FKS/Pivot hole pattern changes over the years

[coskiguy]

How much (if any) has the the FKS/Pivot 18 mounting hole pattern changed over the last 5 years? Has the pattern gotten wider? It seems like all bindings are moving in that direction for improved control/energy transfer to the wider skis.

For the record, I am hoping to buy and mount a pair of either 12/13 FKS 180s OR 14/15 FKS 180s in my quiver killers that were quiver killed for 13/14 Pivot 18 and I want to be sure that the hole patterns match up before I pull the trigger.

[glademaster]

The pattern hasn't changed on the Pivots. Wide hole patterns for "control/energy transmission" are pretty much bullshit.

[mntlion]

been same for about 1,000,000 years

[coskiguy]

haha i figured it was a marketing gimmick. Good to hear that there are no changes. Thanks.

[Knut]

Wide hole patterns for "control/energy transmission" are pretty much bullshit.

I wouldn't agree with that.

The "footprint" of a binding is quite essential for a binding's stability. It's not necessarily the hole pattern alone, but the baseplate of the binding, how well it sits on the ski and redirects the forces is crucial as well.

The FKS is fine because the heel's base plate is quite sturdy and provides support on the ski well beyond the srews' positions. Additionally, the base plate's location way forward under the foot and the heel's construction help to transmit the forces so that the narrow heel mounting pattern still works.
Still, in my personal experience, the FKS is more prone to problems, when one screw hole isn't 100%, than other bindings.

And a wide footprint and wide mount pattern can be very beneficial, when a less stiff frame and higher leverages come into play. Especially frame-based touring bindings can benefit substantially from a wide mount pattern.

So, no. It's not pretty much bullshit.

[Cocximus]

I wouldn't agree with that.

The "footprint" of a binding is quite essential for a binding's stability. It's not necessarily the hole pattern alone, but the baseplate of the binding, how well it sits on the ski and redirects the forces is crucial as well.

The FKS is fine because the heel's base plate is quite sturdy and provides support on the ski well beyond the srews' positions. Additionally, the base plate's location way forward under the foot and the heel's construction help to transmit the forces so that the narrow heel mounting pattern still works.
Still, in my personal experience, the FKS is more prone to problems, when one screw hole isn't 100%, than other bindings.

And a wide footprint and wide mount pattern can be very beneficial, when a less stiff frame and higher leverages come into play. Especially frame-based touring bindings can benefit substantially from a wide mount pattern.

So, no. It's not pretty much bullshit.

How? A less stiff frame will have the whole ski torquing it no matter where the screws are. The weak point will flex. A wider mount pattern could prevent [B]lateral[/B ]force from pulling out the screws, but the lateral leverage is way smaller than the longitudinal leverage, so I really doubt the mount width would do shit.

[Mustonen]

I wouldn't agree with that.

The "footprint" of a binding is quite essential for a binding's stability. It's not necessarily the hole pattern alone, but the baseplate of the binding, how well it sits on the ski and redirects the forces is crucial as well.

The FKS is fine because the heel's base plate is quite sturdy and provides support on the ski well beyond the srews' positions. Additionally, the base plate's location way forward under the foot and the heel's construction help to transmit the forces so that the narrow heel mounting pattern still works.
Still, in my personal experience, the FKS is more prone to problems, when one screw hole isn't 100%, than other bindings.

And a wide footprint and wide mount pattern can be very beneficial, when a less stiff frame and higher leverages come into play. Especially frame-based touring bindings can benefit substantially from a wide mount pattern.

So, no. It's not pretty much bullshit.

Wait, you actually think the boot/binding interface is stiffer than the ski/binding interface?

Any perceived benefit (outside of binding pullouts) derived from mount pattern lives entirely in your head.

Think it through.....

[skimaxpower]

Although the mounting pattern has not changed in the past decade, way back in the day, the FKS/Pivot style bindings could be found with three-screw "Geze" toe mounting pattern. None of these bindings are indemnified any more, but you can still mount them with the template Jondrums made.

Oh, and "wide" mounting platforms are industry BS. Whatever. I doesn't do any harm, but I'm happy to roll with 15 year old Salomon 916 bindings on modern wide skis.

[Knut]

How? A less stiff frame will have the whole ski torquing it no matter where the screws are. The weak point will flex.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. If the frame of the binding gets softer, it will make the ski torque more? So by the binding getting softer, the ski becomes the weaker point?

