It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
i need new bindings and thinking about getting the tyrolia attack 14. I’ve heard that they’re not as good for skiing and landing switch, so wanted to get more advice on this since I do ski switch a lot.
What is it that goes wrong with these bindings specifically that makes them bad for skiing switch?
I am used to my pivot 15’s but wanna switch to the attacks because I don’t like the heavy weight, and the heel piece hurts to fall on.
really depends on what type of penetration you prefer, the pivot has a much more traditional feel when entering your ass hole due to its classic tried and tru shape. however some skiers prefer the feeling of the attack because of its new age hollowed out design and pronounced head, it really has more texture and offers a tighter fit than the pivot. Because of this it’s up to personal preference but personally i like the pivot better for skiing switch just because i’m more of a set in my ways kind of guy, im not about the new style of binding fucking the attack brings around. up to you tho, lmk
So basically when I was doing research on what bindings to get, I found this thread and I read it here , it’s the first comment in this thread. further down in the comments there’s also more people saying that attacks are bad for switch, but they don’t explain why , so I was just trying to find out why
I had attacks and the brake bent super easily then it did affect me when riding switch. I bent it back a few times but it kept happening I liked the bindings but after 2 years they were shot
How exactly do the brakes bend when riding switch? Shouldn’t they retract above the ski when your boot is in? Are they dragging in the snow?
What else was breaking on them? Maybe attacks are a bad idea to purchase then, with all the issues im reading about
dshilandI had attacks and the brake bent super easily then it did affect me when riding switch. I bent it back a few times but it kept happening I liked the bindings but after 2 years they were shot
Also i read the mounting pattern on tyrolia attacks is wide, compared to the look pivots which has a very small mounting area, which allows for more natural flex of the ski.
would i have more difficulty doing things like tail butters and ollies with the tyrolia attacks, since it has a much wider "dead spot" in the mounting zone
I work at a factory at a large ski manufacturer and I actually have a set of Pivots and Attacks and can tell you that the smaller mounting area of the Pivots is vastly overrated and doesn't make any difference in how a ski flexes. It's actually not the mounting point, but the entire surface area that a binding makes contact with the ski, that determines the 'dead spot' it creates on a ski.
I took a photo to illustrate, you can see that the heel piece of both the Attack and Pivot are almost the exact same length. Pivot is just 2-3mm shorter. Both heel pieces are using a metal baseplate with some stiff plastic. The entire length (red line) is going to be the dead spot on the ski. To give you a conceptual understanding, you can look up photos of snowboard bindings as an example where their marketing is correct. I believe it was Union bindings who created the concept of a mini disc, which actually uses a smaller diameter disc (not just a closer screw mounting point) than the standard size disc to create less of a dead spot underfoot on snowboard bindings.
Also, even if this myth about Pivots screw mounts was true, bindings are mounted so close to the center of a ski that it doesn't matter because almost all skis are extremely stiff at the center of the ski to provide support, and only start flexing as you get towards the tip and tail (i.e. the entire center of a ski is essentially an extremely stiff "dead spot" regardless of where the binding is mounted)
I will say though, Look has done a genius job marketing their heavy and outdated binding. Using terms like small mounting point to claim their binding is the best on the market when in reality that doesn't matter at all.
weatcoastAlso i read the mounting pattern on tyrolia attacks is wide, compared to the look pivots which has a very small mounting area, which allows for more natural flex of the ski.
would i have more difficulty doing things like tail butters and ollies with the tyrolia attacks, since it has a much wider "dead spot" in the mounting zone
**This post was edited on Jul 8th 2024 at 9:53:10pm
**This post was edited on Jul 8th 2024 at 9:56:46pm
JimAppleI work at a factory at a large ski manufacturer and I actually have a set of Pivots and Attacks and can tell you that the smaller mounting area of the Pivots is vastly overrated and doesn't make any difference in how a ski flexes. It's actually not the mounting point, but the entire surface area that a binding makes contact with the ski, that determines the 'dead spot' it creates on a ski.
I took a photo to illustrate, you can see that the heel piece of both the Attack and Pivot are almost the exact same length. Pivot is just 2-3mm shorter. Both heel pieces are using a metal baseplate with some stiff plastic. The entire length (red line) is going to be the dead spot on the ski. To give you a conceptual understanding, you can look up photos of snowboard bindings as an example where their marketing is correct. I believe it was Union bindings who created the concept of a mini disc, which actually uses a smaller diameter disc (not just a closer screw mounting point) than the standard size disc to create less of a dead spot underfoot on snowboard bindings.
Also, even if this myth about Pivots screw mounts was true, bindings are mounted so close to the center of a ski that it doesn't matter because almost all skis are extremely stiff at the center of the ski to provide support, and only start flexing as you get towards the tip and tail (i.e. the entire center of a ski is essentially an extremely stiff "dead spot" regardless of where the binding is mounted)
I will say though, Look has done a genius job marketing their heavy and outdated binding. Using terms like small mounting point to claim their binding is the best on the market when in reality that doesn't matter at all.
**This post was edited on Jul 8th 2024 at 9:53:10pm
**This post was edited on Jul 8th 2024 at 9:56:46pm
weatcoastHow exactly do the brakes bend when riding switch? Shouldn’t they retract above the ski when your boot is in? Are they dragging in the snow?
What else was breaking on them? Maybe attacks are a bad idea to purchase then, with all the issues im reading about
You are over thinking it. Brakes bend and break all the time. For example (if I remember) correctly pivot brakes blow up quite easily if you land switch nose heavy from jumps. Never heard anyone to have other problems with attacks other than the brakes. If they had some serious problems they wouldn't be recomended all the time, especially here.
JimAppleI work at a factory at a large ski manufacturer and I actually have a set of Pivots and Attacks and can tell you that the smaller mounting area of the Pivots is vastly overrated and doesn't make any difference in how a ski flexes. It's actually not the mounting point, but the entire surface area that a binding makes contact with the ski, that determines the 'dead spot' it creates on a ski.
I took a photo to illustrate, you can see that the heel piece of both the Attack and Pivot are almost the exact same length. Pivot is just 2-3mm shorter. Both heel pieces are using a metal baseplate with some stiff plastic. The entire length (red line) is going to be the dead spot on the ski. To give you a conceptual understanding, you can look up photos of snowboard bindings as an example where their marketing is correct. I believe it was Union bindings who created the concept of a mini disc, which actually uses a smaller diameter disc (not just a closer screw mounting point) than the standard size disc to create less of a dead spot underfoot on snowboard bindings.
Also, even if this myth about Pivots screw mounts was true, bindings are mounted so close to the center of a ski that it doesn't matter because almost all skis are extremely stiff at the center of the ski to provide support, and only start flexing as you get towards the tip and tail (i.e. the entire center of a ski is essentially an extremely stiff "dead spot" regardless of where the binding is mounted)
I will say though, Look has done a genius job marketing their heavy and outdated binding. Using terms like small mounting point to claim their binding is the best on the market when in reality that doesn't matter at all.
Hard disagree here. For some reason you are only comparing the two heel pieces when you should be comparing the full length of where the toes and heels mount to the ski. I have two skis here, one mounted for pivots and the other for attacks, both mounted for the same bsl. The attack holes from the front toe screws to the rear heel screws measure out to 41.5 cm. The pivots from front to rear holes measure out to 27.5 cm. This is what will determine the added rigidity from the boot/binding, not the size of the individual binding pieces themselves
Also, even if we were comparing just the heel piece hole patterns, the plastic and metal mounting plate on the pivot doesnt provide much rigidity beyond the screws. If you look at any mounted pivot heel youll see that the plastic piece likely doesnt contact the ski fully on the rear of the heel, and it definitely doesnt in the front of the heel.
The metal plate does lay flat to the ski, but the ~6cm of metal behind the rear holes can still flex plenty with the ski. The 9.5 cm spread on the tyrolia heel screws compared to the 3.5 cm spread of the pivot heel screws contributes way more to the stiffness added by the binding. Heres a video of me putting a flat head screwdriver under the rear of my pivot heel showing that the metal plate flexes beyond the screws. I dont have tyrolias to test anymore, but I guarantee you cant get as much flex out of their heel plates
Paul.Hard disagree here. For some reason you are only comparing the two heel pieces when you should be comparing the full length of where the toes and heels mount to the ski. I have two skis here, one mounted for pivots and the other for attacks, both mounted for the same bsl. The attack holes from the front toe screws to the rear heel screws measure out to 41.5 cm. The pivots from front to rear holes measure out to 27.5 cm. This is what will determine the added rigidity from the boot/binding, not the size of the individual binding pieces themselves
Also, even if we were comparing just the heel piece hole patterns, the plastic and metal mounting plate on the pivot doesnt provide much rigidity beyond the screws. If you look at any mounted pivot heel youll see that the plastic piece likely doesnt contact the ski fully on the rear of the heel, and it definitely doesnt in the front of the heel.
The metal plate does lay flat to the ski, but the ~6cm of metal behind the rear holes can still flex plenty with the ski. The 9.5 cm spread on the tyrolia heel screws compared to the 3.5 cm spread of the pivot heel screws contributes way more to the stiffness added by the binding. Heres a video of me putting a flat head screwdriver under the rear of my pivot heel showing that the metal plate flexes beyond the screws. I dont have tyrolias to test anymore, but I guarantee you cant get as much flex out of their heel plates
You may have heard anecdotes of people breaking flimsier, lower din bindings landing switch...I blew out a pair of squires in early high school landing switch and have heard of the Attack 11s breaking (14s are legit, they handled my 220 lb frame on some hard landings).
Paul.Hard disagree here. For some reason you are only comparing the two heel pieces when you should be comparing the full length of where the toes and heels mount to the ski. I have two skis here, one mounted for pivots and the other for attacks, both mounted for the same bsl. The attack holes from the front toe screws to the rear heel screws measure out to 41.5 cm. The pivots from front to rear holes measure out to 27.5 cm. This is what will determine the added rigidity from the boot/binding, not the size of the individual binding pieces themselves
Also, even if we were comparing just the heel piece hole patterns, the plastic and metal mounting plate on the pivot doesnt provide much rigidity beyond the screws. If you look at any mounted pivot heel youll see that the plastic piece likely doesnt contact the ski fully on the rear of the heel, and it definitely doesnt in the front of the heel.
The metal plate does lay flat to the ski, but the ~6cm of metal behind the rear holes can still flex plenty with the ski. The 9.5 cm spread on the tyrolia heel screws compared to the 3.5 cm spread of the pivot heel screws contributes way more to the stiffness added by the binding. Heres a video of me putting a flat head screwdriver under the rear of my pivot heel showing that the metal plate flexes beyond the screws. I dont have tyrolias to test anymore, but I guarantee you cant get as much flex out of their heel plates
also Phil Casabon skis on Attack 14's and he literally invented butter tricks. so if the binding flex doesn't affect how he skis, then it should be good for everybody.
SessionNobody here is precise enough as a skier to notice how the mount effects a ski flex, most people can't even properly bend a ski.
Got my first set of Pivots last year after 15 years of skiing STH's and Attacks. It's just another binding. But more expensive
weatcoastWord. I’m gonna go for the attack 14’s. Pivots seem overrated based on the advice here and I prefer a lighter binding for the swing weight. Thx all.
You probably won't see too big of a difference in swing weight since the weight is close to axis of rotation or something like that.
Sand down your skis by a few mm and you will see difference in swingweight.
If anything they're better for switch skiing because the brakes are a lot easier to replace than pivots.
And it's so funny that the flex thing keeps being brought up, it's a such a small amount of difference and 95% of everyone here will never be able to feel it
maaatttIf anything they're better for switch skiing because the brakes are a lot easier to replace than pivots.
And it's so funny that the flex thing keeps being brought up, it's a such a small amount of difference and 95% of everyone here will never be able to feel it
