New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wide bindings

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
How did Marker see this trend and no other manufacturer? What will we be seeing in the next few seasons?
post #2 of 21
Interesting and I don't know this didn't leak out to others since they it's so incestrial. With the Dukes and Jesters being such a huge success last season, I don't see how they others are behind on this one.
post #3 of 21
Marker just wanted to make sure they did not discriminate against fat boarded skiers.....

Now everyone can enjoy the infamous Marker "pre-release"
post #4 of 21
Other manufacturers have bindings this year with a wider footprint that supposedly make lateral energy transfer more efficient on wider skis. I am eyeing this year's version of the Head Mojo 15 which is wider and lighter than year's past.
post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
Other manufacturers have bindings this year with a wider footprint that supposedly make lateral energy transfer more efficient on wider skis. I am eyeing this year's version of the Head Mojo 15 which is wider and lighter than year's past.
[tongue planted firmly in cheek] Sadly they are doing this not so much for performance but as a front to sell more jigs (thats where the real $$ is). I have been using the same Salomon jig since 89. [/tongue planted firmly in cheek]
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
[tongue planted firmly in cheek] Sadly they are doing this not so much for performance but as a front to sell more jigs (thats where the real $$ is). I have been using the same Salomon jig since 89. [/tongue planted firmly in cheek]
Potentially true. From the jigs that I have seen, they could just make a few new parts to add to the old jogs to give them a wider footprint.
post #7 of 21
Good point, Phil. I'd be interested in your perspective on this..I'm skeptical as well. From a physics standpoint....complete BS or any truth to this? In theory, is it really the width of one's boot that relates to how quickly you can transfer energy laterally on a ski? I've pondering this for a season or two now and admit to not knowing enough about this.
post #8 of 21
Have you tried them? They do feel different.
post #9 of 21
I'm somewhat convinced that the wider template makes a difference, with my minimal experience in this application.

I also believe that it will impact ski shops and consumers with Jig applications.

Has anyone had their hands on the new Head binding?
post #10 of 21

Wider everything

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
I'm somewhat convinced that the wider template makes a difference, with my minimal experience in this application.

I also believe that it will impact ski shops and consumers with Jig applications.

Has anyone had their hands on the new Head binding?
I haven't skied wider bindings yet and haven't studied the physics, but intuitively, it makes sense to me. At the very least, I would think they make skis torsionally stiffer underfoot.

Assuming wider bindings are better for wider boards, then it could become like the computer industry with new models each year that makes last years stuff (and jig) outdated.

I don't know the details of the wider Mojo or specs for any other manufacturers, but recall that the Markers are made for skis at least 76 mm wide...to me that leaves a lot of room for bindings to keep expanding. Of course, this may be restrained by the fact that the average consumer won't know the difference between a binding designed for a 66 mm, 76 mm or 86 mm ski and the fact that you can always put a 66 mm binding on a 110 mm ski, but not vice versa. Both of these factors, along with development costs, will likely slow things down.

I am speculating on the physics, but if wider bindings make sense for wider skis, then what about boots with a wider foot print (aka wider toe & heel piece). I think the main reason boots have a binding footprint narrower than the foot in the boot is so that they can fit into bindings designed for narrower skis. If wider skis/bindings catch on and continue to grow (and why shouldn't they with the average American quite a bit wider than past generations), my guess is that you will eventually see freeski boots with a wider footprint as well.

Please keep the details coming about wider bindings of the various manufacturers as I just picked up a pair of 108 mm P4s.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
Other manufacturers have bindings this year with a wider footprint that supposedly make lateral energy transfer more efficient on wider skis. I am eyeing this year's version of the Head Mojo 15 which is wider and lighter than year's past.
I just looked at the Head website and bindings catalogue HEAD Binding Catalogue 08.09 (.pdf, 2.1 mb) and they say Mojo includes the

NEW: RACE PRO HEEL
The new, reduced stand height corresponds to the new FIS
regulations. This gave us the opportunity to redesign the
heel track, making it 1 mm higher and 8 mm wider for even
more stability and direct power transmission. Moreover,
increased size of the gliding inserts reduces friction and
provides even smoother and more consistent release performance
in all skiing situations and conditions.


I didn't see any mention of a wider toe piece. This seems like an improvment, but considering that it is being used on race skis also, is likely not as wide as the Markers which say they are designed for 76 mm minimum skis.
post #12 of 21
For a historical view of this discussion: Hmmmmmm....

post #13 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
Good point, Phil. I'd be interested in your perspective on this..I'm skeptical as well. From a physics standpoint....complete BS or any truth to this? In theory, is it really the width of one's boot that relates to how quickly you can transfer energy laterally on a ski? I've pondering this for a season or two now and admit to not knowing enough about this.
Just as a metal housed binding is laterally more responsive than a composite, these do feel better than a traditional binding too.
post #14 of 21
. 8mm seems like a large increase and much more likely to have a true effect on leverage and stability.
post #15 of 21
I'm just waiting for the "too torsionally rigid" backlash like on race skis.

http://forums.epicski.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=43
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
I'm just waiting for the "too torsionally rigid" backlash like on race skis.

http://forums.epicski.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=43
I didn't look at that entire thread, but my guess is that I would be less worried about too much torsional stiffness underfoot than I would be about too much in the tip.
post #17 of 21
I'd rather have a 916 to a jester any day of the week. Actually I'd probably rather have a comp 18 to a jester.
post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
For a historical view of this discussion: Hmmmmmm....

Missed that in my search. Sorry.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
I didn't look at that entire thread, but my guess is that I would be less worried about too much torsional stiffness underfoot than I would be about too much in the tip.

Agreed for my part, if you'll allow me to reserve the case of stiff fat skis highly rockered underfoot for further consideration and experiment.
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
Good point, Phil. I'd be interested in your perspective on this..I'm skeptical as well. From a physics standpoint....complete BS or any truth to this? In theory, is it really the width of one's boot that relates to how quickly you can transfer energy laterally on a ski? I've pondering this for a season or two now and admit to not knowing enough about this.

Bingo!

Bootsole width is 69mm +or- 2mm. Because there is no active device to pressure the AFD beyond 69mm there is no way this can be true. And I'm not smart enough to argue physics!

That said the post below (Epic) is absolutly true, they do feel different, because they are flatter (less delta).

Coup
post #21 of 21

We'll See

I just purchased a pair of Volkl AC50's with the Marker IPT 14 Wide Ride bindings (from our Bear, "Canyon").

Sking Mag seemed to like both the AC50 (85 mm) and Grizzly (90 mm), giving them the highest hardpack ratings in their All Mountain Expert category.

I don't base much on those reviews. They only reflect the opinions of 5 testers. I put more stock in the opinions of Bears.

According to Volkl, the 30% greater width of the IPT bindings is a significant reason for enhanced edge-control of these wider skis.

We'll see.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion