Marker Jester "wide hole pattern" = BS

From the advertising hype, I expected to see the holes really far apart.

Got a pair of used skis that had been drilled for Marker Jesters, and was checking to see whether Look Pivots or Salomon bindings would match any of the holes (avoid excessive additional holes). FWIW, the rear holes on the Pivot toepiece match the rear holes on the Jester toepiece, but nothing else lines up...

Anyway, both the Look and Salomon bindings have wider hole spacing than the much-publicized Markers. So what's the big deal? Does the Marker base extend out a lot wider? (and if so, does it matter when the screws are so close together?)

It's True, The hole pattern is about equal (sometimes narrower) than a Rossi (look) or salomon hole pattern (at least in the SAS and STH bindings i've measured). Although the hole pattern isn't truely wider the actually binding chassi I believe is wider. Both the Toe AFD and the brake pad are wider than a "conventional" binding...

Bottom line is that the contact of the binding on the ski is supposed to be wider than the old norm (certainly wider than the marker twincam). If you look carefully at the publicizing of the "wider" jester and duke they never mention a wider whole pattern... just a wider binding interface.

Did you use a micrometer? ;)

And the perceived benefit of a wider binding footprint is ????

I'm assuming less torque on wide waisted skis.
But would that be less torque on the screws or the knees? Or both?

they advertised that they provide less slop, and better energy transfer on wide skis, and i can see how would be true especially on super-fats if the drill pattern was substantially wider, however i wouldn't imagine have wider binding with the same screw width would have any effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nick > jesus

they advertised that they provide less slop, and better energy transfer on wide skis, and i can see how would be true especially on super-fats if the drill pattern was substantially wider, however i wouldn't imagine have wider binding with the same screw width would have any effect

---

Unless the outer edges of the binding lie on the topsheet in a platform-like manner.
However, the increasing width of the skis could influence a revolutionary binding innovation due to a wider area in which to house the release mechanisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

Unless the outer edges of the binding lie on the topsheet in a platform-like manner.
However, the increasing width of the skis could influence a revolutionary binding innovation due to a wider area in which to house the release mechanisms.

---

Unless the binding is designed so the outer edges are torqued down to the topsheet when screwed down and are structural, neither of which are apparent on the Duke through visual inspection - I don't see how it could make much difference if the hole pattern is not actually wider. I vote marketing schtick.

The idea, and the point Splat brings up, is intriguing. Is PMGear going to get into binding design next? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

Did you use a micrometer? ;)

And the perceived benefit of a wider binding footprint is ????

I'm assuming less torque on wide waisted skis.
But would that be less torque on the screws or the knees? Or both?

---

No, I just lined up some extra bindings I have over the top of the Jester holes, to see what matches up.

I would assume that a wider footprint would spread the load more evenly across the ski, but at some width, it probably is a negligible difference. (Engineering types chime in here...)

I do like your idea that perhaps the release mechanism can be reworked to function better if more space is allowed. All current bindings have pretty narrow toes/heels -- with the exception of the Duke/Jester, aren't they all basically the same size body as are on race skis? (and isn't racing R&D where all the money goes for developing this sort of ski technology?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nick > jesus

they advertised that they provide less slop, and better energy transfer on wide skis, and i can see how would be true especially on super-fats if the drill pattern was substantially wider, however i wouldn't imagine have wider binding with the same screw width would have any effect

---

You fail at physics.

While the hole spacing might be about the same wideness, it the actual structural bottompart of the binder (ie. which is in contact with the ski) is wider -> longer arm -> more leverage -> better energy transfer to edges.

Now how much better... good guestion.

Bur for a fact, Dukes and Jesters are wider than my Freerides, FKS or Solly Equipes.

Still, I believe most of the blaa, blaa is just pure marketing shite. But at least this time the marketing shite is on sound physical ground.


And yes, using a wider hole pattern would also create more energy transfer as well as possibly create a stronger connection between the binder and ski (albeit, it would depend on the ski).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

You fail at physics.

While the hole spacing might be about the same wideness, it the actual structural bottompart of the binder (ie. which is in contact with the ski) is wider -> longer arm -> more leverage -> better energy transfer to edges.

Now how much better... good guestion.

Bur for a fact, Dukes and Jesters are wider than my Freerides, FKS or Solly Equipes.

Still, I believe most of the blaa, blaa is just pure marketing shite. But at least this time the marketing shite is on sound physical ground.


And yes, using a wider hole pattern would also create more energy transfer as well as possibly create a stronger connection between the binder and ski (albeit, it would depend on the ski).

---

You're the failure here, dude.

I think Nick was just pointing out that the binding's primary point of contact with the ski is the screw interface, and it'd be difficult in practice to meaningfully change anything without widening the screw pattern.

Also, longer arm = stack height. We're talking about stiffening the interface, which only incidentally increases leverage.

As to Splat's knee question. Stiffening the interface will not be easier on your knees - quite the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

You're the failure here, dude.

I think Nick was just pointing out that the binding's primary point of contact with the ski is the screw interface, and it'd be difficult in practice to meaningfully change anything without widening the screw pattern.

Also, longer arm = stack height. We're talking about stiffening the interface, which only incidentally increases leverage.

As to Splat's knee question. Stiffening the interface will not be easier on your knees - quite the opposite.

---

If the base plate is enginerded correctly then while the screws may be the primary interface between the skis and bindings there should be a(n) (god fucking knows how much) amount of energy being transferred through the baseplate into the ski beyond the width of the screws.

Would it be noticeable? I sincerely doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

I think Nick was just pointing out that the binding's primary point of contact with the ski is the screw interface

---

This here is the problem... as the point of contact is a combo of the screw pattern as well as the base (what I think Marker is calling "10mm wider interface than traditional "race" bindings")... Naturally, the characterises of the base also play a role (flexy piece of plastic -> no real effect; rigid frame with suitable upwards angled beams -> much greater power transfer).

And since when the ski is put on edge, the wider the base plate the better the forces are transmitted. Which is also what I *tried* to point out with a longer arm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

This here is the problem... as the point of contact is a combo of the screw pattern as well as the base

---

Really, though? Tipping your ski involves both pushing down on one edge and pulling up on the opposite edge. Widening the baseplate won't have any impact on the second part, and without an extremely tight binding baseplate/ski topsheet interface and the outer edges of the binding baseplate being structural, the actual impact of the first part is doubtful. I don't doubt the theory, just the practicability of the implementation without widening the screw pattern.

Quote:

---

And since when the ski is put on edge, the wider the base plate the better the forces are transmitted. Which is also what I *tried* to point out with a longer arm.

---

We're all just trying to point stuff out. Nick didn't "fail" any more than you. I thought it was ironic, was all.

I mounted my dukes w/ a Look (I think?) jig, btw. The screw widths lined up perfectly with one of the sets of holes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Really, though? Tipping your ski involves both pushing down on one edge and pulling up on the opposite edge.

---

Yes, the wider platform/base doesn't do squat for pulling the non contact side up... But since the air is vastly denser than the snow, it's something we must focus on...

Of course, most of this babble is just academic, since the real-world advantages of a wider base are pretty non existent... As likwid pointed out.

And yeah, Nick and everyone else is correct that a wider hole spacing would be better.

But again, from a purely scientific point of view, a wider base is better than a narrower one... Which sollies, rossi/looks and about every other binder I've seen has.

The wider binder reduces the load on the mounting screw when edging. (The edge of the binding is the pivot and the further the pivot from the screw the better.) So if you're tearing out your binding then it might help.

If the binding is rigidly mounted to the ski then the energy transfer from you to the edge is the same.

This was pointed out to me by the Salomon and rossi reps that the hole are in fact nearly the same width at the other bindings. I thought about it and if you think about changing from one edge to the other the force is actually being put on the screws and not the plastic or metal edge of the binding if this was the case we would see denting and marks on the edge of bindings from hard use so we can assume the force is being applied to the connection points so the difference with a little extra plastic should be pretty much a crock.

Another example of this is the volkl AC50 this year, its a couple mm wider than last years volkl AC40 and they have included an integrated version of the Marker griffon and claim that the new binding helps you betting control the winder ski. this ski is only 85mm under foot. you'd think a binding meant for wide skis would build for skis 100mm and over or someting

anyone think the wider platform could be to blame for the Duke's appetite for boots? (by increasing torque at boot/binding interface)

No.

5678

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Nick was just pointing out that the binding's primary point of contact with the ski is the screw interface

---

Let me guess...you are one of the people who voted that the plane did not take off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Let me guess...you are one of the people who voted that the plane did not take off?

---

That's funny.

Now where were you trying to go? :confused::confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Unless the binding is designed so the outer edges are torqued down to the topsheet when screwed down and are structural, neither of which are apparent on the Duke through visual inspection - I don't see how it could make much difference if the hole pattern is not actually wider. I vote marketing schtick.

The idea, and the point Splat brings up, is intriguing. Is PMGear going to get into binding design next? ;)

---

No, but it'd be a good project for Jason Levinthal to take on with some K2 funding.
His shot at that acl-proof Line binding was one hell of an effort.

Ya hear that, Jason? Call it the Commando.

I'm guessing they meant wide compared to other touring bindings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoboy

I'm guessing they meant wide compared to other touring bindings.

---

Not even...

It is jsut wider than most of the Previous MARKER efforts, which a lot here seem ot pan for a multitude of reasons... Rossi is a couple of MM wider at each point and STH is about the same as well.

it is jsut hype by Marker, but you all just seem to think that it is better than past Markers...

this coming from a Techno-Geek Telewhacker...

Ira

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ira

It is jsut wider than most of the Previous MARKER efforts, which a lot here seem ot pan for a multitude of reasons... Rossi is a couple of MM wider at each point and STH is about the same as well.

---

True for holes, not for the baseplate.

Unless you believe the plastic baseplate material to be significantly stiffer than the ski core itself, then your reference point for "base width" should be the screw holes.

A wider mounting pattern not only reduces leverage on the screws but also reduces leverage from the mounting point to the edge of the ski, effectively increasing the torsional stiffness of the system. Given that race skis topped out below 70mm, Marker should have used +15mm as their starting point, and preferably would have committed to +20mm for their mounting pattern versus traditional bindings. However, I suspect that the marketing department insisted that the binding fit all current jib/park skis which includes some 80mm models.

Jester is still a solid binding, and a great effort by Marker's US-based R&D team.

its all just marketing speak. The duke is quite a bit more laterally stiff than other touring bindings - but its much more a case of better design concept, than anything to do with the width.