EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › RFD 14 Railflex, do they belong on fatties?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RFD 14 Railflex, do they belong on fatties?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
I added a pair of Tyrolia RFD 14 bindings to my binding supply.

Usually Railflex is found on narrow skis and the MOJO 15 on wider skis.

Why not use a Railflex on a 95mm wide ski? The Railflex is adjustable to any boot without redrilling and the +1.5mm/-1.5mm feature has merit in soft snow.

Any opinions?

Michael
post #2 of 14
<shrug> beats the pants off the M51 demos every RD Helidog seems to have been mounted with </shrug>
post #3 of 14
I use RF 14's on one of my longer fats, flat-mounted FF's on another, Marker 1300 Pistons on the other. Have also used flat mounted Mojo 15's several times. All good, but IMO:

1) Flexing is how a fat ski turns in powder. Anything that helps is probably Good. 2) All the noise about snow feel and flat mounts doesn't play for me. More difference in snow feel between brands than between flat and flex in same brand. 3) Currently, the non-plated FF is my fav, since it's lower than the RF but still flexes. The RF is great for longer skis that you may want to tweak for terrain, conditions. The Cyberflex (FF without the springs) would be perfect if they made it in a 14. They don't.
post #4 of 14
If you want occasional fore-aft (or bsl) adjustability, it's probably the best choice. You may get more slop over time than with a normal binding, but significantly less than with a demo.

If you don't need to adjust, though, you're probably better off reducing complexity and stand height. It's not that they won't work, just that they might not be your best option.
post #5 of 14
I don't need adjustment, I don't like lift on wider skis, I don't like slop. I don't like railfex, I flat mount.
post #6 of 14
It seems that if you will be skiing a wider ski both on and off piste, the increased lift will help increase your leverage and aid in tipping/carving the wider plank on hard snow. Seems hard to beieve that it would make a big diff on soft snow one way or the other. Am I wrong?
post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 
I find lift to be an issue in moguls & crud, but not powder or groomed. The edging gets a little more temperamental the stiffer the plate and the higher the lift IMO.

I would not want a race plate for soft snow, but a little lift with free flex is acceptable to me.

Michael
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
I find lift to be an issue in moguls & crud
Even on skis like the "flat" RX8?
post #9 of 14
Michael, I would have to agree that the flat mounting for off-piste rides is superior and that RF will lift you a bit. The concept of moving it fore-aft is certainly good but its kinda like getting back to the definition of an "all mountain" binding meaning not great at anything. I had RF's on my 82's (not a fatty of course) but it did make a small but noticeable difference over when I was on the 82 mounted with Mojo's and flat. It was better on the groomed but it wasn't as good in the pow and crud. Not enough for someone of my skills but it may matter more to a more adept off-pist skier.

Just say "no" to all-mountain. Is there a bumper sticker for that?
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Even on skis like the "flat" RX8?
Less so..

The lift adds leverage and the edge set gets more pronounced; more secure but more difficult to feather. The ability to meter or feather the edge is important in moguls and crud.

The RX8 is a forgiving ski with a hybrid cap/laminate construction, so the edge is easy to feather with the railflex system.

Michael
post #11 of 14
Just avoid misunderstanding by new readers, I was referring to the any-binding ski referred to as "flat" that actually had something like 23mm lift.

It would seem from
Quote:
The RX8 is a forgiving ski with a hybrid cap/laminate construction, so the edge is easy to feather with the railflex system.
that we also need some sort of indication of the 95mm ski's flex before we can really answer the question?
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
Hi Comprex,

The ski is the Salomon AK Rocket (Swallowtail). This is a softer cap construction ski, mine is the woodcore version from last year.

I want the ability to fit a wide range of boots easily. My son uses a 335mm, I have a 320mm and I may let friends demo it, so the boot size could go down to 305.

I also like Freeflex. I'm considering this RFD 14 Railflex system and also considering the FF17 system with a CP9 plate. The plate & binding would provide freeflex and I could unscrew and remount the binding without re-drilling the ski.

I'm a strick Tyrolia & Look binding guy and only use these bindings. I'm also consider the Look PX demo binding.
Thanks for your help,

Michael
post #13 of 14
Michael:

With that explanation -- occasional adjustment to fit a wide range of boots -- by all means, Railflex makes sense. Certainly more than a demo, which will be less secure and more prone to slop (although the Look demos seem less prone than most), and will also raise stand height, so there's no upside.
post #14 of 14
I was considering putting (vist) plates on my Seth's (189), but am really concerned about the extra weight; each plate weighs 600g/1lb 5oz on top of each ski which are 2400g/5lb 5oz, so we're talking about 3kg/6lb 10oz under each foot plus the binding! That could be really tiring.

But like the ability to adjust fore/aft and swap around with friends.
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 › RFD 14 Railflex, do they belong on fatties?