Binding Mount - fore/aft position question(s)

[Paul Tocko]

First off - I've done a search on this but what came up were usually pretty ski specific questions or topics including statements like "you should mount it "x" foreward / backwards".... with no reason why.

Which leads me to my question - what are the general characteristics of a more forward mount versus a more rearward mount? I'd like to get some "objective" observations that might lead one to consider different options for their fore / aft binding mount positions.

The reason this question is coming up is I have traditionally been a ball of foot over the center of the running surface of the ski edge guy. While I've found this to be a pretty safe bet - and certainly a mount I can ski - I've recently started to experiment with other mount points. On some of my skis - no rhyme or reason - I'm finding that a more rearward mount feels more "magical" to me (which is ultimately all that matters). Some skis - maybe more forward feels better, again no rhyme or reason (i.e. similar sidecuts, radius, lengths, etc).

To be clear - I'm approaching this from the perspective of purely carving. All types of turns - short, medium and/or long. Short turns at 35-40 mph (per my phone app), medium / long turns at 45+ mph (but no more that 50'ish). I typically ski blues so i can carve at reasonable speeds at the resorts I ski. Also - while I raced as a youth (USSA / College) I'm now 51 and just love to carve while free skiing - gates do not need to be a factor in this discussion although I'd welcome the input of any racers.

Again - I'd like this to be a more general discussion of what a more forward or aft mount feels like to you. The goal is to get some general observations to maybe give me (and other people) some ideas of different things to try.

Thanks for your help! Paul

 

[Eleeski]

Get demo or schizio bindings. Then you can adjust to find what you like.

Hopefully you are within the wide tolerances of the adjustable bindings. I've had a couple skis that felt best way different from the original factory recommended mount.

Each ski responds differently to mount position. Some aren't particularly sensitive. Some have a particular sweet spot.

While there's no set general rule, I ski slower with lots of quick turns. This favors a slightly forward binding for me. Smooth fast carving is more comfortable to me when back.

Input from racers, bump skiers and park rats might all be different on the same skis. Lots of right ways to set up your equipment.

Eric

 

[Coach13]

This is why I was always a fan of Tyrolia’s Railflex bindings.

 

[Paul Tocko]

Sorry - should have added this detail. Many of my skis are either head power rails (or other system binding) - agree that this allows for easy experimentation. Skis with a plate are for the most part pre-drilled holes so while not as easy on the hill, certainly easy to change in the shop.

I am not looking for a "one and done" type rule as I believe this may also change for someone depending on their mood and/or the conditions. Just general thoughts like Eleeski mentioned - slow and quick turns, more foreward. Faster carving, more back. My general observation supports this - I have a FIS slalom ski (Elan) that definitely prefers to be more forward. Head SS's (i.speeds, i.titans) I prefer on the factory line which is "aft" for me as my B.O.F mount position "should" be 1.5 cm's forward of this. My GS (FIS and cheaters) are also more aft than this BOF measurement. In both cases I don;t feel as if I'm having difficulty getting to the tips but I do know quite a few people that like them more forward than me.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Mount forward for quicker and easier turn initiation and response. Mount back for less quick initiation and also for more float in 3D snow.

Schizio bindings aren't being produced anymore, or so I've heard. A quick search shows lot available though from previous years.

With the 'non-standard' dimensions of skis these days including early rise (tip and tail), relatively large tips and other design differences, I like and use the manufacturer's center of boot sole mark exclusively (for myself). It should be noted that the mark may not be identical on both skis in a pair. I've seen differences of up to 1.5 cm and more in some (a very few) pairs. Most of the time the variation is a mm or two. Always meaure from the tail to the mark on the ski to insure that you are mounting in the same place on both skis. When there is a variance for the same mount position, I mount to the forward or aft mark that best matches the skis design and use. If a powder ski, I use the aft mark. If it is a SL ski, I use the forward one. If it is more than a mm or two, I consult the manufacturer and/or customer to insure that my decision matches theirs.

 

[Noodler]

For most skis sold these days, BoF over CRS is not an approach that works since there's no viable way to determine CRS on a ski that has any degree of rise or rocker. Back in the EpicSki days I had a long post about mounting BoF over the Center of Effective Edge, but I'm not going to get into that method here because I no longer believe it's best. I now just find the narrowest point of the ski side cut (there's more to that, than there may seem) and put the shell midsole mark there.

 

[Monster]

For most skis sold these days, BoF over CRS is not an approach that works since there's no viable way to determine CRS on a ski that has any degree of rise or rocker. Back in the EpicSki days I had a long post about mounting BoF over the Center of Effective Edge, but I'm not going to get into that method here because I no longer believe it's best. I now just find the narrowest point of the ski side cut (there's more to that, than there may seem) and put the shell midsole mark there.

True enough, but BoF over CRS is still a good starting point for full-camber skis where the CRS is easy to determine. Of course, the exact point of the BoF is hard to judge, so itself a bit of moving target, and also varies some (as much as 1 cm) from foot to foot.

I do think mounting boot sole center mark (BSC) over narrowest point of sidecut (NPoS) could get you in trouble on some skis. Do manufacturers of multi-profile skis place their NPoSs consistently? E.G., I have a pair of comercial skis with the NPoS 20 cm (a lot) aft of the nominal CRS, perhaps to focus surface area on the front of the ski (more float?) - putting the BSC over that NPoS would yield a really eccentric mount.

So far, I've personally only built full camber skis meant for common resort conditions here in the east, with a few nods to wider designs for manque and some pow. For my hard snow-dominant environment, putting CRS, CSC (center of sidecut, or NPoS), and height of camber in the same location seems to yield the most fluent performers. It also makes mounting decisions simple

We CNC our own plates with pre-drilled holes for Tyrolia bindings, mount them in the center set of holes, and generally in a conservative location on the ski. It's then easy to take the bindings off and move them 1 or 2 cm fore or aft without moving the plates or drilling the skis again. Seems to work out pretty nicely.

 

[Paul Tocko]

For most skis sold these days, BoF over CRS is not an approach that works since there's no viable way to determine CRS on a ski that has any degree of rise or rocker. Back in the EpicSki days I had a long post about mounting BoF over the Center of Effective Edge, but I'm not going to get into that method here because I no longer believe it's best. I now just find the narrowest point of the ski side cut (there's more to that, than there may seem) and put the shell midsole mark there.

I recall that thread. I agree rockers and rise and funny tip / tail shapes mess up our ability to measure the running surface. That said - the way I calculate running surface today is by "tipping" the ski on edge by setting one side on an old gummy stone. Then measure and mark tip and tail contact points and go from there. The gummy stone is just over 1/2 inch thick. I figure - right or wrong - that this amount of tipping seems to be where the edges would begin to engage and it does seem to take much if not all of the rocker out of play. And if nothing else - it is constant (for me) from ski to ski.

I do agree though that regardless of what I am measuring as the CRS - placing the BoF over this point is not a hard and fast rule with today's skis.

 

[Paul Tocko]

Mount forward for quicker and easier turn initiation and response. Mount back for less quick initiation and also for more float in 3D snow.

Schizio bindings aren't being produced anymore, or so I've heard. A quick search shows lot available though from previous years.

With the 'non-standard' dimensions of skis these days including early rise (tip and tail), relatively large tips and other design differences, I like and use the manufacturer's center of boot sole mark exclusively (for myself). It should be noted that the mark may not be identical on both skis in a pair. I've seen differences of up to 1.5 cm and more in some (a very few) pairs. Most of the time the variation is a mm or two. Always meaure from the tail to the mark on the ski to insure that you are mounting in the same place on both skis. When there is a variance for the same mount position, I mount to the forward or aft mark that best matches the skis design and use. If a powder ski, I use the aft mark. If it is a SL ski, I use the forward one. If it is more than a mm or two, I consult the manufacturer and/or customer to insure that my decision matches theirs.

To be clear - I am not arguing. Just wondering why the manufactures mark is what you go by? I've spoken with many reps and some pretty technical tuners about this and when I ask why the manufactures mark is "there" versus 2 cm back or forward I get in many cases an, "I don't know..." In short - I wonder how much thought and real science goes into where to put this mark in the first place. And if there is a science to it, why can't manufacturers share it with the masses. The center mark is based on skier that weighs 175 lbs, has a boot sole length of 305, etc, etc.. Again - not meaning to argue, just wondering...

 

[Ron]

all manufacturers have have product development and testing teams (not always employees of the brand) . Those skiers evaluate the "best" mounting point during the product development, There really isn't a "perfect" scientific mount location but most manufacturers get it right or darn close. Some, like Head tend to be further back that what a lot of skiers prefer but most get it right.

 

[Doug Briggs]

To be clear - I am not arguing. Just wondering why the manufactures mark is what you go by? I've spoken with many reps and some pretty technical tuners about this and when I ask why the manufactures mark is "there" versus 2 cm back or forward I get in many cases an, "I don't know..." In short - I wonder how much thought and real science goes into where to put this mark in the first place. And if there is a science to it, why can't manufacturers share it with the masses. The center mark is based on skier that weighs 175 lbs, has a boot sole length of 305, etc, etc.. Again - not meaning to argue, just wondering...

Because that is what we have to go by as supplied by the manufacturer.

I'll try to come back to this with my understanding of mounting points. Right now I have to run.

 

[Noodler]

Coming back to the sport after a few years, I note that more and more manufacturers are using the term "suggested mounting point" and also including a selection of mounting point lines. There's much more acceptance now that mounting point is more of an individual choice/preference. And I think that's a good thing as it helps educate the public that there isn't one "special" spot that works for everyone. What I don't think most skiers realize is just how much impact the selected mount point has on your impression of a ski's performance.

 

[Noodler]

I recall that thread. I agree rockers and rise and funny tip / tail shapes mess up our ability to measure the running surface. That said - the way I calculate running surface today is by "tipping" the ski on edge by setting one side on an old gummy stone. Then measure and mark tip and tail contact points and go from there. The gummy stone is just over 1/2 inch thick. I figure - right or wrong - that this amount of tipping seems to be where the edges would begin to engage and it does seem to take much if not all of the rocker out of play. And if nothing else - it is constant (for me) from ski to ski.

I do agree though that regardless of what I am measuring as the CRS - placing the BoF over this point is not a hard and fast rule with today's skis.

This method is quite similar to my Center of Effective Edge determination. I would put the ski on edge at 90* and the slide business cards in to the contact points at the tip and tail. That marks the widest points of the ski that make contact when edged at the most extreme level possible. The length between those would then be measured along the edge of the ski using a soft tape measure (you want the length of the edge, not the chord length between the points). I used that as a substitute for CRS, but finally came to the conclusion that manufacturers were getting more "creative" in their sidecut and rocker designs that made me take a step back and really consider what happens when a ski is brought up on edge. After a discussion with HH, I came to the realization that what we really want is to get the center of the boot aligned with the center of the sidecut. Determination of the center of the sidecut (the narrowest point) is where things are a bit more challenging (I can detail my method if someone is really interested).

The idea is that if a ski is designed well so that it's flex pattern meshes well with its sidecut, then this mounting position works out really well. If they don't mesh well, then it's at least a starting point and then on-snow testing is required to dial in the best spot for you.

 

[Paul Tocko]

Coming back to the sport after a few years, I note that more and more manufacturers are using the term "suggested mounting point" and also including a selection of mounting point lines. There's much more acceptance now that mounting point is more of an individual choice/preference. And I think that's a good thing as it helps educate the public that there isn't one "special" spot that works for everyone. What I don't think most skiers realize is just how much impact the selected mount point has on your impression of a ski's performance.

That's really the crux of my question - we have a suggested mount point. Why might I like it more forward or more back.

My own observation (and these are just my observations) -
"Forward" - which is relative to my starting point
1) Ski can be very quick to engage
2) Access to driving the tips is much easier - can work for a lighter skier, or a more finesse skier (IMO)
3) Too far forward and the ski will begin to feel short (to me) - lacks stability at speed
4) Ski can sometime feel "on" or "off" - edge engagement can be too abrupt if that makes sense

"Backward" - which is relative to my starting point
1) Ski can feel a bit more relaxed, settled - not as skittish
2) Really need to work the cuff to engage the tips - CAN work if you are a heavier, more powerful skier (IMO)
3) Too far back and the ski feels unresponsive, like skiing a 2x4
4) Engagement ramps up - engagement is strongest beginning in the belly of the turn through finish

Would appreciate other opinions.

Thanks!

Paul

 

[Noodler]

That's really the crux of my question - we have a suggested mount point. Why might I like it more forward or more back.

My own observation (and these are just my observations) -
"Forward" - which is relative to my starting point
1) Ski can be very quick to engage
2) Access to driving the tips is much easier - can work for a lighter skier, or a more finesse skier (IMO)
3) Too far forward and the ski will begin to feel short (to me) - lacks stability at speed
4) Ski can sometime feel "on" or "off" - edge engagement can be too abrupt if that makes sense

"Backward" - which is relative to my starting point
1) Ski can feel a bit more relaxed, settled - not as skittish
2) Really need to work the cuff to engage the tips - CAN work if you are a heavier, more powerful skier (IMO)
3) Too far back and the ski feels unresponsive, like skiing a 2x4
4) Engagement ramps up - engagement is strongest beginning in the belly of the turn through finish

Would appreciate other opinions.

Thanks!

Paul

I would agree with your summary of the impact of the position. However, the one thing you did not directly include is edge grip. For me this is the one critical aspect that I've found mount position to impact. I always want as much grip as I can get out of a ski, so my mount must deliver on that key characteristic.

 

[Paul Tocko]

I would agree with your summary of the impact of the position. However, the one thing you did not directly include is edge grip. For me this is the one critical aspect that I've found mount position to impact. I always want as much grip as I can get out of a ski, so my mount must deliver on that key characteristic.

