# Mounting Bindings Question



## severine (Nov 26, 2007)

The Dynastar Marie Martinod Pro models are in! Beautious! Before I take them to the shop, though, I just want to verify my understanding of what I need to ask for. They came with unmounted bindings. Since these are "technically" a park ski (freestyle), am I correct in assuming that the mark for bindings is where one would want them if using them as park skis and that, since I want to use them as all mountain skis, I should have the bindings set 2-5cm back from that? I thought I read that somewhere, but I'd really hate to be wrong. And since I have to take them to a new shop I really want to be specific with these people.

TIA!

ETA:  looks like I may have this backwards (hence why i'm trying to verify): (considering the source though: http://www.hitemposkishop.com/twintips.html )


> [SIZE=-2]Many Riders mount their skis forward of the ski manufacturers traditional midsole mounting point. This will provide increased control riding switch and better balance rotating on and off axis. However, moving the binding too far forward can cause a ski to lose stability at higher speeds, so consider your needs wisely.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2]K2’s research and devolpment team has devised a scale that can help skiers determine their own mounting point based on their skiing style. This scale can be adapted to many twin tips on the market today. Here is how their scale breaks down…[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-2]*0-2cm forward: *All Mountain: If you plan on skiing mostly outside the park and want the ski to behave like a traditional ski, you should stay on the conservative side and mount traditionally.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-2]*3cm- 5cm forward:* 50% All Mountain, 50% Terrain Park. When mounting beyond 3cm, you will lose a little of the traditional feel of length in front of the binding, but with more tail, you gain the control in the air and riding switch.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-2]*6cm- 7.5cm forward:* If you bought the skis primarily for the terrain park or are focused on riding switch in powder or in backcountry, you may consider mounting your skis this far forward. While you may sacrifice forward directional float and stability, it’s made up for in the switch riding and landing stability and balance in the air.[/SIZE]​


Which I believe some others on here dealt with this as well when having bindings mounted on new skis for this season...............


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 26, 2007)

Well for starters I am not familar with the specifics of Dynastar.

There may be only one mark on the ski.  This could be a core center(park) or mid sole(all mountain).  

If there are several markings then go with the far back marking, this is mid sole.  

If you are using it as a all mountain ski you do not want it to be core center.  The few times I have skied skis like this I felt like there was nothing in front of me.


----------



## severine (Nov 26, 2007)

There's only one marking on the skis.  It's a twin tip park ski, so that's why I'm assuming I want the bindings set back from that.


----------



## riverc0il (Nov 26, 2007)

If you are unsure, it is a safe bet to lay them on the line. Why would you get a park ski if you want to have all mountain performance? 2cm is one thing but 5cm is a pretty big move off the manufacturers recommendation. I can only speak in generalizations here but if you are not sure then I would err on the side of caution. It all depends on where the line is. If it is a true twin twip with a true middle of the ski mark, you'd definitely want them back a ways. Tons of twins or kinda twins (upturned tail really) have reasonable boot center lines set back from the true center of the ski. Then there is actual running surface to consider vs how turned up are the tails, true twin tip or no? Really depends on where that line is and unless someone has this specific ski and has played around with it themselves, any specific advice given would be done so without enough information.


----------



## severine (Nov 26, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Why would you get a park ski if you want to have all mountain performance?


Call it an experiment?  A real-world application of some theories I had read about fatter-waisted skis being the ideal all-mountain ski.  The fact that this one also said that, in addition to being great in the park, it worked well all-mountain as well.  And it was a cheap deal on eBay.  Variety is the spice of life.  I wanted something a bit different than my recreational Dynastar Novas.  But I do not want to use them as a primarily park ski.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

My personal preference is 1 cm back from BOF.  Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.

In the case I had with the Blue House skis I told them I wanted the center mounted for their specific purpose, and though they look like they are mounted forward, they are really not because of what the contact length is on those skis.
I'm rushing now or I'd post a pic, but I think I posted it here somewhere a few weeks ago, and I know I posted it early this morning on Ski Diva.
The twin tip does make a difference.


----------



## Grassi21 (Nov 27, 2007)

severine said:


> Call it an experiment?  A real-world application of some theories I had read about fatter-waisted skis being the ideal all-mountain ski.  The fact that this one also said that, in addition to being great in the park, it worked well all-mountain as well.  And it was a cheap deal on eBay.  Variety is the spice of life.  I wanted something a bit different than my recreational Dynastar Novas.  But I do not want to use them as a primarily park ski.



I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE.  I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you.  Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep.  Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 27, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE.  I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you.  Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep.  Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.



The PE is not a park ski.  It is a all mountain that can still do ok in the park.  I skied them for 2 years all mountain and loved them.  They are real stiff which is great all mountain, but bad for park.

K2 claims 70% all mountain, 30% park.


----------



## Greg (Nov 27, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.



Right. I had my Cabrawlers mis-mounted this fall at this (to remain namesless to protect the innocent) particular shop. You and Brian know where I'm talking about. I asked them to be mounted 1 cm forward. There is a mid-sole line on the ski. They measured to the center point of the ski and went 1 cm forward from that! :blink: In their defense, they replaced the ski and got it right the second time around. You need to be very clear about what you want them to do.


----------



## Grassi21 (Nov 27, 2007)

Hawkshot99 said:


> The PE is not a park ski.  It is a all mountain that can still do ok in the park.  I skied them for 2 years all mountain and loved them.  They are real stiff which is great all mountain, but bad for park.
> 
> K2 claims 70% all mountain, 30% park.



I hear you.  I think some people see the twin tip and assume its all about the park.  Now I might reconsider that purchase... ;-)


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> My personal preference is 1 cm back from BOF.  Make sure that youre shop knows how to measure contact length, without using the specs/lines on the skis.


Not to be dumb, but what is BOF?



Trekchick said:


> In the case I had with the Blue House skis I told them I wanted the center mounted for their specific purpose, and though they look like they are mounted forward, they are really not because of what the contact length is on those skis.
> I'm rushing now or I'd post a pic, but I think I posted it here somewhere a few weeks ago, and I know I posted it early this morning on Ski Diva.
> The twin tip does make a difference.


I saw the pics on epicski (which is why I was secretly hoping you would jump in on this! ).



Greg said:


> Right. I had my Cabrawlers mis-mounted this fall at this (to remain namesless to protect the innocent) particular shop. You and Brian know where I'm talking about. I asked them to be mounted 1 cm forward. There is a mid-sole line on the ski. They measured to the center point of the ski and went 1 cm forward from that! :blink: In their defense, they replaced the ski and got it right the second time around. You need to be very clear about what you want them to do.


That is the exact reason why we are using a new shop this year.  Well that and the other person I know of who had a problem there as well.   I was thinking 1-2 cm forward from mid-sole point to be conservative but still have a bit of play with the skis' potential capabilities.  Though Brian was quick to remind me that you got yours done that way for moguls.  :roll:



Grassi21 said:


> I've heard the same thing regarding the K2 PE.  I was considering pulling the trigger on them but was met with the same criticism as you.  Not sure how your boards rate as an all-mountain but the PEs have a decent rep.  Ski what you like but accept them for what they are.


Yeah, I'm crazy for buying them without demoing or skiing really in a few years.  I know.  But I figured for the price, it was worth trying them out.  Could be a lot of fun.  There is very limited information about these skis online so it really will be a bit of an experiment.


----------



## Greg (Nov 27, 2007)

BOF = Ball Of Foot.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

Severine, if you look at this pic, you'll think that the ski is quite a bit forward of my EOS.  I wish I had taken a pic that showed more of the dominant tails on both of these skis.  The blue house has a significant "twin tip", so the contact length is more of a consideration.  I may regret having them center mounted and wish they were 1 cm back, but that is yet to be seen.  I'll be sure to report back when I ski them.


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

And since "ball of foot" didn't mean much to me, I googled it... found a good article I figured I'd link in case anyone else comes up on this and is as clueless as I am. 
http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/binding_placement.htm

I'm looking forward to the report on how those Bluehouse skis work out!


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

If you look in this pic, you'll see the center mark on my boot lines up with the center mark on the Bluehouse.  FWIW, the shop tech said he measured the Contact Length and said the marks on the Bluehouse were accurate on this pair of skis.





Oh, and BOF is Ball of Foot at Center of the contact length.

Edit: I see you found an article that explains that.  Good Job!!


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

So...doing a very inexact estimation between 2 sick kids crying out for me (via balancing the ski on mu finger, marking that point, comparing that to BOF, and about where that should fall as far as boot center goes), it looks like (_in theory_) these should be okay to mount right on the ski marking to get BOF mounting.  So instead of screwing around with cm forward or backward, I think I'm going to just tell them to go with BOF since that looks like it should come out about the same to what's marked on the ski anyway. 

At least I've learned a lot more about mounting bindings today!


----------



## jack97 (Nov 27, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> I may regret having them center mounted and wish they were 1 cm back, but that is yet to be seen.  I'll be sure to report back when I ski them.



Women generally have a lower center of mass (com), here's are article which suggest that have the bindings mounted more forward helps for initiating a turn due to biomechanics

http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/92/34/



IMO, getting the forward mount on mogul ski and twin tips is motivated by other factors.


----------



## 2knees (Nov 27, 2007)

jack97 said:


> IMO, getting the forward mount on mogul ski and twin tips is motivated by other factors.



I had my head mad trix mounted 1 inch forward.  no idea why, just cause i've read that i should.  Even though its too late, would you mind telling me what the benefit is?


----------



## jack97 (Nov 27, 2007)

2knees said:


> I had my head mad trix mounted 1 inch forward.  no idea why, just cause i've read that i should.  Even though its too late, would you mind telling me what the benefit is?



I think the main factors are; putting pressure on the front of the ski, thus getting a quicker turn initiation. I think its harder to put this front pressure when the mount is toward the back. The second is aft/fore balance, you can get off the backseat by leveraging from the tail since you have more running surface.


edit: Hey did you try those skis yet?


----------



## 2knees (Nov 27, 2007)

jack97 said:


> I think the main factors are; putting pressure on the front of the ski, thus getting a quicker turn initiation. I think its harder to put this front pressure when the mount is toward the back. The second is aft/fore balance, you can get off the backseat by leveraging from the tail since you have more running surface.
> 
> 
> edit: Hey did you try those skis yet?



thanks jack.  I certainly can use some more leverage to help me out of the backseat.  

havent tried them yet.  hopefully i can get out again in the next week or so.


----------



## Greg (Nov 27, 2007)

2knees said:


> I had my head mad trix mounted 1 inch forward.  no idea why, just cause i've read that i should.  Even though its too late, would you mind telling me what the benefit is?



Me too. I felt 1 cm was a safe variation, but had no specific experience as to why I should.



jack97 said:


> I think the main factors are; putting pressure on the front of the ski, thus getting a quicker turn initiation. I think its harder to put this front pressure when the mount is toward the back. The second is aft/fore balance, you can get off the backseat by leveraging from the tail since you have more running surface.
> 
> 
> edit: Hey did you try those skis yet?



On my Cabrawlers, again also at 1cm forward, I've found that I can get the tips diving pretty easily. Probably more to do with the lightweight of the ski, but maybe the slight forwardness of the binding has also contributed. In fact, in the Mount Snow vid, there are a few instances where my tails kick way up as I'm forcing the tips down. I was purposely skiing that way (somewhat erratically) to try to feel out the skis.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> On my Cabrawlers, again also at 1cm forward, I've found that I can get the tips diving pretty easily. Probably more to do with the lightweight of the ski, but maybe the slight forwardness of the binding has also contributed. In fact, in the Mount Snow vid, there are a few instances where my tails kick way up as I'm forcing the tips down. I was purposely skiing that way (somewhat erratically) to try to feel out the skis.



Could be that the mount placed you at the balance point of the ski. Should be able to lift the tip up or drive them down, both with equal ease which should be independent of the ski wieght. Would be interesting to do this with your AC3 maybe a season before you decide to replace it, figure you can try the forward mount in other terrain. 

Anyways, keeping the tips down is a good thing... in the bumps at least. :dunce:


----------



## MRGisevil (Nov 27, 2007)

Uhm. Yeah, won't even try to act like I know. Have shiny object syndrome...completely derails any chance I might have at aquiring some actually *useful* knowledge about gear...


----------



## Greg (Nov 27, 2007)

jack97 said:


> Could be that the mount placed you at the balance point of the ski. Should be able to lift the tip up or drive them down, both with equal ease which should be independent of the ski wieght. Would be interesting to do this with your AC3 maybe a season before you decide to replace it, figure you can try the forward mount in other terrain.
> 
> Anyways, keeping the tips down is a good thing... in the bumps at least. :dunce:



Too late. The AC3s are being replaced by some Legend 8000s. Went with the Dyna recommended mount.

You know sometimes I struggle with believing a mere 1 cm move really makes all that much of a difference. Often times it boils down to the operator, not the equipment. I guess I take the approach of trying to get any advantage I can get though... :lol:


----------



## prisnah (Nov 27, 2007)

The recomended line is core center. I would just mount 'em up on the reco line for all mountain performance.

If you're worried tho, measure the ski tip to tip. Divide the number you get in half and that'll be true center. If the recomended line is behind where you've measured true center to be then the reco. line is their all mountain line and I would not go further back than that.

Most park skis reco line IS for all mountain. Very few park skis have the line at true center, unless they are symmetrical skis.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 27, 2007)

Greg said:


> You know sometimes I struggle with believing a mere 1 cm move really makes all that much of a difference. Often times it boils down to the operator, not the equipment. I guess I take the approach of trying to get any advantage I can get though... :lol:



I hear ya. I just remember few seasons back; I would ski bumps in my volkl g3, a really stiff ski, my ankles would be sore at the end of the day. I finally found some new k2 axis x,  a softer ski, couldn't demo it  but I got it b/c of the cheap price, my ankles feel a lot better.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

severine said:


> So...doing a very inexact estimation between 2 sick kids crying out for me *(via balancing the ski on mu finger, marking that point, comparing that to BOF, and about where that should fall as far as boot center goes)*, it looks like (_in theory_) these should be okay to mount right on the ski marking to get BOF mounting.  So instead of screwing around with cm forward or backward, I think I'm going to just tell them to go with BOF since that looks like it should come out about the same to what's marked on the ski anyway.
> 
> At least I've learned a lot more about mounting bindings today!



Keep in mind that Center of Balance with a ski and center of contact length are two completely different things.
Seriously, I'd consider going 1 back from BOF, if you want the safe bet.  If you think you'll be doing any park stuff, then maybe not, because you'll want to be centered for 180's and 360's.


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

Like I said, it was a quick estimation... I will definitely be talking this over with the people in the shop for their opinion, too.  Who knew it would get so confusing when trying to learn about it myself instead of just trusting someone else to make the right decision?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

severine said:


> Like I said, it was a quick estimation... I will definitely be talking this over with the people in the shop for their opinion, too.  Who knew it would get so confusing when trying to learn about it myself instead of just trusting someone else to make the right decision?


The best thing is that you'll walk into the shop, informed.
severine, I'm impressed.  You are like a sponge.  Soon, you'll have to get a license plate like the one I have on my jeep.


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

Just when I think I've got it.... :lol:

I'm not a very mechanical/technical minded person normally.  But this was something that intrigued me when I first read it in passing, thus leading to this grand experiment.   So might as well make the experiment worth it and go for a little less than the conventional, right?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 27, 2007)

Go for it!


----------



## severine (Nov 27, 2007)

Just to be super geeky about it, I took out my Dynastar Novas and compared midsole markings on the skis.  When lined up between the 2 skis, the binding would definitely be further forward on the Marie Martinod skis than the Novas.  It was actually pretty cool to compare the 2 side by side.   Crappy pics (and not the most interesting ones) but here they are together: 








Novas are 154s, Maries are 165s (although that's fairly obvious )....  Sorry for not removing the plastic wrap yet.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 27, 2007)

severine said:


> J Maries are 165s (although that's fairly obvious )....  Sorry for not removing the plastic wrap yet.



While the Maries are a "165" they are not a true 165.  The turned up tail makes them ski shorter than a 165.  How much depends on the ski.  So to compare them you need to compare contact length of each.(removes the front from Nova and front and tail from Marie)

And there is no way to better show how new they are than plastic wrap!:dunce::razz:


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Nov 28, 2007)

I have my Rossi Scratch Sprayer BCs mounted in the rear(standard position)...I like alot of ski in front of me..but I'm not really a park rider..I bought the skis for all mountain and powder..


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 28, 2007)

Severine, all this research you're doing is making me giddy!!

If you mount the Marie Martinod, you'll have a similar picture as what I have with the eos and Blue house side by side.

Even though they will look extremely forward, the BH has such a dramatic tip on the tail that the contact length is masked at first glance.

Center mount will be good if you're playing in the park and hitting little poppers, (FUN!) but it will take away speed and float ability.
 1 cm back will give you more of an all mountain and powder ski.

Doing something different than what you have is what having another pair of skis is all about!  Do it!


----------



## severine (Nov 28, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> Center mount will be good if you're playing in the park and hitting little poppers, (FUN!) but it will take away speed and float ability.
> 1 cm back will give you more of an all mountain and powder ski.


I know I don't plan on becoming a park rat so 1 cm back sounds like where I want then.  It will still be a dramatically different experience than the Novas.   Now... decisions on the shop.  The one I planned on using isn't a Dynastar/Look retailer, so I'll have to bring them elsewhere... And with the weekend coming up, I'm not sure if I'm ready to hand over my boots.  May have to wait until Monday to drop them off for mounting.


----------



## campgottagopee (Nov 28, 2007)

I need to be honest here. i have a pair of skis that allow me to move bindings frontwards and backwards for various skiing. They claim front for intitating quicker turns and back for carving, but honestly I really can't tell the diff. Kinda like dudes when they get their skis tuned...."oh I need my inside edge 1 degree flat"....common, yeah sure, iffin your a world cup skier maybe. Prolly just means I'm not good nuff to tell the diff.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 28, 2007)

severine said:


> I know I don't plan on becoming a park rat so 1 cm back sounds like where I want then.  It will still be a dramatically different experience than the Novas.   Now... decisions on the shop.  The one I planned on using isn't a Dynastar/Look retailer, so I'll have to bring them elsewhere... And with the weekend coming up, I'm not sure if I'm ready to hand over my boots.  May have to wait until Monday to drop them off for mounting.


you should see if someone up by Stowe can mount them for you when you come up and ski with me!


----------



## severine (Nov 29, 2007)

You certainly are persistent!


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 29, 2007)

Tempting isn't it?:razz:


----------



## severine (Nov 30, 2007)

UPDATE: Here are the pics to compare the Maries and Novas... 










As I stated in this thread, it was so crazy I ended up not even bringing up the whole debate of where to have the bindings mounted.    But it looks like they went about 1/2 cm forward from the midsole boot line +/-.  Which I think puts it in the ballpark of where we were talking about, given my somewhat inaccurate estimations. 





The only complaint I have about the experience is for some reason, they set my DIN low.  It should have been around 5.25 and they set it close to 4.    Not sure why.  It's around 5 on my Novas, and I got the 5.25 from this site so I don't know what happened there.  I didn't notice until I got home either.

Skis and bindings are very light.  Brian was quite surprised by that.  He told me I should just sell the Novas now as the Maries are a much better ski.  But hey, a girl needs some variety, right?


----------



## Grassi21 (Nov 30, 2007)

About your DIN setting, I'm assuming they had you fill out that form with height, weight, and skier ability level.  I'm sure they used this info along with the manufacturers recommendations when setting the DIN.


----------



## severine (Nov 30, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> About your DIN setting, I'm assuming they had you fill out that form with height, weight, and skier ability level.  I'm sure they used this info along with the manufacturers recommendations when setting the DIN.


I know, I know.  I did fill out the form.  It's just that the same brand ski was set up totally differently for me (by a different company).


----------



## Grassi21 (Nov 30, 2007)

severine said:


> I know, I know.  I did fill out the form.  It's just that the same brand ski was set up totally differently for me (by a different company).



I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm certainly no expert on DIN settings.  Maybe it was the length, intend purpose, and style of the ski that factored in?

In any case, I hope you enjoy ripping your new boards.  :beer:

PS - I'm a sucker for graphics.  Those new boards sure do look good.


----------



## Greg (Nov 30, 2007)

severine said:


> UPDATE: Here are the pics to compare the Maries and Novas...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What kind of nerd are you to post pic of your new skis like that?



About the DINs, try them out and if you pre-release, just crank them a bit tighter. And about needing variety, keep that quiet around Brian....


----------



## cbcbd (Nov 30, 2007)

severine said:


> The only complaint I have about the experience is for some reason, they set my DIN low.  It should have been around 5.25 and they set it close to 4.    Not sure why.  It's around 5 on my Novas, and I got the 5.25 from this site so I don't know what happened there.  I didn't notice until I got home either.


They have a machine that torques the boot out of the binding and tests the release trying to approximate based on all the info you give them (weight, ability) and sets the DIN setting accordingly. I was skeptical at first but was really happy with how my new skis came out (although the DIN is around what I would pick). 

My friend works there and is training to be a ski tech and goes on and on and on and on about their state-of-the-art equipment. It's all about the equipment


----------



## severine (Nov 30, 2007)

Grassi21 said:


> PS - I'm a sucker for graphics.  Those new boards sure do look good.


You should see them close up!  Every chick needs a set of boards with a hot angel on them, LOL!  :lol:  They are pretty cool though.



Greg said:


> What kind of nerd are you to post pic of your new skis like that?
> 
> 
> 
> About the DINs, try them out and if you pre-release, just crank them a bit tighter. And about needing variety, keep that quiet around Brian....


Nerd?  Who you callin' a nerd? 

Shhhhh!  Don't tell Brian!



cbcbd said:


> They have a machine that torques the boot out of the binding and tests the release trying to approximate based on all the info you give them (weight, ability) and sets the DIN setting accordingly. I was skeptical at first but was really happy with how my new skis came out (although the DIN is around what I would pick).
> 
> My friend works there and is training to be a ski tech and goes on and on and on and on about their state-of-the-art equipment. It's all about the equipment


Good to know!  Makes it worth the drive even more!


----------



## Trekchick (Dec 1, 2007)

Severine!  I'm sooooooo jealous!
Those look hot!

I can hardly wait to hear how you like them when you get a chance to hit the slopes.


----------

