- Posts: 913
- Thank you received: 1
Blue foam spacers for Dynafit ski crampons
- Charlie Hagedorn
-
- User
-
Okay, that tarantula hawk story was **intense.
Agreed.
The combination of icy slope + ski crampon would dictate using the low or no heal lifter for me.
Some people like having a spacer like Amar's (see the B&D design ). Even in the low climbing position without a spacer, there's perceptibly less crampon penetration than in no-lift mode. What's always seemed like a weakness to the spacer design for me is that you can't get into the no-lifter position with the spacers installed. Amar's idea would appear to resolve that concern.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- dale_72
-
- User
-
- Posts: 10
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Chris S
-
- User
-
- Posts: 91
- Thank you received: 0
After 5 days of ski crampon action, I can safely re-confirm my own opinion that heal lifters and ski crampons don't mix well. I feel the heal lifters actually detracts from the security the ski crampons provide.
Dale, I can set a 12-16 degree skin track without a heal lifter, which is plenty steep enough for most applications and 75% of my time. I might use the medium heal lifters another 20%, and the high lifters 5%.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Ken M
-
- User
-
- Posts: 13
- Thank you received: 0
I thought B&D spacers were meant to address the gap that could exist if you used their mounting plate with a binding lifted plate (like a telemark binding), or for the gap that would sometimes exist with vibram-soled boots, not for heal lifter spacing.
This spacer is meant to address the problem of ski crampons not digging in when using the heel lift- on a Fritschi or other binding, the crampon penetration is less affected by using heel lifters, but with the dynafit, even going to the first riser level significantly decreased penetration depth- the spacer pushes the crampon deeper into the snow under foot. A few days of negotiating the refrozen crust in the Central Cascades in the last week has convinced me of the utility of the spacer, and if you got to a point where they were causing a problem of some kind, 10 seconds with a sharp tool would return the crampons to their former nudity.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- rlsg
-
- User
-
- Posts: 226
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- peteyboy
-
- User
-
- Posts: 162
- Thank you received: 0
I've had the same problems with my Voile fixed crampons, which I run on my tele skis (>90% of my skiing) and love for traction/bite, don't love for drag, and occasionally hate for working the "wing nut" back to neutral mysteriously to suddenly eject. When I am on them, I know I can side hill or lifters-up climb like Spiderman but I have to steal a peek underfoot (must look like one weird step) to make sure they aren't rotating back toward the "eject" position.
A switch on the wing nut which is like the ski/tour switch on free pivot tele bindings is a possible way to deploy little "wings" or teeth that are metal protrusions (which are deployed out from slots in the wing nut of the crampon once it's rotated) to clamp the crampon in place would eliminate the ability for the wing nut to rotate back to flush with the crampon and prevent jettisoning the crampon. A tiny step added to prevent a potentially really bad failure mode.
I run Dynafit crampons on my AT (tech binding) setup. I set a different, flatter skin track on crampon terrain due to the lifter issue. And I avoid side hill traversing on steep, icy stuff that I'm confident going up on my fixed Voile crampons.
Ho hum, more brilliance from Amar.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.