New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moving a VIST Plate Q - Page 2

post #31 of 57
tdk6

I had to do this with my brother's 295mm Dobie 130's instead of my 295mm Dobie 150's, but it should be pretty close.

148cm running length (or so - very crude measuring), 74cm midpoint, BoF point is 1.5 to 2cm (possibly more) than my current mount. I actually used a pair of doublediamond223's skis to do this and he has much larger boots than I do, so the difference could be greater by 1cm. When I get home I can try to get this more accurrate.

Later

GREG
post #32 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
tdk6

I had to do this with my brother's 295mm Dobie 130's instead of my 295mm Dobie 150's, but it should be pretty close.

148cm running length (or so - very crude measuring), 74cm midpoint, BoF point is 1.5 to 2cm (possibly more) than my current mount. I actually used a pair of doublediamond223's skis to do this and he has much larger boots than I do, so the difference could be greater by 1cm. When I get home I can try to get this more accurrate.

Later

GREG
Your running length does not go all the way to the tail of the ski so that puts it even further in front than 74cm. You did not mention how far from the tail the midpoint mark is but BoF measure is pritty much in the same position as the Heads, 78cm that is. If you can get the midpoint mark as well it would be great. Thanx . We are getting somewhere....
post #33 of 57
Tdk6, I can't get anymore information until I get back home. Right after I measured those skis I shipped them to DD223 so he will have them for his up-coming trip to Utah. FWIW, I measured from the tip where the ski contacts the snow, all the way back to where the tail starts to taper. I have never done a BoF measurement before - especially on a slalom ski because they aer so short. The last ski that I skied at the BoF point was a Rossignol B2 and I hated it. I will measure my skis when I get home (In case you were curious DD223 and I ski on the same skis).
Later
GREG
post #34 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Tdk6, I can't get anymore information until I get back home. Right after I measured those skis I shipped them to DD223 so he will have them for his up-coming trip to Utah. FWIW, I measured from the tip where the ski contacts the snow, all the way back to where the tail starts to taper. I have never done a BoF measurement before - especially on a slalom ski because they aer so short. The last ski that I skied at the BoF point was a Rossignol B2 and I hated it. I will measure my skis when I get home (In case you were curious DD223 and I ski on the same skis).
Later
GREG
On my Head iSL RD the BoF mark is 8cm in front of the midmark and on my Nordica The Beast boot the BoF mark is 4cm in front of the midmark. If I move the plate and binding 4cm forwards I would match the BoF mark on the ski and the boot. My conclusion is that the centermark on the skis are at least 2cm too far back. Its going to be interesting to get measurements from other skis as well and from a pair of Salomon race skis in particular.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
Good input here because plate and binding play a major role in ski performance. Some bindings are linked together, some are independent units. Some plates are also joined together and some are independent units. The old Vist plate on Heads up untill last year on SL skis and still last year on the GS skis are not one unit but is a rubber part that can be taken out making the ski flex better. Kneisel has a new patented plate out on the market that is assymetric and Atomic tryed to buy.

I know there is a huge difference in ski performance between the racing department skis fitted with the vist racing plates compared to the off the shelf skis with the plate made from plastic just from the plate itself. It makes the ski much stiffer and it holds the binding in place much more rigid. There is no sideways flex or wiggeling.

If we talk bindings here for a second, is the one unit better than to have the tip and the tail as separate units? Pros and cons?
Im not exactly sure what the question is asking, but I believe you are asking if a solid plate is better than an air or floating or split plate. I would say the solid plate would be the best for an advanced ski because a solid plate gives added torsional rigidity which is the most important quality of a race ski. The con of this is that it would be tough to ski for a less advanced skier. A floating plate has connected risers below the toe and heel of the bindings but it is not all attached to the ski. This has less torsional rigidity than the solid plates while dampening the ski more than the solid or split plates. The split plates are just for rising and imo weak. I hope i answered your question.
post #36 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elocma View Post
Im not exactly sure what the question is asking, but I believe you are asking if a solid plate is better than an air or floating or split plate. I would say the solid plate would be the best for an advanced ski because a solid plate gives added torsional rigidity which is the most important quality of a race ski. The con of this is that it would be tough to ski for a less advanced skier. A floating plate has connected risers below the toe and heel of the bindings but it is not all attached to the ski. This has less torsional rigidity than the solid plates while dampening the ski more than the solid or split plates. The split plates are just for rising and imo weak. I hope i answered your question.
Many SL racing skis come with a split plate. Like the Heads and the Blizzards. Both manufacturers have solid plates on their GS skis. Any comment?
post #37 of 57
My gs heads don't have a solid, they have a floating plate. My rossi slaloms have a solid plate, my racetigers have a solid composite or whatever the piston malarkee is, my sl11 and gs11s have solid composite plates. Head is the only vist one and they are floating, from the side it looks like a bridge attatches the two risers. I would say the reason there are solid plates on the gs skis is because they face a lot more torsional stress because of chatter and turns at a higher speed.
post #38 of 57
A floating plate is an interesting concept - especially when you consider what part of the plate is fixed to the ski. I have found that plates fixed at the heel and having a floating toe give a more powerful finish to the turn, and are better for recovering when in the backseat. Interestingly, when you consider the flex of the ski and a floating toe, the binding moves forward slightly as the ski is flexed. Plates like the VIST WC Air, are fixed under the ball of your foot and the toe and a huge part of the heel are floating. Plates like the Salomon SL PowerAxe are fixed in the center and allow slight movement in the back and a lot in the front. The VIST WC Race, is fixed toward the middle and both the front and rear float. Plates like the Rossi have a floating toe and a flex point in the middle (much like the VIST Race). The main reason for slalom skis using less robust plates than GS skis is because of the amount of fle you want in the ski, and the amount of livliness you want to maintain from the ski. If you put too stiff of a plate on a slalom ski it will dampen the ski too much and slow it down.
Later
GREG
post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Interestingly, when you consider the flex of the ski and a floating toe, the binding moves forward slightly as the ski is flexed.
Precisely why I stuck it into the discussion.
post #40 of 57
Dear Helluva:
I wonder where you got all your information about ski design and mounting position. You sound so certain about it, but it is exactly opposite of the information given me by the head of design for Atomic when we did our original research and also opposite the information given Peter Keelty when he asks the question of informed rather than simply opinionated people. I have to admit I'm really disappointed in Atomic. Their staff hiring is simply appalling.
post #41 of 57
Thread Starter 
Here is a photo of a ski test last year where my Heads were tested. The ski lengths vary and boot size as well but with not so little imagination its easy to see that the Heads have their bindings very faar back:

http://www.carving-ski.de/skitest/au...en-sl-race.jpg

Compare to Elan and Dynastar not to talk about Rossignol and Blizzard but they are much longer as well. Looks like the Atomic, W├Âlkl and Head are the ones the furthest back.
post #42 of 57
Everyone here has an opinion. Problem is some are informed and therefore of value and some are worthless. Unfortunately the largest mouth here (Heluvaskier) is uninformed and therefore of no value. Peter's opinion is of value because he witnessed the research we did, has read the paper and then followed by discussing findings with designers. As did I

Interesting that the cfrutch of mounting forward is used by WC skiers. Last ones I saw skied one hell of a lot better than I did. Atomic head of design related directly to me that WC skiers start testing of Atomics at BOF/CRS (ball of foot/ centre of running surface for heluva) which is several cms in front of the where the midsole mark would locate many skiers on many atomic and other manufacturers models.

Research also showed that speed in gates was affected by binding position (yes Canadian national team members were used for a portion of the data). Why their skill was not enough to overcome what is simply a crutch I don't know. Unless of course heluva doesn't know what he is talking about.

Research also showed that centre of pressure was affected by binding position (again with some WC skiers) and why that is I don't know. Unless of course Heluva is uninformed.

Now guys the research is complete and methods used by the world's best skiers and their suppliers have been recorded from actual interviews. It has been snowing here for days so I'm going skiing. You can either bat this around forever and get nowhere. Or you can ignore uninformed mouths. Experiment yourself and do what works best for you.

Lou
post #43 of 57
Thanks Lou - I was hoping you'd chime in on this thread eventually. You're work is done here. Have fun skiing.
post #44 of 57
Thread Starter 
Race 510, thanks for your input here. After you are done skiing would you please chime in and explain further. Im a little lost in translations here and your Heluva commenting confuses me even more.

I would like to get some measurements of other FIS racing skis. How far from the tail is the midsole mark? And how far from the tail is the BoF mark? The midsole mark on my Head iSL RD's are 72cm from the tail. The BoF mark is 78cm from the tail. My bet is that the BoF mark for my heads are pritty much in the same ballpark as others but the midsole mark is 2-4cm too far back.
post #45 of 57
Race510, I am glad I could provide you something to swing your axe at. I am actually very interested in your research and what racers on the WC are currently mounted at the BoF point - epecially the men... Which ones preferred it, and which ones didn't? If they had a preference - what was it and why? Since it is no doubt faster (as you claim) I am also interested in why every FIS racer that I ski with still mounts their skis on the manufacturers center line, and why manufacturers even use a centerline anymore at all... If it is universally better I would expect that the industry would be changed overnight to this method of forward mounting. Show us your reasearch. What did it say?

You claim that a BoF mounting point is better, right? Okay, why? What are the trade offs? What does a BoF mount do that a manufactures centerline mount does not? How is it that every manufacturer out there is wrong and is telling skiers to mount in the wrong place?

Later

GREG

Tdk6 - good luck with your mounting decision. I hope that whatever you choose works out for you and your racing this year.

Noodler - do you have any more witnesses that you would like to call forward?
post #46 of 57
Greg - I have nothing personal against you. I have always enjoyed your posts and your a valuable member of our community. I absolutely have no axe to grind against you. It's just that on this one topic I do not believe you are correct and my only goal was to make sure that the opposing viewpoint was represented within this thread so that anyone else reviewing it would be aware of the options that are available.

I do not believe I can add anything more productive to the content here. My only recommendation is that you might consider broadening your viewpoint in this area (and it seems you could be) and reading the Nordica test report on the experiment that was conducted at Snowbird a few seasons ago (this is the report Lou is referring to and is available at Keelty's site).
post #47 of 57
Greg:
I don't have names as during the interview we didn't talk names. However, names aren't important. Fact is Director of Design for Atomic stated that they use BOF/CRS as first test position for their WC skiers.

It may also interest you to know that of the manufacturers I've personally contacted (Goode, Stockli, Atomic, Nordica) and the additional ones Peter contacted, none stated that their midsole point was designed into the ski. Rather all stated it was selected by ski testers. No idea how they are briefed for desired characteristics.

Also, if you read my posts I've never stated that BOF/CRS is superior. Rather I've stated that manufacturers position is too generic to be the best position for everyone and skiers should be open to testing. Did definitely state that Campbell balanced position is superior and that it is relatively close for many people to BOF/CRS. So lacking balancer BOF/CRS seems reasonable place to start. Supported by Atomic and by research and by fact that prior to using boot position marks (started by the industry in the late 70's if I remember correctly) skis were mounted BOF/CRS.


I believe the research is posted on this website, but also understand it is posted on Peter's.

TDK6 don't know yet how to help as your statement about BOF mark on skis confuses me. Although I don't keep up with every manuf. I'm not aware of any that are using BOF marks on the skis. Measuring FIS skis will not help you as again the mark is in different places according to manufacturer's philosophy. Remember most FIS skis as you call them are not used by WC athletes. Rather they are used by juniors from first year FIS upwards.

Lou
post #48 of 57
Oh for those interested I forgot to plug my own site where I believe (we under under reconstruction) that the Snowbird research is also posted.

Lou
post #49 of 57
One last post to answer some of Greg's questions.
Manufacturer's started using boot marks as a way to standardize mounting position and to speed up mounting for shops. Prior to marking we had to find the CRS manually and then guess where the skier's BOF was in the empty boot in front of us. Look at your boot and give it to five friends to estimate your BOF location. I bet their estimates vary by 2 cm or more. Which in the old days meant that same manufacturer's skis mounted in different shops by different personnel skied differently. Not a great situation from a manuf. standpoint I imagine.

I have no idea how old you are so don't know anything about your friends still skiing FIS, but would say that reason they still ski manufacturer's marks is that they are not at a level high enough to be given skis to test. Therefore, they blindly go with general recommendations. Why not, most skiers do. Only the ones openminded enough to actually think through the situation benefit from experimentation.

Lou
post #50 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by race510 View Post
Greg:
TDK6 don't know yet how to help as your statement about BOF mark on skis confuses me. Although I don't keep up with every manuf. I'm not aware of any that are using BOF marks on the skis. Measuring FIS skis will not help you as again the mark is in different places according to manufacturer's philosophy. Remember most FIS skis as you call them are not used by WC athletes. Rather they are used by juniors from first year FIS upwards.

Lou
I know the FIS skis Im refering to are not used by WC skiers. By FIS skis I here refere to racing skis you can buy from racing ski suppliers and that are made from sandwich construction.

By the BoF mark on the ski I ment the centermark of the running surface. I now realize you are calling it CRS. On my Heads the difference between the manufacturers centermark and the CRS is 8cm.

Let me quote from my post 17:

Head iSL RD 05/06
166cm
Centermark on skis by manuvacrurer: 70cm
CRS: 78cm

The measurements are made from tail of skis.
Note that my Heads have a not so small tip at the tail. The running surface therefore ends 6cm before the tip of the tail. Total flat running surface is 143cm.

I have been trying to get you guys to measure your skis for the manufacturers centermark but sofar only Heluva has done that. On a pair of Dobie 130's the manufacturers centermark was 74cm from the tail. That 4cm in front of the Head centermark. The CRS on the Dopies are 76cm. That is 2cm behind the Head CRS mark. This probably due to the exessive tail raise of the Heads.

Im more and more convinced that the Head centermark is too far back. Im probably buying Blizzard this year. Just sold my last years Head yesterday. Before I mount the bindings on my new skis Im shure going to use my own judgement and not rely purely on the manufacturers centermark.
post #51 of 57
FYI: Last time I saw the Canadian Stockli site, they said that mounting at any place other than the boot line will void their warranty.
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
FYI: Last time I saw the Canadian Stockli site, they said that mounting at any place other than the boot line will void their warranty.
We've been through this issue already last season. I spoke with my Stockli contacts in Vermont and they said that was definitely not the case here and were quite surprised there was anything like that in Canada. As long as the binding is mounted within the area where they would be typically mounted you're fine. It's not like even a 50mm shift would put the binding mounts into parts of the ski that are too thin - and almost every Stockli has so much metal in it that there's no worry about mounts holding.

I should also point out that the Stockli Canada site hasn't been updated in about 3 seasons. It's still way out of date on the gear line-up. It's the last source of Stockli info I would trust.
post #53 of 57
I sell Stocklis in Canada and the distributor lives here in Calgary. Absolutely no truth to statements about voided warranty. And I've never heard of any manufacturer voiding the warranty based on binding position.

The Stockli site you are seeing is an old Canadian site by a previous distributor. He has not distributed Stocklis for three seasons and cannot be reliably consulted for anything Stockli.
post #54 of 57
TDK:
the mark on the ski is not the BOF nor is it the CRS. It is only the position recommended for the boot centre. It has no relationship to any ski anatomy. Eight centimeters from the mark to CRS is usually indicative of a boot position that in my opinion is too far back.
post #55 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by race510 View Post
TDK:
the mark on the ski is not the BOF nor is it the CRS. It is only the position recommended for the boot centre. It has no relationship to any ski anatomy. Eight centimeters from the mark to CRS is usually indicative of a boot position that in my opinion is too far back.
This is exactly what I have been trying to get verified here: the midmark on my Head iSL RD 166cm is too far back! Thanks!

A racing coach told me last year that if you put the bindings back the skis goes faster and if you put them forward they turns easier. Maybe the Heads midmark is put where it is for maximum speed!?
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
This is exactly what I have been trying to get verified here: the midmark on my Head iSL RD 166cm is too far back! Thanks!

A racing coach told me last year that if you put the bindings back the skis goes faster and if you put them forward they turns easier. Maybe the Heads midmark is put where it is for maximum speed!?
Lou already told you how manufacturers determine where to put the midsole mounting mark - it's from the feedback from their testers. This mark is not "designed" into the ski. I doubt Head is purposely putting it somewhere to favor speed over turn initiation, but you never know. The main point to come away with is that the midsole mark on the ski has no inherent importance to the ski itself other than to make it easier for shops to perform binding mounts for the masses.

The key is that everyone's physiology is different, therefore everyone should not be expected to use the exact same mounting point - IF you're trying to achieve your best performance on your chosen tool. Enough said.
post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by race510 View Post
The Stockli site you are seeing is an old Canadian site by a previous distributor. He has not distributed Stocklis for three seasons and cannot be reliably consulted for anything Stockli.
thanks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion