- 787 Posts. Joined 3/2014
- Select All Posts By This User
Fks120 vs px15
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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)
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.