or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 

I just picked up a great deal on Kastle 94 in 166 without a lot of forethought. I weigh 115lbs. I was looking for some advice on the binding, plates, etc. set up for the ski. I will be using these skis mostly in the East, exclusively in lift served areas (i.e., not touring or bc), for new snow, spring skiing, etc. The great majority of my skiing is on GS and SL skis as I enjoy training. My previous widest skis were/are 75mm. All of my skiing on this ski will be in regular alpine boots.

 

I have read a number of the prior threads but still had some questions:

 

Most of my skiing is racing and I am used to plates and a high stand height. I have VIST plates on a number of my skis and like them (unfortunately not the speedlock). In reviewing the manufacturer info, Marker seems to be promoting the Gryphon as having a low stand height. Is this an advantage with this type of ski? Is there a disadvantage or advantage to a high standheight/light flexing plate with this type of ski. I  sometimes ski backwards to watch something or help someone down but skiing switch is not a feature I need.

 

I know that VIST makes a TT plate for freeride and general skiing that also has the adjustable Speedlock system that also allows 1 binding to go from ski to ski. Does anyone have experience with this on a wide ski?

 

I know that Philplug and TC have recommended the Gryphon for others, the Squire seems to be just a lower DIN version of the same binding. Is there an advantage of one over the other? On my race skis I use a 7 DIN which works well for me. On this I would guess it would be set to 6 or 7 which for me, would rule out bindings with a minimum of 6. I never like to  be right at the edge of the range.

 

I have Look PX 12s on two of my other skis and like them. I also have Tyrolia on ELAN GSs that are fine also. It seems that the freeride Look is Jib, but I have not had good luck finding just what makes it a Jib. The manufacturer sites are long on marketing and short on technical detail.

 

I guess my questions are: what are the features one looks for in a wide ski binding that may be different than in a binding for a narrower ski and what are the advantages/disadvantages of the different brands Marker, Look, Tyrolia, VIST? and finally, who has good deals as I just bought a ski I didn't really need.

post #2 of 38

Griphon not Squire. No plate.

post #3 of 38

You can pick up some Look PX15's from Level 9 (online) for $159, almost half off, if you like Looks. They also had a PX with a lower din I believe. Heavy binder however.  The jib designation on the Looks I saw was in part some dampening elements that are included in the design for absorbing shock.

post #4 of 38
Thread Starter 

Thanks, unfortunately I can't use the 15s as the minimum DIN is 8 and the PX 12s with a wide brake are even higher $s than the 15s.

post #5 of 38

At 115lb, you will be fine with the Squire and if you have a short BSL (say under 275mm) it will be easier for exit and entry. As far as the Look PX12 Jib, it is the wider AFD that makes it a Jib and it would be a fine choice of a binding for you. I would also not dismiss the Salomon Sth12. All the bindings I mentioned here can be had for under $200.00

post #6 of 38
Thread Starter 

Epic seemed to indicate that there is a disadvantage to a plate such as the VIST TT for skis of this type. I would appreciate understanding what the down side is.

post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

Epic seemed to indicate that there is a disadvantage to a plate such as the VIST TT for skis of this type. I would appreciate understanding what the down side is.



Weight, stack height, stiffness are three things that come to mind. 

post #8 of 38
Thread Starter 

Thanks, I understand the weight and stiffness, but why is increased stackheight a disadvantage? It would seem that in adding height, you increase the leverage and make getting the skis on edge quicker and more efficient. I am sorry if I am being dense, but I really am a newbie on wide skis.

post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

Thanks, I understand the weight and stiffness, but why is increased stackheight a disadvantage? It would seem that in adding height, you increase the leverage and make getting the skis on edge quicker and more efficient. I am sorry if I am being dense, but I really am a newbie on wide skis.



Just two out of three reasons should be enough but I will feed your curiosity, so the stack height on a wider ski is counter productive and actually makes a wider ski less efficient. 

post #10 of 38

I'll bite.  I have Vist Speedlock TT plates on 3 pairs of skis, Stockli Laser SC, Laser SX and Stormrider XXL.  I swap the Vist 614 binding between them.  Previously I had Marker Dukes mounted on the XXL as a slack country rig, so the stack height is now lower with the Vist plate/binding and (without resorting to scales) I don't think is any heavier.  FWIW, I like the ability to fine tune the binding placement without trial and error and the resulting remounting; not to mention being able to flat pack multiple pairs of skis when travelling.

