or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

looks on atomics

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
can you put look bindings on atomic skis, Ive heard that you have to use atomics bindings, but they weigh so much! I have a pair of beta ride 9.22's if that makes a diferance.

post #2 of 26
I believe that you can put any bindings you like on them. They even sell those with touring bindings like Diamir Titanal here in the UK.
post #3 of 26
Atomic sells their skis either with the atomic binding system already installed, or without. just make sure they're the plain skis only if you're ordering online, and you can fit just about any binding on them.

I'm using tyrolia bindings on my 8.18's... (hey they were cheap and I was on a budget.)
post #4 of 26
The Atomic BetaRide 9.22 or R:9 accept any binding. The only other model to accept all manufacturers is the BetaRide 10.ex or R:ex. All other Atomic models require Atomic bindings.
post #5 of 26
WHAT? you on crack or something =)

I've seen plenty of atomic skis with non-atomic bindings.

I have Tyrolia bindings on my 8.18's
post #6 of 26
AznAtama, BetaRacer is the authority number 1 on Atomic products in this forum and he certainly knows what he is talking about. So please, think before replying. Thank you, Mirek.
post #7 of 26
While BetaRacer is correct that most of the Atomic line require Atomic bindings, I have had Salomon PowerAxe bindings on my Atomic BetaRace 9.20s for 2 seasons now and have had no problems.

Not that I'm endorsing going against manufacturers recommendations or anything, just a comment that it is possible.
post #8 of 26
AznAtama, aren't you special for using Tyrolia bindings.

My statements are for current model year (2002-2003) Atomic skis. In the past, Atomic had many more models which did not require Atomic or ESS bindings. Not so now. Even the C8 which is the current Carv 8.18 is factory mounted with the Device binding. Canadian and European skiers don't need crack to enjoy a day on the slopes. We leave that for a small number of the misinformed from Irvine California.

Gill, though it is true that you could mount any binding on any ski, it doesn't mean it will work as well as intented. With a little creativity, one could probably mount an Atomic binding to a Crossmax Pilot if one so desired. We at Atomic Ski don't recommend doing it, but it is ultimately up to the consumer (and liabilty waiver they sign) what bindings are mounted.
post #9 of 26
{rant mode on}
Will Atomic be coming out with a touring binding or are those of us who use skis for touring going to have to abandon the Atomic downhill line (or look for stocks of old model skis) when Atomic complete the trend and make their whole line up Atomic binding only?

Yes, I know Atomic make the tourguide and tourcap, but quite a lot of touring binding users want something more than a traditional touring ski.

I'm just waiting with eager anticipation for when they make the binding-boot interface proprietary so you can only use Atomic boots in Atomic bindings in Atomic skis - and sod those who don't have Atomic feet :-(
{rant mode off}


[ November 15, 2002, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Nick Thomas ]
post #10 of 26
Sorry if I sounded harsh, but It's jsut my sarcasm at work. no offense betaracer.

I know that most ski manufacturers that make skis and bindings will market them together since the bindings were designed to go with the skis. According to Atomic, the atomic bindings allow the ski to flex naturally, and you'll probably get the full benefit of the design by using their bindings. However, since Atomic does sell skis that are unmounted (I may be wrong, but I've seen unmounted C:9's at stores) I would assume that Atomic is allowing the consumer to use their own bindings.

My understanding is that atomic bindings are strongly recommended for Atomic skis, but not absolutely requires. Like a car using OEM parts instead of no-name replacements.

Personally, I love atomic skis, and would have loved to get the 9.18's with the device binding installed. However, they didn't have any in my size at the store, and in the interest of saving some money, I got the 8.18's instead. =)

IMHO, if you've got the money, go for the atomic bindings. Else, if you're getting hooked up on a set of bindings for cheap, and are on a tight budget, make do with what you can. others may have a differrent opinion, but hey, to each his/her own.
post #11 of 26
AznAtama, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. I have seen every model of ski available to retailer, and have an extensive information booklet.

Nick, firstly, Downhill skis are not great touring skis anyhow, so I don't know why you would even consider them. The are designed to be skied on very hard snow and extremely high speeds. The length and weight will be a huge burden.
post #12 of 26
Firstly not everyone who uses toruing bindings does so primarily for week long tours - plenty do so for shorter day tours to access areas beyond the lifts.

