EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Skis and stack height
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Powder Skis and stack height

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

 I just got a pair of K2 Pontoons for skiing the PNW heavy powder and crud. I planned to mount some Tyrolia RailFlex bindings I have with the idea of being able to play with the fore/aft adjustment and as a bonus have some skis to loan out to visitors. A very experienced PNW skier tells me that in a powder ski, its better to have the mount as flat as possible rather than on top of a rail system. Trying to get my mechanical mind around this one. Any thoughts / advice?

post #2 of 12

Well, this is from the man himself....

 

"Howdy,
I actually mount them right on the line not back at all. After much testing of where to put that mount line I chose what I believed to be the best spot. Yes, Sparkleboots clicked into a pair of Pontoons when we were in Alaska last year. That pair was mounted 2 cm forward of the line not back. Don't mount them forward. I also don't recommend mounting them back of the line. Mount them on the line. But that's just me....."
Shane McConkey

 

 

 

That should just about cover it, no?  

post #3 of 12

perhaps the flat mount is because in powder and cut powder you are always trying to minimize noise, unwanted exaggerated response to stimulus, chatter, flap, bounce, etc. Lifting the binding up is a form of getting a bigger response from input, not reducing it and calming everything down a tick. you want the ski to quiet everything down. 

post #4 of 12

If you are talking about the Pontoon and not the Pon2oon...

 

Well, the above quote aside, there's been a bunch of experience out in the world the last few years. Lots depends on how big you are, your boot size, which size Pontoon you got, etc. Depending on the mix of those things, the "range" seems to be between "on the line" and +2. I definitely would not go behind the line. But I would not be afraid of +1 or +2 - especially on the 189s or if are a smaller person. If you want to be "safe" just go on the line or flip a coin between 0 and +1. Once you pick a spot, there is no need to play with fore/aft. You'll have fun.

 

To the main question: I'd go as low to the deck as possible. No higher than a Jester/Griffon. That has a big impact on how the ski handles. I used to use Railflexes for that sort of thing - but I think a higher binding - especially one that is also not super stiff - will take away from the handling of that ski.

post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the advice. Guess my son was right. Damn knowitall. The sons teaching the fathers. Guess I'll mount up some Salomon's I have laying around to my boot on the line. When my east coast friends visit with their 78mm waist ice breakers I'll wow them with my ability while they flounder.

post #6 of 12

Coming to this late, but hey....

 

I know I'm an outlier, but I would not worry about stack height on these or any wider skis.  I've not noticed any detriment to a higher stack on a wider ski in softer snow.  On firmer snow, a higher stack will still help you edge more efficiently because you end up having to move a shorter distance.  (If I had a good 3-D animation app, I could show what I mean.)

 

All that said, there's no way I would mount a Railflex on them, because the mount pattern is too narrow -- narrower than a traditional binding, much less a wider platform binding like the Marker Royal Family.  The result of increased leverage between the boot and the edge is lateral slop in the interface, best case scenario, and may even result in a greater likelihood of binding pull-out.

 

Because I wanted fore-aft adjustment and lendability for my DPS Wailer 112RPs, I put 13-DIN Tyrolia demos on them.  Great combination, as it turns out.  The increased stack height from the demo interface seems to improve groomer handling, and I've not seen a downside.

post #7 of 12

My take is this: while a plate & lifters are great for race skis, they impair fat skis.  Why?  you are going to want to pivot

& smear more on a fat ski....even skid.  The extra hieght is great for railing, but makes this harder.  Why do you think the mogul / big mtn crowd loves the flat FKS?

 

I have dukes on my pow skis (for AT & alpine) , yet I am thinking of pulling them for som FKS b/c I have better skis to carve on.

post #8 of 12

This is more exactly why...what he said.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post

My take is this: while a plate & lifters are great for race skis, they impair fat skis.  Why?  you are going to want to pivot

& smear more on a fat ski....even skid.  The extra hieght is great for railing, but makes this harder.  Why do you think the mogul / big mtn crowd loves the flat FKS?

 

I have dukes on my pow skis (for AT & alpine) , yet I am thinking of pulling them for som FKS b/c I have better skis to carve on.



 

post #9 of 12

Disclaimer - racecoach might have a different take on this topic.

 

Air = FLAT

 

Otherwise, doesn't matter much. I use the railflex for my phatties.

post #10 of 12

Pure soft snow ski?  Flat.

Loaning to friends or if it's a pair you might not ski much?  RF = one of better adjustable bindings, IME.  Rise is probably about the same as Dukes...

post #11 of 12

I put RF bindings on our powder skis for the specific reason of being able to loan them out to friends when my wife and I couldn't make it for the storm. I got the RF 2 with Speedrail adjustment and they have been great. I did a bunch of research on the stack height/fat skis issue and found absolutely no consensus on the matter. I even found one small almost scientific study that determined that a slightly raised binding like you get with a RF has no affect on how the ski performs or feels when in 3D snow (which is where most people prefer skiing the fatties).

 

The hole pattern is a few millimeters narrower than other bindings on the market which could possibly be an issue if you are a cliff-dropping hard charger (though I am not 100% convinced of this). I am not a gnar skier myself and know that any friends I loan the skis to are not like this, so I am not concerned about this issue.

post #12 of 12

ya this has been beaten to death a few times. If you want to do railflex just do it. I have them on my pow boards and they are fine besides looking funny. Easy to sell too after using them, since they only have one set of holes.

 

good luck

 

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 › Powder Skis and stack height