EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion ›  Whats the trend for binding position on skis ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Whats the trend for binding position on skis ?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

A few years back there was a number of articals written about the manufactures having thier bindings positioned further back on skis which allowed the majority to skid thier turns easier but making it more difficult to carve. Several articals I have read indicated that the ball of foot on center of running surface or a ski that was balanced by the Campbell balancer tester ( which apparently is based on ball of foot on center of running surface) was prefured over the manufacturers suggested mounting by all the experts in differnt tests over the manufactures suggested mounting.

 

Do most ski companies still have thier ideal mounting postions further back then is ideal for carving or are they now basing it on trying to get ball of foot on center of running surface. If they changed when did they

 

 Certain skis i.e., race skis I would not be surprised if they are set up for carving but lower end might not be.

 

 Thanks

post #2 of 27

I don't believe anything has changed.  I have acquired 6 more pairs of skis over the past year and all of them except one required forward movement of the mount position using my BoF over CoEE method.

 

The best way to handle the situation is to hopefully have adjustable bindings on your skis.  Then you can easily experiment yourself and determine what's right for you.

post #3 of 27

I easily agree with Noodler. I prefer to have bindings on all my skis that permit me to adjust the mounting position forward or back. Several of my skis have felt great mounted at factory mark. But most of my skis have felt much better to me (IMHO) mounted forward 1 to 1.5cms. I prefer carving-race skis but know many wider ski owner whom like to mount their boot center line 1 to 3 cms behind the factory line. Several different factory models include multiple suggested mounting lines to further confuse the debate. If you elect to go with an adjustable binding you can find YOUR most comfortable position.

post #4 of 27

The skier has the ability to adjust to the ski. Some say they shouldn't have to. If you ski serveral skis throughout the season (or DAY) you will be adjusting regardless of the mount point because of a skis characteristics. Simply, some like to be skied differently than others. Most of the manufactuers actually know what they are doing (no comment on some of the indies). Mount them on the line and go ski. The degree to which some people worry about 1cm is beyond belief. (I'd love to do a blind test with some of these folks).

post #5 of 27



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMD View Post

I easily agree with Noodler. I prefer to have bindings on all my skis that permit me to adjust the mounting position forward or back. Several of my skis have felt great mounted at factory mark. But most of my skis have felt much better to me (IMHO) mounted forward 1 to 1.5cms. I prefer carving-race skis but know many wider ski owner whom like to mount their boot center line 1 to 3 cms behind the factory line. Several different factory models include multiple suggested mounting lines to further confuse the debate. If you elect to go with an adjustable binding you can find YOUR most comfortable position.



Mostly twin tips....

You find, PARK, ALL MOUNTAIN or POWDER a hard to understand choice?

post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

The skier has the ability to adjust to the ski. Some say they shouldn't have to. If you ski serveral skis throughout the season (or DAY) you will be adjusting regardless of the mount point because of a skis characteristics. Simply, some like to be skied differently than others. Most of the manufactuers actually know what they are doing (no comment on some of the indies). Mount them on the line and go ski. The degree to which some people worry about 1cm is beyond belief. (I'd love to do a blind test with some of these folks).

Rossi - We've gone back and forth on this issue many times.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  I'd take you up on a blind test in a heartbeat.  It's already been done before though (see Lou's tech articles for the Snowbird test). 

 

If there truly was one position on a ski that worked best for every skier then racers wouldn't bother experimenting with mount positions to determine where a ski works best for them. 

 

post #7 of 27



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Rossi - We've gone back and forth on this issue many times.  You'll never convince me otherwise.  I'd take you up on a blind test in a heartbeat.  It's already been done before though (see Lou's tech articles for the Snowbird test). 

 

If there truly was one position on a ski that worked best for every skier then racers wouldn't bother experimenting with mount positions to determine where a ski works best for them. 

 



High level racers skill sets are far more demanding than recreational skiers. And IF you consider yourself so advanced that you need to set up your skis to the mm, you should know what you need without asking here.....

 

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

The skier has the ability to adjust to the ski. Some say they shouldn't have to. If you ski serveral skis throughout the season (or DAY) you will be adjusting regardless of the mount point because of a skis characteristics. Simply, some like to be skied differently than others. Most of the manufactuers actually know what they are doing (no comment on some of the indies). Mount them on the line and go ski. The degree to which some people worry about 1cm is beyond belief. (I'd love to do a blind test with some of these folks).


+ 1. I think if you get on a new pair of skis, your basis of comparison is the last skis you were on. you are not applying some objective engineering scrutiny to the location of the binding, rather what you are currently used to, adapted to, set up for.  The idea that for all mountain skiing in variable conditions and terrain some joe blow skier knows more than the engineer at Rossignol or Dynastar or Stockli about binding position is truly laughable. (I think it's an attempt at self importance. you may in fact know a lot more than some indie ski makers, but that's another matter) mount on the line and go skiing indeed. you'll adjust; it's a new ski, different.

 

post #9 of 27

I'm glad you both are so sure of your facts without any self investigation.  It flies in the face of many recreational skiers who have had the same epiphanies as I have about binding placement on skis.  Oh well, I'm done here (once again).  You guys can continue on in your blissful ignorance.

post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'm glad you both are so sure of your facts without any self investigation.  It flies in the face of many recreational skiers who have had the same epiphanies as I have about binding placement on skis.  Oh well, I'm done here (once again).  You guys can continue on in your blissful ignorance.



I'm sorry if my being happy with the factory mount line on 19 of my current skis offends you.

 

post #11 of 27

I always have the bindings mounted on the top.  Discussion?


 

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

The skier has the ability to adjust to the ski. Some say they shouldn't have to...The degree to which some people worry about 1cm is beyond belief. (I'd love to do a blind test with some of these folks).

RS, I did a post a couple of years ago on a bunch of different positions on a pair of 07 Goats mounted with a RF, all on same run, same day. I cannot disagree with you more, both in terms of the position not making a difference and in terms of skiers adjusting to the ski. People here who hold up their fingers a cm or two and say, "that's nothing," are ignorant of the physics of your COM. Look at it this way: When a woman's pregnant, her COM changes about 2-3 cm forward. Go ask any woman who's had a child if the change made a difference in her balance. If you lengthen the distance between the tips of the ski and your toe by 1-2 cm, say, you're changing the amount of force you can exert against the tip, or it can push back against you, geometrically. It's less of a % change on the 210's you love, but is really obvious on shorter skis. So yes, a good skier can adjust their COM to compensate for any number of things the ski's doing. But why not optimize the binding position for your habitual position, assuming it's correct?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I don't believe anything has changed.  I have acquired 6 more pairs of skis over the past year and all of them except one required forward movement of the mount position using my BoF over CoEE method.

 

The best way to handle the situation is to hopefully have adjustable bindings on your skis.  Then you can easily experiment yourself and determine what's right for you.


Noodler has talked about this at length in an excellent thread comparing BOF with his suggested CoEE method. There are other approaches. Point being, the optimal position of the binders depends on the width of the ski, what you plan to do with it, and what kind of stance you favor, say neutral vs a lot of tip pressure. If you don't know any of that, the factory line is not going to be terrible, but it's not magic, either. Just a consensus of factory testers. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

I always have the bindings mounted on the top.  Discussion?

So over. The new "reverse rocker flip" technology requires mounting on the base, allow an extra .8 mm for penetration of the base material. The negative rocker creates amazing new potentials for cool submarine movements in soft snow, and the topsheet is tougher than the base when you comes across rocks at the bottom of the dive. On edge at speed, you have a nice aggressive hookup at initiation, followed by the chance to reverse direction uphill with the positive sidecut underfoot, then jump back into the turn, and often over into the woods, as the tail engages. Since you are only touching two mm of surface in transition, one on front tip and one on tail, eye-opening edge changes. Highly recommended by those in the know...
 

 

post #13 of 27

Beyond... I just feel that snow conditions alone make far more difference than 1 cm of binding movement. And no, before you ask, I am not going to chase the "match the position to the snow" with an adjustable binding.

 

Factory line works for me. If you prefer the adjustable route, go for it.

post #14 of 27

The whole way of thinking, the mount point is affecting my skiing, is a cop out, an excuse, and the gateway to rationalizing one's lousy technique and miring in techno babble forever; it's such a weak, weak way to think.  And, the consensus of factory testers...I seriously doubt that's how the boot center mark is established. rather based on the sidecut and flex of the ski.

 

Now, I would not doubt for a minute that some skis have such inconsistent construction that it would never be possible to establish a consistent boot center mark from one pair of the same model and size skis to another, and that's another issue altogether, one that only buyers of inferior skis need deal with.

post #15 of 27

I only have this to say: I bought a pair of Dynastars with railed, sliding bindings.  In an effort to get the tips to engage more eagerly, I moved the boot forward about 1.5 cm's.  I did this in the late morning on a single day -- five short runs in one position, five short runs in the new position.  Blindfolded, deafened, swathed in cotton, I could have told the difference immediately.  The skis behaved differently and the dynamics of tip and tail flex were really noticeably different -- and interestingly worse. 

It's possible that, had I only ever skied them this way I'd become acclimated and satisfied -- but there is no question in my mind that the skis skied differently with two different binding positions.