Secondly, the Atomic 9.22 was one of the most popular skis for ski touring - many mountain guides used and recommended them.

Was the 10.ex only designed for hard snow? Tell me another one!

Ok, I know that the current equivalents of those models in Atomic's line up are amongst the few that aren't tied to Atomic bindings - but for how long? And what about the Sugar Daddies? Too big and heavy for me but I know there are people interested in fitting them with touring (or telemark) bindings.

To be fair Atomic aren't any worse than any of the other big manufacturers. In my mind they are all equally bad.

post #13 of 26

For what it is worth, I have a pair of 9.22s from two years ago (the first yellow ones). They are mounted with Salomon Axe 810 bindings - I find them beautifully light and am really pleased with them. However, I have never tried the Atomic bindings so I don't know how they would compare.
post #14 of 26
Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick.

I wrote that Downhill skis were not good for touring (reasons given in post). Never once did I write that Alpine skis were not appropriate. Downhill ( and Super G) skis are a very specific type of ski for extremely high speeds on icy slopes in a controlled closed to the public course. The Ride 9.22, R:9, Ride 10.ex and R:ex are excellent touring skis because of their light weight and shape which provides excellent flotation.

Know your terminology before attempting to know what you are talking about.
post #15 of 26
Thread Starter 
this is funny, betaracer(keep it up [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] )

BoB [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]
post #16 of 26

This seems like an appropriate thread to ask.

I've recently acquired last year's Race 9.20s. I want to mount my Xentrix 4-12 binding on them, but have been told that the rise in these bindings is too much for the skis because the 9.20s come with a build in riser. My understanding is that either I can get race bindings or I can have the risers on the xentrix binding replaced with something shorter. Is the latter possible, BetaRacer? It would certainly save me some money. Thanks!
post #17 of 26
The Xentrix bindings (regardless of DIN range) have a built in 8.5mm riser. Other than colour, that is the only difference between the Xentrix and the Race models. You should be able to get Race tracks from an Atomic dealer, but it would be special order, and dependant on availabilty at the warehouse. I don't know what the price would be though.

If you are planning to get to Whistler, I have a few spares kicking arround. PM me if you come, and I could arrange to meet with you. I don't want to go through the hassle of cross border shipping.
post #18 of 26
I think Atomic should be highly commended for keeping the R:9 and R:ex free of plates: those are probably two of the best skis in the history of alpine touring, regardless of what they were originally designed for. (The only criticism is that Atomic has yet to introduce a version that is already predrilled for the Fritschi Diamir hole pattern!)
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
hey, my xentrix 4-12s are brand new never touched snow( I sent the old ones back to atomic and they sent me a new pair). never seen the buisness end of my poles, do you think it would be worth it to sell them and get a pair of rossi axials? they feel so much lighter, but is that really a big differance?


Beta racer, convince atomic to make light bindings!
post #20 of 26
Originally posted by funkybob:
[QB]hey, my xentrix 4-12s are brand new never touched snow( I sent the old ones back to atomic and they sent me a new pair). never seen the buisness end of my poles, do you think it would be worth it to sell them and get a pair of rossi axials? they feel so much lighter, but is that really a big differance?
I would say switch to Axials for the elasticity alone, the weight is just a bonus. And while the Rossis feel lighter, the weight of the binding is closer to the boot, so the swing weight is a lot less and they feel even lighter on snow. Binding weight is a matter of personal preference, some people don't mind heavier bindings but I never heard anyone complain their bindings are too light.

I am not a fan of the Atomic/ESS binding design, the way the binding grips the boot and the lack of shock absorption always make me wonder whether they will do what I want whenever I have to use them.
post #21 of 26
If you were planning on changing your Atomic skis to Rossignol, then I might suggest you switch bindings. Otherwise, consider that an Atomic ski derives as much of its characteristics from its as construction as it does mated to its own binding. How much weight saving are you going to get? 2.80kg (6.6lbs) is the total weight. How much does the Rossi binding of question weigh (web site doesn't give details)?

The reason that Atomic bindings don't have high forward pressure is because the heel and toe are linked by metal band, so the distance remains constant as the ski flexes in both the flexed and extreme camber directions. The toe of the binding is fixed to the ski, and the heel is allowed to glide in a track. As the ski flexes, the ski retains its intended arc for the amount of pressure that is applied.

With normal bindings, the boot hinders the arc, causing a flat spot. The forces acting on the heel of the boot from the heel piece forces the binding backwards in its track to compensate. This puts a lot of forces into the middle of the ski, and when the pressure is released, the ski snaps back. The short mounting area of the Rossignol Axial bindings lessen the effect more than Salomon or Marker. The lateral elasticity is required because the forward pressure is so high. As forces increase to the point where the heel can not absorb anymore, the forces are directed to the toe piece. The much longer wings (compared to Atomic) help retain the boot as the binding twists. Another downside of conventional high forward pressure bindings is that when the ski is flexed reversely (increased camber), the ski can release because the distance between heel and toe is increased. You're going to ask how a ski gets extreme camber, aren't you? Though uncommon at the recreational level, when a ski flexes, it can release with a lot of force, and the result can be a extreme camber. The situation arrises in moguls and when jumping mostly.

Before the popularity of shorter more shaped skis, the average length of ski was 200cm. The approximate area covered by the binding was 25% of the ski's length. As skis get shorter, binding coverage increases to 50% of the ski length. This requires a binding which allows the ski to flex underneath without any hindrance.

These are some truths to consider when making your choice of what bindings you want to put on your skis. It might sound like a sales pitch, and it might be, but is more intended to inform you on why Atomic bindings should be considered.

[ November 19, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: BetaRacer ]
post #22 of 26

Context. If you want to talk downhill race skis fine - but they don't have much relevance to pre-drilled retail skis.

post #23 of 26
Thanks, BetaRacer! I spoke with my local shop and they corroborated what you wrote here. They can probably set me up with the correct riser height. If not, I will definitly contact you prior to Whistler. Hell, I'll contact you regardless!
post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the info. I'll consider it, If I get a really good deal on some axials I might go for it but otherwise I'll stick to my atomics

post #25 of 26
It should be noted that some companies requiring there bindings on there skis is more critical then others. As BetaRacer said, atomics that come with plates are best suited to atomic bindings. For one there pre-drilled, but more importantly I believe (Beta, correct me if I am wrong) that their plates are fixed, meaning the dont 'float'. So using any binding other than atomic will cause the ski to have flat spots. Even on the atomics without plates, if you mounted Rossi bindings you'd still have flat spots because the binding is fixed. How Rossi handles this on their skis, or at least on there pro-pulsion equipped skis is the plate is fixed in the front and floats in the rear, and the bindings only mount to the plate, this similiar to the atomic bindings prevents flat spots in the ski. So on the atomics without plates, you must either use a plate the is floating, and attach whoever's binding to it, or just use the atomic binding that itself is free floating. Also most bindings with 'lifters' like the rossi/look, or sololmons are not free-floating, so if you want to use those bindings, your better off getting an aftermarket floating plate (take your pick from who) and then mount the binding to them. But be aware most of these plates also dampen the ski too.
post #26 of 26
Betaracer is mostly correct but left out a couple of things. He compares Atomic free-flex bindings and other bindings which have conventional two piece lifters, which is not a fair comparison. Any free flex design binding or binding on a free flex plate will have very similar characteristics to the Atomic bindings. Atomic skis may have their flex pattern set up for free flex bindings but to say that Atomic free flex bindings will perform any better on Atomic skis than other free-flex designs is bogus.

Saying that Atomic bindings don't have high forward pressure is misleading, they have extremely high forward pressure but this does not affect the ski because the toe and heel are connected by the band. The bindings with the lowest forward pressure I know of are the old style Look turntable heel, you can pull the heelpiece to the correct forward pressure with one hand whereas I couldn't even move any other brand 1mm no matter what I tried.

Originally posted by BetaRacer:
The lateral elasticity is required because the forward pressure is so high. As forces increase to the point where the heel can not absorb anymore, the forces are directed to the toe piece. The much longer wings (compared to Atomic) help retain the boot as the binding twists.
And being able to retain the boot as the binding twists is what makes that the Look/Rossi toe design so good. The Look turntable heelpieces were for a time combined for with the full drive toe design still used by Look and Rossi, the wing design of that toepiece has nothing to do with the forward pressure and it has shown that it works with heelpieces with very low forward pressure (turntables) and ordinary forward pressure (pivots). The wide wing design on Look/Rossi is what gives them 45mm of lateral elasticity (compared with 18 for Atomic) and this is what gives the binding the ability to absorb shocks which would cause other bindings to pre-release.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion