New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marker Bindings - Page 3

post #61 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Holes in race courses that create very sharp force transients along with large deflections of the ski. Really sealed the deal for me.

Potential energy in a spring is given by:

U=.5k(x^2)

We can increase the rate, k, and still not be able to store the energy that a binding with increased displacement, x, can store. Oh, and increasing k (turning the setting screw up) couples that violent hole in the snow much more stiffly to the bones in your leg. Sounds like a good time, eh?

There are also secondary mechanical issues I've experienced. For instance, any slightly off balance situation that causes ski to camber and heel to pull, worse in softer skis, big problem for me with Markers and Salomons....I've come out of both of them just riding whoops on traverses with settings around 12...not a problem on plated skis.

This is all in relation to high end Markers. God help you if you find yourself skiing something with the Compact heel and Biotech toe. I took a really nice digger at an on-snow a couple years ago due to that crap. Skied into some frozen moonscape straightlining a runout and found myself trying to run on ski boots. The system binding paradigm has made a lot of otherwise nice lower cost skis sort of useless for aggressive skiers that aren't super graceful. Like I've said, some people can ski any binding at any setting with no problem...I don't have that superior balance and technique.
Garrett,
Now you have me interested... Is there actually a study of some sort out there that compares the elastic travel of different brands of binding? That would definitely be interesting to learn about.
That is the argument I've heard a bunch of times.... that Look and Salomon toe pieces have more elastic travel, and will re-center rather than release from a sudden shock. That is the theory, correct? Do you know the specific figures, ie. mm of lateral displacement before the "point of no return?" I have always wondered what the "elastic travel" claim was based on.

(edit: I think we can basically limit the discussion to toe pieces.... I don't think anyone has any problems with ANY brand of heelpiece, correct?)
post #62 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
(edit: I think we can basically limit the discussion to toe pieces.... I don't think anyone has any problems with ANY brand of heelpiece, correct?)
Some people do, myself included, but mainly that is what Vermont Ski Safety would refer to as a software problem.

There must be studies of the relationship between elastic travel and binding performance, but I can only find a bunch of patents around the concepts at the moment, and I probably wouldn't have access to the journals the studies would be in anyways.

You can discover for yourself how much elastic travel the binding has by displacing the boot to the point where it no longer returns. With a friend to help you could measure this pretty accurately. It gets more interesting because I oversimplified...the design of the bindings mean that the rate usually isn't totally linear as the boot/toe moves, so you can't directly compare X amount of travel in one design to Y in another very well. Probably the best way to get an intuitive feel for it is to put set up a bunch of different bindings to the same setting and test the release with a Vermont calibrator...test some cheapo bindings, then test some high end bindings. You'll discover the high end bindings are more work to get to release, even though your torque wrench is showing the same result.

edit: And even then you still have to consider that the system is dynamic and the way it behaves over time is related to a bunch of other things. Its not just one isolated shock, its a bunch of different ones in close succession, and you don't want to let something like friction allow those little upsets to jack the boot out of the binding. We want that travel to really be "elastic", which is why we test that function with a rubber mallet when we test bindings.
post #63 of 76
I will say that I have mounted and torqued almost every binding brand in the past 20 years. NOTHING torques as consistent as a Marker.
post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
I will say that I have mounted and torqued almost every binding brand in the past 20 years. NOTHING torques as consistent as a Marker.
I would vote for the C509 actually. Very reliable.

But then again, consistency of release value is only tenuously related to this discussion.
post #65 of 76

No prerelease with Marker

Add me to the list of few pre-releases with Marker. Prior to Marker skied Look turntables - Pre-releases were really rare. Did have one trip with lot's of deep powder - kept pre-releasing out of Marker heel. Think my stance was off due to new footbeds.
post #66 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwbski View Post
Add me to the list of few pre-releases with Marker. Prior to Marker skied Look turntables - Pre-releases were really rare. Did have one trip with lot's of deep powder - kept pre-releasing out of Marker heel. Think my stance was off due to new footbeds.
Maybe some snow on the boot had something to do with that ? A binding releases or not. Some have a bit of travel that allows for a recovery without a release and it would be the toe piece that Marker made that had less travel then some others.
post #67 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
I will say that I have mounted and torqued almost every binding brand in the past 20 years. NOTHING torques as consistent as a Marker.
I also have mounted and torqued many, many bindings over the years. I agree. DIN values, you mean, right? Also, the return to center on Markers seems as good or better than any other brand, too.

Actually, from Garrett's response above, I think we are back to square one. I was hoping for a study that showed the "elastic travel" people talk about, so we could back up anecdotal experiences with scientific data.

Basically, what you are telling me is that there is more to it than the raw numbers of elastic travel anyway... you say you have to get a "feel" for it with a tester?

So your personal experiences with binding performance and torque testing trumps my experience? We have each had considerable, legitimate experiences with ski equipment, right? I (and many others) have had good experiences. You (and many others) have had bad experiences. If you are gonna get all scientific and pull out the mathematical formulas for spring compression, etc., you gotta give something concrete about why one style of toepiece works better than another.

I'm not just being argumentative either.... I would seriously like to know if the information is out there.
post #68 of 76

Old Marker MRR/Rotomat Heels

If you have any old markers Rotomat style heels laying around.

Take a look at the cross pin in the heel that the red release lever hooks underneath. Often those pins got bent and the bindings would pre-release.
post #69 of 76
The Racestock markers with teeth always worked better for me than the retail versions. Not really sure if it was the teeth or the internal mechanism.
post #70 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
Actually, from Garrett's response above, I think we are back to square one. I was hoping for a study that showed the "elastic travel" people talk about, so we could back up anecdotal experiences with scientific data.
I still think its worth searching for that info.
Quote:
Basically, what you are telling me is that there is more to it than the raw numbers of elastic travel anyway... you say you have to get a "feel" for it with a tester?
Well you don't have to do anything, but if you've tested bindings surely you've noticed this. The most obvious example would be the junior bindings that are designed to accept both junior and adult boot soles. Test one with an adult boot at 4 and then a good adult binding set at 4 and the difference is like night and day.
Quote:
So your personal experiences with binding performance and torque testing trumps my experience? We have each had considerable, legitimate experiences with ski equipment, right? I (and many others) have had good experiences. You (and many others) have had bad experiences.
My experience certainly doesn't trump yours at all. I'm just saying its not the simplest thing in the world.
Quote:
If you are gonna get all scientific and pull out the mathematical formulas for spring compression, etc., you gotta give something concrete about why one style of toepiece works better than another.
Well that simple representation of the relationship between energy and spring behavior is certainly valid. But you wouldn't expect something like a binding to really be that simple, would you? A skier, boot, binding, and ski is not a simple system. It doesn't mean its worthless to know, it just means it isn't the whole story. Kind of like how knowing the wheel rate for a car of a given weight gives you a pretty good idea of how it behaves, but it certainly isn't the whole story.

I'm quite sure the solid analysis you are looking for is out there, but you might need to work as an engineer for a binding manufacturer to get it. Or at least spend a lot more time and money than I'm willing to spend understanding the behavior of ski bindings.

The testing analogy is pretty valid though. If you want to get objective about it you certainly can. It would not be that hard to measure the impulse needed to get X binding to release at Y setting. It still doesn't mean the binding with the highest figure will behave well over time and a bunch of impulses, but it is a start.
post #71 of 76
So I've been reading some binding patents this evening...I love the cool ideas you come across searching patents.

Its an alpine skate binding you can set up to lock after X number of skates out of the gate. Very cool. Also very likely to be banned by FIS if anyone tried it...
post #72 of 76

Marker piston plates and piston bindings

I have always wondered about the true purpose of these pistons. Is it to improve ski performance?? Or is it to slow down the ski rebound as it counterflexs thus eliminating the Flex effect release??

If its such a good thing why aren'y other binding manufacturers doing it. I don't think its patented. I have had no problems with markers using a piston plate. So maybe this plate fixes their binding problems

In case you missed it earlier in this thread

http://www.vermontskisafety.com/vsrfaq8.php


"The FLEX Effect -- Inadvertent releases experienced by racers and hard/fast skiing non-competitors are often the result of the inability of toe and heel piece to stay the same distance apart during rapid flexing and counter-flexing of the ski--what we call the Flex Effect (or the Effortless Release). The most common cause of this problem is a sluggish forward pressure mechanism in the heel piece which can cause a gap to form between boot and binding and thus allow the boot to escape without releasing the binding. Cranking up the release adjustment screw at heel or toe has no effect on this phenomenon and may even exacerbate the problem"
post #73 of 76
The various piston designs are definitely patented. Scrolled by those earlier tonight.
post #74 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by NordtheBarbarian View Post
I have always wondered about the true purpose of these pistons. Is it to improve ski performance?? Or is it to slow down the ski rebound as it counterflexs thus eliminating the Flex effect release??

If its such a good thing why aren'y other binding manufacturers doing it. I don't think its patented. I have had no problems with markers using a piston plate. So maybe this plate fixes their binding problems
Interesting.... I hadn't thought of that. I believe it is supposed to slow down the the rebound of the ski, but I have no idea what affect it has on the bindings.

Interestingly, though, I have personally used either piston bindings or a piston plate on all my skis since the piston came out...

Huh. This season, I have Vist plates. I'll report back if it makes a difference. (I hope not!)
post #75 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
I will say that I have mounted and torqued almost every binding brand in the past 20 years. NOTHING torques as consistent as a Marker.
Although I've been out of the tech business for over 15 years, I noticed this too back in the day. Markers were always right on.
post #76 of 76
Heh. Some of the junior bindings were particularly awful, including some that are currently indemnified. There are also some that lasted real well, and of course the mechanical AFD is probably a part of that. They've also done several recalls in the last five years.

Salomon is like the Chevy of the binding world. GM had like two V8 bellhousing patterns for 40 years...Salomon is the same basic deal. I've done the rental thing and if I did it again I'd go with Salomon Quadrax for sure. Crappy to ski in but a tech's dream. Never break, always pass, no toe adjustments for hung over minions to miss, easy on the fingers to adjust, cheap, rental goblins never complain about how they ski. Probably the worst from a tech perspective in recent history are Look/Rossignol, particularly their rental crap. Hard to adjust, skiers complain about them, they fail tests pretty often, etc. Still my fave to actually ski in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion