Bindings 101: What Are Your Questions?

[Philpug]

Hi there

the ladies over at the Ski Diva suggested I cross-post this question here.

Just got a new pair of Kendos and the shop I bought from didn’t carry my preferred demo bindings. I like demo bindings because husband and I effectively double our quivers this way and we ski similar lengths. Rather than wait (the season is almost over!) I opted to let them mount what they had, which was a Tyrolia SP13 demo. I notice there’s a notable gap under the toe and the rail of these bindings. They float above the ski substantially. Didn’t measure but looks like at least a couple mm. I can see clear through underneath the toe binding and the rail. I can clearly see the mounting screws. I asked the shop if this is normal and he says “I’ve mounted thousands of these. That’s just the way they do.” I called Head/Tyrolia to see if they’d tell me the tech specs for what’s within tolerance but if course they wouldn’t tell me anything other than “speak with an authorized dealer.” I called a different shop and they actually told me the same thing, that these specific bindings do indeed float above the ski a bit. This looks so weird to me and I’ve never seen a binding that doesn’t sit flush on the ski.

Is this really “normal?” Can anyone with the Head/Tyrolia tech manual confirm this is the way these SP13 demo bindings are supposed to look when mounted correctly?

While there is not a boot in the binding, there wil be a significant amount of play in the binding. Once a boot is in the binding, that play goes away. IMHO, your concerns are warrented and these are the types of demo bindings that gave demo bindings a bad name.

 

[slow_biscuits]

While there is not a boot in the binding, there wil be a significant amount of play in the binding. Once a boot is in the binding, that play goes away. IMHO, your concerns are warrented and these are the types of demo bindings that gave demo bindings a bad name.

Thank you. So should I be concerned about the mount? Or… replace with another binding? What’s the issue with these? Other than mount looking weird?

 

[Philpug]

Thank you. So should I be concerned about the mount? Or… replace with another binding? What’s the issue with these? Other than mount looking weird?

There is a bit of a gap under the plate, it is normal ... for this binding. As far as the shortcomings, there is more play than I prefer in a binding, it was never really designed to be on a wider ski so there will be a bit of a loss in performance. The best quality of the SP was the ease of adjustment as a demo binding, it rarely froze up and moved with easy ... so I guess it had that going for it.

 

[slow_biscuits]

There is a bit of a gap under the plate, it is normal ... for this binding. As far as the shortcomings, there is more play than I prefer in a binding, it was never really designed to be on a wider ski so there will be a bit of a loss in performance. The best quality of the SP was the ease of adjustment as a demo binding, it rarely froze up and moved with easy ... so I guess it had that going for it.

Got it. Thanks. So the gap under the toe piece is also normal mount for this binding? That gap is bigger than what’s under the track/rail. We’ve used Marker Griffon demos previously and I know some people complain about those but I’ve always liked them. If I don’t notice any performance issues with these should I swap them out? Of course if I don’t like the performance I’d replace. But really just more concerned with safety.

 

[Jeronimo]

Binding question: Can anyone tell me about the Marker XComp 16 binding? I admittedly don't know much about "race" bindings and from what I did know I thought they had to be mounted on a rail. Looks like these Markers are designed to be mounted to flat skis. Is there an advantage/disadvantage to that? I don't often see anyone talk about these, are they any good?

 

[onenerdykid]

Binding question: Can anyone tell me about the Marker XComp 16 binding? I admittedly don't know much about "race" bindings and from what I did know I thought they had to be mounted on a rail. Looks like these Markers are designed to be mounted to flat skis. Is there an advantage/disadvantage to that? I don't often see anyone talk about these, are they any good?

Proper race bindings don't slide on rails - they get screwed into race plates; not intended to be mounted directly to a ski like an STH2 or Strive binding would. And there usually aren't brake width options, as they are only meant for high performance piste/race skis.

 

[Jeronimo]

Proper race bindings don't slide on rails - they get screwed into race plates; not intended to be mounted directly to a ski like an STH2 or Strive binding would. And there usually aren't brake width options, as they are only meant for high performance piste/race skis.

But the Marker XComp 16's are meant to be mounted directly to the ski?

 

[cantunamunch]

But the Marker XComp 16's are meant to be mounted directly to the ski?

They're meant to go on a Piston plate.

Marker Tech Manual 2023-24

Experience our interactive, profoundly engaging digital publication!

www.nxtbook.com

 

[Jeronimo]

They're meant to go on a Piston plate.

Marker Tech Manual 2023-24

Experience our interactive, profoundly engaging digital publication!

www.nxtbook.com

This page shows them being mounted to the base ski, no plate:

Marker Tech Manual 2023-24

Experience our interactive, profoundly engaging digital publication!

www.nxtbook.com

 

[S.H.]

This page shows them being mounted to the base ski, no plate:

Marker Tech Manual 2023-24

Experience our interactive, profoundly engaging digital publication!

www.nxtbook.com

They *can* be mounted directly to the ski, and they'll perform fine.

But they're *designed* to be on a plate (like all race bindings).

 

[Jeronimo]

They *can* be mounted directly to the ski, and they'll perform fine.

But they're *designed* to be on a plate (like all race bindings).

Ok cool, thank you. Would you be willing to elaborate on your stance on "they'll perform fine"? That's the part that I admittedly don't have experience/knowledge with. Just curious what the short comings or strengths would be of mounting that binding flat to a ski.

 

[dbostedo]

Ok cool, thank you. Would you be willing to elaborate on your stance on "they'll perform fine"? That's the part that I admittedly don't have experience/knowledge with. Just curious what the short comings or strengths would be of mounting that binding flat to a ski.

They'll perform like any other binding. They're not different even if they're intended to be on a plate.

I'm very binding insensitive (they all seem the same to me), so I can't speak to particular strengths or weaknesses. But I have Marker X-Cell 12 race bindings mounted on my Stockli Laser SCs without a plate, and they're great.

 

[Jeronimo]

They'll perform like any other binding. They're not different even if they're intended to be on a plate.

I'm very binding insensitive (they all seem the same to me), so I can't speak to particular strengths or weaknesses. But I have Marker X-Cell 12 race bindings mounted on my Stockli Laser SCs without a plate, and they're great.

Thank you!

 

[Pdub]

Looking for advice on which binding for my new 2025 Nordica Enforcer 94s. Deciding between Griffon and Squire but open to other suggestions. I'm a pretty aggressive skier but at 57 years and 140 pounds, my DIN is 6.5. I've been on Griffons til now, but wondering if I lose anything by moving to Squires. Will the ski perform differently (worse?) with less burly bindings? I do like how the E94s plow through crud! Am I getting too close to the bottom of the Griffon DIN range? Would love to lose the pound or so but not if I'm giving up any performance or safety.
Thanks!

 

[BigSlick]

Pivot

Looking for advice on which binding for my new 2025 Nordica Enforcer 94s. Deciding between Griffon and Squire but open to other suggestions. I'm a pretty aggressive skier but at 57 years and 140 pounds, my DIN is 6.5. I've been on Griffons til now, but wondering if I lose anything by moving to Squires. Will the ski perform differently (worse?) with less burly bindings? I do like how the E94s plow through crud! Am I getting too close to the bottom of the Griffon DIN range? Would love to lose the pound or so but not if I'm giving up any performance or safety.
Thanks!

Look Pivot 12s or Tyrolia/Head Attack 12 GW will be easier to step into than Markers for lighter weight skiers.

 

[Pdub]

Pivot

Look Pivot 12s or Tyrolia/Head Attack 12 GW will be easier to step into than Markers for lighter weight skiers.

Those seem like interesting options but I noticed two things:
1. They are basically the same weight as the Griffons, and I was exploring other options mainly to reduce the overall weight. I have seen somehwere that Pivots have lower "swing weight" but not really sure how that is deternmined and what it affects in various conditions.
2. Both the Pivot and Attack have lower stand heights than Griffons, which I also can't really wrap my head around. Does that improve soft snow perfromance? As the dad of several ex-racers I've been under the impression that more stand height is good for carving high G turns on packed snow. So why is low stand height good, specifically on a 94 mm waisted ski?
3. Didn't they fix the issues with lightweights struggling to step in to Griffons? Marker certainly claims that.

Thanks!

 

[Doug Briggs]

Pivot

Look Pivot 12s or Tyrolia/Head Attack 12 GW will be easier to step into than Markers for lighter weight skiers.

Respectfully, Pivots are never easier to step into. Especially if you are on a pitch of any sort. I concur that the pressure to step into an Attack heel is easier than just about any binding. Marker did change the Royal series heel a bit, but it isn't nearly as easy as the Tyrolia. And GripWalk soles still grip Royal bindings to some degree.

Stand height on wider skis is an interesting issue. The higher the stack, the more you have to move your knee for the same amount of edge angle. A higher stack applies more leverage to engage the edge. On soft snow the ski is in the snow, not just the edge so the leverage isn't required to maintain good hold. A lower stack height is more playful as it is actually is easy to get on and off edges and to play with the angles with less movement of the knee.

My boss is a tried and true racer and puts a plate on everything. He'd put them on powder skis if he owned any. ;-) I don't plate my skis over 75 mm or so.

 

[BigSlick]

Respectfully, Pivots are never easier to step into. Especially if you are on a pitch of any sort. I concur that the pressure to step into an Attack heel is easier than just about any binding. Marker did change the Royal series heel a bit, but it isn't nearly as easy as the Tyrolia. And GripWalk soles still grip Royal bindings to some degree.

Stand height on wider skis is an interesting issue. The higher the stack, the more you have to move your knee for the same amount of edge angle. A higher stack applies more leverage to engage the edge. On soft snow the ski is in the snow, not just the edge so the leverage isn't required to maintain good hold. A lower stack height is more playful as it is actually is easy to get on and off edges and to play with the angles with less movement of the knee.

My boss is a tried and true racer and puts a plate on everything. He'd put them on powder skis if he owned any. ;-) I don't plate my skis over 75 mm or so.

Respectfully disagree, if you can't get into Pivot's in soft snow or a steep pitch, you're doing it wrong. As for the stand height, agree on the ease of skiing bumps, trees and general playfulness. With the Pivot's short mounting footprint you get more natural flex under foot.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Respectfully, if you can't get into Pivot's in soft snow or a steep pitch, you're doing it wrong.

I won't argue the point because I know plenty of people swear by them. I just swear at them. They are admittedly an elegant system. I would (and do) ski an N17 and Nevada on any vintage ski as they work well at release and retention.

I'll admit a part of my dislike is from servicing Pivots. I won't go into the details unless asked.

Gravity, non-level surfaces, loose snow and pivoting heels. Ugh. I don't like finicky bindings. I don't ski Royal bindings anymore either.

 

[Philpug]

Those seem like interesting options but I noticed two things:
1. They are basically the same weight as the Griffons, and I was exploring other options mainly to reduce the overall weight. I have seen somehwere that Pivots have lower "swing weight" but not really sure how that is deternmined and what it affects in various conditions.

Griffon vs. Squire, yes the Squire is a few grams lighter but minimal. If weight is your concern, then bypass the Enforcer and go with a lighter ski, that will be more noticable.

2. Both the Pivot and Attack have lower stand heights than Griffons, which I also can't really wrap my head around. Does that improve soft snow perfromance? As the dad of several ex-racers I've been under the impression that more stand height is good for carving high G turns on packed snow. So why is low stand height good, specifically on a 94 mm waisted ski?

Yes, a narrowerer ski, lift creates leverage. As the ski gets wider, you want to be lower on the ski.

3. Didn't they fix the issues with lightweights struggling to step in to Griffons? Marker certainly claims that.

Thanks!

The Squire can actually be more difficult to get in.