A wider mount pattern could prevent [B]lateral[/B ]force from pulling out the screws

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

but the lateral leverage is way smaller than the longitudinal leverage

I beg to differ. I think it's actually the other way around. The pull force from lateral leverage on the binding screws is way higher than the longitudinal. Due to leverage.

Wait, you actually think the boot/binding interface is stiffer than the ski/binding interface?

Ehr? Nope. Why should I think that??

Any perceived benefit derived from mount pattern lives entirely in your head.

Let me turn this around: would you mount and ski a binding that has a mount pattern of 3-4 screws in one line along the ski's midline? Probably not.
So the width of the mount pattern does play a role and a certain with is needed. How much depends crucially on how the rest of the binding, especially the base is constructed.
The base post of a Pintech race ultraligh heel with its 3-screw mounting pattern wouldn't last a day when used for a burly alpine binding with a stiff boot on a wide ski.

The flange between binding and ski needs to withstand the forces produced during skiing. This can be achieved by a narrow mount pattern and a solid, sturdy base to achieve a strong force lock or by a wider mount pattern, when the latter isn't as sturdy.

So when it comes to durability as well as power transmission, the sturdiness of the system ski-binding is quite important. The mount pattern is just one element of achieving that and a narrow mount pattern can nonetheless lead to a sturdy and durable connection.
In this sense the overall construction of the binding is way more important than the width of the mount. But by no means is a wide mount generally nonsense.

Why is a Marker Tour so much stiffer than a Fritschi Titanal? Because of the overall stiffness of the binding and how the forces produced by the boot get transmitted in a rather direct, lateral way onto the wide base with its wide mount pattern. While the Fritschi is pivoting around rather central force transmission points (in which it flexes) and then transmits the forces onto a rather narrow footprint. The Marker would still be stiffer than the Titanal when using the Titanal's mount pattern. But it would be more prone to flexing, thus more wear and tear, especially on the base plates, damage and screw pullout.
On the other hand, there seems to be no real noticeable performance difference between the normal Marker Tour and the EPF with the wider mount. Nor would the Fritschi Titanal benefit much from the Marker Tour mount pattern, if nothing else would beBecause the overall construction of the binding is decisive.
But that doesn't mean that wide mount patterns are generally bullshit.

(outside of binding pullouts).

That's actually quite essential, too. And I was referring to that as well.

but I'm happy to roll with 15 year old Salomon 916 bindings on modern wide skis.

sure. The Solly mount is solid. But it's actually neither really narrow nor burdened with soft or weak base plates/constructions, as some binders are. That's exactly what I wanted to point out. The mount pattern is only one part of the equation.

[Mustonen]

blablablabla .... we agree on potential binding pullout benefits .... blablablabla

Right. This is a thing, on a limited basis. I've broken pivot bindings before, but never had a pullout, even when one or more screws were spinners. What percentage of binding mounts fail due to pullout? Anecdotally, not enough to justify the expense spent on the marketing bullshit.

blablablabla .... power transmission .... forces transmitted by the boot ... why would I think that?.... blablablabla

Bullshit. It fails or it doesn't.

If the boot/binding interface is stiffer than the ski/binding interface, then incremental (and tiny) improvements in the ski/binding interface would potentially yield some benefit in power transmission. This is not the case.

[Knut]

If the boot/binding interface is stiffer than the ski/binding interface, then incremental (and tiny) improvements in the ski/binding interface would potentially yield some benefit in power transmission. This is not the case.

That's an incredibly simple view on things. Just because one interface is stiffer than the other doesn't mean that improving the stiffer one cannot benefit the system overall.

[Mustonen]

That's an incredibly simple view on things. Just because one interface is stiffer than the other doesn't mean that improving the stiffer one cannot benefit the system overall.

Maybe, but that improvement has fuck all to do with power transmission, at least in any meaningful way.

[Damian Sanders]

LOL. So salty.

It should be noted that the 16 din bindings using wide baseplates are nearly all plastic and about 5 lb or less. The Pivot and S916 use narrower, metal baseplates and are 5.5 lbs and 6.5+ lbs respectively. So clearly, you can build a light binding out of plastic and make it stiff, if you make it wider.