Dynafit rental baseplate

I saw this baseplate Dynafit Vertical ST rental baseplates on Ebay.
Did not know they made these. Looks like the screws on the baseplate are not the standard pattern for an ST. Interesting idea, but if there is that much fore/aft variance you are going to need to center the boot. Therefore you would need the toe piece to move too. Otherwise you are way forward or back of center. The newer Vertical ST's have a lot more adjustment than they used to have. Anyhow they are available if you are interested...

Saw them the first time on Marmot rentals last weekend on Mt. St. Helens.  So as the photo would suggest, they in fact exist.

I wish I had looked more carefully at the toe, to answer your question.

My guess is that for rentals, the issue of perfection fore/aft is not that critical.  They may mount the front back in a neutral position so that at the extreme settings the location to center is only off a cm or so either way.

I would guess that mounting the rear accurately is extremely critical and fussy for these.  Any skew would mean that as the binding is moved away from the original set point during mounting would greatly magnify the errors.

I liked Fritschi's when my son was starting out because they were so easy to mount and adjust as he grew and changed boot sizes.  But in reality, he generally would only outgrow a boot once before they had to be mounted on a longer ski.  So these bindings seem less attractive for that reason and the fact that upon remounting on a new ski will require a reset anyway.  My guess is that standard heel mount would accommodate one boot size up adjustment. That would seem to make these only of interest for rentals. I guess if someone had skis that they gave out as loaners, or of a husband/wife arrangement who liked to use each other's skis from time-to-time.

Alan

Been around (though not much in North America, and not really a consumer product) since Fall 2006 when the Vertical debuted:
www.telemark-pyrenees.com/en/dynafittltv...593.html?cpath=1_562
Before that, the only rental option was a separate plate (as opposed to a longer heel track integrated into the binding).

The newer Vertical ST's have a lot more adjustment than they used to have.

Same 26mm ever since Fall 2006, which in turn is the same as the Comfort since Fall 2003, which in turn shared the heel unit of the ill-fated TriStep from Fall 2001.

Almost all alignment problems with poorly mounted Dynafits are probably from a skewed toe mount. The longer heel track would have the opposite effect, as for a given distance of skewness, the angle deviation from perpendicular would be less, not more.

Almost all alignment problems with poorly mounted Dynafits are probably from a skewed toe mount.  The longer heel track would have the opposite effect, as for a given distance of skewness, the angle deviation from perpendicular would be less, not more.

Gear Geeks get ready...Correct me please if I'm off Jonathan but please dumb it down to my level...Is this what you mean by that?
I'm saying is if the only adjustment is in the heel, a person with a 25 mondo expects to use my 30 mondo ski.
The mid boot line on the ski stays the same no matter what boot is used.
If they use my toe placement, they are going to be approx 2cm forward of my mid boot line on the ski.
The ski is going to ski and kick turn a lot different if they can't move the toe back to meet the midline on the ski. So effectively they need both to move/adjust to make an effective demo.
Vice versa if I am going to use a ski that is mounted for a 25mondo.

y & no:
- total track length is 56mm
- so for that swap to work, your boot will have to be at the extreme end of the track
- if the binding was originally mounted for a 27.5 mondo boot (i.e., the avg of those two boots you have in mind) to be in the center of the adjustment range, then your boot will be 12.5mm aft
- the 25 mondo boot will be 12.5mm forward
- most alpine demo bindings have adjustable tracks for both toe & heel to accommodate even greater bsl ranges and to recenter the boot
- my prior comments though were addressing the issues of alignment, not length accommodation

- my prior comments though were addressing the issues of alignment, not length accommodation

Wheew...
That's what I assumed, but was not sure. Thanks for the clarification.