One of the latest trends in ala carte bindings is going "back on the deck", in others words reducing or eliminating the lift on a standard toe/heel binding.  Salomon doesn't even make an ala carte binding with any rise.  Marker is discontinuing its Piston bindings, and the only binding in their non-racing line that has significant lift is the Duke/Baron (and its lift is probably due only to its design as a pseudo AT binding). Tyrolia same thing.   So, the big question is... why?

Binding lift helps get skis tipped up on edge with less effort and helps skis of all widths carve better.  Why do you think that all the world cup racers wanted all the lift that they could get for better carving?  Now FIS has limits on binding and boot lift because it "makes it too easy".  I have skiied relatively wide skis (Volkl Mantras and Fischer Watea 94's) and compared them with bindings that were "on the deck" and bindings with lift.  Hands down, the skis carved better and were more responsive with bindings that had lift.  I have had customers that bought wider skis and wanted bindings that had bindings with minimal lift (with no logical reason why) and had difficulty getting the skis to turn like they wanted, those customers that took the opportunity to add lift to the binding noticed a marked difference and improvement in performance.

The other factor is that many of the lifter plates on performance bindings were designed to minimize the flat spot in the ski underneath the boot, and would allow the ski to flex freely under the foot - smoother ride and cleaner carving.  The "on the deck bindings" don't have that capability - hello flat spot.  Why is that a benefit? 

Ask a binding company representative about the loss of lift, and they shrug their shoulders, some say that it makes no difference or that consumers only want the cheapest thing that they can get.  Another response is:  "All the kids and jibbers'want flat bindings that don't release, so we are building bindings for them.".  OK fine, what about the other 90% of skiers?   Its like we backed up in binding technology 10-15yrs.  

In my market, skiers want maximum performance out of their equipment - so the vast majority of them like bindings with lift and with technology to minimize the flat spot under the foot. 

I know that many would say that the answer will be - just buy a ski/binding system.  Guess what, these aren't offered in all ski models, and some bindings just suck - many consumers want free choice of bindings - and so do I as a dealer.  What say yooos?

I have given this a lot of thought over the years, and have even run through the physics behind lift to quantify the benefit, for and against.

My end conclusion is that it's beneficial if edging the ski is your priority.  In my quiver, I want that on my narrow carver, and my Progressor 9+ skis have an insane amount of lift from the FlowFlex plate.  It does its job in that case.

If stability is a priority, then you are better off with no lift, mounting the boot as flat to the ski as possible.  Situations where I want more stability include powder, crud, bumps, and most free-ride situations (other people would also include park skiing, which I don't really do).  These are also cases where I am much less likely to make pure carved turns, so I won't really miss the edging benefit that lift provides.

I have no idea what is motivating the inclusion/exclusion of lift in the industry nowadays, but there sure has been a push towards wider skis focused on free-ride performance, and that's exactly where flat mount bindings make more sense.  At the same time, the shape-ski fad of the 1999-2005 era has passed (or at least moderated), along with it the need for binding lift to go with the extreme carves and edge angles.  So perhaps it's all related.

I think if you took your flat-mount and lifted Wateas and Mantras off-trail on a powder day (and the variable snow for days after), you'd find the flat-mount versions were preferable.  They will give you a lot more stability underfoot, and allow finer, more gradual, control over edge angle.  Just what you want when mixing up all sorts of skids, skarves, buttering, and smearing of turns, not to mention cases where you're skiing the bases for float rather than digging the edges for bite.

 By the way, it's somewhat of a misunderstanding that flat mount bindings block ski flex (propaganda from the ski and binding makers if you ask me).  The forward pressure range of binding heel pieces allows the ski to flex around the boot as much as needed in most cases (otherwise people would be falling out of their bindings all the time).  I am sure it still impedes flex, but it doesn't block it.  

The various binding systems -- such as Fluid or RailFlex -- that are supposed to free up ski flex can improve the situation, but they also offset some of the benefit due to the fact that you are screwing thick rigid plates to the top of the ski, far from the bending plane.  FlowFlex is one system that does allow the ski to flex very nicely under the plate (the plate itself forms a rigid unit between binding and boot and is mounted to the ski on floating linkages) but it's bulky and heavy, and not practical for very many applications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolhand 

Now FIS has limits on binding and boot lift because it "makes it too easy".

 

That's not entirely true. FIS didn't put limits because (too) high position would "make carving too easy", but because it increases risk of injuries, which is already extremely high. Having boots higher above skis makes it possible for more radical positions (more side lean, more extreme carve etc.), therefore more speed and on the end, more options for bad injuries if something goes wrong.

So for FIS this was pretty much main reason to limit plate/binding/boot height.

I have no idea, why binding companies go into lowering whole platform. Maybe it is also about lowering chances for injuries, or there might be something completely different. I don't think there's much to do with marketing, since in my opinion, you can't sell idea like this, when everyone see racers on tv with still quite high platforms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolhand 

Where have the binding risers gone?

Into the ski.     See system skis or Atomic Doubledeck.

Part of the benefit of the lift was to prevent "boot-out". Boot-out happens while carving high edge angle turns. The wide boot come in contact with the firm snow and the ski edge no longer is in contact with the snow. The ski looses edge-grip as a result.

Wider skis and/or lifts reduce the problem by changing the location of the boot and keeping it away from the snow.

Now that most carving skis are 70mm or wider, boot-out is less of a problem. Racers still need lift to avoid boot-out since racing skis are generally less than 70mm wide.

Michael

I accept that part of the reason FIS limited stand height was for safety.    But, this isn't the crux of my argument.  Risers simply make skis easier to get up on edge and make it easier to carve.   Boot out is not a real issue for the vast majority of recreational skiers. 

The idea that bindings with minimal rise make the ski more "stable" is questionable - they may make the ski more forgiving and less responsive but not more stable.  Modern skis are most stable when they are up on edge and carving.   I have compared the fatter skis with and without risers in 3D snow conditions, I still very strongly prefer the skis with the binding risers in all snow conditions. 

The best skiers pretty much make a carved turn in all types of snow conditions, watch a skier with a strong race background free ski and you'll see this.  Yes, the guys skiing extreme terrain in AK and back country have to make non-carved turns to negotiate terrain.  But I'm talking about the 90% of recreational skiers that ski within ski area boundaries.

I still haven't heard a compelling reason for binding companies to abandon ala carte bindings with lift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolhand 

I have compared the fatter skis with and without risers in 3D snow conditions, I still very strongly prefer the skis with the binding risers in all snow conditions. 

 

You appear to be in a small minority there.

I still haven't heard a compelling reason for binding companies to abandon ala carte bindings with lift.

 

Lack of market. The people buying non system bindings (back-/side-country, mid-fats to fats, park & pipe) generally don't want any lift. Simple as that

Skiers who care enough about extra lift on a non-system ski will track it down. Buy a Vist plate and mount whatever you want on it. Get a Tyrolia CP9/CP13/Head equivalent and mount some Tyrolia bindings. Cut something out of perspex and get some longer screws from Slidewright/Tognar/wherever.

In true free-ride and powder conditions, traditional edging is not a primary technique.  The proliferation of skis with non-traditional camber, rocker, and sidecut are key evidence of this.  Those skis allow high-performance "pseudo-carved" turns in 3D snow without need for the hard snow technique (where binding lift would be relevant).

As for the stability argument, it comes down to suspending a mass at a certain height above a base of a given width.  The wider the base, or the lower the height, the more stable you're going to be.  Doesn't even have to be specific to skiing.  There are a million athletic situations where stand height in shoes is based on simple stability considerations.  

Heck, you can play with this standing in various height shoes on a flat floor -- just roll your foot sideways and feel how body stability varies as the mass of your body balances on the edge of your foot.  There is a very clear "toggle" point that occurs as your center of mass passes across the edge of the foot.  This is the real-world equivalent to the see-saw balance between snow-to-knee height (which includes binding lift) and ski width that determines how easy it is to edge a ski, and conversely, how hard it is to put a ski back on the flats.  

BTW, Atomicman touched on this, but the converse of lift making it easier to put a ski on edge is that it makes it harder to put the ski back on the flats when you get far past the toggle point.  It's as much of a detriment on the back end as it is a help on the front end, and that also goes for the relation to ski width.  Whereas lift can offset the effects of ski width when putting a ski on edge, it actually does the opposite when trying to put a ski back on the flats.  It's an even bigger detriment on wider skis.

If you are happy with lifted skis off-piste, that's fine, I can accept that some people are OK with it.  I am just saying, in an absolute sense, you would be even more stable on a flat mount.  Heck, I ski Naxo bindings on my touring skis, and they have a ton of lift (well over an inch), which I have gotten used to.  However, there's no question in my mind that my flat mounted skis are significantly more stable than my AT skis simply because of the difference in lift.  The AT bindings feel like high heels in comparison to flat mounts.  It's an extreme example of the stability difference between lift and no lift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILDCAT 

Part of the benefit of the lift was to prevent "boot-out". Boot-out happens while carving high edge angle turns. The wide boot come in contact with the firm snow and the ski edge no longer is in contact with the snow. The ski looses edge-grip as a result.

 

Wider skis and/or lifts reduce the problem by changing the location of the boot and keeping it away from the snow.

 

Now that most carving skis are 70mm or wider, boot-out is less of a problem. Racers still need lift to avoid boot-out since racing skis are generally less than 70mm wide.

 

Michael

Since lowering of the maximum stand height most racers use riser plates on their boots and then lower their foot inside the shell to prevent boot-out. there are 2 separate measurement which must be adhered to. Boot stand height and ski/plate stand height.

Boot stand height is measured form the bottom of the sole to the center of the heel of inside of the foot bed (where the racer's heel would sit) with a set amount of pressure in N/M. World cup men & women if I am not mistaken for 08/09 is 43mm. And for J2's and up (15 YO+) is 45mm. ski/Plate stack height is 50MM for World cup men & Women  and 55 for J2's and up.

Lowering the skiers foot inside the shell allows the stand height necessary to help prevent boot-out while still adhering to boot stand height rules.

As far as racers still needing stand height to prevent boot out due to narrower skis. The average Downhill ski is now 70MM wide (used to be the norm for a Mid-Fat rec. ski) Even slalom (Minimum 63MM waist) and GS are in the 65-67MM rangeUsed to be 60-63MM.

GS ski are now required to have a 27M radius and the waist can be no narrower then 65MM. Downhill is 67mm and 45M. it's a whole new world!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomicman 

 

Since lowering of the maximum stand height most racers use riser plates on their boots and then lower their foot inside the shell to prevent boot-out. there are 2 separate measurement which must be adhered to. Boot stand height and ski/plate stand height.

 

Boot stand height is measured form the bottom of the sole to the center of the heel of inside of the foot bed (where the racer's heel would sit) with a set amount of pressure in N/M. World cup men & women if I am not mistaken for 08/09 is 43mm. And for J2's and up (15 YO+) is 45mm. ski/Plate stack height is 50MM for World cup men & Women  and 55 for J2's and up.

 

Lowering the skiers foot inside the shell allows the stand height necessary to help prevent boot-out while still adhering to boot stand height rules.

 

As far as racers still needing stand height to prevent boot out due to narrower skis. The average Downhill ski is now 70MM wide (used to be the norm for a Mid-Fat rec. ski) Even slalom (Minimum 63MM waist) and GS are in the 65-67MM rangeUsed to be 60-63MM.

 

GS ski are now required to have a 27M radius and the waist can be no narrower then 65MM. Downhill is 67mm and 45M. it's a whole new world!

Great info, thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker 

 

 

Skiers who care enough about extra lift on a non-system ski will track it down.... Cut something out of perspex and get some longer screws from Slidewright/Tognar/wherever.

Interesting that you mentioned that.  Back in the '90s , one of my former customers made a 3/4" two piece lift for himself because he had one leg shorter than another.  He used a kitchen cutting board for the lifts.

Dennis

Race skis are no longer fashionable.  Fat is where it's at, and everybody knows, you don't want lifters on fat skis.  If you want to keep up with modern fashion trends you MUST have fat flat-mounted skis (even if you only ski icy groomed runs).

Edited to add and for those who don't know me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Race skis are no longer fashionable.  Fat is where it's at, and everybody knows, you don't want lifters on fat skis.  If you want to keep up with modern fashion trends you MUST have fat flat-mounted skis (even if you only ski icy groomed runs).

Geez, I'm kinda slow. I need the roll eyes graphic!

 

Nah, you and I are ahead of the curve.  I'm sticking to my race skis, until they come back in style

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomicman 

 

Geez, I'm kinda slow. I need the roll eyes graphic!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Nah, you and I are ahead of the curve.  I'm sticking to my race skis, until they come back in style

 

Right On!Even my fatter skis are like race skis!  All sandwich vertical side wall construction with a 3 degree side edge!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

Race skis are no longer fashionable.  Fat is where it's at, and everybody knows, you don't want lifters on fat skis.  If you want to keep up with modern fashion trends you MUST have fat flat-mounted skis (even if you only ski icy groomed runs).

Really?  Thats interesting.  Heres the Ski's I own.

