EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding position, impact of moving back 2-4cm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding position, impact of moving back 2-4cm

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I realize that there are a lot of threads of binding position, but I have a very specific question:
How substantial of a difference does it make if I reposition my binding back either 2 or 4cm.
I'm 5'9", 140 and I'm on 169 Hell Bents with Griffons at +4. I'm looking for a little more float in the bottomless stuff. Therefore, how substantial of a difference could I expect if I moved my bindings back 2cm? how about 4cm (back to traditional, which I'd have second thoughts about with the hell bents, though even at traditional they would have a pretty substantial tail). I ride a lot of trees, 5-10ft. drops, some (but not a ton) of switch, and don't go into the park very often. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
post #2 of 15
Moving a binding as little as 1.5 cm does make a big difference to me as I found out using some Railflex bindings: http://www.levelninesports.com/head-railflex-rfd-silverblk-adjustable-ski-bindings-p-6137.html
I like the idea of adjusting were the bindings are on powder skis without having to remount the bindings. Also it is easy to let my friends try my skis as it is easy to quickly adjust the bsl setting.
To answer your question, moving them back 2cm will make a difference. 4cm sounds like a big move unless they were to far forward to begin with.
Here is a good thread on mounting Hellbents to help you decide what to do: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132470&highlight=mounting+hellbents
post #3 of 15
you can not significantly improve powder performance by moving the binding around. major performance qualities will be built into the skis structure and shape.
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

you can not significantly improve powder performance by moving the binding around. major performance qualities will be built into the skis structure and shape.

Except in the case where he went +4 on a rockered ski to begin with.  I have a feeling that was too far forward.  I guess I'd be curious why +4 was chosen originally.
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post




Except in the case where he went +4 on a rockered ski to begin with.  I have a feeling that was too far forward.  I guess I'd be curious why +4 was chosen originally.
From reading the Hellbent thread at TGR that I suggested to him, it seemed like +4 was a common mount point on the longer Hellbents. On his 169, it may have been a tad forward, hence my thought to back it up 1.5-2 cm. I didn't read the entire TGR thread. Hopefully he did as they are his skis.
Edit: ok, so I read the first two pages and I am guessing +4 was the spot for the 169. If you go to far back the guys are talking about it doing wheelies.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
I just tried to submit this, so sorry if this is a repeat:
First, thanks for all the feedback. I chose +4, because i'm newer to skiing (ignorant about it) and thought +2 on hell bents would be about the same as +2 on my current skis (K2 extremes). and my extremes are 158's so i thought I better go forward a couple more.
I'm thinking about going back a few because I had a couple bottomless days on the hell bents and can't help but to wonder if i moved them back a couple cm's if that get me in a better position to ride deep powder. Currently they have terrific switch performance, but I would gladly give up switch performace for better powder performance. I have certainly read a lot of wheelies on hell bents too far back, but I currently have about eight inches more tail on my hell bents than my extremes, i don't drop much above ten feet, and i only weight 140, so backseat doesn't scare me too much (but maybe it should...?). Also, when i was talking to the shop guy at Colorado Ski and Golf (who may or may not have been full of it) suggested mounting at +1 or +2 for better floatation, but +4 would give me better switch performance (again I would gladly make that trade now seeing as how monstrous the hell bents tails are). So, that's why i'm wondering if I should move back a couple centimenters... Thanks for all the good feedback!
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
Maybe I need to be more patient with +4, give it a few more weeks before I do anything rash.
Also, anyone who says Hell Bents can't carve, isn't riding the same ski I am.
post #8 of 15
Thread Starter 

liv2 ski, how do you like those Railflexs?
I was considering getting Marker Griffon Schizo's, but I'm always reluctant to buy first generation products, especially since I have read a few horror stories about them coming apart on the mountain. Anyone know anyone with Schizos?

post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron View Post

liv2 ski, how do you like those Railflexs?
I was considering getting Marker Griffon Schizo's, but I'm always reluctant to buy first generation products, especially since I have read a few horror stories about them coming apart on the mountain. Anyone know anyone with Schizos?

I have the rail flex bindings on one pair of skis and have had great luck with them. No pre releases, easy to adjust forward or back 1.5cm with just a phillips head. I haven't read good things on the Schizos so far but have read lots of positive reviews on the rail flex bindings. Also the rail flex bindings are really cheap at www.levelninesports.com
post #10 of 15
Take some time and read the posts regarding BoF mount positions.  Even though rockered skis change up the variables a bit, the inescapable truth is that your binding mount position is YOUR binding mount position.  There is a position on your skis where you will get the best performance out of them.  Reading threads about where other people like having their bindings mounted on the same skis is pretty much meaningless.  Everyone has their own body geometry and skiing style/skills.  One person's "worlds greatest position" is another's "worlds worst position".

As little as a 10mm change can have a drastic effect on how a ski performs and 5mm can still be significant on some skis.  Please trust me on this - I have experienced this on many, many different pairs of skis.  It's gotten to the point now where if I don't like a pair of skis I pretty much know that it's mostly about binding position and I just haven't found the right spot yet.  Sounds crazy, but I believe it's true (and not just for me).
post #11 of 15
The inescapable truth is that the Hell Bent is meant to be skied relatively center mounted. i.e. in the general range of +6 to +7.5 (core center) by most people. It is often skied as far forward as +9.5 (true center) by spinny types.

The 0 to +4 or +5 sort of range seems to be there to accommodate "traditional" technique. In other words, to work for people used to more conventional "driving" style skis who are hopping on the ski for a cat or heli trip. But who really do not have a sense of a ski like the Hell Bent. The truth is that if you really want to stick with that approach, the Hell Bent is probably just not your ski. Nothing wrong with that if it does not play the way you want to play.  Better to recognize it sooner than later...

But here is the perverse part. Moving (reasonably) forward will probably make you tip dive less. At least once you get used to skiing it in a more center mounted position...  If you are mounted back, you need to get over the front in order to make the ski engage. If you are mounted closer to center, you can just roll them more & apply less (not to be confused with zero) pressure to the fronts. Weird but true. When I skied them at +4, I went over the bars a number of times. At +7, never (that I can recall).

My family has all 3 sizes of Hell Bent on the wall. Collectively north of 300 days on them over 3 years... No one would dream of a mount behind +7 at this point.  FWIW, I have also beat on some Schizos this year. Work fine. Pretty easy to move around. Like 'em way better than RailFlex for moving boot center. Not really useful for adjusting for different BSLs. I've seen some posts questioning the design & claiming the wire loop popped, but at about 200+ pounds, I have had no issues... Yeah, you could stick a Schizo on the Hell Bent, but IMO it is sort of a waste - just throw a dart between +6 and +7.5 ;) 

Another inescapable truth is that traditional BoF (pretty much universally described in the context of CRS...) discussions are meaningless in the context of rockered skis like the Hell Bent. The fact that people keep bringing it up is a disservice to others looking for useful information. Yes - I agree - there are good reasons for people to pick center point in a considered way - but the usual notion of BoF is not one of them.
post #12 of 15
Sorry Spindrift, but you can't say that BoF mounting position should not be considered for ANY rockered ski.  There are so many "rockered" designs out there now that your blanket statement condemning BoF mounts for all rockers is ludicrous and YOU are doing the disservice.  I personally have no experience on the Hell Bent so I can't say that I'm absolutely right about this particular ski and that's fine if you want to contend that it is best for YOU at +6 to +7.5, but to completely dismiss BoF for all rockered skis is just so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
post #13 of 15
I think your real problem is that you bought the wrong size.  Nothing you do will make your skis 10cm longer.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post

I think your real problem is that you bought the wrong size.  Nothing you do will make your skis 10cm longer.

Bzzzt...

Here is the sizing info from Evo. 

169cm:   130 to 190 lbs - 5'4" to 5'9"
179cm:   140 to 220 lbs - 5'9" to 6'1"
189cm:   150 + - 6'1" to 6'5"+

Unlike most shops - they have a truly deep knowledge of the ski. Both based on years of experience riding it, and on interaction with the people who designed the ski. Even if the chart came from K2 (I don't know), if Evo took issue with it, that'd be noted.

Also note that K2's sizing of the Hell Bent is widely known to be slightly nuts. Add 5 cm to have a more accurate picture of the real size of the ski. So a 169 HB is really a 175. A 179 HB is almost exactly the same size as a 185 EP Pro.  It is quite serviceable for people north of 200 pounds. And a 189 HB is just huge - and a less than optimal choice for most people and uses out there (a sentiment you might also hear at Evo)

Could the OP use the 179 in wide open spaces - probably. But really, the issue is probably not ski size. In terms of float, the Hell Bents, in their own way, are pretty substantial in all sizes.  The issue is most likely a combo of mount point and skiing style. 

I'll get back to BoF later 
post #15 of 15
what's BoF mean? boot center, standard?  ball of foot, ski center? aren't the hellbent's top sheet marked with standard mount, ski center, some plus and minus lines? wouldn't it work to use the standard freeride position? are we so individual and special that radical adjustments have to be made.
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 › Binding position, impact of moving back 2-4cm