EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The lowly bindings...jib? lifters? etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The lowly bindings...jib? lifters? etc.

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
There're lots of information, objective and subjective, on skis and boots. But not a great deal on bindings. Perhaps because it doesn't matter? I can't even find a buyers' guide type of thing!

Still, reading the manufacturer's catalogue it appears there're different bindings that may be slightly different from one model to another. The question is, is the difference big enough to be noticable or just marketing? Or should one choose carefully so the ski it mounted on will not be compromised?

And a few more specific terms I come across: (taken from Look because I've been "looking" at those)

Lifters: What are they good for? When NOT to have them?

Jib bindings: The name says it, it's meant for the air-borne gang. Reading a bit detail indicates they might have springs to absorb the shock of landing... Would those springs compromise safety & performance compared to "normal" bindings when the skis are firmly glued to the snow?

If one is only "occasionally" ventureing into the park, should one stick with "normal" binding to preserve performance/safety when the ski do NOT leave the ground?

I can't tell what else is different from, say, NX11 vs PX12 except one is more expensive than the other and is supposed to be advance/expert instead of intermediate. But what makes one advance the other intermediate? If it's just the din setting range, a light weight skier can use either one. But would the "high-end" binding have any specific function the low-end binding doesn't have?

I know this is a lot of questions covering from basic concept to specific models. But I can't seem to find any "basic" education around, whilst most threads about bindings are quite over my head. The discussion of specific featuers/functions I can't related to what little spec's on the individual bindings...
post #2 of 16
Hold on while I go to the microwave to make some Popcorn, this could be good.
post #3 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Hold on while I go to the microwave to make some Popcorn, this could be good.
Actually I hate to spoil this for Phil but he knows the ending already, it's the fight scene and chases he really enjoys. While he's out of the room though here it is:

Bottom line:

--Look or Rossi are identical with different labels and generate more loyalty than any other binding. Holy grail = the Look Pivot / Rossi "Axial" series through 2005. Starting 2006, these were redesigned with an inferior heelpiece according to many.

--Tyrolia manufactures under its own name, and also Fischer and Elan. Maybe second in loyalty to Look / Rossi.

--Salomon - can't go wrong, except in lower end plastic cheapies.

--Atomic -- newer Neox models generally well received; older models not so much.

--Marker -- generate more controversy than any other -- "prerelease" is not a good thing.

--Many newer skis require a particular binding due to "system" mounts. i.e., Fischers/Fischer; Salomon/Salomon; K2 or Volkl / Marker.

--DIN range is not the same as quality. Big difference between low-end bindings and high-end, even with same DIN range. Generally more metal, less plastic, as you go up to "expert" bindings; more reliable, less prone to malfunction. Worth the bucks if you ask me. On the other hand, NOT worth the bucks to get a higher DIN range than you really need.

ROLL CREDITS.
post #4 of 16

We do give out awards don't we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01 View Post
Actually I hate to spoil this for Phil but he knows the ending already, it's the fight scene and chases he really enjoys. While he's out of the room though here it is:

Bottom line:

--Look or Rossi are identical with different labels and generate more loyalty than any other binding. Holy grail = the Look Pivot / Rossi "Axial" series through 2005. Starting 2006, these were redesigned with an inferior heelpiece according to many.

--Tyrolia manufactures under its own name, and also Fischer and Elan. Maybe second in loyalty to Look / Rossi.

--Salomon - can't go wrong, except in lower end plastic cheapies.

--Atomic -- newer Neox models generally well received; older models not so much.

--Marker -- generate more controversy than any other -- "prerelease" is not a good thing.

--Many newer skis require a particular binding due to "system" mounts. i.e., Fischers/Fischer; Salomon/Salomon; K2 or Volkl / Marker.

--DIN range is not the same as quality. Big difference between low-end bindings and high-end, even with same DIN range. Generally more metal, less plastic, as you go up to "expert" bindings; more reliable, less prone to malfunction. Worth the bucks if you ask me. On the other hand, NOT worth the bucks to get a higher DIN range than you really need.

ROLL CREDITS.
Damn, that was good. I nominate it for Best General Binding Post of the Year
post #5 of 16
damn that was good
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Only two things money can't buy, that's true love and home grown tomatoes
But you can buy the seed/plant of tomato to grow them at home!

So, what're lifters? What are they good for? What are they not?

What about jib bindings with "springs"? Will they compromise performance and/or release when cruising around?
post #7 of 16
Thanks. And here's the long-awaited sequel -- not much left to say but given the press and public acclaim we're going to milk this for all it's worth:

--Select a binding with a range where your setting will fall in the middle. A 3-10 DIN binding is fine if your setting is 6 or 7, but if you're a 9 or 10, you probably want a 12 or 14 DIN top end.

--Cranking up your DIN makes you sound really cool on internet forums but won't help you meet hot chicks in real life. Unless the real hot chick is an orthopedist or physical therapist - in which case, go for it.

