EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Railflex - Anyone find them too high?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Railflex - Anyone find them too high?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I'm considering mounting Railflex's on my iM 82s, but am concerned that they will sit quite high on the ski and snow. I'm attracted to the RailFlexs for their ability to shift forward/backwards. My previous skis were Rossi GS skis with a FIS compliant plate (lift of about ~20mm), and found them acceptable, but that ski was much slimmer in the waist than the iM 82s.

Has anyone gone with the RailFlex's on a 80mm+ ski and found the elevation to be strange/problematic?

Thanks.
post #2 of 10
Nope found the opposite, I have a set of HD 14's mounted to a pair of Monster 88's, tons of W/B instructors have the same, the Monster Chip, which shares similar dimensions from the Monster 78 had it from the factory.
Had a pair of Mojo 15's origainally and the Railflex height woke the 88up considerably.
post #3 of 10
Had RF on K2 PE's last winter and had no problem at all. Have them on IM77's this winter and they work great. I'm also going to mount a RF track on my new Fischer Watea 94s.

Mike
post #4 of 10
Had rfd14's on my 183 bro's till I broke the heel, the height was much less of a problem then how sloppy the binding was, never felt connected to the ski.
post #5 of 10
I have RF bindings on my carver skis, but do not like them on my wider skis. I find that I feel a lot more stable and nimble with a flat mount binding on anything wider than about 80mm (and this may be a function of the snow and terrain I tackle on those skis rather than simply their width). I put flat LD-12 bindings on my iM82, and love them on and off-piste. I previously experimented with RF bindings on some 81mm and 87mm waist skis, and did not like the feel at all when skiing powder, crud, and bumps. There was just too much slop and play underfoot. You tend to notice that more on wider skis I think. With a flat mount, there is a much more solid connection between binding and ski when the ski gets wide.
post #6 of 10
I have some RF 14s on my Movement Thunders (87 underfoot) that I had on my Bluehouse Districts (103? underfoot). They worked great on both skis. Sitting a little higher makes me feel like I can really get the skis over on an edge. Perhaps I am just dreaming? Anyways, I like that RF for an inexpensive adjustable binding.
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. I am inclined to try them and if I can't stand it, switch them out for a Free Flex binding.

I would imagine that the rail flex plate does not do irreperable harm to the ski....?
post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
Thanks for the input. I am inclined to try them and if I can't stand it, switch them out for a Free Flex binding.

I would imagine that the rail flex plate does not do irreperable harm to the ski....?
4 holes per ski, overlaps with some Look heels for some boots.
post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
4 holes per ski, overlaps with some Look heels for some boots.
Ahem..... 8. 4 for each half of the RF plate (2 fixed and 2 floating).
post #10 of 10
You are correct.
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 › Railflex - Anyone find them too high?