- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
Scot skier I am sure that if you were presented with two different skis with a delta difference of 8mm you'd feel the difference.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Binding ramp angle differences
- Thread starter jonc
- Start date
Epic, i don't disagree with this. In the same way as I notice mounting point differences ( which for me is a more critical aspect) And if you reread my post you will see that was not the point I was trying to make. I do contend though that for many of us we simply adapt to what we happen to be on at a particular time. In the same way there is a difference between the way a F1 car drives compared to a NASCAR stocker - buta pro driver will simply adapt line/ throttle (read stance/balance) tostill get the most performance out of it. (In the same way a lot of us have probably driven the door handles off a low end rental car
)My proposition is similar for skis. I do not dispute that you can do some micro tuning to improve it inextremis (and perhaps make prettier turns) but for most athletes/ racers, provided they are not at an extreme out of balance condition, they can make bigger performance improvements by focusing on more critical issues such as line and pressure control. A racer is already typically moving between 2 or 3 different types of ski - SL, GS,SG - and making adjustments based on that. Introducing too many other variables to think about - without extensive testing and timing and objective baselines - can simply induce unnecessary and unproductive confusion and overthinking. Now at WC level, yes, go for it. At Nastar - not so much
Now, in all fairness, all the binding set ups I am using are in a pretty narrow range of angle, and, with the exception of my Bones and Patrons, are all on race plates. So to that extent it is somewhat dialed in. But, having skied on 20+ different skis last year, I find I am simply making some minor muscle/stance/pressure adjustments to get the most out of a different ski. In the same way as I have no doubt you do. And in the same way if I jump into my wife's Macan I will use more subtle movements than in my truck, but will still be pedaling down the road relatively quickly in either case.
So, long winded way of saying yes, I don't dispute you can get some gains out of playing with ramp/angle/ delta - but I would suggest that once you are within a relatively wide range of acceptable - the differences are very small and it is more a holy grail than a silver bullet. I wil happily admit that I am not good enough to notice a degree or two either way but will adapt to suit what is on my feet.
Like I said, flakjacket on, ready for incoming...
..... but there is a lot to be said for just skiing them like you stole them ...
Scotskier, You make a very valid accurate point. Probably 98% of skiers simply adapt to their equipment. The other 2% optimize their equipment to permit optimum fore/aft balance and equal access to both inside and outside edges so they do not have to compromise their safety or performance. The choice is yours to make. Why bother tuning your skis? Why bother getting a good fitting boot?
My point is adapting to poor angles causes compensatory movements that affect our abilities to balance and edge our skis effectively. Most skiers are oblivious to this option and carry on in ignorant bliss. Those who have higher aspirations appreciate the difference. It's just a matter of where you are on this spectrum. A trained eye can easily spot your "adaptations" in your skiing and point our how it affects your abilities. It's the skier's choice.
I can tell you this, I have been focused on balancing boots for over 30 years after discovering the concept in 1987 while prepping for a National try out. Once I felt the instant difference it made in my skiing, how with no effort or adjustments on my part, I was instantly skiing better, I wanted to learn all I could about this boot balancing. Now, through years of experience and experimentation, I know exactly where I want to be standing over my skis and take great care to recreate the same set up every time I get new boots or new skis. This way I am always have my "home" position to recenter and edge my skis. The more you play with this stuff the more sensitive you become to changes and good skiers can feel as little as 1mm difference in stand height differential or 1/4 degree in canting angle.
The sooner a competitive skier begins addressing this stuff the faster their results and skills will reflect their efforts.
My point is adapting to poor angles causes compensatory movements that affect our abilities to balance and edge our skis effectively. Most skiers are oblivious to this option and carry on in ignorant bliss. Those who have higher aspirations appreciate the difference. It's just a matter of where you are on this spectrum. A trained eye can easily spot your "adaptations" in your skiing and point our how it affects your abilities. It's the skier's choice.
I can tell you this, I have been focused on balancing boots for over 30 years after discovering the concept in 1987 while prepping for a National try out. Once I felt the instant difference it made in my skiing, how with no effort or adjustments on my part, I was instantly skiing better, I wanted to learn all I could about this boot balancing. Now, through years of experience and experimentation, I know exactly where I want to be standing over my skis and take great care to recreate the same set up every time I get new boots or new skis. This way I am always have my "home" position to recenter and edge my skis. The more you play with this stuff the more sensitive you become to changes and good skiers can feel as little as 1mm difference in stand height differential or 1/4 degree in canting angle.
The sooner a competitive skier begins addressing this stuff the faster their results and skills will reflect their efforts.
My hunch is that we're going to have a lot of good discussion on this one. Before we dive too deep into the WC weeds, I think that there are a few questions that many PugSkiers have when this topic gets raised. One is what does the verbiage mean? What are all of these terms? Thanks for Bud H for those details. @chemist added the same on another "cage comparison" thread. It helps, I think for people to get that clear.
The bigger issue might be "why does this matter for me and MY skiing?", and absent any professional evaluation {which I'll agree would be the most conclusive} "what might I feel or sense in my own skiing to suggest that something needs a fix?" I feel OK, but should I dig into this more?
I mentioned in my post above that I've been through a TON of this with our now adult kids during their relatively high level race careers. Not WC skiers, but not that far off. Our son is a coach, has worked with some exceptionally high level athletes, including a number who win on the WC, and have won WC globes. Sometimes we get off on the tangent of "what they do on the World Cup." I would like to suggest that it's a bad comparison in a lot of ways. ScotSkier is pretty modest in terms of his skiing, and his coaching. More than that, he is dialed in to his equipment and knows what works at the top level for Masters. And as I hear him, being close is, for him, close enough. When you start thinking that the setup rumors you hear about Ligety, et all, apply to you, I think you can get off track.
When you're dealing with WC setups, you are hardly dealing with skis that are skied in a variety of different conditions, and terrain. They are one trick ponies, and the jockeys have been training for that single purpose for a couple hundred days a season for in most cases more than half of their lives. At that level, being dialed in the right way on any given RUN, is important. Yes, you'll see significant adjustments by some techs and athletes between runs, It is a big business. At Soelden, WC GS champ Eva Brum had a terrible race. Her boot setup had been tremendous on the "snow" that she had been training on, and what they anticipated for race day. On race day, it didn't work. They didn't get it right for the second run. Her tech is no longer with her. Gone. Cruel.
At that level, SOME of these skiers can sense incredibly precise changes. A lot less than 1mm changes. Put them on a different surface, different terrain, even a typical "groomed" run, and I "think" the precision is less of a factor. I could be wrong. It's not been my experience. I've skied a lot of non race terrain and snow with real racers, and some of this goes out the window. Different boots, different fat skis, and I haven't noticed anything that would suggest a lot of binding delta dialing. They're skiing and ripping. And laughing. Put them back to work, at their jobs, and yes it's precise.
I mentioned my son doing some testing a number of years ago. There were a number of guys doing this for the one athlete. They all happened to have the same BSL, and ski much like he does. That's why they were there. They were all in virtually identical boots, certainly almost identical ramp angles. This took almost three weeks, to get the right plates selected, then determine where they should be mounted, then the mounting point for the bindings, and then of course getting the binding delta all set. Further testing would determine how to alter it given different situations. Video, the clock, all sorts of data and measurement. This was just for GS skis. As Bud notes, testing one thing at a time. Getting that reasonably well set, then moving to the next. I can't recall what he said the sequence was.
My point is that I surely don't draw any conclusion that what goes on at that level really applies to many of us, other than "directionally", and maybe at the extremes. I don't think it applies to me. Yeah, if you've been skiing and training on hard snow like ScotSkier, and say he's got a stand height differential of around 2mm on most of his race skis, if you put him on a similar ski with an 8mm measurement, as Epic suggests, he would notice it right away. On the SAME skis, sure.
However, I can also understand where Bud is coming from in terms of feeling at home in his preferred setup. It makes sense to me. It must be better. To what degree? Dunno.
And as SS suggests, he might just adapt to it. If It was 4mm versus 2mm, my hunch is that he would adapt. I'm not going to rehash what I posted above. I know that I have a variety of binding deltas, and I adapt. I also know that I'm not at the extremes. I'm not at zero, and I'm not at 8mm. My hunch is that I'm "around 4-5mm" on most. I know that I'm not at zero. I also wanted to point out that while many people who are tremendous skiers, and obvious professional technicians are firm believers in getting this absolutely right, there are also a big army of tremendous skiers who don't really pay attention to it. The techs might say I'm full of it. I'm not. Now, I think where you ski, and what you ski on makes some difference. Over the years, when something felt a bit off for me, it was always apparent on hard snow, and what I'll call medium radius turns. Not a WC radius GS turn, smaller. And for a long time, pretty sure my hard snow skis were very similar, now that I think back on it. My boots have very, very little change over close to two decades. Were they optimal? Was I missing something? Maybe, but it never felt that way.
I may err on the side of "ski it as is and see if you like it." As I type this, I think of the buffet lineup of skis that I have, and the bigger spread that our kids have, particularly our daughter. Would she be skiing better with an optimized binding delta that is consistent on every pair of her skis? I guess she logically would be. Her race skis were all set up that way. All of her SL skis one way, GS another SG and DH differently. Her powder skis? I think a tech just gave them to her and said "have fun!" But watching her ski, I have a very hard time believing that the differences in her current lineup is a problem for her. And I KNOW that she would laugh if I suggested that she take the time, and spend the money to make sure that it was "right." It might be that she has definite skis for definite days. I suppose that it she had three pairs of 98-100mm all mountain skis ALL with different deltas, she would have a distinct preference. She doesn't have three, though. So what I hear is that she likes the skis, and no doubts about the binding set up. Just to clarify, the boots are perfectly fit, the skis are always perfectly tuned. She can tell a change in bevel, on hardish snow, immediately,
So, I'm pretty much in the SS camp on this. I was just thinking about ALL of the sports that most of us have been involved in over our lives and the varying equipment. Bikes have very different geometry. I have had so many fishing rods over my life, which all cast differently, all require some adapting, and all let me down in catching fish. You name a sport, and at the top end, there is a lot of precise dialing going on. And for 99.5% of the participants it's not quite that important, IMO. I do have one friend who has all of his salt water fly rods custom made at enormous expense. When I watch him cast, it's rare that he has the same motion four casts in a row, though. And less as the morning or night goes on....
So, I am fascinated with those who are right on top of this. Those of us who ski all of our skis with the exact same binding delta, among a big quiver of skis. Get new boots, and then once those are right, alter and optimize the binding setup on them all. If we were on another forum {not Epic} where skiers seem to love to deal in a finite slice of precision, which dictates their boot and ski selection to a tiny niche, I might get it. Their idea of fun, and how they spend their time on snow is not mine. They love it, and that's great. Their quivers seem a bit different. It's even the same at the WC level. MS LOVES to ski in a controlled environment and essentially drill. She finds it relaxing and helpful. She'll often do it with her mother, on a closed trail. If a number of other skiers at the top of the game have a few hours to just go play on snow, they don't do that. One could argue that they don't have her domination. Or, that they might view "skiing" differently. We're all different.
It's an interesting topic. I don't want to say that those of you who can feel a 1mm difference and want all of your skis set up the same way are a bit obsessive. It's a gear driven sport. If it works better for you, that is all that matters. I am probably well off base. Nor do I want to say that the "who cares?" position is right. I do find it interesting that some tremendous skiers are NOT that dialed into this, even those with the best race resumes. They tend to be older, though. And I hear "yeah, I really like these....", with not a lot of detail. Some guys, even some of the older ones are incredibly dialed it, though. You will never meet a guy more into this than Thomas Vonn. In shimming bindings, he would tell you that he could feel two layers of electrical tape. Legendary equipment guy. And I do not discount for a second the impact on his ex-wife's results.
And yeah, this is EASY to play around with depending on your binding setup, and impossible for others. Is that a factor? On the other thread there was a lot of discussion of which Head bindings you could shim, and which you could not. The "real" Head race setups, with the real plates are very easy to shim. Same with every other true race setup. Once you move out of that range, some are more problematic than others. So when we're thinking about this, is there a problem for some if the equipment options that are best for them make this adjustment difficult? Just thinking. Actually thinking about my wife. I could easily have some shims made for most of her bindings. Salomon STH2 13's. The system stuff, ugh? But she seems just fine, so I think why even go there. Has she adapted? Yeah. She's been at this for 55+ years.
I think that may be why I have never messed with it. When my son gave me some SL skis, he suggested that I drop the toes, and he gave me the screws to handle removing the 2-3 shims. I've mounted a few zillion race bindings with our kids. If I look at some of the system bindings on a few of our skis, it would be impossible. And changing bindings would be a non-starter. Plus, they seem to ski well for the various pilots.
I get that being dialed in, precisely is better. Where I'm up in the air is how much better, how important? And Having observed a lot of athletes, even older weekend skiers, somethimes you can overthink things, and I have seen that over thinking suck a lot of the fun out of things. The flip side is probably as Bud suggests, if he knows that he's better in his "home" set up, he's not going to be as happy and skiing as well if he's not in it.
Sorry to ramble. Interesting topic. At times confusing for me. Do I need to be one of the 2% that Bud references, and what does it mean to me? How much better at what cost of time, effort, money? Or, am a I one of those adapters that has seen a lot of changes, over time. I was trying to think about when this became a big focus on the upper levels of the WC? I think it happened coincident with the ski changes, and the huge stack heights.
Just don't know about me. But it is interesting. And I think the level of discussion is great, and very respectful. Good stuff.
The bigger issue might be "why does this matter for me and MY skiing?", and absent any professional evaluation {which I'll agree would be the most conclusive} "what might I feel or sense in my own skiing to suggest that something needs a fix?" I feel OK, but should I dig into this more?
I mentioned in my post above that I've been through a TON of this with our now adult kids during their relatively high level race careers. Not WC skiers, but not that far off. Our son is a coach, has worked with some exceptionally high level athletes, including a number who win on the WC, and have won WC globes. Sometimes we get off on the tangent of "what they do on the World Cup." I would like to suggest that it's a bad comparison in a lot of ways. ScotSkier is pretty modest in terms of his skiing, and his coaching. More than that, he is dialed in to his equipment and knows what works at the top level for Masters. And as I hear him, being close is, for him, close enough. When you start thinking that the setup rumors you hear about Ligety, et all, apply to you, I think you can get off track.
When you're dealing with WC setups, you are hardly dealing with skis that are skied in a variety of different conditions, and terrain. They are one trick ponies, and the jockeys have been training for that single purpose for a couple hundred days a season for in most cases more than half of their lives. At that level, being dialed in the right way on any given RUN, is important. Yes, you'll see significant adjustments by some techs and athletes between runs, It is a big business. At Soelden, WC GS champ Eva Brum had a terrible race. Her boot setup had been tremendous on the "snow" that she had been training on, and what they anticipated for race day. On race day, it didn't work. They didn't get it right for the second run. Her tech is no longer with her. Gone. Cruel.
At that level, SOME of these skiers can sense incredibly precise changes. A lot less than 1mm changes. Put them on a different surface, different terrain, even a typical "groomed" run, and I "think" the precision is less of a factor. I could be wrong. It's not been my experience. I've skied a lot of non race terrain and snow with real racers, and some of this goes out the window. Different boots, different fat skis, and I haven't noticed anything that would suggest a lot of binding delta dialing. They're skiing and ripping. And laughing. Put them back to work, at their jobs, and yes it's precise.
I mentioned my son doing some testing a number of years ago. There were a number of guys doing this for the one athlete. They all happened to have the same BSL, and ski much like he does. That's why they were there. They were all in virtually identical boots, certainly almost identical ramp angles. This took almost three weeks, to get the right plates selected, then determine where they should be mounted, then the mounting point for the bindings, and then of course getting the binding delta all set. Further testing would determine how to alter it given different situations. Video, the clock, all sorts of data and measurement. This was just for GS skis. As Bud notes, testing one thing at a time. Getting that reasonably well set, then moving to the next. I can't recall what he said the sequence was.
My point is that I surely don't draw any conclusion that what goes on at that level really applies to many of us, other than "directionally", and maybe at the extremes. I don't think it applies to me. Yeah, if you've been skiing and training on hard snow like ScotSkier, and say he's got a stand height differential of around 2mm on most of his race skis, if you put him on a similar ski with an 8mm measurement, as Epic suggests, he would notice it right away. On the SAME skis, sure.
However, I can also understand where Bud is coming from in terms of feeling at home in his preferred setup. It makes sense to me. It must be better. To what degree? Dunno.
And as SS suggests, he might just adapt to it. If It was 4mm versus 2mm, my hunch is that he would adapt. I'm not going to rehash what I posted above. I know that I have a variety of binding deltas, and I adapt. I also know that I'm not at the extremes. I'm not at zero, and I'm not at 8mm. My hunch is that I'm "around 4-5mm" on most. I know that I'm not at zero. I also wanted to point out that while many people who are tremendous skiers, and obvious professional technicians are firm believers in getting this absolutely right, there are also a big army of tremendous skiers who don't really pay attention to it. The techs might say I'm full of it. I'm not. Now, I think where you ski, and what you ski on makes some difference. Over the years, when something felt a bit off for me, it was always apparent on hard snow, and what I'll call medium radius turns. Not a WC radius GS turn, smaller. And for a long time, pretty sure my hard snow skis were very similar, now that I think back on it. My boots have very, very little change over close to two decades. Were they optimal? Was I missing something? Maybe, but it never felt that way.
I may err on the side of "ski it as is and see if you like it." As I type this, I think of the buffet lineup of skis that I have, and the bigger spread that our kids have, particularly our daughter. Would she be skiing better with an optimized binding delta that is consistent on every pair of her skis? I guess she logically would be. Her race skis were all set up that way. All of her SL skis one way, GS another SG and DH differently. Her powder skis? I think a tech just gave them to her and said "have fun!" But watching her ski, I have a very hard time believing that the differences in her current lineup is a problem for her. And I KNOW that she would laugh if I suggested that she take the time, and spend the money to make sure that it was "right." It might be that she has definite skis for definite days. I suppose that it she had three pairs of 98-100mm all mountain skis ALL with different deltas, she would have a distinct preference. She doesn't have three, though. So what I hear is that she likes the skis, and no doubts about the binding set up. Just to clarify, the boots are perfectly fit, the skis are always perfectly tuned. She can tell a change in bevel, on hardish snow, immediately,
So, I'm pretty much in the SS camp on this. I was just thinking about ALL of the sports that most of us have been involved in over our lives and the varying equipment. Bikes have very different geometry. I have had so many fishing rods over my life, which all cast differently, all require some adapting, and all let me down in catching fish. You name a sport, and at the top end, there is a lot of precise dialing going on. And for 99.5% of the participants it's not quite that important, IMO. I do have one friend who has all of his salt water fly rods custom made at enormous expense. When I watch him cast, it's rare that he has the same motion four casts in a row, though. And less as the morning or night goes on....
So, I am fascinated with those who are right on top of this. Those of us who ski all of our skis with the exact same binding delta, among a big quiver of skis. Get new boots, and then once those are right, alter and optimize the binding setup on them all. If we were on another forum {not Epic} where skiers seem to love to deal in a finite slice of precision, which dictates their boot and ski selection to a tiny niche, I might get it. Their idea of fun, and how they spend their time on snow is not mine. They love it, and that's great. Their quivers seem a bit different. It's even the same at the WC level. MS LOVES to ski in a controlled environment and essentially drill. She finds it relaxing and helpful. She'll often do it with her mother, on a closed trail. If a number of other skiers at the top of the game have a few hours to just go play on snow, they don't do that. One could argue that they don't have her domination. Or, that they might view "skiing" differently. We're all different.
It's an interesting topic. I don't want to say that those of you who can feel a 1mm difference and want all of your skis set up the same way are a bit obsessive. It's a gear driven sport. If it works better for you, that is all that matters. I am probably well off base. Nor do I want to say that the "who cares?" position is right. I do find it interesting that some tremendous skiers are NOT that dialed into this, even those with the best race resumes. They tend to be older, though. And I hear "yeah, I really like these....", with not a lot of detail. Some guys, even some of the older ones are incredibly dialed it, though. You will never meet a guy more into this than Thomas Vonn. In shimming bindings, he would tell you that he could feel two layers of electrical tape. Legendary equipment guy. And I do not discount for a second the impact on his ex-wife's results.
And yeah, this is EASY to play around with depending on your binding setup, and impossible for others. Is that a factor? On the other thread there was a lot of discussion of which Head bindings you could shim, and which you could not. The "real" Head race setups, with the real plates are very easy to shim. Same with every other true race setup. Once you move out of that range, some are more problematic than others. So when we're thinking about this, is there a problem for some if the equipment options that are best for them make this adjustment difficult? Just thinking. Actually thinking about my wife. I could easily have some shims made for most of her bindings. Salomon STH2 13's. The system stuff, ugh? But she seems just fine, so I think why even go there. Has she adapted? Yeah. She's been at this for 55+ years.
I think that may be why I have never messed with it. When my son gave me some SL skis, he suggested that I drop the toes, and he gave me the screws to handle removing the 2-3 shims. I've mounted a few zillion race bindings with our kids. If I look at some of the system bindings on a few of our skis, it would be impossible. And changing bindings would be a non-starter. Plus, they seem to ski well for the various pilots.
I get that being dialed in, precisely is better. Where I'm up in the air is how much better, how important? And Having observed a lot of athletes, even older weekend skiers, somethimes you can overthink things, and I have seen that over thinking suck a lot of the fun out of things. The flip side is probably as Bud suggests, if he knows that he's better in his "home" set up, he's not going to be as happy and skiing as well if he's not in it.
Sorry to ramble. Interesting topic. At times confusing for me. Do I need to be one of the 2% that Bud references, and what does it mean to me? How much better at what cost of time, effort, money? Or, am a I one of those adapters that has seen a lot of changes, over time. I was trying to think about when this became a big focus on the upper levels of the WC? I think it happened coincident with the ski changes, and the huge stack heights.
Just don't know about me. But it is interesting. And I think the level of discussion is great, and very respectful. Good stuff.
Last edited:
Bud. I have great respect for your belief in the concept and your product and no disagreement from me that work in this area can make changes. Where I would take issue with your position is in the implication that "adapting" leads to a reduction in performance. That is why i used the race car analogy. I would "adapt"- i.e make changes - my approach between driving a Nascar stocker and an Indy car because of the different characteristics of each. The "adaptation" would be to get the maximum performance out of each since the movement pattern required is different in each. In the same wayI have driven competition cars that feel incredibly unstable in their set-up BUT can produce faster lap times than a similar car that "feels" more comfortable and easier to drive.
So, for me, the question becomes, how do you define what is the "correct " (or optimal) position. And under what conditions? And what objective control measures do you use?. I am genuinely interested to understand. I can change the tune and wax on a ski and see the difference on the clock. I was an early adapter of the bigger radius GS skis and saw the improvement on the clock, despite it feeling less comfortable and demanding more precision than the smaller radius ski. But, I am not at a National level of ski instruction and as stated before, lack the skill to sense a half degree of difference. I do know though that I can lose time on the clock by screwing up a couple of turns.
So, for me, the question becomes, how do you define what is the "correct " (or optimal) position. And under what conditions? And what objective control measures do you use?. I am genuinely interested to understand. I can change the tune and wax on a ski and see the difference on the clock. I was an early adapter of the bigger radius GS skis and saw the improvement on the clock, despite it feeling less comfortable and demanding more precision than the smaller radius ski. But, I am not at a National level of ski instruction and as stated before, lack the skill to sense a half degree of difference. I do know though that I can lose time on the clock by screwing up a couple of turns.
Great thoughts guys and I understand exactly what you are saying.
A couple thoughts I like to use:
"You will never know if the grass is greener on the other side unless you walk through it."
"I try to get the skier in the right church, the right pew, and hopefully the right seat or the one right next to it"
"There is Warren Witheral's 80/20 rule, if we to within 80% of the target we will feel a 20% improvement, if we make up that last 20% we will notice an 80% improvement"
Once we remove these alignment impediments, the skier is able to improve performance much easier.
My sports performance assessment tool TEPP focuses on four areas where work can be done to minimize performance impediments and the area of equipment is always the quickest easiest way to gain a performance jump with all other areas remaining the same. Buy the latest new golf club driver and have the loft and lie and shaft flex matched to your needs by a pro and chances are you will hit the ball farther and straighter than you would with an off the rack club from a big box store!
There are cheaper ways to experiment the McGiver way with tape and shims for more frugal wallets and still gain the benefit of exploring the differences. It doesn't have to cost alot or take alot of time away from actual skiing.
A couple thoughts I like to use:
"You will never know if the grass is greener on the other side unless you walk through it."
"I try to get the skier in the right church, the right pew, and hopefully the right seat or the one right next to it"
"There is Warren Witheral's 80/20 rule, if we to within 80% of the target we will feel a 20% improvement, if we make up that last 20% we will notice an 80% improvement"
Once we remove these alignment impediments, the skier is able to improve performance much easier.
My sports performance assessment tool TEPP focuses on four areas where work can be done to minimize performance impediments and the area of equipment is always the quickest easiest way to gain a performance jump with all other areas remaining the same. Buy the latest new golf club driver and have the loft and lie and shaft flex matched to your needs by a pro and chances are you will hit the ball farther and straighter than you would with an off the rack club from a big box store!
There are cheaper ways to experiment the McGiver way with tape and shims for more frugal wallets and still gain the benefit of exploring the differences. It doesn't have to cost alot or take alot of time away from actual skiing.
My son is a pro level motocross racer and we spend time and money dialing in suspension for his weight, riding style and speed. We create a base setting for these parameters. Depending on whether he is racing an outdoor track or an indoor supercross or arenacross track we may use very different valving, spring rates, and other settings to optimize the ride for a particular track. On any given outdoor track we use practice day to tweek the suspension settings (dampening and rebound clickers, spring sag, oil levels) for that particular track's conditions. My point is, optimizing equipment for a specific task is for the very elite but establishing a good base or ball park setting for a wide variety of conditions or skis is wise for everyone!
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Posts
- 109
There are four ideas that have been offered here (summarized in bold, below) on which I’d like to comment:
I. The manufacturers are very sophisticated about their product offerings, and they’ve pretty much figured out what the right amount of binding delta is. Yes, they offer different deltas, but these are for very specific reasons, based on the product category, etc.
The manufacturers certainly are sophisticated, so this is a reasonable default assumption. Yet binding delta is one area in which the manufacturers have been surprisingly clueless, offering bindings with deltas that are all over the map, without rhyme or reason. Consider the Head PRX12 and PRD14. These are the two options they offer for their Supershape line, so they’re obviously intended for the same general audience/usage. Yet the delta of the PRX12 is about double that of the PRD14 (8 mm vs. 4 mm according to some measurements, and 9.5 mm vs. 4.5 mm according to Head’s tech manual). Now we can argue about whether 1 mm matters, but surely we can agree that, outside of those with very unusual adaptability, someone that feels nicely balanced with a 4 mm delta is going to be decidedly suboptimum with 8 – 9 mm, and visa versa. But here’s the kicker: Outside of their tech manual, which Head does not make publicly available, Head never mentions this difference! To me, it’s like offering two performance boots, the “RS-X” and the “RS-D”, where the X has a 90 flex and the D has a 130, without ever mentioning their flexes in the consumer-facing material, and without most of the bootfitters even being aware of the flex difference (the way most retailers aren’t aware of the delta difference)! And I’m just using Head/Tyrolia as an example. All the manufacturers (with a few exceptions, like KneeBinding) are guilty of this.
II. If you buy a boot and binding from the same manufacturer, you’re going to get a delta that works with that boot, and thus be OK.
There are three problems with this:
1. As seen in I, above, even within the same manufacturer and product line, binding deltas can be all over the map.
2. The binding delta and the boot geometry have different effects, and have to be adjusted individually.
3. More fundamentally, this idea won’t work because skiers vary significantly in what combination of boot geometry and delta optimizes their fore-aft balance.
III. Ex-FIS and ex-WC athletes, who are more sensitive to delta than most of us, and who have a lot of experience with delta adjustments from their racing days, no longer worry about delta when they are retired and have switched to recreational freeskiing. So it’s silly for us to worry about this as well.
I see two problems with this:
1. There are certainly ex-WC/FIS athletes who think like this; but there are certainly others that continue to like to be dialed in, even after their racing careers have ended and they freeski for fun.
2. These folks are unusual. Their athleticism gives them enormous adaptability that most of us don’t have, and (outside of those like Dharon Rhalves) their freeskiing is at a much lower level than their racing, i.e., their freeskiing uses only a fraction of their athletic potential. So they can afford to be suboptimal on their equipment in a way most of us could be afford to be suboptimal on ours if we were spending all day cruising around on beginner trails introducing our friends to skiing. But most of us don’t spend most of our time that way – we thus don’t have the extra reserves of a WC skier, and what’s fun for many of us is to ski at the highest level we can, and/or with the most ease we can, so we want our gear to be as optimized as possible.
Here I speculate, but it may also be the case that most high-level bindings these days (the kind ex-WC/FIS skiers would use) are (unlike in years past) within a fairly narrow range of deltas – typically 3–5 mm. As a consequence, when some WC skiers say they don’t need to care about delta for their freeskiing, it may be simply the luck/coincidence of having deltas that work for them.
IV. Those who concern themselves with such things are missing the fun of the sport.
I can’t comment on others, but I actually don’t like to think about having to mess with my equipment. My approach is to invest the time and energy to get it dialed, and I find that pays off, because once it’s done I’m typically very happy with my equipment, such that I then focus entirely on my skiing. While I find it’s worth it to get it dialed, it’s also a PITA, so once it’s done I just don’t want to mess with it anymore. Thus I’ll tend to hang onto this dialed equipment for several seasons until it wears out, at which point I’ll go through the cycle again.
I actually take this approach to all important equipment. I'm a videophile, and invested substantial effort to identify and dial in my front projector and screen. Once I did that—and, indeed, because I did that—I was very happy with it, and no longer had any interest whatsoever in thinking about video equipment; that was in 2006, and I enjoy my projector now as much as I did after I set it up. So again, for me, the initial effort is worth it.
You could say my mantra has been "obsess, then ignore."
************************
Finally, I'll mention that sensitivity to binding ramp angle may vary with body structure, such that being away from your optimum delta creates more challenges for certain body types than others.
I. The manufacturers are very sophisticated about their product offerings, and they’ve pretty much figured out what the right amount of binding delta is. Yes, they offer different deltas, but these are for very specific reasons, based on the product category, etc.
The manufacturers certainly are sophisticated, so this is a reasonable default assumption. Yet binding delta is one area in which the manufacturers have been surprisingly clueless, offering bindings with deltas that are all over the map, without rhyme or reason. Consider the Head PRX12 and PRD14. These are the two options they offer for their Supershape line, so they’re obviously intended for the same general audience/usage. Yet the delta of the PRX12 is about double that of the PRD14 (8 mm vs. 4 mm according to some measurements, and 9.5 mm vs. 4.5 mm according to Head’s tech manual). Now we can argue about whether 1 mm matters, but surely we can agree that, outside of those with very unusual adaptability, someone that feels nicely balanced with a 4 mm delta is going to be decidedly suboptimum with 8 – 9 mm, and visa versa. But here’s the kicker: Outside of their tech manual, which Head does not make publicly available, Head never mentions this difference! To me, it’s like offering two performance boots, the “RS-X” and the “RS-D”, where the X has a 90 flex and the D has a 130, without ever mentioning their flexes in the consumer-facing material, and without most of the bootfitters even being aware of the flex difference (the way most retailers aren’t aware of the delta difference)! And I’m just using Head/Tyrolia as an example. All the manufacturers (with a few exceptions, like KneeBinding) are guilty of this.
II. If you buy a boot and binding from the same manufacturer, you’re going to get a delta that works with that boot, and thus be OK.
There are three problems with this:
1. As seen in I, above, even within the same manufacturer and product line, binding deltas can be all over the map.
2. The binding delta and the boot geometry have different effects, and have to be adjusted individually.
3. More fundamentally, this idea won’t work because skiers vary significantly in what combination of boot geometry and delta optimizes their fore-aft balance.
III. Ex-FIS and ex-WC athletes, who are more sensitive to delta than most of us, and who have a lot of experience with delta adjustments from their racing days, no longer worry about delta when they are retired and have switched to recreational freeskiing. So it’s silly for us to worry about this as well.
I see two problems with this:
1. There are certainly ex-WC/FIS athletes who think like this; but there are certainly others that continue to like to be dialed in, even after their racing careers have ended and they freeski for fun.
2. These folks are unusual. Their athleticism gives them enormous adaptability that most of us don’t have, and (outside of those like Dharon Rhalves) their freeskiing is at a much lower level than their racing, i.e., their freeskiing uses only a fraction of their athletic potential. So they can afford to be suboptimal on their equipment in a way most of us could be afford to be suboptimal on ours if we were spending all day cruising around on beginner trails introducing our friends to skiing. But most of us don’t spend most of our time that way – we thus don’t have the extra reserves of a WC skier, and what’s fun for many of us is to ski at the highest level we can, and/or with the most ease we can, so we want our gear to be as optimized as possible.
Here I speculate, but it may also be the case that most high-level bindings these days (the kind ex-WC/FIS skiers would use) are (unlike in years past) within a fairly narrow range of deltas – typically 3–5 mm. As a consequence, when some WC skiers say they don’t need to care about delta for their freeskiing, it may be simply the luck/coincidence of having deltas that work for them.
IV. Those who concern themselves with such things are missing the fun of the sport.
I can’t comment on others, but I actually don’t like to think about having to mess with my equipment. My approach is to invest the time and energy to get it dialed, and I find that pays off, because once it’s done I’m typically very happy with my equipment, such that I then focus entirely on my skiing. While I find it’s worth it to get it dialed, it’s also a PITA, so once it’s done I just don’t want to mess with it anymore. Thus I’ll tend to hang onto this dialed equipment for several seasons until it wears out, at which point I’ll go through the cycle again.
I actually take this approach to all important equipment. I'm a videophile, and invested substantial effort to identify and dial in my front projector and screen. Once I did that—and, indeed, because I did that—I was very happy with it, and no longer had any interest whatsoever in thinking about video equipment; that was in 2006, and I enjoy my projector now as much as I did after I set it up. So again, for me, the initial effort is worth it.
You could say my mantra has been "obsess, then ignore."
************************
Finally, I'll mention that sensitivity to binding ramp angle may vary with body structure, such that being away from your optimum delta creates more challenges for certain body types than others.
Last edited:
I want to pass Level 3. Despite hard work and great coaching, I was having difficulty with wedge christies. We experimented with a shim under my bindings. I know that I am oversimplifying this, but that change has changed my stance and I am able to do things I was not.
I had a moment when I wondered if the grass was greener elsewhere. I stood and watched. Turned out it was bat$##t crazy grass. Very glad not to have treaded there. Anyhow...
Interesting stuff.
@chemist, I think a few of your points are directed at my posts. As far as the ex high level racers, many are absolutely still dialed in years after they retire. Mostly younger retirees, IMO. People for whom this was a big focus when they were competing. Those that I know will not use a ski unless it's perfectly tuned, for example, even if paying no attention to binding delta. It's not like they blow this equipment thing off. My point is more that I think those who are almost obsessive about things like delta are in the minority of that group, more so the older guys. Now the big mountain guys that I know are all on one binding setup, on all of their gazillon skis. Don't see any sign of altering the delta on many. May be my eyes. I've been given two pairs. Nothing special.
Your point about the likelihood of many/most of their skis probably falling into a similar delta range is, I think, right on the money. Might be by accident, but I think that's the case with me. Probably all 4-6mm. Makes sense to me. Not that I'm going to measure.
Also agree that some of us are very interested in gear, and in optimizing it. I have close friend who is a top rated clays shooter. Trap and skeet. I can only imagine what goes into the fitting and building of his custom guns. I've been shooting all of my life, and have some nice production guns which fit me well. I do pretty well with them. For me, the perfect fit is just not worth it. Of course the price is prohibitive, too. I think we all have similar experiences, and thoughts about many sports.
I truly do appreciate it. And as I've said, if it works for somebody, and adds to their enjoyment, performance and even learning curve, bring it on!
Now, I have mentioned our daughter. She was very excited to bring down the curtain on an intense competitive career. We were delighted that she was still excited about skiing. A least as many of her peers have pretty much dropped the sport, as still ski. She loves it.
But she could not wait to get out of a speed suit, race training gear, race helmets, gloves, very wedged in plug boots, and to ski a whole lot of big terrain on big skis, in "normal clothes." She would joke that it was great to be a NARP {Non athlete regular person}. Loved her first non race helmet, goggles and fun Hestra mitts.
She is incredibly serious about her ski experience. And yes, super skilled. It's not like she feels like she would ruin the fun by worrying about her binding delta. Not seeing a need to even go there. She's just not thinking about it, and just "sending it". Could well be that her various binding setups are all fairly close? That makes sense to me. But then again, she is not trying to "improve" at anything. She spent a lot of years trying to improve her way onto the USST. Now, it's about loving skiing, and being outside.
Not a case of her saying that thinking about it will ruin the joy, just that she doesn't see a need to. Not that we have ever discussed this. She has been skiing since she was 18mos., and she raced for a long time. We think it's very "cool" that she loves the sport.
Sometimes if you've reached a pretty high level in any sport, you back it down a bit. I play tennis is a regular group with two guys who played on the ATP tour. Mid 50's now. Just like playing, then drinking beers. Every now and then they will flash some magic. Most often they just make it fun. I sail with guys who were absolute world class, and they are not so obsessive about the boat these days. Back in their big gun years, they were. Now it's more about fun.
There is no doubt that at a certain level in the competitive race world, equipment can be THE difference maker. Also interested to see how this is such a big factor in others maximizing their enjoyment. I can appreciate that. This is sort of an eye opener for me. I ski a lot of days with some really great skiers, and this is just not on their radar screens.
I do chuckle at the same time. Last winter we caught up with some friends, including two ex USST skiers, and three NCAA all Americans. All mid 50's and older. I can assure you that nobody had a clue about binding delta. Pretty "eclectic" assembly of equipment. These folks all ski a ton. A lot of the skis were given to them, etc. They still "kill it!" Good fun.
Guess in my opinion it's not all black and white. Maybe I'll pay more attention to this. Maybe I won't!
I do think that this is an area that many or most should pay attention to. Not convinced that it's all that essential for every skier, though. And without sounding like a jerk, I think there might be something to the adaptation "thing". However, I just never think about it. I think it just happens for me.
I will add that that in 1970, when I first was coached by WW, I was a rarity. Dead neutral in my stance. No canting at all. Back then, you saw canting strips on all of his skiers' skis. Of course, he insisted that I be on Strato's with his preferred Solly toes and Rotomat heels. thinking back on it, I bet that combination was pretty flat! He had a huge focus on equipment, and I think it got inside a few heads. He had other challenges with me.
Interesting conversation. Not overthinking it. Not measuring any skis. Maybe missing out!
@chemist, I think a few of your points are directed at my posts. As far as the ex high level racers, many are absolutely still dialed in years after they retire. Mostly younger retirees, IMO. People for whom this was a big focus when they were competing. Those that I know will not use a ski unless it's perfectly tuned, for example, even if paying no attention to binding delta. It's not like they blow this equipment thing off. My point is more that I think those who are almost obsessive about things like delta are in the minority of that group, more so the older guys. Now the big mountain guys that I know are all on one binding setup, on all of their gazillon skis. Don't see any sign of altering the delta on many. May be my eyes. I've been given two pairs. Nothing special.
Your point about the likelihood of many/most of their skis probably falling into a similar delta range is, I think, right on the money. Might be by accident, but I think that's the case with me. Probably all 4-6mm. Makes sense to me. Not that I'm going to measure.
Also agree that some of us are very interested in gear, and in optimizing it. I have close friend who is a top rated clays shooter. Trap and skeet. I can only imagine what goes into the fitting and building of his custom guns. I've been shooting all of my life, and have some nice production guns which fit me well. I do pretty well with them. For me, the perfect fit is just not worth it. Of course the price is prohibitive, too. I think we all have similar experiences, and thoughts about many sports.
I truly do appreciate it. And as I've said, if it works for somebody, and adds to their enjoyment, performance and even learning curve, bring it on!
Now, I have mentioned our daughter. She was very excited to bring down the curtain on an intense competitive career. We were delighted that she was still excited about skiing. A least as many of her peers have pretty much dropped the sport, as still ski. She loves it.
But she could not wait to get out of a speed suit, race training gear, race helmets, gloves, very wedged in plug boots, and to ski a whole lot of big terrain on big skis, in "normal clothes." She would joke that it was great to be a NARP {Non athlete regular person}. Loved her first non race helmet, goggles and fun Hestra mitts.
She is incredibly serious about her ski experience. And yes, super skilled. It's not like she feels like she would ruin the fun by worrying about her binding delta. Not seeing a need to even go there. She's just not thinking about it, and just "sending it". Could well be that her various binding setups are all fairly close? That makes sense to me. But then again, she is not trying to "improve" at anything. She spent a lot of years trying to improve her way onto the USST. Now, it's about loving skiing, and being outside.
Not a case of her saying that thinking about it will ruin the joy, just that she doesn't see a need to. Not that we have ever discussed this. She has been skiing since she was 18mos., and she raced for a long time. We think it's very "cool" that she loves the sport.
