EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › MArker vs salomon vs look
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MArker vs salomon vs look - Page 2

post #31 of 55
I've skied all the major brands but Tyrolia and I swear the Rossi's (Looks) I demoed at Vail seemed more responsive than any of the others (which all ski the same to me). They just seemed to respond quicker to my inputs (not necessarily a good thing for us flailers!) like a car with quicker steering. I even noticed a bit of slack I had b/t my boot and the side of my leg that wasn't apparent with other bindings. They just really seem to grab a boot and lock it in place like no other binding I've tried.

In fact I may buy fischers next year if they do ski like the SL-9 Atomics just so I can put these on them. BTW, I bought the Rossi's instead of the Looks B/c they have a higher toe plate that reduces the forward lean of the binding
post #32 of 55
Trey- Probably a stupid question (not that asking stupid questions ever slowed me down). By demoing bindings are you implying that you demoed the same ski in the same length but with different bindings? Just want to be clear...
post #33 of 55
Marker seems to be going away from Selective control and towards Piston control. I like the concept of selective control, but I could barely tell any difference on my 195 Xscreams. The shorter the ski the more effect they are supposed to have. I'm using shorter skis now, so maybe they would work better. I'd like to try them again on a 180 or shorter.
post #34 of 55
Trey, I just bought some of those Rossi bindings that give a lower rise on the heel than on the toe. Does this mean I'll have NEGATIVE ramp angle? How will this affect what I feel from the arrangement when skiing and how I ski?
post #35 of 55
Powderjunkie makes a good point about pre-releases, and a well established one. When I was with Look, one of our tech meetings centered around this very issue. They did a bunch of research into the entire prerelease issue, and said that about 9 out of 10 "pre-releases" (as defined by the skier) - under the feet of top skiers - were just the binding doing what it was designed to do. The other 1 in 10 they just couldn't prove one way or the other, but still felt that even most of those were likely proper mechanical function.

The deal is apparently that when an aggressive skier is going fast, the transient load can reach the release point so quickly that the skier doesn't even realize its happend - and if the binding is functioning properly it releases before the skier has even had a chance to feel a strong force feedback. So to the skier it seems like it should not have come off, when in fact if it had not come off - the skier might likely be hurting.
post #36 of 55
Oboe, the idea behind the rossi toe being higher then the heel is that it allows you to use more forward pressure ont he ski. I talked with a shop tech about it and he said that skiers were actually getting too far over their skis because of the ramp angle, so rossi came up with the idea of having a higher toe. This is able to work because newer boots put you so far foreward without being flexed. you will probably like it as long as you stay foreward on your skis. I have skied rossi bindings with the orange plate under the toe and didnt notice too much of a difference, but you can get nice foreward pressure on you skis.
post #37 of 55
The reason I ask is that I read, somewhere on EpicSki, that the binding already comes with ramp angle and that the reverse lifting actually gives ZERO ramp angle. Thanks for the angle, Greg. Does anyone else know about this "higher at the toe than at the heel" stuff? Considering my post on keeping out of the back seat, I really want to know!
post #38 of 55
It may not be a higher toe than heel, but it isnt a foreward ramp angle. If the toe is higher it is only probly 1 or 2mm. It may just be a flat binding wiht no angle. what model in particular is it. My understanding was that rossi was only putting that type of setup on their race skis that used the pps plate. you would use an unplated binding on top of the plate and then use spacers to raise you exactly to 55mm under your foot. Many rossi skis that i saw with this setup only had the spacers under the toe because the axial heel gives a rather significant amount of lift so a spacer is not needed. The spacer is easy to spot though because they are typically bright orange.
post #39 of 55
Check it out web page. If you click on ski equipment, then bindings clearance, then Rossignol, you'll see what I mean. There is NO toe or heel height noted for the "race" binding; but the ones with the "T-Plate" lifter have a height of 14 mm toe and 10 mm heel. Whatzat all about? We're talking non-racing bindings here.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 05, 2002 07:15 PM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
post #40 of 55
What Todd and LostBoy said!
The only thing which makes a difference for me, is the price..
I usually check which shop is giving me the best price for which binding, then choose.
So after having lusted behind a Marker mrr set for months, I ended up with Salomon 912 T, on my P 40.
post #41 of 55
M@tteo, I lusted after Rossi Bandit XX and got them at a price I like from ebay. Then I lusted after bindings at a price I like and an extended warranty. Naturally, that required Rossi bindings, so I chose the binding I would have bought anyway, decided to have it called "Rossi" rather than "Look" for warranty purposes, found that at a price I like, and bingo bango bongo, my lust for acquisition is [temporarily] slaked. But not the skiing part - that lust is NEVER slaked.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 06, 2002 05:12 AM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
post #42 of 55
Yep Oboe, skiing lust never dies!
I know, internet is a great thing,
but it has not (yet) gained foot here in Italy as there in the U.S.
I still like to go to a shop and chat to the tech...even if I don't end up buying. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #43 of 55
Yep it must have a spacer under the toe on top of the t-plate. I dont know if it would make it a negavite ramp angle or not but it seems that it might. You can probly tell by looking at your bindings... What it will mean is better edgehold and more pressure on your ski. I'm definitly not an expert in this area but if rossi does that to their free ride bindings there must be advantages to it.
post #44 of 55
Good ques Powderjunkie. No I haven't 'demoed' bindings, that is I havent skied diff bindings on the same ski. i've skied lots of diff bindings on lots of diff skis so my observation is probably just a mental impression, not a fact. there's was no Scientific method used!!!

However I do recall one of the Ski mags talking about how noticeably stiff the Look/Rossi toe was and this would make the binding more responsive I think so maybe I'm not crazy.

Oboe, My understanding is that Look designed quite a bit of ramp angle into its bindings b/c they were designed for the old straight skis. Rossi decided this wasn't necessary for the nu shaped skis so they increased the height of the front plate to REDUCE this ramp angle. I read soemwhere the Rossi bindings still have a little ramp angle, but not nearly as much as the Looks.

I doubt they have negative ramp angle as this would interfere with the boot/binding interface IMO
post #45 of 55
I was skiing on some Salomon Cross Max 10s the other day in Switzerland and fell. Because I was at work I was running the DIN pretty low and was rather unimpressed when the (Salomon) bindings didn’t release. I was lucky that I just slightly strained my ACL but believe I was soooo close to really doing some serious damage. I know no binding will provide 100% injury protection, but it was a pretty nasty fall and as I was doing my 3 point cartwheels down the mountain (you know the ones, head, shoulder, skis. Head, shoulder, skis) I recall thinking “ok, when the hell are these skis going to pop off”, because the novelty of 30 mph yoga positions was beginning to wear off. Maybe these “premature” releases people complain about Marker are simply the bindings doing what they were designed to do, one thing for sure, in this instance the Salomons didn’t! I watched the tech as he set them up and know they were set up correctly, and don't believe both bindings were faulty.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ April 14, 2002 02:43 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Pete ]</font>
post #46 of 55
How low is low, Pete? I ski my bindings @ or below tne recommended din setting since I'm smooth and a front side cruiser. But I often run into guys who r skiing no faster amd r no bigger than I with much higher settings. Often they even brag on the lift about being "type 3" skiers"

Salomon's have always worked flawlessly for me so I have to wonder about your settings or something...
post #47 of 55
Well the setting is relative to weight, ability, and knee size so it may be difficult to compare. However I'm 75 kg and I should be around 7.5, maybe 8. I was running 7 on Thursday when this happened.

Hey, don't get me wrong. This was just one incident, so I really have no basis to start bagging Salomon based on this. However I do recall thinking "oh no, they didn't release" (isn't it funny how bad crashes seem to take place in slow motion) and really I think they should have. Mind you maybe the angles were just such that it caught the binding out.
post #48 of 55
I have now skied on my new Rossignol Bandit XX wonder skis with the Rossi Axial T-Plate Freeride 100 bindings. I can't tell you how they would react in a fall, because I didn't. I CAN tell you that whatever the "ramp angle" etc etc I felt totally balanced fore and aft. This was such a wonderful experience. I just had no problems at all, and I wasn't even aware of any "ramp angle" - just natural skiing - YES!!!!!
post #49 of 55
Pete, that does sound like an odd experience because i ski my din at 9 to 10 and i weigh 140 pounds (63.5kg) and come out in falls right when i have to. in a carve i can pretty much kick a ski off if it has its din set at 7. I'm surprised that the bindings being salomon they didnt release, usually when i do release, it is so smooth that i dont even know i lost the ski.
post #50 of 55
Been my experience in the past too, so maybe just a freak event.

I find 7 more than adequate on piste and am surprised you need such a high setting for "carving" given that the forces are well and truly perpendicular to the ski in a proper carve. The only time I wish I could have a higher setting is when skiing off piste in inconsistent grabby snow. Sadly my knees are basically crap and my body too valuable to bust up, so I don’t crank the DIN any higher than I absolutely have to.
post #51 of 55
WEll you need that much din in a race coursse in case you start to chatter, you will chatter right out of your down hill ski. I actually ski a pretty low din based on the din that some of my friends ski when they race. If you stay smooth on the course its okay but if start to chatter in the ruts you need higher din.

ps - for free skiing i sometimes lower it to 8.5 so i know my ski are going to pop off if i do something dumb. Also i dont free ski as fast as i race, obviously.
post #52 of 55
Greg, I didn't know you were talking about racing, you mentioned carving so it sounded like free skiing. Agree racing needs higher settings, my old Look racings went up to 15, just not with me attached to them.
post #53 of 55
I've been skiing Markers for almost 20 years and I have never had a problem with my M51s, M48s or my 9.2 SCs. I have never, ever pre-released. I believe that the notion that they do so is pure fallacy; they release like they are supposed to. If you are pre-releasing, check your DIN.

And I swear by Selective Control, so I am not happy to hear that they are discontinuing this feature. It works - really. I absolutely notice a significant difference in my X15's performance when I change settings. There is no question that the ski is soft and turny in position one (powder) as opposed to 2 and 3. I like to be able to affect this change in varying conditions. For the most part, I ski all year in position 2, but like to use 1 in deep pow, where it makes the ski a little easier to turn.

Having said all that, Markers are some of the heaviest bindings made, so you might want to consider that variable. Heavy isn't necessarily bad, since it can help with stability, but the extra weight can suck if you're hiking, etc.
post #54 of 55
I've got to agree with Jaws on this one-I've never had a marker prerelease. I wonder how many of those who do mount and adjust their own bindings?

My latest markers aren't sc-I thought I'd miss it-but I don't.
post #55 of 55
Always ski'd Tyrolias through the 80s and never had a problem. Had some Salomons since and liked those 2. After working in a shop for a few years I went to a Marker clinic to get certified and was so impressed with their presentation I bought a pair with the SC. What a mistake! Had 2 preleases resulting in badly bruised ribs the first week I had 'em. I'm talking skiing in control down a blue slope with some bumps and all of a sudden I'm going 20+mph, still in control but on a single ski. Had to intentionally lay it down. Not fun. Everyone I told about this just rolled their eyes and mutterered "Marker....." Thought the SC worked OK in the ice setting but couldn't really notice any difference between the powder & middle settings.
I believe everything is good these days. There are just no bad 2002 bindings. But I will never buy Markers again. Just my personal feelings.
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 vs salomon vs look