EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How far forward do you mount women's bindings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How far forward do you mount women's bindings?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
How far forward do you mount bindings on ordinary skis (not woman specific) to compensate for their cofm being further back? I'm thinking 1cm ought to be enough on a 155cm ski, but I'm just guessing here.
post #2 of 26
When I get home I can tell you how far forward my wifes bindings are mounted. More than 1cm anyway. I bought her new ones last year, a pair of Blizzard Jr GS 155cm sandwich skis.
post #3 of 26
Oh, do be careful. I am a woman, and built like one, but do not like forward mounting. If you learned on unisex skis, you may not like it either.

If you are able to, get some of those bindings, like the ones Atomic makes, that allow you to move the position forward and back. then you can experiment and won't be stuck with it. I had a pair and played around with it, ended up liking the center position best for normal skiing. (I found the tails washed out when mounted forward unless i consciously shifted weight back which was exhausting.)
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom
Oh, do be careful. I am a woman, and built like one, but do not like forward mounting. If you learned on unisex skis, you may not like it either.

If you are able to, get some of those bindings, like the ones Atomic makes, that allow you to move the position forward and back. then you can experiment and won't be stuck with it. I had a pair and played around with it, ended up liking the center position best for normal skiing. (I found the tails washed out when mounted forward unless i consciously shifted weight back which was exhausting.)
This should be laminated and posted in every ski shop in the country.

The bottom line is finding the spot on the ski where the skier is in balance over the designed waist of the ski. This is effectively what the Campbell Balancer helped do. But, I'm sure you guys can figure out how to do this with a small dowel to balance on...
post #5 of 26
listen to MOM,

if you still want to 1cm
post #6 of 26
Dear Ghost, please check out the following link:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ght=heel+lifts

In this thread is a lot of information about the so called "lower center of mass" in women. (And the "consequences" of it.)
Bottom line, in my opinion, if women (and men) are in boots that fit, and learn ot flex their joints appropriatly, nobody has to mount their bindings forward.
Now, if you want to use your skis in a terrain park and slide the rails, we are talking a different ball game.

Ursula
post #7 of 26
I don't mount my bindings forward either. I don't know any women who do, regardless of their ability. I'm not saying there aren't women who do it, I'm just saying I don't know anyone who decided they wanted it that way.

Are your wife's current pair of skis mounted forward? Did she demo skis and decide she liked the forward mounting? I'm just asking to find out whether she has had experience with forward-mounted bindings, or whether you are just assuming you should do this.

Thatsagirl
post #8 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks everybody who replied. I really appreciate the advice.
I've just been reading too much propogand regarding women's skis. Rentals are normal bindings and placement, and she had not problems with em. In fact, except for the Balanze 11, she prefered unisex.
post #9 of 26
I have known Jeannie Thoren for some time. She is the originator and leading advocate of heel lifts and forward mounting points and practically every major ski company in the world has followed her theories.

FWIW: She did not just wake up one morning and reach these conclusions. They are the result of years of research and countless thousands of empirical tests. She is the first to say that not all women will benefit from these theories but that most will.

Draw your own conclusions.

SJ
post #10 of 26
I also know Jeannie and SierraJim is right on in what he said. It's not "propaganda," there is a great deal of truth behind it. But it's not necessarily right for every woman. For what it's worth, I am a recent convert to women's skis, now that they know how to build a top-notch woman's ski. The manufacturers are finally working with women to make sure they are doing it right. That doesn't mean I like ALL women's skis, because different skis target different kinds of skiers. But what a nice change that is! They didn't always offer women such a breadth of quality products to choose from. It's only recently they realized that, like men, not all women ski the same and want the same product.

So, if she has never demoed skis with bindings placed forward for women, she certainly should find the time to try it. You never know, she might have a real "ah ha" moment. I just wouldn't automatically assume that's what you need to do with her new skis.

Thatsagirl
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
How far forward do you mount bindings on ordinary skis (not woman specific) to compensate for their cofm being further back? I'm thinking 1cm ought to be enough on a 155cm ski, but I'm just guessing here.
I told you I would get back to you later....... my wifes bindings are mounted 2cm forward of the center mark of the ski (whatever that is).

Propaganda! What makes you guys and gals think this is not propaganda right here? In racing it is very common to mount bindings forwards of the center mark. Try to be creative, without that we would still be skiing on straight 205's.

Mom is right, the old Ess and some of the Atomic bindings are easy to slide back and forth. In a blind test a couple of years ago nobody liked the all the way back position. Everybody liked the center but the front had its fans too.
post #12 of 26
Sooo, if MOM buys a womens specific ski, should she mount 1cm back???
post #13 of 26

point of reference

The problem with this discussion other than the general assumption that women in general require special positioning is that the binding poisiton on all skis is the same. It is not.

The centre of boot mark on the ski is not the ski centre or any other specific spot related to ski shape or anatomy. It simply is where the manufacturer wants the centre of the boot to go.

This point is not designed in by the engineers, rather it is assigned by ski testers and is in different points on the ski depending on the manufacturer. Yesterday I balanced on young male racer. He used a Fischer SL ski and Nordica GS. Following Campbell Balancing which uses the centre of the ski running surface as a reference point on all skis we checked the balanced position relative the manufacturer's position.

On the Fischer it was necessary to move the bindings back 1cm and on the Nordica is was necessary to move the bindings forward 2cm. Both positions were exactly the same relative the ski running surface.

Therefore, you cannot talk about automatically mounting women or anyone forward some specific amount if you are using the manufacturer's marks as reference, because manufacturer's points of mounting vary.

Lou
post #14 of 26
Thanks, Lou! We need to remember that binding mounting info on skis and boots is for simplicity of mounting (so shop techs don't have to do very much), not for best skiing performance.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis rosenfeld
The problem with this discussion other than the general assumption that women in general require special positioning is that the binding poisiton on all skis is the same. It is not.

The centre of boot mark on the ski is not the ski centre or any other specific spot related to ski shape or anatomy. It simply is where the manufacturer wants the centre of the boot to go.

This point is not designed in by the engineers, rather it is assigned by ski testers and is in different points on the ski depending on the manufacturer. Yesterday I balanced on young male racer. He used a Fischer SL ski and Nordica GS. Following Campbell Balancing which uses the centre of the ski running surface as a reference point on all skis we checked the balanced position relative the manufacturer's position.

On the Fischer it was necessary to move the bindings back 1cm and on the Nordica is was necessary to move the bindings forward 2cm. Both positions were exactly the same relative the ski running surface.

Therefore, you cannot talk about automatically mounting women or anyone forward some specific amount if you are using the manufacturer's marks as reference, because manufacturer's points of mounting vary.

Lou
Good post Lou.

BTW, testing skis for a magazine a few years back we had a pair of Dynastar nobody liked. They were fitted with rental bindings so it was easy for me to move them back and forth. I found out that the skis were great with the binding way back. Then they were not overstearing.
post #16 of 26

Ski tests

As TDK6 mentioned, correct binding position for you is essential to really liking a ski. That is why I've stopped reading ski tests. I've learned that skis rated difficult or for aggressive skiers tend to be mounted back when compared with skis rated quick and easy. The tests are more about binding position than about true ski characteristics. A ski that overturns or the tail washes out is probably too far forward, especially likely in these days of park skis.

Skis that need to be aggressively skied are too far back. Although I use the Campbell balancer to determine binding position, I've learned that most skiers balance relatively close to the ball-of-the-foot (BOF). In my opinion this point in the boot then belongs over the centre-of-the-running-surface (CRS).

Lou
post #17 of 26

Women's centre of mass

Quickly can someone tell me where I can find the data, research or specific statistics that categorically state that a woman's centre of mass is behind a mans.

