lal_truckee wrote:
Walt wrote:

I actually prefer the flat version to the Motion system, so I sought
out a flat version when I bought my Volkl 5 stars. But I think I'm in
the minority here.

Well, there's you, me, and racer dudes, for in racing it actually
matters that the binding/ski work solidly together. I think it's another
BS gimmick intended to lock people into a manufacturer's product line at
the sacrifice of performance.

There are two things going on here - 1) ease of mounting, and 2) a
technology gimmick. A manufacturer can do 1) by just predrilling the
ski - my last Dynastars were that way: an integrated carving plate with
holes drilled and tapped to mate with Look bindings, no motion rails or
whatever. This makes it substantailly easier for the shop monk^H^H^H^H
techs to slap the binding on the ski.

The technology gimmick - rails, flexy thingees, etc is an experiment
that's still playing out.

BTW, the newer Motion system is firmer and less mushy than the early
ones. I can't say I notice much of a difference now between a flat
mounted binding and one mounted on the Motion rails. I'll leave it up
to the jury to determine if this is a negative or a positive comment.


I don't know why, if the European Union sued the **** out of Microsoft
for bundling media software into their "OS" locking out competitor media
players, that the European Union wouldn't sue the ski companies for
similar bundling of bindings; but they haven't. So far.

M$ has a 90% penetration in the market, so they're subject to monopoly
regulation. Until a ski manufacturer captures 90% of the EU market they
can basically do what they want without running afoul of
anti-competitive regulations.

//Walt