Frankenbinding Advice

[JohnSKepler]

Well, last year I went all in on the Xplore and I really liked it a lot. I wound up with them on my Gamme 54, Asnes FTX62, and a late-season acquired pair of Voile Objective BC. They shined on all of them, pairing them with either my Alpina Alaska XP or Alfa Free depending on the ski and the conditions.

All the while, I've heard all the old-timers (I can say that because I 'are' one chronologically but am fairly new to XC/BCTele) yammering on, blah, blah, blah about the old 75mm three-pin with the crumbling leather boots yada, yada, yada... It got so tiresome...

Until I decided they were probably right. As I became more competent on the Xplore the rubber toe bumper just wasn't doing it for me. I'd done, as some of you may recall, some force analysis on a generic cable set up and it just stuck there in my brain. Everytime I was fighting to keep my skis straight I became more convinced that the moments and forces that come out to the cable setup just can't be reached by the Xplore. Which isn't to say I don't like the Xplore. It is great for what it is and I do think the horizontal pin and retention device is more rigid and provides a better grip on the boot. For some skis and some conditions it's perfect. But, when the snow got deeper, and the turns got tighter, I thought more and more that a cable system would give me more torsional and longitunal control over the ski.

I'm not going to do another analysis right now. And I'm not going to go to 75mm because it is getting harder, and harder, and harder to find equipment. But I also thought to myself "If Xplore and 75mm got married, what would the baby look like?" And hence was born my Frankenbinding idea.

Starting with this,

Could I hack off the front part of the binding and mount the plate and cables underneath an Xplore binding? My eyes are probably playing tricks, but it kind of looks like that hole pattern is... the same as an Xplore??? Could I then screw and glue an appropriately sized and shaped piece of stiff rubber to the heel of the boot as a stop for the cable? I see no reason this wouldn't work but then, I don't know diddly about cable systems.

I have two primary concerns as to why this would fail.
1. It will pull off the heel of the sole.
2. The pin retention of the Xplore won't handle the loads.

I'm very interested in the thoughts and opinions of those with more experience in this area. Thanks!

[jtb]

Apologies if you are already aware of this and have ruled it out for some reason, but... it sounds like you're describing a TTS binding.

[Lhartley]

Think he wants to use his leathers. I seen a t4 and t race with 2-pin toes on @the_telemark_undead Instagram stories. Think it was photoshopped though

[bobbytooslow]

As I became more competent on the Xplore the rubber toe bumper just wasn't doing it for me. I'd done, as some of you may recall, some force analysis on a generic cable set up and it just stuck there in my brain. Everytime I was fighting to keep my skis straight I became more convinced that the moments and forces that come out to the cable setup just can't be reached by the Xplore. Which isn't to say I don't like the Xplore. It is great for what it is and I do think the horizontal pin and retention device is more rigid and provides a better grip on the boot. For some skis and some conditions it's perfect. But, when the snow got deeper, and the turns got tighter, I thought more and more that a cable system would give me more torsional and longitunal control over the ski.

I'm all for any & all lightweight tele tinkering, and have been scheming an Xplore-based project myself. I guess my first question would be: What makes you certain that the problem is with the binding rather than the boots? In other words, if you had boots with more torsional rigidity, might the bindings be just fine? And, which toe bumper were you using?

I ask because I have tried skiing a lot with Rossignol BC-X12 boots in BD O1 bindings, and I could not transfer enough power to the ski edge to make it bite in firm conditions. The problem was certainly not the binding or ski; the boot cuff was the weakest link, and would just kinda mush over. It seems like the BC-X12 is as burly (or burlier) than any of the current Xplore boots. So adding a cable may or may not help if the problem is in the upper part of the boot. Does that make sense?

All of this being said, tinkering is fun, and should be tried anyway. I'd happily accept being completely wrong!

Could I hack off the front part of the binding and mount the plate and cables underneath an Xplore binding? My eyes are probably playing tricks, but it kind of looks like that hole pattern is... the same as an Xplore??? Could I then screw and glue an appropriately sized and shaped piece of stiff rubber to the heel of the boot as a stop for the cable? I see no reason this wouldn't work but then, I don't know diddly about cable systems.

