EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski / Binding integration - yea or neh?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski / Binding integration - yea or neh? - Page 2

Poll Results: Do you prefer integrated skis and bindings?

 
  • 1% (2)
    I insist that any ski I buy has integrated bindings
  • 13% (15)
    I prefer skis with integrated bindings
  • 18% (20)
    I prefer some integrated binding designs but not others
  • 27% (30)
    I have no preference whether a ski has integrated bindings or not
  • 24% (27)
    I prefer skis without integrated bindings
  • 15% (17)
    I insist that any ski I buy does not have integrated bindings
111 Total Votes  
post #31 of 57
Quote:
How hard would it be to design a ski system that works the same way?
Reply With Quote
Line is doing that
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw
Question: Is it logical to assume that for applications where the benefits of lifters and free flexing binding plates are appropriate, that it should be possible to design a system that inherently performs better than seperately developed componants?
Yes. Go ski a Völkl Supersport Superspeed.
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionbowler
Yes. Go ski a Völkl Supersport Superspeed.
Bah.

You pick one of the stiffest skis available to consumers to make a claim that the system allows the ski to flex more freely. BS.
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Bah.

You pick one of the stiffest skis available to consumers to make a claim that the system allows the ski to flex more freely. BS.
the reason that i have picked this ski as the best example of an integrated binding system actually working better than an a la carte system is because this ski was fully designed around having the binding as close to the ski as possible for better energy transmission. völkl's new double grip technology literally builds the binding into the core and the sidewall of the ski, providing the skier quicker edge to edge feeling, more instantaneous energy transfer to the ski edge, and more direct feedback on what is going on down at the edge of the ski. this is also found in the P60 skis.

if you want to call BS fine, but the Motion AT binding is only fixed to the ski in one spot - just like any other Motion System - and this allows the ski to flex independently of the binding, regardless of how stiff the ski is.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionbowler
this is also found in the P60 skis.
You mean the consumer P60 skis, not the actual race skis.

The actual race skis use no such fancy magical BS.
post #36 of 57
of course i mean the regular consumer P60.

most people look at you like you are an idiot when you start talking about race stock. plus, the race stock ski is usually used in conjunction with a plate which accomplishes more or less the same thing, just to a higher level of tuned, specific performance: the Marker World Cup Piston Control Interface. most people do not need this level of performance because they are not athletically and technically strong enough to make these skis do what they can.

sorry i touched off a nerve with you about integrated systems.

if you want to get into personal opinions, i do not ski integrated systems either. however, for most people they make the buying process easier. and the integrated binding/ski systems seem to perform very well for consumers. in the superspeed i have found the first narrow waisted ski i would actually buy in five years.

the original question i answered was about whether an integrated system could work better than an a la carte system. the Motion AT/Double Grip Carbon Technology from Marker/Völkl does take the intended system performance level to a level that other systems have not achieved yet. the binding really is built into the construction of the ski - it does not sit on the ski. the intended performance of this ski was highspeed, longer radius carved turns, and for this building the binding into the ski to increase the efficiency of power transfer while the ski is on edge on hard snow is a great performance enhancer. no, it's not right for everyone. BUT, for it's intended purpose, it has set a new standard.
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionbowler
of course i mean the regular consumer P60.

most people look at you like you are an idiot when you start talking about race stock. plus, the race stock ski is usually used in conjunction with a plate which accomplishes more or less the same thing, just to a higher level of tuned, specific performance: the Marker World Cup Piston Control Interface. most people do not need this level of performance because they are not athletically and technically strong enough to make these skis do what they can.
Yes, the WC interface plate, that I routinely mounted with a jig in Oct/Nov.

Not athletically strong enough? The consumer skis are at least as beefy as the race room ones. Of course, you have a good point about technique. The consumer skis are more forgiving at the edge it seems to me.

Quote:
if you want to get into personal opinions, i do not ski integrated systems either. however, for most people they make the buying process easier. and the integrated binding/ski systems seem to perform very well for consumers. in the superspeed i have found the first narrow waisted ski i would actually buy in five years.
The Superspeed is a really cool ride.

Quote:
the original question i answered was about whether an integrated system could work better than an a la carte system. the Motion AT/Double Grip Carbon Technology from Marker/Völkl does take the intended system performance level to a level that other systems have not achieved yet. the binding really is built into the construction of the ski - it does not sit on the ski. the intended performance of this ski was highspeed, longer radius carved turns, and for this building the binding into the ski to increase the efficiency of power transfer while the ski is on edge on hard snow is a great performance enhancer. no, it's not right for everyone. BUT, for it's intended purpose, it has set a new standard.
So, you'd claim that the AT/Double Grip is better for its intended purpose (high speed long radius turns as per you) than the WC Piston Control interface with a Comp 1800/1400?

Thats the exact claim I take issue with, because if it were true, thats what WC GS skiers would be using.

Its definitely pretty trick, but what does it do that a good plate and binding doesn't? Other than the only important thing it does, which is guarantee a binding sale.
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Bah.

You pick one of the stiffest skis available to consumers to make a claim that the system allows the ski to flex more freely. BS.
Can I get an Amen?
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman Not athletically strong enough? The consumer skis are [i
at least[/i] as beefy as the race room ones. Of course, you have a good point about technique. The consumer skis are more forgiving at the edge it seems to me.

So, you'd claim that the AT/Double Grip is better for its intended purpose (high speed long radius turns as per you) than the WC Piston Control interface with a Comp 1800/1400?

Thats the exact claim I take issue with, because if it were true, thats what WC GS skiers would be using.

Its definitely pretty trick, but what does it do that a good plate and binding doesn't? Other than the only important thing it does, which is guarantee a binding sale.
i would claim not athletically strong enough. the WC racers train so hard year round and do alot of exercises that most skiers don't do. this training regimen does prepare them in a way that most aren't. there is an interesting balance between the stiffness of the race skis and their lack of forgiveness, especially on edge. it's definitely a combo thereof. again, it is probably at least a little fair to leave out the 5% of skiers at the top that we purport to be a part of (me too).

I would claim that for a very accomplished skier, they would probably be able to appreciate the difference between the Double Grip/Motion AT setup and a WC Piston Interface on a race stock ski. but, as i think we are coming together up top, it is such a demanding setup in terms of technique, stiffness and lack of forgiveness, that most people won't want to ski it all mountain, all day. I truly do believe that the Double Grip/Motion AT is a great allround system (meaning it functions well off of prepared race courses, too) that leans heavily in it's intended direction - super great edge feel when laid on edge with improved bi-directional energy transfer. i don't think you'd ever see someone roosting around all day all over the mountain on a WC interface, but you see people all the time doing exactly this on a Motion AT/Double Grip. it's a matter of intended use.

as far as saying that the Motion AT only guarantees a binding sale, i think that it would be impossible to get the binding so close to the ski (to realize the intended benefits of the system) without using a fully integrated system, so the binding and interface must become a dedicated part of the system.

i think it is important to differentiate between consumer equipment and race equipment. there are huge correlations in technology that trickles down, maybe only in theory, but it trickles down. the number of people skiing race stock is fairly inconsequential as a whole to fate of the industry. i am only focusing on consumer product.

perhaps the Motion AT/Double Grip is controversial because it is really a step ahead. many other dedicated interfaces are starting to look more like hostage plates, while the Marker/Völkl cooperation on Motion is creating systems that continue to bring the pieces of the system ever more together. many "dedicated systems" out there sure look like they are just some type of plate premounted onto the ski (rather than integrated into the construction of the ski) on which only a certain binding will work.

for example, i could get any binding i want on the new Pilot System Plate if i really wanted to. but not on the Double Grip.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
The Superspeed is a really cool ride.

So, you'd claim that the AT/Double Grip is better for its intended purpose (high speed long radius turns as per you) than the WC Piston Control interface with a Comp 1800/1400?
I think the issue here is versatility. There is no debate that traditional, vertical sidewall, wood and metal construction is better for the World Cup athlete - vitually every manufacturer builds their WC skis this way.

However, what these World Cup skis don't have is versatility, at least with one of us weekend warriors at the wheel. This is where new technologies come in.

Is some of it marketing BS? Sure, it always is, but there's still one fact you can't get around.. The Superspeed is extremely good at it's intended purpose, and is still more versatile than a race stock GS ski. Why?
post #41 of 57

Choices choices choices

This sounds strangely like:

"Do you like microbrews or mass-produced beer?"
"Do you prefer a standard or automatic transmission?"

