New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

marker griffon

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

 Will the marker griffon work with the head monster iM 78 skis

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 24

Good question. The brakes are 90 or 110, may need to be 'adjusted' to fit.

post #3 of 24

You should be OK barely.  Marker recommends the Griffon/Jester be used on skis that are at least 76mm wide underfoot.

post #4 of 24

Good combo, sold many of that combination this year.  

post #5 of 24

for those of you who have experience with the Griffon binding...

 

I have been using Railflex bindings on everything for the last couple of seasons.  They really give you incredible control over your edges...now I haven't used them on a fat ski, but I am contemplating trying them , or else, go with a Griffon. The Griffons claim to give better edge control on wide skis, but then again, the taller Railflex binding has an advantage in terms of leverage.  Personally I don't feel much sacrifice in stability using Railflex bindings while skiing in powder, although some claim this to be the case.

 

Does anyone have a feel for a Griffon and a Railflex will compare in terms of carving control, and in terms of edge control on a wider ski (100mm +)?

 

And are the Griffons a pretty flat binding or do they have considerable lift as well?

post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 

for those of you who have experience with the Griffon binding...

 

I have been using Railflex bindings on everything for the last couple of seasons.  They really give you incredible control over your edges...now I haven't used them on a fat ski, but I am contemplating trying them , or else, go with a Griffon. The Griffons claim to give better edge control on wide skis, but then again, the taller Railflex binding has an advantage in terms of leverage.  Personally I don't feel much sacrifice in stability using Railflex bindings while skiing in powder, although some claim this to be the case.

 

Does anyone have a feel for a Griffon and a Railflex will compare in terms of carving control, and in terms of edge control on a wider ski (100mm +)?

 

And are the Griffons a pretty flat binding or do they have considerable lift as well?

The Griffon is a fairly tall binding but is very laterally rigid. The height will give you more leverage to carve and the laterally rigidness will also be an improvement. 

post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 

 

Does anyone have a feel for a Griffon and a Railflex will compare in terms of carving control, and in terms of edge control on a wider ski (100mm +)?

 
 

 

Can't comment on the Griffon but I have Railflex on my Watea 94 and they are great.  People talk about the Railflex binders being sloppy, but I've never noticed any of that and the extra height does help when carving on the groomers.  I'm currently contemplating a wider soft snow ski and I will likely put Railflex on those as well.

post #8 of 24

Have Griffons, absolutely love them.  Why?  The weight, and the release pattern.  No need to crank the din to avoid pre-releasing.  Bindings weight about 1000 grams each, which is light.

 

They're mounted on 93mm waisted High Society FreeRides. 

 

Only thing I regret was having to pay full retail in December, when I saw them for sale last week in Jackson Hole for $150.

post #9 of 24

Got Jesters on my IM78s... Works great ;)

 

 I believe they are the same size as the Griffons...

post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 

for those of you who have experience with the Griffon binding...

 

I have been using Railflex bindings on everything for the last couple of seasons.  They really give you incredible control over your edges...now I haven't used them on a fat ski, but I am contemplating trying them , or else, go with a Griffon. The Griffons claim to give better edge control on wide skis, but then again, the taller Railflex binding has an advantage in terms of leverage.  Personally I don't feel much sacrifice in stability using Railflex bindings while skiing in powder, although some claim this to be the case.

 

Does anyone have a feel for a Griffon and a Railflex will compare in terms of carving control, and in terms of edge control on a wider ski (100mm +)?

 

And are the Griffons a pretty flat binding or do they have considerable lift as well?

Unless something has changed, the actual ski area contact of the new Markers is the same as the old Markers.  Hole pattern is the same width.   On the Jester, it looks to be wider, but that plastic isn't doing anything if you look closely. SJ (who knows more than I) says that these new "wider" bindings from Marker aren't anything but a different cosmetic and marketing pitch.  The exception may be the new Blizzards for next year: they are using a much wider rail, which may stiffen up the ski laterally.  Would have to ski this year's and next year's back to back with the same tune to definitively say. 

 

They need to come out with a binding that has a much wider hole pattern for wide skis: that would result in a much more substantial lateral stiffness increase.  Also, Railflex doesn't seem to laterally soft: I ski them on many of my skis, and haven't noticed any slop compared to burlier plate systems.  Of course, unless you are comparing one ski with a Railflex and another with a stiffer plate or flat mount with an identical tune, it is just conjecture. 

post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdeb7 View Post

 

 Will the marker griffon work with the head monster iM 78 skis

 

Yes.

 

No better or worse than any other binding with similar DIN range and similar lift.

 

SJ

post #12 of 24

If one does not ski switch, is there a reason to consider the griffon/jester over the non lifter looks-other then weight?   I guess by updating this thread, im trying to say, is there anything to be believed about the marketing that the marker series does transfer energy better when mounted to wide skis? 

 

 The looks are significantly (depending on you opinion) heavier then the griffon/jesters....

 

 

 

 

post #13 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbuzz View Post

If one does not ski switch, is there a reason to consider the griffon/jester over the non lifter looks-other then weight?   I guess by updating this thread, im trying to say, is there anything to be believed about the marketing that the marker series does transfer energy better when mounted to wide skis? 

 

 The looks are significantly (depending on you opinion) heavier then the griffon/jesters....

 

 

 

 


You hit many of the key points. Even though the mount for the Griffon isn't any wider that a traditional binding, the platform is wider. I am very happy with the lateral rigidity compared to other 12 DIN bindings.  

post #14 of 24

all that and I love the weight factor, they feel considerably lighter underfoot. I have Grif's and Jesters.I can't tell you the difference in terms of actual performance. I know Jesters hava higher din and possibly a better spring but can't say I noticed. I do like the wider interface.

post #15 of 24

Goats+Griffons are the lightest setup I own, great when I go hiking away. And on the top of my head, I can't remember them releasing even once on the 10 or so days I skied them.

post #16 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

On the Jester, it looks to be wider, but that plastic isn't doing anything if you look closely. SJ (who knows more than I) says that these new "wider" bindings from Marker aren't anything but a different cosmetic and marketing pitch.

 

TGR repost:

 

Not that I can actually notice a difference actually using my Barons, but I do think the new Markers should be torsionally "stiffer". It would have nothing to do with screw pattern nor baseplate width, but rather that every assembly that necessarily has to have some clearance/play in order for it move and not bind (rails, pivots, etc.) are located as far laterally on the bindings as possible. Assuming a similar amount of clearance between designs, the torsional play of the wider binding would be a smaller angle.

post #17 of 24
post #18 of 24

What do you know about the Schizo?

http://www.zapiks.com/presentation-of-the-schizo-b.html 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Good combo, sold many of that combination this year.  

 

post #19 of 24

Schizo is made of a lot of plastic parts like the Griffon. Can be adjusted 7cm.

 

They have been seen on K2 skis only. There are pictures floating around of them mounted on Kung Fujas. Rumor bin has it they might be found on K2 skis only.

 

On the original posters topic, this might help you a little. I find the Marker Jester to be an awesome binding. I will probably never buy a pair of skis with an integrated binding system again after my experience with them.

post #20 of 24

 The Schizo looks sick! but pricey....particularly for those who believe in and agonize over mounting points.

 

post #21 of 24

My initial thoughts on the Schizo is that its a good concept for someone who is not quite sure where he/she wants to mount their skis, or for someone who is looking to use the skis for different applications and may want to change the forward/rear mount point for different uses, but, if you have a specific purpose for a ski and know where you want your binding mounted, it seems that the Griffon is a good choice and is something more tried and true, IMHO.

 

 

post #22 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbuzz View Post

 The Schizo looks sick! but pricey....particularly for those who believe in and agonize over mounting points.

 

I agree it is a great concept. It looks like Marker hastily designed it and looks like it was thrown together at the last minute as a 10th Grade Shop Class project. 

post #23 of 24

 I have skied on the Schizo on a pair of Volkl Bridges. If I were in the market for a new ski and had any reservations whatsoever about where to mount them, I'd use the Schizo.

post #24 of 24

From what I have seen, they are selling it as a way to mount a single pair of park skis for both all-mountain use and center-mount (park), hence the range of the system.  It is just about the max distance from boot center to ball of foot for the largest boot sizes.  So it will allow enough range to take most people from one mounting extreme to the other, which is pretty cool.  I don't really need that capability, but I imagine it would be embraced by many people that K2 markets the "factory team" lineup to.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread: