Line Reactor Bindings
12 posts
3 users
3k+ views
KevR
January 21, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Just curious if anyone has seen or skied the new Line Reactor binding which add a pivot pt to the rear binding area to descrease ( or eliminate? ) the deadspot in traditional ski bindings. The deadspot as its called seems to be main culprit in ACL tears.
comprex
January 23, 2005
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Seen it; haven't skied it. I think the folks at Alpine Ski Shop in Oakton have some experience with it.

I remember reading a concern that the small-footprint 4-hole mounting pattern would preclude accurate toe pressure-seemed a specious argument to me at the time, but haven't found anything further.

I would also like a definite yes or no on whether this binding would fit tele binding insert quads such as on K2's Hippy Stinx. Someone on TGR said no, but that was while the binding was still called "Pivogy", 2001 or thereabouts.
KevR
January 23, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
No idea why that would effect anything. the front could be mounted with 1 bolt, as long as it doesn't twist around this bolt, the front should release "accurately..." right? surely they tst this stuff and put to within industry "standards"... anyway, purely interested in the "dead spot" removal aspect for a backwards twisting fall. having now seen a friend take fairly easy fall like this and now be a non-skier due to ACL injury. of course i can't say i've ever fall in that manner but ya never know
comprex
January 24, 2005
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
KevR, just to clarify: I was speaking of the case where the ski is pressured at the tip for turn initiation and bump management, not any sort of release scenario.

Let us know what you find out!
KevR
January 24, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Oh your saying some the bolt pattern effects the bending of ski under load and that a skier can discern this ski to ski? I mean your not saying it, someone suggested it?

anyway -- hate to be a early adopter but then again...
comprex
January 24, 2005
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Quote:

Oh your saying some the bolt pattern effects the bending of ski under load and that a skier can discern this ski to ski? I mean your not saying it, someone suggested it?





I think that, as a general statement, this has been shown to be true. Most pointedly, remember the enthusiasm for turntable bindings because the heelpiece did not extend as far back as on step-in bindings?

The specific question to this case is "What happens when the mounting bolt pattern is significantly shorter than the boot proper?"
Quote:


anyway -- hate to be a early adopter but then again...



Can't blame ya, really.
KevR
January 24, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Hmm, thought I'd replied once. So just to clarify things for me -- the suggesting is that where the binding is mounted on the ski (under the binding relative to the front, back, etc..) and the bolt pattern effects the way the ski bends under load, and that some skiers can detect this while skiing?
comprex
January 25, 2005
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
KevR, yes. There is also a vocal camp that says all this is just marketing BS. Me? I don't know, and I completely forgot which side is ice and which powder on my Marker Selective Control bindings so I just put them in the middle.

Let us know if you get the Lines.
KevR
January 25, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Some people probably can tell and I won't argue with them! I doubt I am one of them but then I've never had the opportunity for a side-by-side test of a ski with a flat spot under load vs one without. I doubt I get up on edge agressively enough to notice but what do i know.

ANYWAY -- as for the LINE. I would really like to read a good solid review of the things first at the very least. I think its self evident to say that they must be a superset of today's binding *release* technology. No doubt they spent a LOT of money trying to make sure that is the case -- but did they spend enough?
Ok -- so that sounded pretty firm but any ideas where they be sold 'round here?
BushwackerinPA
January 25, 2005
Member since 12/9/2004 🔗
649 posts
Friend has 167 chronics with the Reactor 12 binding.

Cons-Heavy
Pros-easy mounting, complimented the skis real nice(best skiing twin tip i have ever been on), DIN can be set lower and it will still stay on your feet, Overall the chronic was the best twin tip and the best all mountain ski i have skied, carved very nice turns(16.0 m sidecut), floats powder and eats crud, great ski that i will own soon.
KevR
January 25, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
The binding or ski is heavy?
KevR
January 25, 2005
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
OK put me in the idiot pile -- i just realized that besides the innovative release mechanism (my interest), it also has an innovate board/binding interface that allows one to easily swap the binding to another ski! (duh!)
SO -- the comment about the 4 bolt pattern had to do with the fact that this is under the boot (in the center of the binding) and not out at the binding ends as is in current technology. (double DUH!)
I don't really understand the "toe pressure" comment then in light of this. I do think one could consider the plate as twisting underload and this might make the release mechanism less accurate than traditional bindings. BUT no doubt they tested for this and the bottom plate is stiff enough to make this a non-factor.
The four bolt pattern might make a small flat spot in the very apex of the ski under load but i can't imagine this would be discernable by anyone really except perhaps the very best skiers (carvers really).
Could be a revolution in the making -- if new binding tech removed most of the ACL/knee injuries in skiing, then the industry will have done itself a big favor, much like the removal of ankle and chin fractures from current binding tech!
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds