Ski "feel" differences FKS/Pivot 14 vs. 18

[glademaster]

I've skied both of these bindings, and while I'm always drawn to the 14 DIN version on paper for it's lighter weight and multi-directional toe release, my experiences on snow leave me feeling like the 18 DIN metal toe just skis better. Maybe it's the additional weight or that the toe piece is laterally stiffer, but I notice less deflection and better feel/feedback on snow and terrain variances with the metal toe.

Has anyone else who has been on both of these bindings (ideally on the same ski) experienced this, or noticed any appreciable difference in the way these two bindings ski given the different toe pieces? I'm always torn because I typically ski with my DIN set around 10, so I don't need the higher DIN version, but it seems to ski better and transmit power more efficiently than the FKS 14.

Discuss.

[auvgeek]

Maybe it's a ramp angle thing? Did you use the shims that come with the 180? IIRC, the ramp angle on FKS 14 is 0, but the 180 starts at 4mm delta and you can put either a 2mm or 4mm toe shim under it. (Numbers off the top of my head, and could be entirely wrong.)

Is it a verifiable fact that the 180 doesn't have a vertical release? Pretty sure that's a myth...

[Skirotica]

I have both. I have an old school blue Pivot 18 and a new FKS 140 (black). I don't notice a whole lot of difference as I haven't run them both on the same ski (15mm difference between the two skis). And i simply have no feel.
But I can tell you, when I tried to chop that tree down with my face, the multi-directional toe on the 140 was critical to my skiing out of the mess. I turned it 90* in the fall (in ways i didn't even know it turned. So i'm pretty partial to the forgiveness.

I can vouch for ramp angle. MY 18's ride lower in the toe than the 140's. That may play a large factor in your feel.

[whyturn]

I have the 14 now on my Ren 196, had 180 on my Ren 186. I do notice some of the busting through feeling. however, I also agree with multi-directional as I had some weird falls/accidents on 140 where if it had been the 1850 might be a different outcome.

The heavier toe is more stable, but also is not as quick in ski jump type turns.

[auvgeek]

Can someone please explain what you guys mean by "multi-directional toe release?" Does that just mean vertical toe release (in addition to the lateral that all modern binders have)? If so, I'd love to see evidence that the FKS 180/P18 toe doesn't have a vertical release. Obviously, it doesn't split in half like the 140, but I'm like 95% sure it releases vertically by pivoting. (I can actually feel it rotate laterally and vertically now that the DIN is turned down for the summer.)

Another big consideration is that the 180 now comes with an option for a 130 mm brake. No more bending!

[glademaster]

The ramp angle isn't causing the difference in feel. I'm aware of the difference, and while I prefer some ramp angle, it's easy enough to adjust to the 0 degrees of the P14.

I'm under the impression that the only way to release from a P18 toe is along a flat, lateral plane (i.e. twisting left or right out of the toe). To me, it doesn't seem like you could release upward out of the toe, unless the entire toe piece was to slide forward, and I don't see how an upward force would make that happen.

The metal toed version seems to ski more powerfully to me, it would be nice if it had the same release range/capability as the plastic toe.

[auvgeek]

To me, it doesn't seem like you could release upward out of the toe, unless the entire toe piece was to slide forward, and I don't see how an upward force would make that happen.

Or if the toe piece rotates about its transverse axis enough for the boot's toe welt to slip out....which I tried to imply above.

From bc.com product description:

Pivot toe provides four points of contact with the boot for maximum power transmission, has 180-degree multi-directional release for reliable release, and high vertical and lateral elastic travel for increased shock absorption and reduced inadvertent release

Also, discussed in this old thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...p?t-40797.html

[whyturn]

from Rossi site

FKS140 = 180 degree multi-directional Dual action race toe piece, 7 contact points with the boot for a maximum power transmission.
Pic reflects upwards release, so does 180. I asked Rossi and sent an email for them to clarify. My impression was 180 did not have upward release

[Flexon Phil]

I've skied both of these bindings, and while I'm always drawn to the 14 DIN version on paper for it's lighter weight and multi-directional toe release, my experiences on snow leave me feeling like the 18 DIN metal toe just skis better. Maybe it's the additional weight or that the toe piece is laterally stiffer, but I notice less deflection and better feel/feedback on snow and terrain variances with the metal toe.