 

My current wide ski is the Blizzard Titan Agros from a few years ago, with the Marker Duke.  I'll be replacing the Titan Agros this year and would not have a hesitation in putting a Vist Speedlock plate on my next wide ski.

post #11 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

Thanks, I understand the weight and stiffness, but why is increased stackheight a disadvantage? It would seem that in adding height, you increase the leverage and make getting the skis on edge quicker and more efficient. I am sorry if I am being dense, but I really am a newbie on wide skis.



I don't really care about the weight, but I think this ski would feel weird with a stiff spot right in the middle. If you put a really free riser on it though, you'd be coming out of your bindings all of the time due to the "flex effect" - http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq5.php. Maybe at 115 lbs, you wouldn't bend the ski deeply enough for this to happen. I'm a big fan of plates. I have them on nearly all of my skis, but I wouldn't out them on that ski.

post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post why is increased stackheight a disadvantage? It would seem that in adding height, you increase the leverage and make getting the skis on edge quicker and more efficient. I am sorry if I am being dense, but I really am a newbie on wide skis.



Think about this, you increase leverage how? What is a lever arm?

 

If you want to get from point A to point B, will you get there quicker if that is a shorter distance or a longer distance?

 

It's not 'wide skis' it's physics... and 'stuff'.

post #13 of 38
Thread Starter 

I know this is something of a tangent but I’ll go down it anyway. My understand of the physics of skis with plates: anything (riser, plate, high stand height bindings) that raises the skier off the ski does two things: (1) by raising the lower leg, it creates a longer lever arm with the mass further away allowing greater leverage to be applied (see Archimedes,” give me a long enough lever….”) to lift the ski to edge, and (2) by raising the center of mass further away from the ski, as Whiteroom observed, it requires the body to move farther to get an equal edge angle.  I am guessing from Phil’s reply that a plate/riser is not as desirable in a wide ski as in a carving ski because  the snow itself is different than it is for a race ski.  The soft snow where a wide ski would be used does not provide the resistance needed (to return to Archimedes, it would have a bad fulcrum) to transmit the additional moment the lever generates. However, the disadvantage of the additional travel needed would still remain.

 

 

 


Edited by vsirin - 11/9/11 at 12:28pm
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post



I don't really care about the weight, but I think this ski would feel weird with a stiff spot right in the middle. If you put a really free riser on it though, you'd be coming out of your bindings all of the time due to the "flex effect" - http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq5.php. Maybe at 115 lbs, you wouldn't bend the ski deeply enough for this to happen. I'm a big fan of plates. I have them on nearly all of my skis, but I wouldn't out them on that ski.


Epic,

You need to get rid of the last .(period) for the above link to work. Also, not sure of the meaning of "wouldn't out them" - are you saying you would not use on the FX94?

 

Interesting discussion. My simple assumption was that in narrow waisted skis, risers permitted obtaining greater edge angles and helped reduce "boot out" in very tipped turns. Whereas in wider skis, there is not the need to get to such high edge angles plus wider skis stress the knee more trying to tip. That's a very non-expert opinion folks.

 

It just does not seem logical to add a rigid plate to a ski designed for softer snow as the flex patterns would have to change from what the manufacturer designed. Again, that may be an oversimplified. The Vist TT plate is not rigid. It's always seemed strange that folks rave about the Kastle 78 with plate, but, we will never see a recommendation for the Kastle 88 with a plate. And that's how it seems to go with wider skis.

 

I would think a lighter binding would be beneficial if for nothing else than carrying the new heavier ski. Not much weight, but why make heavier?

 

Vsirin, as Ambassador's for eastern Pa area's, we should makes some turns! Philpug would tell us to meet at Elk!

 

 


Edited by Living Proof - 11/9/11 at 11:35am
post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post


Epic,

You need to get rid of the last .(period) for the above link to work. Also, not sure of the meaning of "wouldn't out them" - are you saying you would not use on the FX94?\



Oops, "put them", the p is next to the o, and it still passes spellcheck.

post #16 of 38

would it also be true that the deep snow, especially if cut and set up, is going to fight back, that is, back to Archimedes, the snow's turbulence gains amplification by levering all that movement against your leg?  

