• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Solomon/Atomic X12TL questions

MNskier

Booting up
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Posts
155
I have several pairs of skis with the X12/X14 bindings on them, some marked as GripWalk compatible, some not. Nether have toe height or width adjustments, right? Just DIN and forward pressure?

thamks!
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
I have several pairs of skis with the X12/X14 bindings on them, some marked as GripWalk compatible, some not. Nether have toe height or width adjustments, right? Just DIN and forward pressure?

thamks!
If they are visually the same, they should be. Some of the earlier ones PreGW were not labled.
 
Thread Starter
TS
M

MNskier

Booting up
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Posts
155
Interesting. The 14s on my S9 and G9s are not labeled gw. The 12s on my X9wbs are and the 12s on my S/Force Bolds are not. But either way there are no adjustments that need to be (or can be) made on the toe piece other than release value? I don't actually have any gw boots, just my Mach 1s.

Thanks
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
I haven't tested the release, but my Hawx XTDs seem to work just fine in my X14s on my S9s, which are not labeled as GW compatible; they do, however, look damn similar to the GW-compatible-labeled bindings on my X9 WBs.

I haven't tried myself, but I've been told that the actual race bindings (X16 or higher), it's not even possible to step in with the Hawx—the rockered sole profile just doesn't fit. So there is a significant difference in the binding lines in that regard.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,209
Location
NYC
Atomic really muddled the water when they brought out the X12/X14 TL bindings for their consumer skis. The bindings resembled the old Neox binding rather than the existing X12/X16 VAR. The X12/X14 TL were GW compatible. The X12/X16 VAR were not. Then there is the X16 MOD from couple seasons back (No connecting band.) Don't believe that is GW compatible.

The 2020/2021 X12/X14 GW looks a lot like the X12/X14 TL with a new label rather than the X12/X16 VAR. The new X12/X14 GW use the Neox style connecting band.

I am thoroughly confused. :huh:
 

Betaracer

Atomic Race & Tech Rep, BC Region
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Posts
87
Location
Whistler, Canada
The toes are visually similar, but the AFDs are different. If there is no Grip Walk marking, it is not Grip Walk compatible.

Alpine Bindings only accept ISO5355 Alpine Soles
WTR Bindings only accept ISO5355, ISO9523WTR, and ISO9523Gripwalk
Gripwalk Bindings only accept ISO5355 and ISO9523Gripwalk
MNC Bindings only accept ISO5355, ISO9523WTR, ISO9523Gripwalk, and ISO9523Touring

With the increase of Gripwalk boot options, compatible bindings needed to be available. For 2020/21 almost all Atomic's system skis are Gripwalk, with only a few junior models not. Note, skis in the FIS catalog are mostly all Alpine bindings, accepting only ISO5355 boots, exceptions being some junior skis which are Gripwalk.



boot-norms.png
 
Thread Starter
TS
M

MNskier

Booting up
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Posts
155
Thanks betaracer, I saw that in the Solomon tech manual that there were GW and non-GW versions. And from what I can tell, no toe adjustments other than release value?
 

Betaracer

Atomic Race & Tech Rep, BC Region
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Posts
87
Location
Whistler, Canada
Grip Walk has fixed dimensions with a minor allowance for wear, which at the interface to AFD is the same a Alpine 5355. The size of the AFD is prescribed allowing the boot sole to become thicker and use traction durometer tread going rearwards. Once you go to an adjustable height, you move into MNC or WTR type bindings.
 
Thread Starter
TS
M

MNskier

Booting up
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Posts
155
Thanks. I'm not actually thinking about buying any GW boots, I was just curious about the nature of these bindings. Why do any bindings allow toe height adjustment given the Alpine 5355 standard? Is it for wear? The bindings I used as a kid (Marker MRR) did not have toe adjustments either, but I recall the Solomon 997's had some, but they were using the area above the toe lug as a contact point, if I recall.
 

Betaracer

Atomic Race & Tech Rep, BC Region
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Posts
87
Location
Whistler, Canada
The adjustable toe height is to deal with the increase in slack-country touring segment. It allows the skier a single boot and have multiple skis; in bounds piste with a WTR or MNC binding, a touring binding for adventure, or a Shift binding ( we hope) with tech pins for uphill, and full DIN binding for the downhill.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
The adjustable toe height is to deal with the increase in slack-country touring segment...
The bindings MNskier mentioned (997s) predate the growth in the AT segment by a few decades, and the late-90s Atomic race bindings also had a toe-height adjustment, and I think the ESS-VAR bindings that preceded them did as well (might be mistaken on those, but I'm sure about the Race 614 I had in 98-99). Salomon retained a very similar design right through the STH2, although I think there was at least one binding model in that lineage with significant AFD differences.

I'd make the same guess as MNskier (allowing accounting for wear), but I am guessing (and now rather curious). My recollection is that the 614s were sensitive to a correct toe-height adjustment for proper retention, but it's been quite a while since I've skied those. I'm now also curious as to exactly how tall the 997/Driver and 614/1018 Race can go, and particularly whether or not they adjust significantly beyond the 5355-spec height.

I did also just come across the Amer 2019/20 boot/binding compatibility chart, which notes "Salomon, Atomic and Armada Grip Walk bindings are not meant to be used with boots that have metal inserts"—an interesting point as I thought the Hawx XTD inserts were metal.
 

Betaracer

Atomic Race & Tech Rep, BC Region
Skier
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Posts
87
Location
Whistler, Canada
EssVar and Xentrix had toe height adjustment to deal with wear or minor tolerance differences.

The original Ultra XTD sole was ISO 9523 Touring, and therefore not Gripwalk compatible. New Ultra XTD is GW
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top