Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Splat's Garage
    Posts
    3,297

    Question Why come ski technology changed very much?

    Look bindings look the same as they did 20 years ago.

    So have boots for the most part.

    Can any manufacturers comment on why hard goods technology hasn't changed very much in the last 20 years?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,787
    Because the LOOK turntable is the greatest alpine binding ever conceived.

    Boots? Looks are deceiving, tons of not noticeable changes in boots.
    what's orange and looks good on hippies?

    fire

    rails are for trains
    If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for problems caused by the government I'd be a rich fat film maker in a baseball hat.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    560
    Skis have changed a lot even in the past few years. Have you seen a boot liner from 20 years ago?

    You kind of have a point with bindings. Both look and solly bindings are very similar to those 20 years ago- but then again that's only 2 brands.

    I'll let someone else do the honours....
    My drinking buddies say i have a skiing problem...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,195
    Lucky you.
    You can outfit yourself with 20 yo skis/boots/bindings for the price of a bottle of tequila.
    Try them out and write a review.
    picador

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    righthere/rightnow
    Posts
    2,343
    Because when you achieve perfection in a design not much will change. Just look a bike frames, the same geometry for decades because it works.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Park City transplant
    Posts
    157
    Some things have stayed the same - but then we have tech bindings now...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,023
    Anyone remember those Raichle's that would literally break in half? Yeah, me too.
    Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    6,089
    Burly touring bindings? Burly touring boots with tech fittings? Touring boots that weigh less than 3lbs, walk like mountaineering boots and ski pretty darn well? None of those things existed 10 years ago.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,357
    Why come no tech talk, JONG?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Snowttingham
    Posts
    784
    you dont piss in your livingroom do you? no you do it in the wc,
    same goes for tech talk here you JONG

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by mud View Post
    Because when you achieve perfection in a design not much will change. Just look a bike frames, the same geometry for decades because it works.
    This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,760
    I dunno, it sure seems like it's changed a lot since I started skiing in the 80s. If anything it was real stale for a long time until fat skis came around.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    348
    Socks have changed a lot though.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    retired
    Posts
    12,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Hott Butt Mud View Post
    Look bindings look the same as they did 20 years ago.
    So have boots for the most part.
    dude, do you think the modern plastics/nylons (PU, PE, Grilamid, Triax) and carbon (rester, vulcan, dodge) are even REMOTELY similar 1-2 year and done crack-machines from 20 years ago? go try on a salomon sx92 or nordica synergy and try to drive your 110mm everyday skis.

    between salomon 747s, look zr's, and dynafit bindings, well, bindings were perfected basically, but expect some really cool binding developments to be actualized in the next 5 years (see trab tr1 as an example).

    ski construction is the next frontier. basically sitting on 1957 howard head technology now for high performance skis.
    go for rob

    www.dpsskis.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In the mountains
    Posts
    114
    Part of the problem is no one is willing to pay $10,000 for a pair of skis. Thermo formed Contentious Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics (CFRT) are the future, it's just too bad that raw PEEK is still $100/lbs. When you and 10,000 of your friends are willing to plunk several thousand down for a pair a skis will you see some different technology.

    And Marker MRRs were the greatest binding ever made.
    "I'm looking pretty good, don't you think?" - the other says "watching you ski is like watching a retarded monkey rollerblade on a gravel road"

    www.majesticheliski.com

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,975
    Why come you know speaka de ingles?

    Sent from my cell phone. no, a cell phone.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    264
    I am up to my third (and possibly final) draft of the skis I am planning to have built. They are called speedboards and have some very interesting innovations, which should give them the ability work well (if not great) in powder, groomers, park and pipe. Many of you guys wanted something for the pow...

    I am not sure if they're patentable though, need to think it through.
    http://heartcarve.com -- session progression

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,023
    No one wants to ski your snowlerblades fagknob!
    Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd View Post
    No one wants to ski your snowlerblades fagknob!

    Go away stalker.
    http://heartcarve.com -- session progression

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,975
    he's right, you know.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    he's right, you know.
    Really, who is he?
    http://heartcarve.com -- session progression

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    19,975
    He's right. I told you.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Crystal Mountain backcountry, WA
    Posts
    1,363
    I just don't agree with the OP's premise. Held a pair of Dyanfit Mercury's in my hand to-day and the difference between those and even a 5 year old AT boot is amazing.

    I mean a boot is always going to look like a boot...even medieval boots look pretty much the same as modern boots- at least superficially. Form follows function... a boot will always look bootish,
    heel, sole and upper.
    What we need is personal jet packs or backpack helicopters or jet boots to get us to the goods. Like this.

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Levitation_boots
    TGR Bureau Chief, Greenwater, WA

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Udapimp
    Posts
    578
    go spock go in sx70 rentals
    rear entry will return in the 23rd century!!!


    till then the light weight and flex/adjustability of the latest AT boots are whole different animal than my tr9s


    ps learned to ski steeps in sx81s and loved my sx91e house slippers to death
    embrace the gape
    and believe

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Splat's Garage
    Posts
    3,297
    I think all of you need to look at ski technology from a higher perspective. Skis, boots, bindings, poles--all basically the same.

    Why have we not created a ski binding hole pattern that is transferable (like snowboard bindings)? I know this has been attempted, but it really should be the norm by now.

    Why are boots the way the are? Could they be more reliant upon a binding for connection to the ski?

    Also, I'm kind of wondering why ski poles have been essentially the same? I completely understand the purpose of the ski pole, but because it is there with the skier at all times, why not incorporate some other added benefits?

Posting Permissions

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