Personally, the only place I see this referenced is in ski manufacturer hype. However, I do see many women wearing flat shoes when walking down the street and none of them have ever fallen backwards into me. I often wonder why this is. Does anyone know? Since this seems such a problem I wonder why natural selection hasn't made women with built in higher heels than men. Any comments?

Finally I've no double the professionals that advocate monster heel lifts and forward mounting for women are sincere. But I wonder if they've done proper research to isolate the affects of heel lifts from those of forward mounting? I also wonder if they've ever measured skis from different manufacturers to standardize the mounting position. Is it possible do you suppose that the reason women ski better with the bindings further forward is that many many skis have a standardized positon that is too far back? I wonder if men would benefit just as much when skiing those skis?
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis rosenfeld
As TDK6 mentioned, correct binding position for you is essential to really liking a ski. That is why I've stopped reading ski tests. I've learned that skis rated difficult or for aggressive skiers tend to be mounted back when compared with skis rated quick and easy. The tests are more about binding position than about true ski characteristics. A ski that overturns or the tail washes out is probably too far forward, especially likely in these days of park skis.

Skis that need to be aggressively skied are too far back. Although I use the Campbell balancer to determine binding position, I've learned that most skiers balance relatively close to the ball-of-the-foot (BOF). In my opinion this point in the boot then belongs over the centre-of-the-running-surface (CRS).

Lou
Very good post here by Lou! I fully agree, I raised this Q when testing skis: do bindings matter? But to my astonishement nobody thaught so There was an old test winner, a Fischer GS ski with a Marker rental binding ontop of a full size racing plate that was kept for reference that kept on recieving top ratings year after year. It was because of the 65mm snow to boot distance.

BTW, could you explain how a Campbell balancer works? How can I calculate or measure the center of my ski myselfe?
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis rosenfeld
Yesterday I balanced on young male racer.
Lou, you go some explaining to do...

Sorry, I digress. Back to your regularly scheduled program.
post #20 of 26

I would like to comment!

Quote:
Originally Posted by louis rosenfeld
Quickly can someone tell me where I can find the data, research or specific statistics that categorically state that a woman's centre of mass is behind a mans.

Personally, the only place I see this referenced is in ski manufacturer hype. However, I do see many women wearing flat shoes when walking down the street and none of them have ever fallen backwards into me. I often wonder why this is. Does anyone know? Since this seems such a problem I wonder why natural selection hasn't made women with built in higher heels than men. Any comments?

Finally I've no double the professionals that advocate monster heel lifts and forward mounting for women are sincere. But I wonder if they've done proper research to isolate the affects of heel lifts from those of forward mounting? I also wonder if they've ever measured skis from different manufacturers to standardize the mounting position. Is it possible do you suppose that the reason women ski better with the bindings further forward is that many many skis have a standardized positon that is too far back? I wonder if men would benefit just as much when skiing those skis?
There is a reason for why there are womens skis out on the market! There must be some kind of demand and bucks to eran. If we look at the demand first its obvious that women have different wants and needs when it comes to skiing equipment. Just like bikes, running shoes and cars. Skis should be pritty to look at (nice design), easy to carrie (less weight) and easy to ski on (less weight, short, binding not mounted too far back). Yes, mounting the bindings further in front is good for men also. I did that on my last pair of SL skis and they were perfect.

When it comes to womens anatomy, it is offcourse individual, but some have more weight in front than behind. Guys anatomy calls for only more weight behind or maybe center but not in front
post #21 of 26

splaining

I got some splaining to do as Ricky said, but it won't be about the balanced boy.

Finding center of running surface is easy. Place skis bottom to bottom and close by squeezing them together at the center. Drop a card or piece of paper between the tips and mark the skis where it stops, do the same for the tails. Measure the distance between, divide by two and mark off on the ski. You now have the center of the running surface.

Campbell Balancer is basically a see saw you can stand on in boots. When tipping it forward and back the skier can feel the difference in energy required to move it each direction. Balanced point is when energy in both directions is equal. There is also a component that lets the bootfitter watch body movement and help make determinations.

A substitute as others said is simply ball of foot/ centre of running surface.

Lou
post #22 of 26
Wait, Is the ball of the foot over center of running surface a substitute for the Campbell balance point over the same reference point? If I balance on a dowel in ski boots, it seems as though I would feel better balanced closer to the arch/middle of foot, not the ball (I haven't tried it yet).
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis rosenfeld
As TDK6 mentioned, correct binding position for you is essential to really liking a ski. That is why I've stopped reading ski tests. I've learned that skis rated difficult or for aggressive skiers tend to be mounted back when compared with skis rated quick and easy. The tests are more about binding position than about true ski characteristics. A ski that overturns or the tail washes out is probably too far forward, especially likely in these days of park skis.

Skis that need to be aggressively skied are too far back. Although I use the Campbell balancer to determine binding position, I've learned that most skiers balance relatively close to the ball-of-the-foot (BOF). In my opinion this point in the boot then belongs over the centre-of-the-running-surface (CRS).

Lou
Thanks so much for this post (and the earlier one). It's what I've come to believe as the truth after my own personal experiences. Since learning this information I've been setting up all of my skis with plates so that I can adjust the fore/aft positioning without re-drilling (it's not as easy as a Railflex system, but it works).

My search for a shop with a Campbell Balancer continues. If anyone knows of a shop in Colorado that has one please let me know! In the mean time I've been using the BoF method with great success.
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Since learning this information I've been setting up all of my skis with plates so that I can adjust the fore/aft positioning without re-drilling (it's not as easy as a Railflex system, but it works).
Hi,

For us that are not familiar with the plates that you are using, could you somehow explain how will somebody go about doing this?

Thanks!
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuyax
Hi,

For us that are not familiar with the plates that you are using, could you somehow explain how will somebody go about doing this?

Thanks!
I've been using the Tyrolia Carve Plate 13 SLR mainly and some of the VIST Worldcup plates. You can get the VIST plates to use with any binding, but the versions I've been buying (and the Tyrolia plates) are pre-drilled for Tyrolia bindings.

You could also do the same thing with the Marker WC Piston Plates by mounting the "Free" versions of their bindings to the plate. And there are probably others I'm not thinking of at the moment.

The key is that you're only mounting the plate directly to the ski. Once it is mounted the plate will allow you to pick a number of different fore/aft positions for the bindings. Also, if you need to replace and exchange bindings you won't need to muck around with the ski's core since you're only screwing in and out of the plate.

The main thing I watch out for is what the total stand height will end up being when you combine the ski thickness, plate height, and binding height together. I make sure that I never exceed 55mm. 55mm happens to be the FIS regulation, but it's also a good rule-of-thumb since I would consider anything higher than that a bit extreme. Most of my setups come in around 45mm total stand height and I've grown accustomed to having that amount of lift no matter what skis I'm on.
post #26 of 26

Campbell balancer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
Thanks so much for this post (and the earlier one). It's what I've come to believe as the truth after my own personal experiences. Since learning this information I've been setting up all of my skis with plates so that I can adjust the fore/aft positioning without re-drilling (it's not as easy as a Railflex system, but it works).

My search for a shop with a Campbell Balancer continues. If anyone knows of a shop in Colorado that has one please let me know! In the mean time I've been using the BoF method with great success.
Don't know of a Campbell Balancer in colorado but there very well may be one. However, there definitely is one at Snowbird with steve Bagley in Sport Stalker.

I think someone asked if BOF/CRS is a substitute for Balancer and I will say no, but most people do balance very close to BOF/CRS, so if you can't find a balancer use BOF/CRS instead.

Lou
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 › How far forward do you mount women's bindings?