Knee Bindings, 2011-2012, User Reviews - Page 3  

Skinnydog:

 

why does the binding care what ski it is on and vice-versa?  Function should be identical regardless.  The only thing I would ask myself would be if I want to ski a binding with the stack height of a Knee and that question will apply to any ski you use. 

 

Lou

never mind- I misunderstood what the reply was referring to

 

Well, personally I agree with you. People seem to have binding preferences that I don't always understand. I was just curious. Anyway, you mentioned the stack height of the Knee bindings and now I'm wondering what is different about the stack height. (well I thought that a taller binding was more acceptable in a carving ski than a soft snow ski).

I've skied Kneebindings on various skis from 66mm wide to 94mm. The two extremes for me being my set of 166cm long 66mm wide Stockli Slalom skis (hard snow), and my set of 184cm long 94mm wide Dynastar Sultans (soft snow). I own several sets and have had some of them remounted to different skis over the past 4 years I've been using Kneebindings. I never noticed their stand height as being any different than the Looks and Markers I had before - not saying they didn't possibly have some different measurement, just saying I never noticed the stand height itself.

 

However, I have noticed that Kneebindings feel responsive and quick from edge to edge, which I believe has to do with their well placed and very wide front and rear AFDs. The only exception to this tight feeling is when skiing deeper soft snow where everything feels loose and extra equipment precision is lost anyway. That's a reason why I can't agree with the notion that wide soft snow skis "should" have some special lower stand height binding, since stand height amongst other more apparent criteria like edge bevel aren't noticed when skiing in soft snow - the place where wide soft snow skis call home. 

I have skied Knee bindings for two years now on some of my skis.  The reason they are not on all skis is that some are system skis.  Last year (10/11) we sold approximately 10 pairs and this year it has been over 40.  the reason for the differences are several but primarily in 10/11 we offered the binding and this year we sold it. We sold it because we had a year to ski them ourselves with good results.

 

For me the binding has a noticeably more solid feel and precise when compared with other bindings if I am skiing fast carved turns.  It is also one of the few bindings I've owned that I now feel fairly comfortable skiing at chart DIN (however without the over 50 correction) rather than with the heel cranked.  I am not the worlds smoothest bump skier and often get a little jammed and pop out the heel but this has never happened with Knees, therefore the lower setting.

 

We also have an employee whose son competes in Freeride competitions and his bump skies are mounted with Knees.  He is 15 and I requested before we mounted them that he use them set at typical DIN chart recommendations.  He skied all year in bump comps at chart recommendations for a 3+ skier without one prerelease.

 

Early in the season freeskiing after a comp he over-rotated the landing of a 720 (as reported by him, although he doesn't call it a 720) sat back, continued to rotate and started to feel pressure on his knee just as his heel released.  No injury and he was smiling all year long when he relayed the results to friends and me.

 

He has no plans to change bindings for next season.

Very Late reply.... I have Knee Bindings mounted on Kastle FX skis.  I choose the FX for trees and slower days with family.  Alternative was MX, and I would have used Knee on them as well.   FX is much softer than MX, but I am having no problems.  I use them a lot in bomps, and no release issues. 

I have Knees mounted on a pair of BD Gigawatts.  One day that looked as if it would be powder skiing turned out not to be due to run closures, so I was skiing the Gigs in bumps and blew out of the left heel twice.  I cranked the DIN up a notch and haven't had a problem since.