or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Disqualify a ski because of its system binding?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disqualify a ski because of its system binding? - Page 2

post #31 of 40
Boy, I can't wait for the day when you have to buy a specific brand boot to match the brand of binding/ski you want.
post #32 of 40
Originally posted by kiwiski:
Firstly you're confusing elasticity,

Designs like Atomic and Marker are very sensitive to changes in forward pressure so free-flex plates are almost a necessity to minimise this weakness.


No confusion at all, that's basically what I said, although maybe it wasn't clear, that the elasticity in the Look toepeice is more than enough to compensate for the change in forward pressure that occurs when the ski flexes.

That is not true that Atomic is sensitive to changes in forward pressure. The heelpiece moves freely when the ski flexes, allowing the ski to flex naturally. They were one of the innovators of the freeflex design back when they were ESS.

In Atomics own words: "The free-gliding connection between the heel unit and the toe piece maintains a tension-free connection between ski and boot."
post #33 of 40
Originally posted by BetaRacer:
As a side note to Atomic bindings, a number of World Cup skiers who use Nordica and Stockli ski have selected Atomic as their bindings. If their careers are dependant on performance, retention and release, they would choose what is best, and they have.
Yes and I'm sure that ALL of the racers who are using atomics(and any other binding for that matter) are using the same bindings that you and I can get in a shop. :

Buying a binding because thats what the pros are using is stupid and I think its a mistake by ski companies to pretend that the pros are using the standard equipment that everyday joes can buy.

As for systems, this is all being driven by market share, If you're a ski manufacturer who's binding sales are slow how do you increase sale of your binding. First you offer a better warrenty if you buy their brand of binding, but this doesn't stop people from just saying to hell with it I'm going to buy my regular brand. So the bean counters and tech geeks go back to the drawing board and come up with a system binding(you can almost see their glee after coming up with this one) so that you HAVE to use their binding system.

There are ways around the system binding, for example there is a universal plate that you can attach to an Atomic ski to make it accept any binding, I'm pretty sure that this would void the warrenty but at this point I'm worried more about my knees then the warrenty on my skis.

I've never had any problems with marker bindings, but I've always had markers so I wonder if that fact made me more conciencious of staying centered because there is less elasticity in the binding. The only time I had rossi bindings I had all sorts of pre release problems. This is the primary reason that I don't like the idea of system bindings, let the people decide what kind of bindings they want to put on a certain skis
post #34 of 40
Several times, WC racers are used as examples of what are good bindings.

Hello- wake up!
WC bindings are about as close to retail as a Nascar is to your sedan!

There are many differences in EVERY make of binding at the WC level. Not just the DIN scale.

Ski the bindings which make you feel comfortable. Many ski manufacturers are still making flat skis (no plates) so you can put on them what you want.

What also needs to be taken into consideration, is the amount of lift being thrown on some of these skis! The higher you go, the less versatile the ski.

Do what's right!

post #35 of 40
What I meant was that the Atomic design is sensitive to forward pressure which makes it necessary to put them on a free flex plate (as they do).

But another interesting point is that the plate Atomic put on their skis is fixed in the centre and floating at the toe and heel. So what happens when you put a binding with a fixed toe and floating heel on a binding which has a fixed centre and floating toe and heel? Free flex plates on free flex plates?
post #36 of 40
Originally posted by Westcat:
Seems to me that ski flex would also affect Looks since they have a fixed toe and heel, the forward pressure on the toe and heel would change when the ski flexes. I guess you're saying that there's enough elastic travel to compensate for the slight change in tension, still seems like it would affect the release setting somewhat if flexed enough.
As others mentioned, the small bolt pattern (relative to other bindings) minimizes flex issues. Plus, if you look at how the Look toepiece is constructed, slightly off-axis forward pressure does not cause the wings to splay out (Marker, Nordica) or the toe to twist to one side (Salomon).

Additionally, the turntable heel hangs over more of the rear boot flange than other heels, which allows the static forward pressure to be less while still not popping the boot out in counterflex situations.

Could be why most system bingings are going to some type of freeflex system or plate where ski flex doesn't affect the bindings. Since the Markers on the Volkl motion system are on rails, I think the ski freeflexes and doesn't affect the bindings at all.

I believe your idea as to the motivation is correct, and this is why most Markers come on flex plates or Motion rails now. However, the low elastic travel issue still exists, and since I believe this design to be intrinsically flawed, I still won't ski them.

Also, what's the disadvantage of a heavier binding? I can see for tricks or in the air lightness would matter, but I haven't been able to tell any difference in binding weights on the snow.

In a wide-open pure carving situation, weight can be nice because it helps smooth out irregularities. But I've skied some *very* heavy ski/binding combos (Head XP + Tyrolia demo bindings), and the extra weight makes quick turns very difficult. Pure carving is nice, but on very steep slopes or in trees, some hopping/smearing is necessary, and weight makes this more difficult.

Plus the weight is annoying when skating traverses, carrying skis on a bootpack, or getting to/from the car.
post #37 of 40
Originally posted by laseranimal:
Yes and I'm sure that ALL of the racers who are using atomics ... are using the same bindings that you and I can get in a shop. :


Just to let you in on something. The Atomic 1018 binding shares the exact housing as the 614 model. The difference is the spring is stiffer and the heel cup is cast aluminum. Every other feature is identical and can be swapped between models. Same track, same linking band, same brakes, same length screws, same varioflex, etc. You too can get the same 1018 as the racers, but the cost is substantially higher than the 614 and subject to availability. Just contact your retailer to place the order. So, yes, you can get the same bindings as used on the World Cup in your shop. : [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

What are the weights of other bindings?
Atomic's are as follows (in kg/pair);
Race 1018 - 3.14
Race 614 - 3.01
Race 412 - 2.71
Race 310 - 2.71
Xentrix 1018 - 3.23
Xentrix 614 - 3.10
Xentrix 412 - 2.80
Xentrix 310 - 2.80
Centro 412 - 3.01
Centro 310 - 2.79
Device 412 - 1.60
Device 310 - 1.38

State the weights of bindings you seem are lighter. And boo hoo if you can't carry your skis from the car because they are too heavy. Maybe it is time you make Deer Valley your next destination, where they have vallets take your skis to the lift for you.
post #38 of 40
Originally posted by Ladede:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by steve_s:
So, you're saying that a) you need to get the snow off your boots before getting in the bindings, b) ski without bad technique, and c) instead of being a gross weight of 160# with me, boots, skis, and bindings - I have to deal with 161.5#.

Thought they were heavy on the rack, but not noticeable when skiing.
If the bindings are actually 1.5 lbs, they're a screaming deal as far as weight goes. A Salomon 912 Titanium weighs 2 lbs. A 912 Pe weighs nearly 4 lbs.

</font>[/quote]Oh heck no, ladeda, the Atomic 914s are about 4-5# together, I meant they are 1.5 pounds heavier than others and I still don't care.
post #39 of 40
Race bindings are no super secret improved performance bindings, they are just incredibly tight clamps for people who want to never release from their bindings. And they pay the price for this, look at the number of pros who destroy their knees each year.

Betaracer - getting back to the integration issue I don't understand why Atomic have a free-flex binding on top of a free-flex plate?? Isn't that major overkill?
post #40 of 40
I don't think any WC racers would want to jeopradize their career by clamping down their binding so tight they wouldn't release. I saw Bode Miller pop out of his Rossi/Looks in a WC slalom knocking him out of the race, so I think it's possible to release out of any of the bindings.

Also regarding weight, I hiked at least 15 runs 2 weekends ago at Alta, and my skis didn't seem any heavier than other skis I've carried, and if they were it certainly wasn't enough to make much difference. So I just weighed my 175 Pocket Rockets w/Atomics and my 175 Volkls w/Markers and they are roughly the same weight, about 14 lbs. I know the PR is supposed to be a light ski, but it's also much wider 90mm vs. 68, so that should make up some difference.

[ March 15, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Westcat ]
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 › Disqualify a ski because of its system binding?