# Bindings for mogul skis



## Madroch (Mar 4, 2009)

Okay, the Twister deal in the Gunny bump thread (and a pm offering a good deal on used skis) started me looking on the net and am now looking at used vs. new.  Appears that the K2 mambas can be had new flat for 150.  But bindings would bump that up considerably.  I found some older new bindings (the old Tyrolia Railflex 10- the exact binding on my fischers) can be had new for $65.  For that set up I could go new.  Are bindings of any import on how the ski performs?  If so, and I have to pay over 100, will probably go used due to cost.


----------



## MR. evil (Mar 4, 2009)

Most of the guys are going to tell you to get the Look PX-12 or Rossi Axle bindings, they seem to be the prefered bump ski bindings. But they are also pricy. I went the other route. Seeing how I only use the bump skis at SD , I  went to my ski shop and got the best deal I could on a set of bindings. I picked up a left over pair of look bindings (not sure which ones) for like $70 and paid another $15 to have them mounted. If tyhe time ever comes that my skill in the bumps deems a high end binding I will swap them out. But I don't see that ever happening.


----------



## Greg (Mar 4, 2009)

Whatever you get, mount them flat if possible (no lifters, plates, etc.) You want to be as close to the ski as possible. I don't a lot about them, but it seems like those Railflex bindings are meant to mount on certain skis with the corresponding base. Either way, looks like too much extra "junk" with that binding. Again, you want a heel and toe piece and that's it. The Look PX12 is sort of the go to binding for bump skis. Where are you finding Mambas for $150? That's a helluva deal.


----------



## Grassi21 (Mar 4, 2009)

Forget bump skis and bindings.  Get a set of fatties and some AT bindings.  ;-) :lol:


----------



## Greg (Mar 4, 2009)

MR. evil said:


> I went the other route. Seeing how I only use the bump skis at SD , I  went to my ski shop and got the best deal I could on a set of bindings. I picked up a left over pair of look bindings (not sure which ones) for like $70 and paid another $15 to have them mounted. If tyhe time ever comes that my skill in the bumps deems a high end binding I will swap them out. But I don't see that ever happening.



I think you have the Look NX which would be fine:

http://www.evogear.com/alpine-ski-bindings/dynastar-nx-12-jib-2009.aspx

That's the jib model which has a soft lifter in there, but that shouldn't affect anything really.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2009)

My 'bump' skis have an el cheapo pair of Rossi bindings given to me from a shop who screwed up a mount on a pair of rock skis.  Din goes to ten.  Mounted flat, they work fine.  I would go the cheap route if I were you.  The only place that I could ever see myself down with binding stoke would be for an AT set up, otherwise I don't think they make that big of a difference.


----------



## Madroch (Mar 4, 2009)

My bad - went back to the site-- sierra skis- and they are 250 not 150.  Must have gotten confused... happens every once in a while.. hope I didn't send everyone scouring the net...


----------



## BigJay (Mar 4, 2009)

Normally, the prefered bindings were the Salomon S-series and Look P-series

The pivots offer a better flex since the bolts are all under the solde of your boots. The salomon has a longer "range" of elasticity then other step-ins like Marker and Tyrolia bindings.

The S-Series offer more lateral (twisting) elasticity then other bindings as well...


----------



## MR. evil (Mar 4, 2009)

Greg said:


> I think you have the Look NX which would be fine:
> 
> http://www.evogear.com/alpine-ski-bindings/dynastar-nx-12-jib-2009.aspx
> 
> That's the jib model which has a soft lifter in there, but that shouldn't affect anything really.



That sounds about right. I do remember that I had my shop mount them flat without the liner / cushion. They just had to use shorter screws


----------



## mondeo (Mar 4, 2009)

BigJay said:


> Normally, the prefered bindings were the Salomon S-series and Look P-series
> 
> The pivots offer a better flex since the bolts are all under the solde of your boots. The salomon has a longer "range" of elasticity then other step-ins like Marker and Tyrolia bindings.
> 
> The S-Series offer more lateral (twisting) elasticity then other bindings as well...


+1. Look P-series (AKA Rossignol FKS) are noted for light weight, good resistance to pre-release (due to more elasticity,) and low heel piece footprint (retains the natural flex of the ski better.) You don't want anything with a significant lifter, as it will make the ski less responsive. PX12s have good prerelease, but are heavy and have a long footprint. Will you notice it until you get to powbmps or 180's level of bump skiing? Probably not.

Benefit of the P-series and FKS is that you have to find them used, as they were discontinued. I know there was a pair on ebay within the last day, not sure if they're still there.


----------



## severine (Mar 4, 2009)

Watch out if you have bindings mounted that had a lifter plate and you ask for them to be put on flat. The shop I went to for my Celebrities cut down the screws, but not enough and dimpled one of my bases... then tried to pass it off as no big deal without fixing the dimple. I had to bring them back with Brian to get the shop to fix it. Just be sure you take them somewhere reputable that you trust. Stuff happens and anybody can make a mistake; but the customer service was definitely lacking where I went. And when I asked why they didn't just use shorter screws, they said it's too much hassle to keep different brands of screws in stock for the random flat-mounting request. Just an FYI...

Otherwise, I have no advice to offer. I'm a hack who can barely handle nearly flat-angle bumps. :lol: Though all my bindings are Look NX series and I like them just fine.


----------



## Madroch (Mar 5, 2009)

Thanks for the advice on mounting.  I would be pretty torqued if they dimpled a new ski (even if only new to me), even if they fixed it.  Happy to hear I can probably get a decent binding for under a hundred if I go the new skis route.  Decisions, decisions....


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 5, 2009)

severine said:


> Watch out if you have bindings mounted that had a lifter plate and you ask for them to be put on flat. The shop I went to for my Celebrities cut down the screws, but not enough and dimpled one of my bases... then tried to pass it off as no big deal without fixing the dimple. I had to bring them back with Brian to get the shop to fix it. Just be sure you take them somewhere reputable that you trust. Stuff happens and anybody can make a mistake; but the customer service was definitely lacking where I went. And when I asked why they didn't just use shorter screws, they said it's too much hassle to keep different brands of screws in stock for the random flat-mounting request. Just an FYI...
> 
> Otherwise, I have no advice to offer. I'm a hack who can barely handle nearly flat-angle bumps. :lol: Though all my bindings are Look NX series and I like them just fine.




They owe you new skiis.   That is a rookie mistake.    Just because they tried to pass them off I would press the issue.,


----------



## severine (Mar 5, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> They owe you new skiis.   That is a rookie mistake.    Just because they tried to pass them off I would press the issue.,


This was a back in November. When I asked around, it seemed like (as long as they fixed the dimple) it would likely be okay as the screw did not go all the way through, so we brought them back and they fixed the dimple and did a free tune. Yup, it should be a rookie mistake. Too bad it was one of the owners of the shop who did it. There's even more frustration behind this story, but that's not the topic. Just glad to be done with them.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why I have such a hard time skiing those skis...  :lol:


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 5, 2009)

My set up..
Hart F17's with Rossi FKS'
Sweeeeeet!


----------



## powbmps (Mar 5, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> My set up..
> Hart F17's with Rossi FKS'
> Sweeeeeet!



Would that be a turntable heel?


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 5, 2009)

Yup!


----------



## skidon (Mar 5, 2009)

Original Look Pivot or Rossi FKS (same heel) can't be beat.  For current models, the bumpers I know also like the Salomon Z-Series - nice 'n light with great "roll" stiffness in the toepiece and a reliable heel.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 5, 2009)

powbmps said:


> Would that be a turntable heel?





Trekchick said:


> Yup!


Pictured here.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 5, 2009)

I have a solly Z10 I'd sell for 100 shipped, if you want something with that din range.


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 5, 2009)

when you get the binding mounted, do you go for the forward/pipe, neutral/all mountain or rear position and why?


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 5, 2009)

I mounted mine +2


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 5, 2009)

any reason for that other than it just seems to work for you?  was it recommended?  is there some technical reason for it?  i know mounting forward of the centerline is supposed to let you initiate turns quicker which sounds like a good attribute to have in the moguls.

reason I ask is that I currently use Tyrolia railflex bindings on my scream ltd skis(80 mm waist)  and i know the the lifter plate is not ideal for freestyle use.   i experimented with moving my bindings back and forth on my last trip.  I usually ski in the neutral all mountain position and it works fairly well.  i moved my binding backwards -15mm and i perceived that I could turn quicker and tighter, was more stable in powder and soft big moguls.  seemed like I could pivot faster too. 

 I then tried moving my bindings to the forward position(+15mm) and maybe I just wasn;t used to it but I found way too forward on the skis to be comfortable and making longer turns by letting the skis run more(not by choice)and having the tails of my skis getting in the way or hitting the back side of even the slightest variable crud and terrain feature.  i decided not to bother experimenting much more with this position.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 6, 2009)

Honestly, I went with the recommendation of the Hart Rep and Michelle Roark, who skis on Hart F17's.

I'm not sure if its a Hart specific recommendation or a Mogul Ski Recommendation.
Perhaps Philpug will see this and chime in.


----------



## Philpug (Mar 6, 2009)

Yeah, +2. 

As far as the ideal binding.... Look/Rossi turntables. Light, strong and short.


----------



## Greg (Mar 6, 2009)

It's my understanding that the boot sole center line on the Twister is already further forward than other bump skis so going by the line is reasonable. I mounted my Cabrawlers +1cm. I've heard of people going as far forward as +4.


----------



## jack97 (Mar 6, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> any reason for that other than it just seems to work for you?  was it recommended?  is there some technical reason for it?  i know mounting forward of the centerline is supposed to let you initiate turns quicker which sounds like a good attribute to have in the moguls.
> 
> reason I ask is that I currently use Tyrolia railflex bindings on my scream ltd skis(80 mm waist)  and i know the the lifter plate is not ideal for freestyle use.   i experimented with moving my bindings back and forth on my last trip.  I usually ski in the neutral all mountain position and it works fairly well.  i moved my binding backwards -15mm and i perceived that I could turn quicker and tighter, was more stable in powder and soft big moguls.  seemed like I could pivot faster too.
> 
> I then tried moving my bindings to the forward position(+15mm) and maybe I just wasn;t used to it but I found way too forward on the skis to be comfortable and making longer turns by letting the skis run more(not by choice)and having the tails of my skis getting in the way or hitting the back side of even the slightest variable crud and terrain feature.  i decided not to bother experimenting much more with this position.



sally scream looks like it has a wide tip so getting the edges to engage and locked is going to be easier than a narrow tip ski. With my present boot with lots of forward lean.I had a similar exp with my volkl g3 (all mtn circa 2000), tips would bite in fast and the edges would rail but after a while I was able to adapt and ease of the front pressure.


----------



## Philpug (Mar 6, 2009)

Greg said:


> It's my understanding that the boot sole center line on the Twister is already further forward than other bump skis so going by the line is reasonable. I mounted my Cabrawlers +1cm. I've heard of people going as far forward as +4.



A lot depends on the ski.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 6, 2009)

So here's something I can't understand: why don't mogul skis have their mount points set properly? They always seem to be set too far back. If the company spends any time developing them at all, you'd figure they'd take note of where the testers like the bindings mounted.


----------



## Philpug (Mar 6, 2009)

mondeo said:


> So here's something I can't understand: why don't mogul skis have their mount points set properly? They always seem to be set too far back. If the company spends any time developing them at all, you'd figure they'd take note of where the testers like the bindings mounted.



Fair point. Part will come down to personal preference, contrary to what I posted previously. When I was with Hart, one of the things I asked for was markings on the skis with "suggested" mid points. If didn't happen.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 9, 2009)

Instead of starting a new thread or finding where it was talked about I figured I would throw it in here. Mogul ski length, it seemed in the other thread everyone was saying go with at least a 175 length. The K2’s are 173(sound like they actually measure less than that) and the Twisters are 169 or 175.

I am pretty sure the spring/summer deals are going to be found on the shorter/odd lengths of these skis and was wondering if that 1-2” is really going to make a difference with a beginner bump skier or if by the time that they will make the difference the ski will be shot and will need to replaced anyways. Just throwing the questions out there now in case I come across a good deal the gun will be loaded.


----------



## Greg (Mar 9, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> Instead of starting a new thread or finding where it was talked about I figured I would throw it in here. Mogul ski length, it seemed in the other thread everyone was saying go with at least a 175 length. The K2’s are 173(sound like they actually measure less than that) and the Twisters are 169 or 175.
> 
> I am pretty sure the spring/summer deals are going to be found on the shorter/odd lengths of these skis and was wondering if that 1-2” is really going to make a difference with a beginner bump skier or if by the time that they will make the difference the ski will be shot and will need to replaced anyways. Just throwing the questions out there now in case I come across a good deal the gun will be loaded.



K2s are 173 in the their longest length. The Cabrawlers are marked at 179, but are really 173. The Mamba is the same ski and is marked the correct length. Twisters are 168, 175 and 182. The Twister is supposedly softer than the K2 so you can get away with a longer length. Rossi Scratch Moguls and Solomon 1080s if you find them are soft too. Heads are probably the stiffest. Going shorter may give you more confidence in the bumps, but will be a little flimsy out of the bumps. I would say you should be somewhere in the 170s.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 9, 2009)

I knew I read something on the mismarked K2 length somewhere and that was it. So softer in the bumps better and a stiffer ski better on the groomed getting to them.

Btw 5' 8', 180# if that much matters


----------



## Greg (Mar 9, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> I knew I read something on the mismarked K2 length somewhere and that was it. So softer in the bumps better and a stiffer ski better on the groomed getting to them.
> 
> Btw 5' 8', 180# if that much matters



Stiffness is just a personal preference, I guess. A beginner bumper probably would want softer though. 170's for you would be good. As far as length, go with what you use for your all mountains to start with.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 9, 2009)

as far as the heads, i would stay away from them jeff.  they are fairly stiff and can be a bear at times.  I wonder if Brian might be better off on something a little more forgiving.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 9, 2009)

Greg said:


> K2s are 173 in the their longest length. The Cabrawlers are marked at 179, but are really 173. The Mamba is the same ski and is marked the correct length.



Are the tails on your k2's turned up slightly up?  Up untill this past year they measured the running length, not the actual, but they have switched to tip-to-tail length like all other companies now.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 9, 2009)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Are the tails on your k2's turned up slightly up? Up untill this past year they measured the running length, not the actual, but they have switched to tip-to-tail length like all other companies now.


The Cabrawler was some other problem. It was 6cm shorter than the actual length.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 9, 2009)

2knees said:


> I wonder if Brian might be better off on something a little more forgiving.



I've been wondering the same thing myself.  Don't forget that I have quite a bit more weight behind me to flex them though.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 9, 2009)

bvibert said:


> I've been wondering the same thing myself.  Don't forget that I have quite a bit more weight behind me to flex them though.



i know but they just dont have much in the way of forgiveness.  i read a few reports, after i bought them, that were making me nervous.  anyway, you seemed to handle them fine yesterday.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 9, 2009)

2knees said:


> i know but they just dont have much in the way of forgiveness.  i read a few reports, after i bought them, that were making me nervous.  anyway, you seemed to handle them fine yesterday.



Thanks mang.  I try not to think about the equipment too much while I'm skiing, so that's probably part of the reason.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 9, 2009)

Another question. I've read about people mounting the binding a few cm in front of the center of boot sole mark on the ski. What determines this, the manufacturer of the ski? The skier? Does it really help any?


----------



## mondeo (Mar 9, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> Another question. I've read about people mounting the binding a few cm in front of the center of boot sole mark on the ski. What determines this, the manufacturer of the ski? The skier? Does it really help any?


