have to agree with you on a lot of points, and I actually am not super enthused to use the system as-is except for slackcountry runs, lift closure yoyoing and short tours. I really like my plums and I have no problem whatsoever with the way they ski. What I am excited for is the next wave of this technology- heel swap plates too.

When that day comes I can bring the one pair of skis I always want to use and be ready to use either DH or low tech system in seconds OR just throw my skins and low tech toes into my bag on a lift day just in case, I will personally be totally happy with that.

Even at that level it's still not for "everyone" but if you have 5 pairs of skis, like the lifts and touring and have expensive taste in bindings, it could be really nice to have too as it eliminates the need for multiple sets of clamps. I like options on the fly, so I am pretty excited for that.

But that's jut my take on it. For me it makes sense. I recognize it isn't for everyone.
post #67 of 74
Thread Starter 

Do Work, when you put it like that I definitely buy into it. By being able to completely switch the bindings out wouldn't that kind of expand your quiver? 

post #68 of 74

Tell ya what I would really like along the idea of your comments and would pay for in a second.  A super light weight, bolt on plate system that I could easily put my tech bindiings on.  Just one pair of bindings and half a dozen pair of plates for 1/2 pair of skis.  The quiver killer is close but something even better, smaller holes in the ski, bomb proof and only a click system to change.

 

Incorporate all that and a down hill bnding option as well and I am in. 

post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

Tell ya what I would really like along the idea of your comments and would pay for in a second.  A super light weight, bolt on plate system that I could easily put my tech bindiings on.  Just one pair of bindings and half a dozen pair of plates for 1/2 pair of skis.  The quiver killer is close but something even better, smaller holes in the ski, bomb proof and only a click system to change.

 

Incorporate all that and a down hill bnding option as well and I am in. 

 

You should look into SollyFit. A lot of people (me included) doesn't like the height between the skis and the boots, but looks like you don't mind that. Not sure how light they are.

post #70 of 74

"A lot of people (me included) doesn't like the height between the skis and the boots, but looks like you don't mind that."

 

It was a bad idea 30 years ago.  Why would I ever tolerate that kind of stack height now?  Answer?  I wouldn't.  Which is why am am skiing it the lightest tech bindings out there.  And even they are too much off the ski IMO.  But a 140g binding..compared to a 1200g binding?  It is a no brainier.

post #71 of 74
I'm 170lbs and ski hard, both in and out of the backcountry.

1) Dynafit heels don't hold me very well when hucking over 20' (forward release issues).
2) Duke stride is extremely inefficient, sidehilling is awful too.
3) Dukes have heel pre-release issues when sending it (better than Dynafit, but still release on occassion when they shouldn't)
3) Guardians break (had 2 friends break them so far), same inefficient stride and sidehilling
4) Beasts are expensive and unproven
5) Most people already have alpine bindings
6) Most people like me already have dynafit bindings for non-burly days
7) the burlier AT boots fit in height-adjustable bindings (Marker/Salomon)
8) Hoji skis Salomon bindings when he has the chance (heli drops)
9) ski mountaineering is not the same as hard charging

Dynafits work for me when I'm just looking for a long cruising tour or ski mountaineering. I have to use Dukes when I want to charge, and I like charging. I hate my Dukes when touring, but they're a necessary evil. I'm the target market, and it's growing (just like big mountain comp attendence). You might not be the target market, and thats ok.

If you haven't toured on both Dynafits AND a plate binding (Duke/Guardian/Fritschi), then you are likely underestimating how important the difference in stride is. It's HUGE. The weight difference pales in comparison to the stride difference when it comes to efficiency. I can tour about 30% longer (feel more refreshed, ski better, etc.).
Edited by Brian Lindahl - 3/31/13 at 8:08pm
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

"A lot of people (me included) doesn't like the height between the skis and the boots, but looks like you don't mind that."

 

It was a bad idea 30 years ago.  Why would I ever tolerate that kind of stack height now?  Answer?  I wouldn't.  Which is why am am skiing it the lightest tech bindings out there.  And even they are too much off the ski IMO.  But a 140g binding..compared to a 1200g binding?  It is a no brainier.

I'm confused, aren't you asking for a plate system to swap bindings?

post #73 of 74
Thread Starter 

Blister now has a review written up for those of you who didn't know yet.

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/cast-sii-alpine-touring-system

post #74 of 74
Thread Starter 

Just a quick update without starting a new thread, the Cast SI&I system reached their Kickstarter goal of $50,000. So it will be hitting production for next season. I'm excited to see how they do.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › A new breakthrough in A/T technology?