New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

twin tip mounting

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I got a pair of elan m999's for powder this year, and am uncertain where to mount these things. usually I use the Campbell ballance machine, but I'm concerned that a slightly more rearward position would be better with twin tip skis due to the extra float of the tail. Any thoughts?
post #2 of 15
Where does the Campbell put you?

I have my powder skis mounted at +1.75 (this was before I knew of Campbell)
Turns out my Campbell point is +2.

I'd say go with the Campbell.
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
Where does the Campbell put you?

I have my powder skis mounted at +1.75 (this was before I knew of Campbell)
Turns out my Campbell point is +2.

I'd say go with the Campbell.

I'm about +2 on the Campbell, If not for my lack of experience on twin tips, I wouldn't be woried
post #4 of 15

Approximate the campbell point

I've read articles that explained how ball of foot over center of running surface provides a good approximation of the balance point. You might consider measuring to see how accurate this in on your current skis and then apply the same approach to the twin tips (that way the upturn of the tail is taken into account). On the other hand, when in the powder the entire surface is load bearing so maybe it wouldn't matter that much.

Option2. You didn't mention bindings, but mount Tyrolia Railflex (or something similar) with the balance point aligned with the + 15 and you have 3cm (or maybe more depending on bootsole length) to move rearward if/when you find you want to.

However, I absolutely wouldn't assume that because you are +2 on one set of skis that you would be +2 on another set of skis, especially if they are from different manufacturers.
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandalf View Post
On the other hand, when in the powder the entire surface is load bearing so maybe it wouldn't matter that much.
This is what I'm concerned about. I've found bof mounting as good in powder as hardpack. With a conventional tail, in powder the tip becomes part of the running surface shifting the effective mounting point rearward. I'm thinking that the twin tip will counter this. I've never skied twintips before, so I'm not sure what to expect.

+2 cm is for the m999's, and I've got some mojo 15's so more or less one shot.
post #6 of 15
You people put too much thought into mounting points. Just mount it where the factory tells you to and move it afterward if you really dislike the way it performs.
post #7 of 15
I have all of my skis mounted BOF/center of running surface (but also with adjustable binding) and find that superior for most conditions.

But, given one shot on an unknown ski, I would find the BOF/center of running surface, and then compromise by mounting half way between there and the factory recommended "center of boot".
post #8 of 15
How much do you weigh?
Do you plan on skiing switch alot?

Cause if you weigh a bit then you might want them behind the line to keep your tips from diving or infront of the line if you expect to be landing switch because if you have back mounted skis and you try to land switch in soft snow you will almost allways fall plus it helps with your spins to have them mounted towards the center
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
How much do you weigh?
Do you plan on skiing switch alot?

Cause if you weigh a bit then you might want them behind the line to keep your tips from diving or infront of the line if you expect to be landing switch because if you have back mounted skis and you try to land switch in soft snow you will almost allways fall plus it helps with your spins to have them mounted towards the center
Han't been thinking about the whole switch thnig. like I said, there are my first twintips. Keeping this point in mind, the balanced position seems like the best bet.

Thanks guys.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
Han't been thinking about the whole switch thnig. like I said, there are my first twintips. Keeping this point in mind, the balanced position seems like the best bet.

Thanks guys.
also consider the powder thing. You bought these skis for powder right? So it would suck if you at to ski back seat to keep your tips from diving on your powder only skis
post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
also consider the powder thing. You bought these skis for powder right? So it would suck if you at to ski back seat to keep your tips from diving on your powder only skis
I live in Steamboat, so these will probably (fingers crossed) be my primary ski.
post #12 of 15
Still what I said before still applies. if you ski a lot of powder having to ride the tails completely sucks
post #13 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
Still what I said before still applies. if you ski a lot of powder having to ride the tails completely sucks

This is why I started the tread. I've been wondering just how much the back tip adds the to tail's floation.
post #14 of 15
So here's the deal. The M999 is kind of an odd ski - it's different than even most other twin tips.

First, Elan's published lengths are the material length not the chord length (which is what most manufacturers use). My 181cm M999 is actually a 177cm ski (had I known I would have gone longer). When calculating the running length (contact length) I found that these skis practically have built-in rocker (reverse camber) in the tips and tails. Most twin tips have a contact length somewhere around 86% of the chord length. That would put the "177cm" M999 with a contact length of about 152cm, but the M999 actually has a contact length of about 146cm. The twin tips on these suckers have a very gradual "ramp up" that starts early on both ends.

I think you need to consider how these skis differ in their contact length and in their twin tip design regarding the mounting point. In deep snow you can see that these skis will actually have more contact than when on groomers and that contact will actually have a kind of built-in "Spatula-like" rocker. Couple that with the softer tips and tails on these skis and you have a ride unlike most traditionally cut skis.

So back to the mounting point - Elan's mark is fairly forward on the M999 compared to other skis, but I think it works because of the characteristics of these skis.

I've only skied M999 demos in about 12" of fresh and that was at the beginning of last season. Ever since I purchased my M999s my timing has been off to hit any major storms. I'm hoping to break that streak this season.
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
So here's the deal. The M999 is kind of an odd ski - it's different than even most other twin tips.

First, Elan's published lengths are the material length not the chord length (which is what most manufacturers use). My 181cm M999 is actually a 177cm ski (had I known I would have gone longer). When calculating the running length (contact length) I found that these skis practically have built-in rocker (reverse camber) in the tips and tails. Most twin tips have a contact length somewhere around 86% of the chord length. That would put the "177cm" M999 with a contact length of about 152cm, but the M999 actually has a contact length of about 146cm. The twin tips on these suckers have a very gradual "ramp up" that starts early on both ends.

I think you need to consider how these skis differ in their contact length and in their twin tip design regarding the mounting point. In deep snow you can see that these skis will actually have more contact than when on groomers and that contact will actually have a kind of built-in "Spatula-like" rocker. Couple that with the softer tips and tails on these skis and you have a ride unlike most traditionally cut skis.

So back to the mounting point - Elan's mark is fairly forward on the M999 compared to other skis, but I think it works because of the characteristics of these skis.

I've only skied M999 demos in about 12" of fresh and that was at the beginning of last season. Ever since I purchased my M999s my timing has been off to hit any major storms. I'm hoping to break that streak this season.
Yeah, I didn't realize how short these were when I ordered them, I went 181 also and almost wish I had got the 193. This is anything but a "big mountain," and we've lots of good trees so I figured shorter is better. Thanks for the insight, I was hoping someone had experience with these.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion