Binding Mount Paper Templates

[Chugachjed]

I've been a bit well, skeptical, after reading this thread of mounting with a paper template. Are these things ever reliable? I feel like pretty much every template you guys are talking about is all screwed up or off on some way not making it mountable without some pretty nice adjustments. Am I wrong, or is it pretty easy to do these adjustments without a huge risk of screwing it up.

Every template I've used which is many has worked perfectly. I've mounted probably over 1000 skis working in shops and maybe 20 with templates. It takes longer to setup but I've seen a lot of guys screw up mounting with a jig too.

[Roxtar]

Yeah, always double check. I thought I had posted our G3 template in this thread. The following is from the G3 ION Tech Binding thread"



It was adjusted relative to the Jigarex plates and seems well vetted.

I just tried this template and it was way off. The holes were correct but the boot length was off.
I lined it up at 305mm and it was too long, exceeding the heel adjustment and about a cm off boot center.
I've gone over it several times and pretty sure I lined it up right.
Has anyone else used this template?

[Alpinord]

I just tried this template and it was way off. The holes were correct but the boot length was off.
I lined it up at 305mm and it was too long, exceeding the heel adjustment and about a cm off boot center.
I've gone over it several times and pretty sure I lined it up right.
Has anyone else used this template?

I don't have time to revisit this now to see where there may or may not be an issue with this template from over two years ago. I don't recall other issues to date. You might try the alternative method stated on the template to 'git 'er done':



EDIT: IIRC, I mounted one or two sets with this template and at least one using the G3 Jigarex plate that matched this template.

[Meadow Skipper]

I just tried this template and it was way off. The holes were correct but the boot length was off.
I lined it up at 305mm and it was too long, exceeding the heel adjustment and about a cm off boot center.
I've gone over it several times and pretty sure I lined it up right.
Has anyone else used this template?

Hmmm, I've used it four times, but instead of using the printed scale I followed the "Alternative For Locating The Heel" instructions printed on the template which worked fine. I usually do something like that for any paper template, so I didn't really pay any attention to the printed scale.

And the standard "try it first on a 2x4" advice is useful.

[Zennan]

Every template I've used which is many has worked perfectly. I've mounted probably over 1000 skis working in shops and maybe 20 with templates. It takes longer to setup but I've seen a lot of guys screw up mounting with a jig too.

Ok ya for sure! thing is back in the shop I work in they never let anyone mount or even learn to mount, only guy allowed to was the main shop tech, and he would almost only use jigs, and if it were a template, it was straight from the manufacturer. I mean I watched him many times but I guess just do a few check ups and practice runs and it should be fine then! For sure, nothing can get done well without perfect attention and maximum precision you can do, not just kinda doing it to get it over with.

main thing I was worried about was just not finding a good template to mount with, because to me that's kinda what it sounded like on this thread lol, but sick love the input my man!

[Chugachjed]

Shit. I was mounting skis on day one working at the shop. What kind of shop only lets one guy do mounts?

[NW_SKIER]

Shit. I was mounting skis on day one

And now we know why the mount your own fucking skis thread exists

[Chugachjed]

Of course I'd mounted many skis already with templates and day one mounts were supervised and all Nordic.

[NW_SKIER]

Uh huh

[Breomonkey]

That Powderguide template for the pre-2014 STH-12 Driver/STH-14/STH-16 does not appear to be correct.

Toe
Front two holes are 42.5mm apart
Rear two holes are 40.10mm apart
Rear hole centerline is 31.00mm behind front hole centerline

Heel
Front two holes are 27.50mm apart
Centerline of middle hole is 27.41mm behind centerline of front two holes
Rear two holes are 42.50mm apart
Centerline of rear holes is 63.50mm behind centerline of middle hole (or 90.92mm behind centerline of front two holes for 4-screw baseplates)

I measured a Salomon jig, several pair of bindings & plastic baseplates, the CAST baseplate, and Jigarex plates to arrive at these numbers, and have confirmed the toe pattern in wood, aluminum and finally skis on a vertical mill with DRO. (I'm 100% sure these are the correct numbers for the toe, but I've only tested the heel pattern once so far.)

