Mounting Bindings Question

severine · Nov 26, 2007

The Dynastar Marie Martinod Pro models are in! Beautious! Before I take them to the shop, though, I just want to verify my understanding of what I need to ask for. They came with unmounted bindings. Since these are "technically" a park ski (freestyle), am I correct in assuming that the mark for bindings is where one would want them if using them as park skis and that, since I want to use them as all mountain skis, I should have the bindings set 2-5cm back from that? I thought I read that somewhere, but I'd really hate to be wrong. And since I have to take them to a new shop I really want to be specific with these people.

TIA!

ETA: looks like I may have this backwards (hence why i'm trying to verify): (considering the source though: http://www.hitemposkishop.com/twintips.html )

[SIZE=-2]Many Riders mount their skis forward of the ski manufacturers traditional midsole mounting point. This will provide increased control riding switch and better balance rotating on and off axis. However, moving the binding too far forward can cause a ski to lose stability at higher speeds, so consider your needs wisely.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2]K2’s research and devolpment team has devised a scale that can help skiers determine their own mounting point based on their skiing style. This scale can be adapted to many twin tips on the market today. Here is how their scale breaks down…[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]0-2cm forward: All Mountain: If you plan on skiing mostly outside the park and want the ski to behave like a traditional ski, you should stay on the conservative side and mount traditionally.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]3cm- 5cm forward: 50% All Mountain, 50% Terrain Park. When mounting beyond 3cm, you will lose a little of the traditional feel of length in front of the binding, but with more tail, you gain the control in the air and riding switch.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]6cm- 7.5cm forward: If you bought the skis primarily for the terrain park or are focused on riding switch in powder or in backcountry, you may consider mounting your skis this far forward. While you may sacrifice forward directional float and stability, it’s made up for in the switch riding and landing stability and balance in the air.[/SIZE]

Which I believe some others on here dealt with this as well when having bindings mounted on new skis for this season...............

Hawkshot99 · Nov 26, 2007

Well for starters I am not familar with the specifics of Dynastar.

There may be only one mark on the ski. This could be a core center(park) or mid sole(all mountain).

If there are several markings then go with the far back marking, this is mid sole.

If you are using it as a all mountain ski you do not want it to be core center. The few times I have skied skis like this I felt like there was nothing in front of me.

severine · Nov 26, 2007

There's only one marking on the skis. It's a twin tip park ski, so that's why I'm assuming I want the bindings set back from that.

riverc0il · Nov 26, 2007

If you are unsure, it is a safe bet to lay them on the line. Why would you get a park ski if you want to have all mountain performance? 2cm is one thing but 5cm is a pretty big move off the manufacturers recommendation. I can only speak in generalizations here but if you are not sure then I would err on the side of caution. It all depends on where the line is. If it is a true twin twip with a true middle of the ski mark, you'd definitely want them back a ways. Tons of twins or kinda twins (upturned tail really) have reasonable boot center lines set back from the true center of the ski. Then there is actual running surface to consider vs how turned up are the tails, true twin tip or no? Really depends on where that line is and unless someone has this specific ski and has played around with it themselves, any specific advice given would be done so without enough information.

severine · Nov 26, 2007

riverc0il said:
Why would you get a park ski if you want to have all mountain performance?

Call it an experiment? A real-world application of some theories I had read about fatter-waisted skis being the ideal all-mountain ski. The fact that this one also said that, in addition to being great in the park, it worked well all-mountain as well. And it was a cheap deal on eBay. Variety is the spice of life. I wanted something a bit different than my recreational Dynastar Novas. But I do not want to use them as a primarily park ski.

Trekchick · Nov 27, 2007

My personal preference is 1 cm back from BOF. Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.

In the case I had with the Blue House skis I told them I wanted the center mounted for their specific purpose, and though they look like they are mounted forward, they are really not because of what the contact length is on those skis.
I'm rushing now or I'd post a pic, but I think I posted it here somewhere a few weeks ago, and I know I posted it early this morning on Ski Diva.
The twin tip does make a difference.

Grassi21 · Nov 27, 2007

severine said:
Call it an experiment? A real-world application of some theories I had read about fatter-waisted skis being the ideal all-mountain ski. The fact that this one also said that, in addition to being great in the park, it worked well all-mountain as well. And it was a cheap deal on eBay. Variety is the spice of life. I wanted something a bit different than my recreational Dynastar Novas. But I do not want to use them as a primarily park ski.

I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE. I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you. Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep. Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.

Hawkshot99 · Nov 27, 2007

Grassi21 said:
I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE. I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you. Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep. Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.

The PE is not a park ski. It is a all mountain that can still do ok in the park. I skied them for 2 years all mountain and loved them. They are real stiff which is great all mountain, but bad for park.

K2 claims 70% all mountain, 30% park.

Greg · Nov 27, 2007

Trekchick said:
Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.

Right. I had my Cabrawlers mis-mounted this fall at this (to remain namesless to protect the innocent) particular shop. You and Brian know where I'm talking about. I asked them to be mounted 1 cm forward. There is a mid-sole line on the ski. They measured to the center point of the ski and went 1 cm forward from that! :blink: In their defense, they replaced the ski and got it right the second time around. You need to be very clear about what you want them to do.

Grassi21 · Nov 27, 2007

Hawkshot99 said:
The PE is not a park ski. It is a all mountain that can still do ok in the park. I skied them for 2 years all mountain and loved them. They are real stiff which is great all mountain, but bad for park.

K2 claims 70% all mountain, 30% park.

I hear you. I think some people see the twin tip and assume its all about the park. Now I might reconsider that purchase... ;-)

severine · Nov 27, 2007

Trekchick said:
My personal preference is 1 cm back from BOF. Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.

Not to be dumb, but what is BOF?

Trekchick said:
In the case I had with the Blue House skis I told them I wanted the center mounted for their specific purpose, and though they look like they are mounted forward, they are really not because of what the contact length is on those skis.
I'm rushing now or I'd post a pic, but I think I posted it here somewhere a few weeks ago, and I know I posted it early this morning on Ski Diva.
The twin tip does make a difference.

I saw the pics on epicski (which is why I was secretly hoping you would jump in on this!

).

Greg said:
Right. I had my Cabrawlers mis-mounted this fall at this (to remain namesless to protect the innocent) particular shop. You and Brian know where I'm talking about. I asked them to be mounted 1 cm forward. There is a mid-sole line on the ski. They measured to the center point of the ski and went 1 cm forward from that! :blink: In their defense, they replaced the ski and got it right the second time around. You need to be very clear about what you want them to do.

That is the exact reason why we are using a new shop this year. Well that and the other person I know of who had a problem there as well. I was thinking 1-2 cm forward from mid-sole point to be conservative but still have a bit of play with the skis' potential capabilities. Though Brian was quick to remind me that you got yours done that way for moguls. :roll:

Grassi21 said:
I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE. I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you. Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep. Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.

Yeah, I'm crazy for buying them without demoing or skiing really in a few years. I know. But I figured for the price, it was worth trying them out. Could be a lot of fun. There is very limited information about these skis online so it really will be a bit of an experiment.

Greg · Nov 27, 2007

BOF = Ball Of Foot.

Trekchick · Nov 27, 2007

Severine, if you look at this pic, you'll think that the ski is quite a bit forward of my EOS. I wish I had taken a pic that showed more of the dominant tails on both of these skis. The blue house has a significant "twin tip", so the contact length is more of a consideration. I may regret having them center mounted and wish they were 1 cm back, but that is yet to be seen. I'll be sure to report back when I ski them.

severine · Nov 27, 2007

And since "ball of foot" didn't mean much to me, I googled it... found a good article I figured I'd link in case anyone else comes up on this and is as clueless as I am.

http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/binding_placement.htm

I'm looking forward to the report on how those Bluehouse skis work out!

Trekchick · Nov 27, 2007

If you look in this pic, you'll see the center mark on my boot lines up with the center mark on the Bluehouse. FWIW, the shop tech said he measured the Contact Length and said the marks on the Bluehouse were accurate on this pair of skis.

Oh, and BOF is Ball of Foot at Center of the contact length.

Edit: I see you found an article that explains that. Good Job!!

severine · Nov 27, 2007

So...doing a very inexact estimation between 2 sick kids crying out for me (via balancing the ski on mu finger, marking that point, comparing that to BOF, and about where that should fall as far as boot center goes), it looks like (in theory) these should be okay to mount right on the ski marking to get BOF mounting. So instead of screwing around with cm forward or backward, I think I'm going to just tell them to go with BOF since that looks like it should come out about the same to what's marked on the ski anyway.

At least I've learned a lot more about mounting bindings today!

jack97 · Nov 27, 2007

Trekchick said:
I may regret having them center mounted and wish they were 1 cm back, but that is yet to be seen. I'll be sure to report back when I ski them.

Women generally have a lower center of mass (com), here's are article which suggest that have the bindings mounted more forward helps for initiating a turn due to biomechanics

http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/92/34/

IMO, getting the forward mount on mogul ski and twin tips is motivated by other factors.

2knees · Nov 27, 2007

jack97 said:
IMO, getting the forward mount on mogul ski and twin tips is motivated by other factors.

I had my head mad trix mounted 1 inch forward. no idea why, just cause i've read that i should. Even though its too late, would you mind telling me what the benefit is?

jack97 · Nov 27, 2007

2knees said:
I had my head mad trix mounted 1 inch forward. no idea why, just cause i've read that i should. Even though its too late, would you mind telling me what the benefit is?

I think the main factors are; putting pressure on the front of the ski, thus getting a quicker turn initiation. I think its harder to put this front pressure when the mount is toward the back. The second is aft/fore balance, you can get off the backseat by leveraging from the tail since you have more running surface.

edit: Hey did you try those skis yet?

2knees · Nov 27, 2007

jack97 said:
I think the main factors are; putting pressure on the front of the ski, thus getting a quicker turn initiation. I think its harder to put this front pressure when the mount is toward the back. The second is aft/fore balance, you can get off the backseat by leveraging from the tail since you have more running surface.

edit: Hey did you try those skis yet?

thanks jack. I certainly can use some more leverage to help me out of the backseat.

havent tried them yet. hopefully i can get out again in the next week or so.

Mounting Bindings Question

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Moderator

New member

New member

Moderator

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads