or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# More Marker problems - Page 3

Quote:
 Originally Posted by huckingfellers What I dont understand is why some guys think your better than eveyrone else. WHat gives you the right to call names and put people down. Are you some of those people who get off by making others feel like crap? Grow up , Seriously. Who cares if you agree or dont. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion , so leave them alone whrn they give it!!
Hey, you're the self-proclaimed "expert"... why don't you throw some video or pictures up so we can judge for ourselves? Unless you are too good to be critiqued on a message board visited by some of the best instructors in the nation, of course...
BigE: You're right that the two aren't exactly equivalent, but I don't think it's for the reason you describe.

Let's take an ideal boot/binding/ski system, and let's say I edge my boots to a 45 degree angle. A perfectly torsionally stiff ski would be at 45 degrees everywhere, from tip to tail. A torsionally soft ski will still be at nearly 45 degrees under the binding, but as I go towards the tip and tail, the angle will decrease.

Now let's take the same ideal system, edged to 45 degrees -- but this time we'll say the binding is torsionally soft and the ski is still ideal. This would cause the angle of the entire edge to decrease, not just the tip and tail.

In both cases, though the ski isn't doing exactly the same thing, the skier has less edging power. In fact, the first system, with the torsionally soft ski, will have better grip under the binding than the second system, with the torsionally soft binding, will have anywhere!

I agree with you that they don't have the same cure. However, both cause the skier to lose edging power and control. My hypothesis, restated, is that the loss due to a torsionally soft binding (vs. a torsionally stiff binding) can exceed the loss due to a fat ski vs. a narrow ski.
spatters. what's your current testing plan?
Well put, Spatters.

dt
Quote:
 Originally Posted by comprex spatters. what's your current testing plan?
Phase 1: Collect underpants.
Phase 2:
Phase 3: PROFIT!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by spatters Phase 1: Collect underpants. Phase 2: Phase 3: PROFIT!
LOL.

Spats wins.
Obviously a gnome & not a troll
As I wrote in my other recent post, last week´s skiing prevented me from participating in this discussion earlier. Much has been said and mine are just some comments:

(i) I don´t think it´s appropriate to compare binding BRANDS irrespective of the models and their DIN ranges. Any DIN 16 binding will be stiffer than that with DIN 10-12.

(ii) The originally mentioned play in the heel might be (also) due to different heights of shoe soles at the heel. If I remember correctly, the norm prescribes 29-31 mm. Some binding-boot combination might be too loose as a result. A friend of mine swears this was the problem with Rexxam boots and Tyrolia bindings several years ago when his son was on our national team and started to use the boots. A switch to Atomic bindings solved the problem completely, he says.
Generally, the undesirable heel lift of as much as 2 mm has no solution in a higher DIN setting or increased forward pressure.

(iii) There might be some terminological misunderstanding when speaking about grip on ice. In my experience, lots of recreational skiers tend to call anything harder than pleasantly firm snow „ice“. The term ice itself is exaggeration – we don´t ski on real ice like when ice skating or which you encounter when there is lack of snow on the glacier.
The fairly sophisticated snowmaking and grooming we have today also means that we seldom to never find the really hard stuff anymore. (Even the Worldcup slopes, prepared with the Steinbach method (water injected into the snow, not onto the surface), are extremely hard but not real ICE.)
If there is no definition/agreement on what „ice“ or „hardpack“ is there could be endless discussions about wide skis holding better or worse.
No one would probably say that a 65mm GS ski with a race plate bringing the skier to 55 mm, tuned and side beveled to 87 or 86°, is not a better hardsnow performer than anything wider.

(iv) As extremecarver (to my surprise as the only one) remarked the underbinding plate has much to do with the torsinonal stiffness in the middle part of the ski. Supposing the ski (+ plate) is a nonuniform composite beam (cf. Lindh, Sanders) its stiffness will be a function of the width, the thickness and the characteristics of the material used. The kind of plate, its material and its coupling with the ski must play an important role. Solid screws with a sufficiently broad pattern will be of advantage. (You may remember the classic glued-on Derbyflex/Deflex with twice 3 screws on both ends of the plate. Some later modifications, i.e. Rossignol, added a screw in the middle. Or have a look at some Vist racing plates. Their WCR started as polidur plastic plate but a year later they added the aluminum top layers.)

(v) It´s important to transfer the forces exactly where necessary. The plate and binding screw pattern is an important one. As is the AFD. No wonder all real race bindings have no movable AFDs but a solid wide platform trying to reduce any play.

(vi) I´m not aware of such problems in my bindings:
- several Tyrolias Freeflex 6-15 to 6-17
- Atomics 614 and 1018
- VIST 614
In all seriousness:

I would like to run these tests, but I don't have all the spare bindings knocking around that I used to (and I don't work at a shop or otherwise have access to lots of ski bindings).

I do have a spare set of Tyrolia Railflex rails, so I can test those, but that's all. I would be dependent on the kindness of others to lend me bindings (new or used) to test.

So: how many of you have unmounted bindings laying around? How many of you actually want to see these tests performed, and trust me enough to send them to me for testing? (I can obviously get them back to you before the ski season starts.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion