New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bindings for Watea 84?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I pulled the trigger on a pair of 167cm. Watea 84's last night and now I need to settle on a binding. The Railflex bindings (Head, Tyrolia, or Fischer) were suggested to me as a good choice, especially to maximize the usage of the ski as a 1-ski quiver (1 ski at least in theory).

Does anyone have any recs either for or against a Railflex system for these skis, or other recs for an alternative?

Also if given a choice of 78mm or 93mm wide brakes, is it even possible to bend 78mm brakes to fit this 84mm ski? And would the 93mm work without mods?

Finally, is anyone aware of any differences between railflex bindings between seasons 05-08?
post #2 of 23
The 93 will work without mods. I prefer my brakes be a little wide than too tight, and 9mm isn't much. I've got a pair of loose PX12's in front of me and they only provide 75mm of clearance, where 80mm was advertised, but YMMV. IMO Railflex and plate mounted bindings are nice for resale but I doubt you'll dig using them +/-1.5cm with a ski that short.

I would mount them flat (think Mojo 15 or Look/Rossi/Dynastar PX12), on the line.
post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post
The 93 will work without mods. I prefer my brakes be a little wide than too tight, and 9mm isn't much. I've got a pair of loose PX12's in front of me and they only provide 75mm of clearance, where 80mm was advertised, but YMMV. IMO Railflex and plate mounted bindings are nice for resale but I doubt you'll dig using them +/-1.5cm with a ski that short.

I would mount them flat (think Mojo 15 or Look/Rossi/Dynastar PX12), on the line.
why are railflex bindings good for resale and why don't you think I'll dig moving them off center on this length?

Also, If my bindings will be set at around 7.5 (8.5 max), will I be fine with a binding that goes up to 10 DIN?
post #4 of 23
Railflex are good for resale because you can move the binding without redrilling.

At a max of 8.5, you should be fine with the range on a 10-DIN binding. The question is whether you'll be fine with the construction of that binding. Most 10-DIN bindings tend to have more plastic than 12 or 14 DIN bindings. So it depends on how you're planning to use them and what your skiing style is.
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
ok I am now realizing that the Head and Tyrolia railflex bindings all have some subtle differences besides DIN.

RF 10 and 11 both have "SL" toe and heel pieces and "SL" 78mm brakes. Heel stand height is 33mm. Weight is 1810 grams (set).

RFD 11 has "SL" toe but "LD" heel and "Power Brake LD" 80 mm brakes.
Heel stand height is 35mm. Weight is 2205 grams.

RFD has "LD" toe and "LD" heel and "Power Brake LD" 80mm brakes
Heel stand height is 35mm. Weight is 2440 grams.

What is the difference between SL and LD toes and heels? I have no idea. They are both listed as "full diagonal". The SL must be lighter.

Can 80mm brakes be used on the Watea 84?
post #6 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post
why don't you think I'll dig moving them off center on this length?
You have 3 choices on a railflex binding, +1.5, center, or -1.5. Since your ski is short to begin with I'd be surprised if you'd enjoy the +1.5 or -1.5 position.
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
Railflex are good for resale because you can move the binding without redrilling.

At a max of 8.5, you should be fine with the range on a 10-DIN binding. The question is whether you'll be fine with the construction of that binding. Most 10-DIN bindings tend to have more plastic than 12 or 14 DIN bindings. So it depends on how you're planning to use them and what your skiing style is.
I ski 14 days a year max. I'm moderate to aggressive in style. Level 7. 70/30 on/off-piste.

So you're saying railflex bindings are good for resale assuming you sell them installed? But what if someone wants to put regular flat bindings on a pair that used to have railflex?

Resale is definitely a consideration b/c if these end up being too short, I may sell them off quickly then get the 176cm, so if they have more value or are easier to sell with railflex that would be a big pro...I was really on the fence on the length.
post #8 of 23
I would definitely mount flat on this kind of ski. For my 84s, I bought these bindings:

http://www.Untracked.com/p2057c26b52...ide_brake.html

The price is decent and the brake fit is perfect with no fuss. I have a paper template for this binding I can give you if it would help mounting.
post #9 of 23
By the way, I like RailFlex and have it on two skis, but I prefer the flat mount on wider skis meant for free-ride and powder.
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
By the way, I like RailFlex and have it on two skis, but I prefer the flat mount on wider skis meant for free-ride and powder.
can you explain why? also, would you do the same if your Watea 84 was being used 70% of the time on-piste and not too deep snow?

BTW the reason railflex were suggested was primarily b/c the ski was supposed to ski better with the bindings mounted a little forward (I think it was Finndog who said this)...that and potentially rear of center for deeper conditions.
post #11 of 23
The Railflex sits pretty high which is good for a carving ski but not necessarily what you may want with a wider ski such as the Watea 84. Off piste, you want to be able to slide the ski rather than carve which is why people often mount flat bindings.
Personally, I think that the Railflex system is one of the best bindings out there and I use it whenever it's suitable. For my wider skis, I generally go with the Look PX12 or PX12 Jib.
With an 84mm waist, I think that you could go either way. My PEs are 85mm wide and mounted with flat bindings, but my Afterburners which are 84mm wide came with Markers which are actually higher than the Railflex. Both are considered to be excellent all mountain skis.
I see no problem with mounting the Railflex especially if you are unsure as to whether you are keeping the skis. The RFD12 would be my first choice followed by the 11. Note that Tyrolia and Fischer Railflex systems are both made by Tyrolia.
post #12 of 23
What quickk9 said. (Head also is Tyrolia.)

LD = Light Diagonal, and SD = Super Light.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post
can you explain why? also, would you do the same if your Watea 84 was being used 70% of the time on-piste and not too deep snow?

BTW the reason railflex were suggested was primarily b/c the ski was supposed to ski better with the bindings mounted a little forward (I think it was Finndog who said this)...that and potentially rear of center for deeper conditions.
I would go flat since this is primarily an off-piste ski, and flat mounting makes them better in powder, bumps, etc. The Wateas perform fine on-piste with a flat mount in my experience -- you won't really miss the lift. Binding lift primarily helps at larger edge angles (in fact, it has no effect on initial edging). About the only benefit I see to the RF in this case is some versatility, plus they are easier to mount.

Finn mounted a little forward, but based on his boot size he is roughly at the same location (relative to sidecut center) as me, and I mounted on the line. I find the Wateas handle the range of groomed to powder just fine with that one binding position. What is your boot sole length?
post #14 of 23
flat? riser? it depends on your intended use.

I have Look PX 12 binings on my Watea 84s (176), mounted flat: no plates/rails. I use these for groomed, ungroomed/off-piste, and even for instructing.
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post
What is the difference between SL and LD toes and heels? I have no idea. They are both listed as "full diagonal". The SL must be lighter.
Both the SL and LD toes have diagonal release. There are construction and material differences but they do pretty much the same job.

The interesting bit is the heel. The SL heel has no sideways play, whereas the LD heel hinges left and right in a track. That gives you an extra dimension of release, but also an extra dimension of recovery - the binding tolerates more sideways play before giving up and tossing you out. Much as the Look Pivots swing on their turntables and provide an extra sense of security, so do the Tyrolia/Head LD heels.

Railflex II is great for many reasons:

- forward and aft adjustment of centre position (more or less than just +/- 15mm if you understand the rail)
- easy adjustment to new boot sole length
- swap bindings on the hill with a friend
- you could have one set of bindings for several pairs of skis, leading to.....
- remove bindings for transport (bindings in a boot-bag, three or four pairs of skis in a two pair ski-bag). No road salt/dirt in your bindings!

But obviously the rails add a bit of lift which people tend not to want for park or backside/powder.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawker View Post
But obviously the rails add a bit of lift which people tend not to want for park or backside/powder.
At least for powder, I think it's more of a nuanced question: not wanting lift vs. wanting there to be no lift. There are lots of AT bindings on wide skis, and those have more lift than most lifted bindings.

Regardless, I think the OP is overthinking this. Find a decent pair of bindings (I'd suggest Look/Rossi/Dynastar or Tyrolia/Fischer/Head over Salomon, Atomic, or Marker, but that's just me) with wide enough brakes (or with wide brakes available) and be done with it.
post #17 of 23
Another vote for RF bindings. the 84 isn't really a dedicated off-piste ski, it carves very well on on soft snow and is quick. Its a fun and easy to ski, ski. If you are using this as a 70% groomer ski, go RF. I just put RF's on mine and they will be used just that way up to 6" or so of fresh. The lift isn't so much that it makes it a poor powder binding. It's a very versitile ski and the RF will just allow a little more leverage making it even quicker but the ability to move the binding allows you to adjust for conditions or personal preference. I would start out at the +15 setting. Just bring along a quarter in your pocket to adjust the center screw. It fits perfectly.
post #18 of 23
Actually, I just thought of a difference. Most ski manufacturers extend the warranty when you mount their bindings. If Fischer doubles warranties for Fischer (or for Tyrolia), you might want to take that into consideration.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
Actually, I just thought of a difference. Most ski manufacturers extend the warranty when you mount their bindings. If Fischer doubles warranties for Fischer (or for Tyrolia), you might want to take that into consideration.
yup, it doubles.
post #20 of 23
So there you have it.

Take a look here.
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
yup, it doubles.
Do you have any idea whether Fischer doubles their warranty if you use Head Railflex bindings? They seem to be easier to find.
post #22 of 23
Good question. If you are buying these from SierraJim or Dawg, just give them a call to verify. My guess is yes, but not sure.
post #23 of 23
You wouldn't send the ski back for warranty replacement with the rail attached, let alone the binding, right? You'd want to keep the rail to install on the new ski.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion