Binding position, for'd vs back, e.g. Rossi vs Völkl

A snowHead

elsewhere, Raceplate, said,

"I also dislike their recommended binding mount position which is too far back of centre compared to French skis which promotes skidding as opposed to carving. I once spent most of a season on a pair of highly lauded Volkls but my skiing was transformed when I switched to a near identical geometry but more forward mounted pair of Rossi's. "

To which I asked, "Curious, why does binding mounting have influence on skidding vs carving?",

And he kindly responded, "under a new name, it might be a bit over-simplified but this is the theory: the German ski companies (Volkl, Atomic,Fischer, etc) generally mount their bindings further back which is more comfortable for skiers who skid their turns because it feels more stable when you sit back on the ski. The French companies (Rossignol, Salomon, Dynastar etc) mount their bindings further forward which helps you stay forward and carve more easily.

A more forward mount helps to initiate the turn by making it easier to get the tips in and so promotes good technique. More forward helps the beginning of the turn, more back helps the end of the turn. More forward may feel 'squirrelly' though with poor technique whereas more back feels more stable. A backward mounting may feel 'dead' with anything less than excellent technique.

I think strong, technical skiers love Volkl because they have the strength and technique to still get forward on a more backward mounting and really work the ski so they get the benefits of the rebound and reverse camber as well as the stability of the shorter tail. For a less skilled, weaker skier though, they can't make it work and are just riding the tails all the time (probably without even realising it) so they never improve.

You might argue that in some ways a backward mounting should appeal to everybody - the strong, fit, expert can make it work and the 1 week a year skier feels stable and content and isn't bothered about improving because he doesn't expect to. I think there's a middle category though of good and improving technical skiers who don't have a seasonnaire's strength and fitness level and for them it's not helping them. Unfortunately, I'm in that category now and I suspect the OP is too."

Discuss.

A snowHead

Interesting topic, I'm surprised if its not been discussed here before although on a recent search I didnt come up with much.

There was an interesting discussion here:
http://www.epicski.com/t/92938/binding-mount-position-is-99-of-ski-performance
which has much I haven't yet digested.

This paper has some interesting observations:
http://www.skisport.fi/@Bin/5120/Binding+position+Benno.pdf

particularly that ""The recreational skiers were able to detect differences in binding position. Only one of the 11 recreational skiers classified “neutral” binding position as he most comfortable. Two of the 11 recreational skiers assessed the “neutral” position as the least comfortable."

Having just obtained some Head Titans with Tyrolia SP120 bindings I'm looking forward to exploring the effect myself as the binding offers the possibility of changing the position of both toe and tail pieces.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Here's my tuppence worth.

a. I was not aware of any Germanic vs Franco differences - haven't noticed anything obvious when skiing on Rossi, Dynastar, Atomic, Volkl, Nordica (yeh, yeh, Italian Brand, probably made by the same people). I don't feel my own balance point changing and I can't (although I can't verify right now) say I've noticed a physical difference comparing similar race skis of similar vintage between brands. It will be the weekend after next before I can check. That said, Mrs U loves Völkl but detests Rossignol.

b. In the day (1989?), there was a binding brand called ESS bought by Atomic who gave you the ability to adjust fore/aft by something like +/-15mm. While this gave a perception of forward=easier to turn, backward=more stable, TBH I couldn't see any external difference and once you got used to it, it disappeared. There was, at the same time, a French racer fad (?) to mount slightly forward for SL. Of course, this was all on old skool skis. But there was still carving going on, if maybe not quite as it is today.

c. Yes, Volkl feel more stable, not at all dead, but super smooth. I haven't skied Rossi for a few years. I don't recall my Nordica Sls feeling anything else but (lovely and) super twitchy, but they're supposed to feel like that.

I'm struggling to get my head around the physics, particularly as I don't think there are huge +/- displacements going on. I would take issue particularly with, "German ski companies ... generally mount their bindings further back which is more comfortable for skiers who skid their turns because it feels more stable when you sit back on the ski" - a shorter length feels more stable? Intuitively that doesn't make sense to me.

I would tend to agree that being a wee bit further forward may make turn initiation (in the old skool sense of the phrase) easier, but as modern carving as I understand it is, -edge, -establish, -pressure, -control ..., it doesn't matter whether you're 10mm forward of back from a nominal waist.

I'll have more thoughts later but - I wonder whether or not the important thing is not fore/aft but ramp angle?

Also, I still didn't realise that e.g. Volkl mounted things behind. (phnarr, shoosh) I know they had an odd labelling system whereby the boot sole was mounted toe line to line, not centre line, but that was about it?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

It's an interesting theory but needs some actual evidence to support it.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Ah, but what about having the position of the binding calculated scientifically?

(robbed from the piste office site)

Invented by Harry Campbell, the Campbell Balancer is a diagnostic tool for establishing the ideal fore/aft positioning of your ski bindings. Here’s an extract from the Campbell Balancer patent that explains it best:

“Currently, the positioning of ski boot bindings on alpine skis is determined by aligning a ski boot mid-sole mark indicative of the midpoint of the boot sole with a ski manufacturer's prescribed mounting mark on the surface of the ski. The mounting mark is typically a predetermined point which is generally determined by the manufacturer using statistical averages. Such a positioning system is ineffective for skiers whose physiology differs significantly from the statistical averages. More importantly, the prior art systems are not capable of dealing with individual variations in a person's flex, stance and balance. Such individual variations are significant. In particular, there is a substantial physiological difference in the flex, stance and balance characteristics of men and women which ought to be taken into account in the positioning of bindings on skis in order to enhance skier comfort, safety and efficiency for a particular skier. Use of the present standards for aligning the boots and bindings on skis by utilizing the manufacturer's mid-sole mounting points typically positions many skiers, and particularly women, too far back on their skis. The deviation from a neutral dynamic balance point is often found to be several centimetres. Skiers positioned too far back or forward on their skis are not able to turn their skis as effectively and efficiently as skiers properly positioned at a dynamically neutral balance position on the skis who, therefore, have adequate control over the operation of the skis."

You'll need to Register first of course.

I suppose I'd better also tell you that Jon has the only Campbell Balancer in the UK & it’s only £10 to have your ideal balance position diagnosed.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

Tuppence also thrown in...

See no evidence for a germanic/franco split in mounting points, seems a little general

ski mounted further toward centre will be easier to turn, to a point, too much stiff/cambered/offset tail is also hard to handle

prefered mounting point is personal and ski specific, recently threw a tape measure on a pair of skis and mounted 10cm back from center, couldn't be happier

Volkls I bought on saturday lined up with the centre of the boot

Atomic race bindings were adjustable until like 2004 (something like carve/speed/allround cant remember)

if you want to be perfect about it, ramp angle, cuff angle, centre of gravity and skiing style all go into the perfect position, 10 quid might be worth getting a starting point to work from but not a final answer

Volkl do tend to make heavier, damper skis, maybe it is because germans are all fatties that drink beer and french people are skinny red wine drinkers.. it's a theory

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Here's another paper by the authors of the older binding position study which makes interesting reading: "THE EFFECT OF BINDING POSITION ON KINETIC VARIABLES IN ALPINE SKIING" http://lous.ca/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bindingposition_indepth.pdf . One point of interest: " Differences of up to 3 cm can be seen, indicating that an optimal binding position wo uld not necessarily be the same for each leg." ! To which someone has commented to me[1]: "Hmmm, who wants to have to work out which ski goes on which foot after a few jagertees"!

[1] Swiftoid, random discussions on Facebook messenger, March, 2014

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

andyrew, you're doing some good work, here! Plenty of evidence that mounting position can make a significant difference to performance for less than elite skiers. It's a shame though, the article I was trying to find which explains it all much better than I can was the one on realskiers.com that is referred to on the Epicski thread you linked but seems to have been deleted. There are other Epicski threads on the subject though.

TBF, it was several years ago when I first experienced the difference; whether current product offerings still have the same general characteristics I don't know. Maybe somebody with a ski shop can compare similar offerings and tell us. I suspect the subject doesn't come up as much these days because there are so many moveable binding systems available so you're not necessarily beholden to the manufacturer's centre mark. Salomon Smartrak will allow you to move forward or backwards, I believe Kastle's K12 will and many others. The thing is, does the average punter know what a huge effect a couple of cms can make to their overall balance and do they have the patience/knowledge to experiment with it? I suspect most don't so they are reliant on the manufacturer's recommended line and if that's not optimal for their skiing style then they're not getting the most out of their ski.

My own experience was in 2005. I had three pairs of skis - Volkl Vertigo Motions 177cm, Rossi B2's 176cm and some similar width Head skis in a 178cm. When laid side by side the Rossi mounting point was 2-3cms in front of both the other skis, even though they were shorter, so effectively giving a much shorter tip and longer tail. I can't remember who I discussed it with but I was told that this was a common trait of French skis. I skied much better on the Rossis than the other two. To me, it was easier to initiate the turn and the longer tail was much more forgiving if you got out of balance. I've largely only skied on French skis since, so maybe not all German skis are that way now.

under a new name,

snow reports

I just tried changing my SL ski (old Atomic) bindings from the forward extreme position to all round (the middle one). OK, I broke the old binding and got the local place to dig out a second hand stronger replacement. Not a huge difference that I could tell. But on my fatter skis I now have the mount 20mm forward (new freeride/touring binding) and I prefer that to the old centre set up. Makes it easier to drive the tips into a turn and also smoother sking switch.

To add to the biblography, here I think, is the source of the original quotes re binding position in Germanic Vs French Skis: http://lous.ca/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/BindPosArticle09.pdf . The link in the EpicSki thread to this is out of date. Lous also has a link to what seems quite a seminal paper on the campbell balancer: http://www.epicski.com/a/positioning-ski-bindings-using-the-campbell-balancer . One thing I had rather missed when I first read Mosha Marcs quote is that the campbell balancer is assessing the dynamic not the static position, i.e. not looking for just a standing balance point but assessing it over the skiing movement and they and the Nigg papers show that this changes (quite a lot!) during the turn. So I was a bit hard on it to dismiss it! I can't find a mention of the auhors of the Realskiers article you mentioned, Raceplate, so sadly I think its going to be hard to pin down, I wonder if it was based on one of the Nigg/Schwarmer papers or some extra material? The Epicski campbell balancer article has a link to this nice paper: http://www.epicski.com/a/ski-binding-placement-fore-aft which is a much more anecdotal look at the effect of binding placement.

This is getting very fascinating, I'm heading very rapidly now to a need to go away to a darkened room and read all of these again _slowly_ there's a lot to digest. I go to the PdS in a couple of weeks taking newly acquired skis with a facility to move both toe and tail pieces forwards and backwards and hope to take enough time out from cruising between restaurants to do some experimentation and try and see what it feels like.

You know it makes sense.

andyrew, It will be an interesting experiment. Please post your experiences.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

andyrew, the first one's a very good article. Noticeable that the elite skier was largely unaffected by binding position but everyone else was affected detrimentally by it being back. As a non-elite skier I'm firmly in that camp!

Interesting too that the Campbell balancer test was sponsored by Nordica and nearly everyone preferred a more forward position than their recommended one.

I wonder if since this more scientific equipment has become available, more manufacturers have moved their recommended mount points forward and it's not such an issue/trend anymore? Most of these articles are 3-4 years old and my experience was longer ago still so we need some anecdotal comment from spyderjon really. He could say whether he generally fits people more forward, on or back of the recommended centre mark when he uses the Balancer and whether there's a trend between manufacturers.

The realskiers.com article was written by the former site owner, Peter Keelty, I think. He will have written it from personal experience and I'm sure has forgotten more about skiing than I'll ever know so it's a pity it's not there anymore.

A snowHead

Of course, it's just occurred to me that if all spyderjon's CB fittings are on the manufacturer's centre mark, he's not likely to tell us because he'll be doing himself out of some trade! Laughing

A snowHead

ScarpaTheAvalanchePoodle,

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

They are six year old Nordica Enforcers, 98mm, twin tip. I'd agree with you, having the binding a little forward does seem to make the ski more enjoyable in many ways. They do have two mounting marks, ride and air. I am now centre of these points.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

andyrew, yeah the methodology of all the papers linked so far is a bit hummm.

I'd be interested if there really was a split between the Austrian and French companies though and some accompanying explanation as to the design thought process. I personally think there will be more differentiation between ski type and intended use than across companies.

You'll need to Register first of course.

andyrew, as I recall, the original article on this that I can't find (it might be in the member's area of realskiers - I used to be a member) postulated that the backward binding position of German/Austrian skis was a cynical marketing ploy to get more sales.

The logic was that testing showed crap skiers give more favourable reviews of a ski when mounted back of true centre. There are more crap skiers than good ones so they're appealing to the masses. The Nigg test you've referenced would support that theory. Elite skiers are unaffected by balance point so they give good reviews too and the manufacturer has three quarters of the ski market covered including both ends of the spectrum.

In contrast, it praised the French (and American) manufacturers for being more 'honest' by using the true centre mark and expecting people to use better technique on their skis rather than pandering to the lowest denominator, even if it meant their skis appealed to fewer people.

It's occurred to me that with the advent of tip rocker on 90% of skis shortening the effective running lengths, any differences may be much less pronounced than they used to be when everything was flat camber? Maybe that's why you don't hear much about it now?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Also, is (or was) there a difference in the mounting points marked on beginner skis and those marketed towards more advanced skiers?

After all it is free

lynseyf, did you read this article above?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

under a new name, to me, it's obvious that the guy (Lou) has done a lot of work on this and these are just two examples for this article. He says he helped design the test processes for Atomic to determine where to recommend the binding centre mark and that "in general, skis from Germany and Austria are mounted behind that of France and the US if we make the effort to standardize the position to the running length."

If he designed the tests and doesn't know what he's talking about, who does?

I think there are two separate discussions going on here:

1/ Does moving the binding position forward or aft of the manufacturer's recommended centre mark make a difference to how the skier skis on it? Answer - yes, except (perhaps) for elite level skiers. Masses of evidence from forums, Campbell Balancer tests, both scientific and anecdotal. Lots of skis now have more than one recommended centre mark according to prospective usage so the manufacturers recognise this also.

2/ Do Austrian/German ski manufacturers place a recommended mark on their skis that is further behind true centre than French/US manufacturers? Answer - maybe. At one time 4+ years ago there was definitely some evidence, both anecdotal and scientific to suggest they did (the Epicski discussions and articles above).

For me the unanswered question is: Is point 2 above common practice today? Or has the advent of tip rocker, reverse camber, twin tips, the Campbell Balancer etc. made all the manufacturers use a mark closer to true centre or ball-of-foot?

A more useful question for the average punter (including me) would be: how do I know if the centre mark on my skis is true centre or not and how do I find out if I prefer a neutral/more forward/more backward position if my bindings are screw mounted and I only want to drill my brand new skis once? That's the real issue, IMO. And yes, the obvious answer would be to get them Campbell Balanced but if there's only one machine in the country....

snow reports

Raceplate, doing a lot of work and doing a lot of good work are two different things. It's completely clear to me that this is a far from easy topic to understand the mechanics of. Or even to discuss in clear english wink

I haven't been through all the links and won't have time to do so for some time... although I do have some airport time tomorrow...

1. does moving position make a difference? - I think we can probably accept that it does certainly make a subjective "feel" difference. I don't at all think I've seen anything (so far) suggesting that it makes a consistent performance difference, for any level of skier. No not even the tests in the papers where the measurements were made in gates. The data were just not clearly leading to a robust conclusion.

I also still have heuristic and intuitive issues with your descriptions of what you think happens when you move fore/aft. And I don't think that you can draw any conclusions about skill (which is an implication above) if a skier finds, say, a random Volkl smoother than a random, say, Rossi.

2. Yeah, maybe. These days does it matter at all if it even occurs? Almost certainly no as technology and technique have changed so far as to make it rather moot.

Is the centre mark where you want to line your boot mark up to? Who knows? Sounds like the answer is in fact to resurrect these...

- yup, lift up the front cover to move fowards, backwards and all points in between.

P.S. I tried these a few times in 199o-ish and was most unconvinced...

Myself, I think you would have to change by a few cm to really feel a difference.

You know it makes sense.

I'm with you on that.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

under a new name,

A snowHead

Raceplate, perhaps I explained some of my comments poorly. In particular...

"These days does it matter at all if it even occurs? Almost certainly no as technology and technique have changed so far as to make it rather moot."

I think you've grabbed the wrong end of my stick. I think it's almost impossible now to try and analyse - other than on something like the Campbell device - where to mount bindings and also, the skis' performance on different snow types will lend themselves to so many different configurations that resurrecting the ESS V.a.r. setup is the only way forward. srsly.

"if I mounted the binding as far back on the tail as physically possible or as far forward on the tip as physically possible, would that affect fore/aft balance?" So having earlier seen an appeal to authority, we now have a weak attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

Sure it would. We have however been talking +/-14mm on a (then) 1900mm ski. Frankly, I think this knocks your arguments into a bit of a cocked hat.

Anyway, did you never ski on those fun snow blade/Bigfoot ripoffs that were around in 1990 where the shop took old rental skis, chopped 80cms off the front and mountec a pair of old bindings at the back (of the 80cm off cut)? I'll have you know that I skied a rather icy "Wall" on those in a white out. Interesting but not something I'd choose to repeat in a hurry. That said, the powder was even less fun.

"a bit over-simplified but this is the theory" - not - it's not a theory, it's at best a hypothesis, backed up by poor data. If there were more data, it would be better, but so far there isn't and what there is, for whatever else it has going for it, is out of date.

"a more forward binding position makes carving easier what could possibly be more relevant to modern technique?" - well you miss that point too I think. (p.s. I am not trying to be needessly argumentative.) A more forward position in 2001 on more or less classic skinny skis using old skool technique seemed to make carving easier under poorly controlled conditions and with far from robust data=> conclusions.

I feel that (you can't argue with my feelings) provided the skier can manage their balance adequately on the ski, with modern skis and modern technique, the whole fore aft thing is generally less of an issue and so much more complicated that there just isn't going to be an answer.

When I get back to my Alpine garage, I shall measure some old skis... Twisted Evil

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

andyrew, thanks. Hadn't checked that out.

It has just occurred to me that I was always under the impression that boot sole line was at the narrowest point of the ski which makes some (to me) intuitive (but no other) sense.

No idea how that works on some of today's shapes!

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Raceplate, I didn't think that my prior opinion of where the mount mark was was the point of any discussion.

I thought the point was more to do with should you mount fore or aft and what effect this might have on a skier (and only secondarily the Germanic-Franco thing). Next time I'm in my garage I'll have a look at a range of skis of different vintages, unfortunately they're mostly race skis and I don't think I have any of exactly the same marked lengths.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

under a new name,

After all it is free

No, as I was the OP, I know what the conversation is about and it's not whether I was wrong about where the boot line is.

If you recall, "To which I asked, "Curious, why does binding mounting have influence on skidding vs carving?", " and quoted your response, which is what i suggested be discussed.

If you want your own thread, go ahead. snowHead

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

Binding position, for'd vs back, e.g. Rossi vs Völkl

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions