I am done with super fats unless I am cat skiing.

[Doug Briggs]

A wider boot sole, lugs and bindings would also help optimize the connection to the snow on fat skis.

Define optimize in this context. Then ask is that what we are looking for in performance from our fat skis?

 

[crgildart]

Define optimize in this context. Then ask is that what we are looking for in performance from our fat skis?

I think it will make our feet more comfortable to not be wedged down on to a 2-3" wide plank and instead nice and flat across the width of the ski. It will also make boots less of a general pain point and reduce the need for expensive, custom fittings to build up from a wider platform than the current standard.

Having the binding toe and heel wings farther out over the edge of the ski again instead of over an inch in on either side will better facilitate leverage edge to edge. The main downside is that any ski not wider than the proposed new standard would boot out super easy or require more lift.. i.e. a show stopper for race skis.

 

[wyowindrunner]

Wait till autonomous cars are the option vs driving it. It'll happen ...

I'd like to witness the exchange of insurance info from the wrecks-and "your car was driving like an idiot. No,your car was..."

 

[Doug Briggs]

I think it will make our feet more comfortable to not be wedged down on to a 2-3" wide plank and instead nice and flat across the width of the ski. It will also make boots less of a general pain point and reduce the need for expensive, custom fittings to build up from a wider platform than the current standard.

Having the binding toe and heel wings farther out over the edge of the ski again instead of over an inch in on either side will better facilitate leverage edge to edge. The main downside is that any ski not wider than the proposed new standard would boot out super easy or require more lift.. i.e. a show stopper for race skis.

I'm not convinced that I would get more leverage/power from a wider binding platform or boot sole. I think there is far more play in my boot (and I'm not complaining about my boot fit) than there is in the boot/binding/ski interface; worn out bindings, some demo system excepted.

As far as 'feet more comfortable' my boot accommodates my foot just fine. Adding more plastic and a wider platform to the boot isn't going to change my fit. The effort to balance on the edge of my ski is going to remain the same if my boot is 68 mm wide or 100 mm wide. The relationship of my foot to the edge of the skis won't change until you begin changing the position of my foot relative to the ski, not from making the boot or binding system wider under my foot.

 

[Yo Momma]

Hi @Paul S. ,
I've seen you ski, and you know what you are doing..... I'm on the old Bones as a rock ski and I have the new 2018 Bones which I started using and testing last year. The new version of the Bones while more "Turny" they remain a heavy ski that slay the chowder and crud but still take their toll on the muscles throughout the day. The new version remains my "Work" ski when I need lots of speed and need to ski "Hammer Down" for short periods of time, like a half day session. There is simply no way I will use the Bones in deeper pow. They are simply too much work for a full day.

For all day skiing, I prefer my 2016 Volkl Mantras (@ 100 under foot) as my powder/chowder/groomer ski. It has the metal but feels more lively and performs better than the Bones, when the pow is over 3". They ski very similar to the new Bones on the groomed and chud, but have just a tad more width, that you can actually feel when it gets deeper. They are amazing on the groomed, w/ a little bit lower speed limit at the extreme upper limit as compared to the new Bones. The Mantra's now serve as my go to ski when I need versatility.

Don't get me wrong......... I love my Bones........... I love they way they perform, especially in "sticky" situations... and I love the speed....... esp on the old Bones, OMG they are insanely FAST...... but the Mantra's are right there w/ them for the most part, for when I need a bit more longevity during mild powder days. Of course if we get a 2' dump, I'm on a set of 110's but would gladly ski the Mantras in those conditions...... NOT the Bones......... once it gets deep and I want to ski all day, I put them away because they are just too much work for my 56 yo body to handle all day long.

 

[crgildart]

I'm not convinced that I would get more leverage/power from a wider binding platform or boot sole. I think there is far more play in my boot (and I'm not complaining about my boot fit) than there is in the boot/binding/ski interface; worn out bindings, some demo system excepted.

As far as 'feet more comfortable' my boot accommodates my foot just fine. Adding more plastic and a wider platform to the boot isn't going to change my fit. The effort to balance on the edge of my ski is going to remain the same if my boot is 68 mm wide or 100 mm wide. The relationship of my foot to the edge of the skis won't change until you begin changing the position of my foot relative to the ski, not from making the boot or binding system wider under my foot.

With that logic how would making the boot base and lugs and binding interface narrower impact performance?? No impact?? Imagine instead of standing on a 3" plastic plank attached to your ski with 3" wide toe and heel wings.. Imagine standing in a 1" plastic plank and 1" wide lugs and bindings.. seems like that would be less stable. I'm saying go from around 3' to 4".

