Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lynx V2 experience (and V1, why not?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tele.skier View Post
    Well, IF the tech toe has so much more of a rigid hold on the boot than the boot cup, then meidjo shouldn't release because,.... You see,... the toe connection is so much more superior,... blah, blah blah... Dostie has been saying the same thing ever since TTS got started. It's not superior in any demonstrable way in it's ability to enhance skiing performance. I'm sure neither of you are ever going to prove it or back away from that claim.
    Hear me now and believe me later...

    You will figure it out.


    ain't no turn like tele!

    Comment


    • since WC alpine bindings release, they must not be very rigid either. seems like WC racers wouldn't like that, but must be true by the above logic.

      on a serious note, it is the direction of load that matters. unlocked 2 pin bindings will release with a sideways push at the toe. they will also release when the boot is pulled backwards, or twisted about the axis of the cuff (which pulls one side backwards). push the boot forward, and it will not release/move. up/down/rotate about the axis of the boot sole, it is also very rigid. All that has a lot to do with the geometry of the cone/cylinder of the pins and inserts, and the location of the pivots for the toe wings, and only a little with the toe springs. really only the backwards and twist about cuff is reliant on the springs in the toe (and location of the pivot).

      as the heel raises, it does change the geometry of loads relative to the pivots, and changes any self clamping behavior, but also the the cable loads increase, which tends to cancel that out by driving the boot into the cylindrical portion of the pin/cup interface.

      I think what Dostie, myself, and many others mean when they say tech toe has a more rigid hold on the boot is what they feel when edging, which is the twist about the axis of the sole. I also think 2 pin tele bindings are much more snappy on the return to ski.

      all that assumes a "traditional" 2 pin toe. fritchi toes, and split board toes such as the voile toe, and some of the super cool ones coming out of europe could be different due to the different geometry. but the interface between pin/cup is the same.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dostie View Post
        Hear me now and believe me later...

        You will figure it out.
        Maybe not if you’re a testadura.
        Function in disaster, finish in style.

        Comment



        • Originally posted by tele.skier
          Well, IF the tech toe has so much more of a rigid hold on the boot than the boot cup, then meidjo shouldn't release because,.... You see,... the toe connection is so much more superior,... blah, blah blah... Dostie has been saying the same thing ever since TTS got started. It's not superior in any demonstrable way in it's ability to enhance skiing performance. I'm sure neither of you are ever going to prove it or back away from that claim.
          Originally posted by jasonq View Post
          since WC alpine bindings release, they must not be very rigid either. seems like WC racers wouldn't like that, but must be true by the above logic.
          Right, if I actually meant what I was saying in the quote, but I was being facetious in my comment, so you actually confirm what I'm actually saying BECAUSE,... my comment was sarcasm intended to point out the incongruity of claiming that the tech toes are somehow BOTH a significantly more rigid toe piece and also still allow a release. Those two claims are at odds with either other.

          Which is a more powerful precise binding? That WC alpine binding you reference (which has a cup like front) OR the best tech toe binding??? And if the tech toe is so superior of a toe connection to the ski, then why aren't alpine racers using tech toes?? (sarcasm next >) because the tech toe is (insert some wishful claim here)

          Originally posted by allan
          Tele tech is more positive and has better power transmission than any frame tele binding. This is not really debatable and is an old debate based on AT gear.
          I love when people say something's not debatable without trying to prove their point. I can say you're an idiot or you're from the planet Krypton, and add that "it's not debatable"... Have I won either of those arguments? Your proof is baloney, based on your impression of tech toe bindings and wishful thinking.

          You don't win an argument by calling someone you disagree with obstinate, unless you think your own obstinance is proof of some kind. Nor do you prove your claim by saying, "eventually you will come to understand that you're wrong". Some of the old arguments against the NTN platform were, "I know what I know", and "The emporer's new clothes". I make neither argument, nor do I accept either argument in rebuttal.

          Ask yourself which is more rigid. 2 articulating arms on springs, or a three dimensional folded metal cup which has stiffness imparted to it by it's solid geometric 3 dimensional shape?

          In closing, I'm not claiming that the tech toe is inferior. I've tried all the tech toe NTN bindings. They skied fine. There wasn't any moment where they felt "better". They both felt more active, but that's not related to some claim of tech toe superiority in downhill performance. There's no doubt that very active bindings feel more precise by virtue of their more powerful grip in the boot.... I think the outlaw has that same feeling of precision too, because it's such a powerful NTN binding also, and it has a cup toe... as we all well know.
          Last edited by tele.skier; 25th March 2020, 08:15 AM.
          the fall line is your friend.... resistance is futile

          Comment


          • Props to 22D. Sending me some new springs and they mentioned that they're working on plates that are a hair longer to improve function of the claw.

            Comment


            • Chalk this one up to user error. I took the binding apart, reinstalled, and skied today. No issues. I must have had something out of alignment or something.

              Stay safe . . . .

              Originally posted by dschane View Post
              Had a weird thing happen today. 4" of soft spring snow on firm crust, the result was I was going knee to ski from the rapid transition of soft to hard as f'k. After a while, one spring on one binding totally bent sideways. The claw became flaccid and I ejected. I skied down with the toe locked in and I rode on my heels. Easy conditions, so that was fine. I fixed it and took one more lap, second turn (and a gentle one) and the spring buckled and did the same thing. I could reach under and pluck it back into alignment, but I'm pretty confident the spring is toast.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tele.skier View Post
                Right, if I actually meant what I was saying in the quote, but I was being facetious in my comment, so you actually confirm what I'm actually saying BECAUSE,... my comment was sarcasm intended to point out the incongruity of claiming that the tech toes are somehow BOTH a significantly more rigid toe piece and also still allow a release. Those two claims are at odds with either other.

                Which is a more powerful precise binding? That WC alpine binding you reference (which has a cup like front) OR the best tech toe binding??? And if the tech toe is so superior of a toe connection to the ski, then why aren't alpine racers using tech toes?? (sarcasm next >) because the tech toe is (insert some wishful claim here)

                I love when people say something's not debatable without trying to prove their point. I can say you're an idiot or you're from the planet Krypton, and add that "it's not debatable"... Have I won either of those arguments? Your proof is baloney, based on your impression of tech toe bindings and wishful thinking.

                You don't win an argument by calling someone you disagree with obstinate, unless you think your own obstinance is proof of some kind. Nor do you prove your claim by saying, "eventually you will come to understand that you're wrong". Some of the old arguments against the NTN platform were, "I know what I know", and "The emporer's new clothes". I make neither argument, nor do I accept either argument in rebuttal.

                Ask yourself which is more rigid. 2 articulating arms on springs, or a three dimensional folded metal cup which has stiffness imparted to it by it's solid geometric 3 dimensional shape?

                In closing, I'm not claiming that the tech toe is inferior. I've tried all the tech toe NTN bindings. They skied fine. There wasn't any moment where they felt "better". They both felt more active, but that's not related to some claim of tech toe superiority in downhill performance. There's no doubt that very active bindings feel more precise by virtue of their more powerful grip in the boot.... I think the outlaw has that same feeling of precision too, because it's such a powerful NTN binding also, and it has a cup toe... as we all well know.
                Da! World Cup alpine bindings are very rigid with the strongest springs and the highest release values. They can handle the highest physical shock loads in any direction and minimize pre-release. They are also locked in toe and heel. No one said anything about tech bindings being more rigid than any alpine binding. Besides this is not even of any relevance in what we are debating here. What we are debating is tele tech and AT bindings.

                It’s not debatable. Which tele binding is more rigid in lateral stiffness? Of course it’s the tele tech bindings both TTS and TTN as compared to the NTN cage bindings and any 75mm NN binding. The connection of binding to boot is much more positive and more precisely defined by the pins and cups. Maybe that’s why my same 26 MP Evo WC boot will move laterally at the heel over a 1/4 of an inch in my Outlaw, where in my TTS binding, the Meidjo and Lynx, the boot will not move even half of that distance laterally. When you push the heel laterally in the Outlaw, you can actually see the toe of the boot move in the 3D formed steel cage. Do you think that might be discernible in edge control to an accomplished skier? My guess is you haven’t spent enough time skiing these tech bindings to tell the difference.

                The one thing from skiing (not skinning) perspective that the tech versions of these tele (or AT) bindings do not do well is compensate for shock loads. The cage and frame bindings are superior in this regard. That’s why a binding like the Outlaw is a better in area tele binding. Plus the fact that they can be set up with brakes instead of leashes which is how I use my Outlaws.

                Besides, I did not call you obstinate, I believe you did that. I called you a hard head.😉 Why are you so adamant about misguidedly arguing these issues when you don’t even have a tech ver of any of these bindings in this dog fight? You’re a very knowledgeable (on almost any subject) tele tech head/ skier and I’m very certain an excellent skier but you are dead wrong in this regard. Just give it up, Dostie, Jason and I are correct in our assertion with this comparison.

                I’ve personally been skiing and owned low tech AT bindings for more than 16 years and TTS/ TTN bindings for over 10 years. This is not something I’ve casually just tested a few times in the last year or so. I’ve logged serious miles in the BC with these bindings and I do know what the ski experience is that I’m relating to you with regards to how they ski.
                Last edited by Allan Fici; 25th March 2020, 05:07 PM.
                Function in disaster, finish in style.