Sometimes if you've reached a pretty high level in any sport, you back it down a bit. I play tennis is a regular group with two guys who played on the ATP tour. Mid 50's now. Just like playing, then drinking beers. Every now and then they will flash some magic. Most often they just make it fun. I sail with guys who were absolute world class, and they are not so obsessive about the boat these days. Back in their big gun years, they were. Now it's more about fun.
There is no doubt that at a certain level in the competitive race world, equipment can be THE difference maker. Also interested to see how this is such a big factor in others maximizing their enjoyment. I can appreciate that. This is sort of an eye opener for me. I ski a lot of days with some really great skiers, and this is just not on their radar screens.
I do chuckle at the same time. Last winter we caught up with some friends, including two ex USST skiers, and three NCAA all Americans. All mid 50's and older. I can assure you that nobody had a clue about binding delta. Pretty "eclectic" assembly of equipment. These folks all ski a ton. A lot of the skis were given to them, etc. They still "kill it!" Good fun.
Guess in my opinion it's not all black and white. Maybe I'll pay more attention to this. Maybe I won't!
I do think that this is an area that many or most should pay attention to. Not convinced that it's all that essential for every skier, though. And without sounding like a jerk, I think there might be something to the adaptation "thing". However, I just never think about it. I think it just happens for me.
I will add that that in 1970, when I first was coached by WW, I was a rarity. Dead neutral in my stance. No canting at all. Back then, you saw canting strips on all of his skiers' skis. Of course, he insisted that I be on Strato's with his preferred Solly toes and Rotomat heels. thinking back on it, I bet that combination was pretty flat! He had a huge focus on equipment, and I think it got inside a few heads. He had other challenges with me.
Interesting conversation. Not overthinking it. Not measuring any skis. Maybe missing out!
No matter who it is, if it's important to you, it is important. To the point of getting the gear dialed, if that is what you want and enjoy, go for it too. Stand in the KT line on any powder day, you will see quite the eclectic array of gear, Volk Explosives, Rossi B-Squads, Dynastar Legend Pros with missmatched unindemnified Salomon 957's and 977's that have varying ramp angles and I am sure most of the boots are not canted..or even in spec after the years of booting up in the parking lot and walking through the village. Most of these skiers do a pretty good job throwing themselves down Mosley's or Oly.. Now I have also seen quite a few instructors that could not even get their Level II because the boots were so out of wack from having the wrong angles. Where are the majority of the skiers? Somewhere between these two examples, we have them both here on the site. I will use two examples, @crgildart and @chemist. Both have what's important to them in gear, ski wap & sale items to 66mm finely tuned carvers. I have skied with both and the toughest thing I would have trouble measuring is who's smile was bigger after a great day on snow. Could CR's day be better if he was on the latest and greatest gear? Would Chemist's be better because his toe piece was 2mm higher..or lower? Dunno, biut I think Chemist is more concerned with it than Charles and like I initally said, if it's important to him, it is important. It is just they way his mind works and that is fine and it is great that he has people here that understand and enjoy to talking about it. 
Boot set up, mounting point, and a well tuned ski are my odd ball 'musts'. Well said, Phil!
Sounds like mine. And agree, good perspective, PP.
I pay more attention than most to these things. For me I can tell if I'm on a binding with minimal delta (i.e. pretty much flat) as compared with one that has, say, four or five millimetres, and I prefer the extra ramp angle. That's about the extent of it.
I tend to buy skis that are in good, used condition. The binding and the delta / angle thereof folds into that decision. If I were to buy a new binding for a flat ski the delta of the binding would be an important consideration.
Oh! I've also considered lifting / grinding the heel of my boots, but I'm not quite across the line on that one yet. Not even sure it can be done (without too much drama) as all my boots have replaceable sole plates.
I tend to buy skis that are in good, used condition. The binding and the delta / angle thereof folds into that decision. If I were to buy a new binding for a flat ski the delta of the binding would be an important consideration.
Oh! I've also considered lifting / grinding the heel of my boots, but I'm not quite across the line on that one yet. Not even sure it can be done (without too much drama) as all my boots have replaceable sole plates.
Last edited:
Which Nordica boot? They aren't the same by any means. A Doberman plug isn't and Nrgy which isn't a new Speed Machine, which isn't a NXT or Cruise... And a Marker system isn't an Evo, etc... not to be contrarian, and maybe you're being tongue in cheek. If so, apologies in advance.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
I would guess that within the line they'd want like products to work together. Dogie w race skis, rental with rental, whatever. Or maybe it's just random. Who knows?
I'm still fascinated by the transition from flat running onto edge. I'm not at all convinced that delta angle on a _flat_ ski stays relevant in the same proportion when the ski is edged. OFC, this would only be minimally apparent on a soft, symmetrically sidecut ski - but on a stiff ski with a relatively short tail? I'm thinking that's exactly where mfgs want to be optimising delta on retail products (as delivered to the skier) - tapered, short-tail hardpack carvers.
The problem becomes even more apparent as I'm mounting binding platforms for the tandem ski. The front skier's delta is likely to go negative; the rear skier's delta goes hyper-positive. So I have to lift the entire binding platform to be a chord across the weighted, pressured, bent ski.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
I could be wrong, but I think that on the Fischer race plate delta changes as the ski bends. It seems relevant to what you are talking about, though to be honest, I don't really follow you 100% right now.
Quite on point, thanks.
My point above could be summed up in a diagram:
(Flat ski - delta as measured) <---> (Highly variable region: ski proportion, flex and sidecut influence delta 'feel') <--> Fully loaded, bent ski (barrel stave picture)
Obviously the variable region is going to be weird. I think this is where most of what we empirically described as delta 'feel' is going to come from.
Now, we only assume that the state on the right is approximately balanced the same as the resting, flat delta. Mostly because we see a lot of simplified pictures where the skier is drawn that way, in front-to-back balance with skis symmetrically flexed under him, with a nice, tidy, balanced ground reaction force.
On the tandem project it has become blindingly obvious that the GRF is nothing at all like balanced.