EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Marker Griffon / Jester bindings : Verdict on whether they make a difference on fat skis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marker Griffon / Jester bindings : Verdict on whether they make a difference on fat skis?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Last season when these bindings came out, I remember there being some conflicting opinions and reports on whether the wider form of the bindings actually performed any differently than standard bindings on a fat ski (ok let's just say 90mm + ). What are people's thoughts on this as of now? 

I use Railflex bindings on my skis  currently and the ability to switch one pair of bindings between skis is really convenient.  Also, there's no doubt that they make it easier to carve on wider skis b/c of the leverage from the 30mm -ish raised height, but at times I wonder if the added weight and height is adversely affecting my skiing in powder.  The ability to move fore and aft has been great for figuring out where best to set and forget, but now that the Schizo version of these bindings is out, maybe that is the way to go over the Railflex?
post #2 of 22
 i'll probably be checking out some p90's with schizos next week at the loaf/saddleback.  i'll try and remember to get back on this thread and give you some feedback
post #3 of 22
 i think it's a pretty simple, quick, on-slope process to move the schizos back and forth.  i have a hunch there is not going to be one setting that i like and that's it.  probably at least 2 - one for 'standard' conditions, the other (maybe 1 or 2cm back) for powder days
post #4 of 22
 I just got these, havn't moved them yet but the brakes get hung up on my pro riders.  Going to try bending them or something..or grinding the edge off the plastic brake tip.
post #5 of 22
 Those Marker brakes are tough to bend. I ended up talking the tech to switching the brake with a Jester. I got the schizos on my Gotamas. Very easy to adjust and clear markings on the binding. Haven't had a chance to ski on them.
Edited by seattle_sun - 1/1/10 at 9:18am
post #6 of 22
 I like the Grif-sters for wider skis because they are a laterally rigid binding that is pretty light weight. I am surprised that they added ramp angle to them this year, not sure why. 
post #7 of 22
 I remember hearing that the Duke/Griffon/Jester had a wider footprint on the ski, however somebody here (I think Sierra Jim) actually measured them, or maybe measured the screw holes, and it turns out most of the Look/Dynastar bindings have a wider footprint.  And then I measured some of my Tyrolia/Head bindings, and they were wider too.  So I think the footprint aspect is not a factor.  As Phil mentions though, the Marker bindings themselves are quite rigid, so that may be the real factor.

I like RailFlex, but it definitely adds some lateral slop.  Hasn't been a big issue on the skis I've mounted on, but I think it starts to become questionable on anything much over 90mm.
post #8 of 22
Thread Starter 
yeah the screw holes are not that wide apparently, but I wonder if the wider form factor of the pieces themselves do anything?
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

yeah the screw holes are not that wide apparently, but I wonder if the wider form factor of the pieces themselves do anything?


 Huge toe wings with a solid platform along with a strong heel design really stiffen the Grif-ster up. 
post #10 of 22
The wide stance thing is marketing mythology. They are no wider than most of anything else and the solid mounting points (screw pattern) are actually narrower than quite a few others. Marker bindings typically have had a less firm roll coupling than other bindings. (there is an ASTM standard test for this although it has never been deemed important by ASTM or required in the field). As far as "lateral stiffness" is concerned I have never heard that term applied to ski bindings other than on this forum so I have no idea what that means. (I was a binding product manager for four years).


The Griffon/Jester do have quite a bit of lift and that is responsible for a different feeling than the flatter mounted race type bindings that have been in vogue for so long on fat skis.

So......if you want a fairly tall binding on a fat ski then the J/G makes a difference. If you don't want a lot of lift, then they offer no other advantage that seems in any way significant to me.

SJ
Edited by SierraJim - 1/1/10 at 9:21pm
post #11 of 22
The height  difference between the Jester & some of the others is not all that huge this year -- my understanding is that there's a tiny bit of ramp angle, but think in terms of "relatively" flat in the high-ish teens... (Schizo a bit higher IIRC)
post #12 of 22
"Some" being the key word there.

SJ
post #13 of 22
 What do you consider to be of similar or better quality that is materially (say more than 2-4 mm?) lower?
post #14 of 22
I haven't found any advantage, except that perhaps they cost more and are therefore more coveted if you need the most expensive gear.  Same footprint as the regular bindings, so any advantage gained by gripping more of the boot sole (not that their should be a significant one theoretically speaking, as long as the boot sole is not flexing inside of the binding; it just needs to be held in place so that the base of the boot drives the binding) would be minimal compared to where the forces are transmitted into the ski, which is the same in width as any other binding.  If they are designing a new binding, why not just re-design a binding made for 85mm skis and wider, and make a jig with the wider footprint? That would be real innovation.  A good example is the Blizzard IQ Max, with it's wider track.  A direct screw-mounted binding is still probably more precise, but it is probably more precise than most of the floating binding systems, due to the wide track.    

I was actually surprised at the relatively cheap construction of the Jester, considering how much they cost.  Figured at that price, they would be all-metal bindings like the ones you see on race-stock skis.  I have them on a couple of Blizzards, and while they seem like solid bindings, really nothing wrong with them, I also don't understand why they would command a premium over any other well-designed binding with a similar DIN range. 

Not sure how much lift these have: I have been going with the Look PX12 Lifter on my fat skis, which are around 19.5mm high at the toe.  Seems like a good compromise compared to a PX14 Racing, which is pretty low.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 What do you consider to be of similar or better quality that is materially (say more than 2-4 mm?) lower?

PX 12,14,15 Racing. Equivalent Rossis. Tyrolia X14, 15, 17. Equivalent Head/Fischer. Marker 18.0 Free.

SJ 
post #16 of 22
I should have asked the question differently. And in two parts. Of the bindings available on the market today in the J/G price range or less:

a) Which have a materially lower stand height than the J/G?

b) Which are materially more durable? Especially in light of relative weights.

Of the bindings you listed above, the ones I did a quick check on were generally about as tall as this year's J/G. And if I read correctly, a several have more ramp. But it was a quick scan of several sites...). And the Marker 18.0 Free does not appear to be generally available -- which puts it in the realm of theoretical... 
post #17 of 22


BTW...I like RAMP ANGLE, ymmv
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

I should have asked the question differently. And in two parts. Of the bindings available on the market today in the J/G price range or less:

a) Which have a materially lower stand height than the J/G?

b) Which are materially more durable? Especially in light of relative weights.

Of the bindings you listed above, the ones I did a quick check on were generally about as tall as this year's J/G. And if I read correctly, a several have more ramp. But it was a quick scan of several sites...). And the Marker 18.0 Free does not appear to be generally available -- which puts it in the realm of theoretical... 

 




Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




PX 12,14,15 Racing. Equivalent Rossis. Tyrolia X14, 15, 17. Equivalent Head/Fischer. Marker 18.0 Free.

SJ 

I agree with SJ above....
Except for lighter weight, I can't see any real bennies for G/J over Look/Dynastar/Tyrolia/Head binders...
and what the benefit for lighter weight...not as durable?, easier spinning?, I'll have to check with Eddie the Eagle....later..
post #19 of 22
IMO, more important for a fat ski, which presumably will be skied in deep fresh snow, is the ability to put the ski on by pulling on the heel piece in some manner that drives the heel into the binding, and not just pulling to allow it to click into place with its spring. If it can only be put on by stamping down on the heel piece to activate the spring, you will have a problem in a situation where there is no platform of packed snow to stamp down on. Also, a very small amount of snow in the binding or boot should not leave you unable to put the ski on, cusrsing as everyone skis by. It shouldn't be too sensitive to that (ie. Salomon Z series).  All that considered, I ski Looks, Dynastars, Rossignols on my pow skis.

Oh, the putting ski on issue is not about falls, but bootpacks or boot hikes over a rocky area.
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

I should have asked the question differently. And in two parts. Of the bindings available on the market today in the J/G price range or less:

a) Which have a materially lower stand height than the J/G?

b) Which are materially more durable? Especially in light of relative weights.

Of the bindings you listed above, the ones I did a quick check on were generally about as tall as this year's J/G. And if I read correctly, a several have more ramp. But it was a quick scan of several sites...). And the Marker 18.0 Free does not appear to be generally available -- which puts it in the realm of theoretical... 

 

This info might be helpful:

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/78707/beefcake-bindings-tyrolia-peak-15#post_1036168

I have since put Peak 15 and Mojo 15 bindings on all my skis, and they are indeed a lot more solid and stout than any previous bindings I have owned.  I really like them.  They also have a fairly low lift (17mm) which I prefer for wider skis.  The Peak 15 has been showing up on www.tramdock.com/ for about $120-130 recently, which is a good deal.  When shopping around, be sure you look for the 08/09 or 09/10 versions of these bindings, as previous years' Mojo 15s were not as good.
post #21 of 22
Stand Heights measured at AFD:

Jester: - ...........................18.8mm
Tyrolia X17 - .....................17.0mm
Salomon 920 Lab - ...........14.4mm
LOOK PX Racing -............12.9mm
Marker M-16,18,20 eps -....12.4mm

So.....if somebody wants lift......J/G makes good enough sense. If not....there ya go.

SJ
post #22 of 22
 SJ - thanks for posting that. And it answers a question I was just about to ask... Earlier this year I was told that the Jester had been dropped to the hight teens. But lots of places are listing it at the old height. Your info is informative.

That said - Think about 2-4 mm in the context the discussion. 3mm is just over a tenth of an inch. I know I can  feel a 10 mm  height difference. I'm sure I can not feel a 2mm diff. I'm not sure where the break point is...
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 › Marker Griffon / Jester bindings : Verdict on whether they make a difference on fat skis?