                Comment


                • Well, I have rottefella freerides that have zero slop in them laterally. With a boot clamped in them they have zero lateral play between the boot and the cup as well. My dog in this fight is what I've seen in many technological claims of superiority. What I believe we have here is a "distinction without a difference" IMO, but obviously that's not your opinion.

                  I have great respect for all 3 of you guys and much respect for all the people here, so lets just say, Based on each of our experience, we disagree, and leave it at that.
                  the fall line is your friend.... resistance is futile

                  Comment


                  • Allan, I understand the basics behind why most AT bindings do not handle shock loads well due to limited travel before they release at the toe. How then is it that I never pre-release out of my Meidjo's even when bump skiing firm snow inbounds? Probably the answer is that I'd also not pre-release out of a typical AT binding since I'm not skiing hard enough, or do you think the extra forward pressure in a tele binding helps?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dschane View Post
                      Chalk this one up to user error. I took the binding apart, reinstalled, and skied today. No issues. I must have had something out of alignment or something.

                      Stay safe . . . .
                      Scotch that; it happened again. Back to my original theory - I bottomed out the springs enough that they need to be replaced.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by xmatt View Post
                        Allan, I understand the basics behind why most AT bindings do not handle shock loads well due to limited travel before they release at the toe. How then is it that I never pre-release out of my Meidjo's even when bump skiing firm snow inbounds? Probably the answer is that I'd also not pre-release out of a typical AT binding since I'm not skiing hard enough, or do you think the extra forward pressure in a tele binding helps?
                        I don’t think you’re skiing them hard enough. I’ve had 2 pre-releases with the Meidjo’s skiing high speeds in area. One really rang my bell when it happened. Forward pressure has to help with retention on the Meidjo.

                        I’ve also pre-released out of my Ions skiing firm spring bumps in area and the Ion has forward pressure and good retention for a tech binding. I adjusted the RV higher (9 for my 140 lbs.) on the Ion and it stopped.

                        It's not like you can’t ski tech bindings at a ski area, you obviously can but they’re not really designed to take that pounding. Although some of the newer bindings with tech toes like the Dynafit Rotation, Frtischi Tectons and Marker King Pins are addressing this issue. Also the Salomon/ Atomic Shift but they transform the tech toe to an alpine toe for skiing.
                        Last edited by Allan Fici; 27th March 2020, 05:57 AM.
                        Function in disaster, finish in style.

                        Comment


                        • I weigh 175 and I never pre-released from Meidjos the half season I was skiing them. I have pre-released from Lynx v.1s a number of times and had taken to locking the toes in no-fall zones. Now that I have the v.2s I will see how it goes until I get to a no-fall zone some time in the future, and then I will probably lock them out of caution. I have pre-released from both Speed Radical TTS and ION TTS. I admit I don't ski very hard most of the time. And when I do, it's because I am in perfect conditions for speed. Advancing decrepitude has its advantages.

                          Comment


                          • In fairness the PR’s I had with the Meidjo was before my anti ice treatment And the v2.1 upgrade . So I could have had some snow/ ice build up in the claw. I quit skiing the Meidjo in area or at least in harder snow conditions. I've not skied the Lynx in a ski area yet and I’ve only skied v2. I just checked both a Meidjo and Lynx with my EWC boots and both feel like they have similarly light preload with the boot flat on the deck. the forward pressure ramps up fast once the boot heel is lifted so that has to help retention of the boot.

                            On another note I think I had the Ion at DIN 6.5-7 initially but after I pre-released in firm corn snow bumps I incrementally increased the DIN up to 9 in two adjustments. If I go by the chart it says 5.5 for my height, weight, age and ability. I tested them in foot and can kick them off but I haven’t pre-released after that.
                            Function in disaster, finish in style.

                            Comment


                            • Ya, my experience with the Meidjos was 100% in cold snow so I never experienced any of the problems that plagued 2.0. The ones I skied were 2.1 upgrade kitted, I believe. Dostie will have to confirm or correct that.

                              And I've only skied one day on the Lynx v.2s so I have limited personal experience. But they felt far more rigid in every aspect of the connection to the ski. To be honest, the v.1s had more in common with the very first generation that I tested with Backcountry Magazine. The test was not valid because at the time we didn't know that we needed to dismantle the binding to adjust the preload. But I walked out of them all over the mountain. v.1 was not that bad but still had trouble retaining me. v.2s deliver a lot more power and performance with toes unlocked. No releases and no chance to lock them for any legitimate reason.
                              Last edited by cesare; 27th March 2020, 02:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Picture of the set of springs. One is definitely bent, no?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X