post #17 of 38
Thread Starter 

Davluri,

In normal hard pack or ice, the edge where the ski has engaged the snow serves as the fulcrum (pivot point) for the lever. That is why plates are an advantage  in ski racing (in addition to their function as a boot out preventative). But there is never a time when the snow actually "fights back" in the sense of exerting any meaningful active force with momentum other than in slides, avalanches etc. which are not what we are talking about. This is really a topic for Ron LeMaster but I can't think of a situation where the snow is using leverage. It is mostly being affected by gravity. As you go over it, it collapses moving according to fluid dynamics until it finds underlying snow, rocks, ground, etc. that support the weight -  the gravity forces holding it up become greater than the forces pushing it down and it stops moving. It may be that your leg is in the snow as it changes from moving to not moving but that would still not be leverage, other than the forces your body is exerting on things like your legs. The idea of the fat skis is that they exert lower forces on each square inch of the snow (by having greater displacement) to keep you less deep in  the snow's  turbulence and, as someone who has done very little powder skiing, it seems to me a little closer to surfing while carving skis on hard pack are more toward ice skating.

post #18 of 38

exaggerate the example. you are now 2" over the ski on a plate and skiing large thick clumps of cut up snow a foot deep. will that work? you will be unable to stabilize and drive the ski,the ski will push too hard on the lever.

post #19 of 38

Hmmm. I just read the Vermont Ski Safety link, and contrary to what's being said here, it does not state that the height of the plate causes problems, from pre-release or instability or levering. Rather, it states that a rigid plate on a soft ski (which is typically wider) can cause the heel and toepiece to get our of alignment during ski flex, causing inadvertent release. Nor does it state that all plates are problematic; it specifically recommends "free flexing" plates that connect heel and toepieces through bands or rods so that they essentially float in parallel during ski flex. That kind of "carving" plate is actually common. Even for Vist. (I have a pair of Vist that connect via a rod, as well as several different Tyrolia plates that use a rod or a flexible band.) Not saying that a plate is desirable for a fatter ski (unless you have knee issues or want to remove your bindings frequently). Rather I'm saying that there's noting intrinsically bad for this usage, either, if it's a suitable plate (and you don't mind adding the 5-13 oz per ski). It'll just change the feel of getting the ski over slightly. 

 

I also note, FWIW, that most here do not appear to have done their homework on plates. Among other things, a lifter of any kind reduces the amount of energy required to achieve a particular edge angle. The only deduction I can make about "instability" is that this greater efficiency will make it easier to magnify small errors in movement by the skier on irregular surfaces, but I doubt that's much of an issue in real terms. Cannot figure out anything about "levering," but remain open to persuasion. Here is the link to PhysicsMan's original 2001 posts of how lifter plates work. His posts start about halfway down the first page: http://www.epicski.com/t/9286/lifter-plates 

post #20 of 38

I was picturing a plate like this http://www.vist.it/en/Company/Home.html All I know is I have had major problems running VIST plates and bindings on a softer ski. Maybe it's more the binding than the plate, but I get a lot of "Flex Effect". I have tried more than one plate with the Speedlock binding. I could go into more detail, but I don't think it really matters. I just don't see how the OP gets a benefit from putting a plate on that ski. Maybe it won't be especially detrimental, but it won't make it better.

 

And for the record, I am going to plate my MX88s, but that's a different ski.

post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View PostHere is the link to PhysicsMan's original 2001 posts of how lifter plates work. His posts start about halfway down the first page: http://www.epicski.com/t/9286/lifter-plates 


Beyond,

Good find and interesting read from PhysicsMan post. The link did not work for me, states system error, but, I did find it via search of "lifter-plate".

 

Very much an oversimplification of the article, but, PhysicsMan concluded that lifter plates are not beneficial in low edge angels typically generated by recreational skiers, whereas, they are very beneficial in high edge angles obtained by racers and high level skiers. I would infer from this that there really is not a benefit from plating a wider ski unless the individual skier works to create all the edge angle possible.

post #22 of 38

Remember our OP is just 115lb. Adding ANY extra weight and performance debilitating setups is exaggerated in a skier that small. As a 200lb skier, would we put a lifter and a plate on a 120+mm wide ski? No, but a 120mm wide ski for a 190-200lb is like a 94mm wide for a 115lb skier. We need to consider that a skier this size needs to be taken into consideration. 

post #23 of 38



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Remember our OP is just 115lb. Adding ANY extra weight and performance debilitating setups is exaggerated in a skier that small. As a 200lb skier, would we put a lifter and a plate on a 120+mm wide ski? No, but a 120mm wide ski for a 190-200lb is like a 94mm wide for a 115lb skier. We need to consider that a skier this size needs to be taken into consideration. 



