196 Lhasa mount point

[ELski50]

I'm sure this was covered somewhere but I couldn't find when I searched.

I have a pair of unmounted lhasas that don't seem to have a mount line (early-ish run) and before making an ill informed guess it'd be great to know what is recommended (mm from tip would be awesome).

I'm mounting them with barons for resort/slackcountry uses if that makes any difference

...Paging Splat/PM gear peeps

[splat]

110 mm for sure or 43 -1/4 inches, I believe, from the center of the tip, tape pulled straight, no bending to the contours of the tip bend.

[StormDay]

Old thread on this:

[ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161121"]196 Lhasa Mount Issue - Teton Gravity Research Forums[/ame]

[ELski50]

Splat would that be 110cm from tip while holding one end of the tape to the tip and the other to mount point (touching the ski) or above the mount point (above the ski)?

[splat]

That little doohicky on the end of the tape....hang it over the center of the tip and think straight line sloped down to wherever 110mm lands you.

[ELski50]

Thats what I was thinking, cheers splat. I'll report back when I ski them with a proper review.

[Boonshackle]

Remounting mine at 112 cm from the tip (83 cm from tail, seems easier to measure) for this year. Feel like the tips dive too much in +30cm and I find myself in the backseat trying to balance them. A review/comparison will follow at some point.

[splat]

Interesting, boonshackle. Most people tend to want to mount more forward on the Lhasas for pivot/hardpack performance, but more so on the 186. The 196 will get a redesign at some point this season for a more rockered nose starting in front of the toe piece that makes it pivot faster and float better. We have a fatter 186 and a rockered nose 186 coming out as well. I know it's easier to measure off the tail, but I also know that the finishing of the tip is far more precise a process than the tail, making it a better point to measure from. With no edge to follow during finishing, the tips and tails require a ton of craftsmanship when sanding and polishing and the die cuts in the metal of the tip have to match more closely and thus more attention is paid to them.

[MTT]

I cannot begin to imagine how 196 Lhasa's whould ever have anything that remotley resembled TIP Dive?

You mean you dont want the Tips to EVER actualy go under the snow? Really?

[Jim S]

My old Lhasa 196 were mounted on the line recommended by Splat.
They are phenominal.

[Boonshackle]

Interesting, boonshackle. Most people tend to want to mount more forward on the Lhasas for pivot/hardpack performance, but more so on the 186. The 196 will get a redesign at some point this season for a more rockered nose starting in front of the toe piece that makes it pivot faster and float better. We have a fatter 186 and a rockered nose 186 coming out as well. I know it's easier to measure off the tail, but I also know that the finishing of the tip is far more precise a process than the tail, making it a better point to measure from. With no edge to follow during finishing, the tips and tails require a ton of craftsmanship when sanding and polishing and the die cuts in the metal of the tip have to match more closely and thus more attention is paid to them.

I cannot begin to imagine how 196 Lhasa's whould ever have anything that remotley resembled TIP Dive?

You mean you dont want the Tips to EVER actualy go under the snow? Really?

Thanks for the advice, Splat, it's always cool to gain more insight into how my favorite ski is made. I think part of the problem is I loved the Lhasa's hard snow performance so much they became my everyday ski in a dry(ish) SW Alberdy winter. I suppose there's no tail rocker in the 196's future? What about another Splatula run?

Imagine that, MTT, someone who enjoys skiing in a way that differs from yours! Wild!

[splat]

After the first Splatula press run, I want to make some changes to that ski. But first I want to do the new 196 and those two new 186s to see what people think of them.

The Splatula was very insightful regarding the term 'rocker' that Shane coined. It had too much of a feeling of trying to find the balance point at times but was certainly a blast in the deep deep. Even with a 140 waist I remember a day otto parts and I were skiing kirkwood and it was tit deep on those, which drove me to want to build a fatter Lhasa for the guys that asked for it.

[Boonshackle]

So I shattered my kneecap in mid-Feb while on the lhasas (operator error ). Figured it's time to compare mount points. I like them a lot more mounted at 112cm from the tip.

Soft snow performance improved so much I picked them over my Hellbents every day there was the possibility of soft snow. They didn't seem to lose any maneuverability and feel more stable at +60 mph on hard and soft snow.

Last season at 110 cm I felt like they only wanted to make one turn size/shape in soft snow. The new mount makes them feel a lot more versatile and easier to smear/slash.

All that said, I'm 190 lbs nekkid and my friends tell me I ski like a "fucking lunatic". I like driving them tips.

I hear ya on the balance point. Fully rockered skis like the Hellbent and Volkl's lineup always make me think of rocking horses when I ski them. I've also found that type of ski works the stabilizing muscles of the outside lower leg a lot harder than it works the quads.

A bit of footage from skiing them at Castle this year, if anyone cares (blue/blue at 0:22, 0:35, 0:54, 6:25). Yes, I know it's too long and the compression is horrible.