And again, ROLL CREDITS.
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
So, what're lifters? What are they good for? What are they not?

What about jib bindings with "springs"? Will they compromise performance and/or release when cruising around?
Oh yeah ... the questions you asked:

Lifters give you increased stand height over the ski to increase leverage for carving. Generally a good thing if you race or ski on hard pack/groomers/ice. Not so good for new school (park and pipe) type skiing or for fatter skis. You won't see lifters on 80+mm waist skis. Most carving and race skis with 65ish waists will have lifters. Midfats -- go either way.

Jib bindings with springs? Kind of a gimmick from what I've read, basically jib bindings tend to be very similar to unlifted regular bindings with different graphics and a gimmick or too. At least that's what I'm hoping since I bought a pair of Look PX12 jib today cheap at steepandcheap.com. I doubt there's any real performance difference.
post #9 of 16
Personally I tend not to care for sequels.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpfreaq View Post
Personally I tend not to care for sequels.
You think that was bad, wait til "Prerelease From Planet Marker: The Phantom Menace."

Nope, you're one of those obscure indie movie snobs. For you - "Gorillas in The Vist." No subtitles though you're on your own.
post #11 of 16
Don't forget these popcorn vehicles...

King Salomon's Mine

Look who's hucking.

Rossi's are Red
post #12 of 16
A few counterpoints to bring up:

- The real Look turntables as used on the P18 and FKS 185 are superior to the Axial/Pivot versions

- The older Salomon S912 and S914, etc, have durablity problems with the toe wings stripping out and the heels breaking.

- The best modern 12 din binding on the market is the Rossignol FKS 120. Nothing else even comes close.
post #13 of 16
There are some major differences in bindings. Most manufacturers have four groups of bindings.

a) Junior
b) Adult Recreation/ Jr Race
c) Adult Performance
d) Team Race

The OP mentioned the big jump in price between the Look Nova and the Axial2, even though the DIN range was similar, this is an excellent example of different performance groups.

The Axial2 binding is in the Adult Performance group, it is renowned for it's elastic travel which helps reduce unwanted release for agressive skiers, it doesn't respond to shock as much as twisting force. The Nova is an Adult Recreation binding, it has a light weight two piece heel that does not have elastic travel, it will release easier from initial shock from a fall and perform well in low speed falls. The FKS bindings that HS mention are Team Race bindings designed for competition. You can get a version of each of these bindings with similar DIN settings, the way they perform will be very different.

The Jib bindings don't have springs, they have a semi-soft rubber pad under them that is supposed to absorb some shock from landings, they also sit very low to the ski.

Lift gives a skier a mechanical advantage over the ski, it adds leverage. If you imagine a triangle formed by the width of the base of the ski and two imaginary lines that go from the edge of the ski to the middle of the boot sole it might help you understand lift. The higher up you lift the boot the easier it will be to tip the ski base, but the boot will travel in slightly longer arc as the edges are engaged. The lower the boot is (or wider the base) the more stable (difficult to tip) the ski will be, but the boot won't travel as far to tip the ski, this can add quickness to a ski like a mogul ski or stability to a big mountain ski.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom
The FKS bindings that HS mention are Team Race bindings designed for competition. You can get a version of each of these bindings with similar DIN settings, the way they perform will be very different.
So how is the behavior of a Rossignol FKS 120 binding different from a Look Pivot 12?

I understand and appreciate that the FKS heel has a more solid connection to the ski compared to the Pivot series, but the toepieces appear to be identical and I've been told by a shop owner they have the same release capabilities (unlike the higher DIN FKS). I also know that the FKS toes use a teflon AFD rather then the sliding type used on the Pivot. The heel 'bottles,' while different cosmetically, would seem to have the same retention and release mechanism.
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfrost View Post
So how is the behavior of a Rossignol FKS 120 binding different from a Look Pivot 12?

I understand and appreciate that the FKS heel has a more solid connection to the ski compared to the Pivot series, but the toepieces appear to be identical and I've been told by a shop owner they have the same release capabilities (unlike the higher DIN FKS). I also know that the FKS toes use a teflon AFD rather then the sliding type used on the Pivot. The heel 'bottles,' while different cosmetically, would seem to have the same retention and release mechanism.
The toes are virtually the same, the heels are totally different.
post #16 of 16
by allowing the binding to pivot directly under the tibia, the turntable heel relieves much of the twisting force on knees associated with both high and low-speed crashes while still maintaining a high amount of elasticity. The pivot functions in the same way at lower speeds and in less violent crashes, but doesn't have the same travel range of the turntable, which somewhat reduces its effectiveness in the more extreme situations. The pivot is still the best binding available for 90+% of the skiers out there; for the rest, theres the FKS.
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 › The lowly bindings...jib? lifters? etc.