 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Recently read that many skiers would benefit from having their bindings a tad further forward. Suggestion was that retailers often don`t get it quite right. Easy to experiment if mounting is adjustable, but not with my Diamir touring bindings! What are the principles involved here? Is there sense in the above theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Could be true. If you remember, Atomic 9.11's from a couple of years ago came out in mens & ladies models. I was after a pair for the wife but my LSS only had mens skis in. The bloke who runs it is pretty well informed and told me the only difference (other than graphics) was that the boot center line is a little futher forward to help women(who are lighter) initiate turns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I wouldn't say the retaillers get it wrong, they normally mount to the mark put on the skis by the manufacturer. The problem is that this may not be the best mounting position. Some skis - I think Head and Nordica do them - have moveably bindings, which are designed so you can decide through the day to move them forward or back depending on where you want to ski, and how.
Others, such as K2 Seth Pistols (Gratuitous excuse to talk about my pow skis) do not have one mounting mark, but a series of them. You can then decide whether you want the traditional mounting point, or something further forward. I got mine set up +1.5cm - I didn't want them too far forward, as I use them in pow, and appreciate having more in front of me to give me lift.
The mounting location can make massive differences to how the ski behaves - if I were to get another pair of Pistols (now there's a dream!) and mounted them at 0, they would be completely different beasts.
Many skiers would benefit from having their bindings up to 2cm forward of the mark, but don't go down to your local shop and ask for a remount just cause I said so. If you like your skis now, you'll probably hate them after moving the bindings.
Consider where and how you ski before making a decision on the mounting point of your next pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
marc gledhill, on the ladies ski thing, there are a few manufacturers, e.g. K2, who have specifically designed skis for women. The reason for mounting a ladies binding further forward than a mans on the same ski is not to do with their weight, but the location of their centre of gravity. (I can't remember the way it goes, but I do know that's the reason!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, you mean it's lower? ('cos they tend to be shorter). I suppose this combined with a lighter weight could be the reason.
It does make me wonder though, the center line of my boots is a good cm or two behind the line shown on my skiis And the skiis are already 4cm taller than me. I could be doing myself no favours at all. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
marc gledhill, it's lower, yes, but it's also further forward (I think).
If you're in the original boots you had when you got the skis, then I'd question the mounting. If you've changed boots (or bought the skis pre-mounted/with demo bindings) then it's entirely possible you could be that far out. If I were you, I'd get a new pair of skis, 10-15cms shorter than your current ones, and get the bindings mounted normally. (I think haveing shorter skis will help more than having the bindings forward)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bug. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Move your bindings forward to aid turn initiation and increase the amount of power able to be held at the end of the turn. Moving bindings back slows turn initiation but allows skis to float better in soft snow.
ESS / ATOMIC have a system in which you move the binding forward for short wippy turns and move it back for slower wider GS turns.
You can quite safely play about with a +/- 2cm margin
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| marc gledhill, it's lower, yes, but it's also further forward (I think). |
Just the opposite. Further back, in general, due to pelvis shape. Hence, moving the bindings forward and/or heels up. Nolo does not agree with the generalization of the approach, as I understand her, Fox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| bruce leggott wrote: |
| Recently read that many skiers would benefit from having their bindings a tad further forward. Suggestion was that retailers often don`t get it quite right. Easy to experiment if mounting is adjustable, but not with my Diamir touring bindings! What are the principles involved here? Is there sense in the above theory? |
This is a far more complex question than you probably realize. The goal for best performance on a pair of skis with a particular pair of boots is to be in a 360 degree balance on them. There are tools to help do this (like the Cambell Balancer), and I have come up with some other approaches (like balancing on a PVC pipe), but the basic issue is that mass manufacturing has taken the specificity out of the process.
Here are the fundamental questions:
1) Where do you balance in your boots? This involves a number of variables, including the length of your feet, the ramp of the boots, and the boots' forward lean.
2) Where do you balance on your skis? This is primarily a function of the skis' running length.
3) What is the delta angle of the bindings? This will impact the effective balance point established in #1.
Once you know all of these, you want to place the balance point in your boots directly over the balance point on the ski. This has nothing to do with any lines on the ski or boot!
Note: this is especially interesting and sensitive for me, since I have very small feet coupled with an unusually high CoM. This makes me much more sensitive to ramp angle than most people. I am currently in the process of reducing my ramp angle to see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Steve, as we are fairly adaptable to change, shouldn't we be putting the binding in the, theoretically, best place and see whether we change our balance point to suit. If we balance in the "wrong" place now then fitting the binding to suit a poor position means we're less likely to improve the situation.
If that is true, and we ignore where we balance, where should a given boot/ski combination balance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
marc gledhill, you're definitely on the right track! We do adapt very, very well. That is why the old adage "well, it worked for me" is pretty useless. There are some very specific, physiological issues that we're dealing with here.
We should be putting the binding in the theoretical best place. However, that best place is different for each person based on the true location of their CoM, their feet size (especially length), and those other variables that I mentioned. With that information, one can actually calculate the optimum boot ramp, etc.
In general, though, you want the balance point of your boots directly over the balance point of the ski. For many of us, that's forward of the mfr's lines on the skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve,
"boot ramp"? Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
bruce leggott, sorry, Bruce. Boot ramp is the angle of the bootboard relative to horizontal. With most boots, you can remove the liner, then remove the bootboard. If it's a full-length bootboard (and I argue it should always but, but it's not!), you can then measure the angle using a protractor or calculate it from right-triangle measurements.
That's probably more technical than you wanted tho, eh? Basically, boot ramp angle is the angle that the boot board is tilted forward because the heel is higher than the toe.
Want me to elaborate more? I can write for a while on this topic... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
As you say...a complex area, this! Each separate factor would seem to affect another one (boot size, ramp angle, fwd lean of boot,CoM, sex), so is there any constant, as it were? ( I have a feeling this is tantamount to lighting the blue touch paper, and waiting for you to "go off" !!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
bruce leggott, ha! 
I'll do my best to keep it short. Bascially, for most people, 3-3.5 degrees of net ramp angle is correct. This keeps the CoM over the supporting arch of the foot and keeps it from moving too close to the 1st metatarsal (MT)--the ball of the great toe. Only if you are "out of norm" (as I am!) will this not work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ssh wrote: |
| In general, though, you want the balance point of your boots directly over the balance point of the ski. |
Steve, so the ski (with boot attached) should balance at the boots midpoint? Never knew that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
marc gledhill, not necessarily the midpoint (which is a geometric location), but its balance point (which is a physiological location).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
ssh, sorry for getting it the wrong way round!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| ssh wrote: |
| boot ramp angle is the angle that the boot board is tilted forward because the heel is higher than the toe. |
So what you;re saying is that we should be skiing in high heels? Woin;t the stillettos just punch through the crust?
I'll get me coat
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
ssh, stop me if I'm labouring the point, but how do you find the balance point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| nbt wrote: |
| I'll get me coat |
nbt, I hate to break it to you, but you haven't pulled!
Marc, The scientific way to do it would be to stand in your boots on a narrow bar, and find at what position you are balanced, when in a skiing stance. But remember, different boots will have different characteristics, such as ramp angle, cuff lean, etc, so, just because you find the balance point in one pair of boots doesn't mean that it will be the same location in a different pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat,  that'll be fun in the kitchen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The "gentleman" who sold me my skis/bindings said that women needed their bindings further forward because "men have their weight in their shoulders, women in their behinds!" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
does my bum look big in these salopettes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Yes, but your bum looks big anyway. The salopettes are just like putting bubblewrap on an elephant...
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
NickB, the correct question is, "Is my big bum sufficiently hidden by these salopettes?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Campbell Balancer actually mounts your boots around a 360 degree pivot point so that you can find the true balance point of the boot. That said, WTFH's version is sufficient for many people, I think.
And, Marc, it is fun in the kitchen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Just a minute, am I in the kitchen with just my boots on, or with the skiis attached to the boots?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
marc gledhill, first just the boots, then both. If you want... Just check with the homeowner first! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
marc gledhill,
Wear an apron too, you know how the fat splashes 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Cheeky, I've been losing weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
marc gledhill, I thought maggi meant to protect your boots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
ssh, you obviously haven't seen my fat splash
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Shh, Lou here. Just learned of this site and don't know if anyone is still monitoring this thread. I would be careful when discussing mounting boot balance point over ski balance point. Makes it sound as if we are finding the ski position where it is weighted equally tip and tail. When using the Campbell balancer the ski is not in any way part of the system. We mount the skier's balance point over the centre of the ski running surface. Which typically is close to ball of foot/ centre of running surface. Of course this system means we ignore the mark on the ski which of course is not comparable between manufacturers or even between ski models anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
race510, Welcome to snowHeads. Would you by any chance be Lou Rosenfeld?
bruce leggott, I started this thread back in Feb re the Campbell Balancer which is used to calculate binding position.
My own Campbell Balancer should hopefully be up & running in a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OP mentioned that perhaps a lot of skiers may benefit from having their bindings mounted forward of centre.
Could the opposite also be true?
I'm curious as i've always hated having my bindings mounted forward of centre, as this has always made my skis feel too turny, squirrely/unstable in a straight line. At lower speeds their ok making life easier in the turning department, but as soon as you throw terrain and speed into the mix I would rather have the stability of back of centre mounted bindings and put more effort into steering my skis.
To me it feels the same as skiing in a snowdome compared to skiing on a real hill. Very different animals.
Does anyone else feel this way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I would rather ... put more effort into steering my skis. |
I used to feel that way until I saw that Ogi and ssh were going faster in a slower line. When I went through this self-debate I reasoned the same way you did. Sure enough I chickened out of having them forward.
Post #10 (short turns require more flex!) is really key there. I was lazy.
When I went back to factory, they became just as bland as the next pair. Wish I hadn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'blandness' was a definite lack of a firm lock into carve at turn exit. This actually reduced my sensation of the skis' stability and I skied slower.
Technique might just be the core issue here: I can control initiation very, very well with the toe side (mostly I use ILE, sound familiar?) but my heel pressure precision may need heaps of work.
(Actually, this has me thinking of the ankle-eversion thread, maybe my heel pressure is too on-off on the -inside- foot).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
