Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another TTS Competitor/Frankentele: Moonlight Skis

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

  • Another TTS Competitor/Frankentele: Moonlight Skis

    Originally posted on Facebook from Freeheeler.eu's page.

    Note the rando version. Comments on Facebook say that it's not exactly light.

    http://www.moonlightskis.com/moonlightskis-2-products
    https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...2905891&type=3
    Last edited by SoMuchBetterThanU; 13 November 2013, 04:24 PM.
    Drive the cuff!

  • #2
    I thought "frankentele" was stupid **** that OCD, socially inept dweebs built while hiding in unheated and unfinished basements avoiding human interaction?

    Comment


    • #3
      Not exactly cheap, either.
      https://www.google.com/#q=3200+nok+in+dollars

      Comment


      • #4
        Is it just me or is there no difference between the two bindings according to the pictures?

        Comment


        • #5
          Well there are at least two of us but don't worry you are in good company.

          Pretty slick website with what looks like a pretty obvious mistake.

          Comment


          • #6
            The top plate of the hold down comes off, that's a positive, but moving the pivot is not really practical for increasing activity as the cartridges ROM will max out to fast. A microadjust set up with a sliding pivot like you see in a tech heel binding, that would be cool.

            This was posted as a prototype a few weeks ago, definitely a rip off from Mark's work, but I guess that's to be expected.

            At this point, I would not consider anything with the crossover wire and side mounted cartridges to be cutting edge, the ROM is just too limited and the potential for binding or ski damage is significant.

            What we need is a novel design that allows second heel or first heel heel attachment with an underfoot spring system, ideally step in, that would be cutting edge.

            It's nice to have a lighter free pivot binding with a modicum of release, but just copying someone elses hard work and trying to profit by it is kinda lame. I'd be much more impressed if they had actually done a little engineering and added to the advancement of this binding system.

            Anyone know what toe they're using?
            Last edited by Nurse Ben; 14 November 2013, 07:19 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Heels look like La Sportiva. Is there any difference after the Dynafit patent expired?

              Comment


              • #8
                It almost looks like they purchased Mark's heal piece and heal throw. So you never know. Maybe they licensed it from him. It could be legit... maybe.
                No one cares that you can't tele

                Comment


                • #9
                  They have used Kreuzspitze bindings for that. It is a small Italian company.
                  P.S. I have use Kreuzspitze heel units for my AT setup forcouple of years now. They are very robust. But I would not use any techbindings toe units with aluminum toe jaws (Plum, ATK, Trab..) for backcountryskiing. Only Dynafit toe jaws are made of tempered steel.
                  http://www.kreuzspitze.com/EN/index.php
                  click Italian flag and you'll see more products !?!
                  Last edited by Toby; 14 November 2013, 10:53 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It could be legit... maybe.
                    The wire looks the same, but the hold down is different. I kinda doubt Mark would license his stuff without his hold down and toe, but I suppose it's possible. The reality is that Mark would have a hard time fighting copyright infirngement since he's a small scale producer.

                    But I would not use any techbindings toe units with aluminum toe jaws (Plum, ATK, Trab..) for backcountryskiing. Only Dynafit toe jaws are made of tempered steel.
                    Why do you think a tele binding use would need a stronger toe than AT?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It could be legit... maybe.
                      The wire looks the same, but the hold down is different. I kinda doubt Mark would license his stuff without his hold down and toe, but I suppose it's possible. The reality is that Mark would have a hard time fighting copyright infirngement since he's a small scale producer.

                      But I would not use any techbindings toe units with aluminum toe jaws (Plum, ATK, Trab..) for backcountryskiing. Only Dynafit toe jaws are made of tempered steel.
                      Why do you think a tele binding use would need a strnger toe than AT?

                      If you trust Plum, ATK, etc for AT use, then it shouldn't matter that you're using the toe for TTS.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Facebook says it's "tested by guys who aren't exactly light," nothing about the binding. Website reports 450 / 500 grams for tele, rando versions respectively (probably an error). Anyway, looking forward to an EYT review...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I had a chance to ski the "pure tele" in Iceland and Greenland for 14 days and they were awesome, though admittedly I haven't skied TTS before, so no comparison between the 2. The toe piece was designed and manufactured by Moonlight Skis. I think he did work with the guy in Utah to do the rest of the binding. I know that he cannot currently sell the binding in the US because of patents, but I honestly don't know who was doing the tech system first. Seems like telemark skiers have been talking about it for a while.

                          At any rate, I also skied his skis and they are unbelievably light and stiff. I had gear much lighter than everyone on my trip (AT skiers on dynafit), so that was nice. Still performed well in powder too. Here are a few photos.
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	photo%u002525203.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	61.3 KB
ID:	81795
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	photo%u002525202.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	26.8 KB
ID:	81796
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	photo%u002525204.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	44.2 KB
ID:	81797

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X