I've never been a fan due to the fact that the ski/bind companies coop on more or less a profatibility/marketshare formula with a second consideration to functionality.

However, there are a few notable exceptions, Volkl Superspeed and the AX series w/ the oil-controlled bindings - Solomons and the latter revised pilot system - and some of the Tyrolia stuff.

The con side says picking bindings for bullet proof operation doesn't necessarily lend it self to ski/binding systems very well, some of the bindings are just crap. I absolutely abhor Atomic bindings and am hoping the Big/Sugar Daddys finally drop the system approach (but its unlikely).

The midline take is to go w/ a binding/plate sytem (no I'm not talking about the Marker-Motion crap) but something evolved for GS/SL that is strong enough to take a beating while still transmitting due to a burly (metal) construction. This is what I'm into since you can potentially save cheddar on bindings and just buy multiple plates.

Just my 2 sense,
Wilbanba
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbanba
This sounds strangely like:

I absolutely abhor Atomic bindings and am hoping the Big/Sugar Daddys finally drop the system approach (but its unlikely).

Wilbanba
Get up with the times chief! They got rid of the plates this season you can put any binding you want on them!
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbanba
The midline take is to go w/ a binding/plate sytem (no I'm not talking about the Marker-Motion crap) but something evolved for GS/SL that is strong enough to take a beating while still transmitting due to a burly (metal) construction. This is what I'm into since you can potentially save cheddar on bindings and just buy multiple plates.
You've piqued my interest. what plate system are you talking about? Do you ski all mountain or are you talking race plates?

I use a Marker Comp1400 Piston binding on all my skis for similar performance reasons.
post #44 of 57
Names not chief but thanks. Anyhew just got the gear mags and saw the SD, nice but too late in the game, other (more bomber) planks exist and are most likely even true on the base! That Beta whatever stuff is played out.

YMMV

Wilbanba
post #45 of 57
All mtn and off mtn. I pervert race stuff to go off-piste... I hate having plastic underneath my bindings connecting expensive boots, bindings, and skiis - I just don't trust it! I go metal whenever possible, VIST has some nice plate/binding systems. When that fails take a billet of 6061 aluminum to a machine shop and give specs!

Cheers,
Wilbanba
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbanba
All mtn and off mtn. I pervert race stuff to go off-piste... I hate having plastic underneath my bindings connecting expensive boots, bindings, and skiis - I just don't trust it! I go metal whenever possible, VIST has some nice plate/binding systems. When that fails take a billet of 6061 aluminum to a machine shop and give specs!

Cheers,
Wilbanba
Whatever, Metal Man
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Superspeed is extremely good at it's intended purpose, and is still more versatile than a race stock GS ski. Why?
A whole bunch of reasons, perhaps the most important being the shape.

I find it hard to believe that if you ripped the <sectioned so as not to influence flex too much> rails out of the middle 40 cm of ski, mounted up a Look binding and a decent plate that floats....that the Superspeed would not still be an awesome and versatile ride.

Of course, I'll have to wait a couple years till I can find a throwaway pair to try this with.
post #48 of 57
No integrated system on the market works the way they claim or the way it should. The exceptions are the Salomon ZZ lab plate (which is not integrated and can be mounted to any ski) and the Line Pivogy (which is a terrible binding, and not purely integrated, in that the skis will accept other bindings).

Every other system (including a flat mounting) has varying degrees of positive influence on ski behavior and negative influence on binding behavior. The two are inversely proportional.
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionbowler
this allows the ski to flex independently of the binding, regardless of how stiff the ski is.
simply not true, especially on a binding with limited elasticity.

experiment: take a flexible piece of anything (paper will work) and curl or flex it. Tell me if the two ends get closer together. Now imagine that this is the integrated "free flexing" plate on your ski. You can see that the heel and toe piece of your binding are not at a fixed distance. That means that the boot sole combined with the longitudinal elasticity of the binding will influence the flex pattern of the ski.
post #50 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
simply not true, especially on a binding with limited elasticity.

