# Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm curious what the widest underfoot you guys will take into the East coast trees?

I'm up for a new setup this season and looking at the 2012 Prophet 98 ( 98 underfoot) or the  2012 Sir Francis Bacon (108 underfoot) with Dukes/Barons. 

The Prophets have a more desirable width for most East coast trees considering it's not always powder and often bumped up. The SFB's (re-designed from last year) while wider are very flexible and playful.

Any insight on those of you who ski a wide ski and are powder/tree junkies?

Thanks!


----------



## Nick (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm interested in this as well as I'm considering going to a much, much wider ski from my last set and am a big fan of glades .


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my 176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123) mounted with Dukes. With a rockered tip and tail and traditional camber underfoot, it's very flexible, floats well and turns on a dime. They're pretty good on the bumps and the fat waist gives me confidence when hucking too. Before that, my glade tool was a 168 Rossignol B4 (122/94/112). Last season, I went full bore with the S7s and have not turned back since. There's still some resistance to rocker but this is one application where it truly shines. Demo an S7 if you can get your hands on them and you'll feel what I can feel.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 19, 2011)

Still in the hunt.......will hopefully hit both SR and SL's Demo Days with several inches+ on the ground....


----------



## Morwax (Sep 19, 2011)

*Hmmm*

Depends on snow conditions more than anything else. Fat skis are useless chattering tongue depressors when its icy.


----------



## jaja111 (Sep 19, 2011)

Morwax said:


> Depends on snow conditions more than anything else. Fat skis are useless chattering tongue depressors when its icy.



You were on the wrong fat ski then. 

I haven't had any issues with a minimum of 86 underneath, in trees or anywhere for that matter. When I started on fatter skis after an "out west" emergency demo at Jackson Hole (skinny skis were absolutely the problem in deep mashed potatoes since the weather decided to become spring in early March when I went), I believed that chatter would be a huge issue back home on hard pack and ice. The Fischer 86 Bigstix were the first fat ski I had, and they would eat anything I threw at them with grace. I know people on absurdly wide pontoons claiming the trees are an even better experience.  

Of course my opinion is biased to fatter the better as I now like to ski on a 195 width ski, but just one ski.


----------



## skiadikt (Sep 19, 2011)

i'm on salomon czars, 105 underfoot. surprised at how well they did on eastern hardpack but of course that's not where you want to ski 'em. great in pow & trees. of course last year was great for that type of skiing.


----------



## roark (Sep 19, 2011)

Width is only part of the equation. Shape, camber, flex, weight, stiffness are all just as important.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 19, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my *176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123)* mounted with Dukes.



Just picked up a pair of Line Prophet 90s and I'm also looking for another wider pair (something 110 or 115) as well as I imagine they would be even better than the 90s off the beaten path.  May I ask how tall you are?  I'm wondering whether once you start getting really wide like 110 if it effects what length ski you'd ski on, as the S7 is on the short list I'm considering (also: Volkl Katana, Line Influence, Blizzard Answer and Dynastar Huge).


EDIT:  BTW, this question is open to anyone who has experience on wide skis. I'm curious as to what to expect, other than the people I know who have them love em'.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 19, 2011)

roark said:


> Width is only part of the equation. Shape, camber, flex, weight, stiffness are all just as important.



You took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 19, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Just picked up a pair of Line Prophet 90s and I'm also looking for another wider pair (something 110 or 115) as well as I imagine they would be even better than the 90s off the beaten path.  May I ask how tall you are?  I'm wondering whether once you start getting really wide like 110 if it effects what length ski you'd ski on, as the S7 is on the short list I'm considering (also: Volkl Katana, Line Influence, Blizzard Answer and Dynastar Huge).
> 
> 
> EDIT:  BTW, this question is open to anyone who has experience on wide skis. I'm curious as to what to expect, other than the people I know who have them love em'.



I'm a hobbit (5'5', 160 lbs.). On a traditional cambered ski, I think ideal length is more a factor of the stiffness  and construction of the ski rather than waist width. On a rockered or early rise tip, the effective edge is smaller, so you should size up by +5 cms.


----------



## darent (Sep 19, 2011)

last year was my first on a wide ski,elan999 and it was weird at first. took some time to get use to the feel of the big things,I really  got to like them and it seemed to improve my bump and tree skiing, I always over edged on my skinny skis and the wide ones wouldn't let me do that. my foray into the trees at the sugarloaf summit suprised me as I am just beginning to venture into the east coast trees. the steep tight lines always made me hold back and I was able to let them run a little more as my turning gained some confidence


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 19, 2011)

roark said:


> Width is only part of the equation. Shape, camber, flex, weight, stiffness are all just as important.


Yup.

All skis are compromises in some way. The various characteristics combined with your body dimensions, build, and technique all combine to produce certain results in certain conditions. "Too fat" is when you make more compromises than you actually should for a certain ski. Since more often than not glades are bump runs rather than powder runs... unless you plan on using said fat ski only on powder days, you are better asking yourself how wide would you go for a bump ski rather than how wide would you go in the trees. Or better yet, as roark noted, consider all aspects of a ski and your own characteristics as well and find a ski that works right for you in the conditions you want to ski.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 19, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I'm curious what the widest underfoot you guys will take into the East coast trees?
> 
> I'm up for a new setup this season and looking at the 2012 Prophet 98 ( 98 underfoot) or the  2012 Sir Francis Bacon (108 underfoot) with Dukes/Barons.
> 
> ...



Hopefully prophet0426 sees this thread (or send him a PM).  He alternates between Prophet 90's and Sir Francis Bacons.  Both mounted with fritchis.  He pretty much slays any of the tightest, steepest trees on either....but I know he has some insights on the pros and cons of each.

Edit: I'd much rather ride than ski when in trees.  But when I do ski, I've been very happy on my Dynaster Big Troubles (92 underfoot).  But I think it's the twin tip, flex, and pop of the ski that makes them great not so much the width.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 19, 2011)

I use Monster 88's, Johnny 94's or Icelantic Nomads (105's).  It really depends on the snow conditions. I go midfat if the snow is hard aka icy. The Nomads can be a little tough.  And tiring in the ice.


----------



## Terry (Sep 20, 2011)

The Prophet 100 is my goto ski for everything. Amazing how well it handles the hardpack and bumps. Floats great in the powder and is fairly quick edge to edge. It took half a run when I demoed them to get comfortable with them.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my 176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123) mounted with Dukes. With a rockered tip and tail and traditional camber underfoot, it's very flexible, floats well and turns on a dime. They're pretty good on the bumps and the fat waist gives me confidence when hucking too. Before that, my glade tool was a 168 Rossignol B4 (122/94/112). Last season, I went full bore with the S7s and have not turned back since. There's still some resistance to rocker but this is one application where it truly shines. Demo an S7 if you can get your hands on them and you'll feel what I can feel.



I was thinking about the S7 as well. I've been on a 176 B3 Rossi for the past couple years and have always liked Rossignols but am hearing such positive things about LINE.

Your review makes me want to run out and buy the S7's or SFB's. It's doubtful I will wait until snow to buy so demoing might be out of the question since I am impatient.

Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

Terry said:


> The Prophet 100 is my goto ski for everything. Amazing how well it handles the hardpack and bumps. Floats great in the powder and is fairly quick edge to edge. It took half a run when I demoed them to get comfortable with them.



I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.

Everyone else seems to love the 100's


----------



## mondeo (Sep 20, 2011)

94, but only for powder. If it's bumps I go down to a a mid-fat or bump skis.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.
> 
> Everyone else seems to love the 100's


 
My Nomads are 168cm.  They are the perfect ski for East Coast trees on a powder day!


----------



## frapcap (Sep 20, 2011)

I have a pair of Savage Ti's that I got just before the Sugarloaf trip last year. I *think* they're 93 underfoot. Anyway, I'm very confident on them in the glades and on the groomers. They float extremely well in powder and bumpy glades but still have plenty of edge available to haul ass down some groomers if you meet some pretty ladies.
Due to this pair, I have an undying appreciation for the trees and never want to turn back.


----------



## mondeo (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.
> 
> Everyone else seems to love the 100's


Depends on skiing style. Edge to edge quickness doesn't matter to some people. I have to ski my Watea 94s, Addict Pros, and F17s in different ways in the bumps. The Wateas are ok when skiing super direct, but I have to slow it down a bit and start throwing them sideways a little if I can't go fairly straight. The Addicts are so damn stiff that I have to throw them sideways. F17s are just on a different level in the bumps than either, lightning quick side to side but still love going direct.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Hopefully prophet0426 sees this thread (or send him a PM).  He alternates between Prophet 90's and Sir Francis Bacons.  Both mounted with fritchis.  He pretty much slays any of the tightest, steepest trees on either....but I know he has some insights on the pros and cons of each.
> 
> Edit: I'd much rather ride than ski when in trees.  But when I do ski, I've been very happy on my Dynaster Big Troubles (92 underfoot).  But I think it's the twin tip, flex, and pop of the ski that makes them great not so much the width.



Thanks...I will see if I can reach out to prophet0426 to pick his brain a bit!


----------



## prophet0426 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I'm curious what the widest underfoot you guys will take into the East coast trees?
> 
> I'm up for a new setup this season and looking at the 2012 Prophet 98 ( 98 underfoot) or the  2012 Sir Francis Bacon (108 underfoot) with Dukes/Barons.
> 
> ...



Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides.  It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition.  I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees.  I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill.  Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone.  Really durable and super fun skis!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 20, 2011)

Do the few of you here that do keep a "dedicated tree skiing" pair in your quiver, cut down on size a bit from your normal skis? (i.e., if your normal skis are 179, do you use 172 in trees etc...)


----------



## prophet0426 (Sep 20, 2011)

prophet0426 said:


> Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides.  It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition.  I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees.  I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill.  Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone.  Really durable and super fun skis!



Forgot to add that I'm 6'3' and weigh in around 210, and my Prophets are 179's and my SFB's are 182's


----------



## luvinjaycloud (Sep 20, 2011)

Vokl Gotamas,  137/106/122 Radius: 26.1m @178cm.   If it is icy then the trees arent' an option and you are skiing a different ski.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

prophet0426 said:


> Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides.  It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition.  I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees.  I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill.  Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone.  Really durable and super fun skis!



Nice! Thanks for chiming in on this! It's helpful to hear your experience with both of these skis. You have me leaning toward the bacon's. I want a playful ski not something super stiff.

I'm 6 foot 175lbs.

How do you have your Dukes mounted on the SFB? 

I've been carrying my skis and boots on my back and snow shoeing up hill the last few seasons. So any AT setup is going to be an improvement even if the duke/sfb setup is a bit heavy.


----------



## prophet0426 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Nice! Thanks for chiming in on this! It's helpful to hear your experience with both of these skis. You have me leaning toward the bacon's. I want a playful ski not something super stiff.
> 
> I'm 6 foot 175lbs.
> 
> ...



Glad to chime in and give some input.  The Bacons are really a blast.  Such a fun ski both in the trees, and out. They have such a fun flex to them you can really just have a blast anywhere on the hill.

I have my Dukes mounted 2 back from boot center.  I actually like this mount point since it kind of make the ski feel neutral under foot.  Yes it's a heavy setup, but is manageable if you take your time.


----------



## lmgrnjeep (Sep 20, 2011)

I rock a pair of Icelantic Nomad 168 140/105/130 and i love them. I am 6'2 200 yes i know a pretty short ski for my height but from what i had a before: soloman xwing 8 165 with a 116 tip and like a 75 waist its a huge step up. I ski every glade sugarloaf has to offer even some they dont... dont tell on me. these skis hold on the sugarloaf hardpack better then my sollys and float over bumps and powder in the trees and on the snow fields. if you wanna see them in action just take a look. 

The Backside

Toke Road

Bracket Basin

My suggestion is if you are getting a fatter ski there is really no need to go longer at all you make up in width what you would in height.


----------



## djspookman (Sep 20, 2011)

I ride my 175cm Volkl Sumos (125 underfoot) in the woods all day long and they're fine.  They're mounted for tele too....   gotta love it!


----------



## jmn7w (Sep 20, 2011)

Don't be afraid of a stiffer ski, the extra rigidity is very helpful in our eastern conditions and enough rocker will still make it friendly and quick in the trees.... 184 Bibby Pro is my 0.02


----------



## ALLSKIING (Sep 20, 2011)

I have taken my K2 coombas 135-102-121 into the trees a lot on powder day.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 20, 2011)

You could only have this thread on alpinezone.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Sep 20, 2011)

Highway Star said:


> You could only have this thread on alpinezone.


You posted then deleted it....Your just to good I guess :lol:


----------



## Nick (Sep 20, 2011)

Highway Star said:


> You could only have this thread on alpinezone.



'cuz only AlpineZone is that friggen sweet


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

jmn7w said:


> Don't be afraid of a stiffer ski, the extra rigidity is very helpful in our eastern conditions and enough rocker will still make it friendly and quick in the trees.... 184 Bibby Pro is my 0.02



My initial concern was having something too flexible and not rigid enough to take some abuse. This, and 98 underfoot, is why I thought the Prophet 98's would be a good choice initially. Up until your post I was convinced to go with the SFB's.

Back on the fence.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

Nick said:


> 'cuz only AlpineZone is that friggen sweet



Exactly!


----------



## Edd (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> My initial concern was having something too flexible and not rigid enough to take some abuse. This, and 98 underfoot, is why I thought the Prophet 98's would be a good choice initially. Up until your post I was convinced to go with the SFB's.
> 
> Back on the fence.



Huck, I skied K2 Hardsides last year with a 98 waist in all conditions. They're on the stiffer side for wider skis and I noticed no issues in the trees compared to my K2 PEs or Legend 8000s.  The Hardsides have tip rocker but the tails are flat.  I'm using them this year primarily for skinning since I'm getting a different on-piste ski.