Just my $0.02.

post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

I only have this to say: I bought a pair of Dynastars with railed, sliding bindings.  In an effort to get the tips to engage more eagerly, I moved the boot forward about 1.5 cm's.  I did this in the late morning on a single day -- five short runs in one position, five short runs in the new position.  Blindfolded, deafened, swathed in cotton, I could have told the difference immediately.  The skis behaved differently and the dynamics of tip and tail flex were really noticeably different -- and interestingly worse. 

It's possible that, had I only ever skied them this way I'd become acclimated and satisfied -- but there is no question in my mind that the skis skied differently with two different binding positions.

Just my $0.02.



So, the factory line felt best....why do people think the major manufactuers and their testers, don't know their job?

 

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

Beyond... I just feel that snow conditions alone make far more difference than 1 cm of binding movement. And no, before you ask, I am not going to chase the "match the position to the snow" with an adjustable binding.

 

Factory line works for me. If you prefer the adjustable route, go for it.


I don't chase the snow either. Only one pair of my skis have a RF, and mainly so I can take them off to stuff an extra pair into the ski bag. If I'm stuck with these skis, which do not have rocker, in powder, I move the mount back a bit. As far as snow conditions, I think you're confusing perturbations to the COM, which occur constantly, and where we want our COM at rest. If your COM is, say, behind where it's optimal, then in addition to the balance adjustments you're making to the snow, you're having to also constantly shift your COM forward a cm or two. One doesn't wash out the other.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri View Post

The whole way of thinking, the mount point is affecting my skiing, is a cop out, an excuse, and the gateway to rationalizing one's lousy technique and miring in techno babble forever; it's such a weak, weak way to think.  And, the consensus of factory testers...I seriously doubt that's how the boot center mark is established. rather based on the sidecut and flex of the ski.

 

Now, I would not doubt for a minute that some skis have such inconsistent construction that it would never be possible to establish a consistent boot center mark from one pair of the same model and size skis to another, and that's another issue altogether, one that only buyers of inferior skis need deal with.


Well, tell that to elite racers or freeriders, who pay a lot of attention to their personal points. Is the falloff in efficiency due to inappropriate line smaller than most skier's falloff due to bad form? Of course not. But it's still there. If you can eliminate one source of inefficiency when you purchase your skis, why not? We sharpen our edges. th_dunno-1[1].gif As far as factory lines, everyone I've every read who actually has had access to factories says testers suggest the lines. And note RS's assumption:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

So, the factory line felt best....why do people think the major manufactuers and their testers, don't know their job?

 


Of course they know their job. But their job is to guestimate what line will work best for the thousands of potential purchasers of the ski. The line's an average, RS, a consensus compromise. What about the 15% of the purchasers who fall more than 1 STD from the mean? 

 

post #18 of 27



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

I don't chase the snow either. Only one pair of my skis have a RF, and mainly so I can take them off to stuff an extra pair into the ski bag. If I'm stuck with these skis, which do not have rocker, in powder, I move the mount back a bit. As far as snow conditions, I think you're confusing perturbations to the COM, which occur constantly, and where we want our COM at rest. If your COM is, say, behind where it's optimal, then in addition to the balance adjustments you're making to the snow, you're having to also constantly shift your COM forward a cm or two. One doesn't wash out the other.

 



I have no idea of what it is you are saying here....and I despise acronyms.

 

If the ski is not right for the conditions, I switch to another pair. I usually bring three pair with me. My "best guess", what is likely if that doesn't work and a "just in case". And that's just for a day! The car doesn't mind a bit.

 

Evidently the "compromise" that is the factory line works for the compromises I find in my skiing. It it doesn't work for you than I guess you have options.

 

post #19 of 27

I'm of the opinion that the guy who made my ski knows the best place to mount. Why would I want to do it any other way?

 

I think the inclusion of "park, all mountain, and powder" mounting points on the same ski is just a method to sell to a wider range of customers.

post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 

Noodler

 

 Thanks for the info

 

 What do you mean Ball of foot over CoEE

I have herd of BoF over CoRS (center of running surface) but what does the EE stand for @ the end of CoEE

When I go to Calgary I think I will get balanced with the Campbell balance tester is CoEE a better way

Also do  powder skis with regular camber (have 190cm) work better being balanced with the campbell balance machine & I have some older straight GS & SL racing skis I picked up for bump skiing.

 

Who Am I to think & judge if its good enough for X ( in this case the ski manufatures) its good enough for me.  In a arena where individual fail to understand that which they are thinking, they look to the Ivory Tower intellects & or to the majority for that which is true. For how can so many be wrong? Often they fail to realize the majority are doing the same. I read about the test done @ snowbird & I think the testers are on to something

post #21 of 27
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post



 



I have no idea of what it is you are saying here....and I despise acronyms.

 

If the ski is not right for the conditions, I switch to another pair. I usually bring three pair with me. My "best guess", what is likely if that doesn't work and a "just in case". And that's just for a day! The car doesn't mind a bit.

 

Evidently the "compromise" that is the factory line works for the compromises I find in my skiing. It it doesn't work for you than I guess you have options.

 


OK, sorry Rossi Smash. RF is Railflex. That means a binding from Tyrolia that allows you to adjust the mount point incrementally over a wide range. Tyrolia is an Austrian company. Austria is southeast of Germany, when not invaded and absorbed by same. COM means Center Of Mass. Center is the midpoint, axis of rotation. Mass is weight, more or less. So Center of Mass is the point in the front of your pelvis where your body's mass, both up and down and forward and backward, is balanced. CM is centimeters. A few of them makes a big difference. You're sounding curmudgeonly, BTW (By The Way). wink.gif

 

 

 

post #23 of 27

      


Edited by comprex - 4/19/11 at 4:19pm
post #24 of 27



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

I'm of the opinion that the guy who made my ski knows the best place to mount. Why would I want to do it any other way?

 

I think the inclusion of "park, all mountain, and powder" mounting points on the same ski is just a method to sell to a wider range of customers.


I agree with ecimmortal, the mounting point is relevant to the overall flex and camber of the ski, and the sidecut.  With new skis having rocker, sharknose, pintail, etc, the effective sidecut section of the ski is getting reduced, sometimes to a very short section of the ski.  If you move the mounting point the effect on the overall length of the ski may be minimal, but it can be huge in relation to the sidecut.  Unless you plan on only using the ski in deep snow and not using the sidecut, I would be very hesitant to move more than a cm off the manufacturer's suggested line.  If I do not like the way a ski is performing I generally start with adjusting the top buckle on my boot to experiment with a quicker or mellower trigger before remounting bindings.

post #25 of 27

Lou, Great stuff , thanks

 

campbell balancer has been around for a while, and used to great effect for many...

 

factory mount points are derived from factory on-snow tester results and comparison to prior similar designs.

Factory mount point is not wrong or right, but a good start point and end point if you don't want to take it further.

finding what works best for you and your skiing is always preferrable.
having an adjustable track binding for non-race skiing is a great way to be able to find your preferred position on the ski, with the actual ski/binding/boot combo you're using.

Subjectively I again noticed a great variance in how my skis reacted in 12-20 inches of POW, this past weekend at Mammoth. AS it happens the skis I now favor for most conditions don;t have Boot midsole mount point marks for downhill use. Hence I went back to my methodology from prior years.

Using that, I found thin softpack to hardpack/ice worked best for me very close to where I finally positioned the boot ball of foot location - for POW I drop back 1 cm from there and see a huge advantage in the deep.

My skis are traditional full camber, bindings are Tyrolia railflex - so making position adjustments is super-easy and prompted me to experiment a lot, without having to remount. Hence I can move my bindings/boot in 2.5mm increments to find my sweet spot.

 

 

 

as for the orig. OP

Noodler seems to have done a great job in tacklin the issue of mount points for newer, tip rise and rocker designs.

Haven't read most of it yet, mainly cause I don;t predict any trip rise or rocker skis in my future for at least the coming season or 2. I'm very happy with the current stable. But I figure to mull through it in the coming weeks. I was gonna forge head and really try the new designs, but I've decided I'm gonna stay with my current quiver, since they work great for me.

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post



 


I agree with ecimmortal, the mounting point is relevant to the overall flex and camber of the ski, and the sidecut.  With new skis having rocker, sharknose, pintail, etc, the effective sidecut section of the ski is getting reduced, sometimes to a very short section of the ski.  If you move the mounting point the effect on the overall length of the ski may be minimal, but it can be huge in relation to the sidecut.  Unless you plan on only using the ski in deep snow and not using the sidecut, I would be very hesitant to move more than a cm off the manufacturer's suggested line.  If I do not like the way a ski is performing I generally start with adjusting the top buckle on my boot to experiment with a quicker or mellower trigger before remounting bindings.

Even in a 3D snow with new shapes and rocker profiles performance can be really effected by mount point. I always cringe when I see someone on a ski that has tip and tail rocker with a mount that is real far back. Knowing they are probably not getting the full perfomance that the ski is capable of because they are so stuck in the archaic mentality that you need a ton of nose for a ski to float well.
 

 

post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Center of Mass is the point in the front of your pelvis where your body's mass, both up and down and forward and backward, is balanced. 

 


As Comprex detects, sometimes my fingers don't go where my mind is. redface.gif COM obviously is inside pelvis, couple of cm behind and up from anterior wall formed by pubic symphysis. 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion ›  Whats the trend for binding position on skis ?