Bending LOOK Brakes: For wider or narrower?

[SumJongGuy]

What's the point with brakes on dedicated powder skis? I get that it's a rule but only really useful for carnage on crowded groomers.

[HAB]

so need a brake combination that will accomodate 104s, 118s, and 122s. 95 for the 104s and 130 for the 118s and 122s? 115 for the 104s and 118s and 130 for the 122s? 95 for the 104s and 115 for the 118s and 122s? what say the collective?

95 for the 104s and 115s for the other two

[stealurface831]

95 for the 104s and 115s for the other two

thats what i figured.

[DarthMarkus]

Just go back to leashes and rototill with your skis.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[rightcoast]

Bumping this thread...most likely getting a 85mm waist ski. Better to run 95mm brakes and bend them in slightly?

[burrito]

Bumping this thread...most likely getting a 85mm waist ski. Better to run 95mm brakes and bend them in slightly?

I'm generally coming around to a buy-wide-bend-in mindset specifically for Pivots, but only within reason. 95 brakes on an 85 ski sounds like you might be pushing it considering (if I remember my Pivot measurements correctly) the actual brake clearance on the 95 is more like 102-103mm. That's really wide for an 85mm waist ski.

For modern bindings with brake arm geometry that retracts properly, buying narrow and bending out is almost always the way to go. You can bend out without worrying about the ends of the arms pointing out toward the snow. With Pivots - because the brake arms don't actually retract all the way when you're clicked in - bending out becomes extra dicey. Even with very little bending you've all the sudden got yourself some brake arms just asking to get caught on shit. I've had the same pant-catching issue as the OP, and bent out brakes are particularly annoying and worrisome riding switch.

All that said, buying wide and bending in naturally opens you up to the possibility of catching the wide "shoulder" of the brake arm if you're really trying to lay down a high-angle edge on hardpack (which I would imagine rightcoast is trying to do with an 85mm ski.)

The real solution here is for Look to actually take customer feedback into account for once and rework the geometry of the brake arms. Not the mechanism, assembly, etc. which would require costly investment in complex new tooling - just the bent wire of the arms which would only require relatively inexpensive new bending jigs. Given Look's track record, unfortunately, we all know full-well that will never happen.

[XXX-er]

Bumping this thread...most likely getting a 85mm waist ski. Better to run 95mm brakes and bend them in slightly?

it probably depends on the make of binding

For a wider brake on a narrower ski I toe in the ends of the brakes by bending the arms just where the plastic of the paddle ends which means I probaby gotta pull the arms off the binding and use a vise/ vise grips

The reason I choose to buy wider and bend smaller is cuz IME the sides of the arms sticking out a bit don't catch anything it just the ends of the arms so if I toe them in they don't catch and if i need wider brakes at some point in the future I got em ... but YMMV

[rightcoast]

I'm generally coming around to a buy-wide-bend-in mindset specifically for Pivots, but only within reason. 95 brakes on an 85 ski sounds like you might be pushing it considering (if I remember my Pivot measurements correctly) the actual brake clearance on the 95 is more like 102-103mm. That's really wide for an 85mm waist ski.

For modern bindings with brake arm geometry that retracts properly, buying narrow and bending out is almost always the way to go. You can bend out without worrying about the ends of the arms pointing out toward the snow. With Pivots - because the brake arms don't actually retract all the way when you're clicked in - bending out becomes extra dicey. Even with very little bending you've all the sudden got yourself some brake arms just asking to get caught on shit. I've had the same pant-catching issue as the OP, and bent out brakes are particularly annoying and worrisome riding switch.

All that said, buying wide and bending in naturally opens you up to the possibility of catching the wide "shoulder" of the brake arm if you're really trying to lay down a high-angle edge on hardpack (which I would imagine rightcoast is trying to do with an 85mm ski.)

The real solution here is for Look to actually take customer feedback into account for once and rework the geometry of the brake arms. Not the mechanism, assembly, etc. which would require costly investment in complex new tooling - just the bent wire of the arms which would only require relatively inexpensive new bending jigs. Given Look's track record, unfortunately, we all know full-well that will never happen.

Exactly my dilemma. The pivot arms just go up, not up and in when a boot is in the bindings. You're exactly right about the use of this ski also, would be used primarily on hardpack days out here. I have P14s with a 115 brake that are in great shape, so swapping brakes would be ideal, don't really want to ski another binding. What's the clearance on a 75mm brake??

[burrito]

Exactly my dilemma. The pivot arms just go up, not up and in when a boot is in the bindings. You're exactly right about the use of this ski also, would be used primarily on hardpack days out here. I have P14s with a 115 brake that are in great shape, so swapping brakes would be ideal, don't really want to ski another binding. What's the clearance on a 75mm brake??

Yup. If you really press down hard with your hand on the brake's AFD, they do actually retract in a bit like they're supposed to. Problem is the AFD has to be depressed slightly lower than the outer metal ring to get that action, which means a boot would need an extra little bump out in the exact right spot on the bottom of the heel to make it happen.

The 75s probably clear about 82-83mm, I think. If that's the case, you could just file away a little bit of the brake plastic on each side and avoid any bending at all.