Whats the deal with FKS'

It could be a lack of forward pressure, but I have no way of knowing from here honestly.

Yes, the brakes should be able to rotate with the whole heel.
 
all you did was reiterate what you've read on here while making sweeping accusations that were ambiguous and incorrect.

The fact that you mention entire manufactures as a whole is laughable. Thats like saying all Fords are awesome because the GT is awesome.

 
nice try there, but you are very wrong. Now you are the one making accusations here because I know what I am talking about. Now, fine maybe I shouldnt have mentioned the entire manufacturers, but that is a moot point. If you explain how you think that I am just repeating what people have said from what I have read, then please by all means take a huge shit on me, but if not, then go home and think about what you have done.
 
what am i supposed to explain? youre the one talking out of your ass, not me. Keep telling yourself you know everything about bindings, scrub

 
how am I wrong with what I said? that is waht you were asked to explain. maybe if you werent so cocky about thinking you know everything about eveything then you would be open to accepting you are wrong

 
Its hard to wrong when you dont actually provide any info but rather spew hearsay that youve read on here.

look at the garbage you said....it really is just complete garbage. It might not all be wrong but that doesnt mean its not garbage

"I want to clear things up a lot right now"

"The 140 is probably the best look binding you can get because of the toe piece. "

"it hugs your toe and gives the safest release of that brand no matter what you want to think"

" the heelpiece is actually very sloppy in terms of precision, but the 14 heelpiece makes up for it. The 18 is just not really a performer when it comes to power transmission and responsiveness in racing or faster terrain.

"All in all, these are the two best brands to buy bindings from if you know what to do, but if you dont, just go with marker because you shouldnt be on these things in the first place."

 
I did not make any of this up and I did not read it. Firstly, That 140 toepiece is actually the best. it has race precision, has a stationary base, still has the wings pivot to like 100 degrees(?), still has elastic travel, is very durable, even with the lightweight, and has a more versatile din range (yes I know it is the spring and not the toepiece but still)Secondly, that is the best toepiece that Look/Rossi makes because of its characteristics.

Third, because of elastic travel, the heelpiece can wiggle and shift in miniscule amounts, along with the actual fit of the heelpiece to a boot, other types of heelpieces are better options for power transmission and precision. There is a reason that the pivot didnt make it as a race binding you know (well among other things as well). The 180s have that static wing system that is not as effective at securing your boot toe as the 140s. since it cannot move and accomodate littler things as far as width, it is not as precise. It also has a high amount of elasticity along with being able to swivel, making the whole 180 binding a lesser choice to other bindings as far as precision. But I was tired when I typed that and meant to say that the 140 toepiece makes up for the lack of responsiveness, not the heelpiece, which I know is the exact same besides din.

And lastly, These two binding companies dont use the most user friendly devices, but damn do they work well. What I meant to say is that marker bindings take no care for them to perform, where as the pivots are a pain to adjust to boots/ replacing brakes, and the Salomons take constant care for them to perform.

I dont see what I said that was wrong or even garbage.
 
bahaha. You can't actually believe that the 140 toe piece is superior to the single pivot 180 toe... just no.

That shitty plastic toe piece blows up pretty easily and those little wings you love so much for securing your toe break off very easily making your dearly beloved "race precision" toe more jittery than canadians during roll up the rim season.

You are partly right about the elastic travel allowing your boot to move a bit while skiing, but if your binding is set correctly this just dampens your ride through bump run outs, highspeed crud, rutted out gs courses etc.. Along with giving you that extra little bit of time to recover or your binding to absorb a brief impact without prereleasing. This elastic travel makes the binding much SAFER in that it has a much lesser tendency to prerelease in a no fall zone, skiing fast through tight trees, on a poppy lip of a big jump, etc. This is why companies advertize the elasticity of their bindings and are striving for more elastic travel.

There was some speculation about the fks not being precise enough for the racers but if I remember correctly this had nothing/little to do with the discontinuation of the pivot/fks line. All the rossi and dynastar racers that I knew at the time were pretty bummed by it. Even so, all the racers still use the same single pivot toe piece that you claim is not as responsive. Why dont they use the plastic one with 18 din springs then?

If you didn't read about this do you have the first hand experience to back it up? Where do you ski? what are your specs? what kind of skiing do you do? how many days a year do you ski?

I highly doubt that you would be able to perceive any lack of precision in a properly adjusted fks/pivot binding compared to any other binding out there, I doubt that there are more than a handful of people on this website who can distinguish enough of a power transmission loss in a properly adjusted fks/pivot to the effect that they would claim that they lack responsiveness.

I've put thousands of hours in on many pairs of bindings including fks 180, fks 155, tyrolia peak 18s, and dukes. Often I switch during the day during the day and I can certainly tell you that I don't notice any difference other than stack height and ramp angle between my fks and tyrolias or my fks and dukes. But if something is slightly off in one of them (forward pressure, afd height) I notice right away.

add the fact that the 180 toe is far more durable than the 140 and the single pivot design has been extremely successful and reliable for look/rossi and salomon (driver toe) for decades and I just can't see how you can possibly claim that rossi's lower level binding is better than a binding design that people have hoarded for decades.
 
it's probably loose forward pressure but could also be from super worn down toe lugs.

 
and this is why u are member of the month.

FIS racers were bummed when fks' left. I was one of them. The 20DIN PX was just clunky and heavy, yet had plastic in the wrong places. they still used the all metal toe just like they do now. if they wanted a 140 toe made of metal w a higher DIN, they would have made one in the last 10+ years they've been using the current toe design.
 
Give the dude a break. Some of his points were valid and some were bullshit. Leave it at that.
 
This.

This is what the heels of my 140s look like on my Filthys.

20130307_175228_zps0a12b453.jpg


The tech who mounted them explained that the forward pressure is correct, but the tabs are pointless when adjusting.
 
I had to explain this to the techs at craigdon lol, took me a long time to explain to them that if a boot can be pulled out with one hand the forward pressure is off.
 
well i obviiously know that the 180s are more durable, but for being COMPOSITE, the 140s are still more durable than other brands as far as my experience goes. I also know that while I love elastic travel and it has saved me more time than I can count in sticky situations, it does give you lesser precision.

And I guess my tech and one of the rossi reps that went to the boston ski expo are completely wrong and you are right, but they told me that the pivots were discontinued because they didnt perform as well and the super low ramp angle/binding height of the ski were the reasons, but they noticed a huge following of the pivots on ebay and other buy/sell sights that freestyle skiers would buy old race skis with the bindings and take the bindings off to use as park/freeride bindings, and the onepiece metal toe gives you more leverage because you have a rod from the middle of the ski that is higher up than the platform, but the 140s give you better edge because the full platform is covered by the binding. fully, the 180s have more advantage as far as leverage, and since they are more durable for racing than the plastic they stuck with that i guess, but just shut up becuase I own a pair of titanium construction px jib 14s that have the same design as my fks 140s, but again its a different heel. if they used an 18 din spring in a plastic binding, I would guess the mechanism would, over time be too much for the composite housing, eventually weakening the intregrity of the binding. this is also another reason there are only metal housed bindings in the higher din ranges. You never see a marker binding that looks like a jester for racing. they are always metal.

Yes, I own a pair of the black fks 140s from a few years back and ski in the ice coast. I ski aggressively and ski about +110 days a year. I have used my friends 180s very frequently, and I honestly dont like the lack of hold that the binding gives my boot, it feels sloppy, and even thought they are made of metal, he broke them along with other kids on my team that have broken the 180s/18s, but not even my coaches can break the 140s

as far as the last statement you made, FIne you dont have to understand why I do, but if you trash me, dont think im going to let you do it without a fight
 
I'm not trying to trash you, but you are the first person I've heard say some of this stuff and I've been around these bindings for a while. I don't know why the turntables were discontinued, I've heard all sorts of rumours but likely it was because the racers wanted something a bit more rigid so they came up with the px heel and stopped producing the turntable line so people would buy the new shit. Evidently the Axial2/PX heel didn't work as well for the majority of skiers in our demographic so they brought the turntables back. As far as ramp angle, i believe that the metal toed turntables/fks have a ramp angle of 4mm delta and the plastic toed ones have a ramp angle of 0 delta. Some people actually shim up the toe of the metal ones to create less of a ramp angle (pretty sure the shims come with the bindings) and race bindings are mounted on plates as it is. Ramp angle is a whole other echelon to get into though.

-I don't get what you mean when you say that the single pivot toe has more leverage but isn't as precise. Maybe I'm missing something but that doesn't make any sense to me.

-It really sounds like the fks 180s you're using aren't adjusted properly or you have a severely worn down toe lug on your boot. A properly adjusted fks should feel like a clamp. Some times on one of my pairs, the forward pressure loosens off and I get a slight toe slop so I have to adjust the forward pressure maybe once a month or two months (probably about once every 40 times I ride them hard).

-Do your px jib 14s have a full metal "multidirectional release" toe? Rather than the full metal single pivot toe found on the fks 185, fks 155, axial2 200, and axial2 150?

I've never heard of of a full metal multidirectional toe piece and ive been around a lot of bindings and had a fairly keen interest in them for a while.

-What part of the binding are your friends breaking? Ive only seen two pairs ever broken, one was the heel arm and one was at the toe pivot. Unless you're talking about the half moon piece in the heel or the breaks, those are easier to break but the same would happen with fks 140s..

Personally, I've broken two pairs of the 14 din multidirectional toe piece in a year, one toe sheared right off, the other had a fully cracked wing (not the little part that breaks of of every pair) and I've had multiple friends break their plastic rossi toes whether they be on low din fks, axial or axial2s. Ive been skiing two pairs of fks for the past 6 years and haven't broken anything other than one half moon piece and a brake.

Another part I don't understand about your post is that you claim the fks 140 is more precise than the fks 180. This tells me that you think that the toes are the deciding factor of the precision category between the two bindings which share the same heel. This is the main part that I disagree with you on. If that were the case and the toe is effecting the precision more than the heel, then why hasn't Look developed an all metal multidirectional toe instead of the Axial2/PX heel piece. I don't know the answer to this but I certainly think that the single pivot toe is a far superior design, which is why they've kept it and also why the high end Salomons use a similar design, it has much less moving parts to break and it's very reliable.

I don't think that any freeskier should not use the 180 toe because of any lack of precision you might have which is why I'm rebutting you like this.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top