or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Gas pedal, ramp and binding placements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gas pedal, ramp and binding placements

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
This thread is in response to a discussion between me and Gary Dranow in Heleva's new carving thread.

Gary, I am the local guru for boot alignments and I have worked more with binding placmement than ramp. I want to know more about your working with ramp even if we lose everyone else in the forum.

The P60's were I think more like 155 or 156cm. I weight 215lbs. The bindings were Marker Piston with a fair amount of built in delta. The Z9's were a demo binding. When I asked the rep he said the bindings were not dead flat but had less delta than the street bindings.

What you were suggesting is that I might be too big of a lug for the skis and that moving binding placement forward may be the wrong move to get the rebound in the right place.

I don't have a lot of dynamic ankle flex. Probably around 10 to 12 degrees so I like less ramp and the bindings more forward because I do not have the range of fore and aft movement. That has been my reasoning behind the binding adjustments. You are suggesting that ramp is a better place to do adjustments. I want to know your reasoning behind this.

By the way. When I say gas pedal I do not mean aggressive movements I mean sublte movements from the feet and CM that coax more speed and less braking out of the skis or coax more power in the right places from rebound. The DIN for my gas pedal turns was a platry 5.5 or so.
post #2 of 52
I often hear toe shims referred to as "gas pedal" is that what you are talking about? I jus oreder a 4,6 and 10mm kit for my Omeglass 64s to do experiments with my own binding delta.
post #3 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
This thread is in response to a discussion between me and Gary Dranow in Heleva's new carving thread.

Gary, I am the local guru for boot alignments and I have worked more with binding placmement than ramp. I want to know more about your working with ramp even if we lose everyone else in the forum.

The P60's were I think more like 155 or 156cm. I weight 215lbs. The bindings were Marker Piston with a fair amount of built in delta. The Z9's were a demo binding. When I asked the rep he said the bindings were not dead flat but had less delta than the street bindings.

What you were suggesting is that I might be too big of a lug for the skis and that moving binding placement forward may be the wrong move to get the rebound in the right place.

I don't have a lot of dynamic ankle flex. Probably around 10 to 12 degrees so I like less ramp and the bindings more forward because I do not have the range of fore and aft movement. That has been my reasoning behind the binding adjustments. You are suggesting that ramp is a better place to do adjustments. I want to know your reasoning behind this.

By the way. When I say gas pedal I do not mean aggressive movements I mean sublte movements from the feet and CM that coax more speed and less braking out of the skis or coax more power in the right places from rebound. The DIN for my gas pedal turns was a platry 5.5 or so.
DAMN, I just lost my whole reponse to this. DANG, DANG, DANG!

First of all, sorry, I misunderstood what happened in the other thread, I thought I was being admonished for being off topic. My bad.

I'll try and rebuild what I just lost.

- yes, adding lift under the front binding is the way to put the CM in a place where we CAN be subtle and find the power in our skiing.

- Here's the logic. In most boots we are toe negative, the toe is lower than the heel. This comes for the boot board delta. If we start with our toes down we have to rock or move our hips or even our upper body forward to get our CM where we need to load the front of our skis - not good.

By putting a 2, 4, or 6 MM lifter under the toe of our binding or a combination rear/front that gets us a lift of the toe we can stand more neutral and still be able to hit the front of our boots thereby loading the front of our skis, critical at the top of the slalom turn (really any turn).

- Yes, I believe by putting bindings foward on slalom skis, while it may help women get the tips to engage, is a problem for most male skiers. It usually results in the tips becoming hooky and the skier having to rock fore/aft to get the skis hooked up through the power phase of the turn.

As I mentioned before, lift the toe and the gas pedal is right there without any undo need to get the CM forward past your normal movement patterns in our slalom skiing.

This is a much shorter version of what I had put up and blew up, makes sense?
post #4 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic
I often hear toe shims referred to as "gas pedal" is that what you are talking about? I jus oreder a 4,6 and 10mm kit for my Omeglass 64s to do experiments with my own binding delta.
Dead on what we are talking about. Let us know how it works out.
post #5 of 52
Is it basically a matter of trial and error to determine what size shim is optimal? Where is the shim mounted, under the binding or on top of the AFD?

Thanks
Mark
post #6 of 52
Under the binding (harder and harder to do these days with system ski), or on the boot itself. Some bindings will allow a temporary shim on the AFD, others will not.

My plan is to experiment with it on the 64s, and then cut my boots to reach optimal ramp on all of my Markers, then re-shim the 64s.
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fischermh
Is it basically a matter of trial and error to determine what size shim is optimal? Where is the shim mounted, under the binding or on top of the AFD?

Thanks
Mark
YES, testing is necessary, however, if your skis work well without messing around, no need to start. It depends on the binding manufacturer. The Rossi you put the shims under the binding toe or heel piece for instance. Anybody know the other systems?
post #8 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic
Under the binding (harder and harder to do these days with system ski), or on the boot itself. Some bindings will allow a temporary shim on the AFD, others will not.

My plan is to experiment with it on the 64s, and then cut my boots to reach optimal ramp on all of my Markers, then re-shim the 64s.
Good point. Here is something to be careful about. You may need pedal on your Slalom skis, may not on your GS and definitely not on your speed skis (I've never heard of anybody putting pedal on their SuperG or Downhill skis). If you mess with the RAMP of your boots you are stuck with it for all your skis, may not be the best idea.

Hey Rossi has it figured out, they've got it set up to easily add or remove shims with their FKS binding and plate system (No plug here : )
post #9 of 52
Thread Starter 
I have it figured out right then. I thought you had some secret that I hadn't played with yet. I definitetly don't like a lot of ramp and that is partly why I ski tele so much. Adding to the toe peice is easy with tele.

That is also why I suspected I liked the Z9 as it was a demo binding and demo bindings have lower built in delta. I wonder how much lift is available for all of these integrated bindings out there on recreational skis.
post #10 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dranow
Here's the logic. In most boots we are toe negative, the toe is lower than the heel. This comes for the boot board delta. If we start with our toes down we have to rock or move our hips or even our upper body forward to get our CM where we need to load the front of our skis - not good.

By putting a 2, 4, or 6 MM lifter under the toe of our binding or a combination rear/front that gets us a lift of the toe we can stand more neutral and still be able to hit the front of our boots thereby loading the front of our skis, critical at the top of the slalom turn (really any turn).

- Yes, I believe by putting bindings foward on slalom skis, while it may help women get the tips to engage, is a problem for most male skiers. It usually results in the tips becoming hooky and the skier having to rock fore/aft to get the skis hooked up through the power phase of the turn.

As I mentioned before, lift the toe and the gas pedal is right there without any undo need to get the CM forward past your normal movement patterns in our slalom skiing.

This is a much shorter version of what I had put up and blew up, makes sense?
Great post Gary. Most people do not understand this simple fact about ramp angle. Most think that adding more ramp and moving the binding more forward will get the skier farther forward, when in fact it can do just the opposite (especially for a guy).

Later

GREG
post #11 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Great post Gary. Most people do not understand this simple fact about ramp angle. Most think that adding more ramp and moving the binding more forward will get the skier farther forward, when in fact it can do just the opposite (especially for a guy).

Later

GREG
There are many more intentions in skiers other than racing or going mach schnell. Moving binding placement forward is not for the purpose of getting a skier forward but instead for allowing less fore and aft movement to achieve balance.

Increasing ramp is never a solution of mine. Decreasing ramp is almost always my goal in the alignment processs even with moving binding placements forward.

If your goal is carving and you have great ability to do fore and aft movements, then having the binding aft is the goal. You will find many posts where I state this.

If your goal is other than racing, or if you have poor flexibility, than exploring the binding placement forward is definitely worth while. Bumps become far easier with forward binding placement. Is the goal carving RR tracks here? No. If your goal is to side slip down difficult terrain with a sled then forward binding placement should be your goal.

In fact just about everyone benefits from reduced ramp but generally only those people with noodle ankles or those who want to race benefit from rearward binding placement.
post #12 of 52
Pierre - why don't you measure the delta on those skis and let us know what you were dealing with?
post #13 of 52
i wish jim lindsey would weigh in here. i will try to put forth his argument for raising the toe and admit i may well be misquoting.

the first measurement he took with me was to determine how much range of dorsi/plantar flexion that i had and in turn to set my ankle in the boot in the mid point. this was accomplished by shaving the boot board.

he then sought to place my knee over the middle of my foot as opposed to out over the toe. this was accomplished with a 5 mm plate under the toe lug of my boot.

don't forget any stacking under the toe may require grinding the top of the toe to bring it back to din specs. i think height can be adjusted on some toe pieces.

that is my best recollection of his methodology and reasoning.

on the topic of binding placement. i have fiddled with mine and found i can easily get too far forward. i know when the tail get's skiddy or the tip over engages and gets grabby off piste on hard wind blown steep pitches.
post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
There are many more intentions in skiers other than racing or going mach schnell. Moving binding placement forward is not for the purpose of getting a skier forward but instead for allowing less fore and aft movement to achieve balance.

Increasing ramp is never a solution of mine. Decreasing ramp is almost always my goal in the alignment processs even with moving binding placements forward.

If your goal is carving and you have great ability to do fore and aft movements, then having the binding aft is the goal. You will find many posts where I state this.

If your goal is other than racing, or if you have poor flexibility, than exploring the binding placement forward is definitely worth while. Bumps become far easier with forward binding placement. Is the goal carving RR tracks here? No. If your goal is to side slip down difficult terrain with a sled then forward binding placement should be your goal.

In fact just about everyone benefits from reduced ramp but generally only those people with noodle ankles or those who want to race benefit from rearward binding placement.
WAIT A MINUTE - you mean there's something other than racing : I didn't know that Man do I have a limited context (all should be aware in my posts how limited my context is, oops).
post #15 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
on the topic of binding placement. i have fiddled with mine and found i can easily get too far forward. i know when the tail get's skiddy or the tip over engages and gets grabby off piste on hard wind blown steep pitches.
Stop leveraging the boot tongues.
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Stop leveraging the boot tongues.
amen
post #17 of 52

Can 2MM toe up ramp ruin your day? A racer's experiment.

So while you guys were all having fun in that other thread I went out testing today. This is just report, no particular reason for writing this,,,,

Here's the setup

Very Grippy Snow, firm packed powder (almost hard packed, kind of like that chalk we get at Sun Valley ski races). 20 Degrees F. Clear to partly cloudy.

A pair of Rossi WC 181 VERY sharp (I usually ski 185 or 190), .50 bottom/.93 Side bevels.

These skis already had a 4MM rear shim and a 6MM front shim under the heel/toe, a positive 2MM (toe up) Ramp.

The result

I had one of the most terrifying rides of my life for 4 runs (a circuit we do as a warm up for either Master training or laps over at the Putt-putt course, NASTAR).

First of all, to get the skis to hook up I had to stand way more neutral than I do normally, I would say my hips were back about 1 - 2 inches from where I usually have them all throughout the turn. Though I was stacked properly for that fore/aft bias my skis either carved a 23 Meter turn or just didn't work. Forget a pivot. I attribute this to two things.

1) The skis were way too sharp for the conditions (however, I ski my other skis with similar sharpness and have never experienced what happened today).

2) Adding the toe lift put my sweet spot back on the ski, making me stand in an unnatural position for my skiing level, fitness, strength (I'm an old guy).

My observations. Though I was on the ragged edge of balance or at least it felt that way, by the end of the fourth long run I was hooking up and skiing Mach Schnell. I felt that if I could bring this into a course and maintain control over my skis I would probably produce a fast time. But I didn't like the feel. I felt as if I was putting strain on my body that I do not normally and that the slightest mistake would end in a torn knee or worse.

I had to make a very quick move across the skis to get them away from me (probably that they were overly sharp) but had to stay CM neutral throughout the apex and finish of the turn (the Ramp). If I tried to bring the radius down from where "the ski was happy", especially on the steeps, it misbehaved badly (chatter, hooked up and released). On my other skis I can pivot at will as well as tighten or loosen the radius with edge angle variance.

I didn't feel I could articulate the arc of my ski, more like the ski was happy at a certain radius and that was that. Obviously this would have to be worked out before EVER jumping in a course. I decided instead to make a hasty retreat from the hill.

What has truly amazed me is that 2MM lift on my toe caused so much havoc in my experience. I was also about 5MM higher total stack than on my other race skis, ie; more lateral leverage.

I immediately went to my service tech, Jeffrey Butz, Podium Ski Service. Jeff spend a few years on the World Cup here recently and is one of the best. We talked. I called my head coach, Warren Wilkinson and we talked.

The consensus was this was a result, as I said, of a combination of things. But all agreed that because of my size (6'1", 235Lbs) and these were originally set up for my wife at 5'6" 140 Lbs that the 2MM lift had a greater degree of effect on me than on her for this size ski. I'm on them as she felt the ski was a bit too much for her, after my ride, I had no idea how she skied them at all. She liked the skis for Master courses but didn't like them at all in the flatter NASTAR course both in Colorado and here at PC. While over at Podium we flexed these skis and 2 other pair of 181 Rossi, same year, one being those of a PC FIS Junior (about 60 pointer). She, the FIS Jr., had the same exact lifts on her skis. Her skis were pretty similar in flex, but not as sharp in as much as they did not have a vertical "burr" that my skis did (something that a stone can easily fix). This is her normal GS setup for the big hills. The other skis were simply softer in the tail but not so radically that it could account for the ride I experienced today.

Warren and Jeff both agreed that on the harder courses the ramp probably did not provide the PC Jr. racer with the ride or body positions I experienced. This was based on a a little bit of math, (this is a over simplification and not the actual equation) ramp angle X height x weight = X Leverage. True that my bigger boot (315MM) would somewhat lessen the increase in the actual delta of the ramp over the racer with smaller boot (285MM) but the 6 inches higher CM way over compensated for the ramp angle difference between the boot sizes. I was simply overpowering the skis when I stood the way I'm comfortable and therefore had to move aft.

We all felt that a younger, higher skilled athlete [my size] could handle this setup but was it worth the trade offs and risk of injury? Hmmm, not sure, but certainly there are WC guys out there with this much pedal, certainly not my size on 181 skis, however. So there is another part of the equation, ski length.

Tomorrow, before returning the skis to my wife (if I don't like them for the shorter courses) I am taking out the lifts, running a stone across the bottom of the edge (to knock down the vertical burr) and will take them for another ride.

We did get my wife a pair of the new 175 CM WC 9Xti's. The ski is beefy enough for her on the big courses but has a quicker swing weight on the flatter courses, kinda of a happy medium. She has to ski the 181's without the ramp as well or we take the toe down to a 4MM riser keeping her total stack up leveling out her delta and see if there is a big change for her, of course.

It will be interesting to see if the ski handles radically different closer to zero delta. I expect, as I have never had a ride like that, that they will behave beautifully and be a great option for me on a 18 to 20 meter turn course. If this proves to be the case I will surmise the toe up ramp is for either the smaller stature elite racer or for the extremely strong bigger elite racer who wishes to take his fore/aft balance to the edges of a body's tolerance, and of course on longer skis.

To be honest, I felt today like I had a brief window in the world of certain world cup racers and was glad I didn't play in that arena.

So for now, in those conditions on that ski, I agree with Pierre, Zero Delta, baby. Will I experiment with my 184 and 190's. You bet, I'm really curious.

We were talking about ramp, delta, shims, and so on, right? Yeah, we were. This is just a journalistic jaunt through today's experience, I felt like writing about it, nothing more,,,,,

Edit; Not true, I wrote this to keep my mind occupied and my nose out of where it doesn't belong in another thread
post #18 of 52
it's funny....i moved my binds back for a bump lesson today and liked it.

back was actually simply putting the mid sole mark in the middle of the ski.
post #19 of 52
Interesting. I haven't got my gas pedals for my looks yet, but I do have a pair of Rossis that are probably very much like yours. They are 183s with 155 bindings on them. They have a 4 milli shim under the heel, and two 4s under the toe. They are a pretty wild ride, but I do feel pretty good on them, and I am fast on them. My Dynastars have no shims, so no delta as far as I can tell (Look P18 bindings). Here's the funny part, all of my other skis have Markers which as near as I can tell are 5mils down at the toe, so I am switching throgh a range of 9mm. I am running a 315mm boot. I think I want to be somewhere in the middle for my all purpose skiing. Of course the next question is do all of my Makers have the same delta? I've got Nordica and Volkl system Markers and Pistol plate bindings on flat skis. This will all be a lot easier if they all have the same delta. I don't have a caliper, so it's hard to tell exactly how much the system skis have.
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic
Interesting. I haven't got my gas pedals for my looks yet, but I do have a pair of Rossis that are probably very much like yours. They are 183s with 155 bindings on them. They have a 4 milli shim under the heel, and two 4s under the toe. They are a pretty wild ride, but I do feel pretty good on them, and I am fast on them. My Dynastars have no shims, so no delta as far as I can tell (Look P18 bindings). Here's the funny part, all of my other skis have Markers which as near as I can tell are 5mils down at the toe, so I am switching throgh a range of 9mm. I am running a 315mm boot. I think I want to be somewhere in the middle for my all purpose skiing. Of course the next question is do all of my Makers have the same delta? I've got Nordica and Volkl system Markers and Pistol plate bindings on flat skis. This will all be a lot easier if they all have the same delta. I don't have a caliper, so it's hard to tell exactly how much the system skis have.
I'm picking up my skis tomorrow and will ask Jeffrey what the deal is on the Markers. Just so I'm clear. This is the piston plates, with marker bindings, one pair Volkl and one pair on Nordicas. I assume they are race skis?
post #21 of 52
Gary,

Would be of any value to ski them first with the hangingg burr removed before changing the ramp?
post #22 of 52
Thread Starter 
Gary for reference purposes I am curious what your range of ankle motion is?
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Gary,

Would be of any value to ski them first with the hangingg burr removed before changing the ramp?
thats a really good/astute point but it was SO radical that I know the ramp was a bigger issue. I do ski my other skis VERY sharp in similar conditions and have never had this kind of ride. If it wasn't so bizarre I would have run an Arkansas stone over the edge and taken some more runs before bailing. The hanging or vertical burr makes the skis ski "stiffer" and harder to roll up on edge or get out away from you, this was more a fore/aft issue (sweetspot wasn't were I like it). Again, astute observation.
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Gary for reference purposes I am curious what your range of ankle motion is?
Pierre, that is a damn good question. Tell me how to measure it, what flexion to measure and I'll let you know. Since I practice Tai Chi regularly I believe I have excellent ROM of the ankle (though I did sustain a compression fracture of the tib/fib of my right ankle early last season and it was a real problem all of last race season, but it has healed nicely over this last summer and I feel I have much better feel and movement).

Edit; BTW, I dumped my foot beds and I will NEVER go back.
post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dranow
I'm picking up my skis tomorrow and will ask Jeffrey what the deal is on the Markers. Just so I'm clear. This is the piston plates, with marker bindings, one pair Volkl and one pair on Nordicas. I assume they are race skis?
These are my non race skis. Ultimately, I don't think I'll want them as toes up as the race skis, but I can experiment on the Race skis more easily. The Volkls are a Superspeed (motion binding) and the Nordicas are Top Fuels (XBS binding system). All the rest of my skis have Marker Piston bindings, but not the World Cup Piston plate just the regular consumer one. I measured the delta on my Gotamas and it seems to be 5mm.

Did you say you got rid of your footbeds? Does that mean you have nothing in there?
post #26 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dranow
Pierre, that is a damn good question. Tell me how to measure it, what flexion to measure and I'll let you know. Since I practice Tai Chi regularly I believe I have excellent ROM of the ankle (though I did sustain a compression fracture of the tib/fib of my right ankle early last season and it was a real problem all of last race season, but it has healed nicely over this last summer and I feel I have much better feel and movement).

Edit; BTW, I dumped my foot beds and I will NEVER go back.
While sitting in a chair with the femurs horizontal and the tibia's 90 degrees to the floor, lift the ball of the foot off the floor as high as you can while the heel remains on the floor. Measure the angle between the floor and the bottom of your foot. Use a flat piece of metal under the foot such as a ruler or framing square and when the foot is lifted, lift the flat piece of metal up to the bottom of the foot. Get magnetic inclinometer/protractor and read the degrees off the dial.

About 10% of skiers have natural alignment and may very well prefer the extra versatility that no footbeds would offer.

I suspect but do not know for a fact that successful racers are far more naturally aligned and have higher range of ankle motion than the average recreational skier. I often find that top notch corrections using alignment methods fall short of those individuals with natual alignment. I think the best are born with the right stuff.

Myself without footbeds? I am very knock kneed and A frame terrible. I was the master of the windshield wipper mogul turn.
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
While sitting in a chair with the femurs horizontal and the tibia's 90 degrees to the floor, lift the ball of the foot off the floor as high as you can while the heel remains on the floor. Measure the angle between the floor and the bottom of your foot. Use a flat piece of metal under the foot such as a ruler or framing square and when the foot is lifted, lift the flat piece of metal up to the bottom of the foot. Get magnetic inclinometer/protractor and read the degrees off the dial.

About 10% of skiers have natural alignment and may very well prefer the extra versatility that no footbeds would offer.

I suspect but do not know for a fact that successful racers are far more naturally aligned and have higher range of ankle motion than the average recreational skier. I often find that top notch corrections using alignment methods fall short of those individuals with natual alignment. I think the best are born with the right stuff.

Myself without footbeds? I am very knock kneed and A frame terrible. I was the master of the windshield wipper mogul turn.
May take me some time, I'm seein my boot guy anyway and will have him get that measurement. As for my natural cant, you go it. I'm dead on my non-surgery leg and .50 degrees in on the rebuilt knee. I cant 1 degree out on both so I'm 1.50 out on the left a 1 out on the right on my boot grind.

My hips are level and everything points where it supposed to, great natural alignment.

The guy that builds my boots, Zach Lloyd, builds all the boots for the top Rossi Juniors for the western region (Summit County, Utah, Far West). He has told me that generally the top racers are all naturally aligned darn near zero and typically have great ROM of their ankles. Not always the case but generally. So Pierre it would seem your surmise is correct, the guys and gals that stick with it and make it to elite levels start out standing on their equipment with the "right stuff" to begin with and have superior natural ski/snow feel.

Quote:
Did you say you got rid of your footbeds? Does that mean you have nothing in there?
I used to ski (until this year, that is) the AMFIT footbed. I've dumped those and just have the generic Lange "soft" bed that comes with boot, so yes, I have something in there but nothing that puts my foot in any particular position. I definitely don't want anything under my arch restricting my ability to smear or raise the bottom of my foot in the boot.
post #28 of 52
Peter Keelty has noted variation on where different manufacturers of very similar skis put the mid-sole marks. The best thing to do is to try different binding positions to see which works best for you on your skis. Many Atomic or Tyrolia bindings can be moved, or pre-drilled lifter plates allow for easy movement of the bindings. Peter talks about it here....http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/..._placement.htm


Ken
post #29 of 52

A lot to do about nothing? And why racers don't ski recreational skis ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftSnowGuy
Peter Keelty has noted variation on where different manufacturers of very similar skis put the mid-sole marks. The best thing to do is to try different binding positions to see which works best for you on your skis. Many Atomic or Tyrolia bindings can be moved, or pre-drilled lifter plates allow for easy movement of the bindings. Peter talks about it here....http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/..._placement.htm


Ken
Thanks, interesting article and further supports proper boot/binding placement. This dispels a lot of myths, at least for me. It also makes RAMP the logical adjustment to fine tune the sweet spot, not moving the binding for or aft of the BOF or TDC/Centerline of the boot (which I'll bet is very close to what the Campbell Balancer indicates on race skis).

The problem with the system bindings on recreational skis indicates that those folks wanting to truly carve their turns are better off getting real racing skis or recreational skis the use the same binding systems as the counter part race ski that can be adjusted forward as Ken suggests. I can tell anyone based on my vast experience with Rossignol Race Stock skis that plates are placed properly on the ski and the pre-drilled holes allows the technician to easily mount almost any size boot in the proper fore/aft position for the majority of skiers that are capable of carving their turns. I would assume this is true of the other manufacturers race stock ski/plate combinations these days. Pre-mounting a plate that would put a racer/skier in an aft position would simply make the ski's performance way less than desirable as clearly indicated in this article.

What of moving the bindings forward? Just the other end of the problem for the skilled racer or very strong recreational skier who wishes to carve their turns.

I jumped back on my 185's today, stock Delta and it was like being awoken from a bad dream (from yesterday's RAMP experience with the 181's). Tomorrow I will be back on the 181's with the hanging burr removed and the stock delta (don't really know what that RAMP angle is, haven't actually measured it, that's next) with just the plates and bindings, no shims, stock stack height.

I'm also going to test keeping my delta stock and raising the stack height to the FIS limit (same size shims under toe and heel), I believe the Rossi Plate, Binding is 5MM short of the limit (about 40MM not including the boot, I'll check this as well).

Next I am going to play with a plus 2MM Toe Shim on my 185's and 190's just to see where it places my CM and affects my balance, turn shape, and speed in the course (if I'm comfortable enough to take it to the course).

Will report. I will also get Pierre his measurements on my ankle flexion ROM as soon as I can.

Good article, thanks for the info. It will be funny after all this screwing around if I find the stock set up is the optimal for me. I wonder if I will have learned anything from the experience

For Epic, I was not able to determine what the stock RAMP angle is on those skis. It seems the recreational integrated systems RAMP angles or stack height heel/toe aren't widely available and my tech doesn't really deal in that level of ski. Also, the few customers that comes in with that class of ski isn't particularly concerned with their RAMP so it doesn't really come up. Sorry I couldn't be of more help on that.
post #30 of 52
Gary,
I don't think ramp angle change is a replacement for binding location change. They may have related effects, but also have different effects on the ski's action.


Ken
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Gas pedal, ramp and binding placements