EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Binding mounting positions - Did I go too far forward?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Binding mounting positions - Did I go too far forward?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 

I finally got my Marker Griffons installed on my 2010 Gotama 186's. After reading everyone's opinions on mounting positions, I decided to go ahead and get them mounted +2 cm forward of boot center, because I've found myself skiing switch more and more. It's too late now, but now I'm starting to have a bit of "mounting remorse" as I'm not totally sure if that was a good spot for them, or if I should have gone a bit more toward the center. Stinks that I won't be able to test it for another 3 weeks.

 

From what I understand, I gave up some float, but should gain some maneuverability. What I'm curious about is HOW MUCH of a difference a centimeter fore or aft the boot position makes. Did I screw up big time, or will I not be able to tell THAT much of a difference? I'm starting to think I made a bad decision, since I bought the Gotama to be my powder ski in the first place.

 

Hopefully you guys can put this poor gaper's mind at ease a bit. Haha.

post #2 of 26

Just went through the same dilemma and received some information from the ski mfg. and lucked out calling the shop and learning the skis had not been mounted yet with my incorrect instructions. In my case I told the shop to mount a 189 cm BlueHouse Maven at mid point thinking this would make the ski most functional for "traditional- freeride skiing". I was afraid mounting them rear of midpoint would make the skis as manuverable as an oil tanker.

 

The BlueHouse people came back and said 5-10 cm rear of mid point of the ski would be recommended for traditional- freeride and powder. As forward as I had asked the shop (mid point) they expalined would only be good for the park and jibbing .

 

All of this is specific to the ski you are actually mounting. I think this subject is pretty entailed and easy to confuse as I already did . With the new designs the mout point becomes specific to the ski and the type of performance you desire from the ski. I hope it all works out for you. In my case I paid $75 for the mount and would have hated to pay more if they had to be remounted. Plus the extra holes in the ski.

 

post #3 of 26

like most things that people worry about try them before you worry to much

post #4 of 26

If you mounted the forward and are skiing switch, the net is you mounted them back (in switch) which is where you want them for that.  People tend to lean forward in switch (leaning towards the tip of the ski, or leaning uphill instead of down hill) so you should be able to be in a more upright position in switch.

 

 I think 2cm is noticeable but not horrible.  Are you familiar with the BOF/CRS mount?  If you were to go through that exercise, you might end up pretty close to where you are now.

post #5 of 26

Did they mean 0.5-1cm or 5mm to 10mm????
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post
The BlueHouse people came back and said 5-10 cm rear of mid point of the ski would be recommended for traditional- freeride and powder. As forward as I had asked the shop (mid point) they expalined would only be good for the park and jibbing .

 

post #6 of 26


FWIW,

 

If others have the same concerns, Marker does make the Schizo and demo version of the Griffon, with the demo version actually weighing a little less than the Schizo.  The difference is that you need to play with two screws on the demo vs. one screw for the Schizo (20 seconds vs.10 seconds) to move the boot forwards or backwards.  If you don't know the sweetpoint of the skis, or have several uses for them, why not simply go with an adjustable binding?  An adjustable binding will weigh a little more, but you can't be wrong with the binding mount and you can sleep better at night.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post

I finally got my Marker Griffons installed on my 2010 Gotama 186's. After reading everyone's opinions on mounting positions, I decided to go ahead and get them mounted +2 cm forward of boot center, because I've found myself skiing switch more and more. It's too late now, but now I'm starting to have a bit of "mounting remorse" as I'm not totally sure if that was a good spot for them, or if I should have gone a bit more toward the center. Stinks that I won't be able to test it for another 3 weeks.

 

From what I understand, I gave up some float, but should gain some maneuverability. What I'm curious about is HOW MUCH of a difference a centimeter fore or aft the boot position makes. Did I screw up big time, or will I not be able to tell THAT much of a difference? I'm starting to think I made a bad decision, since I bought the Gotama to be my powder ski in the first place.

 

Hopefully you guys can put this poor gaper's mind at ease a bit. Haha.

post #7 of 26

In the BlueHouse Maven situation it was recommended for "traditional skiing" to mount 5-10 cm behind true center point of the ski.

 

The ski is 189 cm; and the midpoint is 945 mm of the ski. Bluehouse's mounting recommendations mease with a tape from the upturned tail of the ski with the tape measure in the air above the ski surface : with recommended mounting points of 844 mm for taditional & powder and 908 mm for free ride- jib.

 

Since I told the shop mount at the center point of the ski which would have been 945 mm I'm way forwad of even the jib recommendation,

 

Bluehouse told me mount 5-10 cm behind the ski midpoint for the purposes of traditional- frreride- powder skiing.

 

I told the shop 7 cm rear of the midpoint of the ski placing about midpoint between the 844 & 908 recommendations.

 

Millimeters , centimeters, inches , difficult to keep all this straight.

post #8 of 26

FTR: 10cm = 100mm = just under 4".

 

Seeing as how a recent thread at TGR, a guy just about wanted new skis for his being mounted off by 3mm rolleyes.gif, you might want to make sure of the units. wink.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post
Millimeters , centimeters, inches , difficult to keep all this straight.
post #9 of 26

Lots of comments that have nothing to do with the question. I assume by "bootcenter" you mean the "zero" mark. At least last year, the also marked the +3 to -3 range (this is the range I refer to below). I assume the boot center ( = zero ) mark remains the same in all these discussions. Given the phrasing, I also assume that by "toward the center" you mean the boot center mark rather than the true center and core center points often referred to in this particular discussion. No matter...

 

I spent a bunch of time using 194 '10 Gotamas with Schizos last year. I think most folks will be well served to mount somewhere in the zero to +2 range. IMO the ski performed noticeably better on hardpack at +2. In soft snow, it was a bit friendlier just a shade further back. Obviously a bit forward of conventional makes for better switch skiing as well. FWIW, I'm about 6'1" and was probably 215 or 220 most of last season. If I were going to mount a fixed position binding on that ski, I'd flip a coin between +1 and +2. Go play with them for a few days. Once you get the hang of them, I suspect you will be pretty happy. No remorse needed.

post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

If you mounted the forward and are skiing switch, the net is you mounted them back (in switch) which is where you want them for that.  People tend to lean forward in switch (leaning towards the tip of the ski, or leaning uphill instead of down hill) so you should be able to be in a more upright position in switch.

 

 I think 2cm is noticeable but not horrible.  Are you familiar with the BOF/CRS mount?  If you were to go through that exercise, you might end up pretty close to where you are now.



As I have pointed out before - when talking about CRS - the RS part is about 1 inch on that ski when it is flat :)

 

 

Engaged edge is variable...

 

While it varies ski by ski - it is worth noting that many of the newer designs have offset sidecut and camber (or hybridized) zones. A number are considered to ski best - even if you never ski switch -  when mounted quite forward of a "traditional" mount. While others don't. It is worth understanding the ski you are discussing.


Edited by spindrift - 11/18/10 at 4:44pm
post #11 of 26

I'm gonna have to get around to posting my updated binding mount position determination instructions.  I have updated the process to handle rockered and early rise skis.  I rode my new Scott Crusades today and I was right on the money.  That's the 4th pair I've tested this season with the new method and it hasn't let me down yet.

post #12 of 26



Please do!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'm gonna have to get around to posting my updated binding mount position determination instructions.  I have updated the process to handle rockered and early rise skis.  I rode my new Scott Crusades today and I was right on the money.  That's the 4th pair I've tested this season with the new method and it hasn't let me down yet.

post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'm gonna have to get around to posting my updated binding mount position determination instructions.  I have updated the process to handle rockered and early rise skis.  I rode my new Scott Crusades today and I was right on the money.  That's the 4th pair I've tested this season with the new method and it hasn't let me down yet.



I'll be curious what it comes up with for some of the more progressive designs that have very offset sidecut and camber areas. Especially those where the edge engagement is highly impacted by the ratio of the rate of rate of change of camber/rocker to the rate of change of width variation. Some pretty high buzz skis have this sort of thing in play. I'll be curious where your mechanism would put someone on say an '11 Obsethed or Hell Bent or Salomon Rocker 2. Or even a Pontoon. Or to get really crazy a Praxis Concept. I'm genuinely curious because a rule of thumb that killed this would either be pretty interesting -- or demonstrate to me that I am over-complexifying this ! smile.gif

 

Not that this has anything to do with the OP's question...

post #14 of 26

spindrift - me too!  I certainly wonder if what I'm doing can actually handle some of those really unique designs.  I've fondled the Obsethed and where they have the cambered area looks totally freaky - it's so far back that I'm not sure how that would be handled correctly (other than through pure experimentation).  The Praxis Concept is a completely new design that I think I would only go with the manufacturer recommendation.  I haven't mounted my DPS Wailer 112RPs yet, but I plan on using the new method.  As things stand it will put me at +3 on the ski (according to the DPS markings).  I did however mount my Palmer P02s and the Crusades and it seems to have worked very well for me with those whereas the typical BoF method using center of running surface would have been useless.

 

Major thread drift - apologies to the OP!

post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Major thread drift - apologies to the OP!


 

Well, them's the Interwebs for ya...

 

Man, I'd double check with Marshal Olson before drifting too far off the mark on those beauties you got. He's with DPS and the tech manual stuff he posted at TGR seemed pretty insistent that you probably want to be +/- 1 cm of their midsole mark. He also seems to think that mark is pretty cleanly & accurately marked on the ski.

 

FWIW - regarding the Praxis - Keith now appears to be marking a baseline midsole mark w/a very indelible ink. A happy thing.

post #16 of 26
Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Man, I'd double check with Marshal Olson before drifting too far off the mark on those beauties you got. He's with DPS and the tech manual stuff he posted at TGR seemed pretty insistent that you probably want to be +/- 1 cm of their midsole mark. He also seems to think that mark is pretty cleanly & accurately marked on the ski.


That's a major reason why I haven't mounted them yet.  I want to do more testing with other skis to really test out how I feel about the method.  I have a pair of ZAG Heli Gold that while not a fully rockered ski have a large amount of early rise.  The key will be testing them both in 2D and 3D conditions.  So the 112RPs may sit idle for a while longer...

post #17 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Lots of comments that have nothing to do with the question. I assume by "bootcenter" you mean the "zero" mark. At least last year, the also marked the +3 to -3 range (this is the range I refer to below). I assume the boot center ( = zero ) mark remains the same in all these discussions. Given the phrasing, I also assume that by "toward the center" you mean the boot center mark rather than the true center and core center points often referred to in this particular discussion. No matter...

 

I spent a bunch of time using 194 '10 Gotamas with Schizos last year. I think most folks will be well served to mount somewhere in the zero to +2 range. IMO the ski performed noticeably better on hardpack at +2. In soft snow, it was a bit friendlier just a shade further back. Obviously a bit forward of conventional makes for better switch skiing as well. FWIW, I'm about 6'1" and was probably 215 or 220 most of last season. If I were going to mount a fixed position binding on that ski, I'd flip a coin between +1 and +2. Go play with them for a few days. Once you get the hang of them, I suspect you will be pretty happy. No remorse needed.


Correct. By bootcenter, I mean the zero mark the manufacturer labeled on the ski. Thanks for the info, everyone! Makes me feel better. I guess worst comes to worst, I may just swap out the griffin for some schizos later in the season if I absolutely can't make up my mind. Haha.

post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post
 Are you familiar with the BOF/CRS mount?  If you were to go through that exercise, you might end up pretty close to where you are now.


I'm not familiar with that. What is that?

post #19 of 26

= ball of foot/center of running surface

 

As a general statement -  a conventional ski has camber that bows it up and the ski has its widest points where the front and back contact the snow. The camber is relatively symmetrical between those contact points & for discussion purposes you can visualize it as matching the sidecut profile as well (ie the narrowest point on the ski is at the peak of the camber). The technique being referenced places the ball of foot at the apex of the camber so as to optimize using the ball of the foot to squish the the camber out and engage the sidecut of the ski. 

 

The current goat rises from the middle - it has no camber to squish out. Many newer designs deviate even more dramatically from the assumptions made in the classic BOF/CRS mounting approach. And  folks who ski switch usually tend toward a center of ski mount anyway. 

 

As you may have inferred, there is a broad range of opinions as to whether or not this approach to determining mount point is still appropriate with current designs. Search here on the site or google around if you are curious. 

post #20 of 26

Noodler,

 

you mentioned you will post your method to solve the mounting of binding in case of rockered ski.


Is it possible to apply CRS /BOF method to skis with front rocker and normal camber and flat tail ? - I just bought SideStash K2 -  low traditionaly camberd ski, in front short rocker 5/15, Length of the skis: nominal 181, real (measuring the curve - around 183, perpendicular perhaps 181).

 

BOF is quite clear to me.

Where is center of runnig surface in this case? When trying on flat even floor, I have the CRS measured on Sidestash approx. 74,4 cm from the tail. It was with slight - hand - preload tension on ski.

It looks just for eye straight  pretty far back...

Then I did again the measument without touching the ski, and the camber was therefore not pressed down by hand... Result was about 77,5 from the tail.

 The midsole mark from manufacturer is 79,5 cm from tail!!!

It is located far more forward.

 

So using BOF/CRS method I would end up with position about nearly 9 cm back in comparison to midsole /manufacturer mark. I think, there must be some other solution. BOF/CRS can work very well on carving - slalom ski, but on ski with front rocker? I would end up with position very far back, is this ok? Why would be recoomendation of manufacturer so different?

What to do?

Thanks for your suggestions.

Lukas

 

Background: I am from Czech republic, here is no Campbell dynamic ballancer available, nearest in UK (pretty far - I am rather considering build one myself, I have seen the simple sketch here....

Anyway, after findint BOF (or Campbell balanced point on my boots.....) how to find the spot on rockered skis?

post #21 of 26

As pointed out in an earlier thread I'm not familiar with the skis, I don't own any riser skis or fat skis, and I've never skied any so take this with a grain of salt.  I do believe that math is math and science is science.

 

Things I believe to be true:

 

  1. The purpose of Ball of Foot over Center of Running Surface (BOF/CRS) is to mount the binding in the sweet spot based on where your BOF is and your BOF should end up right on too of the CRS
  2. This is the spot on the ski where the least amount of pressure will give you the maximum amount of flex
  3. Without a Campbell Balancer or something of the sort, you have to assume you are neutrally balanced.  If you are not, it won't be accurate
  4. The point of figuring out the CRS is to figure out how much of the edge is engaged when you are skiing and I would up this to skiing a full carve turn
  5. Rockers I believe can have 2 or 3 main CRS's; Up to rise engaged, front engaged and tip to tail engaged.  There would be more if I understand the design correctly but to get all of them you would need a binding that varies it location on the fly
  6. You can only have one mounting point unless you have a system binding (demo binding) that lets you cheat the binding placement forward and back
  7. You don't have to flatten the ski to find the running surface of the ski; you can place it on its side or just use a caliper to find the widest point
  8. BOF/CRS is a starting point. You have to adjust from this position based on how you actually ski and where you'll ski (i.e. back country, park, groomers, race course, steeps etc,)
  9. You can make adjustments in your skiing to account for binding location (i.e 2cm forward might be great for tip to tail carving but makes switch more challenging - so in switch stand taller so you aren't leaning uphill and lifting the tail (pointing downhill) so much

 

If the above is true, all you should have to do to determine mounting location is determine where you want your skiing to be the easiest; full tip to tail carve, riser to riser engaged or something in between.  Use that CRS for mounting.  I would also go through the process of figuring out all the CRS's and possibly come up with a happy medium.

 

Personally, I would still use the tip to tail CRS because that is when "I" would want the ski to flex the easiest.  By fact that it is a Rocker, it should already be easy to turn riser to riser by virtue of all the ski that isn't engaged yet.

 

Again, these are thoughts and I have no data or experience to back it up.  Just trying to get things out there to think about.  If I've stated something incorrectly, please point that out so we can all learn from it.

 

Happy pondering,

 

Ken

post #22 of 26


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

As pointed out in an earlier thread I'm not familiar with the skis, I don't own any riser skis or fat skis, and I've never skied any so take this with a grain of salt.  I do believe that math is math and science is science.

 

Things I believe to be true:

 

  1. The purpose of Ball of Foot over Center of Running Surface (BOF/CRS) is to mount the binding in the sweet spot based on where your BOF is and your BOF should end up right on too of the CRS
  2. This is the spot on the ski where the least amount of pressure will give you the maximum amount of flex
  3. Without a Campbell Balancer or something of the sort, you have to assume you are neutrally balanced.  If you are not, it won't be accurate
  4. The point of figuring out the CRS is to figure out how much of the edge is engaged when you are skiing and I would up this to skiing a full carve turn
  5. Rockers I believe can have 2 or 3 main CRS's; Up to rise engaged, front engaged and tip to tail engaged.  There would be more if I understand the design correctly but to get all of them you would need a binding that varies it location on the fly
  6. You can only have one mounting point unless you have a system binding (demo binding) that lets you cheat the binding placement forward and back
  7. You don't have to flatten the ski to find the running surface of the ski; you can place it on its side or just use a caliper to find the widest point
  8. BOF/CRS is a starting point. You have to adjust from this position based on how you actually ski and where you'll ski (i.e. back country, park, groomers, race course, steeps etc,)
  9. You can make adjustments in your skiing to account for binding location (i.e 2cm forward might be great for tip to tail carving but makes switch more challenging - so in switch stand taller so you aren't leaning uphill and lifting the tail (pointing downhill) so much

 

If the above is true, all you should have to do to determine mounting location is determine where you want your skiing to be the easiest; full tip to tail carve, riser to riser engaged or something in between.  Use that CRS for mounting.  I would also go through the process of figuring out all the CRS's and possibly come up with a happy medium.

 

Personally, I would still use the tip to tail CRS because that is when "I" would want the ski to flex the easiest.  By fact that it is a Rocker, it should already be easy to turn riser to riser by virtue of all the ski that isn't engaged yet.

 

Again, these are thoughts and I have no data or experience to back it up.  Just trying to get things out there to think about.  If I've stated something incorrectly, please point that out so we can all learn from it.

 

Happy pondering,

 

Ken


Thank you, most of it is perfectly clear. 

Just few q. How I measure the 3 various CRS?  I can see only 2 various CRS in this case, since the rocker is only on the front, tail is traditional camber.....

This ski is not twintip, it has the flat tail - maybe I have forgotten to point out....

 

I have measured following parametres:

1: I can easily measure widest front point to widest tail point (with caliper), divide the length by 2 and - this would be I believe then CRS in case of simple, slalom skis...- here in case of Sidestashes CRS point is 85,8 cm measured from tail. How do you call this one?

2: Waist - narrowest part of the ski determined by caliper is  74, 4 cm measured from from tail

3: another CRS - I do not know how to call this one? : distance from contact point on tail (= widest point on the tail, since there is no rocker on the tail) to the contact point  on front showel (when the ski is lying on perfectly flat floor, determined by visit card...) In this case approx. point for this CRS is 74,6 cm measured from tail, pretty close to narrowest point - waist of the ski... How do you call this second CRS?

 

Many thanks

Luk

 

post #23 of 26

OK - I think I can put together the post today with the new method I've been using.  Look for it in the Ski Gear forum later today.

post #24 of 26


Luk,

 

I think you should read Noodlers post on this.  http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/97891/bof-mounting-point-method-for-the-21st-century#post_1271013  Also make sure to go to the links he references.  I'm better at traditional skis than rockers and the rest.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakullic View Post

 


Thank you, most of it is perfectly clear. 

Just few q. How I measure the 3 various CRS?  I can see only 2 various CRS in this case, since the rocker is only on the front, tail is traditional camber......

This ski is not twintip, it has the flat tail - maybe I have forgotten to point out....

 

I have measured following parametres:

1: I can easily measure widest front point to widest tail point (with caliper), divide the length by 2 and - this would be I believe then CRS in case of simple, slalom skis...- here in case of Sidestashes CRS point is 85,8 cm measured from tail. How do you call this one?

2: Waist - narrowest part of the ski determined by caliper is  74, 4 cm measured from from tail

3: another CRS - I do not know how to call this one? : distance from contact point on tail (= widest point on the tail, since there is no rocker on the tail) to the contact point  on front showel (when the ski is lying on perfectly flat floor, determined by visit card...) In this case approx. point for this CRS is 74,6 cm measured from tail, pretty close to narrowest point - waist of the ski... How do you call this second CRS?

 

Many thanks

Luk

 

post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&AirC View Post

 

..................

 Things I believe to be true:

 

6.    You can only have one mounting point unless you have a system binding (demo binding) that lets you cheat the binding placement forward and back

..................................



Vist Speedlock, Marker Schizo, Tyrolia Railflex.  None of these are system or demo bindings. And what is cheating about being able to move the binding placement without turning your skis into swiss cheese?

post #26 of 26

In this case I don't think of cheating as a negative.  I prefer binding systems that allow me to do this.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post



Vist Speedlock, Marker Schizo, Tyrolia Railflex.  None of these are system or demo bindings. And what is cheating about being able to move the binding placement without turning your skis into swiss cheese?

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 mounting positions - Did I go too far forward?