 

[Rod9301]

Hi @Paul S. ,
I've seen you ski, and you know what you are doing..... I'm on the old Bones as a rock ski and I have the new 2018 Bones which I started using and testing last year. The new version of the Bones while more "Turny" they remain a heavy ski that slay the chowder and crud but still take their toll on the muscles throughout the day. The new version remains my "Work" ski when I need lots of speed and need to ski "Hammer Down" for short periods of time, like a half day session. There is simply no way I will use the Bones in deeper pow. They are simply too much work for a full day.

For all day skiing, I prefer my 2016 Volkl Mantras (@ 100 under foot) as my powder/chowder/groomer ski. It has the metal but feels more lively and performs better than the Bones, when the pow is over 3". They ski very similar to the new Bones on the groomed and chud, but have just a tad more width, that you can actually feel when it gets deeper. They are amazing on the groomed, w/ a little bit lower speed limit at the extreme upper limit as compared to the new Bones. The Mantra's now serve as my go to ski when I need versatility.

Don't get me wrong......... I love my Bones........... I love they way they perform, especially in "sticky" situations... and I love the speed....... esp on the old Bones, OMG they are insanely FAST...... but the Mantra's are right there w/ them for the most part, for when I need a bit more longevity during mild powder days. Of course if we get a 2' dump, I'm on a set of 110's but would gladly ski the Mantras in those conditions...... NOT the Bones......... once it gets deep and I want to ski all day, I put them away because they are just too much work for my 56 yo body to handle all day long.

How do you feel the extra weight that makes you tired?

 

[Yo Momma]

How do you feel the extra weight that makes you tired?

The turn weight of the Bones, new and old have a rep for being high. While it's possible to counter the relative turn weights of the double metal laminate w/in the ski, by technique adjustments, and by "riding the ski", it remains on the heavier side of the spectrum and something to be dealt w/ in the back of your mind while managing the slope at the days end. Up to midday it's really not an issue. It's those last runs, and on a big eastern (heavy/moist) pow day needing to manage your energy output so you can last two or three full storm days. There are other skis on the market that just make the entire process easier for us "Old Guys"!

 

[cantunamunch]

The turn weight of the Bones, new and old have a rep for being high. While it's possible to counter the relative turn weights of the double metal laminate w/in the ski, by technique adjustments, and by "riding the ski", it remains on the heavier side of the spectrum and something to be dealt w/ in the back of your mind while managing the slope at the days end. Up to midday it's really not an issue. It's those last runs, and on a big eastern (heavy/moist) pow day needing to manage your energy output so you can last two or three full storm days. There are other skis on the market that just make the entire process easier for us "Old Guys"!

'Turn weight' ?? Is this actual weight?

 

[Yo Momma]

'Turn weight' ?? Is this actual weight?

Who knows, but at the end of a long day on the Bones........... it feels real to me and my sloppy technique!!! LOL

 

[cantunamunch]

Who knows, but at the end of a long day on the Bones........... it feels real to me and my sloppy technique!!! LOL

I see - and the proof is: your reasoning here is remarkably coincident with herself's reasoning on purchasing the VWerks Codes - it was the only one that didn't fatigue her after 6kfeet nonstop.

I used to be a metal binding guy- weight didn't enter into it. The only thing I appreciated at the end of the day is a damp ski.

 

[Yo Momma]

Vwerks Codes, 6k feet nonstop?? Okay you got me.......... I'm lost........

 

[Doug Briggs]

With that logic how would making the boot base and lugs and binding interface narrower impact performance?? No impact?? Imagine instead of standing on a 3" plastic plank attached to your ski with 3" wide toe and heel wings.. Imagine standing in a 1" plastic plank and 1" wide lugs and bindings.. seems like that would be less stable. I'm saying go from around 3' to 4".

I'm not suggesting that narrower would be better, but that wider would not be perceptibly better. The engineering in today's bindings seems to be pretty solid with current ISO 5355 standard. A wider sole making the boot/binding/ski interface more efficient would presume there is currently excessive play/movement in the system. Since binding manufacturers specify a gap between the boot sole lug and the AFD for proper function there is some play designed into the system from the get go.

I question the need for more efficiency when you are using a wider ski. The whole intent of a wide ski is to function in softer, 3D snow where the balance point on the ski isn't the metal edge but somewhere further towards the center of the ski so a need for increased leverage is moot. While skiing from the bottomless 3D snow to the lift or trailhead it is possible encounter firm or even icy conditions, I find that ALL of my wide skis are manageable with my standard ISO 5355 setup. Even my AT setup, which tends to be sloppier than my full alpine bindings, functions adequately getting around from powder to lift to trailhead. Would I want to ski all day on hard packed and groomed with wide skis? No. Would I want to ski all day in bottomless 3D snow with 65 mm skis? No. I compromise. In my case, I typically will optimize the 3D experience and accept less than perfection on the groomed and hard packed. Would a wider binding system on my wide skis improve my 3D experience? I seriously doubt it.

