or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fks120 vs px15

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
All my flat skis currently have FKS 120s on them, but I have anew pair of supernatural 92s waiting to be mounted. I got a good deal on some PX 15s, which I plan on on putting on the SNs. However, I'm such a diehard FKS fan that I almost want to switch the bindings around. Is there realistically that much difference in The px15 heel vs the turntable? It's been years since I've skied on the PX bindings.
post #2 of 23

There are several threads on bindings that have posts about this, y'know. Short version: FKS design has biomechanical advantages for your tibia, bomber durability, cache. But heavier, and tends not to have that satisfying "click" that the PX and other traditional heel bindings do. Bit more tinkering to get into in soft snow. Probably a near wash in terms of elasticity, both superior to any other brand, AFAIK. 

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
Yea, but most threads on here are duplicate threads.
FKS fanboyism aside, I think brake Bending and redrilling makes it not worth it to switch bindings. The park rats won't like my steeze:(
post #4 of 23

If you are looking at the PX15 the toes are the same as the FKS18 so a difference there from your FKS 120's as well.  The toe is steel housing and prized for its retention where as the 120's toe is more orientated to release.

post #5 of 23
The steel toe din 15/18's don't have an upward release vector. The 12/14's do. If that makes them more or less 'release oriented' is anyone's guess.
post #6 of 23
Thread Starter 
^interestingly Rossy/look customer support says the pivot toes do have upward release, and their website advertises them as 180 degree toes. The debate on that has raged on.
post #7 of 23
They do on the 12 and 14
post #8 of 23
Thread Starter 
post #9 of 23
There used to be a good video showing the difference, but is has been removed. I have had both the px14 and px15. Both set at the same DIN the one toe does seem to release more, which direction I can't say. The 15 and up toe does feel good and seems to give without release. To date I prefer the 15's
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

The steel toe din 15/18's don't have an upward release vector. The 12/14's do. If that makes them more or less 'release oriented' is anyone's guess.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

^interestingly Rossy/look customer support says the pivot toes do have upward release, and their website advertises them as 180 degree toes. The debate on that has raged on.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

They do on the 12 and 14


My understanding from Rossignol is that the 15/18 do have upward release, but that the springs are sufficiently beefy - these were designed as racing/pro level bindings - that it's unlikely to occur except at very high loads. As in, higher than we can muster by a hand check. 

post #11 of 23
No they do not release upwards at the toe. Not enough movement as it is a single pivot point. The 14's and down do release straight upward but they use a different system and worse are made of plastic, personal beef.
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 
I guess rossignol is wrong about their own product line then.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

 Short version: FKS design has biomechanical advantages for your tibia

Why is this accepted as 'true' yet Kneebinding's claim of lateral heel release helping add safety is 'unsubstantiated'? It makes no sense what-so-ever. Pick a lane.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

I guess rossignol is wrong about their own product line then.

Yes, if they are saying "the Rossignol FKS 180 has pure vertical release at the toe, the same as or equal to the FKS 140 toe..." then they indeed do not know what they are talking about.

 

As far as the "made from plastic", the heel has plenty of plastic on the 180 as well, the failure points for FKS bindings are: the AFD breaks off and the half moon on the heel base plate breaks, this happens just as easily to 180s as the 'plastic' 140 or 120. The toes don't break unless the user seriously f**ks up. People need to get a grip.

post #14 of 23

someone send me an 18 toe and I'll prove it has upward release with both a function test and full tear down.  I have not been into a newer style toe but I bet it uses the same or similar post design as the old Zr/3D toes .  these do definitely have upwards release.  I do not have a pic of a toe torn apart right now but I will be rebuilding a pair soon and will be sure to take some detailed pics of the toe mechanism when I do.  I would love to see a newer 18 toes guts.

 

Royal

post #15 of 23
Thread Starter 
You know what's kind of scary? Both toes are 1980s technology. Note that even in the 80s the metal toes were marked "3d".

I had aa FKS heel puke the spring out the back of the housing during torque testing too!


Edited by clink83 - 12/8/15 at 6:02pm
post #16 of 23
Then don't buy them. The answer is simple if you aren't just hanging out slagging product.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

You know what's kind of scary? Both toes are 1980s technology. Note that even in the 80s the metal toes were marked "3d".

I had aa FKS heel puke the spring out the back of the housing during torque testing too!

 

were these the plastic or metal heels?  even thought there is plastic in the heels the threads are metal as well as the housings.

 

it was/is the housings that cracked in the threaded area.  

post #18 of 23

Really is amazing how little bindings have evolved.   Then again when I compare my alpine bindings to my tech bindings I am amazed at how little they cost.

post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

Why is this accepted as 'true' yet Kneebinding's claim of lateral heel release helping add safety is 'unsubstantiated'? It makes no sense what-so-ever. Pick a lane.

Already have chosen a lane, in numerous threads. KB's claim is statistically unsubstantiated. We just don't know. Their negative evidence is not logical proof of anything. They have a novel mechanical argument about one type of ACL injury; their claim has not been addressed by the biomedical or larger engineering community, and lacks enough time to be tested epidemiologically. Although for a binding aimed at beginners and intermediates who are at higher risk for the type of ACL they address, it's odd they don't have a toe that releases upward. Finally, they also have a binding that AFAIK still has not been certified.

 

Maybe they'll be completely vindicated, and become the avatar of all future bindings, but sorry, the fact that particular shops or magazines endorse them is worth about as much as SKI's stubborn substitution of "titanium" for "Titanal."

 

Rossi, on the other hand, doesn't address ACL, it addresses the fact that the rear aligns the spring with the tibia, and the pivot under the heel allows rotation around the tibia, so the design reduces shear and torsional force on that bone. This argument seems to hold up, according to otho surgeons I've talked with. And the pivot has a track record, seems like. Am not familiar with any formal epidemiological studies, by brand. 

 

Personally, I've found Tyrolia diagonal heels to be the most knee friendly bindings on the market. (Speaking as a person who just found out he has not had a functional left ACL in decades, let alone part of a knee to go with it.) My knees say the Pivot is #2, and I trust my knees, docs, epidemiology, and ads, in that order.  ;) 

post #20 of 23
Like I wrote earlier there was a video on Vimeo that showed the test of a 14 and 15 toe but it has been removed. I have personally done the test and can say that the 15 does not release straight upwards! Diagonally yes but upwards NO. The 18 is in the same boat because it is the same design. This issue is as the toe comes up the nose were the adjustment screw is impacts with the ski and limits the motion to allow enough movement for release. BTW The test is boot in binding place a screwdriver underneath and pry up.

As to the 12 and 14 yes they do, as the wings slide slightly towards the heel and up. Past a certain point they pivot and voila you are out. This straight up. Of diagonal works the same way.

I've had both the 14 and 15 (and currently still have 15s with access to the 14 ). On the 14's I've had 2 releases that should not have happened at 9.5 DIN setting ( this level 3+ on the DIN charts). Both occurred in the toe at slow speeds. I've also came close to a ACL injury be means of phantom foot slip catch on same said binding without release. The phantom foot was self induced not fully understanding the risks of the shaped ski, and no release was not the fault of the binding or DIN setting.

EDIT: I forgot to add that there are already several threads on this subject on this site discussing this exact issue. What is old news is new again.
Edited by oldschoolskier - 12/9/15 at 4:28am
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
Epic ski: where being right means you can ignore emails from a binding manufacturer saying you are wrong!
post #22 of 23

I have a slow motion video of an earlier LOOK toe (Z7) releasing vertically.  it does require the boot to move back compressing the forward pressure springs under the heel before it will clear the toe wings.  I am not able to post it anywhere. I do not know how to do youtube. is there a way to post it here?  Is there some one I could email this to who would post it for me?

 

Here are some pics of the  toes internals showing the brass ball socket and how much it pivots.  I know these are not of the new style toe.  I do not have access to a newer style toe and I can not afford to buy one.  they are pricey!  I would love to compare how the new toe looks on the inside. anyone?

 

I hope this info is helpful / interesting to someone.   I would guess the new style toes operate very similarly. 

 

also this toes weighs 420 grams with AFD.

 

all the components of the Z9 toe.  beautifully simple

 

boot side of post showing ball and cam surfaces

spring and rod assembly  tipped forward.  housing is held between white plastic disc and steel shim

same position as above with housing mounted(spring removed for ease of movement)

post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

 

Rossi, on the other hand, doesn't address ACL, it addresses the fact that the rear aligns the spring with the tibia, and the pivot under the heel allows rotation around the tibia, so the design reduces shear and torsional force on that bone. This argument seems to hold up, according to otho surgeons I've talked with. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion