EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Riser Plates on Fat Skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Riser Plates on Fat Skis - Page 2

post #31 of 47
I'd honestly say as little lift as possible. Out of your list, I'd consider the "flat" ones to be 21mm or less. This in contrast to the extra lift put on carver ski bindings which tacks on another 10mm or so on top of these flat numbers.
post #32 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Addtionally the i.M88 in a 175 is only a 19M radius ... if you put a 2 degree or even 3 degree side edge on it the transformation is amazing.

One additional point is it has way too much base bevel from the factory. With a .7 or a true 1 degree there is just no issue getting this ski up on edge.
I was told when I purchased mine that it was a 1/1. But after trying them out for the first time yesterday, my one complaint (besides from the cracking of the sidewall) was how "slippery" they were if they weren't tipped up considerably on edge. I figured it was due to the 88mm underfoot (I'm used to 78mm or - on my race skis - much less). Maybe it was the base bevel? Probably a bit of both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
To put this in perspective i am a race ski . . .
I was wondering how you always have the inside scoop on skis - you're one of them!
post #33 of 47
I totally agree with your points on why buy a ski for one purpose and try to make it another. Thats not at all what my goal is hear maybe i wasnt very clear I guess? REGARDLESS that the Duke is a touring binding the hight is 34mm under foot that we agree on. The binding that most are putting on fat skis are the Duke, jester or Solomon sth16 from what I can tell. The Duke is getting very good reviews for its ski ability more than its off piste usefulness. There are things about its trekking that are not the greatest but its ski ability are just making me {wonder why.} It is wider and stiffer and higher than other regular binding so i just thought that maybe it had something to do with the hight also. My bindings are 24mm already and i can ski them just fine. I to was a racer many moons ago. I was a free styler, competition bump skier for around 5 years. I took the Harts in the bumps with that dumb BOF mount and still managed OK with the binding in the wrong position even got some decent air and attempted a double ooops bad landing. My point is i just felt a little lift on these skis once I put the bindings were they belong might be a good thing?? I have no idea or I wouldn't be asking if any one has tryed it. No one seems to have tried it so I was going to give it a whirl. Not any more though. Ill just shelve the risers for another pair of slalom skis. I know, ill put them on my old 7SK,s . Your opinions and aliment determination that this would be a bad idea for a 92mm waist has me second guessed now so Ill just mount the skis normal and be done with it. I was going to try it then if I didnt like it i was going to take them off. I better not drill any more holes anyway this will be the third mount so Ill just leave it at that. Thanks for all your input.
post #34 of 47
Damn, I was really curious fro the results!
For what it's worth, I don't really see a big disadvantage of mounting the risers.
Just to confuse you a bit more
post #35 of 47
I think we need to get out and do some side-by-side, scientific testing in softlightdeep snow.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
I think we need to get out and do some side-by-side, scientific testing in softlightdeep snow.
Possibly the industry would provide a grant. We would need to test in Canada, the U.S. & the Alps, of course .

Michael
post #37 of 47
And we'd need beer.
post #38 of 47
I might be able to test the Icelantics in the Alps shortly.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post
And we'd need beer.
I always drink what the locals drink, in other words: beer.

Michael
post #40 of 47
I have a week off skiing so skis are in the shop for a tune,a boot tapping wear my hankle hits and the 9mm vist duo flex riser plate put on with Neox 614 bindings. I tried some 100mm skis with the Dukes the other day and really liked the hight off pisti and yes on pisti also. Next week ill let ya know how they work on the freaking fast Harts!! These things are so fast my solomon helmet blows back and my gogles feel like there going to rip of my face!! I may need to uprade my gogles to something more areodinamic.:
post #41 of 47
I thought this would be a good forum to ask this question. I have had soem trouble finding riser plates to install on my skis. I have the Rossi Scratch Brigade BCs w the 120 bindings mounted flat but I wanted to jack em up just a little, like with a 9mm plate. I have been having some trouble finding where to buy some I can put on myself. Any ideas?
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by whipper View Post
I totally agree with your points on why buy a ski for one purpose and try to make it another. Thats not at all what my goal is hear maybe i wasnt very clear I guess? REGARDLESS that the Duke is a touring binding the hight is 34mm under foot that we agree on. The binding that most are putting on fat skis are the Duke, jester or Solomon sth16 from what I can tell. The Duke is getting very good reviews for its ski ability more than its off piste usefulness. There are things about its trekking that are not the greatest but its ski ability are just making me {wonder why.} It is wider and stiffer and higher than other regular binding so i just thought that maybe it had something to do with the hight also. My bindings are 24mm already and i can ski them just fine. I to was a racer many moons ago. I was a free styler, competition bump skier for around 5 years. I took the Harts in the bumps with that dumb BOF mount and still managed OK with the binding in the wrong position even got some decent air and attempted a double ooops bad landing. My point is i just felt a little lift on these skis once I put the bindings were they belong might be a good thing?? I have no idea or I wouldn't be asking if any one has tryed it. No one seems to have tried it so I was going to give it a whirl. Not any more though. Ill just shelve the risers for another pair of slalom skis. I know, ill put them on my old 7SK,s . Your opinions and aliment determination that this would be a bad idea for a 92mm waist has me second guessed now so Ill just mount the skis normal and be done with it. I was going to try it then if I didnt like it i was going to take them off. I better not drill any more holes anyway this will be the third mount so Ill just leave it at that. Thanks for all your input.
dude paragraphs

I can understand nearly anyone on here due to my odd manner of typing and a brain that literally doesnt function normal. which is why sometimes my posts are kinda of out there but your taking this to a whole new level.

hit 'enter' every one in awhile, like before and after similar thoughts would be a start.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevlee722 View Post
I thought this would be a good forum to ask this question. I have had soem trouble finding riser plates to install on my skis. I have the Rossi Scratch Brigade BCs w the 120 bindings mounted flat but I wanted to jack em up just a little, like with a 9mm plate. I have been having some trouble finding where to buy some I can put on myself. Any ideas?
Another Approach. I have 8mm risers on my boots.

Leaves the ski flat, no interference of the flex and carries over to your other skis!

also are replaceable so if worn unscrew and reinstall new
post #44 of 47
I was wondering about this myself. I'm looking at updating to a ski slightly wider than I've used before (current likes: Volkl Kendo or Nordica Steadfast) and was wanting togo with Marker Griffons for bindings. I was also looking at jacking up the binding just a little for better hard-snow gusto. One method I was looking at was to cut risers out of 10mm acrylic to match the footprint of the Griffons and get longer screws from Marker. If anyone has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. Thanks.
post #45 of 47

Here is the current thinking in the 3 1/2 years since the last post on this thread. The most common setup for truly fat skis is a pretty flat mount binding. Most skiers tend to prefer as flat as reasonably possible. The reason for this is that the more stack you have, the edgier the ski becomes. For off trail, mixed up snow conditions, this is generally counter-productive. For true hard snow specialty skis, the typical binding system has a fairly large stack height. The provides leverage of course but in many cases there is also some dampening technology squirreled away in there as well. Those skis are made for a specific purpose just like the fat ones are.

 

For mid width skis like the two you mentioned, the standard stack height on most rec bindings is a good compromise. Adding lift will increase leverage but decrease forgiveness and utility in off trail usage. Seems to me that taking a generalist ski like the two you mention (good skis BTW) and then trying to make a specialist out of them is a little silly. If you have trouble on hard snow, then buy a ski that excels at that or get some lessons. The Griffon and other similar retail bindings have about the right amount of lift as it is.

 

SJ
 

post #46 of 47
A note on AT bindings. Most serious AT skiers have moved to the dynafit system. These have no or minimum stack heights off the ski.
post #47 of 47
SierraJim: I tried out both the Kendo and the Steadfast at a demo day last February and loved both. My biggest like about both was their ability to hold edge in fast, long frontside turns and not get hung up in wet or granular snow. In both cases, the bindings were demos which are stacked up a bit higher than a stock Griffon.

The Kendo is only available as a flat ski, but rumor has it the Steadfast for 2013 might be available both as a flat or with the Marker EVO system plate and binding. As I live in Michigan and do most of my skiing in the Midwest, backcountry prowess is not generally a going concern. What I was looking for was a setup for on-piste use that would be sturdier in less-than-perfect conditions that would trip up the average "frontside" ski. My other option was to consider the wide-body tip-rockered frontside/all-mountain boards with plate-mounted system bindings. At the same ski test, I tried a few of these as well (K2 Aftershock, Volkl RTM 84, Blizzard Magnum 8.7) and liked the performance, but the versatility and edge grip of the Steadfast impressed the hell outta me. If I wre to set up a more side-friendly ski, I'd likely go a hint wider still (Mantra or Hell & Back, for example) with the bindings done at stock height.
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 › Riser Plates on Fat Skis