Has anyone else who has been on both of these bindings (ideally on the same ski) experienced this, or noticed any appreciable difference in the way these two bindings ski given the different toe pieces? I'm always torn because I typically ski with my DIN set around 10, so I don't need the higher DIN version, but it seems to ski better and transmit power more efficiently than the FKS 14.

Discuss.

What you are feeling is accurate. I have skied both on my Bonefides and there is a difference. This is one of the reasons I like the FKS155, not the huge DIN of the 18 but the single pivot toe. I still think a single pivot toe is the best design, be it a Look or Salomon.

[bean]

now that the DIN is turned down for the summer

This does absolutely nothing beneficial. Theoretically it could actually increase fatigue but it's so infinitesimal (if it's even non-zero) that it shouldn't even be considered.

[XavierD]

There is no vertical release in the toe of the 18 din all metal single pivot toe (current pivot18/fks180). It is however a very dynamic toe piece and in my opinion skis better than the full drive toe on the 14. Which can release in 180 degrees.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Rossignol disagrees with you
http://www.rossignol.com/index.php?_...:d68hw7w73hg1g




iirc, which I might not, the whole toe pivots 180 on the pintle mount like a 912/14. Or maybe it only goes up as it goes sideways?

[whyturn]

I was waiting for a follow up email after I got this yesterday from Rossi:

Hi,

The illustration on line is misleading. The FKS 180 works off of a pivot where the whole toe piece moves. The FKS 140 has moveable toe wings only. Both bindings provide the same 180 degree multidirectional release, just in different ways. Also the FKS 180 has an all metal housing for the toe piece.

I hope that this help s you.

Thanks for your interest in Rossignol bindings.



Annie McMullen

The Rossignol Group

Rossignol, Lange, Dynastar & Look

annie.mcmullen@rossignol.com



Check out cool gear at:

www.rossignol.com

www.dynastar.com

www.langeskiboots.com

[XavierD]

I want to see That single pivot toe release vertically. Untill then, I am going to call bullshit on Rossi's claim... Won't be the first time a company 'misspoke' about their product.

[DoWork]

I want to see That single pivot toe release vertically. Untill then, I am going to call bullshit on Rossi's claim... Won't be the first time a company 'misspoke' about their product.

Dude... The FKS/pivot toes have been out forever and it makes total sense to reduce the amount of small moving (and breakable) parts in an all-metal extra-beefy version. Why you would think a specifically designed feature on one of the best bindings of all time would be a load of bullshit I have no idea.

[XavierD]

Because they did not 'feature' vertical release for the last 10 years or so.

[Dave Marshack]

Wow maybe this is last nights shrooms talking nut you guys put way too much thought into this. Plus the 18 has vertical release, you just have to be a burly enough skier to break it.

[DoWork]

Because they did not 'feature' vertical release for the last 10 years or so.

Fwiw, techmollogies are like wicked awesome and stuff. Also, a decade is a long time for it to be out with no alarms going off afaiac.

[auvgeek]

Also, discussed in this old thread: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...p?t-40797.html

Since nobody seems to have read this link I dug up for you guys, I'll pull out the salient points: according to gwat, the pivot toepiece is based on the old Look ZR toe, which evolved from the Look 3D toe that, as the name implies, was specifically designed for 3 directions of release (left, right, and up). The name 'pivot' came because the toe piece is essentially a ball socket, so it can swivel in any direction. This makes sense to me - I can actually FEEL the mechanics in my toepiece with the DIN turned down (regadless of whether turning the din down is a good thing or not).

So the FKS/Pivot 18 din toe has always had vertical release. But this is just from my research. I'd love to hear a counter argument if that's not the case.

[huge-go]

The toe piece definitely releases in all directions. At one point I was convinced it didn't have it too, but then I turned the DIN down all the way one summer and noticed the whole toe piece can pivot forward. If anyone wants to prove it to themselves, just turn the DIN all the way down on their own bindings and fiddle with them, and you'll see it rocks forward as well as turning sideways to release.

[capulin overdrive]

Interesting stuff here.


