or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ski Luddite Thread - Page 5

post #121 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

I'm 6'2", 185 lb, level 7'ish. Based on things I've read seemed like 175 might be a better length for me. 

 

 

Ridiculous. The 185s are such an easy turning ski, that there is no reason to go short, longer ones will float you much better, and give you a platform for your skills to develop upon.

 

However, you must be sure they are mounted  ~2cm behind the factory line,  otherwise the tips will dive. The first of the three pairs I've owned, was initially mounted on the factory mark, and I was constantly pitching forward in powder, when I moved them back, they floated like a cork.

post #122 of 675

^^^ +1

 

I'm 5' 9" and 170-175 soaking wet and the only skis I use under 180 cm are models that weren't made any longer. 

post #123 of 675
Thread Starter 

I respect both of your opinions; thanks for sharing them. As mentioned there have been some others posted previously.

 

Perhaps Phil will follow up with more info on the ones he came across.

 

Fun stuff to ponder, as snow days get closer!  ;-)

post #124 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

I respect both of your opinions; thanks for sharing them. As mentioned there have been some others posted previously.

 

Perhaps Phil will follow up with more info on the ones he came across.

 

Fun stuff to ponder, as snow days get closer!  ;-)

 

Well, with all due respect to the posters of that ancient thread, if you look at the dates on those posts, you'll see that that thread was posted the first winter that the V2 Chubb came out. That production run didn't come out until winter (it was the last production run for Volant before Atomic bought the brand, and it almost didn't happen), so the people posting had very little slope time on those skis.

 

I have at least a couple hundred days on V2 Genesis Chubbs, and I also am close to your size ( I'm 6'4" 190ish). When I initially started skiing them I was probably a level 8 skier. I have more days on them than all of the posters in that thread did, probably five times over. Also that thread came out during a time period where the "go short" mantra was reaching a crescendo, and in this case it was needlessly applied.

 

I reiterate, unless you aspire to being a terminal intermediate, and prefer to float less in powder, with your size, there is no functional reason to ski the 175 rather than the 185. If you plan on improving as a skier, your skill set will quickly grow out of the 175. The ski is a buttery flop noodle of a powder ski aimed at intermediate to advanced skiers, any marginally skilled man of your size would have no trouble turning the 185.

post #125 of 675

I don't know how relevant it is, but my 190 cm Volant Machet G (66 mm waist) seems fine to me.  I'm 150 lbs.

post #126 of 675
Thread Starter 

PSA  Speaking of Machetes, sweet pair of 175's up on eBay now.

 

post #127 of 675

Too short for my frame.

 

I have two pairs of the "185"s, one pair mounted, in good condition, but have seen a few seasons, and one pair which were very lightly used, and are waiting for the need to arise. They are the best all around ski I've been on. However, more and more, I like to ski my 193 Machete Hucksters, hows that for luddite?


Edited by volantaddict - 8/23/12 at 11:56am
post #128 of 675
Thread Starter 

Those FB's have got to be some of the coolest looking skis ever!

 

On the more practical/functional front, a few questions...

 

 

When you install bindings on those factory plates do the mount screws go through/into the topsheet?

(Guessing yes, but don't know plate height.)

 

And what is that plate material made of?

 

And other than graphics are the FB's essentially the same ski as the V2 Chubb?

post #129 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

Those FB's have got to be some of the coolest looking skis ever!

 

On the more practical/functional front, a few questions...

 

 

When you install bindings on those factory plates do the mount screws go through/into the topsheet?

(Guessing yes, but don't know plate height.)

 

And what is that plate material made of?

 

And other than graphics are the FB's essentially the same ski as the V2 Chubb?

 

You are correct, they are one of the coolest looking skis ever. cool.gificon14.gif

 

The plates are made of plastic, and no, one does not drill into the top sheet.

 

While the V2 Genesis Chubb has the same dimensions as the Machete FB, they are very different skis. The Chubb is a very soft, forgiving powder ski made with a foam core, which is great on all manner of soft snow, whereas the FB is a demanding stiff crud destroyer which excels on all manner of hard snow, and is made with a wood core.

 

The FB will work for powder, but is not a powder ski, and the Chubb floats much better. The Chubb is next to useless in icy conditions, but the FB rails through just about anything.

post #130 of 675
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the Volant lesson, VA - that fills in several blanks!

 

Now I got a fever, and the only prescription is more...

 

post #131 of 675

Noice McConkeys!

post #132 of 675

I thought I'd drop this here, I'm looking for a pair of Hucksters.  Anybody holding a pair that they'd like to get rid of? 

post #133 of 675
Thread Starter 

Question for VA or anyone else who might care to answer...

 

Is there a binding that could be installed on the Volant factory plate that would allow for moving the effective mount point forward or back maybe 1-2 CM? Railflex and some of the Atomic (and other)  system bindings allow for that type of adjustment, but they come with their own rail/plate, and would require removing the Volant plate, which seems undesirable.

 

Would be nice to be able to mount but be able to experiment with effective mount point. Marker Schizo? Anything else?

post #134 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

Question for VA or anyone else who might care to answer...

 

Is there a binding that could be installed on the Volant factory plate that would allow for moving the effective mount point forward or back maybe 1-2 CM? Railflex and some of the Atomic (and other)  system bindings allow for that type of adjustment, but they come with their own rail/plate, and would require removing the Volant plate, which seems undesirable.

 

Would be nice to be able to mount but be able to experiment with effective mount point. Marker Schizo? Anything else?


FWIW, the Schizo demo can usually be found cheaper than the regular Schizo. I think, but am not sure, it is lighter.

post #135 of 675
Thread Starter 

Thx. Actually was just reading another thread here and sounds like the Marker Griffin Demo Binding could be another option.

 

Just wondering how those bindings would mount/fit on the Volant plate, plus they're gonna add additional (stand) height.

 

I like the idea of being able to adjust for different BSL, move the effective mount point, and use a single set of bindings on multiple skis. Have used Railflex for that, but something like a Griffin Demo and some quiver killers could be another (better?) way to go I guess.

post #136 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

Question for VA or anyone else who might care to answer...

 

Is there a binding that could be installed on the Volant factory plate that would allow for moving the effective mount point forward or back maybe 1-2 CM? Railflex and some of the Atomic (and other)  system bindings allow for that type of adjustment, but they come with their own rail/plate, and would require removing the Volant plate, which seems undesirable.

 

Would be nice to be able to mount but be able to experiment with effective mount point. Marker Schizo? Anything else?

 

One of the reasons for the Volant plate was that the ski was too thin to thread a binding screw into.  Just like Goode.

post #137 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

 

Is there a binding that could be installed on the Volant factory plate that would allow for moving the effective mount point forward or back maybe 1-2 CM?

 

Older atomic Race (not Xentrix!)  bindings could do it but you'd be stuck with a 614 or 1018 unit and  race-oriented retention.

post #138 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

Question for VA or anyone else who might care to answer...

 

Is there a binding that could be installed on the Volant factory plate that would allow for moving the effective mount point forward or back maybe 1-2 CM? Railflex and some of the Atomic (and other)  system bindings allow for that type of adjustment, but they come with their own rail/plate, and would require removing the Volant plate, which seems undesirable.

 

Would be nice to be able to mount but be able to experiment with effective mount point. Marker Schizo? Anything else?

 

 I don't recommend going that route, all of mine with the Powerlight plates are mounted ~2cm back from the boot center.

post #139 of 675
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post

 I don't recommend going that route, all of mine with the Powerlight plates are mounted ~2cm back from the boot center.

 

Know you said that you had your V2 Chubbs mounted that way for better float in powder, but the FB's would be more of an all mountain ski. And with various skis I've found generally I seem to like a forward mount a bit better, so even if 2cm back works well for you all around, and might work well for me, it would be nice to be able to experiment.

 

Wonder if the Griffon demos would physically fit ok mounted on the Volant plate, and also as mentioned about the resulting total height off the ski, if that would be an issue?

post #140 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

 

Know you said that you had your V2 Chubbs mounted that way for better float in powder, but the FB's would be more of an all mountain ski. And with various skis I've found generally I seem to like a forward mount a bit better, so even if 2cm back works well for you all around, and might work well for me, it would be nice to be able to experiment.

 

Wonder if the Griffon demos would physically fit ok mounted on the Volant plate, and also as mentioned about the resulting total height off the ski, if that would be an issue?

 

Obviously I can't be certain what your experience with them will be, but I believe the mounting point on both the FB and the Genesis Chubb were set too far forward (it was the intention of the design team which incorporated the Powerlight Plate, to "help" people enter their turns more aggressively by moving the mounting point further forward with relation to the sidecut).

 

I heard before I rode any of them, that the FB skied better if mounted 15mm back from the factory mark, however I tried mounting my first pair of the V2 Chubbs at the line. I found that they skied terribly, then remounted them 20mm back, and they were the best skis I'd ever been on, a night and day difference.  I mounted my next couple pair of V2 Chubbs at least 20mm back from the line, then did the same when I got the FBs, which are my favorite skis ever.

post #141 of 675
Thread Starter 

Interesting discussion, and thanks again for sharing your viewpoint, VA. I came across another skier who's had multiple pairs of 185 V2 Chubb's and FB's, and he shared the following with me earlier today, which I found interesting. Some stuff in line with your thoughts, some not...

 

I'm 6'1", 200lbs, and am an expert skier. I find that the boot center mounting point on the FB's is perfect for my style of skiing. It's about 2cm's forward of most manufacturers but the ski is well balanced there. ... I'd like to think that Shane McConkey had a say in where to put boot center on the FB's, it would validate my opinion (LOL).

As far as mounting points go, I've done a lot of research on this the last few years and have come to some conclusions that I've never had explained to me by any ski shop, or manufacturers rep so I'll share this info with you.

I became curious about factory mounting points about 4 years ago when I bought a pair of Volkl Katana's. Volkl's boot center on the Gotama's and Katana's is about 2cm's back of where most manufacturers similarly styled skis are. Not knowing this, I had the bindings mounted at boot center but never enjoyed skiing them because it seemed like I was riding the tails of the skis and turn initiation was much more difficult than any other ski I'd skied on. A couple of years later, I bought a pair of used Nordica Enforcer's that had the bindings already mounted 2cm's forward of boot center and loved skiing them in all conditions. I ski fast in powder as well and never had a problem with tip dive. At this point, I moved the bindings on my Katana's 2.5cm's forward of boot center and liked skiing them a lot more. A few months later, I got a good deal on a pair of Marker Schizo's, the ones that are adjustable as far as boot center goes and mounted them to my Kaana's. After some experimentation, I adjusted them so they are 4cm's forward of the boot center mark on the ski. They are well balanced and ski well in all conditions at that point, and when you look at the ski, they don't look like they're too far forward.

Having gathered all of this information, I started to ask every ski salesperson and manufacturer's rep I came in contact with at ski shows, exactly how do the manufacturers determine where boot center should be on a given ski? I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone. I even called Volkl tech support and never got an answer. Whether they don't know or just wouldn't tell me I don't know. I've heard many skiers say that they spend millions of dollars determining boot center but I think that's absolute BS considering the discrepancy between Volkl and other manufactures. It seems that most manufacturers still put boot center at about the same point they would for a traditional carving ski---but I think that's about 2cm's too far back for fatter all mountain or powder skis so I always ski at about 2cm's forward of boot center on every ski that I own except for the Katana's (4cm's forward) and the FB's, which are fine at boot center since they are already about 2cm's forward of most manufacturers.

 

Guess the bottom line is mount point preference is pretty subjective, and is impacted not only by skiing style but probably also by other variables in the complex fore/aft balance equation, including binding ramp angle and boot forward lean. So again, I think ideally nice to be able to play around with the effective mount point with some kind of adjustable setup.

post #142 of 675

It is true that for some mounting further forward is preferable, and I think this often has to do with boot size. Boot center for a person with big feet means the toe will be further forward than for someone with small feet. Up until the '04 line with the Powerlight plates, Volants had always employed a boot toe mark rather than a boot center mark. The boot toe mark was at the center of weight for the ski. The FB's center of weight is well behind where my boot toe rests, even though I have them mounted back ~2cm from the center mark (originally my boot center was 23mm back, but then I switched to smaller boots which moved the center forward a bit).

 

All I got out of your quote is that the guy really likes his skis forward mounted, and probably has small feet for his height.

post #143 of 675
Thread Starter 

Yea, for sure our friend likes em forward. And I know like almost everything else under the sun binding mount position has already been hashed over thoroughly here on Epic. But what I really take away from it all is that there's a very wide disparity amongst all the various makes and models out there when it comes to where those suggested mount points are marked, and a lack of clarity as to why they're where they are, so again, good to be able to adjust and experiment.

 

I wonder how much of  "jeez, that ski sucked" when people demo is attributable to (or at least significantly impacted by) binding mount position? Folks often blame the tune for a bad demo experience, but in soft snow (not powder, necessarily) the tune would seem to be much less of a factor.

post #144 of 675

Jc have you built yourself a wobble board yet?

post #145 of 675
Thread Starter 

Wobble board?? You mean something like this...

 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_board

 

Can't do fancy stuff, but I can walk a slackline, and I get on a BOSU ball at the gym occasionally, but haven't been on a balance/wobble board.

 

Are you off on another tangent, or do you have some specific tie-in to binding mount position in mind?

post #146 of 675

A quite specific tie-in indeed - getting a first-order idea of where your fore-aft  balance point is, in ski boots, relative to the mid-boot line.    

 

It won't give you any wisdom about mounting point on specific skis, I'm afraid.    But it's fun (esp. if you build two),  it's primitive, and it's cheap self-knowledge.

 

One piece of half-round molding fastened to the bottom of a plank, and a line on the other, flat side of the plank parallel to the half round. 

 

If you want to get ooh-aah fancy, you can stain it and add grip tape.

post #147 of 675
Thread Starter 

So you hop ( or step, carefully ;-) on two wobble boards while in your boots and clicked into your skis.

 

The ideal would be the mid-boot line would line up with the middle of the wobble board?

 

Just wanna be clear.

post #148 of 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post


The ideal would be the mid-boot line would line up with the middle of the wobble board?

 

Just wanna be clear.

 

Forget the skis for now,  just use the boots.     Use one board two-footed to start with, balance to neutral, then see if you can flex up and down.

post #149 of 675
Thread Starter 

Ah, ok. Would a BOSU with flat side up suffice?

post #150 of 675

No, the reference pivot axis would be too vague.   You want a sharply defined reference axis so that stance differences on the scale of 5-10 mm would be apparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post

Ah, ok. Would a BOSU with flat side up suffice?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion