-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
The Never-Ending Stöckli Discussion
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Posts
- 248
Agree. Time to start a double blinded trial. (BTW, can we also do a double blinded trial on Volkl’s UVO? I just never can believe it.)
Good point, as it applies to all skis. But as it pertains to Stockli specifically, the question still seems sensible: why would they suggest a mount point that doesn't benefit most skiers? If indeed it doesn't...
Here's a theory, just to bring human psychology back into the equation. Guy/girl buys Laser AX, comes to read forums where two or three people report that mounting bindings forward is better. Soon enough, any number of readers and Stockli owners try it. Those who do see a difference report back enthusiastically, strengthening the positive feedback loop; those who DON'T see a difference - or improvement anyway - move the bindings back to the standard mount point and don't bother to report back. Then, there's the always very real possibility of confirmation bias. You implicitly trust the feedback and comments from a few posters here; if they state that something works, you're already prepared to feel a positive difference - and so, once on the snow, you do. Conditioning.
So this "anecdotal evidence" might well be biased in a few subtle ways, and in reality, there could be many more skiers very happy with the recommended mount point - and Stockli, in the end, might just know what they're doing.
But yeah, definitely just a theory - I'm really quite new to all this.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Posts
- 248
A lot of people use AX in moguls. Moguls skis are also been mounted a bit forward.
I must have missed the point when this changed to free ride skis
Being the noob guy, are Stockli AX’s free ride skis?
dibs
Sorry, I was in a bad connection area.
Sounds like you should be stock set up, but eithout seeing you ski I can't confirm 100%
Stockli skis are designed to be skied rather than skipping and slarving.
The mounting point as defined by the company is created from two sources. 1- careful mathematics.
2- feedback from our test pilots.
Our r&d works closely with ETH Zurich as a partner. Considered the "MIT" of mechanical engineering, ETH provides tangible data feedback for materials and iterations on designs.
The mounting point is dictated by the mean of the data and thus works most of the time, but with any bell curve there can be outliers from the norms. These can be upright boot cuffs and abnormally short tib/fib to femur ratios.
These outliers do benefit from careful modification. I see about 1 in every 15 skiers that would be considered an outlier. For example, at a demo most skiers will come off a SR95 and comment about how they were surprised about how easy they turn.
Once in a while someone is upset saying the ski doesnt turn. I then move them forward 3 or 4 clicks and send then back out, usually they hit bingo and come back excited that they are turning with ease.
One thing for sure, flat light can suddenly put any of us in the back seat.
The stronger versions of the 88 are especially sensitive to this. Get in the back seat and they will ignore your input, but if you pull those heels back and trust them, they will happily obey your every desire.
Ill be with Mathieu our head of design next week at SIA and will discuss more thoroughly mounting points to see if I can glean little more insight for you guys.
The mounting point as defined by the company is created from two sources. 1- careful mathematics.
2- feedback from our test pilots.
Our r&d works closely with ETH Zurich as a partner. Considered the "MIT" of mechanical engineering, ETH provides tangible data feedback for materials and iterations on designs.
The mounting point is dictated by the mean of the data and thus works most of the time, but with any bell curve there can be outliers from the norms. These can be upright boot cuffs and abnormally short tib/fib to femur ratios.
These outliers do benefit from careful modification. I see about 1 in every 15 skiers that would be considered an outlier. For example, at a demo most skiers will come off a SR95 and comment about how they were surprised about how easy they turn.
Once in a while someone is upset saying the ski doesnt turn. I then move them forward 3 or 4 clicks and send then back out, usually they hit bingo and come back excited that they are turning with ease.
One thing for sure, flat light can suddenly put any of us in the back seat.
The stronger versions of the 88 are especially sensitive to this. Get in the back seat and they will ignore your input, but if you pull those heels back and trust them, they will happily obey your every desire.
Ill be with Mathieu our head of design next week at SIA and will discuss more thoroughly mounting points to see if I can glean little more insight for you guys.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2016
- Posts
- 2,702
Truer words have never been spoken! Flat light absolutely = back seat. My AXs are mounted 1.5 cm forward which is perfect for my style, but if the light goes flat they are magically moved to 3+cm back!
If my ex-wife had been a Stockli rep, I'm pretty sure that I'd still be married.
I know many of you weren't around for the many, many years of discussions we had on mounting points on the Epic site. @James referenced an excellent study that Nordica conducted (and is now posted on Lou's site). I ran many years of experiments myself before drawing the conclusions that I have.
The key "flaw" in referencing the mount point mark is understanding what that actually represents. All that line on the ski shows is where the midsole mark on your boot is going to be aligned once the bindings are mounted on the ski. The midsole mark on your boots may or may not be at the midsole of your foot depending on your shell fit. Nevertheless, the length of your foot is not identical to everyone else that is mounted at that same mounting mark, thus the way you are able to leverage the fore/aft pressure on the ski will vary. Not everyone carries their weight on their body the same (different morphology), so the manner in which your CM interacts over the length of the ski will also vary. When you combine the differences in body morphology with the variables of the ski gear (forward lean of the shell, flex pattern of the ski, ski sidecut positioning, etc.) and varying skier skills, skiers should understand that there's a lot more going on that will impact where their personal optimal positioning is on a ski.
I know that for some people, it's a level of "fine tuning" that they just don't want to think about nor care about. And that's fine. To each their own. But come away from this discussion with the understanding that mount point is an individual decision and there's no reason why one skier should suggest a specific point to another. That's a flawed recommendation unless you are identical twins with the other person. There may be some general guidance based on anecdotal observations from many skiers, but take it only as that; general guidance that may or may not be applicable to your specific situation.
And back to Stockli skis... I have owned over a dozen pairs of Stocklis over the years. For my body morphology, all of those skis performed better for me mounted at least 2.0cm forward of the factory mark. I do not recommend that others do the same, but merely that you should be open to the idea of experimenting with your position on the ski when possible. Your mounting position on the ski is one of those variables that we can control and has direct and significant impact on the resulting performance. It's a change that has way more impact than most people realize. A 10mm change is obvious to most skiers and sometimes as little as 5mm can be felt.
The key "flaw" in referencing the mount point mark is understanding what that actually represents. All that line on the ski shows is where the midsole mark on your boot is going to be aligned once the bindings are mounted on the ski. The midsole mark on your boots may or may not be at the midsole of your foot depending on your shell fit. Nevertheless, the length of your foot is not identical to everyone else that is mounted at that same mounting mark, thus the way you are able to leverage the fore/aft pressure on the ski will vary. Not everyone carries their weight on their body the same (different morphology), so the manner in which your CM interacts over the length of the ski will also vary. When you combine the differences in body morphology with the variables of the ski gear (forward lean of the shell, flex pattern of the ski, ski sidecut positioning, etc.) and varying skier skills, skiers should understand that there's a lot more going on that will impact where their personal optimal positioning is on a ski.
I know that for some people, it's a level of "fine tuning" that they just don't want to think about nor care about. And that's fine. To each their own. But come away from this discussion with the understanding that mount point is an individual decision and there's no reason why one skier should suggest a specific point to another. That's a flawed recommendation unless you are identical twins with the other person. There may be some general guidance based on anecdotal observations from many skiers, but take it only as that; general guidance that may or may not be applicable to your specific situation.
And back to Stockli skis... I have owned over a dozen pairs of Stocklis over the years. For my body morphology, all of those skis performed better for me mounted at least 2.0cm forward of the factory mark. I do not recommend that others do the same, but merely that you should be open to the idea of experimenting with your position on the ski when possible. Your mounting position on the ski is one of those variables that we can control and has direct and significant impact on the resulting performance. It's a change that has way more impact than most people realize. A 10mm change is obvious to most skiers and sometimes as little as 5mm can be felt.
The center of a boot is the same no matter the length of the boot, the midpoint of an object will NEVER vary.
Let’s face it, Stockli designs what some say is the best “mass produced” ski in the world. That design and the “line” is there to best use the ski to it’s fullest potential. The mount point they give you is based on the “parabolic” nature of that particular ski. That mounting point is there to give you the absolute best control/input over the ski they spent millions of dollars to design. WHY would you want to compromise what many call perfection.... unless you are doing so to compensate for poor fore-aft balance on your part.
It would be far less expensive to buy a ski built for a backseat skier, there are likely many out there.
I am sorry to be the truth police, but you guys do not know more than the Stockli designers, Lindsey essentially told you that in a nice manner. But continuing to suggest to the Internet world that these pieces of ski design art should be improperly mounted is doing a disservice to the folks that might take this as gospel.
GEEZ
Let’s face it, Stockli designs what some say is the best “mass produced” ski in the world. That design and the “line” is there to best use the ski to it’s fullest potential. The mount point they give you is based on the “parabolic” nature of that particular ski. That mounting point is there to give you the absolute best control/input over the ski they spent millions of dollars to design. WHY would you want to compromise what many call perfection.... unless you are doing so to compensate for poor fore-aft balance on your part.
It would be far less expensive to buy a ski built for a backseat skier, there are likely many out there.
I am sorry to be the truth police, but you guys do not know more than the Stockli designers, Lindsey essentially told you that in a nice manner. But continuing to suggest to the Internet world that these pieces of ski design art should be improperly mounted is doing a disservice to the folks that might take this as gospel.
GEEZ
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2016
- Posts
- 397
So, what if we erase the line 
Thought I should post the tuning angles for you guys. Before 2018 most Stocklis left the factory with a 1/1. Things have changed and our new tuner is really cool. I'll try to find a video, but it is the premier machine on the planet and is a special build that Montana created to our design requirements.
Cool fact: It does not use belts to finish the base. The base finish is accomplished with cold wet stones only.
AX and all Stormriders 1.3 base bevel/2 sidewall
Laser Series and smaller race skis 1 base/2 sidewall
FIS race ski < 184 0.7 base and 2 sidewall FIS race > 184 0.7 base and 3 sidewall.
If any of you have questions about the processes in this video just shout. If you pay attention and hit the pause button a lot, there are processes happening that nobody else would even consider. Truly the Swiss team spares no expense. Our build cost is 3-5 times the cost of the typical skis. If we priced the skis according to standard margin markups, you wouldn't would be seeing 1k-1.4k prices, you'd be looking at 2k-3k prices.
Currently the build time is 12 days. 63 craftsmen handle each pair of skis as they make their way through the most advanced machines in ski building. We have invested heavily in more tooling to meet the demand and growth in the N.A. market. Of course it would be a lot easier to out source 90% of the ski building to the Head factory, throw 2 sheets of rubber in them and call them a "premium" ski, but the Head factory can't and wouldn't accommodate many of these processes. When you see a "Swiss made" logo, that means is was made in this factory, to the same quality, with the same secrets, and on the same machines as the World Cup skiers' planks. There is no "race stock" and no "b stock". Every thing Swiss Made is genuine World Cup race built stock, even grandma's 149cm SC is built on the same machines as Ilka Stuhec's Downhill skis.
Almost all our skis are in-house built. Only a few of the juniors and rental models are outsourced. To be blunt about it, our best skis are built in Switzerland and our rental fleet is built where other companies best skis are built.
I'll try to find my files of the tuning robots soon.
Cool fact: It does not use belts to finish the base. The base finish is accomplished with cold wet stones only.
AX and all Stormriders 1.3 base bevel/2 sidewall
Laser Series and smaller race skis 1 base/2 sidewall
FIS race ski < 184 0.7 base and 2 sidewall FIS race > 184 0.7 base and 3 sidewall.
If any of you have questions about the processes in this video just shout. If you pay attention and hit the pause button a lot, there are processes happening that nobody else would even consider. Truly the Swiss team spares no expense. Our build cost is 3-5 times the cost of the typical skis. If we priced the skis according to standard margin markups, you wouldn't would be seeing 1k-1.4k prices, you'd be looking at 2k-3k prices.
Currently the build time is 12 days. 63 craftsmen handle each pair of skis as they make their way through the most advanced machines in ski building. We have invested heavily in more tooling to meet the demand and growth in the N.A. market. Of course it would be a lot easier to out source 90% of the ski building to the Head factory, throw 2 sheets of rubber in them and call them a "premium" ski, but the Head factory can't and wouldn't accommodate many of these processes. When you see a "Swiss made" logo, that means is was made in this factory, to the same quality, with the same secrets, and on the same machines as the World Cup skiers' planks. There is no "race stock" and no "b stock". Every thing Swiss Made is genuine World Cup race built stock, even grandma's 149cm SC is built on the same machines as Ilka Stuhec's Downhill skis.
Almost all our skis are in-house built. Only a few of the juniors and rental models are outsourced. To be blunt about it, our best skis are built in Switzerland and our rental fleet is built where other companies best skis are built.
I'll try to find my files of the tuning robots soon.
@Started at 53 Based on this, should all AX's and Stormriders be skied at 1.3/ 2 degrees for best performance? Or should skiers change the angles so they could perform better for them? I ski mine on the line, btw.
I am currently a 1/3, but changing to a 1/2 following my CRASH. I was only on a 1/3 because I took over my wife’s skis,and she skis on 1/3.
So @Jersey Skier
I think you are comparing apples and oranges, changing the tune is not the same as changing the point of the ski that administers the pressure for turns. IF the skis were straight I think it would matter less, but with the “parabolic” nature of today’s designs, moving the mount point forward is a bandaid for backseat skiing.
Maybe you should start a new thread... “Stockli Edge Tuning”!
@Doug Briggs can you do a 1.3 base on your fancy new tuning machine? My AX need some tender loving care after the early season abuse. If the 10 mile long 1.5 hour traffic jam from the Frisco exit to Breck that was there pretty much all day yesterday doesn't reappear today, then I'll be dropping them off this evening.
The reason for 1.3/2 on AX/SR is for less grab when upright in variable off piste, but a sharper edge total in comparison to 1/1 so that rolling it over has more bite when back on piste.
The more playful base bevel is really nice when navigating tight trees, wierd traverses, funky snow conditions, etc.
The tough part about aftermarket base bevels done by machine tuners is that most don't run multiple light passes with the stone. The tips are often flatter and hooky because the ski flexes as it goes through most machines and the base bevel is inconsistent. It usually needs to be finished by a skilled hand if done "status quo" on machine.
Proper hand done base beveling is a rare art, being that someone and finding that someone is pretty rare.
Less detuning tips and tails is needed when the base bevel is correctly done.
I only suggest a new base bevel if it is necessary already because you needed ptex work or if you or your tuner is really good.
I avoid working the bases on my demo fleet as much as possible, because the base is perfection from the factory. If I need to give them a little refresh I do a light pass on the side edge with an EVO Pro.
The more playful base bevel is really nice when navigating tight trees, wierd traverses, funky snow conditions, etc.
The tough part about aftermarket base bevels done by machine tuners is that most don't run multiple light passes with the stone. The tips are often flatter and hooky because the ski flexes as it goes through most machines and the base bevel is inconsistent. It usually needs to be finished by a skilled hand if done "status quo" on machine.
Proper hand done base beveling is a rare art, being that someone and finding that someone is pretty rare.
Less detuning tips and tails is needed when the base bevel is correctly done.
I only suggest a new base bevel if it is necessary already because you needed ptex work or if you or your tuner is really good.
I avoid working the bases on my demo fleet as much as possible, because the base is perfection from the factory. If I need to give them a little refresh I do a light pass on the side edge with an EVO Pro.
Luckily for me I love my AX's mounted on the line. Proves I don't ski in the backseat.
It's interesting that you know that in your field of expertise things are often more complicated than what they appear, but you don't appreciate those same facts in other fields.
The people commenting have way more years of experience and often have really good reasons for believing as they do, and knowing that just because a company says something doesn't mean that's all there is to the issue.
Sponsor
Members online
- François Pugh
- dbostedo
- Yepow
- Davec1
- Wade
- evr66
- graham418
- NH SKIEUR
- skipress
- Cheizz
- David
- oldschoolskier
- AlexisLD
- zircon
- Yeeshus
- Bruno Schull
- Tom Holtmann
- cc1
- FlyNavy
- Gina D
- ilovepugs
- Tricia
- Nomax
- SKI-AJM
- JCF
- SKI-3PO
- wiread
- Spoorosew
- deadheadskier
- raytseng
- Carl
- Eldarfon
- AUdicky
- Sidewinder
- Old Runner Frank
- 4aprice
- SIMMS7400
- RTsucks
- KylieUnarf
- Alexsfn
- johnb
- DanoT
- Peb75
- mikes781
- Krogort
- cjm
- geepers
- Schussboelie
- Turoa Kiwi