Poster: A snowHead
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, Yes, yes, yes. I think I may have to retire to the little room on my own now. Be assured I will post a full review as soon as I can!
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
easiski, the second really wide pink set that I had my lesson with Ewan on, not the first yellow set that I tried after you, I couldn't get on with those, they kept on washing out from underneath me when I was turning.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Kramer, I didn't try the pink ones, but the black and green ones were park skis. Just too short for you I think. Glad we cleared that up!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Kramer wrote: |
easiski, the second really wide pink set that I had my lesson with Ewan on, not the first yellow set that I tried after you, I couldn't get on with those, they kept on washing out from underneath me when I was turning. |
You didn't have enough weight on your downhill ski then did you?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
David Murdoch, perhaps not, but not a problem on any other ski that I tried that day, but it is something that I've been working on with easiski's help. Also perhaps as I didn't feel confident on them, I wasn't getting my weight far enough forward.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
easiski wrote: |
Kramer, may be at least 50% heavier than me |
Flattery will get you everywhere, it's much more than that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I've actually answered the question with my previous post(s).
Beyond the original physical evaluations of whether you prefer one ski to another, there are various emotions involved with testing skis (dissonant, consonant and irrelevant cognitions and more) that will help or hinder your decision, it is all part and parcel of the ski buying process. I’m often amused by posts on here from people that have bought skis and only after the purchase ask for other opinions.
As discussed and recommended before:
Is it really worth you buying skis? How often do you ski? Where / how / when / why do you ski? Still want to buy? Check.
Always attempt to test the skis under very similar conditions, ideally of both the skier and the terrain! Check.
Have an 'ideal' list of skis you'd like to demo, based on recommendations from people who have skied them. Listen to people who ski lots of skis, not to those who read magazines or pass on second-hand information without having skied on them. Know that not all skis are going to available in all resorts and not in all lengths. Unless you are going on an endless demo session limit your final choice of demo skis to just three pairs. Check.
So how long for? Some skiers, including myself, claim that they can tell after just a few turns whether they will like a ski. Other skiers claim, again I have a foot in this camp too, it can take several days for you to 'get used to' (probably by adjusting your technique) a ski to get the most from them.
My recommendation is ski three pairs for half a day each (if the conditions will allow for a fair test over one & half days), perhaps for a full day. If you can't tell the difference then question whether you should be buying skis. If you can’t differentiate then buy the cheapest / the price in the middle / most expensive / one that matches your outfit.
Or forget the tests, speak to those who know. Buy them and then learn to love them. There's no such thing as a bad pair of skis. Apart from a few pairs which would need a large caveat but for intents & purposes we can ignore them.
The other part of the question was how useful is a demo? See above. Like skis, they work for some people, not for others. Try it, don’t like it? Rent. I’m amazed at how many UK ‘holiday’ skiers buy their own gear…
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Kramer, my apologies for impugning your ability!
|
|
|
|
|
|
After being 'Campbell Balanced' in the US & then experimenting with binding fore/aft binding position I strongly believe that when demo'ing skis you're as much demo'ing the binding position on the demo ski as much as the actual ski .
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
spyderjon, you will need to convince me...
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Not many skiers will need to mess about with binding positions, parkers? ok if they do a lot of rotations but move the ski into deep snow and you may hinder the ski and yourself. Of course, some peeps can ski anything on anything, but for the majority its messing around for messings arounds sake. I wouldn't want to get hold of some of these skis after they have been butchered with remounts and numerous edge grinds after skiing dry slopes etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
spyderjon, very interesting. Being a die hard Rossi fan, I guess I just haven't noticed. I think I mentioned in a prior conversation that I found Soph's older Volkl P50 GS to need a lot more effort (not work) than my Rossis - which would go with your argument. That said her P60 Slaloms are a joy to wiggle on. (but don't skid, unless you try really really hard and switch the ESC off so all power goes to the back wheels).
It would be really interesting to see the experiment repeated. It would be even more (for me) to see it repeated with some of my chums who ski quite well but don't know why or how.
Regarding your demo point - surely you can only demo mounting point if you get to change it?
Plus, your BOF concept doesn't align (unless I misunderstand) with being mounted centre of mass over apex of side cut? Does side cut geometry not have anything to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
David Murdoch, yep you're right in that you have to demo what you're given, although a number of integrated demo bindings (like Atomic Neox's) do allow for fore/aft adjustment although the sole length numbers won't read corectly in the window(s). The problem is that virtually all of the trade reps blindly follow the industry trend as described in the above report so when I say you want to try the binding in a different position they look at me as though I'm nuts.
The BOF method means aligning the BOF (the exact point is the middle of the first metatarsal head) over the centre of the running surface of the ski. The CRS is identified by clamping the skis together base to base, marking the points were the edges meet at the tip & tail & then marking a point on the ski sidewall exactly midway between these two points. Therefore side cut geometry doesn't affect the equation. If I use this method of measurement it positions the front of my boot 7.5cm in front of the CRS. However due to my physiology my Campbell Balance score is 9cm in front of the CRS. Now the 7.5cm position is skiable for me, in fact it was the standard Atomic forward postion on my skis which I liked, however the +9cm position is perfect for me & is a noticeable improvement. BTW, it's not that I like my bindings waaay forward as I've since discovered that Atomic have some of the most rearward binding positions on the market.
It appears that all the manufacturer's have their own individual policy re binding postion which is the same across their range of skis(maybe not park skis) so it is therefore common to find that experienced skiers tend to have a preference to one particular ski manufacturer as they just work for them. Steve Bagley (who did the research referred to in the above report) reckons that this is as much to do with binding location as the actual inherent characteristics of the skis.
I bet if you were measured you'll find that your Rossi's match your Campbell Balance score to +/-1cm which is considered to be the maximum deviance so as not to require addition input/effort from the skier to balance correctly.
As a testimonial, a load of high end skiers were Campbell Balanced at ESA this year & most of them had their bindings postions altered & all of them cited a noticeable improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
easiski, No more Zag! Everything you touch halts production!
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
There's always a trade off though. The more towards the front you mount the bindings, the easier it will be to pivot the ski, but you sacrifice some tail grip in those high speed "on the edge" carves.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Murdoch, no offence taken.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
veeeight, the idea is not just to move the bindings 'forward' per se which would make for easy turn initiation but would cause a problem off piste, but to actually position the bindings in a fore/aft 'balanced' location for the specific user. In that position there's no loss of tail grip when hooning it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't moving your bindings forward on the ski just a way to cover for an incorrect posture in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer,
For most of us, I'd suspect that is on the right lines ... and the can of worms is that it may well change the ski quite a bit so it might be difficult to know where you were...
The one thing that would help most peeps is a consistant stance - golfers want the same swing - and skiers might want the same characteristics from their skis. At a high level you might be able to take these 'adjustments' into account but in the relative early stages, I 'd say throwing in another parameter is a disadvantage. At the very least it would reduce the versatility of a ski and make it more specialised in conditions and usefullness. To chop and change isn't a good thing IMV in this respect
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
easiski, I think a little PSB test well and truly in order!
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon, I love the Cambell Idea. I want to get it in motion for this winter for those willing to let me test and research it.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Kramer, I don't think so. From personal experience (and bearing in mind that I'm very sensitive to each ski I ski on), I have on several occasions felt the ski was either throwing me back, or that the front end felt too heavy. Now, I don't see why I should suddenly lose my stance on a different ski, so there may be something in it. OTOH, as JT, says, another parameter may not be a good thing, and since most peeps have pretty rotten stance to start with (don't work at it enough!) I'm not sure one way or the other.
The point about a rough test is that if we tested, say 5 skiers on rental skis and adjusted their binding placement, then we would have an idea whether it works or not. It's not a case of only moving the bindings forward, but also of moving them back, so each skier can see if one or the other felt better. the binding forward observation is my personal preference (over the years), not a recommendation.
spyderjon, AFAIR when we bought skis back in the old days (very old), they used to mount the bindings differently for slalom and GS.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
spyderjon wrote: |
veeeight, the idea is not just to move the bindings 'forward' per se which would make for easy turn initiation but would cause a problem off piste, but to actually position the bindings in a fore/aft 'balanced' location for the specific user. In that position there's no loss of tail grip when hooning it. |
Yes I understand that and am familiar with the Campbell Balancer, however my initial statement still stands regarding trade-off between pivoting and tail-grip.
That article on techsupportforskiers is full of rubbish.
In one sentence:
Quote: |
And, besides our World Cup slalom athletes mount their bindings even farther back |
and then it says
Quote: |
In other words, the rearward position makes it easier to skid and all but impossible to develop more modern carving technique. |
Are they suggesting WC Slalom athletes skid their turns and don't develop carves?
and then......
Quote: |
Yes, we do place our athletes near the center of the running surface, and yes, our retail models place skiers farther back |
So which is it?
then:
Quote: |
French manufacturers, in general, tend to place bindings farther forward than do their Germanic counterparts. |
So that would explain why the Dynastar Slalom skis I was on had about 3 inches of tail then.
LASTLY:
In *both* the article, and in the study proper - they suggest that:
a: recreational skiers may be happier with different binding positions
b: for free skiing, the balanced ski binding position was preferred when compared to the factory stipulated position
Neither the article nor the study suggested moving the binding position for skiers and/or athletes wishing to seek performance out of the ski or in competition.
Which suggests two things, either a study hasn't been done conclusively on competitve athletes and their preferred mounting position, and/or mounting the bindings further forward makes skiing "easier" and "more enjoyable" for the average recreational skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, what ever the truth or physics behind it it sounds like a bit of fun if nothing else - I'm happy to be part of the experiment at the PSB. We may not add substantially to the body of evidence, either for or against but I would like to see if I can tell the difference for my own curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
V8,
- couldn't find the "besides. . .WC" quote
- I would hope WC Slalom athletes don't use the competition venue to develop (carving) technique but have done so before ski academy admission.
- The third is a quote from a ski company spokesperson that is being offered as an example of contradictory information.
- I usually take "in general" to mean "with exceptions".
- A third thing that it suggests is that performance skiers and athletes test for themselves as individuals instead of as relying on collective studies of racers as a class.
No dog in the balancer fight, just don't see the conflict?
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Kramer, No, as if the binding is too far rearward the skier will have to use too much 'forward effort' just to get into a balanced position. Far better to be in the correct posture but postioned fore/aft in a location were the ski is neutrally balanced (ie on the fulcrum of the see-saw) which removes or minimises the physical effort required. The analogy that Steve Bagley gave me was that it's like driving your car with the seat say one notch too close or too far away - still very driveable but just not 'right'. And doesn't it feel a whole lot better when you set it correctly. Steve siad that the majority of skiers he tested need thier bindings moving forward a tad but there were skiers that needed their bindings moving rearward. Harry Campbell did not advocate 'skiing with bindings forward' but instead advocated postioning the bindings so that the 'individual' skier was neutrally fore/aft balanced.
JT, I agree that a consistent & correct stance is ideal. But how do you get a consistent stance if the correct posture has to be forced?I disagree that this is something for experts only. If the testing equipment was readily available in ski shops as Harry Campbell had originally envisioned his balancer would be then this is something certainly for intermediates buying their first skis. Once tested you simply mount or set the bindings to that postition & leave them.
To follow you're golf analogy, after about a dozen lessons & six months hard work I was scoring around 110. I was told by my pro that I needed to ditch my off-the-shelf clubs as they were too upright & have some made up with the shaft length/flex & lie angle to set to suit my posture & swing which were actually pretty consistent. My first round with my new clubs I broke the ton for the first time & two rounds later broke 90 for the first time! As you know there is no such thing as 'Mr Average' for golf clubs so why should there be for skis.
The instructors at ESA cited alignment issues (to include binding postion & delta angle, boot alignment & forward lean etc) as one of the major contributors to the so-called intermediate plateau.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
spyderjon,
The pro would have you buy a custom set after 6 months but you will not have your swing grooved-in after such a short time. A pretty straight forward guess would be that you aren't too tall for a standard set with a standard lie, however the desire should be to hit the ball the same way everytime and once set up you don't have/need to change
As for skis, fine, have them mounted in such a way for one type of skiing but expect a compromise of the characteristics of that ski because of it. Would all your skis be set-up the one way to achieve your stance? Would you change the ski bindindg positon for moguls and then for deeper stuff as you might need a bit more ski out front for float but a bit less for quick turns through gates? I can't see this being very practical. It sounds like these courses sure have some content that they want to push and I'd guess they aren't cheap. Surprisng that, neither are my golf clubs my pro wants to sell me either.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
comprex, The missing quote is there, I promise I didn't make it up
Now then, I will lay my cards on the table and say that I *am* a huge proponent of alignment, plus I always seek to weed out (relevant) equipment problems and issues first on all my clients, before I start tackling their technique.
However, I do caution against any dogma (whether it's the Campbell Balancer, HH, PSIA, Ski School Teching Methodology etc.) - I like to take the good parts, and keep the not so good parts in my back pocket for reference.
Having said that equipment can be responsible for many issues, in my experience and observation it is (lack of) technique that is primarily responsible for that lack of progress, whether it be beginner, intermediate, advanced or expert.
So, here comes the chicken and egg - do we blame our equipment, or technique in the first place? Note that in one of the numerous articles linked above (the one about measuring kinetic forces on different binding placements) - the "elite skier" in the test always seeked to gain the best body/feet/ski relationship no matter where the binding position was. ie; he modified his skiing to suit.
Indeed this is how I coach athletes to ski, seeking to gain maximum effectiveness and performance out of the ski, in all terrain, conditions, and equipment.
When I jump on different pairs of skis throughout the season, I don't necessarily ski the same muscular movements as I do on my regular pair of skis. As this is a predominantly kinesthetic sport, I seek to find and feel for the sweet spot (for want of a better term) of that particular ski, and yes, in almost all cases, I will modify my technique to suit the ski, but more importantly, the terrain and conditions.
So we come back to fore-aft alignment. Yes, I think the Campbell Balancer is a good tool. With a few caveats.
1. It is merely a starting point. It's not the final solution. You must do an on snow analysis afterwards. Ideally with movable bindings fore-aft.
2. You can fool the balancer with subtle muscular movements. So you need someone who really knows how to set you up, and make sure that you're not fooling it.
3. There are many many many variables to consider before jumping on the balancer. Ramp angle, forward lead, spoilers, boot
boards, hell lifts, personal physiology etc. I firmly believe you need to fix these issues *first* before the balancer. Heck. The majority of recreational skiers are in boots that are too big for them
4. For maximum performance in a ski turn, you use a different part of the foot/boot at different parts of the turn. What are you going to settle for as an "all round" mark?
And so to the "mark" on the ski. Do we mount at the mark, or centre of the running surface. Again, what few have researched, is that:
1. The sidecut of the ski is rarely a constant radius
2. Elan have a parabola
3. The taper angle for all skis are different from manufactuer and model
4. With todays wider shovels (than tails) - the focus of the parabola (for want of a better term) is always going to be behind the traditional centre of the running surface of the ski in the fore-aft sense.
Therefore the effective "mark" for best performance is rarely going to be the centre of the running surface.
Then you have to consider the terrain. Are you going to be a park rat predominantly? In which case your needs are more central, or are you going to be a big mountain powder skier, in which case you might want to stop your tips from diving.
In summary, my feelings:
1. For the majority of skiers I find that technique stops them progressing
2. For those whose equipment/alignment are hindering I find that this is more an issue with lateral alignment, rather than fore-aft
3. Fix basic boot issues first (fit, alignment, ramp angle etc.) before jumping onto the balancer
4. The manufacturers mark on the ski is a good starting point (provided you're in the appropriate %centile)
5. Test, test and retest on snow. Preferably with video, and someone experienced critiqueing. Very easy to "feel good" skiing, when in reality you are losing performance out of the ski, or doing something else to compensate for that new feeling.
So many variables, so little time.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
spyderjon, the difference is that you are starting with the skier, and getting them set up properly, a bit like taking a golfer to a driving range and getting them working on their stance and swing.
JT seems to be advocating a golf lesson where the first thing is to hit the ball out of the divot, and once you've mastered that, then learn how to hit the ball out of the rough. Then out of the bunker. Then plugged in the bunker...
But not going back and getting the golfer standing and swinging the club correctly in the first place.
As I see it, a good golfer works on their stance and swing, then, from that strong base, can adapt better to the conditions because they have the fundamentals sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
spyderjon,
Just work on a decent stance.,.it will save you an awful lot of money.....and time
so more time to practice skiing...
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 23-08-06 8:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT wrote: |
spyderjon,
Just work on a decent stance.,.it will save you an awful lot of money |
So, you're agreeing with him that it's stance over skiing conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, your 5 point summary is excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
veeeight, your 5 point summary is excellent. |
Thank you. Someone reads my rants then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, read it, would say you could cut it down to 3...
1. Technique
2. Set up
3. Analysis
Unfortunately some people focus on 1, and ignore 2 & 3, others ignore all 3, and don't want to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|