EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Mounting Sugar Daddy's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mounting Sugar Daddy's?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Came across a pair of new 05-06 Sugar Daddy's, 173, for $297. Hmm. Not Part Of The Plan, but now own Atomic powder skis. : Haven't skied Atomics since an old pair of Rex's years ago. So advice from SD owners: Do you mount at line, behind, any inside info? I'm thinking Tyrolia, but any other binding recs? Anyone use a flexing design rather than flush on-ski? Gawd, bargins mess up everything.
post #2 of 13

One opinion, from a right coaster.

After skiing them in UT (Mar.) and CO (Apr.) with MarkerTi12s and 4mms of 2-piece lift mounted on the line, I'd change to Look or T-Mojo and 9 mms of 2-piece lift on the line.

No particular wish for Railflex.
No problems with Marker except when the toepiece is snowclogged.
post #3 of 13
Anything over a 12 DIN will suffice. Whatever you can get a deal on that you can get a wide brake for.
post #4 of 13
I would use a free flex binding on any ski myself. Who wants a flat spot in their ski's flex pattern. The sugar daddy's have a nice even flex, as do most atomics, so why interfere? If you mount an atomic neox on them you can play with the position of the binding a little and fine tune this for yourself. Not a bad option, since you are asking about mounting position. Later, RicB.
post #5 of 13
I found the newer daddies have a softer tip, then the older ones.

because of this I liked mine 1-2cm back of center.

older ones that where stiff everywhere ski on center
post #6 of 13
Mine ended up -2cm due to some existing holes and I'm happy with them there.
RicB: are you really worried about a dead spot in the flex on 99mm waisted powder skis?
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
If you mount an atomic neox on them you can play with the position of the binding a little and fine tune this for yourself. Not a bad option, since you are asking about mounting position. Later, RicB.
Neox is a good option. you can actually adjust the binding position more then a little bit, depending on the size of your boot. Although there are only 2 offical positions, as long as the numbers in adjustment windows add up to 2 X your boot sole length you can adjust anywhere within reason, again depending on your boot sole length.

I would mount them ski line to boot sole center line in the "central Neox Position" and then start palying wiht the binding adjustment on the hill and see what you like.

If you have any reservation about the Atomic Neox, it has proven to be an excellent setup. get the Neox 4.12 it is much lighter then the 6.14
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffW View Post
Mine ended up -2cm due to some existing holes and I'm happy with them there.
RicB: are you really worried about a dead spot in the flex on 99mm waisted powder skis?
You bet. An evenly decambered ski is what I prefer, even at 99 mm. I don't know about you but I can feel how a ski flexes under my feet. Later, RicB.
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Neox is a good option. you can actually adjust the binding position more then a little bit, depending on the size of your boot. Although there are only 2 offical positions, as long as the numbers in adjustment windows add up to 2 X your boot sole length you can adjust anywhere within reason, again depending on your boot sole length.

I would mount them ski line to boot sole center line in the "central Neox Position" and then start palying wiht the binding adjustment on the hill and see what you like.

If you have any reservation about the Atomic Neox, it has proven to be an excellent setup. get the Neox 4.12 it is much lighter then the 6.14
you are right Aman, I just gave the official take on this. I have actually adjusted a neox up to almost an inch. Later, Ricb.
post #10 of 13

RicB, a thought.

A 2 piece lifter increases the range of motion of the ski between toe and heelpiece that is allowed by the forward pressure spring.
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
You bet. An evenly decambered ski is what I prefer, even at 99 mm. I don't know about you but I can feel how a ski flexes under my feet. Later, RicB.
flex pattern is just importanat in POW as Packed even with a 99mm waist!
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB View Post
You bet. An evenly decambered ski is what I prefer, even at 99 mm. I don't know about you but I can feel how a ski flexes under my feet. Later, RicB.
Cool, only asked because I had 2 pairs of the same skis; one pair was mounted flat w/ 912's and one with a freeflex binding. I could feel the difference on hard snow, but didn't notice anything different in powder.
Just trying to reconcile whether or not the extra lift would be worth it on a fat ski like the sd.
post #13 of 13
I also just bought the 173's with the Mojo binding. The ski-binding combination is one of the lightest I've felt. Like a feather.

Caveat: The Mojo brake, designed for 95 mm, doesn't q-u-i-t-e work. You can bend the bars, but they still rub a bit when clicking-in.

I paid $399 and thought I got a killer deal!

But, at $297, you took the jam outta my donut!

You'll love 'em. They're ultra-smooth with surprising edge-hold.
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 › Mounting Sugar Daddy's?