That means that the boot sole combined with the longitudinal elasticity of the binding will influence the flex pattern of the ski.
Physicsman looked into this claim in THIS THREAD and found it to be pretty much unfounded.
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
The average US ski consumer, not necessarily the participants in this forum, has already accepted the "system" with no resistance.
Read that as World ski customer. The average man on the slope doesn't give a monkeys hoot if manufacturers are enhancing their sales by offering integrated systems. It just makes Mr./Mrs. Average's job of choosing equipment much easier. He/She really doesn't care so much which binding comes with his/her chosen ski ("after all don't they all do the same thing?").

As to the ability to re-use bindings on other skis, what percentage of skiers actually do this. I would guess that, over the full spectrum of skiers, this would be negligible and that contrary to what's been said before, most skiers don't care to. They are happy to replace their old ski/bindings combo with a new set when necessary.

For you ski monsters who own a large number of skis and replace them often and who care which binding/ski combo you specifically require, this is of course a more important issue. But, you should realise that you are in the minority I'm afraid and manufacturers will be more prone to please the masses.
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiski
Physicsman looked into this claim in THIS THREAD and found it to be pretty much unfounded.
Ahem:

"However, when the forward pressure spring is max'ed out, then the incompressible boot is being "pinched" by the binding and one does see a significant (25%) change in flex in the part of the ski directly under the binding."

Precisely what I said about bindings with limited elasticity.

In addition, you will see significant drop in the force required for release when a ski is flexed. At a given bending force (not a given displacement) this problem is greatest with a "free-flex" plate, then with a flat mounted ski, and finally with a non-free-flex plate.
post #53 of 57
I fully disagree with idea that reuse of bindings is not an issue.
My unfortunate experience shows that skis are rather vulnerable. It is not so difficult at all to bend them. I did it twice with Volkls (booth with Motion).

However, if you cannot buy Volkls without Motions than shops, not a manufacturer is a problem. In our neighborhood you can buy skis and bindings separately.
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex
I fully disagree with idea that reuse of bindings is not an issue.
My unfortunate experience shows that skis are rather vulnerable.
Rex,

I fully agree that re-use of bindings makes common sense.

What I wanted to point out is that "average" skiers (the majority) do not feel this important and may prefer the ease of buying ski/binding combo.s and replacing them in due course with another ski/binding combo. Therefore manufacturers pamper to the whims of this majority (and subsequently increase profit of course!!).
post #55 of 57
I am late to party on this one, but I thought I would add my 2 cents. I voted that I don't like integrated bindings systems, but I will admit they have some pros.

There has been a lot of talk about the Marker plates in this thread, and since I own both I will start there. I am still skiing on P60 SL's with the Marker WC piston plate, had Race Stock Elans with the WC piston plate last year, and also have the 6 star with last years piston plate and 1400 bindings.

First, I like the performance of both system for their intended purpose. However, I disagree with the statement that you would not be able to ski the WC piston plate all day- I do it all the time. The piston plate is not a demanding plate compared to what I was using the 90's. That out of the way, I do like the system on the 6 stars. Having skied on race skis with plates for years, an all mountain ski without some sort of plate system would probably be a disappointment to me. Another aspect of the Marker system I like is that I can take bindings on and off, move them around, etc much easier.

I have always been a fan of marker and salomon bindings my whole life. Therefore, I am not a huge fan of the Atomic, Rossi, or Dynastar systems that require other bindings. Even worse are those Nordica plates that require the cheesy looking Nordica bindings. Again, I don't have a good reason for not liking Rossi/Look or atomic bindings, I just don't like them. I might give the 9x/9s or the SL/GS11 a closer look if I could use anything I wanted...
post #56 of 57

Used bindings on new skis?

I never take old bindings off skis and move them to new ones. I'd expect the bindings to come out of indemnification long before the skis are worn out, and then I'd be stuck with bindings that no shop will work on, on good skis.
I wonder if the integrated bindings come out of indemnification while the skis are still good, and you're stuck?
Can integrated bindings be replaced? How about if the binding breaks from contact with a rock, or other baggage in a plane?
post #57 of 57
As I mentioned, there are shops that sell Volkl skis with Motion rails and bindings separately. There is no problem to shift it to another ski. It takes 30 seconds. You can even have two different pairs of skis sharing one set of bindings.

I also usually dismantle Motion bindings when putting skis into baggage in a plane.
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 › Ski / Binding integration - yea or neh?