Interesting observation, in that I wouldn't have a problem putting a Vist TT plate on a wider ski, purely from the point of view of using the Speedlock system to adjust binding position and swap bindings.  And I'm a 200lb skier.

 

Perspective is important.

 

post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post
PhysicsMan concluded that lifter plates are not beneficial in low edge angels typically generated by recreational skiers, whereas, they are very beneficial in high edge angles obtained by racers and high level skiers. I would infer from this that there really is not a benefit from plating a wider ski unless the individual skier works to create all the edge angle possible.


Agree that the effect should be more pronounced at higher edge angles, but struck by the slarving videos a while back. Granted, solid skiers, but some very high angles. Seems to me that modern powder techniques are moving toward aggressive, high angles and throwing the skis sideways to check or change trajectory. So there should be a benefit, no? The other funny thing that's rarely brought up is that none of these plates are as high as a Duke mounted flush. I guess all the issues disappear when you go AT...

post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


..........The other funny thing that's rarely brought up is that none of these plates are as high as a Duke mounted flush. I guess all the issues disappear when you go AT...




 

Cough, cough... smile.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

.......... Previously I had Marker Dukes mounted on the XXL as a slack country rig, so the stack height is now lower with the Vist plate/binding and (without resorting to scales) I don't think is any heavier................

 

post #26 of 38

Uh, "Rarely brought up except by the perspicacious taxman" is what I meant to say...wink.gif

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

The other funny thing that's rarely brought up is that none of these plates are as high as a Duke mounted flush. I guess all the issues disappear when you go AT...


Or you out up with it so that you can go AT.

post #28 of 38
Thread Starter 

Thanks to everyone for their perspectives. The Physics Man thread from a number of years ago was terrific, he is much better at understanding the mechanics than I.

 

I've ruled out the VIST plate system and will be getting a Griffon, Squire, PX12 Jib, Knee or STH based on what I can find in terms of deals. But in doing the research, my husband had a conversation with the US VIST  distributor, who is at Stratton, who was pushing as advantages two factors that seem applicable to mounting a flat binding:

 

1- binding ramp (delta) angle - "Mr. Vist" indicated that a zero binding ramp or delta angle would improve the stance on a wide softer ski. I know that in addition to adding a lifter to the front of the Vist system, you can add a comparable spacer to pretty much any binding. I saw on the Knee Binding web site that they have a default 6 degree ramp angle but sell lifters to eliminate some or all of that forward lean. My boots (Doberman Aggressor 100) also have some ramp angle which would add to whatever the binding has. So my question is: is a zero (or reduced) ramp angle beneficial for this type of ski which would be used in new snow, spring conditions?

 

2- fore/aft mounting - The second advantage touted by Mr. Vist was the ability to tweak the fore aft position, an advantage  not available without going to a more elaborate binding system. This raised in my mind the question of where to mount the bindings. I would typically,  per conventional Jeanie Thoren thinking for women, have the bindings put a little forward. Is this still a good idea - I don't expect to have access to the Campbell Balancing system that has been written about here.

post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Remember our OP is just 115lb. Adding ANY extra weight and performance debilitating setups is exaggerated in a skier that small. As a 200lb skier, would we put a lifter and a plate on a 120+mm wide ski? No, but a 120mm wide ski for a 190-200lb is like a 94mm wide for a 115lb skier. We need to consider that a skier this size needs to be taken into consideration. 



someone's weight does not change how quick a ski is edge to edge, or how much leverage will need to get up on edge/how much leverage it will have on someone's legs.

 

 

post #30 of 38

A high edge angle while racing or carving on ice is not the same as a high edge angle while skiing in soft or deep snow (where it is effortless to achieve) , IMO

and the stack height of the Duke is considered by many skiers to be a disadvantage that you accept as a trade off for uphill advantage. some discussions of that gear do focus on bindings with less stack height (than other bindings in the group, like people saying the new Salomon will have less stack height than the Duke) so they must think it is an issue. There are always trade offs, but for AT there are more categories of trade off.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Agree that the effect should be more pronounced at higher edge angles, but struck by the slarving videos a while back. Granted, solid skiers, but some very high angles. Seems to me that modern powder techniques are moving toward aggressive, high angles and throwing the skis sideways to check or change trajectory. So there should be a benefit, no? The other funny thing that's rarely brought up is that none of these plates are as high as a Duke mounted flush. I guess all the issues disappear when you go AT...



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier