Fatty binders

sconnyFC

sconnyFC

Active member
okay, so i am not sure if this has been mentioned before, so here goes...

in this day and age of fat waisted skis, why haven't any companies come out with a new binding mount plate for their stuff? i mean, if you have a 130 underfoot ski, why are you riding on a binding that can fit a 78 underfoot ski? doesn't it make sense that with this extra room, companies could be adding a little more beef to their binders?

just something i have been wondering
 
Ummmm kay?

Because bindings don't need to be wider or heavier?

Is a FKS or a 916 with a wide brake not enough?

 
they wouldn't sell enough of them so make any profit. Even though more and more people are buying fat skis, and fatter skis in general, you can still use any binding on any ski. You don't NEED to use a "fat binding" on a fat ski. The amount of money put into developing and producing this new binding would not be worth appx. 1/4* of the people who buy fat skis buying the bindings.

The only way that I could see companies developing 'fatter' bindings would be if "normal" bindings began to rip out of fat skis at an unprecidented rate. This hasn't been happening. In my opinion, there is zero need for a fatter binding, therefore, companies won't spend the money on it.

* This figure is totally out of my head.
 
he kinda has a point though that a wider hole pattern could be cool. Not a lot wider but like 5 cm wider or somethin. I mean, there are a shitload of twins bein rocked these days that are 85+, and no one likes ripping out bindings so if one company made a binding that was harder to rip out that'd have quite the appeal. it'll probably happen at some point but fatties probably aren't quite mainstream enough yet. good idea though fo sho.
 
I can't image why ski companies would want to invest in fat BINDERS, those folders with the 3 rings that you put papers in. They should probably stick to ski equipment.
 
Yeah, I was thinking about this too when I saw how puny my px12s looked on a 100+ waist ski. Seems like a wider drill pattern could add some torsional rigidity as well....? At the least they could make some wider jigs, cause my shop had to freehand it, but maybe they do already and just the techs here don't have it.
 
am I the only one who sees that fatter bindings won"t help in any way? They will add weight without adding anything functional. They won"t make any more contact between your boots and the ski because your boots haven't gotten any wider. They won't help add torsional rigidity like that other guy said because your skis don't twist underneath your boot anyway, besides, wider skis offer better torsional rigidity on their own. They won't stop your bindings from pulling out like that other guy said because there will still be the same amount of force distributed between a few screws, unless you want to add more screws and then you are adding weight and putting more holes in the skis. Useless!
 
ur retarded. anyways i have the sickest and lightest binding on the market right now, the Salomon Z12 Ti B100 on my Salomon Guns!
 
I never even realized that bindings pulling out was that big of a problem... ive been skiing for 17 years and never pulled one out or witnessed a binding getting pulled out... come to think of it... I dont even know anyone that knows anyone that has or has witnessed a binding pulled out.
 
Bindings are made to fit your boot, not your ski. If you don't want them ripping out either land correctly or buy a ski with metal in it (mojo 103, LP, Squad, etc). Granted no park ski will ever have metal in it because buttering is so damn hot right now, but I know I've put my skis through hell off 30-40 foot cliffs with bad landings and have yet to rip anything out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top