AT Technorama

[Quadzilla]

If you have a interest in Tech AT, maybe going to make the jump into tech in the near future, you should really read Dostie's article on the EYT main website. Gee, the tech is getting so techy it is bound to scare skiers off and rightly so. Man, it is ski touring it doesn't have to be that complicated. For me reading the article reminds me of the debut of NTN, the Pink Pony, savior of telemark et et.

Anyway, IMO, unless you like to fiddle and hang out at the ski shop having someone work on your gear who doesn't know what they are doing, then don't buy into the koolaid of side releases, toe pivots, compression springs blah blah and keep it simple. Simple meaning old school Dynafits bindings, Dynafit brand boot dimples. It is proven, works great and reliable...

My rant for the day

Dostie Article

http://www.earnyourturns.com/24620/backcountry-tech-talk-whats-a-millimeter-between-2-pins/

[Valdez Telehead]

Can't you post something without dissing tele.

It's like a snotty road cyclist dissing mountain bikes because they are not as light or efficient. We all choose our tools for our own personal reasons and enjoyment. Respect that.

[Dostie]

Can't you post something without dissing tele.

Can't you read a comment without taking it personal? Geez, the level of minutia and detail I provided does tend to make your head spin. I DO recall applying the same level of detail when NTN was introduced, and commonly do the same for all telemark bindings because the distinguishing features ARE in the details.

I sympathize with Quad, but the reality is, all this stuff is only simple when it works for the user in a repeatable, reliable fashion. My point in the article was...for some folks the traditional Dyanfit system is not sophisticated enough to be turnkey and easy to use. But I think we're on the cusp of changing that with the new generation of tech bindings.

I fully expect a fair amount of comments in the next 5 years to the effect of..."remember when we didn't have a free-pivot for touring with tele?" Same thing will occur with 2-pin tech on in relation to having a very simplistic system that didn't have much elasticity.

[Quadzilla]

Can't you post something without dissing tele.

It's like a snotty road cyclist dissing mountain bikes because they are not as light or efficient. We all choose our tools for our own personal reasons and enjoyment. Respect that.

Dude, you must be feeling it after a little scooting around on your boat anchors and blaming me for it. I don't diss tele, I spend a fair amount of time on mine. I do sometimes diss heavy complicated gear in the BC. It most often breaks, ices up or a real load climbing. Both AT and Tele.

So, maybe time for you to find the joy of light weight climbing and go tech........

[Dostie]

Let's all pile on VT now for sticking with his duckbills, not that there's anything wrong with duckbills except when they quack.

[chamonix]

Actually I kind of enjoyed the really detailed discussion "minutia and detail" "of one of the new AT bindings...warts and all. Reminds me of the old issues of Couloir magazine, when Dostie would have beautiful charts showing range of motion and "activity" for various tele bindings.
Soldier on..

ps. once I realized ice in the binding, toe cups could be an issue, I've had absolutely no bad releases or problems with my Dynafit Verticals, in the backcountry, or the resort this winter.

[Valdez Telehead]

I don't do helis or AT. I guess I best shoulda/coulda quit telemark skiing along time ago. I feel so inferior out there! But if I were to switch, it would be to something more challenging, like a split-board and snowboarding.

I suffered through Dostie's recent article on an AT binding in a good way. Pretty in-depth on a topic I have little interest other than to learn how to fix, de-ice or adjust tech bindings at 0F in the wind on some mountain side if needed for partners. I've helped skiers new to tech binding get them dialed in. I actually recommend the stuff over telemark gear for those new to the fun of skinning for turns.

quack or crack?