IO Directory 2016

the system to work or be prone to premature release. When

these tiny tolerances stack up in the wrong direction, the re-

sult can be boots that release too easily, uphill and downhill.

Last spring, at the 21st International Congress on Ski

Trauma and Skiing Safety, held in Cortina Italy, a team of

four from the University of Washington, led by Jeff Camp-

bell, said with academic understatement that the retention

force of tech systems “are highly sensitive to variations in

tech insert geometry.”

In particular they noted that the height of the front

wall of the insert “had the largest influence on release

torque (40% +/- 12.8%) while the clamping force [of the

binding] had the least influence (14.9% +/- 1.8%).”

Good vs. Bad Inserts

The question every retailer should be asking now

is, how can we tell if an insert is good? Until there is an

industry-wide norm for this, not only with regard to the

dimensions but also a way to verify compliance, the prac-

tical advice is to only sell boots with inserts that meet the

strict, albeit unpublished, criteria for reliability.

The short version of that is to count on genuine

Dynafit inserts as meeting this criteria. This conservative

assessment makes sense since Dynafit has more experi-

ence than anyone with, not only the dimensions, but also

material properties and the manufacturing processes to

insure functional compatibility. However, to think that

Salomon didn’t learn to take the importance of inserts

more seriously after stubbing their toes

with the first generation of Quest boots is

to take the brand to be a bunch of fools,

which they clearly are not. My back

channel contacts suggest that Salomon

inserts might have the tightest toler-

ances of any brand, including Dynafit.

The reality is, I’mmaking a mountain

out of a mole hill in terms of the prob-

ability that there could be a problemwith

pairing some boots with some bindings. It

may be between particular brands, but it

might only be a specific pair of boots that

just happens to be too far out of tolerance.

Due to the nature of how the tech

binding works, you can’t just dial up the

pressure on the toes to hold tighter if the

inserts are effectively too shallow. You

can switch to a binding with a higher

closing pressure, such as G3’s Ion, or you

can get a different pair of boots and hope

the new pair has better inserts.

Below is a quick list of AT boot manu-

facturers and the brand of inserts used

for this year and next.

Climbing Skins

There are plenty of updates to exist-

ing products, but the arena that is set

for something new is climbing skins.

During the past few years a new glue

formula has been working its way into

the consciousness, using a silicon-based

adhesive that

employs suction to

increase retention

while reducing the

inherent tackiness

of the glue. Mar-

keted as “glueless”

glues, these new

skins have a rub-

bery feel and use a

microscopic texture

to the adhesive that

creates the vacuum

properties. They are great in moderate

temperatures but not consistently reli-

able in sub-zero temps (0 F, -20 C).

The real revolution in climbing skins

may not be with the glue so much as

the plush. Fischer created a climbing

skin from its waxless crown pattern in its

XCD skis. It’s a full length waxless pattern

that can be attached like a regular climb-

ing skin. In wet snow it climbs great and

the glide is undeniably superior to skins

with mohair or nylon plush. In dry snow,

Brand

Insert Used

2015

Insert Used

2016

Atomic

Salomon

Black Diamond

N/A

Crispi

Dalbello

Dynafit

Fischer

Dynafit

Lange

None

Unknown*

La Sportiva

Roxa/Moment

Dynafit

Salomon

Scarpa

Dynafit

Scott

Dynafit

Tecnica

Dyanfit

*Probably Dynafit, since the Rossignol group is distributing OEM Dynafit

bindings.

G3 takes the

concept of a

waxless pattern

skin and integrates

it with a traditional

plush to create the

Scala skin.

Inside

Outdoor

Winter

2016