Mounting tele when says, "don't mount tele."

[Charley White]

Looking around at wildsnow & skimo for skis to better match my "rando race" boots. Scarpa f1s. To be skied TTS. Possibly http://skimo.co/compare-touring-skis. When they say, "don't recommend mount tele," (as with Movement Bond-X) is that because there is a discontinuous mounting "plate," within the ski, so, solidity only in the toe and heel area? Can you bypass this limitation with your own, stiff, DIY riser ski-affixed only in the toe and heel area? And, are not AT skis already designed to not have flex in the under-boot area?....cuz dynafits don't want it....so it wouldn't hurt flex to have riser that further stiffens?

[James]

I don't think it is the mounting plate in the ski since a tele binding and an AT binding mount in very close to the same place. I think they are worried about some Tele bindings that have fewer screws and the extra forces you can put on a tele binding with no release.

I had a friend rip his AXL's out of a pair of Dynafit skis in one day and they would not warranty them. I put TTS bindings on a pair of Movement Logic X and stripped 2 of the screws just mounting them. I think these super light skis are pushing the limit of durability and mounting strength. I have several days on my Logic X but they still make me nervous.

[cesare]

Lots of skis don't have any mounting plate and we ski them tele. And the last pair of skis I pulled a binding out of had metal in them (I tapped too deep so the only place the screw had contact was at the metal layer). Looking at Movement's tech page I don't see anything that would cause me to worry much. It is a solid wood core with a fiberglass mounting plate. Not sure the PSAH matters because it is on the bottom of the core, but it would be no cause for concern wherever it might otherwise be.

What they probably say that for is they won't warranty a ski mounted tele. I wouldn't bother with the riser but that's just me.

[dschane]

Yeah, I'd say go for it. Inserts might mitigate the risk.

Something weird is going in that chart. The two shorter versions of the Bond-X (161 and 169 cm) weigh less than the same lengths of the Response-X, but the longer versions (177 and 183 cm) weigh more. Regardless, some impressively light skis.

[James]

I am not sure we are all saying the same thing. I don't think the OP is talking about skis with a mounting plate or putting inserts in the skis. I think he is concerned that the mounting plate built within the ski is strong enough to hold a tele mount and if it would be better to add a mounting plate on top of the ski. I think the obvious answer is yes especially if he uses enough screws to hold the plate. The question is, is it necessary and how much weight are you going to add to what should be an ultra light set up.

I don't think AT skis are designed to not flex in the under boot area. I am pretty sure they still flex there and I am pretty sure the Dyanfit heel accommodates some flex.

[Charley White]

... I think he is concerned that the mounting plate built within the ski is strong enough to hold a tele mount and if it would be better to add a mounting plate on top of the ski. I think the obvious answer is yes especially if he uses enough screws to hold the plate.

That was my concern. I do hear all to be saying about the same thing, "it's probably ok but you could fortify (some way) for safe bets." I heard back from skimo to the effect that-- Yes most skis don't have the tele mounting restrictions. Movement decided to save weight and not reinforce the toe area on the X Series skis (the Shift is OK though). I take some comfort Movement's core is wood and not "aramid honeycomb." Given all my recent fiddling, though, I think I'll lean towards a ski that doesn't rec. vs tele.

I don't think AT skis are designed to not flex in the under boot area. I am pretty sure they still flex there and I am pretty sure the Dyanfit heel accommodates some flex.

This was a misread by me of an article about shimming under f1s for dynafits: "Dynafits rely on a fixed boot sole-length to work properly, and because the F1 & F3′s flex, the effective sole length changes." I do see those hard-rail AT bindings though and don't imagine any under-boot ski flex happening. So I wouldn't ruin flex characteristics more than a marker duke if I did a DIY riser. Which I'm going to forget altogether. Thx James & CZ & dschane

[dschane]

ETA: never-mind, he solved the problem.

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

I have a friend that has ripped out of Goodes with tele bindings twice, and he is neither big nor an aggressive skier. If it's a non-wood core ski designed for AT, I wouldn't mount tele without a mounting plate on top or something.

[dschane]

What does the plate do? The upward force is still there, no? I guess you could fasten the plate with 12 screws or something overkill like that?

[airinwrite]

I have a friend that has ripped out of Goodes with tele bindings twice, and he is neither big nor an aggressive skier. If it's a non-wood core ski designed for AT, I wouldn't mount tele without a mounting plate on top or something.

Goodes have a plastic(?) piece on the topsheet that require the use of longer screws. I have a friend with Dynafits who pulled the bindings out of Goodes twice. Goode told him to remove the piece on top or use longer screws. He has had no issues since.

[Quadzilla]

What kind of terrain are you building this setup for? Seems to me that BC Storms with 98 underfoot is a perfect size for skiing Sierra conditions. A friend of ours who hasn't skied in the past 15 years picked up some Karhu BC 100's with Silverada bindings and is just killing it around here easially. I think trying to tele ski with light AT boots and rando misery sticks in/on Sierra snow would be a lesson on futility, even if the bindings didn't rip out. At least for me. IMO, make it easy on yourself, dump the boots go NTN.