Check Out Our Shop
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Funshapes + Bindings

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alco-Hall of Fame
    Posts
    2,997

    Funshapes + Bindings

    Q:

    Does it really make sense to put regular old alpine bindings on the new funshape skis? (I recognize the occasional appropriateness of this strategy but rather am talking about as a default)

    I was heckling a couple of guys that are stuck bootpacking or alpine treckering with 120s & 138s and it just seemed sad pants to me. :shrug: They both go backcountry skiing frequently and...talk about a milieu where those skis shine. You quite simply are going to want to tour on them and if you want to ski them inbounds often conditions are probably fine for AT bindings.

    It's all academic to me so I don't have a dog in this fight other than not getting stuck breaking trail all over the place. And I suspect that the new "Maker Dukes" are gonna make it even less attractive to mount normal bindings up.
    "It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
    - A. Solzhenitsyn

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Skiattle
    Posts
    7,750
    meh
    its all one big compromise

    do you want burly boots and bindings for the DH or stuff that makes it easier to get there on the uphill.

    whether it makes sense or not is for each person to decide since everyone has different priorities.

    fwiw, if I were to get dp120s, id stick comforts on them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alco-Hall of Fame
    Posts
    2,997
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    fwiw, if I were to get dp120s, id stick comforts on them.
    Now that's just crazy talk there.
    "It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
    - A. Solzhenitsyn

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peach Pantsuit
    Posts
    1,053
    (1) If I'm booting and you're skinning, we're about the same speed. So what's the problem?

    (2) My regular alpine mount of 138s was a temporary solution, while waiting for Dukes. I thought I might pick up some used Trekkers, but it's getting late in the season for that.

    All that aside, I agree with you. I'm more comfortable using alpine binders for big vert days of pow and cut-up inbounds. Given the light weight and "fun shape" of DPs, they are clearly a good option for touring, especially on guaranteed pow days. On a tour, I get less vert, and there is more "finesse" skiing. If the snow is good, I don't think touring bindings and boots limit you.

    I'd like to slap the Duke on my 138s. I'd also like to run comforts on some 120s.
    bodies be all up on my behind

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,008
    my question is, do bindings act differently/perform differently when they are on a fun shaped ski, EX. Praxis? are the pressure spots on a bindings different when you ski differently?

    or is it the same?

    so what i am really asking is, should i mount some 957's on a Praxis or "newer" 912's?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Supertrekkers, flexons and rossi 180 Pro's (traditional look turntables) on my '07 big daddies, but I don't tour much.
    Last edited by Damian Sanders; 04-11-2007 at 08:45 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    sandy, sl,ut
    Posts
    9,968
    The days when you will be using your biggest fattest skis are the days when you will be skiing the fastest.hucking the biggest, so I'd think some burly bindings would be nice.



    Quote Originally Posted by workinforturns View Post
    my question is, do bindings act differently/perform differently when they are on a fun shaped ski, EX. Praxis? are the pressure spots on a bindings different when you ski differently?

    or is it the same?

    so what i am really asking is, should i mount some 957's on a Praxis or "newer" 912's?
    The same logic would say you should put the burlier bindings on the praxis. Are the 957s metal? I can't remember, but if so, there ya go.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
    "We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats

    "I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso

    Cisco and his wife are fragile idiots who breed morons.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,008
    ya, i think im going to put the 957's on the praxis and another pair on the 192 bros

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,456
    duke -> 138

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,008
    ^^^BWAHHHAHAHAHA, good one

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    23,146
    duke costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ though
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    the ether
    Posts
    6,389
    The bigger problem here is the stiffness to control a ski that fat. With 138mm underfoot the slop of a freeride will just be that much more evident. This even more true when the major contact point of reverse-whatever skis is underfoot. That may not bother some people depending on the conditions skied and style. But as skis get fatter and fatter, the stiffer a binding you'd want to use.

    Then again, if you only ski blowerpow in the backcountry it doesn't really matter....
    Last edited by Z; 04-11-2007 at 10:21 PM.
    Drive slow, homie.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,707
    Just buy 2 pairs, one with 916s, one with ATs. Sell everything else you own, you can do it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alco-Hall of Fame
    Posts
    2,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    Then again, if you only ski blowerpow in the backcountry it doesn't really matter....
    Ummmm isn't that the point?
    "It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
    - A. Solzhenitsyn

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    ...the stiffness to control a ski that fat...
    Yeah, I've been a believer in that theory ever since Spats posted about the benefits of torsionally rigid bindings on fatter skis. Recently, Stephan Drake posted somewhere he is noticing performance differences between Lotuses with different bindings.

    .
    - TRADE your heavy PROTESTS for my lightweight version at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    The bigger problem here is the stiffness to control a ski that fat.
    Amen to that.

    Plus the fact that if you are a big guy, skiing a very wide-waisted ski, you're torquing an enormous amount of force into your binding mount. There's no getting away from the fact that it's easier for a manufacturer to 'manage' the torsional flex characteristics of a narrow ski than a wider one. Also the narrower the screw footprint, the likelier you are to tear the binder out.
    "Nothing is funnier than Hitler." - Smokey McPole

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Summit County
    Posts
    5,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Z View Post
    The bigger problem here is the stiffness to control a ski that fat. With 138mm underfoot the slop of a freeride will just be that much more evident. This even more true when the major contact point of reverse-whatever skis is underfoot. That may not bother some people depending on the conditions skied and style. But as skis get fatter and fatter, the stiffer a binding you'd want to use.

    Then again, if you only ski blowerpow in the backcountry it doesn't really matter....
    the force is strong in this one.

    even though I think the cold smokers would want stiff binders.
    "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" --Margaret Thatcher

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,008
    so, just crank up my bindings a couple more dins?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by workinforturns View Post
    so, just crank up my amp a couple more dins?
    Only if it goes to 11... otherwise it just wouldn't be loud enough
    "I have never exploded. But I know what it would be like. Don't ask me how. I just know. I've always just known." -Garth Merenghi

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bouldenver, Colorado
    Posts
    3,635
    i just would never want to ruin a great ski with a pair of crappy AT binders. Cally me a sensitive sally, but I CAN definitely tell the difference that a torsionally loose binder makes on the performance of the ski, even in backcountry pow.

    It's just not true that a freeride or naxo gives you the performance you can have with a full strength binder. They're not the same creatures.

    So, you have only a few sane options IF you're looking for 0 compromise relative to your desired type of skiing, for backcountry use. 1) Put tele binders on, 2) Put real alpine binders on, and maybe 3) put Duke's on them if they pan out. I rule out even Dynafits, because there aren't any truly full performance alpine boots that are Dynafit compatible.

    I'm not saying I wouldn't put Dynafits, or Naxos, or Freerides on a funshape ski. I'm just saying that you'll make "some" compromise in pure skiability if you do so, and I want the most out of my funshape.

    I'll dilute some other skis with my freerides.
    Thrutchworthy Production Services

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    22,532
    bump, motherfucker, for the shitducker
    Kill all the telemarkers
    But they’ll put us in jail if we kill all the telemarkers
    Telemarketers! Kill the telemarketers!
    Oh we can do that. We don’t even need a reason

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fernie, BC
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Core Shot View Post
    bump, motherfucker, for the shitducker
    And this'd be the "you probably want dukes on your praxis" thread I searched up and mentioned

    Nice try, but I really did search....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 773
    Last Post: 11-24-2023, 04:23 PM
  2. Salomon Z-series Bindings review
    By kellen in forum Tech Talk
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 01:50 PM
  3. PSA: Soli S916 EQ Comp Alpine Bindings $144.95
    By Brocktoon in forum Gear Swap (List View)
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 11:04 PM
  4. K2 Apache Chief skis w/ Look P12 bindings - $450
    By El Chupacabra in forum Gear Swap (List View)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 08:50 AM
  5. Skis Bindings, and misc, part duex
    By aspenskibum in forum Gear Swap (List View)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-21-2005, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •