Forget About Keyboards: Do You Prefer Flat Skis or System Bindings?

I saw Nick's post and had to bring the discussion back to skis. Do you prefer buying skis "flat" (with NO bindings or system) or with a system binding integrated into the ski?

It seemed that about 10 years ago the market was going more for the system binding that increased performance on skis. I can remember that my Head Monster iM76's from 2004 had the RailFlex System binding integrated into it, and you had no real choice. I enjoyed the on-trail performance that the combo offered, but the skis weighed A TON.

In 2009 I bought my first new pair of skis in a while and went for the Volkl Tigershark Powerswitch 12.0. Again, a Marker system binding was included and they are FUN on trail for high speed cruising, but they are HEAVIER than my original Monsters were. Forget about powder skiing with these beasts...they sink.

That made me reconsider what I ski and talking with others made me realize that flat skis and bindings had improved considerably. So the next new skis I bought were flat and I bought the bindings separate. Surprisingly, I have found both on and off trail performance to be as good as system bindings, but MUCH lighter. And MUCH cheaper.

So for me, the answer is it depends, but I am leaning back to the flat ski choice.

I dont really have a preference. It depends on what the intention of the skis is. For my carvers I use systems, not because I think they are better skis, but that is what is available.

For a more all around ski, I usually end up with flats. They weigh less, but if you took a stiff carver and put a flat binding on it, i am sure the weight would be comparable.

i am lazy and mediocre, i prefer an integrated binding system.

I prefer flat skis. With the variety of bindings out there, especially for AT, the combinations are endless. There's also the choice of mounting points to change the characteristics of the ski. With the introduction of stout AT bindings that can perform well at the resort but enable you to skin around the side/backcountry, why limit yourself? I have a pair of Rossi B4s which I think may be perfect as a dedicated backcountry set-up. I'm thinking Dynafits for that pair.

flat is phat

I'm probably wrong but seems to me the integrated bindings have a lot of sloppy play or side to side movement. If you stick your boot in it, you can make the boot wobble around side to side a little before it actually makes the ski move. With the flat non integrated bindings it seems there's less to no slop. Seems to me the integrated bindings won't initiate an edge as qucik if you have that play. And no, there's nothing wrong with my skis, I notice all the I.B's do this. And I agree with a previous post, seems the extra weight creates another disadvantage.

Wider skis may have a problem with systems like the railflex. I know this from first hand experience. My Icelantic Nomads had LD12 railflex bindings on the them originally. I would release from them when coming to a hard stop. Head switched them out to RFD12's and this still occured. Actually snapped the heel piece off one ski, so Head finally switched the binding out to a flat binding Mojo 12. Problem gone. I think ski and railflex had a torsional difference which caused the releases for the lack of a better explanation.

Powder/All-Mtn:

JimG. said:

flat is phat

Click to expand...

+1

....on a carver the higher systems have worked well for the few I've used.

my poor knees said:

With the flat non integrated bindings it seems there's less to no slop. Seems to me the integrated bindings won't initiate an edge as qucik if you have that play. And no, there's nothing wrong with my skis, I notice all the I.B's do this. And I agree with a previous post, seems the extra weight creates another disadvantage.

Click to expand...

I don't like the extra weight.
I prefer my feet closer to the snow, I think it improves the feel of the ski as vague as that might sound.
I also believe a flat ski arcs more consistently from tip to tail.

FLAT!

I'll chose the bindings based on my criteria and not some deal and or company alliances. They can keep their junk shows or sell 'em to some clueless putz, i ain't buying it.

Consumer choice is a good thing. And reusing bindings instead of being forced to purchase new bindings is also a good thing. Systems have some performance benefits if all you do is carve hard pack aggressively. I can't imagine there is much benefit for beginners, intermediates, and advanced skiers that don't carve... and there certainly is no benefit for powder and natural snow skiers. If anything, natural snow skiers suffer the weight and stack height penalty. I don't think there are a lot of skiers that get many benefits from systems and as previously noted, modern skis are better than ever for turning without consideration of bindings. For my tastes, flat is the only way to go unless I want a new cheater ski.

Both have pluses and minuses. For straight carving, a system setup works fine. But I find, overall, I prefer a flat binding. Sounds little cheesy, but I can feel what the ski is doing a bit better underfoot. Plus, I find the system setups a bit heavy.

using the Tyrolia railflex system, i get to interchange my bindings amongst 3 sets of skis. also, I take the bindings off for travel so overall it;s a good situation for me.

if i want a new pair of skis, getting them with the railflex plate installed makes it cheaper and easier overall. kind of makes me in danger of buying too many skis though...

as for performance, have not noticed anything negative, being able to slide the bindings forward and backwards is a great help although I seem to ski with them in the rear most setting almost exclusively now. guess I should just have the plate mounted there by default.