Pivot vs SPX

[Shorty_J]

Can someone tell me why pivots get all the love SPX are like a red-headed stepchild?

Same toe piece so I assume the same elastic travel as the pivot, i.e. almost as good as you can get... And the heel mechanism seems at least similar in function to the pivot, and different than a lot of other bindings from the other manufacturers.

The manufacturer says 27mm of elastic travel in the heel...
https://www.look-bindings.com/produc...-gw-b100-black

... Which is pretty much the same as the pivot according to the blister binding review...

https://blisterreview.com/gear-revie...-binding-guide

It seems to me they are pretty much the same bindings but with a slightly different heel mount pattern, more subtle (if more finicky) forward pressure adjustment, and the fact that changing brakes is trivial on the SPX.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[kc_7777]

I don’t think I know that much about bindings. But I always buy a mix of Pivot 15s or 18s or STH 16s. Got some Duke PT 16s I’m pretty happy with too.

Is this the reason?….

Pivot 15/18 = metal

SPX = plastic




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Shorty_J]

Is this the reason?….

Pivot 15/18 = metal

SPX = plastic




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Do you specifically mean the heels?

Both the SPX and the pivot used to be available with the 15/18 toe piece (i.e. less plastic but also less elasticity according to blister). But the SPX 12 has the same toe piece as the pivot 12 and 14.

From my Google searches lately it looks like you can only get that 15/18 toe in race oriented bindings that fit on tracks... But it's not clear to me why that might be other than marketing.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[TAFKALVS]

It's not a bad binding but the short footprint and less finicky forward pressure of the Pivots is nice. Plus the SPX is a pretty heavy binding to a comparable Pivot.

[Shorty_J]

It's not a bad binding but the short footprint and less finicky forward pressure of the Pivots is nice. Plus the SPX is a pretty heavy binding to a comparable Pivot.

SPX is more finicky forward pressure than pivot?

I would have thought the opposite is true..
but you can probably dial in the pivot more than the SPX (with it's hard stops).

Also I have heard reference to the short footprint being a good thing on the pivot but not sure I understand why. Do you mean the small mount profile of the heel (on its own... 4 holes close together) or the shorter distance between the toe holes and the heel holes?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[1000-oaks]

I picked up some Rockerace 15 race bindings I'm going to try. They seem like the best of both worlds; metal toe, lighter heel, wormscrew forward pressure, and mount that's just as short as Pivot. They say they have to be used with race plates, but I'm not seeing why that would be. Maybe they're worried about recreational skiers falling and knocking the heels sideways, which could break them (unlike a Pivot that can turn and take impacts). But if you don't fall much, I'd think they'd be fine.

[Shorty_J]

I picked up some Rockerace 15 race bindings I'm going to try. They seem like the best of both worlds; metal toe, lighter heel, wormscrew forward pressure, and mount that's just as short as Pivot. They say they have to be used with race plates, but I'm not seeing why that would be. Maybe they're worried about recreational skiers falling and knocking the heels sideways, which could break them (unlike a Pivot that can turn and take impacts). But if you don't fall much, I'd think they'd be fine.

Ok that's good to know ... I thought rockerace bindings required a plate... But you are saying they have normal length screws?

Have you eyeballed up the ramp angle without a plate?

What brake width?

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[SirVicSmasher]

The pivots weak point is that all heel screws are close together making it easier to snap the ski.

The px heel weak point is that you only have to rip two screws out of the ski and the heel will slide out of the track with 2 screws still embedded in the ski.

I've done both and I'm officially done with the px. Inconsistent release with the px was the main factor for me.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

The pivots weak point is that all heel screws are close together making it easier to snap the ski.

The px heel weak point is that you only have to rip two screws out of the ski and the heel will slide out of the track with 2 screws still embedded in the ski.

I've done both and I'm officially done with the px. Inconsistent release with the px was the main factor for me.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Ok Im listening.

But you didn't get inconsistent release with the pivot?

I have no horse in this race.... I'm just trying to figure shit out and would like to know.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[toast2266]

Pivots have the shortest mount pattern. Lets the ski flex more naturally. I'd heard this for years and always kinda thought it was bullshit, but then I remounted a well used / known ski with pivots, and sure enough, the ski's flex was noticeably more "round" and natural. I like it.

I'm not a super die hard "pivots or nothing" kind of guy. But given the option, I'll take pivots.

[Shorty_J]

Pivots have the shortest mount pattern. Lets the ski flex more naturally. I'd heard this for years and always kinda thought it was bullshit, but then I remounted a well used / known ski with pivots, and sure enough, the ski's flex was noticeably more "round" and natural. I like it.

I'm not a super die hard "pivots or nothing" kind of guy. But given the option, I'll take pivots.

Good perspective... Thank you.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[SirVicSmasher]

Ok Im listening.

But you didn't get inconsistent release with the pivot?