On the same page. In order for a ski to be magic for me - it MUST hold a carve AND feel good doing it. As I just free ski now - I'm not judged on how fast I am. A long time ago, time was all that mattered. And I had fast runs that felt lousy and slow runs that felt great. At times, I had to feel lousy in order to be faster. Not today - I want max edge grip AND it must feel good. I've skied too many skis that didn't "do it" for me - I don't need to anymore so if a ski isn't exciting or at least interesting it finds the door pretty quick. I believe skis are like cats - eventually they all find owners ...

That said - I've taken skis that were pretty meh and moved the mount position (sometimes opposite of what I thought would work) and MAGIC!!!!!

 

[gozoogle]

Determination of the center of the sidecut (the narrowest point) is where things are a bit more challenging (I can detail my method if someone is really interested).

Interested in your method... anything more sophisticated than moving a ruler up and down to see it widen and narrow?

 

[ski otter 2]

Often, multiple mounts on skis (depending on their intended use, of course) are labeled with things like "freestyle" (more forward), and "freeride" (more back). Or maybe, "traditional," "freeride" and "freestyle", if there are three recommended points.

In effect, more "traditional" is back from mount(s) preferable for tricking, slarving, looser skiing. Said in yet another way, a more upright style (often not pressuring the tips) - often a style for folks who ski switch and get lots of airs (more centered skiing), will often prefer being more forward on a ski. A style that prefers driving the tips often wants a farther back mount, ideally. Both styles can carve on edge well, depending on the ski, and which style(s) and set(s) of strengths - and even specific skiers - it is designed for. By moving the mount point forward or back, one can often get a good taste of both/many kinds of styles.

In my experience, specific ski models can respond very differently to changing mount position, as mentioned by others. Some respond well, some not so much. And some respond well within a shorter range of mount position than others (from as little as a roughly 2 centimeter range to as much as 5-7 cm). Finally, in terms of differences from ski to ski model, many, perhaps most, ski models have a more limited range of responses they are capable of, while others have a very wide range of responses: a ski of the latter sort may contain two, three or even four very different but fantastic skis hidden in the same ski - in other words, a quiver of three or four skis hidden within the same ski, and accessed simply by moving mount position and being open to the results.

In general terms, a basic or generic "best" example: On many skis, starting at recommended traditional BC mark, if one moves the mount forward, one reaches points where it becomes easier and easier to engage the tips for carving, until finally one need not engage the tips at all to get a good carve and turn - just lean; but one still has the option to easily engage or drive the tips and turn/carve that way too: in other words, a point of a particular kind of balance/choice between options of forward pressure and lean. A great mount point position.

Farther forward still, it becomes harder again to engage the tips, from the other direction, so to speak - just leaning (requiring less and less effort as one moves the mount forward) into the direction of the desired turn produces a great turn, either on edge or slarving, as one chooses, and as the ski/conditions dictate. More playful and freestyle skiers - and some really top freeride skiers also (such as big mountain chargers) may well prefer this sort of forward setup. It was eye-opening to me when I first realized this, and how great it felt to actually ski this way.

Past a certain point, as long as optimal ski stability is still present, tip engagement is lost but one still has the option of leaning into the turnshape/radius of the ski, in effect just pivoting/carving on the edge around that edge circle (or not, more on the flat of the ski on the same radius, if one wishes to just brush or slarve the turn completely). Again, lots of tricking skiers and both freestyle and freeride pros love best this position, because it often optimizes skiing switch and spinning, flips, big airs, and other tricks, as the skier is at the center or balance point of the turn radius and ski - in terms of how the ski is handling and feeling for that particular skier and ski.

I've kept pushing the mount position even farther forward, and at a certain point, the ski loses optimal stabilty more and more, and may even become scary, riding out there towards the tip of the ski - a bit like surfers moving to the tips of their boards when, for instance, the weight of the wave holds the back down. With no wave there, eventually more forward mount movement on skis results in a scary ride, or at least an unstable one.

Similarly, going back from traditional mount point, many skis become more and more stable, as if on a longer and longer turn radius, until they become downright burly. More stable at faster speeds, but less turny. The same ski that is good for tricking way forward, way back mounted may well become a beast. Such a ski can become like a speed event ski, just a charger - if its design and shape allow for that.

Again, very good skis are often different, and may have have very different variations on such patterns, or are able to manifest only a slice of the above sort of range but do it well.
Gad, what fun to try them.

Note: I left out specific ski examples, because the OP requested general patterns, not specific skis.

 

[ski otter 2]

P.S. Only one ski day left in the Colorado lift-accessed ski season. Whatta great season it's been.