or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:


post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
IS all the hype about integrated ski/binding systems true? does it really have any effect while skiing or is it just marketing hype?
post #2 of 7
In short...it all depends on the skier. do a search and you will find some very recent topics discussing this issue [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #3 of 7
The whole point about the intagrated binding is to let the ski flex in a sweet arc with out haveing a dead/flat spot under foot due to the fact that you boot is ridged. Tyrolia for years has had their freeflex binding that did this and marker last year introduced a free floating toe . Other manufatures went to integral system to achieve this and of courses sell more of thier goods , because it is a propritary system.So if you want the free flex with out gong for a "system " try Tyrolias rail binding that can mount on any ski, and the toe and heel move and has a good built in lift and has the ability to move you back or front by 15mm or the Marker glide or piston that have the floating toe piece.
post #4 of 7
The integration of bindings onto skis has as much to do with marketing as it does with safety. Atomic, for instance, has increased their binging sales by as much as 400% over the last few years since they started requiring or supplying their own bindings on their own skis. Other manufacturers have always sold more bindings than skis, so they do not require the integration to move product.

As to safety, bindings wear out. Period. By making consumers purchase new bindings with their new skis, it ensures that the customer has the newest binding, and therefore safest one, for that season.

Again, do a search for the disscussion about free flex bindings.
post #5 of 7
It doesn't make sense to me that someone should buy a $500 ski and then pay a high school kid to drill holes in it in the back room of the store. That's a holdover from the time when bindings weren't very good, and everyone had a different opinion of what was best. All modern bindings work fine, so you you might as well take whatever binding comes with the ski. And yes manufacturers are working the marketing with this, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a better product.

post #6 of 7
The integration of skis and bindings is a real pet peeve of mine, mostly because there is no good reason to do it (other than marketing). You have to ask why do I want my bindings mounted in this new way and what is wrong with conventional mounting. There is no safety benefit, they are just mounting existing bindings in different ways, the performance benefit is marginal at best and these systems don't do anything that other free flexing systems have done for years. The only ones benefitting are the manufacturers, who seem to be selling more bindings this way.

The argument that we should be replacing our bindings more often anyway breaks down when you compare the number of years that a binding is indemnified for vs the number of days a ski is designed to last. Bindings are designed to last three or four times as long as skis.

Snowboard step-in systems offer an intersting parallel for comparison on the introduction of new technology. The designs were driven by the desire to get into your bindings faster, which they accomplished. But each manufacturer canme up with its own proprietary system which took the away the ability of consumers to mix and match to create the combination of products that suited them best.

Not even the biggest gear head in the world looks at their bindings and wishes they were attached to the ski in a better way. If there was genuine concern with shortcomings in the way skis were mounted, all the manufacturers would be getting together do decide on a new industry standard they all would follow. Instead each is coming out with its own system with the aim of selling more bindings nad stopping people mounting other brands of bindings on their skis.

The fact that there is nothing wrong with conventional mounting of bindings, and this move was not driven by any consumer desire to have their bindings mounted in a new way, means that integrated systems will ultimately end up on the scrap heap of history. But unfortunately they will be around for a few years, so those who have an opinion on what bindings they want to use will have a restricted choice of skis in the mean time.

[ November 24, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: kiwiski ]
post #7 of 7
After skiing on race plates for a few seasons now i will never go back to a conventional binding ever, unless im using a fat, wide midfat, or twin tip ski. For carving skis nothing beats a race plate on your ski. I think that the salomon pilot system is a nice idea, but the hangl race plate does the job a lot better; and you can put any binding on it that you wish to. I'm fan of Salomon bindings as most of you know, but if i were to buy skis from another manufacturer i most likely couldnt use them. I think that the performance benefit is quite noticeable when a plate system is being used. I dont ming having to mount a cerntain manufacturers binding on a particular ski because theya re all good bindings these days. With most of these systems the bindings can be taken off and used for other skis with the same system, or they are an unplated binding on some sort of free flex plate. I dont see this as too much of a problem when it comes to replacing your skis, but then again i ski mostly race skis with salomon race plates on them so i keep my plates and bindings from season to season.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion