Why haven't skis gone to a standard pattern insert for binding like snowboards have??

[ExPowderSnob]

Why haven't skis gone to a standard pattern insert for bindings like snowboards have?? Wouldn't that make sense?

It's annoying to look at a pair of skis on craigslist, and then see they have been mounted twice already. To put my binding on them is going to require moving the mount point far far away from where I want them.

Snowboards fixed this problem with the set inserts, why hasn't skis yet? Or At least commonize the pattern among all the manufacturers (but perhaps re-using holes would be worse then clueless shops that don't respect edge margins when re-mounting....)

How many times do you feel safe remounting bindings? How far off the previous edge pattern do you make sure the new holes are? at least 1.5 times the hole diameter?

[Tye 1on]

maybe part of it is that binding manufacturers haven't standardized their hole pattern?

[pfluffenmeister]

+ pre installed inserts wouldn't allow for preferences in mount points (+/- from "the line") or differences in boot size (<---this).

[El Chupacabra]

Google "Line Reactor" and read up.

That binding had issues.

[Judo Chop!]

Would doing so make anyone any more money?

[sruffian]

yeah everyone loved those dynafits with dynafit inserts for your dynafit bindings why doesn't everyone just play nice?

#1 it's in no one's short term interest
#2 see above
#3 pretty sure the mount points on skis vary more widely than snowboards
#4 see #1

[Doremite]

+ pre installed inserts wouldn't allow for preferences in mount points (+/- from "the line") or differences in boot size (<---this).

End thread

[skimaxpower]

K2 Telemark skis came with inserts for a while. But limited binding options.

It's a chicken/egg issue. No store wants to stock skis that only work with one binding. And no binding mfg wants to re-invent all of their products. Manufacturing processes have inertia.

This is why we're stuck with bullet trains riding on train tracks that are exactly the width of two horses.

[Sirshredalot]

To their credit, Line tried this years ago and it was more or less a disaster for them. But they tried.

[Muggydude]

End thread

What? As long as the width of the pattern is the same for every pair of holes, you'd just move the toe forward one set of holes, and heels forward one set of holes, to move the boot center forward.

Essentially adjust the mount point the same way you can use demos to do so, except demos do it by moving the binding on a track, not moving to a new set of inserts

That being said, inserts would only cause skis to last longer and therefore less demand for new skis

[Bruce Springskiin]

Because bindings on snowboards are not that important, so you can get away with an inferior mount. Have you tried putting some grip tape on your skis and go noboard style.
Gnar points for anyone who does that for gapers day at the end of the season

[cobblehiller]

Essentially adjust the mount point the same way you can use demos to do so, except demos do it by moving the binding on a track, not moving to a new set of inserts

wouldn't just be simpler then to skip your idea alltogether and all of us just go to demo bindings?
Go look in the mirror, smack the guy staring back at you.
YOU have the power to change. Increase the resale value of your skis by putting demo bindings on them.

[Flexon Phil]

Different boot sole lengths. Different binding designs. Different mount points.

[Mustonen]

(1) If faced with an option to buy a ski that has 30 inserts along the binding mount area and a ski that I can drill holes into wherever I want, I'm going to go with the one I can drill holes into. Wouldn't you?

(2) Different mounting patterns mean that if I can't get my mount point exactly where I want to with one make of binding due to hole conflict, there's a good chance I can get there with a different make. Isn't that a good thing?

(3) Skis don't last longer if they have a million inserts. Inserts don't make a ski last longer, period. If they did, that's how we would mount skis. There would be a thread about it: "how to make your skis last longer with inserts." There isn't. Briefly, there was a lot of noise about plates and inserts so you could swap downhill bindings and AT bindings, because downhill bindings sucked so much for AT, and AT bindings sucked so much for downhill. That's been solved (or nearly) by making better AT bindings.

(4) Manufacturers make money by selling skis. It's a finite market with a ton of competitors. If ON3P could sell more skis by putting inserts in them, they'd do it in a fucking heartbeat. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, inserts and standardized mount patterns aren't a thing because there is no demand, not because there is nobody willing to create the supply.