The heel shelf could be done, though how well it works depends on which boots you use and how you attach it. Err on the side of too burly!

I like your idea of just hacking off the front part of a 3-pin binding. The location of the cable hook anchor points relative to the pins will play a big role in how it feels/skis. If you're using a leather/fabric boot, I'd start with those anchor points maybe 35mm aft of the toe pins, and see how it feels actually skiing on snow, then move them if necessary. Maybe the holes will happen to line up. But if the goal is to make a binding that performs the way you really want, I'd be prepared to drill my own set(s) of holes.

[JohnSKepler]

Apologies if you are already aware of this and have ruled it out for some reason, but... it sounds like you're describing a TTS binding.

Oh, yes I'm well aware of the tech-toe TTS. While TTS is useful I am thinking a more lightweight system using existing Xplore boots, which means no tech-toe. I have a Meidjo and Scarpa TxPro setup, which for some tasks is functionally similar to TTS (and the other systems) but isn't very good at what I like best.

Basically, my opinion is that the heavy plastic boots have their place but SUCK for covering ground, or rather, covering snow. They just don't mimic the anatomy of how humans use their legs as well as more-traditional XC/BC gear. And what I (me, myself, and I) like is lower-angle skiing with long approaches with some utility in more ambitious slope angles along the way should I choose I want to try.

For me, the best way to take what I have, retain the functionality of what I like and expand the functionality in ways I want, is to merge an Xplore with a cable.

I'll ski the Meidjo set up at the occasional resort visit with family and friends but, like my women, I prefer my ski gear to be svelt, lightweight, and functional for the things I enjoy.

[Manney]

the heavy plastic boots have their place but SUCK for covering ground, or rather, covering snow. They just don't mimic the anatomy of how humans use their legs as well as more-traditional XC/BC gear.

This is true.

The same thing applies to NN with a stiffly soled boot, which inhibits foot flex at the BoF. The beauty of the Xplore (and TTS) is that it puts the pivot point inside the foot… if only barely. The TTS does the same thing, but paired with a stiffer boot (which interferes in anatomical movement once again).

The respective binding clamping forces are probably designed around the kinematic limits of each boot… just as each boot is optimized for that which they are designed to do. Putting a cable on an Xplore is an interesting experiment… not sure if it will do much beyond changing the “feel” of the binding. Same boot, same ankle after all. Pure guess at this stage though… never know until you try.

[jtb]

If that's the case, I agree with @bobbytooslow... the lack of stiffness in the boot will be the weak point in an Xplore-based cartridge spring binding. An F1 Race or T3/T4 will provide the stiffness you need for turns, but won't flex as well for the glide. An Xplore or 3-pin leather boot will stride nicely, but will not hold up to stiffer binding modifications on the downhill.

It sounds like the modification needed here is in the boots... something that tours nicer than a plastic boot but has more stiffness for turns than leathers.

Edit: I would not apply experience with Meidjo and TX Pros to TTS with F1 Races. They are completely different animals. I'm not saying TTS is necessarily what you want, but I started on Meidjo and switched to TTS, and the difference for touring is night and day. F1's are fantastic for covering ground. You still end up with a hard boot though, in terms of flex.

[Manney]

Hence this kind of thing…

Which is designed primarily to a price point, not a performance one. Interesting idea. Poor execution in the case of many of these boots.

[bobbytooslow]

Seems like the new Crispi Futura Pro XP would be a good jumping off point if you wanted to try adding beef to a boot that is already Xplore-compatible.

($357 here: https://aspinockwoods.com/shop/ols/prod ... ore-system )

[Manney]

It would be convincing if the ankle support was beefy, like a full knee brace (the full framed carbon ones… $$$$)… and tied into a solid heel cap. A boot like that would be more than $359 though. But if the Crispi is like that for under $400, it would be very good value.