Binding mounting point

[razie]

BTW - I learned the hard way (many times) that BoF over CRS does NOT work with modern skis with more complex geometries and rocker profiles. You can trust me that it doesn't work or learn the hard way too.

ok... I haven't done mine with de-cambering so far... but I also haven't used bof/crs much, tbh, most of the time I mount somewhere in relation to the manufacturer's mark.

However, recently (and based on discussions with HH), I moved away from using that and entirely to allowing the ski design to mostly dictate my mount position by placing the boot shell midsole directly aligned with the narrowest point of the ski sidecut. That has been working the best for me with all types of skis. YMMV

That's a good one... I can see how differences in flex pattern may affect that, but since the manufacturer matches the sidecut to the camber and to the flex pattern, to get something that makes sense, some process like that makes sense.

Since body shape and intended use also plays into this, I don't think there is a single "golden ratio" (well, not for me at least) - I consider these as starting points and always try to test small variations until it feels good. Also, I've noticed that with certain skis, my preferred mounting point moved, in time... generally in counter-intuitive ways, so... I'll have to keep testing.

cheers

 

[Skisix]

Ok, so here is what I'm dealing with. I measured all of the key reference points for the skis, as noted in the image. The boot midpoint (based on the current front binding position) is almost exactly in line with the minimum sidecut. It isn't shown in the image, but BOF is maybe 4-5mm behind the CRS, determined by decambering the skis using Razie's suggested method and measuring BOF using Noodler's approach. Given that the skis were originally set up for someone with HUGE feet (the rear binding is about 2 in behind the back of my boot when set in its forward-most position!), I would guess that the "BOF over CRS" positioning holds for these skis.

Based on the excellent discussion here, my current plan is to just leave the front binding as-is (since moving it to be exactly BOF-over-CRS positioning would make the new holes too close to the old ones), and just shift the rear binding forward as needed.

 

[Noodler]

Ok, so here is what I'm dealing with. I measured all of the key reference points for the skis, as noted in the image. The boot midpoint (based on the current front binding position) is almost exactly in line with the minimum sidecut. It isn't shown in the image, but BOF is maybe 4-5mm behind the CRS, determined by decambering the skis using Razie's suggested method and measuring BOF using Noodler's approach. Given that the skis were originally set up for someone with HUGE feet (the rear binding is about 2 in behind the back of my boot when set in its forward-most position!), I would guess that the "BOF over CRS" positioning holds for these skis.

Based on the excellent discussion here, my current plan is to just leave the front binding as-is (since moving it to be exactly BOF-over-CRS positioning would make the new holes too close to the old ones), and just shift the rear binding forward as needed.

View attachment 81863

Add another picture with your boot "pseudo" in the binding (up against the toe). I know the boot doesn't fit, hence this thread, but I'd like to see where it lands in a picture that shows the entire ski (tip to tail). I know you marked the boot midpoint in that last pic, but I think we'd have a better feel seeing the whole ski.

 

[Skisix]

Voila!

 

[Noodler]

ok... I haven't done mine with de-cambering so far... but I also haven't used bof/crs much, tbh, most of the time I mount somewhere in relation to the manufacturer's mark.


That's a good one... I can see how differences in flex pattern may affect that, but since the manufacturer matches the sidecut to the camber and to the flex pattern, to get something that makes sense, some process like that makes sense.

Since body shape and intended use also plays into this, I don't think there is a single "golden ratio" (well, not for me at least) - I consider these as starting points and always try to test small variations until it feels good. Also, I've noticed that with certain skis, my preferred mounting point moved, in time... generally in counter-intuitive ways, so... I'll have to keep testing.

cheers

Typically the narrowest point of the waist is also where a ski is thickest in its profile. IMHO, that's a good thing when a ski is designed like that. What I've found in my quiver is that when I align the boot midpoint to the narrowest point of the sidecut AND that also aligns my BoF at the CEE, magic happens.

And it's funny, because I don't think ski designers really even think about these design parameters, but when both of these critical measurements are aligned at the same time, it's like the ski is properly designed (at least for me!). I've been surprised to see how many manufacturers don't put the factory mark at the narrowest part of the sidecut; many are well back of that point.

Also, I completely agree that these measurements only provide the initial starting point. Skis need to be skied to determine if you're on the "sweet spot" that's going to work for you. Adjustable bindings are the way to go until you're sure.

 

[Skisix]

...and a tip-to-tail shot

 

[Dwight]

@Noodler, the waybackmachine says: https://web.archive.org/web/2017042...of-mounting-point-method-for-the-21st-century

 

[Uncle-A]

Based on all the photos I would just remount the heel and not do anything to the toe. The mid point of your boot is so close to the narrowest part of the ski that you might as well keep it simple and go with that point. You could change it at some point later if you so not like the way it skis, without having too many holes in the ski. The OP did say that they are only a pair of rock skis.

 

[Noodler]

Based on all the photos I would just remount the heel and not do anything to the toe. The mid point of your boot is so close to the narrowest part of the ski that you might as well keep it simple and go with that point. You could change it at some point later if you so not like the way it skis, without having too many holes in the ski. The OP did say that they are only a pair of rock skis.

Agreed.

 

[Noodler]

@Noodler, the waybackmachine says: https://web.archive.org/web/2017042...of-mounting-point-method-for-the-21st-century

Yep, totally forgot about the WayBack machine. Thanks for the link.

It was definitely interesting/entertaining to re-read that thread after all this time. I'd like to think I'm a bit less OCD about this stuff now, but luckily there are a lot more bindings that are adjustable.

Upon my return to skiing last season, I noticed that there certainly seems to be much more acceptance of the idea that the factory line on the ski isn't always the right place to mount a binding and that more skiers are willing to experiment. That's a fairly significant change since the Fall of 2010.

 

[Skisix]

So it is written, so it shall be done!

I'll leave the fronts in place and move the rear up. For a $35 pair of rock skis I don't think I can complain if the setup isn't perfect, and it should be a good learning experience either way. Thanks for all the input!

 

[Uncle-A]

So it is written, so it shall be done!

I'll leave the fronts in place and move the rear up. For a $35 pair of rock skis I don't think I can complain if the setup isn't perfect, and it should be a good learning experience either way. Thanks for all the input!

Since it was a rental ski, how much performance does anyone really expect to find in a rental ski anyway.