[CaliBrit]

It's really so your average punter can't mount his own fucking skis and keeps him buying at a ski shop which will mount them for him.

[detrusor]

Many race skis have pre drilled holes on the plates for their “brand” of binding. (Dynastars/look). Could be done.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Sirshredalot]

Many race skis have pre drilled holes on the plates for their “brand” of binding. (Dynastars/look). Could be done.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

And the K2 tele inserts and the Line inserts existed. It's not some insurmountable engineering problem: it's the lack of industry coordination on a standard and the fact that drilling the flat ski works well enough for most use cases.

[old goat]

What? As long as the width of the pattern is the same for every pair of holes, you'd just move the toe forward one set of holes, and heels forward one set of holes, to move the boot center forward.

Essentially adjust the mount point the same way you can use demos to do so, except demos do it by moving the binding on a track, not moving to a new set of inserts

That being said, inserts would only cause skis to last longer and therefore less demand for new skis

No they wouldn't. You'd have skis with multiple sets of holes to accommodate different boot lengths and mounting points. More holes means more breakage. Snow boards can tolerate it because the holes occupy a much smaller percentage of the surface area of the board than they would on skis. Also, snowboard binding plates are big enough to allow for multiple slotted holes to match up with the inserts on the board. Ski bindings don't have that option.
The OP doesn't like buying used skis with lots of holes in them; why would anyone want to buy new skis with lots of holes in them.

[WaistDeepGroomers]

The Powell Movement did a great podcast with Jason Levinthal about the Line binding (among other things): http://www.thepowellmovement.com/tpm...ason-levinthal

But yeah I think there's a lot of inertia against it, it's just not THAT needed that everyone is motivated to redesign their shit. I mean, Look/Rossi/Salomon's alpine bindings have basically been unchanged for what, 30 years?

[XXX-er]

I picked up a pair of Atomic Redster double deck FIS GS skis that were predrilled for an Atomic binding and the binding moves back and forth on a track by flicking a switch but it adds stack height /cost /weight ... people don't want any of those things

so a retailer sells a ski, mounts them for nothing, some stoned kid in the basement clamps a jig jig on the ski and zap zap its done. After initial instal (aside from a few fucking dentists on some obscure web site many of whom should not be allowed to own tools ) how many ski buyers will need to move a binding once its on the ski taking into acount all the skis manufactured in the world ?

In comparison snow boarders will need to move the binding around a lot more for their particular stance

[Meadow Skipper]

Would doing so make anyone any more money?

Lots of truth ^here.

[kid-kapow]

i would think that the easiest solution is a center channel system similar to the design introduced by Forum, then bought by Burton. Two mounting screws in each binding piece should then quite easily be able to adequately secure the binding to the ski and provide ample adjustment range to cater to all bsls, or to make it possible to change mount point according to the conditions (more snow, slide bindings back, firm conditions, slide forward). The nice part of such a system is that is likely possible to make it without it interfering with the ski's flex - something most rental systems likely do. Personally, i would love to see that level of adjustability and mounting simplicity become commonplace.

The counter question is though - why would a ski/binding brand add that level of compexity? The current system is pretty much simplified perfection for the original owner. Or it is at least unless he/she suddenly switches boots or bindings, wants to try a different mount point or decides to sell the skis to another person with other preferences/bsl. For a skiing manufacturer to introduce said channel system, the aforementioned issues would need be of sufficient gravitas to be a major issue to most skiers, and not only the second/third hand owners. As it is, i do not think that is the case. Most people. are happy as is.

i would love to see a channel type system be introduced though - hell, somebody probably already did so that i am unaware of - but sadly i have a hard time seeing it gaining wide spread adoption any time soon.

[abraham]

Blizzard did the channel thing

[kid-kapow]

these things?
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...5&d=1479775812

nah, that is really quite different in application, if similar in conceptual aims/goals. The main difference being that the blizzard system utilizes existing binding mount norms, while a channel type system would require a brand new mounting norm for alpine bindings. The Forum/Burton system works very differently, as i am sure you are aware


sorry if i am referring to the wrong blizzard system, and thought "rail" instead of "channel".

[Doremite]

Some rad dogs like Shane need to go duck footed.