No announcement yet.

Binding mounting position question

  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I am politely questioning the logic for the argument to mount Telemark bindings back to compensate for the pressure of the rear foot being further forward because of the known dynamics of the Telemark stance.
    (To be clear, I’m questioning the LOGIC, not the PREFERENCE, for a minus mount.)
    The logic has to be in relation to some other discipline (Alpine).
    Alpine skiers have much more latitude in fore aft pressure / weight distribution, due to the fixed heel.
    I’m no pro, but it’s my understanding that pressure on tongue / drive the knee forward is a concept in Alpine skiing (made possible by the fixed heel)?
    Doesn’t this shift pressure / weight forward?
    I’m thinking that, because of his fixed heel, an Alpine skier can put more pressure on the front of the ski than a Telemark skier can.

    Someone tell me what I’m missing here?


    • #17
      Start your journey of self discovery by thinking about the first fundamental of skiing according to the PSIA…

      Then ask yourself if you’re confusing weight and pressure. Double check your understanding here:

      The four fundamentals of skiing are the base for every action that one will make while skiing. Even though each action a skier will make…
      Last edited by Manney; 6 May 2023, 09:30 PM.


      • #18

        I don’t think I’m confusing weight and pressure.
        The only way I can move the pressure distribution of my weight on the ski (and the ski on the snow) is to move my center of mass (I could also do this without moving my CoM if the skis are fixed in place, and I can push or pull on a fixed object — which is not a normal situation when skiing).

        In an Alpine stance, I can put more pressure on the fronts of the skis by moving my CoM forward (I can do this without falling on my face because my heel is locked down, and I can lean against the tongue of my ski boots).
        In Telemark, I can do the same thing (to a lesser degree), limited by how active my binding is: stiff springs allow me to create more pressure on the front of the ski(s); softer springs, less; free pivot, none (at least not past the pivot point).

        So I think my original question still stands: Why move Telemark bindings back, when Alpine bindings already allow for more pressure on the front of the skis?
        I can see one possibility and that would be skiing deeper powder. An Alpine skier might ski that with a more neutral stance, whereas a Telemark skier, because of active bindings, might not be able to make that adjustment. I have heard of people using a softer spring setting for skiing BC vs Resort.

        I could be missing something, which is why I ask the question.


        • #19
          The wording of PSIA fundamentals is very clear. CoM is weight over skis. Pressure is lateral.

          In both DH and tele skiing, the skier makes subtle CoM changes. These are influenced more by the slope than the boot or binding system… or even type of skiing… because a great deal of skier weight is carried by the torso. Simply bending forward or back shifts a lot of mass on its own… not that this is good skiing practice because it makes CoM changes harder to control over an uneven surface.

          Lateral pressure changes are more profound. Lateral pressure changes, long with angulation, is how a skier turns. You know this… just mentioning it to explain how PSIA uses the term “pressure”… it describes the forces involved in edging.

          Fore and aft pressure of the skis is not considered “fundamental” to skiing. If it was, there would be an additional PSIA fundamental of skiing that describes this.


          • #20
            Manney, while I may be misusing some terminology (which I’m not interested in debating), do you understand the essence of my question?


            • #21


              • #22
                I agree, other than one's own preference, I don't think there's something about the telemark turn that warrants moving the boot center back relative to where the identical skier would put their alpine bindings on the same ski.


                • #23
                  One scenario where mounting back helps is in deep powder, especially if you're on skis without a lot of float. In an alpine stance you can lean back a little to keep your tips up. With a telemark stance, a mount on center can easily lead to rear ski tip dive and somersaulting. Of course it helps if you have wider, more rockered skis, and shorten up your stance. For a powder ski that isn't going to see a lot of carving I would definitely consider mounting behind the line.


                  • #24
                    Not seeing much difference between alpine, tele here. Same logic applies to an alpine pow ski. Same fundamentals at work.


                    • #25
                      right or wrong, i mount back from alpine boot center because of the center of weight/pressure/pick your terminology of the FRONT foot, not the rear. This is a style preference based on the roots of the telemeark turn, and likely because i started on snowpines before moving the beef extreme (version1.0, no buckles).

                      The entire point of the telemark turn was to compensator for lack of rear stability in the boots (XC style or ankle height, or just taller than ankle height) and the lack of forward stability, for the same reasons.

                      the concept is easy to illustrate if you have a friend help you. with normal street shoes, take an alpine stance, and put your arms out in front of you, and have your friend randomly without warning push you forwards or backs by your arms. you won't be stable, and likely will have to take a step to keep from falling.

                      now, telemark stance. same test. you will be stable because you can move your weight to the front or rear foot, you'll do it intuitively.

                      ok, back to my point. now do the telemark test again, and pay very close attention to where your weight is centered on your front foot. its will move towards the ball of your foot the lower you go, or if you are pulled forward at all.

                      do the same test with alpine stance, and your weight will be slight towards the heel vs telemark since the way to counter falling forward is leaning back.

                      And then recall the telemark test, the way to counter falling forward is to weight the ball of your foot!

                      And that is reason one why some people like to mount back, because they exploit the for/aft stability of the telemark turn and weight each foot farther forward than alpine.

                      there are additional valid reasons to mount forward for the rear foot too, but IMO, the front foot matters most.

                      but style and equipment preference probably beat all technical explanations. Whatever feels best, is what is best.


                      • #26
                        Agree. Prefs are prefs. No right or wrong answer. Individual choice.

                        Trying to reach consensus on logic on the internet is like trying to teach grammar to a dyslexic.