# More responsive (edge to edge) binding. Now Recon or Flux TM/XF



## snowman55 (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm looking for another responsive (edge to edge) binding. Responsive bindings I currently own are Targa, Flow NX2 and I used to own the Capo but didn't like the feel so I sold it.

I'm looking at Now Recon and Flux TM or XF. Out of those, which is more responsive edge to edge? 

I plan to use the new binding on Nidecker Area, Flow Darwin (2013) and Enigma.

Thanks.


----------



## dwdesign (Mar 30, 2011)

snowman55 said:


> I'm looking for another responsive (edge to edge) binding. Responsive bindings I currently own are Targa, Flow NX2 and I used to own the Capo but didn't like the feel so I sold it.
> 
> I'm looking at Now Recon and Flux TM or XF. Out of those, which is more responsive edge to edge?
> 
> ...


Sorry cannot answer any of your binding questions...

Want to know if you have ridden the Area and Enigma... your thoughts? Am interested in those as capable carving and pow deck(s). Sorry for the side track, but am curious.


----------



## snowman55 (Feb 17, 2012)

dwdesign said:


> Sorry cannot answer any of your binding questions...
> 
> Want to know if you have ridden the Area and Enigma... your thoughts? Am interested in those as capable carving and pow deck(s). Sorry for the side track, but am curious.


I've ridden the Enigma but my season ended before getting a chance to ride the Area. Enigma rode similar to my Darwin but felt softer and was easier to maneuver. I got to ride it mostly on groomers but did get to ride in ~8" of heavy wet POW. It didn't do as well as the Darwin in POW. That's understandable since Darwin has a wider nose, quasi swallow tail and is stiffer. Flow's sidecuts are money and with the taper they both carve well on groomers. I liked the Enigma better on groomers/rutted out snow because it was more versatile due to having a full tail.

Area is a full camber deck and has plenty of it. I haven't measured it but visually comparing it on a table against my other decks with camber between the feet (Yes Greats, Assassin, Alter Ego, Berzerker, Jones Mountain Twin, Darwin, Enigma) it's significantly more. I bought it for mainly to carve on groomers and I think it will do well based on the amount of camber it has.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

snowman55 said:


> I'm looking for another responsive (edge to edge) binding. Responsive bindings I currently own are Targa, Flow NX2 and I used to own the Capo but didn't like the feel so I sold it.
> 
> I'm looking at Now Recon and Flux TM or XF. Out of those, which is more responsive edge to edge?
> 
> ...


Recons>XF>TM



dwdesign said:


> Sorry cannot answer any of your binding questions...
> 
> Want to know if you have ridden the Area and Enigma... your thoughts? Am interested in those as capable carving and pow deck(s). Sorry for the side track, but am curious.


Regarding those two specifically, what's more important, carving or pow. Carving, Area. Pow, Enigma.


----------



## snowman55 (Feb 17, 2012)

Nivek said:


> Recons>XF>TM


Interesting you feel XF is more responsive than the TM since Flux has TM being the stiffer binding.

Thanks Nivek.


----------



## dwdesign (Mar 30, 2011)

Nivek said:


> Regarding those two specifically, what's more important, carving or pow. Carving, Area. Pow, Enigma.


Carving. I have a handful of boards, and my favorite carving deck is my old full camber, hand made in the Alps (not Camrock) Nidecker Ultralight. Just looking to replace it as it is getting pretty worn. It has amazed me with its fat nose and 21mm of taper. I have tried Megalight with Camrock, but I felt it did not rip as precisely on groomers. Thanks for the feedback. 

Sorry for side track to the OP. And thanks for your feedback on the boards.


----------



## Bataleon85 (Apr 29, 2017)

Dunno why you're looking at the XF. The XV and TM are Flux's stiffest bindings. The XV is heavier and more technology packed, and the TM is the same flex, but more basic so kind of a "budget" stiffy if you will. The upside being it's as light as the TT or DS. But anyway, to answer you, I think you couldn't go wrong with either of those Fluxes or the Nows. I have the IPOs myself, so can't really comment on the Recon, however, I think the IPOs may actually be a touch stiffer than my stiffest Fluxes, being the TM. As for edge to edge response, I think that's really gonna be a subjective area, because there's so many other factors in play here. I mean, I can mini carve and swing like a skier on my softest noodle with park bindings, so how do you really get a bead on edge to edge response? I don't notice a ton of difference between my IPOs and TMs, aside from the skate tech. Other than that, I think it's really gonna come down to which feels better on your foot. They're both gonna fit the bill in terms of good transitioning. 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## snowman55 (Feb 17, 2012)

Bataleon85 said:


> Dunno why you're looking at the XF. The XV and TM are Flux's stiffest bindings. The XV is heavier and more technology packed, and the TM is the same flex, but more basic so kind of a "budget" stiffy if you will. The upside being it's as light as the TT or DS. But anyway, to answer you, I think you couldn't go wrong with either of those Fluxes or the Nows. I have the IPOs myself, so can't really comment on the Recon, however, I think the IPOs may actually be a touch stiffer than my stiffest Fluxes, being the TM. As for edge to edge response, I think that's really gonna be a subjective area, because there's so many other factors in play here. I mean, I can mini carve and swing like a skier on my softest noodle with park bindings, so how do you really get a bead on edge to edge response? I don't notice a ton of difference between my IPOs and TMs, aside from the skate tech. Other than that, I think it's really gonna come down to which feels better on your foot. They're both gonna fit the bill in terms of good transitioning.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


The reason I mentioned XF was that some reviews implied it was more responsive than TM. Nivek also thinks XF was more responsive. It's confusing since Flux states the TM was the "most responsive" binding in their line.


----------



## Bataleon85 (Apr 29, 2017)

Depends what you mean by responsive. The TM and XV are the STIFFEST bindings in the lineup, though the transfer series (XF and XV) has a unique highback. It's wider, more rigid and has a spine running up the length of it that changes the way it flexes as opposed to other Flux bindings. The TM just has their run of the mill smooth highback, so it's a little softer and flexible than the transfer highbacks. With that said, the TM is still the stiffest they offer, but has a different feel than the transfer bindings. That may be what he meant. If you want absolute top of the line stiffness AND the more responsive highback, I'd get the XV. If you want just as stiff with a little mellower highback and lower price tag, look at the TM. Hope that helps.


----------



## Board Doctor (Feb 1, 2018)

Bataleon85 said:


> Dunno why you're looking at the XF. The XV and TM are Flux's stiffest bindings. The XV is heavier and more technology packed, and the TM is the same flex, but more basic so kind of a "budget" stiffy if you will. The upside being it's as light as the TT or DS. But anyway, to answer you, I think you couldn't go wrong with either of those Fluxes or the Nows. I have the IPOs myself, so can't really comment on the Recon, however, I think the IPOs may actually be a touch stiffer than my stiffest Fluxes, being the TM. As for edge to edge response, I think that's really gonna be a subjective area, because there's so many other factors in play here. I mean, I can mini carve and swing like a skier on my softest noodle with park bindings, so how do you really get a bead on edge to edge response? I don't notice a ton of difference between my IPOs and TMs, aside from the skate tech. Other than that, I think it's really gonna come down to which feels better on your foot. They're both gonna fit the bill in terms of good transitioning.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


Thanks for your explanations, it is difficult to decipher the Flux line. It seems you got the weight backwards though. The “lightness scale” is really dumb. They could actually quantitatively measure the weight and let us decide if it’s really significant. But it would also let us compare manufacturers, and the carbon fibre probably wouldn’t be as enticing (from purely a weight perspective)....

Lightness Scale
Average Weight 1
Below Average Weight 2
Light 3
Lighter 4
Super Light 5


----------

