EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are "wide footprint" binders better than traditional
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are "wide footprint" binders better than traditional

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Am looking for comments as to whether the "wide footprint" binders give a skier any quicker edging on snow...

Marker Jesters/Griffons are advertised as "better" than traditional Looks/Sollys/Tyrolias for this reason...any truth to this?

I realize that the Jester/Griffons have an almost zero ramp angle and I can see this improving "feel"...
I also know that a shorter mounting surface can help to give rounder turns...and the new Jester/Griffon heels provide better forward pressure to prevent prereleases.....but
what the hey about wider footprints giving better/faster edge grip when the mounting screws are roughly the same distance apart edge to edge on the Jesters/Griffons versus traditional...

Do the Jesters/Griffons provide a stiffer connection to the ski?  perhaps this would explain the better edging rather than a wider footprint...
post #2 of 12
 Some will say no, but I say yes. I got a pair of Blizzards two years ago with Dukes. Mid-season it started snowing more and I broke out my Gotamas with M1400s on them. They felt very vague compared to the Blizzards. I remounted with Dukes and we've lived happily ever after since then.
post #3 of 12
 What I like about a Jester is it is very laterally stiff. Does the wide platform, help? I think so. Are there other bindings (that aren't wide platform) perform as well? Yes, but most are metal housed race bindings that are heavy. A Jester is a much lighter binding without sacrificing the performance of a heavy race binding.
post #4 of 12
Philpug, it was my understanding the the screw pattern footprint was not any wider at all on the Marker's. Wider binding with the same hole spacing doesn't sound like much "improvement " to me.

Now this years Blizzard MAX system does show some promise but I haven't skied a pair yet.
post #5 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

Philpug, it was my understanding the the screw pattern footprint was not any wider at all on the Marker's. Wider binding with the same hole spacing doesn't sound like much "improvement " to me.

Now this years Blizzard MAX system does show some promise but I haven't skied a pair yet.

That is correct, but the platform in indeed wider. As I mentioned in my post, IMHO the housing has as much or more to do with the performance as the width. 

I skied the Max, it was very stable but I didn't get to ski it back to back with the old system. 
post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 
I have skied the new 2010 MAX IQ system versus the 2009 on a 8.7 magnum, and the wider binding spacing feels quicker and more solid...not a night and day difference, but I feel it's an improvement...

I was just wondering whether the "wider" Jesters/Griffons showed the same kind of improvement over traditional... 
I can see that if the toepiece is stiffer torsionally (like Philpug said) that this could provide the claimed quicker response since attachment screw holes are the same width as traditional....

I guess I'm wondering whether the higher $$s for Jesters/Griffons is justified...
post #7 of 12
 Picture if the binding was just held down by a row of screws on the centerline. Everything else being equal, which would be stiffer, a 20mm wide footprint or a 50mm wide footprint?
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
footprint implies side-to-side attachment length...

The effective lever arm is where screws are implanted ....

Whether the binding was 1000 or 10mm wide, with screws only on centerline, there would be no difference in stiffness....

Altho a 1000mm wide binding would look cool....Jer would like it to put on his 1200mm waisted ski...
post #9 of 12
 I was wondering the same thing last season... here's what I was able to figure out, seems like a lot of the same info from the same people as you received here.  

www.epicski.com/forum/thread/73575/attn-marker-haters-lets-talk-jester
post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post

The effective lever arm is where screws are implanted ....

Whether the binding was 1000 or 10mm wide, with screws only on centerline, there would be no difference in stiffness....

Yes, there would.    

The effective lever arm is between the binding screw on the up side and the farthest edge of binding footprint on the down side (into the ski).

Try it for yourself with NNN, NNN BC and 75 mm 3-pin bindings.    Exactly the same width screw pattern.
post #11 of 12
The dukes are a good binding. I like the dukes alot. Does a wider plate make the duke sitffer? Most certainly. But the duke is not the stiffest binding out there. Plenty of full metal race bindings have it beat on that front. 
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
I talked to several techies at Marker, NH lately re Jester/Griffon advantages over conventional NON-RACING binders, and this is what I gathered:

1...This setup has the same width, or smaller, mounting pattern as conventional binders, and for this reason should not be expected to give better/quicker edging....now if you were to epoxy/weld/attach the toepiece solidly all across its width, a different story, but I would not try this at home...

2...The wider toepiece does provide greater lateral stiffness, and as Philpug mentioned in an earlier post, this feature would give quicker edging....a plus for carving, but not for powder skiing, unless you carve powder...

3...The Jester/Griffon is generally lighter than conventional...better for hiking?

4...This setup is cooler-looking....but not as cool as Angelina Jolie...

So all-in-all seems like these binders would be better on hardpack.....and for looking cool?
What do I know?
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 › Are "wide footprint" binders better than traditional