Originally Posted by Bob Peters
I have no idea what that video is supposed to be telling us.
Is it that there is "play" in the binding when the guy is ARTIFICIALLY weighting the front of the ski with his other foot and then wiggling the heel back and forth with his weight UP on the binding/boot?
If so, so what?
Agree with you, Bob, but OTOH, think he and you may be talking past each other. He discovers, correctly, that AT bindings have more play than fixed alpine bindings - not precisely an earth-shaking new finding - and assumes that means they are somehow defective or unsafe. Which does not follow. But he's correct that he'll get more play, artificially weighted or not, weight up or down, in an AT rig; it's just the nature of the leverage produced by the design. Landing airs will not exactly help the play, either.
The real issue IMO is that about 2% of people who buy AT bindings actually use them for their engineering target: Day-skinning; sidebounds and back, hikes and walking back, some resort and some OB. They're not a alpine binding, they're a compromise that takes care of a little of this and a little of that and leaves no one quite satisfied.
The 98% mount them just cuz, oh, they look cool and full of risky intentionality. It's important to be able to skin in case, well you know, you ever get around to it:
First, though, gotta get that cool little pack - great for lunch and a camera, and for sure it promises risky business, and then (maybe) all that weird specialty AVY stuff, although got to say the mini-shovel is very sexy to the chicks, and finally some time must figure out those damn skins that keep getting stuck to each other wrong when I practice in the living room, and the one time I tried outside they kept coming off, and well, maybe next trip. Meanwhile, let's hit the groomers and maybe hike a little to ski back to the lift, feel like an backcountry adventurer, and worry about play in the design....
Edited by beyond - 2/8/16 at 8:38pm