EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

Thanks to everyone for their perspectives. The Physics Man thread from a number of years ago was terrific, he is much better at understanding the mechanics than I.

 

I've ruled out the VIST plate system and will be getting a Griffon, Squire, PX12 Jib, Knee or STH based on what I can find in terms of deals. But in doing the research, my husband had a conversation with the US VIST  distributor, who is at Stratton, who was pushing as advantages two factors that seem applicable to mounting a flat binding:

 

1- binding ramp (delta) angle - "Mr. Vist" indicated that a zero binding ramp or delta angle would improve the stance on a wide softer ski. I know that in addition to adding a lifter to the front of the Vist system, you can add a comparable spacer to pretty much any binding. I saw on the Knee Binding web site that they have a default 6 degree ramp angle but sell lifters to eliminate some or all of that forward lean. My boots (Doberman Aggressor 100) also have some ramp angle which would add to whatever the binding has. So my question is: is a zero (or reduced) ramp angle beneficial for this type of ski which would be used in new snow, spring conditions?

 

2- fore/aft mounting - The second advantage touted by Mr. Vist was the ability to tweak the fore aft position, an advantage  not available without going to a more elaborate binding system. This raised in my mind the question of where to mount the bindings. I would typically,  per conventional Jeanie Thoren thinking for women, have the bindings put a little forward. Is this still a good idea - I don't expect to have access to the Campbell Balancing system that has been written about here.


Those would be two very good reasons to go with that system. But only if you actually need to make those changes, and only if you can do that without paralyzing yourself (never happens on EpicSki). Having the correct binding delta can make a profound difference on your skiing. If you are happy with the way that you stand on your skis now however, you could just measure the delta on your current bindings and get something that is the same. If you've been struggling with burning quads or something like that, it could be really good for you because it is so easy to experiment with ramp on a plated ski (I think the VIST binding is the most convenient for this, but also limited in how much adjustment it allows).

 

post #32 of 38

The Head/Tyrolia powerrail binding system also permits very easy fore / aft adjustments similar to the Vist system. It's available from some of the shops here on Epic, including Dogcatching.

post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post



someone's weight does not change how quick a ski is edge to edge, or how much leverage will need to get up on edge/how much leverage it will have on someone's legs.

 

 


She is a peanut not only in weight but I am sure height wise too so she has short legs, on a 94mm wide ski leverage does come into play. 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post

The Head/Tyrolia powerrail binding system also permits very easy fore / aft adjustments similar to the Vist system. It's available from some of the shops here on Epic, including Dogcatching.


Still unneeded weight. 

 

 

I go back to my original suggestions Squire and Sth12 oversized. NOT the Griffon, especially if her BSL is under 275mm, the Griffon heel is too tough to get in for a short BSL. 

 

post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


She is a peanut not only in weight but I am sure height wise too so she has short legs, on a 94mm wide ski leverage does come into play. 

 


Still unneeded weight. 

 

 

I go back to my original suggestions Squire and Sth12 oversized. NOT the Griffon, especially if her BSL is under 275mm, the Griffon heel is too tough to get in for a short BSL. 

 


explain to me how a 94mm wide skis is going to leverage her leg, any different than anyone else legs.....

 

 

 

 

 

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


explain to me how a 94mm wide skis is going to leverage her leg, any different than anyone else legs.....

 


What is the inseam if someone 5'4", and 6'4"? different? Yes. 

 

post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


What is the inseam if someone 5'4", and 6'4"? different? Yes. 

 



otuside acting force(waist width) has nothing to do with an inseam.  Beside the shorter leverage arm would actually be less leveraged by a wider ski and the difference is so small it really does not matter to the skier.

 

 

post #37 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


She is a peanut not only in weight but I am sure height wise too so she has short legs, on a 94mm wide ski leverage does come into play. 

 



Actually, 5'5''. Not tall by any means but not exceptionally short. Just lighter than most.

 

And as for short legs - no, they reach all the way to the ground.

post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post



Actually, 5'5''. Not tall by any means but not exceptionally short. Just lighter than most.

 

And as for short legs - no, they reach all the way to the ground.

 Again, knowing that ski, I see no reason for any extra lift for the application you are using it for and where you will be skiing it. You have received a multitude of different opinions, it is now what you choose to do with the information.

 

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 › Binding and set up for Kastle FX 94 for a light skier