As with the concern over ISO 5355, WTR and GripWalk compatibility, there would also be an issue for people that want to use one boot for 65 mm through 100+ mm skis as the wider sole wouldn't work on a narrow ski.

What would seem to impact the performance of the boot/binding interface is the softer, squishable materials used in WTR and GripWalk soles.

 

[cantunamunch]

Vwerks Codes, 6k feet nonstop?? Okay you got me.......... I'm lost........

Demo day. She did nonstop laps from the top - and only the slinky carbon fiber Volkls didn't beat her up.

 

[Yo Momma]

Oh.......I'm sorry. I know Paul and I'm simply referencing PaulS looking for a ski a little wider and w/ characteristics similar to the Brahma at the mountain we ski. I'm afraid I missed the boat on the rest of the thread!!! LOL

 

[crgildart]

I'm not suggesting that narrower would be better, but that wider would not be perceptibly better. The engineering in today's bindings seems to be pretty solid with current ISO 5355 standard. A wider sole making the boot/binding/ski interface more efficient would presume there is currently excessive play/movement in the system. Since binding manufacturers specify a gap between the boot sole lug and the AFD for proper function there is some play designed into the system from the get go.

Again I ask.. If a wider than current boot sole system automatically means more play.. wouldn't a narrower boot sole standard automatically mean less play?

Perhaps adding additional loaded contact points around the binding wings could also reduce play??

Only major downside to a wider boot and binding platform is no backwards integration to your old skis and not playing well with race skis.. Most of what most people ski today is 75 plus and could certainly work.

Would take a lot of lift under the bindings to put a 75mm wide binding and boot on a race ski though,, Hilarious! Just as hilarious looking as a 60mm boot and binding look on a 130mm wide ski though..

 

[Doug Briggs]

Again I ask.. If a wider than current boot sole system automatically means more play.. wouldn't a narrower boot sole standard automatically mean less play?

Perhaps adding additional loaded contact points around the binding wings could also reduce play??

Only major downside to a wider boot and binding platform is no backwards integration to your old skis and not playing well with race skis.. Most of what most people ski today is 75 plus and could certainly work.

Would take a lot of lift under the bindings to put a 75mm wide binding and boot on a race ski though,, Hilarious! Just as hilarious looking as a 60mm boot and binding look on a 130mm wide ski though..

I didn't say a wider boot sole system would create more play, did I?

I'm not seeing a problem with today's binding/boot interface from a practical point of view. We are working with a dynamic system between the snow, ski, binding, boot, foot and leg. I would posit that there is far more play involved in the leg/boot interface than the boot/binding/ski interface.

 

[crgildart]

I didn't say a wider boot sole system would create more play, did I?

I'm not seeing a problem with today's binding/boot interface from a practical point of view. We are working with a dynamic system between the snow, ski, binding, boot, foot and leg. I would posit that there is far more play involved in the leg/boot interface than the boot/binding/ski interface.

I see tons of problems having us still stand on a 60mm plastic plank when the skis most of us use are much wider now. If they started completely out of the box with no backward integration concerns do you really think they'd build up on the 60mm platform (racing skis excluded)?? Heck, even race skis are getting wider too FWIW

I don't know about you, but there are other considerations like hiking and walking. Think how much easier the sport would be if we could boot up at the car and walk a quarter mile across the snow and ice or from the lodge to the ski racks up and down steps on a wider platform than 60mm? The only thing good about a 60mm platform is it was what they had to have for 60mm skis to work. It's really archaic that we are still limiting ourselves to that ancient standard.

 

[Monique]

'Turn weight' ?? Is this actual weight?

FWIW, I definitely have experienced turn fatigue with heavy skis. It's not my only criterion, but I definitely consider it.

 

[Monique]

I don't know about you, but there are other considerations like hiking and walking. Think how much easier the sport would be if we could boot up at the car and walk a quarter mile across the snow and ice (or from the lodge to the ski racks up and down steps on a wider platform than 60mm? The only thing good about a 60mm platform is it was what they had to have for 60mm skis to work. It's really archaic that we are still limiting ourselves to that ancient standard.

Is it the narrowness that makes this difficult? To me, it's the lack of traction and the way your lower leg is forced forward when you step down.