Guess i haven't noticed a deference in how they ski. I was thinking i'd go with 14's over 18's on my next skis, i'm only set at 12 and they're a little cheaper.


I've had a toe spring work loose on an 18, and my theory is that i was set too low and it worked loose because of the low spring tension? May have just been a fluke, or shop guy forgot to set it when mounting, but figure i surely double checked?

[Ted Striker]

I think this debate started because there used to be bindings with pure vertical release, i.e. straight up. When I worked in a shop we had a bunch of vintage bindings on our wall. There was a Geze toe that had two release mechanisms - lateral and vertical - and had separate DIN settings for each. When I did a google image search, it returned a nice pic of the binding I'm talking about, and not surprisingly, it was from an epic thread where a former Geze employee chimes in to talk physics/biomechanics, and some TLDR rant about something or other.

I‘m speculating here because it was before my time, but I think when that style of toe was discontinued by Geze and Look (who also made Rossignol's bindings) people started saying that the next generation didn’t have vertical release. (because they didn’t have the straight up function)

Fast forward __? number of years, and Look merged with Geze. Fast forward a few more, and Rossignol bought Look/Geze. They streamlined their product line to two toe mechanisms: the Geze toe with wings that all current Rossi/Dynastar/Look bindings (except the 18 DIN) are based on, and the ball joint (Pivot 18/FKS 180, FKS 155, any of the old “3D” etc).

If you back-off the spring on any of the Geze style toes, you’ll see that the wings can pivot up, and if you back-off the spring on the ball joint toes, the housing will tilt forward, so they both have some amount of upward release. The question is really can the boot lug get past the housing of the ball joint style toes without twisting? And if it can, how much force is required? I'd pull the spring on mine to find out, but they aren't mounted right now.

This does absolutely nothing beneficial.

As far as the spring goes, backing-off or not is a moot point. It is engineered to withstand a minimum of 2x the binding’s life. But I disagree with the idea that it does nothing. When the binding was new, it was full of grease. After years the grease dries up and /or gets washed away. Occasionally turning that screw will prevent it from getting stuck.

[Flexon Phil]

I think this debate started because there used to be bindings with pure vertical release, i.e. straight up. When I worked in a shop we had a bunch of vintage bindings on our wall. There was a Geze toe that had two release mechanisms - lateral and vertical - and had separate DIN settings for each. When I did a google image search, it returned a nice pic of the binding I'm talking about, and not surprisingly, it was from an epic thread where a former Geze employee chimes in to talk physics/biomechanics, and some TLDR rant about something or other.

I‘m speculating here because it was before my time, but I think when that style of toe was discontinued by Geze and Look (who also made Rossignol's bindings) people started saying that the next generation didn’t have vertical release. (because they didn’t have the straight up function)

Fast forward __? number of years, and Look merged with Geze. Fast forward a few more, and Rossignol bought Look/Geze. They streamlined their product line to two toe mechanisms: the Geze toe with wings that all current Rossi/Dynastar/Look bindings (except the 18 DIN) are based on, and the ball joint (Pivot 18/FKS 180, FKS 155, any of the old “3D” etc).

If you back-off the spring on any of the Geze style toes, you’ll see that the wings can pivot up, and if you back-off the spring on the ball joint toes, the housing will tilt forward, so they both have some amount of upward release. The question is really can the boot lug get past the housing of the ball joint style toes without twisting? And if it can, how much force is required? I'd pull the spring on mine to find out, but they aren't mounted right now.



As far as the spring goes, backing-off or not is a moot point. It is engineered to withstand a minimum of 2x the binding’s life. But I disagree with the idea that it does nothing. When the binding was new, it was full of grease. After years the grease dries up and /or gets washed away. Occasionally turning that screw will prevent it from getting stuck.

Those pictures are from my collection. I played with some ZR and 155 toes last night. I lowered the DIN's to the point where I could see how the upward release was. I was able to see the upward compensation. I have yet to put a boot in the binding and flex it back enough to get a boot to release but I could see the action being there. This goes back to the post Sensor toe starting with the short lived XRC toe then ZR3 (3-9 DIN) model. The XM pictured in the Epic thread lasted just 2 years IIRC.

[Flexon Phil]

I can't believe I killed the thread. It was getting interesting.

[auvgeek]