Dynafit Low Tech Race Binding

hey guys

As always thanks for all your expertise. I have a set of low tech race 2.0s. If i was to switch the heel pieces out and replace with the 1.0 LTR heels - do you suspect i will run into drill hole overlap problems? Would be with the same size boot.

Hey Jason/SkimoCo,

What say you in regards to mounting this binding on Vapor Nanos? Is this a bad idea? I'm aware of and enjoy all the trade-offs of race bindings. I'm just wondering about the potential of pulling the binding out from a wide(r) plank. For reference, I'm 5'11" and 150lb.

Thanks!
Peter

An extension to Peter's question: my understanding is that auto-lock bindings are no longer allowed by the ISMF. Can these be converted to manual locking?

I've been racing and doing a bit of training on these for a couple of seasons now and they have held up fine except now I am popping out of at least one of the toepieces during harder efforts. These are the autolocking version. Can I convert my automatic locking version to a manual locking version by installing speed superlight toe levers? The hope is that I could crank the toe lever a couple of "clicks" to tighten em up!

Coming from Nordic ski racing, I'm very comfortable with not much holding me on and downright addicted to simplicity. Turn this, push that....that's a pain in the ass. I've either owned or used two earlier dynafit low tech bindings and it was completely annoying to me to twist the rear mechanism to get different heights. I just kept it at medium. However, I'd still need to twist the damn thing for downhill mode. On the front, it was also annoying that it had a cross country and downhill mode that had to be pushed.
So this binding is a lazy Nordic skiers dream. Step in, it locks! Flip the tab over the posts and you got one solid medium level post which honestly feels fine when on the flats with a great flexing boot (Dynafit PDG). Feels like a forced "lean" but no more than good classic Nordic form requires. On the super steeps (two pitches on our 2,000 ft vertical mt), the mechanical advantage of a higher post might be nice, but unless it's icy, I just lean more and the boots allow it and it's fine.
If you have my "step in and go" mentality and like fast transitions, buy it!!
For those worried about releasibilty and have visions of ACL or meniscus repair in your dreams.....I actually fell on these in an embarrassingly easy section of a ski mo race and although the front stayed in, the rear released easily. My knees never felt it. It was a soft section so hard to say if it was a hard groomed section where the ski tailed tip wouldn't have as much compressibility into the snow where I fell, but I just clicked back in and continued.
I'm sure there's good reason to have beefier bindings, but for me at 165 lbs and mediocre at the hardest stuff, I'd probably ski these even at resort if only for the convenience and light weight.

Is it possible add the adjustable plate at a later date if one wants to be able to adjust the binding to a new boot size? Alternatively, would it be possible to move the binding and re-drill the ski if one bought a new boot which was a different side to your old one or does this compromise the strength of the ski too much?

Does anyone had/have problem with the bindings heel? Considering the 3 screws mounting? I'm interested in buying them, and my main concern is in the heel mounting, I don't want to torn binding out of the ski.

Will you be offering the low tech heel pieces this year?

These are the only race-specific bindings I have owned so I cant compare them to other bindings. However, here are some additional thoughts to the excellent reviews above.

Price. Pretty darn expensive. They are very well designed so you get what you pay for but it seems some other brands or Dynafit models are comparable bindings for less and those may be worth considering. For non-front of the pack racers you may get more for your money with the Dynafit Speed Superlight. However, the light weight is pretty darn compelling and won me over.

Weight. They are the lightest binding out there and seem to do it while still remaining strong enough to handle heavy use.

Durability. Overall, excellent but I too have noticed heel "U" spring wear from my boot and after a lot fewer vertical feet than Jonathan. I have seen folks just buying the steel springs off the bat but Ill probably wait till these wear a bit more. Replacement seems easy enough.

Operation. Very smooth in most conditions and excellent in race transitions but I have had icing issues on the heel elevator in soft snow conditions that caused the heel to rotate to the side while skinning after some ice built up on the elevator platform. Im not sure if this would be a unique issue with the Dynafit design or if other race bindings would suffer from it too.

Releasability. I have had my heels release once in some really variable conditions where my tips submarined on semi-steep terrain and I came to a dead stop. I was in Dynafit PDG boots (as in lots of forward flex) and kind of did a classic telemark over the tips crash, got up, clipped back in and kept going. No strains/sprains etc so I was pleasantly surprised.

Overall: Five Stars for a race binding that is outrageously light and innovative, even among lots of competition from other light and innovative race bindings.

Background on product familiarity: I have 87,000’ on the Low Tech Race, mounted for Dynafit DyNA EVO boots on Hagan X-Race skis. Other race and near-race bindings I have used include various Plum models, Sportiva-branded ATK RT, and the Dynafit Speed Superlite.

First, the first impressions out of the box: If you’ve never seen a rando race binding before, you’re in for a shock. And even if you’ve seen other rando race bindings, then you’re still in for a shock, as the Low Tech Race has stripped away metal that you never imagined could be stripped away.

The toe mounting pattern is identical to regular Dynafit Radical models. The heel pattern has only three screws, very tightly clustered. A removable ski crampon attachment is included in the price.

As with all full-on race bindings, the heel cover offers only a single kind of “half-step” elevator position, which is optimal for optimal skin tracks, but feels a bit too low for too-steep skin tracks. For extended flats, the heel unit will not stay sideways for no elevator at all, but even on race and “near-race” models that rotate for a no-elevator position, I have almost never needed that. Furthermore, the skinning heel > toe differential is about 3mm lower than the Plum 135/145, so optimized a bit more for slightly lower-angle skin tracks. Alternatively, the heel cover has a small hole for adding a spacer for more height.

As is also typical of race bindings, the heel > toe “delta” for skiing is very low (once again about 3mm lower than on the Plum 135/145), which helps with fore-aft balance. (By contrast, more binding “delta” puts almost all skiers more into the backseat – think of where your hips go when hiking down a steep pitch.) The optional fore-aft adjustment plate would increase the heel > toe differentials to somewhere in between the Plum 135/145 and 165.

Second impressions, in use: I have never prereleased, despite plenty of fast skiing in “variable” conditions. The coupling between the boot and the ski feels as tight as with any Dynafit or other “Tech”-style binding. The ski crampon clasp is identical to that on Plum race bindings: very minimalistic, but has worked well for me on those binding for lots of steep tricky skinning. And its minimalistic design allows some subtle bending to accommodate variances among different crampon brands.

Fortunately I have never had the chance to test the release characteristics in a fall, but I have tested the lateral release values with a VSSE Release Calibrater: somewhere in the high single digits, yet noticeably lower than for Plum race bindings. This is a combination of the relatively light heel resistance and the ability to fine tune the toe lever position via a small screw. My bindings are set up so that upon entry the toe lever automatically goes up into a position that is fine for most skinning, although the toe lever can then be pulled up all the way for even more security. The actuation pad also has a small threaded hole so that a screw can be inserted to accommodate boot sole rubber that has worn down too much to trigger the actuation pad.

Third impressions, for long-term durability: Good as new, except for the titanium U-shaped heel spring, which is starting to become notched very slightly. Based on my Plum 135 experience, and depending on your weight, probably somewhere between around 200,000’ and 300,000’ vertical the notching might lead to a noticeably “rattly” feel while skiing, and eventually the notches will cause the pins to become hook-like so as to interfere with lateral release.

Fortunately you don’t have to worry about breakage, since the greater strength of titanium (as opposed to steel) will compensate for the notched metal until you retire the pins for either the rattling or the compromised release. And based on my Plum experience, replacing the U spring (for which Dynafit does supply a steel replacement too) entails only about a minute or so of work: punch out the retainer pin, slide out the old spring, slide in a new spring, and reinsert the retainer pin.

I saw a picture of toe frame breakage, but just one instance. The toe frame on my 2013-14 Speed Superlite is slightly thicker around some of the holes as compared to the otherwise identical frame on my 2012-13 Low Tech Race, so perhaps this has been addressed?