Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isn't it about time for a binding mount question? (He asked rhetorically?)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Isn't it about time for a binding mount question? (He asked rhetorically?)

    OK. Posted this over on teleskimark.myfreeforum.org (aka, the Temporary TTips Forum) and it's pretty well going nowhere. Lets see how it goes over here.

    This is, in-fact a somewhat serious gear question.

    Recently bought a pair of Atomic Theories in 177. Going to mount 7TM Power Tours on them, mostly for in-bounds use but they could see some some BC.

    Me: 5'8", 160+ pounds; Semi aggressive but can only claim to be a level II skier freeheel; Tend to try and keep my weight forward/downhill but I can get into the back seat if I am not careful. Usually can keep things under control when that happens, but I did the uphill/back fall thing in the mank two Aprils ago and tore up my ACL. Hence I'm a little more interested in getting these new skis set up to turn responsively, release nicely from turn to turn and still not put me over the handlebars in the deep and soft.

    These will be used mostly inbounds, but not exclusively On-Piste. I ski in SW Idaho. Primarily Bogus Basin where it can get warm and see a mid-winter drought where the runs get hard & fast by western standards. Also Tamarack, Brundage and Anthony Lakes, all of which get more deep and soft than Bogus, but not that much real blower.

    The Theories have a bit of twin tip, some early rocker, and about 70% camber, with a conventional (non-tapered) footprint. Mid stiff.

    Going to mount them with 7TM Power Tours. They will see a fair bit of groomers, some trees; powder when we get it, and probably a little untracked BC.

    Wondering if I want these bindings at manufacturer's boot-center or back a bit? Wondering if anyone has an opinion based on this particular model (Atomic Theory) ski, or on the description I gave of them. Any takers?
    Seize the Dog!

  • #2
    mount on manufacturers boot center mark. historically (may be different now) I've found atomics recommended boot center marks on skis to be a bit back of where I've mounted them for myself and customers. on flat tail models like the rt-86 I've always gone + 1 cm at least. don't think I've ever mounted a ski back of recommended unless a customer begged me after I tried to talk them out of it. also, make sure you measure (or have shop measure, many shops don't even check) to make sure both marks are in the same place on both skis. atomics are notorious for having one mark 1/8-1/4 of an inch different on each ski in a pair.
    good snow comes in many different types and consistencies. STICK YER FEET IN IT!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks MS. My shop proved their attention to that detail when they informed me that my new ScottyBobs had not only completely miss-matched marks, but were of slightly different lengths. They are hand-made yano. They (Greenwoods, Boise) took their own measurements and I think got 'em about right.
      Seize the Dog!

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm with meadowskipper. With a twin I'd lean towards boot center alignment, or maybe +1cm forward. IME Atomic has done a decent job of optimizing the boot center mark and with twin tips being centered in the ski is most important. The only reason you would go forward a lot (like +3-4cm) is if you're landing switch a lot.
        Ain't no turn like tele!

        Comment


        • #5
          Another vote for boot center.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just a heads-up: I did an ACL with 7TMs mounted. They don't release forward so forwards and inwards hyperflexion is not protected.

            Perhaps consider Telebry Safeouts. A better design IMO (and you can mount Axls on them ).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ziggy View Post
              Just a heads-up: I did an ACL with 7TMs mounted. They don't release forward so forwards and inwards hyperflexion is not protected.

              Perhaps consider Telebry Safeouts. A better design IMO (and you can mount Axls on them ).
              Thanks Ziggy. Actually I did that ACL with Telebrys and Hammerheads. The deal with the Telebry is the tendency for a lateral pre-release om wider skis, so I had them screwed down pretty tight the day I tore my ACL. Plus I was in the mank, so I probably could have gotten away with a lower release setting in softer snow. Didn't get no pre-release that day, unless you count the knee.

              The Telebry does have more release directions than any other binding, tele or parallel, but on a wider ski they do like to pre-release laterally. What I like about the 7TMs is their release, if less versatile than the Telebry system, is very predictable. I am in the process (nearly finished now) of moving all Telebry set-ups to skis of widths ranging from 90 mm and under, and 7TM on skis of over 90 mm. Really, I think the Telebry system is most predictable on skis with widths down in the 70s.

              I'm not throwing my Telebry's away (or selling them) and I keep all my Tele stuff releasable. There was a time I was moving towards 100% Telebry, not now though. And after all, skiing is a sport with an inherent risk factor. The knee feels pretty good now. I can almost smell the snow in the air from here.
              Seize the Dog!

              Comment


              • #8
                I have not been on those skis, but...

                The suggested mount position on Atomics has traditionally been kinda far back (as noted above); and I find skis with tip rocker can usefully be mounted a bit forward (better carving, without the tip dive danger that may come with a forward mount on a non-rockered ski), so if the choice is between "center" and "back", I would go "center."

                Comment


                • #9
                  excellent point regarding tip rocker, greg. huge k2 fan here. i always go at least 1cm forward on k2 as well as i've found the bcm to seem a bit far back. i've always been happy with skis in the mid 170's length, but chose to go with the 181 backlash due to the tip rocker. mounting them 1cm forward in combination with the tip rocker and longer length was the ticket. now if the dang things would ever die. quiver of one skis for multiple seasons now...........
                  good snow comes in many different types and consistencies. STICK YER FEET IN IT!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No experience with Theories but I have a theory which is mine. The brontosaurus...

                    Wait...

                    ...my theory is that your most preferred mounting point will vary from ski to ski because of the way you like to ride in a tele turn and how that is impacted by the design characteristics of the ski. If the tail is very stiff, like in many tip rocker only skis, you may like the boot center mount because it makes it so easy to initiate your turns. But that comes at a cost of a tail that will not want to let you out of the turn unless you move your center way back. In my case, I move the mount on these skis back as much as 3 cm. On a ski with tail rocker and a softer flex in its nether regions you need the more forward mount to keep the center of your mass over the part of the ski that is stiff enough to hold on firmer snow. If the tail is soft, a forward mount feels more balanced on the ski. And that is just one variable, albeit a very noticeable one.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for the Safeout info Carpe Canem.
                      One of the things I liked about the 7TMs was the suggested release settings by weight/age.
                      Having lost an ACL and once torn an MCL I've always gone low to the point of premature release. It's irritating and a tad embarrassing but better than the alt.
                      Good luck with the rig.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X