or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Marker MRR Bindings...still okay for use?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marker MRR Bindings...still okay for use? - Page 3

post #61 of 88

One more year! (on this thread)

 

Anyone have a link to how to maintain these?  I have MRRs from the mid 80s.  Got them at a U. of Colorado team sale around 1987, probably a couple of years old (they are on the teal Rossi 4S, which I think had come out a couple of seasons before).  I used them maybe 20 days in the next 3 to 4 years, then a couple of rare days, then stored in my basement for 10 years or so.  If it's not incredibly tricky, I'd like to look inside for trouble.

 

Not sure if they're still on the list, but doesn't matter:  shops wouldn't touch them the last time I asked (long ago), since their calculation of my DIN setting was one less than the minimum on the scale of the toe-piece.  I thought I did get them worked on at least once when I got new boots and had them adjusted, so I guessed the DIN calculations were dumbed down over time.  Is that true, or did I just get lucky with a devil-may-care tech?

post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrawnyKayaker View Post

One more year! (on this thread)

 

Anyone have a link to how to maintain these?  I have MRRs from the mid 80s.  Got them at a U. of Colorado team sale around 1987, probably a couple of years old (they are on the teal Rossi 4S, which I think had come out a couple of seasons before).  I used them maybe 20 days in the next 3 to 4 years, then a couple of rare days, then stored in my basement for 10 years or so.  If it's not incredibly tricky, I'd like to look inside for trouble.

 

Not sure if they're still on the list, but doesn't matter:  shops wouldn't touch them the last time I asked (long ago), since their calculation of my DIN setting was one less than the minimum on the scale of the toe-piece.  I thought I did get them worked on at least once when I got new boots and had them adjusted, so I guessed the DIN calculations were dumbed down over time.  Is that true, or did I just get lucky with a devil-may-care tech?


Could you have put on a few pounds? Get a smaller boot? Both would contribute to a higher DIN. As far as using these, it is a all metal binding and will perform just as it did when it was new. 

post #63 of 88

So there's no real concern with lubrication or corrosion?  They've been treated "normally," so occasional roof rack exposure to road spray is probably their worst abuse.  Never stored near sea water or packed with sand, etc.

 

When I got them, I think I was at my peak weight (165 lbs) due to frequent weight training, so maybe that moved me up to the lowest DIN setting on them?  After that I lost about 10, then dropped to 142 when I took up bike racing at age 25, then stabilized at 155-157 for the last dozen years.  Last month I rented skis, and they gave me DIN 7.

post #64 of 88

Oops, I must be confusing these with some other old skis, 'cause I'd swear I had some they wouldn't set due to the DIN range.  The DIN settings go down to 4 on my Markers, so no problem there.

post #65 of 88

I'm in my early 50s and I remember the classic Rotamat and "explodamats" well. No matter how hard Marker tried they couldn't kill them off. They wouldn't go away.  Most racers and professionals insisted on using them long after they were discontinued. The original explodamat was I believe sold pre brakes days. It was called the explodamat because the heal piece broke in half when it released having to be clicked back together again by hand. It was simply the best binding ever made my IMHO. When they brought out the next model that didn't break in half on release most racers continued using the old Explodamat because they were simpler, lighter and worked better. Publicity photos were always taken from the front perspective so the old Explodamat heal didn’t show. Marker were pushing their step in heal by this stage. Stenmark was one racer who refused to ski on anything else. The two following Rotamat models didn't "explode" and were heavier. Plus because by that stage the patent had expired they changed the design of the toe which also included a moving AFD. It never worked as well.

The reason these binding were so popular with racers and professionals were;

= they were the lightest available

= they interfered with the flex of the ski less than any other minding.

= they had unmatched suspension travel and return to centre performance - and still have

- They would hang on longer than any other binging

--you could have them screwed up hard enough for racing gates on ice and still twist nonchalantly out at the end of the day - like you can with the Look turn table bindings (although he Look bindings were heavier and didn't have the amazingly simple and direct Marker toe) You didn't have to wind them off for storage because the springs were never under load (this is probably the most amazing aspect of their simple design).

The explodamat binding was produced in MRR but only for pros) in the new white and red colours The only reason it was discontinued was because of the inconvenience factor - the money was in step ins and because the market would not tolerate a binding that broke in half on release and had to be snapped back together before use...

If anybody has suffered injury from a slow rotating fall (as I have) on non rotamat bindings they will never want to ski on anything else ever again.

Its telling that the worlds best bump (arguably) Dale Begg Smith skis on Looks because they are the only rotamat still available (?) available.  He’d probably prefer to ski on MRR explodamats if he could get hold of some.

 

Check out the design and mechanics of the explodamat and corresponding marker toe and you will understand why a better binding has never been made.

post #66 of 88

IMHO the ealrly explodamat MRRs with their twincam toes were the best binding ever made. Why would some manufacturers indemni list make any difference? Thats just a way of making people buy the newer heavier, and less effective bindings they offer now.

The MRR spring was at rest both in the toes and heals when clipped in! The travel, return to centre and rotational release is still unequalled in modern bindings (but please correct me if I'm wrong).

The Look turntable design might work as well but it is heavier and relys on sometimes variable spring preload.
 

post #67 of 88

Holy bump, Batman! 

 

Far as I know, still indemnified. I have a pair in a shoebox in my closet, from my Salomon Screams. Great soft snow binding; you could put them back on with your ski completely unweighted. 

post #68 of 88

I have a set of these on some old 200mm Fischer RC4 RSL skis. How difficult is it to modify the brakes to fit a wide powder ski?

 

Based on previous discussions, I may be too light for these bindings. I'm not racing any longer.

post #69 of 88
It was really fun to ski with a buddy who had MRRs. You could reach over and poke the red button with your pole and watch his binding release.
post #70 of 88


Are these bindings good to use still? Just found and bought a brand new pair of atomic arc RS-Gs with brand new marker MRR bindings.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colinmcrea01 View Post



Are these bindings good to use still? Just found and bought a brand new pair of atomic arc RS-Gs with brand new marker MRR bindings.

Sorry, no. Not indemnified any more. 

post #72 of 88
Do you know how old these are by looking at them?
post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colinmcrea01 View Post

Do you know how old these are by looking at them?

Early 90's...March I think. 

post #74 of 88

Closer to the mid 90's as the earlier 90's ones had the same toe piece as the M48R's and I have a set of the those.  Always wanted a set of the MMR's of the Same vintage.

post #75 of 88

Closer to the mid 90's as the earlier 90's ones had the same toe piece as the M48R's and I have a set of the those.  Always wanted a set of the MMR's of the Same vintage.

 

See http://www.epicski.com/t/21928/marker-mrr-bindings-still-okay-for-use/30#post_1095581 for the image of the earlier 90's ones.

 

BTW still have my M48R's and they function perfectly :D yes I know they are not indemnified.

post #76 of 88

godwinaustin, binding manufacturers publish an "indemnification list" each year, listing those bindings that they consider "current". The reason for the list is to alert all shops about the bindings that the manufacturer will indemnify (that is, legally cover) the shop with regards to mounting and servicing. If a person attempts to sue a shop over a binding's malfunction, the shop effectively hands the issue over to the manufacturer if the binding was indemnified.

 

There are very good bindings that drop off the list. I do believe it is a way to sell more bindings. Having said that it is a system and better a bad system then none. In addition I am sure the insurance company's want to err on their side and keep it safer.

post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

godwinaustin, binding manufacturers publish an "indemnification list" each year, listing those bindings that they consider "current". The reason for the list is to alert all shops about the bindings that the manufacturer will indemnify (that is, legally cover) the shop with regards to mounting and servicing. If a person attempts to sue a shop over a binding's malfunction, the shop effectively hands the issue over to the manufacturer if the binding was indemnified.

 

There are very good bindings that drop off the list. I do believe it is a way to sell more bindings. Having said that it is a system and better a bad system then none. In addition I am sure the insurance company's want to err on their side and keep it safer.

Yes and no as far as selling a new binding. If Marker pulls a binding off of the indemnification list, there is no guarantee that that person will come back and buy another Marker binding. I do think that blanket decisions are made like all Salomon 900 series and prior being pulled off the list. 997 Equipe and Race, the all metal versions are still good, there is nothing to really go wrong with them in the function and really no different to the $549.00 Sth16 Steels that were offered last year. But older bindings that were mostly plastic or composite materials do fatigue over time and I understand that, we are seeing many heels coming in that the housings and heel cups are showing stress. I think there are some Look bindings on the list that are close to 15 years old where most other bindings are pulled off after 10 years. 

post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

godwinaustin, binding manufacturers publish an "indemnification list" each year, listing those bindings that they consider "current". The reason for the list is to alert all shops about the bindings that the manufacturer will indemnify (that is, legally cover) the shop with regards to mounting and servicing. If a person attempts to sue a shop over a binding's malfunction, the shop effectively hands the issue over to the manufacturer if the binding was indemnified.

 

There are very good bindings that drop off the list. I do believe it is a way to sell more bindings. Having said that it is a system and better a bad system then none. In addition I am sure the insurance company's want to err on their side and keep more profitable.

FIFY

 

Insurance companies don't give a rats ass about your safety, they care about their profits.

post #79 of 88

One of the other reasons is that the companies (most major companies in all fields) now keep samples of each production run to ensure that when a claim is made and the workmanship is questioned, they can compare it to a new identical sample of the original manufactured product.  This is why you see expire dates on products that really don't expire, it's just that a couple of years after the expiry the samples are destroyed.

 

Helps keep the ambulance chasers at bay.

 

Indemnification does a few other things but mainly this is the idea, easier and more flexible as to what you want to cover or not for various reasons.

post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdow
Marker made the MRR up until this season. It is a fine binding. If you guys don't know what you're talking about, why don't you keep your mouths shut? What a bunch of know-it-alls on this site! Jeez Louise.

The MRR goes back to the 70's M4-12/15 Toes. A MRR is not a MRR in not a MRR. Yes it was made up until last year, but there are older MRR's that will NOT be indemnified. The old 4 can and twin cam toes are not indemnified. the "Full spectrum" toe, even if it IS indemnified...shouldn't be skied.

So before you berating people be clear on your facts, YES, it was made till last year, but that doesn't mean the old ones are still good. I think it might be you who needs to keep your mouth shut.

 

Why not ski the full spectrum toe?

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colinmcrea01 View Post



Are these bindings good to use still? Just found and bought a brand new pair of atomic arc RS-Gs with brand new marker MRR bindings.

 

They are a lot of fun to take apart for educational purposes, tho.    I particularly like the little rubber comb that connects the front and back part of the plate - you know someone on the design team had a fondness for modulo arithmetic.

post #82 of 88

i don't think those plates have the "comb" it was a feature of the Selective Control models with the 1/2/3 settings that stiffened/locked the plate to supposedly stiffen the ski

 

as for the pic with Atomics check the heel cup on the binding they were notorious for breaking and had something like an 80% return rate (in Canada at least, I worked for the distributor at the time)..

post #83 of 88

The bindings might have fallen off the indemnified list, but if they test OK, I'd ski them.

 

I have over 40 years as a ski mechanic. I'm the only mechanic I know of that always insisted, (to my employer's utter dismay) on testing every binding I set.

 

In the early days it was with a torque wrench and then a Wintersteiger, (s?).

 

I'd take an old Marker Rotomat heel with an M4 toe from the mid 70's over every non-marker binding ever made, (yea, I admit, I'm a fanboy).

 

Have Fun!

post #84 of 88

Just out of curiousity, anyone have a current indemnification list to post here? 

 

And how to differentiate toes? (Speaking as a MRR owner, removed from my old 2001 X-Screams, not remounted since, purchased new in the late 90's, the all metal version). 

post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spot-the-cat View Post
 

 

I'd take an old Marker Rotomat heel with an M4 toe from the mid 70's over every non-marker binding ever made, (yea, I admit, I'm a fanboy).

 

 

 

 

Wow.  What would you use for brakes?

post #86 of 88

Bindings stay on the indemnification list a lot longer than tech products are supported--Windows XP anyone? Easy to understand why binding companies might be nervous--seems like we see a number of posts every year from people who get hurt skiing and blame the bindings.

post #87 of 88
 
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Just out of curiousity, anyone have a current indemnification list to post here? 

 

And how to differentiate toes? (Speaking as a MRR owner, removed from my old 2001 X-Screams, not remounted since, purchased new in the late 90's, the all metal version). 

 

http://www.gondyline.com/indemnified.php

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

Bindings stay on the indemnification list a lot longer than tech products are supported--Windows XP anyone? Easy to understand why binding companies might be nervous--seems like we see a number of posts every year from people who get hurt skiing and blame the bindings.

 

Thats a great point comparing against software.

 

I am not a fan of manufactures blanketly removing series of bindings from the Indemnification List. I can see older bindings that are predominately plastic being removed but all metal bindings like 997E's or 900E's or Race variations are as good as or better than some of of the more modern counterparts. 

post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post
 

 

 

Wow.  What would you use for brakes?


In the mid 70's we didn't have them. I'd use the Salomon safety straps, (better than Markers). In 1979 I got some retrofits called "Ski Safe". They fit under the mid-foot and only opened on one side. Sometimes if the snow was hard, the ski would just take off down the hill. In the early 80's Marker came out with some that would fit both the newer Compact heel and the older Rotomat, (or as we called them explode-a-mats).

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 › Marker MRR Bindings...still okay for use?