I have no horse in this race.... I'm just trying to figure shit out and would like to know.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

I can count the amount of times I've released out of pivots on one hand. Px probably 2 hands and one foot

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[SirVicSmasher]

The fwd pressure on px can be finicky too I've had some heels that wouldn't stay in adjustment. And the spx line I've had so weird shit with the toes on the plastic SPX to the point where I'll never ski a plastic toe binding again unless it's on some demos

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

I can count the amount of times I've released out of pivots on one hand. Px probably 2 hands and one foot

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Thanks for elaborating... Appreciate the input.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Bandit Man]

How about this (from the Look website):

“a turntable heel piece to support releases in line with the tibia”

[gregL]

Personally I would love to see a non-race version of the Rockerrace 15/18 (designed to mount flat, no plate). And while they're at it, it would be great if they made it a Multi-Norm compatible toe so I could use ISO 9523 soles in it.

[Bosco]

This from Looks website about the Rockerace 15:

It's only compatible with ISO 5355 A ski boots and skis equipped with an R22 plate.

Also, the stated brake width is <80.

[Lord Thomas]

Personally I would love to see a non-race version of the Rockerrace 15/18 (designed to mount flat, no plate). And while they're at it, it would be great if they made it a Multi-Norm compatible toe so I could use ISO 9523 soles in it.

Yes, this and uses the same brake as the PX/SPX. Oh yeah, and a pretty modest delta.

[burrito]

As far as I know the SPX heel is the descendant of the old PX heel, which doesn't rotate. It only has upward release. The genesis of the Pivot and the SPX existing in the same line, to my recollection, happened like this:

- Look creates the original Pivot heel and pairs it with an updated version of their innovative "Nevada" toe. They're awesome, especially for their time.

- Some time in the late 90s/early 2000s Look tries to make a updated version of the Pivot heel that's a little cheaper and easier to adjust. They retained some, but not all, of the rotating elasticity of the original Pivots, and the heel piece slid along a more traditional track, giving the new Pivots more BSL adjustment than the originals.

- These new Pivots are a disaster. The heels, being made almost entirely of plastic, broke incredibly easily. They exploded and/or ripped off the track so often that I had any number of friends that just hoarded parts and frankenstein-ed their bindings together every time something new broke. They also had a forward pressure mechanism that was as bad, if not worse, than the original Pivot heel. It was not at all unusual to have to check your heels every so often to make sure they were still in the right place on the track after a hard landing or two.

- In response to the royal fuck up of the new Pivot Look makes the "PX" series, which ditched the rotating heel altogether in the name of more traditional/powerful track and forward pressure mechanism. They were marginally more durable than the redone Pivots, but they still kinda sucked. Personally I think I warrantied three pairs in four years or something like that, but they were cheap and easy to get your hands on - which made PXs pretty successful commercially, I assume. The PXs also had an extremely long mounting pattern due to position of the forward pressure mechanism.


- Somewhere around that same time Look quietly brings back the original Pivot as their top of the line race option.

- The original Pivots slowly regain a larger and larger following and become the face of Look again.

...

- Then it gets kind of murky for me as I stopped paying attention to anything in Look's line other than the Pivots.


From the looks of it the SPX is a re-skinned PX with a few different toe options. Are they likely any better or worse than another brand's mid-line option, probably not? But they are definitely not, nor were they ever intended to be, a takedown of the Pivot.

[FlimFlamvanHam]

How about this (from the Look website):

“a turntable heel piece to support releases in line with the tibia”

This is not directed at you, but in response to that claim. It certainly is in line with the leg bones, but the heel does not release laterally, like all (may as well say all) alpine bindings, so the lateral release is at the toe. The toe travels ~30 to ~50mm depending on binding before it is released. Go get a boot and mirror a lateral toe release (move the toe sideways 30 to 50mm) over whatever binding you have and tell me that the Pivot heel makes any bit of difference at all when it comes to your heel pivot point in such a release. If one's toe had to travel much further to release then maybe there's be a benefit but it would have to be a pretty extreme amount.

The heel elasticity upwards is a selling point but me thinking that my Pivots have held me in when kissing my tips when other bindings would have let go is probably all in my head.

I love the 5mm delta on the older alpine AFD's of the 18's and 155's otherwise would happily use the 14's. Delta is a huge issue for me. You? I think all recent/current Pivots alpine AFD's provide a 2mm delta. Not sure what the SPX is but guessing ~6mm?

I've never stepped into an SPX15 heel but hope it's not like the 12 which I found to be very plastic-y and also requires more force than a Griffon (pre '21) to step into. The heel design is same a Griffon single pivot so this is no surprise. Griffons feel much nicer than the SPX12 stepping into them FWIW.

Mount area of Pivots is very small and the selling point is more natural ski flex. But that ski area under the boot flexes so very little and the little it does is accommodated by the heel of any alpine bindings since all heels have some movement (ie: see when you're setting forward pressure). Racers are doing SL and GS stacked up on plates without Pivots and making it work but us mortals need more natural ski flex?