2009 Blizzard WC GS

2009 Fischer WC SL "Hole"

2009 Fischer WC RC

2007 Rossignol WC Radical X

FWIW we where at Boyne highlands for the annual downhill and it snowed 7-10 inches over night and they cancelled the race.  All of us went out and skied in the powder.  Everyone in our group was on race GS or SL ski's.  I was on my Blizzards.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanakry 

 

 

 

Really?  Thats interesting.  Heres the Ski's I own.

 

2009 Blizzard WC GS

2009 Fischer WC SL "Hole"

2009 Fischer WC RC

2007 Rossignol WC Radical X

 

FWIW we where at Boyne highlands for the annual downhill and it snowed 7-10 inches over night and they cancelled the race.  All of us went out and skied in the powder.  Everyone in our group was on race GS or SL ski's.  I was on my Blizzards.

 

Ghost was being facetious!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker 

 Originally Posted by coolhand 
 

I have compared the fatter skis with and without risers in 3D snow conditions, I still very strongly prefer the skis with the binding risers in all snow conditions. 

 

You appear to be in a small minority there.

 

 

If we're voting, I'm with coolhand.  They higher mounts are much better for me, on all skis---particularly on the fat ones, if for some reason, I ever actualy want to edge them.

vist make generic risers in 2mm, 3mm and 4mm [if i remember correctly] they can be stacked and work with most if not all bindings on a flat top ski

The Coombas I demoed had Naxo bindings on them, and I liked the absurd amount of lift.  That was in cut-up, uneven powder.  In fact, I'm a little concerned that if I buy Coombas with "normal" bindings I won't love them as much.

On the homemade riser front -- I once bought skis at a swap that had 3/4 inch risers made of some black plastic.  I had a shop remount them (wrong sole length) and the tech was bemused to discover they were homemade -- but he reused them and said, "hey, whatvever works!"  I loved those skis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomicman 

 

Ghost was being facetious!
 

Opps I missed that he commented like 2 posts later.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolhand 

Risers simply make skis easier to get up on edge and make it easier to carve.   

That's not true. 

Risers actually make it harder to get the ski on edge because the leg has to move through a longer arc to achieve the same edge angle as someone without a riser, or to look at it a different way, a skier with a riser achieves less edge angle with the same range of motion as a skier without a riser.  If you do the math using a figure of 18", for discussion's sake, for the distance from the top of the shin to the base of the ski, then the top of the shin will move through an arc of 14.1" to achieve an edge angle of 45 degrees.  If you add a riser that raises the top of the shin to 18.75" above the base of the ski and move the shin though the exact same 14.1" arc, you end up achieving an edge angle of only 43 degrees.

In addition to reducing the chances of 'boot-out', what a riser will do is make it easier to maintain edge angle against the force of the turn or terrain changes, because you have a longer lever with which to counter the forces acting against the ski.  Why this is potentially dangerous is that a skier will find it more difficult to get off their edge in an emergency, because the leg needs to move through a longer arc to create a change in edge angle, and an off balance skier who can't get off their edge is much more likely to sustain a knee injury than someone who's bindings are flat on the ski and can alter their edge angle with less effort.

 

 My bad.  I've edited my above post 'cause I realize not everybody knows me through my prior posts.

The stores and manufactures are really pushing the market in the wide direction.  Even folks who have no need for a wide ski end up getting powder boards for cruising icy groomers, which I find a little irksome.  If I lived out west where the snow is deep, I would have fat skis, and I would probably eschew a lifter for those snow conditions too, but come on!  For Ontario and Quebec skiing?.

My deep-snow skis are 2002 (bought in 2006) Volant Machete G's 190 cm at 104 - 68 -90.

My short-turn skis are Fischer WC SC's 165 cm at 118 - 66 -99

My high-speed skis (formerly 1-ski quiver) are  Kästle National Team Super-G 208 cm at 87 - 68 - 76

My bridge-the-turn-radius-gap (as soon as Marker Comps go on sale) ski is Völkl P50 F1  188 cm at 102 - 65 - 88.

I think races would be a lot more interesting and fun if all you had were a starting line, a finish line, and a timing device and raced in all conditions, but that's just me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanakry 

 

 

 

Really?  Thats interesting.  Heres the Ski's I own.

 

2009 Blizzard WC GS

2009 Fischer WC SL "Hole"

2009 Fischer WC RC

2007 Rossignol WC Radical X

 

FWIW we where at Boyne highlands for the annual downhill and it snowed 7-10 inches over night and they cancelled the race.  All of us went out and skied in the powder.  Everyone in our group was on race GS or SL ski's.  I was on my Blizzards.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost 

 

 The stores and manufactures are really pushing the market in the wide direction. .

 

My deep-snow skis are 2002 (bought in 2006) Volant Machete G's 190 cm at 104 - 68 -90.

My short-turn skis are Fischer WC SC's 165 cm at 118 - 66 -99

My high-speed skis (formerly 1-ski quiver) are  Kästle National Team Super-G 208 cm at 87 - 68 - 76

My bridge-the-turn-radius-gap (as soon as Marker Comps go on sale) ski is Völkl P50 F1  188 cm at 102 - 65 - 88. 

First, the 'industry' isn't pushing anything in particular. Don't give the 'Industry' too much credit, it just follows buying trends until they run their natural course and something else becomes the 'Hot NEW Thing'... then it tries to sell that. There is no fore thought or conspiracy. Look at the responses to 'What Ski For Me' threads, there are three people who regularly say "you don't need a ski that wide"... those three are Sierra Jim, Dogcatching and me. All Industry peeps. The responses that are "go at least 110mm... it will still be good everywhere" are NEVER from us.

It's not 'the Industry', it's consumers. They want to imagine themselves skiing deep powder and they buy skis for the days they have the most fun instead of a ski that will make most of their ski days MORE fun. That's not us. How many people who ride motorcycles that are functional? Not many, how many ride superbikes? Many, are they going to race that bike on track? Of course not, that's not the Motorcycle industry fault, it's people buying the 'Image' that they want to be, not what they are... happens everywhere all the time.

... and lastly, if you haven't skied any modern fat skis, well, maybe (just maybe) you don't have the base of knowledge to hold an informed opinion. Just sayin'.

(and buy some freakin' bindings for the F1's already... it's been two years and you STILL haven't used them, that means you WASTED that money by trying to 'save' on an already cheap ass binding... again, just sayin')

To the OP, Tyrolia still makes CP9 (9mm) and CP13 (13mm) lifter plates, VIST makes some graet plates AND lifters... they are still available if you really want them.

To add a plate or to not add a plate, that is the question!

During the next 9 months I will install bindings on my daughters all mountain ski, a 169cm length Atomic Crimson Nomad. The ski is 127-86-113mm wide, so boot-out is not an issue.

I already have a set of Elan ELD14 Freeride bindings, these are the same as Fischer X14: http://www.fischerskis.com/en/products_binding.php?show=detail&id_product=17254

I can add a Tyrolia 9SLR plate, this will add 9mm of lift and also make it possible to reposition the binding without re-drilling the ski.

The ski will be used out west on new snow days, she has a Fischer RX9 for hard snow days.

Will the plate make the ski easier to use or does the plate increase the skill required in a variety of snow conditions?

Michael

My first "wide" ski was an 80 mm Dynastar 4x4 big.  I hated them on groomers ---made my boots feel too soft laterally.  Then I added the riser off an old pair of slalom skis and they were fine.  I noticed no difference in powder, but on groomers it felt like the edge was under my foot where it belonged, not off to the side.

Your right.  The industry doesn't lead, but they sure jump on the bandwagon and push it for all they're worth (present company excepted of course).  I guess they are in business to make money and they need a current trend to push whatever it is.

You mean those peeps buying the sport bikes aren't riding them like they were meant to be riden.  They should be ashamed of themselves ( mind you those potholes sure hurt at a buck ten when you hit the pavement 'cause your back concession "race track" wasn't quite as well prepared as Shanonville's   I don't even want to imagine crashing at 180).

Point taken, and I'm not recomending against powder boards for powder, or wider boards for deeper snow in general.  I would probably have a Stockli XXL or Dynastar LP if I lived in BC.  I'm just sayin' there's no need for that where I ski.  If you've driven a Miata, a Camaro, a Caprice Wagon and a Silverado, maybe (just maybe) you don't need to drive the duece and a half to know it don't handle the best in the twisties.

I was going to buy the binding last season, but I ran into some financial difficulties; I'm fortunate I got to go skiing at all.

I think the Naxo's are a good test, cause they give far more lift (the mechanism being under the boot) than any normal riser.  I liked them, felt it made the skis more nimble.  My son hated them, said it felt weird being way up in the air.

Unfortunately the bottom line answer to Michael's question, is that it is going to be a matter of taste.  Maybe some of the difference is that my son grew up carving and I came late to it, so our basic frames of reference and feel are different.