I have demo a MR with fluid binding, really like it, feel it has a very wide sweet spot, unfortunately all I can find right now is MR with flat binding that has reasonable price.
the question is would I feel different without the fluid binding ? I don't think I can find a demo ski with flat binding.
Thanks
Shouldn't matter either way. You'll actually save a little weight with a flat mount.
What size are you looking for? Sierra has Mythic/Fluid for $420 shipped, in 172 or 184 (178 sold out).
My take regarding Fliud:
Pros:
+ Can adjust for different boot sizes and fore-aft positioning really easily.
+ Don't have to worry about a shop screwing-up your binding mount (it does happen).
+ Low binding delta.
Cons:
- Can be adjusted for boot size really easily (read: theft).
- Slop between the bindings and the Fluid rail (not that it's apparent to me during skiing.. but slop is aesthetically displeasing).
Push:
* Locks you into Look/Dynastar/Rossignol Fluid bindings. Which are great bindings to be locked into, assuming you don't require them to be lightweight.
* In theory, frees up the flex of the ski... not that I've noticed, but then again, I haven't had the opportunity to test the same ski with a conventional binding. I do notice the ski flex being constrained by my Baron-equipped Gotamas, though.
* In theory, frees up the flex of the ski... not that I've noticed, but then again, I haven't had the opportunity to test the same ski with a conventional binding. I do notice the ski flex being constrained by my Baron-equipped Gotamas, though.
so fluid binding give it more flex, this is good to know as I ski bump sometimes, I saw one MR 172 in ebay with flat binding for $299.
* In theory, frees up the flex of the ski... not that I've noticed, but then again, I haven't had the opportunity to test the same ski with a conventional binding.
I don't think the Fluid system is real beneficial in the flex department if you examine it closely. The heel piece locks in position on the rear track. The toe piece locks into position on the front track. Neither can move relative to the track at that point. The tracks are fixed to the ski on one end, and float on the other end with a little bit of slop, but not total freedom.
If you look at Tyrolia Railflex, it's got the same setup where the rails can semi-float relative to the ski, but it also has an additional, more important degree of freedom where the bindings can float on the rails. So the combo ski/rail system can potentially flex under the rigid boot.
I don't find either system especially good in the flex department, since bolting near-rigid plates onto the top of a ski isn't my idea of beneficial, no matter what other tricks the systems use. But both offer a lot of convenience, and that's the main selling point in my book. Fluid more so -- it's practically like a demo binding for ease of adjustment.
I don't think the Fluid system is real beneficial in the flex department if you examine it closely. The heel piece locks in position on the rear track. The toe piece locks into position on the front track. Neither can move relative to the track at that point. The tracks are fixed to the ski on one end, and float on the other end with a little bit of slop, but not total freedom.
If you look at Tyrolia Railflex, it's got the same setup where the rails can semi-float relative to the ski, but it also has an additional, more important degree of freedom where the bindings can float on the rails. So the combo ski/rail system can potentially flex under the rigid boot.
I don't find either system especially good in the flex department, since bolting near-rigid plates onto the top of a ski isn't my idea of beneficial, no matter what other tricks the systems use. But both offer a lot of convenience, and that's the main selling point in my book. Fluid more so -- it's practically like a demo binding for ease of adjustment.
The Fluid binding is stiffer than a normal 2 peice binding you would mount on a flat ski. I have the Fluids in a 184 and love them in softer snow up to maybe 8" of fresh.
I don't think the Fluid system is real beneficial in the flex department if you examine it closely.
I was in agreement with you this afternoon, but I didn't have the chance to write a reply. I was going to recount a long-ish story about a Salomon Pilot Carve plate that I have. I figured "maybe tomorrow".
So I was playing around tonight with my L8Ks when I remembered this issue. Part of my Salomon Pilot Carve story is that although the basic design seemed alright, the actual assembly of the unit was flawed due to over-tightening of fasteners to the point where the floating plate could not slide at all. I recalled the design of the Fluid rail, and aspects of it that seemed puzzling/problematic. I also remembered quite a few pairs of bolts that could have also been potentially overtightened. So I slid the bindings off and flexed the ski to see if the plate actually moved. If it didn't I was going to disassemble it, lubricate it (w/plastic-friendly grease), and carefully tighten the Torx bolts/screws *just so* that it was still free to slide without too much play.