Metal Pivots are heavy. Personally, I'd rather have boot and binding heft removed, if possible, and added to my skis. Pivots are expensive and that only adds to their desirability. They are super trendy now. The brakes suck. They are industrial art.

In the end they are bindings and all bindings do the same thing and should release test the same, but I do believe there is something to that heel release elasticity. Enough to pay their premium over any other binding?

[DarthMarkus]

I think a few people have already hit on some points. I'll add my 2 cents though:

It has already been said, the pivot is NOT a lateral release. However, given that it does rotate, it arguably should get in the way less in the event that you need to release laterally out of the toe; because it can rotate with the tib/fib in the event of a twisting release. I would argue that it is a safer binding for the release alone, but there's another factor that I believe is also playing a part.

When you're getting a lot of energy in short bursts into a binding, there needs to be some play. Because the pivot allows that force to be distributed into the spring loaded arms, that would-be energy is distributed into the elastic travel in the horizontal plane of the binding. Compare that to a binding that only has vertical elastic travel in the heel, and in my mind, that energy only has one direction to translate into: the vertical travel/release. I'll attest the my experience is usually a prerelease in the heel. On every other binding I have used, I always adjust my heels to a higher release setting - except the pivot. I would also make an argument that that horizontal elastic travel also keeps me connected to my ski better because I'm not creating distance between my boot and ski in the vertical aspect as much. Now take my anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt.

Add into that list a couple other advantages and potential disadvantages: 1) short mounting pattern on the heel only creates a deadspot underneath the boot, instead of extending past it. 2) short mounting pattern doesn't create a sort of leverage arm that a binding with a longer mount pattern might - potentially limiting how much power you can rebound into the ski between turns. 3) short mounting pattern squeezes the torque generated from you > ski in a much shorter length of ski compared to a bigger pattern, which would be a higher potential to break the ski.

Last thoughts: there's a reason almost every mogul skier uses pivots. There's a reason racers don't use them. There's also a reason racers use additional plates on their skis. There's an advantage and disadvantage to both.

Tldr; the lateral elastic travel in the heel of a pivot is what makes the big difference.

I also stand that the best binding is the STH toe and pivot heel. I may just do it this year. Will post pictures and reports if I do.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[toast2266]

Another thing to add is that if you want a Cast setup, you're on Pivots. And if you want a tour-able binding that's also a no-compromise inbounds binding, Cast is one of the very few options.

[Shorty_J]

This is a more interesting discussion than I anticipated.

I think there are a few seperate things at play here... There are people who swear by the benefits of the toepiece and those that swear by the heel.

Let's assume the metal 15/18 toe is better than the 12/14 toe. I don't charge as hard as many here and have zero problems with my plastic toes to date, but I haven't tried the metal toe so there's that.

The heel is interesting to me. I don't think there is any rotational "elastic" travel in the heel... Does it return to straight after a crash? I could buy into the benefit of of allowing your tibia to rotate out of the heel from a safety perspective, but the elasticity there is in the toe, right? Plus, if that's a good thing, why do mogul and freeride skiers want that and why don't racers?

Plus, as I posted above, the elastic travel in the heel of both pivots and SPX are almost the same, and both are better than the specs of any other heel piece that I know of. That combined with the second best toe elasticity makes me wonder why I can barely give away a pair of SPX bindings I had been trying to sell but STH and Warden and Royal Family bindings seem to go for more $$$ used.

The reason I asked the question is that I want to remount a pair of skis and miscalculated on hole conflicts on the bindings I bought. I don't love the idea of buying another set of bindings and then remembered I have this SPX lying around that I can't sell and there are no hole conflicts. And then I started researching both and that's what spawned this thread.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[Shorty_J]

Wait.... Maybe this is a dumb question but...

Isn't the elasticity in the pivot vertical only in origin? The heel isn't on a track so all you're really doing is moving the heel to the point where the pivot mechanism behaves like it should... Vertically. There are no springs in the arms, right... Just the heel itself? Isn't this actually vertical pressure not forward pressure?

But on the SPX (and almost every other binding) I move the heel on a track to set forward pressure. So there should be play forward and back within that track, and vertical elastic travel in the heel.

Wouldn't the SPX allow more natural flex because it can move back out of the way of your boot when the ski flexes?

I'm not disregarding the personal experiences of those who have posted above but this confuses me.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

[HAB]

Wait.... Maybe this is a dumb question but...

Isn't the elasticity in the pivot vertical only in origin? The heel isn't on a track so all you're really doing is moving the heel to the point where the pivot mechanism behaves like it should... Vertically. There are no springs in the arms, right... Just the heel itself? Isn't this actually vertical pressure not forward pressure?

But on the SPX (and almost every other binding) I move the heel on a track to set forward pressure. So there should be play forward and back within that track, and vertical elastic travel in the heel.

Wouldn't the SPX allow more natural flex because it can move back out of the way of your boot when the ski flexes?

I'm not disregarding the personal experiences of those who have posted above but this confuses me.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

The turntable assembly has a spring that handles that same function. The whole dildo, arms, and rotating portion of the turntable all move.