----------



## jmn7w (Sep 20, 2011)

FWIW i have last year's bibby 184 and frickin love it. I haven't skied the SFB but i hear its rather soft, good for deep pow but bad for h/p and u know which we get more of here

Honestly the bibbys rip on anything from softish groomers to spring slush. I skied both the regular S7 and the Atomic Bent Chetler and both felt like complete noodles. Plus for some reason the rocker profile really forced you to stay centered on the skis to make them carve. The CRJ was even worse and the flat camber underfoot made turn engagement very tricky, but then i was on a super short length that likely didnt help.

The only thing that came close to the moments was the line influence 105/115 which tracked even better on the groomed and had a wicked fun turn radius but with less rocker they probably aren't as easy to pivot in tight spaces in deep snow.

I realize that comparing the hardpack performance of these skis ignores their main purpose but the on-snow @ loon last year was pretty devoid of deep snow so it's all i have to go on. Obviously i have skied the bibbys in fluff and i loved the fact that they felt both nimble and burly at the same time. 

this reveiw has some more accolades so you don;t have to just take my word...
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/review-moment-bibby-pro-184cm


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.
> 
> Everyone else seems to love the 100's


I know guys at Jay that ski Prophet 100s in the trees and bumps all the time and rave about them being their favorite ski. Different strokes for different folks. That he thought he purchased too long of a ski should tip you off to something...


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 20, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Do the few of you here that do keep a "dedicated tree skiing" pair in your quiver, cut down on size a bit from your normal skis? (i.e., if your normal skis are 179, do you use 172 in trees etc...)


I don't have a "dedicated tree ski" but absolutely do not go shorter for a ski you plan to use in the trees. If you fear that your skis are too long for skiing in the trees... it is the archer not the arrow. You don't need shorter skis for skiing in the trees. My powder board is the longest ski in my quiver and the one that sees the most trees. My shortest ski is my groomer ripper that never sees trees. So if anything, my setup is exactly opposite.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I don't have a "dedicated tree ski" but absolutely do not go shorter for a ski you plan to use in the trees. If you fear that your skis are too long for skiing in the trees... it is the archer not the arrow. You don't need shorter skis for skiing in the trees.



Well my basis for this is it seems you always hear people on these threads and others prefer a slightly shorter ski than their groomer ski for trees and/or bumps.  Dunno.

In the shaped-ski era, I've only skied on a pair of Salomon's that are 68 underfoot and 184.  While they're fantastic on the trails, ice, hardpack, they absolutely blow in the trees as they go submarine in even eight inches of snow.  

To remedy this I just picked up a pair of LP 90s, and I'm thinking of maybe getting something ~110 underfoot to solely use on those 4 or 5 fresh snow days I'll get out on each year (but only if I could snag something used/cheap as I dont think I could justify the additional expense of something 110 for eastern skiing).


----------



## Terry (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.
> 
> Everyone else seems to love the 100's



Mine are the 179's. I think the 186's would def be to long. They aren't a super bump ski but are adequate for my purposes. I am a strugling bump skier anyways.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Sep 20, 2011)

Interesting discussion though I am not sure if the point is to compare Prophets and Bacons or discuss ski width. I have skied Prophet 100s for the last two seasons. Loved them but after demo-ing some Solomon Enduros with tip rocker, I realized that there was something missing from the Prophets. Enter the new P 98, seemed like a good idea. Sold the 172 cm P 100s to one of my summer staff, a 5'1" 23 year old who works at Lake Louise in the winter as a race coach and wanted them for her pow ski. As others have said, suit yourself. Then I read about the new SFB and became conflicted. Read these two reviews:

http://www.skiersrealm.com/general/2012-line-sir-francis-bacon

http://www.powderpoachers.net/skiiersforlife/2011/07/06/12-line-sir-francis-bacon-skis/

I'm going for the 178 Bacon. In theory, it will be easier to turn, lighter, easier on my reconstructed knee and better for the conditions I enjoy the most, adequate for the conditions that are less enjoyable and it looks fantastic. At 108 mm, the new SFB is only 10 mm wider than the P 98. That's less than half an inch in imperial measurement. Think about it.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I know guys at Jay that ski Prophet 100s in the trees and bumps all the time and rave about them being their favorite ski. Different strokes for different folks. That he thought he purchased too long of a ski should tip you off to something...



I've always been under the mindset that a solid skier can ski any type of ski regardless of length/width. We are spoiled with modern skis!


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Interesting discussion though I am not sure if the point is to compare Prophets and Bacons or discuss ski width. I have skied Prophet 100s for the last two seasons. Loved them but after demo-ing some Solomon Enduros with tip rocker, I realized that there was something missing from the Prophets. Enter the new P 98, seemed like a good idea. Sold the 172 cm P 100s to one of my summer staff, a 5'1" 23 year old who works at Lake Louise in the winter as a race coach and wanted them for her pow ski. As others have said, suit yourself. Then I read about the new SFB and became conflicted. Read these two reviews:
> 
> http://www.skiersrealm.com/general/2012-line-sir-francis-bacon
> 
> ...



I think I started the thread hoping others would convincing me that I should buy the SFB's but also to get a feel for what others are riding in this category of ski, specifically with AT bindings.

 This has been the most helpful discussion I have participated in on this forum!

you just helped me lean back towards the SFB's =)

Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen the second one!


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 20, 2011)

prophet0426 said:


> Glad to chime in and give some input.  The Bacons are really a blast.  Such a fun ski both in the trees, and out. They have such a fun flex to them you can really just have a blast anywhere on the hill.
> 
> I have my Dukes mounted 2 back from boot center.  I actually like this mount point since it kind of make the ski feel neutral under foot.  Yes it's a heavy setup, but is manageable if you take your time.



2 Back from center. OK thanks! Mounting is new to me but I assume the bindings come with a guide for mounting.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 20, 2011)

94 because that's the fattest ski I own.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 20, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> 2 Back from center. OK thanks! Mounting is new to me but I assume the bindings come with a guide for mounting.



Assume nothing!  As prophet0426 can tell you, the shop original mounted his WAY wrong...in the center of the ski.  If you aren't going to mount them yourself I suggest doing all of your own calcs and planning, clearly marking it on the ski, and have a face-to-face discussion with the shop before letting them drill.  I've been mounting my own lately but it can be nerve-wracking, especially if you're not set up for it.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 21, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Assume nothing!  As prophet0426 can tell you, the shop original mounted his WAY wrong...in the center of the ski.  If you aren't going to mount them yourself I suggest doing all of your own calcs and planning, clearly marking it on the ski, and have a face-to-face discussion with the shop before letting them drill.  I've been mounting my own lately but it can be nerve-wracking, especially if you're not set up for it.



No I won't mount them myself...just not comfortable doing so. I have already talked to 2 shops and they tell me as long as the bindings come with the mounting guide the should be OK.

Anything else I need to be aware of? What calcs are you referring to?

Thanks!


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> No I won't mount them myself...just not comfortable doing so. I have already talked to 2 shops and they tell me as long as the bindings come with the mounting guide the should be OK.
> 
> Anything else I need to be aware of? What calcs are you referring to?
> 
> Thanks!


 

The Marker Dukes or Barons come with a mountining template in the box.  I mounted a pair last year on my Fischer Prophetes.  It is really easy to do.  I mounted mine on center though.  I made copies of the template just in case.  I then put masking tape on the skis and mark the center line of the ski and the center mark across the width.  From there it was a easy with the template.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 21, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The Marker Dukes or Barons come with a mountining template in the box.  I mounted a pair last year on my Fischer Prophetes.  It is really easy to do.  I mounted mine on center though.  I made copies of the template just in case.  I then put masking tape on the skis and mark the center line of the ski and the center mark across the width.  From there it was a easy with the template.



What is your reasoning for the center mount vs back form center?


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I was thinking about the S7 as well. I've been on a 176 B3 Rossi for the past couple years and have always liked Rossignols but am hearing such positive things about LINE.
> 
> Your review makes me want to run out and buy the S7's or SFB's. It's doubtful I will wait until snow to buy so demoing might be out of the question since I am impatient.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts!


You're welcome. I can't speak to the Line skis since I've never been on them and can only speak to the S7s.


Huck_It_Baby said:


> Nice! Thanks for chiming in on this! It's helpful to hear your experience with both of these skis. You have me leaning toward the bacon's. I want a playful ski not something super stiff.
> 
> I'm 6 foot 175lbs.
> 
> ...


Just to chime in about Dukes and S7s: I have never toured with my Dukes except for some sidehill training exercises at the golf course behind the house. I tend to road test my AT set-ups in a tame setting before going out into the real stuff. The reason I have not toured with them is because the clip I have on my skins is not wide enough to take the nose of the S7. I could duct tape it though if I really need to tour on it. Otherwise, I'll need to invest in one of those G3 skins with a clip for the nose attachment.

My AT set up is a 174 Rossi B Squad (130/100/120) with Dukes. The Dukes are heavy but I've done a lot of one-day tours on them. As a fellow skier on Dukes said to me while hiking up Moosilauke: "Spend more time at the gym."


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> What is your reasoning for the center mount vs back form center?


 

No particular reason other then all of my other skis are mounted on center.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

Puck it said:


> No particular reason other then all of my other skis are mounted on center.



You center mount? True center?


----------



## tarponhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> You center mount? True center?



"ski center" is different from "boot center"


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> You center mount? True center?


They are mounted to the std binding position marked on the skis. I was not quite clear. I do not ride the park. Why do you ask, little fella?:-D


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

tarponhead said:


> "ski center" is different from "boot center"



No shit. What is your point?


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2011)

Chiming in on the mounting point conversation: my S7s are mounted on the +3 line which corresponds (I believe) to ski center. This makes the ski feel more balanced and gives you a longer tail for stomping landings. Jib and park skiers usually mount at center for more fore/aft balance. When the S7s came out, the recommended mounting point was +3. I wanted to mount it at the 0 line but there was a foul up at the shop (partially my fault) and I got it back at +3. They offered to remount it but I decided to ski it before drilling new holes. Part of the reason you shouldn't move up the mount point is that you get less shovel and end up burying the tip in deep snow. This was a concern for me since I tend to ski with all my weight driven forward. I haven't had problems with tip dive with the S7s rocker. Someday, I may change the mount to the 0 line just to see how that goes but I find no problem with the +3 mount.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

Puck it said:


> They are mounted to the std binding position marked on the skis. I was not quite clear. I do not ride the park. Why do you ask, little fella?:-D



Big difference. Wondering if you big mountain skiers with dimunitive frames roll on a center mount. 

I typically roll on +2 .   

You going to show me around my old hood little man?:flag:


----------



## tarponhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> No shit. What is your point?



got my lingo confused. whatever. carry on


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Big difference. Wondering if you big mountain skiers with dimunitive frames roll on a center mount.
> 
> I typically roll on +2 .
> 
> You going to show me around my old hood little man?:flag:



Not quite dimunitive, I am. What hood would that be, lil fella?


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not quite dimunitive, I am. What hood would that be, lil fella?



Your beloved home hill, not the 'Rica lil fella


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Your beloved home hill, not the 'Rica lil fella


 

If you mean Cannon. Sure will. What about skiing K-ton in Oct(hopefully) or Nov?


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

Puck it said:


> If you mean Cannon. Sure will. What about skiing K-ton in Oct(hopefully) or Nov?



I do not believe that the Institution will be open early this season. Too much shit going on up there. They have the excuse and they will use it.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I do not believe that the Institution will be open early this season. Too much shit going on up there. They have the excuse and they will use it.


 

Yee of little faith.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> *They have the excuse and they will use it.*



Oh hell yeah, I'd do the same thing if I were running the show up there.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 21, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> Chiming in on the mounting point conversation: my S7s are mounted on the +3 line which corresponds (I believe) to ski center. This makes the ski feel more balanced and gives you a longer tail for stomping landings. Jib and park skiers usually mount at center for more fore/aft balance. When the S7s came out, the recommended mounting point was +3. I wanted to mount it at the 0 line but there was a foul up at the shop (partially my fault) and I got it back at +3. They offered to remount it but I decided to ski it before drilling new holes. Part of the reason you shouldn't move up the mount point is that you get less shovel and end up burying the tip in deep snow. This was a concern for me since I tend to ski with all my weight driven forward. I haven't had problems with tip dive with the S7s rocker. Someday, I may change the mount to the 0 line just to see how that goes but I find no problem with the +3 mount.



OK this helps. Thank you!

What is the difference in length between these increments?


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2011)

^ 3 centimeters. Glad to help.

IIRC, the 0 line and the center line on twin tipped skis are different. If you get a tape measure and stretch it from tip to tip, the exact center should fall on the +3 mark on the S7 (I hope I'm right on this). The 0 line will be 3 cms back. With the bindings mounted on the +3 line, I feel like I'm skiing on the exact center of the ski making it easy to pivot. There is less shovel in front so when I really lean forward and drive the tips, it may seem short. An added plus is that, with less shovel, there's less ski to slot between the trees. On the other hand, I sometimes miscalculate how much tail I have, turn immediately after passing tight trees then bang the skis sideways on the tree.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 21, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby.... do yourself a favor and mount standard boot center unless you have a specific reason for doing otherwise (and because someone else on the internet did it is not really a very good reason). I am a big proponent that mount point is the great untapped "fitting" aspect for most skiers. But that doesn't mean trial and error is any better. You can seriously screw up a ski's performance by messing with the mounting point. snowmonster seems to prefer a very forward mount but you couldn't pay me to ski on a binding mounted +3cm forward. Basically, if you are not ready to remount via trial and error and you don't have a specific reason for your own preference (not someone else's) mount standard boot center (not ski center, unless you want park/pipe/jib performance and/or prefer a dead center mount for whatever reason).


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Huck_It_Baby.... do yourself a favor and mount standard boot center unless you have a specific reason for doing otherwise (and because someone else on the internet did it is not really a very good reason). I am a big proponent that mount point is the great untapped "fitting" aspect for most skiers. But that doesn't mean trial and error is any better. You can seriously screw up a ski's performance by messing with the mounting point. snowmonster seems to prefer a very forward mount but you couldn't pay me to ski on a binding mounted +3cm forward. Basically, if you are not ready to remount via trial and error and you don't have a specific reason for your own preference (not someone else's) mount standard boot center (not ski center, unless you want park/pipe/jib performance and/or prefer a dead center mount for whatever reason).



This is very sound advice. 

If are not 100% committed to an alternate mount, traditional (mfr rec) is the way to go.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2011)

Just to be clear, the S7 has several manufacturer specified mounting points printed on the topsheet: +6, +3, and 0. The different mounting points are recommended for the following respective applications: park & pipe, BC jib or park and freeride.I have the S7 Caballero and the later models starting with the S7 Barras had a -2 mount point for powder. All this translates to varied weight distribution which changes the characteristics of the ski's performance. Unless you want to have a lot of holes in your ski, you stick to one mounting point. Ideally, before you mount your bindings, you've taken into consideration what you want your ski to do, where you want to ski it and what application you intend to use it for. Riv is right, mounting position is the last untapped fitting aspect for most skiers. I actually messed around with the idea of mounting the bindings at 1.5 to split the difference between recommended mounting points. However, I didn't have enough confidence to mess around with the manufacturer's recommendations. Whatever mount point you choose, be sure to measure the ski. The line on the top sheet may be off. Some early S7s had the topsheet printed wrong and the lines were off by a bit (I know the topsheet of my Squads were a bit off).

If you want to play around with mounting points but don't want to redrill, get the Marker Schizo. The bindings move 3 cms front and back with a flick of a switch.

All my other skis are mounted on the line. I have a new RC112 and I just got a pair of Barons for it. Since I may be doing short tours and using this on big mountain terrain (i.e., around the Presidentials), I'm mounting them right at the line. 

Whatever you do, have fun in the snow. All this tech talk is just a way to have skiing on the mind before the feast comes next month. See you out there!


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 22, 2011)

Snowmonster, Phantom, Rivercoil and everyone else you guys are super helpful, thank you so much!

I'm nervous to mount too far forward but I like a little bit of a center mount to make it easy to  throw rotations and jib however I'm by no means a park rat. My time is spent chasing storms and ripping pow in the woods and that is the priority here.

I found a huge difference with my Rossi Scratches and B3's when hitting  jumps and doing 360's and this was due, in part, to the Scratches being mounted in the center. 

I am in such ski withdrawal right now! I can't even concentrate at work!


----------



## ALLSKIING (Sep 22, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I am in such ski withdrawal right now! I can't even concentrate at work!


I know the feeling.....My withdrawal is bad this fall much worse then other years. Cant come soon enough!


----------



## Nick (Sep 22, 2011)

Do most bindings today adjust? My skis from last season that I've been wearing into the ground have some sort of Atomic bindings (name escapes me at the moment) but they actually just have a cantilever that you push and then you can slide the entire binding forward and back on the ski. I think they actually have it named, i.e. one side is "moguls" and the other side is "GS" or something.


----------



## Nick (Sep 22, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> I am in such ski withdrawal right now! I can't even concentrate at work!



++++

It's gotten worse since I normally don't talk about skiing in the summer but now it's not even preventable :lol:


----------



## Puck it (Sep 22, 2011)

Nick said:


> Do most bindings today adjust? My skis from last season that I've been wearing into the ground have some sort of Atomic bindings (name escapes me at the moment) but they actually just have a cantilever that you push and then you can slide the entire binding forward and back on the ski. I think they actually have it named, i.e. one side is "moguls" and the other side is "GS" or something.



Most intregrated bindings I think do this. Like Tyrolia railflex systems.


----------



## Nick (Sep 22, 2011)

Yeah, I had played with it but I'm not sure if I ever actually noticed a difference. I'm planning on new skis this year and will try out some different options.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 22, 2011)

ALLSKIING said:


> I know the feeling.....My withdrawal is bad this fall much worse then other years. Cant come soon enough!



I think it gets progressively worse every single year for me.

If I didn't have a huge collection of Ski DVD's I wouldn't even make it through the off season. I am literally depressed at the end of every season.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Sep 22, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> If you want to play around with mounting points but don't want to redrill, get the Marker Schizo. The bindings move 3 cms front and back with a flick of a switch.
> !



Anyone have experience with this?

http://www.quiverkiller.com/


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 22, 2011)

Nick said:


> _*Yeah, I had played with it but I'm not sure if I ever actually noticed a difference.*_


----------



## Puck it (Sep 22, 2011)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Anyone have experience with this?
> 
> http://www.quiverkiller.com/


 

I just found out about these in the last couple of days. This will a huge savings in bindings. With all the savings, one could buy more skis. I just placed an order to do three sets of skis fitted with Barons.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=101635


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 22, 2011)

Since this seems to have morphed into a "binding issue" thread........

I just bought a pair of used skis that were set up for a guy who is mondo point 28.5, and I'm 26.5.  Is that a small enough difference that the bindings can just me moved a bit, or will the ski likely have to be drilled again?


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 22, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Since this seems to have morphed into a "binding issue" thread........
> 
> I just bought a pair of used skis that were set up for a guy who is mondo point 28.5, and I'm 26.5.  Is that a small enough difference that the bindings can just me moved a bit, or will the ski likely have to be drilled again?



Whether your boot will fit or not just depends on how much room you have in the binding for movement.  You'll probably be fine unless he happened to have the bindings set up with the heel already all the way in.

If you are asking about mounting location, I wouldn't worry about it.  Your boot sole center is only going to be ~1cm further forward than his.  So worst case is you shrink the binding to fit your boot at you are +1 on the mount.  You won't notice.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 22, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Whether your boot will fit or not just depends on how much room you have in the binding for movement.  You'll probably be fine unless he happened to have the bindings set up with the heel already all the way in.
> 
> If you are asking about mounting location, I wouldn't worry about it.  Your boot sole center is only going to be ~1cm further forward than his.  So worst case is you shrink the binding to fit your boot at you are +1 on the mount.



Boot fit is what I'm worried about (i.e. since his boot is 1cm bigger than mine would an adjustment need to be made, and/or even if they fit, would the 1cm make they unsafely "loose" or not).


----------



## Puck it (Sep 22, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Boot fit is what I'm worried about (i.e. since his boot is 1cm bigger than mine would an adjustment need to be made, and/or even if they fit, would the 1cm make they unsafely "loose" or not).


 
You may have enough travel in the heel piece adjustment.  I would worry about the forward pressure if there is not enough travel in it.  It all depends on the original set up though.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 22, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Since this seems to have morphed into a "binding issue" thread........
> 
> I just bought a pair of used skis that were set up for a guy who is mondo point 28.5, and I'm 26.5.  Is that a small enough difference that the bindings can just me moved a bit, or will the ski likely have to be drilled again?


It's not the mondo that you should be looking at but the BSL (boot sole length), which corresponds to the actual length of the boot sole rather than the size of the boot. There can be wide variations in the BSL of different boot models in boot sizes. For example, given the same size boot of 26.5, a BD Factor has a BSL of 307 while a BD Quadrant has a BSL of less than 300. 

As noted, you may have to move the heel piece. My guess is that you may have to redrill given the variation in the sizes.


Puck it said:


> You may have enough travel in the heel piece adjustment.  I would worry about the forward pressure if there is not enough travel in it.  It all depends on the original set up though.


This. Always adjust forward pressure.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 22, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> *It's not the mondo that you should be looking at but the BSL (boot sole length),* which corresponds to the actual length of the boot sole rather than the size of the boot.* There can be wide variations in the BSL of different boot models in boot sizes. *



You learn something new every day.

I guess I'll just have to take them into the shop and hope to be lucky.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 22, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> You learn something new every day.
> 
> I guess I'll just have to take them into the shop and hope to be lucky.



Don't touch your bindings if you are unsure what you are doing. Remounts are a big deal anymore either.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 22, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Don't touch your bindings if you are unsure what you are doing. Remounts are a big deal anymore either.



Yeah, I have absolutely no idea about this stuff, so I'll definitely be taking them in to Pelican or some other ski shop to see if they need to be redrilled or could just be fidgeted with as is.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 22, 2011)

^ Have fun with the new skis, man! I'm in the same process of bringing a new ski and binding into the shop for mounting. They're in my office and I'm having fun just trying to figure out how they'll sit on the ski.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 22, 2011)

snowmonster said:


> I'm in the same process of bringing *a new ski and binding* into the shop for mounting.



Whudyeh get?


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 22, 2011)

Rossignol RC112 and Marker Barons


----------



## Puck it (Sep 22, 2011)

My Palmers arrived today.  They about the stiffness as my Monsters 88's but with some tip rocker. Keeping them and using the inserts.


----------