To my surprise, the plate slid flawlessly. I could see ~2mm of smooth movement in the rear plate slot as I flexed the ski. That of course didn't necessarily mean anything, so I installed the bindings back on and put a boot in the binding. With the boot in, the PX12's "dildo" was up and I can see the forward pressure spring indicator. I flexed the ski by pushing down on the boot, and lo-and-behold, the plate was still moving by almost same amount. The forward pressure indicator on the binding moved ~2mm as well.
What this says to me is that Fluid is actually decent at freeing up the ski to flex, as it seems to absorb ~50% of the movement that would otherwise have be all absorbed by the forward pressure spring of the binding. That's pretty good for such a simple design.
(In contrast, take a look at an Atomic Neox binding and its flex plate on a recently old Atomic ski. Now that is a Rube Goldberg contraption.)
I have both but in different sizes (172-flat and 178-fluid), which live in different places (172 in SLC-CO, and 178 at Whistler) and if I had to compare, the 172 flats are pretty lively, like overgrown L8K's, whereas the 178's are bomber in PNW "powder", and feel much more like a big hill ski.
If that has to do with the plate or the length I can't say, so ultimately I have added nothing to this discussion at all. Anything else?
Edit - I CAN say that they're absolutely great in either configuration or size, and if I had to choose I'd go flat and put the Dynastar binding on it. If you travel a lot with your skis though, getting the fluid + a pair of 8k's or 4X4's also with fluid binders makes for a great lightweight 2 ski quiver that can be transported easily.
Edited by snofun3 - 4/17/2009 at 02:35 pm GMT
"I'm quite certain that I don't need some pre madonna telling me how everyone's foot is different." Greggor.
I was in agreement with you this afternoon, but I didn't have the chance to write a reply. I was going to recount a long-ish story about a Salomon Pilot Carve plate that I have. I figured "maybe tomorrow".
So I was playing around tonight with my L8Ks when I remembered this issue. Part of my Salomon Pilot Carve story is that although the basic design seemed alright, the actual assembly of the unit was flawed due to over-tightening of fasteners to the point where the floating plate could not slide at all. I recalled the design of the Fluid rail, and aspects of it that seemed puzzling/problematic. I also remembered quite a few pairs of bolts that could have also been potentially overtightened. So I slid the bindings off and flexed the ski to see if the plate actually moved. If it didn't I was going to disassemble it, lubricate it (w/plastic-friendly grease), and carefully tighten the Torx bolts/screws *just so* that it was still free to slide without too much play.
To my surprise, the plate slid flawlessly. I could see ~2mm of smooth movement in the rear plate slot as I flexed the ski. That of course didn't necessarily mean anything, so I installed the bindings back on and put a boot in the binding. With the boot in, the PX12's "dildo" was up and I can see the forward pressure spring indicator. I flexed the ski by pushing down on the boot, and lo-and-behold, the plate was still moving by almost same amount. The forward pressure indicator on the binding moved ~2mm as well.
What this says to me is that Fluid is actually decent at freeing up the ski to flex, as it seems to absorb ~50% of the movement that would otherwise have be all absorbed by the forward pressure spring of the binding. That's pretty good for such a simple design.
(In contrast, take a look at an Atomic Neox binding and its flex plate on a recently old Atomic ski. Now that is a Rube Goldberg contraption.)
Awesome -- excellent experiment! So the floating end of the plate seemed pretty smooth to you? I guess the only constraint that bothers me at this point is the rigidity of the plates between the fixed end and the floating end -- that has got to offset some of the benefit since the ski can't flex deeply around that (the floating mounts would need vertical freedom as well). But compared to a flat mount, it's probably at least as good.
I think it's awesome that you noticed the fwd pressure indicator moving -- I've always hoped that would be the case when flexing a flat-mount ski around rigid boot. That to me is the key piece of data I'll probably refer back to this post for!
If you want to see a real complex system, check out Fischer FlowFlex. It is a rigid plate with bindings on it, so that the plate/boot/binding system is one solid unit. However, the plate is attached to the ski with two floating mounts (linkages really), and the ski can go into a deep flex under the plate, to the point where you can see daylight under the middle of the plate! It's real complicated, but seems to work well. I'd love to take one apart someday to see what the guts look like.
