Points of contact

thankagaper

thankagaper

Member
The ski boot engages into the binding about an inch from your heel/toe, and then, there is an inch or so between the binding and mounting screws, in some instances. In the toe, there is two pieces of plastic (binding) interacting with the boot, and there's some play in mine.... The heel seems to have positive engagement all the way around.

I'm on dalbello/pivots, and all setups are generally this...

When we do airs, rails, hard butters and ollie's, do these boot/binding systems perform well?

How much would the ski change / perform with a more direct mounted system?
 
Do you think you could feel the difference on the hill or hand bending in a same ski model in same length with Pivots (smallest footprint on the market), Attacks, and demo bindings? I'm not sure I could.

If yes, there's a good chance a more direct contact could provide something. That's a different case if that something is worth breaking the most complicated concept of ski gear.
 
Great example, demo bindings are the worst way to actually demo a ski .

Adding length to a new setup changes so much, the flex patterns changes dramatically by mounting even a couple inches in a different direction.

I feel the bindings / boots we use, are not intended for freestyle, and there is need for equipment designed for it's purpose.
 
Imo, when I bolt this three strap binding , to a 160cm, 100 under foot ski, I will have the stability of 180s, and din bindings...

I ride these prototypes 15 years ago...
 
The general rule is the closer to the ski the better is terms of "feeling* the ski and handling it as such. Far as I understand, race risers just exist to increase the possible edge angle. So bindings with higher stack heights are better for pure agressive carving. I'd say that the biggest difference in how a binding feels is twofold. 1. The amount of metal vs plastic. Metal creates a much damper feel. And 2. The specific hole pattern. For example the STH2 and Griffon/Jester have very similar hole patterns. Where the Pivot is very unique with the heel hole pattern very small and far forward.
 
14530891:thankagaper said:
Great example, demo bindings are the worst way to actually demo a ski .

Adding length to a new setup changes so much, the flex patterns changes dramatically by mounting even a couple inches in a different direction.

I feel the bindings / boots we use, are not intended for freestyle, and there is need for equipment designed for it's purpose.
Click to expand...

You're right, most of this stuff isn't designed specifically for freestyle, but that's mainly because if it was it wouldn't be a that different. Take the Dalbello I'll Moro, a boot marketed as being designed for freestyle. It's really not much different from the LV Kryptons. Same thing with Full Tilt. The original Richley mold sure as shit isn't designed for freestyle but it's still used. Looking at bindings, Marker claims the Griffon and Jester are freeride/style oriented but that's just based on the weight being as centered as possible for swing weight. And even the Pivot isn't actually made for freestyle, it just ended up working well in that application
 
I would say there is more to it than simply how many contact points there are and what they are made of. Consider pin bindings, metal to metal contact between boots and bindings, most made mostly or entirely of metal, low stack height, small mounting pattern, very little elastic travel, generally skis kinda like crap, at least partly because they feel harsh.

I think you need to look at stiffness in each of 6 degrees of freedom, as well as elastic travel, the associated spring rates and preload, and whether any of these motions are coupled or not. In short, I think its more complicated than stiffer is better.

FWIW, I'm not sure what I would want out of a binding, in terms of feel, that I can't get with a current high-end alpine binding. I definitely wish that we had more durable and safer bindings, though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top