Why Didn't Skis Ever Go The Route Of Binding Inserts

Inserts pretty much dictate where you can mount a binding....so for like a FKS might not make much sense...unless you apply the inserts where you want and then the binding...but seems like a higher margin for them pulling out. Just some thoughts

line tried, but the bindings that they made were pretty easy to break so they stopped

Ever hear of the line reactor binding? The idea was one binding for all your skis. for one or two seasons most, if not all Line skis came pre-drilled. The whole thing failed pretty hard, as the bindings were notoriously heavy and tended to explode.
That being said, I know a few people who drill inserts into their skis so they can switch out bindings.
I would never do it as due to the amount of torque put on my skis, it is too easy to strip out inserts, and if the inserts rip out of the ski, the ski is pretty much done, whereas if just a screw rips out it can be repaired.

Binding freedom/quiver killer.


To the guys saying they are scared of ripping out inserts, they have a higher holding strength than just a screw in the ski...what scares you about them?

It would require all the binding companies agreeing either a universal mounting pattern or agreeing some sort of mounting plate system, increasing the overall stack height, which I believe wouldn't take with the current trend of looking to minimise stack height.
As we've seen with how long it took for Salomon/Atomic to develop the shift (7 years) the idea that there could be any quick change in an industry that has seen little real innovation in the last decades is fanciful.
Look how much support their is for the Pivot (pun intended), a binding which basically hasn't change in 20 years. Nobody is really pushing for innovation.
From the binding producers perspective, there is simply too much invested in current binding designs & moulds and with the strictness of certifications for there to be any movement toward a new system.
The fact that freeskiing has needed bindings which doesn't explode brakes when releasing in switch since '98 on the 1080 and hasnt seen any real solution, makes it unlikely there will be any change soon. I think we need that first before universal mounting.

Profahoben_212Binding freedom/quiver killer.


To the guys saying they are scared of ripping out inserts, they have a higher holding strength than just a screw in the ski...what scares you about them?

I have had heli coils rip out of skis as frequently as screws. I guess if the inserts were built into the ski rather than glued in they would work better. The main concern is if the insert does rip out it isn't really worth repairing as it takes so much of the ski with it. It also means you are stuck with one hole pattern, unless you want multiple inserts. It could be cost prohibitive for me to have to buy the same binding if I were to wreck a binding.

I think a realistic opportunity for some small ski companies that do semi custom skis (on3p?) would be to offer t nut installation for a customer specified binding/location prior to pressing.

skiP.E.I.Ever hear of the line reactor binding? The idea was one binding for all your skis. for one or two seasons most, if not all Line skis came pre-drilled. The whole thing failed pretty hard, as the bindings were notoriously heavy and tended to explode.
That being said, I know a few people who drill inserts into their skis so they can switch out bindings.
I would never do it as due to the amount of torque put on my skis, it is too easy to strip out inserts, and if the inserts rip out of the ski, the ski is pretty much done, whereas if just a screw rips out it can be repaired.

I think Kung Fugas came with that for a season or two as well, they were pre drilled for marker bindings

I think snowboards can do this because of their width when using the rail system. A rail system like that on a ski might cause too large of a stress concentration to be safe.

mattm7I think Kung Fugas came with that for a season or two as well, they were pre drilled for marker bindings

K2 did the Schizofrantic system for awhile, which was a system where you could move your bings forward or back on the ski. This was kind of in the style of the Salomon pivot tech, where they integrated a hinge system into the core to eliminate the flat spot underneath for better carving. Mostly it was a good way to guarantee that every new ski sale was also a new binding sale at the shop.

I think the Line Reactor might be the single reason why this never caught on. One company tried it once over 10 years ago and forever it will be condsidered a terrible idea.

I always wonder this. Or they put heli coils in the ski then they put the screws in. That way 2 things have to go wrong for the binding to rip out, vs. just one thing (the screw just ripping the wood)

Has to do quite a bit about strength of the ski. A hole in the a surface will weaken the ski quite as bit. Even if they are reinforced with metal inserts. I cant remember the formula to calculate the reduction in strength; if any engineers here remembers it would help a lot. I do remember doing the calculations of strength of materials course a long time ago.

The other problem I can think of is slacking screws. On a snowboard, once in a while, you have to retighten the screws or the bindings would shake loose. Sure you got Loc-tight, but it was a problem I delt with when learning to board.

I don't see inserts ever working on skis. There's just a lot more adjustment needed to fit boots to skis. On a snowboard you can fit small, medium, or large bindings using the same holes but a 25.5 and a 26.5 boot require a totally different mount. The Line Reactor used inserts plus micro adjustments to accommodate different ski boots. So it was basically just an overcomplicated demo binding. If anything, I'd like to see a rail/demo style binding system that doesn't suck.

-eREKTion-a 25.5 and a 26.5 boot require a totally different mount.

Most bindings' heel piece can adjust back and forth and one mondo size will not require a different mount.

they did.. its called system bindings and can be found on pretty much every recreational ski. If you check out race skis, the plates are on the ski and are pretty much exactly what you are looking for as well. Once you get into the more specialized skis it becomes more custom so the tried and true system of drilling and mounting stayed.

freeskibum82they did.. its called system bindings and can be found on pretty much every recreational ski. If you check out race skis, the plates are on the ski and are pretty much exactly what you are looking for as well. Once you get into the more specialized skis it becomes more custom so the tried and true system of drilling and mounting stayed.

I work in a shop so I'm around system bindings all the time but imagine if they were done better. Excluding Burton EST specific bindings, snowboard bindings are universally compatible. I think it'd be interesting to see very low profile rails with standardized dimensions attached to all skis. Binding manufacturers could then design bindings to be compatible with these rails. Ideally, the rail system would eliminate a lot of the problems associated with system bindings like; cross-compatibility and stack height. A mini-rail system would make it easy to buy one set of bindings to use across multiple pairs of skis, just swap the brakes and move the bindings over.

No standard hole pattern by bindings.
No standard boot sole length by boot size (allowing same mounting hole when boot change happens).
No standard plate that could fit all bindings and is low enough to the ski to ski well.
No standard adjustability for binding.
Frequent selling of skis.
Frequent boot changes.
People...growing.
Massive shift of liability onto ski manufacturers.

The variables are vast. Even a manufacturer our size would be looking at a sizable increase in our liability insurance to touch anything related to mounting bindings. Skis alone are a nightmare. Anything binding related is the King Kong of liability risk.

Could we offer it as a custom option? Yes. But...given the amount we would make off it as a custom option, even at a large fee, I doubt it would offset both the liability risk and the inconvenience to customers who change boot, change binding, or eventually sell their skis.

For full transparency, we've talked about it for years. I don't believe we could make enough money on it, given the scale of our custom business, to offset the liability risk. As such, the idea has always been a nonstarter.

Edit to add - Never say never. Just not something that appears on the horizon.

**This post was edited on Aug 20th 2018 at 12:59:32am

iggyskierNo standard hole pattern by bindings.
No standard boot sole length by boot size (allowing same mounting hole when boot change happens).
No standard plate that could fit all bindings and is low enough to the ski to ski well.
No standard adjustability for binding.
Frequent selling of skis.
Frequent boot changes.
People...growing.
Massive shift of liability onto ski manufacturers.

The variables are vast. Even a manufacturer our size would be looking at a sizable increase in our liability insurance to touch anything related to mounting bindings. Skis alone are a nightmare. Anything binding related is the King Kong of liability risk.

Could we offer it as a custom option? Yes. But...given the amount we would make off it as a custom option, even at a large fee, I doubt it would offset both the liability risk and the inconvenience to customers who change boot, change binding, or eventually sell their skis.

For full transparency, we've talked about it for years. I don't believe we could make enough money on it, given the scale of our custom business, to offset the liability risk. As such, the idea has always been a nonstarter.

Edit to add - Never say never. Just not something that appears on the horizon.

**This post was edited on Aug 20th 2018 at 12:59:32am

If somebody started it and it wasn't complete shit it could catch on? I get that when things are a certain way they don't necessarily change. Just been wondering about this for 15 years or so. If it doesn't impact the safety and ride of the ski then there might be some hope. Even in a wild world sometimes a "standard" of some sort being brought in can get things more regulated. With the holes and the pattern on the bindings you can dial in pretty specific spots on a snowboard. I didn't know how much was lying in actual problems and in things just are done a certain way.

I bought my own insert kit and installed my own

good question. if mounting skis started this way 30 years ago, then maybe all bindings would have the same mounting points. but there goes some competition and diversity among bindings. shoulda coulda woulda

I feel like this was/is a giant mistake by the ski industry. I think one of the huge benefits to snowboarding is being able to have one pair of bindings for multiple boards and be able to quickly and easily change it out yourself. Sure the bindings need to be tightened every few days out but that is certainly nicer than paying $50 or $60 to have a pair of skis mounted. Somehow the snowboard industry was all able to get on the same page about this, too bad skiing isnt the same way. There are plenty of intelligent people in the industry I am sure they could figure something out.

theabortionatorIf somebody started it and it wasn't complete shit it could catch on? I get that when things are a certain way they don't necessarily change. Just been wondering about this for 15 years or so. If it doesn't impact the safety and ride of the ski then there might be some hope. Even in a wild world sometimes a "standard" of some sort being brought in can get things more regulated. With the holes and the pattern on the bindings you can dial in pretty specific spots on a snowboard. I didn't know how much was lying in actual problems and in things just are done a certain way.

It would depend on who. Are you talking shared hole patterns from ski bindings that scale up by size? If you could get that sort of cohesion, sure. In the meantime, though, you have vast hole differences between a FKS vs STH vs Griffon vs Attack 13, etc.

As things currently stand, the logical solution would be some sort of plate set up that could be swapped out (like exists on some recreational and race skis now, though that are generally limited to one type of binding - usually the same brand that makes the skis). The most analogous example in the real world that can fit multiple parts would be the Glock MOS set up that allows for different RDS, with different hole patterns, to be swapped out on the same pistol slide. Same concept could work on skis.

Not without some ill affects, though. First, any sort of plate will raise the binding stack height. Plate would have to be very low to really work. That equals less thread depth though, which could be a problem for binding retention. Second, any sort of plate will alter the flex pattern of the skis. Third, as the plate interface would then be the binding connection, the plate supplier would then be taking on the majority of the liability risk. Fourth, it would require almost total change over within the product run and truly a large push within skiing to make happen.

That scenario would look like this.

We would have a standard hole pattern in the skis. This would be fixed across all skis.

Someone (could be us, could be someone else) would then sell adapter plates that would have fixed to-ski mounting holes, but various holes for patterns. So you would have like a FKS Small, FKS Large, STH Small, STH Large, etc.

Plate would then be bought by need and could be swapped out with bindings across skis, or could be left on and just have the bindings moved.

Again, this would come with significant liability risk and financial cost.

That would be the easiest/fastest way to bring some sort of in-ski T-Bolt option. I believe Jason had a unique solution to this with his Reactor binding, which was to just have holes in the center of the ski. Again, would require standardization of the binding itself to accomplish though. Maybe he can chime in as I am sure he has far more insight into this than I do just through conjecture.

Anyway, with snowboarding, because 1) they don't have to release and 2) boots don't have to fit to within a very tight tolerance, you can get away with a more standard system. The way ski bindings and snowboard bindings scale are very different.

If you had a consolidation of ski bindings - say a scenario where a new binding came out that vastly changed knee safety, or a consolidation of the market where you had brands going away....then maybe you can get a system in place where you have a set hole pattern in skis, but at this current time, the variables are vast.

One other thing is that....holes in skis are not a good thing if you are buttering or skiing a lot of park. You wouldn't want a scenario where you have a hole pattern that can go to say....335, but you are skiing at 305 and you have holes that might remain outside the binding platform. Those holes are weak points and would be more susceptible to breaking then if they were not there.

Again, lots of factors. There are logically, liability, and financial reason this doesn't currently exist.

skibum_markI bought my own insert kit and installed my own

One other thing. This tech already exists on the consumer end. Inserts can solve this problem and are readily available.

re: Plates, too. I know some options like this exist in the market, but they don't currently sync with inserts already set in skis. That would take this another step forward.

iggyskierNo standard hole pattern by bindings.
No standard boot sole length by boot size (allowing same mounting hole when boot change happens).
No standard plate that could fit all bindings and is low enough to the ski to ski well.
No standard adjustability for binding.
Frequent selling of skis.
Frequent boot changes.
People...growing.
Massive shift of liability onto ski manufacturers.

The variables are vast. Even a manufacturer our size would be looking at a sizable increase in our liability insurance to touch anything related to mounting bindings. Skis alone are a nightmare. Anything binding related is the King Kong of liability risk.

Could we offer it as a custom option? Yes.

[/b]
I know you know more about skis than anyone on here. So let me ask this. Why don’t shops just make it standard or maybe with an additional cost to mount by doing this: they drill the holes, then they put heli coils in each hole, then put the binding in. That way the screw is holding onto more metal (at least I think the heli coils are metal), instead of wood. And wood can obviously rot. This way, if the binding ever rips out, 2 things have to fail. The grip from the screw on the coil, and then the grip from the coil in the ski. Or would it mess with the ski flex?? I’m sure you can come up with an explanation for whether this would be a good or bad idea. I’ve just always wondered it.

weastcoastI know you know more about skis than anyone on here. So let me ask this. Why don’t shops just make it standard or maybe with an additional cost to mount by doing this: they drill the holes, then they put heli coils in each hole, then put the binding in. That way the screw is holding onto more metal (at least I think the heli coils are metal), instead of wood. And wood can obviously rot. This way, if the binding ever rips out, 2 things have to fail. The grip from the screw on the coil, and then the grip from the coil in the ski. Or would it mess with the ski flex?? I’m sure you can come up with an explanation for whether this would be a good or bad idea. I’ve just always wondered it.

Many shops already offer the installation of inserts as an available service.

As for offering inserts as a standard option, what's the value add for the customer and what is the price they are willing to pay for that value?

Adding inserts to skis is considerably more work then just mounting skis, and while stronger, as a percentage, the number of ski mounts that fail is low (I am sure it well less than 1% of total ski mounts).

What it comes down to for the shop is a value proposition. In any sort of environment where you are cycling (say ski mounts, where volume is the primary revenue factor), anything that adds additional cycle time must be looked at as a value-add-proposition. Basically, what are you offering to a customer than adds value they are willing to paying for.

For, say, a 200 lbs park skier, inserts in a park ski might offer quite a bit of extra security over a stock mount. The shop, to take the time to offer those inserts for them, has to charge for it, and from what I've seen, they charge a lot (I've seen pricing around $100-200 range for inserts). That is their determination on the value it takes to offer that service. So, the reason it isn't standard is there is a lot of time and labor that goes into it, and shops have determined that value of offering that service is high.

So...

Are inserts stronger than a normal mount? Yes.
Are they worth it for most people? Probably not.
Do they hurt the flex of the skis? No, unless they are outside the binding platform.
Do they hurt the resale value of the skis? Yes, but that is on you.

If you pull out a lot of bindings, and ski your skis to death with no goal of reselling, insert away!

The idea of putting inserts in standard is neither a good or bad idea. It's contingent on the value the customer is willing to pay the shop to provide the service. Whether or not you need that service is up to you.

weastcoastI know you know more about skis than anyone on here. So let me ask this. Why don’t shops just make it standard or maybe with an additional cost to mount by doing this: they drill the holes, then they put heli coils in each hole, then put the binding in. That way the screw is holding onto more metal (at least I think the heli coils are metal), instead of wood. And wood can obviously rot. This way, if the binding ever rips out, 2 things have to fail. The grip from the screw on the coil, and then the grip from the coil in the ski. Or would it mess with the ski flex?? I’m sure you can come up with an explanation for whether this would be a good or bad idea. I’ve just always wondered it.

I've had a few skis heli coiled and my experience has been that it is hard to remove the screws from the heli coils after they have been in there a while, and that the Heli coils rip out of the ski as easily as screws, but leave a gaping hole that can't be fixed.

I still have one of the inserts from the old Line Skis bindings (that were heavy AF) on a key chain.... I LOL every time i notice it.

iggyskierMany shops already offer the installation of inserts as an available service.

As for offering inserts as a standard option, what's the value add for the customer and what is the price they are willing to pay for that value?

Adding inserts to skis is considerably more work then just mounting skis, and while stronger, as a percentage, the number of ski mounts that fail is low (I am sure it well less than 1% of total ski mounts).

What it comes down to for the shop is a value proposition. In any sort of environment where you are cycling (say ski mounts, where volume is the primary revenue factor), anything that adds additional cycle time must be looked at as a value-add-proposition. Basically, what are you offering to a customer than adds value they are willing to paying for.

For, say, a 200 lbs park skier, inserts in a park ski might offer quite a bit of extra security over a stock mount. The shop, to take the time to offer those inserts for them, has to charge for it, and from what I've seen, they charge a lot (I've seen pricing around $100-200 range for inserts). That is their determination on the value it takes to offer that service. So, the reason it isn't standard is there is a lot of time and labor that goes into it, and shops have determined that value of offering that service is high.

So...

Are inserts stronger than a normal mount? Yes.
Are they worth it for most people? Probably not.
Do they hurt the flex of the skis? No, unless they are outside the binding platform.
Do they hurt the resale value of the skis? Yes, but that is on you.

If you pull out a lot of bindings, and ski your skis to death with no goal of reselling, insert away!

The idea of putting inserts in standard is neither a good or bad idea. It's contingent on the value the customer is willing to pay the shop to provide the service. Whether or not you need that service is up to you.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Thx for the response too. Also, 1 more question:
So shops put wood glue in the hole before they put the screws in. And dried wood glue hardens. Therefore it could crack (from flex of the ski) and water has the chance of getting in. So wouldn’t it make more sense to use some type of caulking, or some type of rubbery seal, so that when the ski flexes it doesn’t get all broken up? The wood glue would probably crack under some pressure, where as the silicone or whatever it is would just get squeezed together? The reason I ask is because I know my shop put in wood glue, and a bunch of the holes still rotted out towards the middle of the season but thankfully the binding didn’t rip out. (I think 3 or 4 rotted holes on each ski, some in toe peice, some in heelpeice).

I hope all that makes sense. My point is shouldn’t shops use something soft instead of something hard and rather brittle?

weastcoastThat actually makes a lot of sense. Thx for the response too. Also, 1 more question:
So shops put wood glue in the hole before they put the screws in. And dried wood glue hardens. Therefore it could crack (from flex of the ski) and water has the chance of getting in. So wouldn’t it make more sense to use some type of caulking, or some type of rubbery seal, so that when the ski flexes it doesn’t get all broken up? The wood glue would probably crack under some pressure, where as the silicone or whatever it is would just get squeezed together? The reason I ask is because I know my shop put in wood glue, and a bunch of the holes still rotted out towards the middle of the season but thankfully the binding didn’t rip out. (I think 3 or 4 rotted holes on each ski, some in toe peice, some in heelpeice).

I hope all that makes sense. My point is shouldn’t shops use something soft instead of something hard and rather brittle?

Just spit balling here but I think the main advantage of wood glue is that it bonds well to wood. While the glue may be brittle, and the screws and core come under tension I would think that there shouldn’t be enough movement to break those bonds in normal conditions. Hard to say why you had your specific problem if glue was applied properly, but somehow moisture got in there enough to decompose the wood. That sucks.

weastcoastI hope all that makes sense. My point is shouldn’t shops use something soft instead of something hard and rather brittle?

Any shop I've seen mount skis hasn't used wood glue, they used some kind of light epoxy. I use marine epoxy for mounting bindings and doing ski repairs. It isn't very flexible, but is waterproof and provides good adhesion.

My understanding of the wood glue vs epoxy mount is about what happens in the pull out.
An epoxy mount is a stronger connection but the majority of people will be fine with a lower cost, less work wood glue mount. Also when an epoxy mount pulls out it's the wood around the mount which fails before the epoxy, meaning a bigger hole unlikely to be able to be helicoiled.
So for the majority, the weaker mount which can be more easily fixed is the better option. If you want your skis mounted with epoxy, most techs would happily do it for you, especially if you provide the glue and for the same price as a regular mount if you sweeten it with a 6er of beers