Some skis are marked differently than others, some of it comes down to personal preference. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, not sure how you figure out what you want without several pairs of identical skis mounted slightly differently.


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Some skis are marked differently than others, some of it comes down to personal preference. Not sure how much of a difference it makes, not sure how you figure out what you want without several pairs of identical skis mounted slightly differently.



Agreed. I went with +1cm on the Cabrawlers because that seemed to be the consensus. Does it make any difference? I have no way to know since I never skied them mounted on the line. Also, it probably varies from skier to skier based on how long their BSL is.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 10, 2009)

Sometimes when I have skis mounted, I base it on measured contact length, not the factory marking.
However, on my F17's I had them mounted +2 from factory mark.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 10, 2009)

Thanks for all the info. I think for now I am just going to keep telling myself I don't need them unless I see them for real cheap.

I do feel comfortable on my Elans for now and having never skied bump skis I don't know if they will help or not at where I am at ability wise.


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 10, 2009)

what's the difference between a dedicated bump ski and say, a skinny GS race ski?   I've heard some racer types say that their race skis work well in the bumps.


----------



## Greg (Mar 10, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> Thanks for all the info. I think for now I am just going to keep telling myself I don't need them unless I see them for real cheap.
> 
> I do feel comfortable on my Elans for now and having never skied bump skis I don't know if they will help or not at where I am at ability wise.



Probably a reasonable approach. If you're questioning whether you need them or not, you probably don't. Doesn't seem like the Elans are holding you back at all. Stick with what's working for now.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 10, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> what's the difference between a dedicated bump ski and say, a skinny GS race ski?   I've heard some racer types say that their race skis work well in the bumps.


Race skis are decent in Bumps(Hart's F17 is of that caliber) but they are a bit stiffer than a Bump specific ski.
The idea is that you don't want a stiff tail to drop in a trough.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 10, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> what's the difference between a dedicated bump ski and say, a skinny GS race ski?   I've heard some racer types say that their race skis work well in the bumps.



I've skied a skinny GS race ski in the bumps before, I didn't enjoy it at all.  That was a couple of years ago when I was way more of a gaper than I am now though.  The race skis are stiffer than my Head bump skis, and the Heads are said to be one of the stiffest bump skis around.  Not to mention that the GS skis seemed a lot heavier.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 10, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> what's the difference between a dedicated bump ski and say, a skinny GS race ski? I've heard some racer types say that their race skis work well in the bumps.


 Those racer types probably stay in the troughs and carve around the bumps. As you take more and more direct lines, your tips go basically straight into the bumps. If the skis are stiff, this can drive you backseat and out of control or stop you dead and you go over the handlebars. Soft skis, the ski just conforms to the contour of the bump, absorbs some energy, and you go on your way. Plus bump skis are light, which helps quickness.


----------



## Philpug (Mar 10, 2009)

The skinny GS skis that you took in the bumps... How were they set up? were the race plates still on them or were they mounted flat (and at +2)? 

Find some 175 or 181 GS skis on Ebay for $99-200 (many cases with a kick ass binding) and you will have a great bump ski. Remove the plates, mount the binding flat and you will be set. If it is a Rossi or Dynastar very well it will have a turntable already on it..even better.


----------



## MR. evil (Mar 10, 2009)

Greg said:


> Agreed. I went with +1cm on the Cabrawlers because that seemed to be the consensus. Does it make any difference? I have no way to know since I never skied them mounted on the line. Also, it probably varies from skier to skier based on how long their BSL is.




Greg,
My Cabrawlers are mounted +3cm, if you ever want to try them to compare what the additional 2cm feel like let me know. We have about the same size feet and I am sure I could adjust my bindings enough to fot your boots.


----------



## severine (Mar 10, 2009)

MR. evil said:


> Greg,
> My Cabrawlers are mounted +3cm, if you ever want to try them to compare what the additional 2cm feel like let me know. We have about the same size feet and I am sure I could adjust my bindings enough to fot your boots.


Don't you mean _his_ Cabrawlers?


----------