THIS! STH2 Mounting template Error PowderguideV1.3- WARNING!!!! Leaving the wording so it's grabbed in searches. Yes templates can be off. Have a look at this for yourself. I'll happily edit this post if proved otherwise or when the template is corrected. Until then I stand behind the reco above and leave this as a warning for other to avoid my mistake.

First off huge thanks to Knut for making these available. My intent is to provide some productive feedback not challenge the work. Seems this has been debated years back so I'm surprised it hasn't been corrected. For those that want to see the back-history and the post which led to my resolution begin at post #908 quoted above. Props to 1000-oaks for sharing the details.

I stand with 1000-oaks that powderguide V1.3 STH2/Warden template is off. Extra thanks to Muggydude who has confirmed he independently came up with nearly identical technical measurements as 1000-Oaks.

My bad I didn't verify before using, but the powderguide template is off by enough to botch a pair of insert installs. Cross ref to Jondrum's older STH file, which seems to match perfect with an actual plate. I'm sure the powderguide template might work for screws, but that doesn't make it right. It's off enough I'd hate others to run into an issue.


*Clarification: I believe older STH had elongated holes which may bring the powderguide template in a perfectly workable range. Verify first. I have no knowledge of STH vs. STH2, my only firsthand experience is with the newer STH2's but picked up a comment on the older version.

[Roxtar]

I don't have time to revisit this now to see where there may or may not be an issue with this template from over two years ago. I don't recall other issues to date. You might try the alternative method stated on the template to 'git 'er done':



EDIT: IIRC, I mounted one or two sets with this template and at least one using the G3 Jigarex plate that matched this template.

I'm not sure what went wrong but using the alternate method with Scarpa Mobe, 305BSL got me dead on center. I matched the holes up to this template and ended up with a 146mm toe to center length.

[Zennan]

Shit. I was mounting skis on day one working at the shop. What kind of shop only lets one guy do mounts?

One that gets your gear out to you a while after you get it to us if you wanted a mount. But I mean same thing, what kind of a shop allows you to mount day one? That is also pretty insane, other extreme.

[Chugachjed]

A big busy shop with a good reputation and who knew I'd mounted lots of skis before. I think I mounted 12 pairs of Nordic skis on day one, very busy shop.

[Knut]

I stand with 1000-oaks that powderguide V1.3 STH2/Warden template is off.

The funny thing being that 100-oaks referred to V1.0 and his suggestions have long since implemented.

Drama queen

the powderguide template is off by enough to botch a pair of insert installs. Cross ref to Jondrum's older STH file

My and Jondrum's template (current R6) are identical when it comes to the front holes*. Are you sure this isn't user error?


*to be precise, it is 42 mm lateral hole spacing on mine and 42.4 mm on his. That's 0.2 mm per hole. With the lines on my template being 0.35 mm (probably double that on his) and your average printer only being able to print 3 lines per mm (i.e. 85 lpi), I highly doubt you'll notice the difference, let alone make it botch your insert mount.

Edit: funny (and by funny I mean bloody annoying as hell) side note: when you edit posts on google/android, they get automatically deleted.

[Muggydude]

My measurements and personal template I use give the following toe dimensions:

The front toe holes are 42.53mm apart, rear toe holes 40.13mm apart, and distance between the front and rear toe holes 30.93mm.

I've mounted maybe 6-7 sets of inserts for STH2 with these, plus same number of normal STH2 mounts. I use a big drill press and guide, very confident in my numbers.

I think the combination of .53mm on the front holes laterally and .93mm front to back would be enough to mess up the insert mount, especially if drill/tap isn't perfectly on mark either.

I'd concede maybe the numbers Salomon used when designing the bindings was probably 42.5mm, 40mm, and either 31mm or 30.75mm front to back.

If you print on clear plastic and put the STH2 toe base over it you'd see that the current template is off.

[Knut]

I think the combination of .53mm on the front holes [...] would be enough to mess up the insert mount

That's 0.265 mm per hole.

Besides being well within the wiggle room an M5 machine screw has within the binding's holes, see my post above for reference of why I don't agree. Hell, the line thickness of Jondrum's template already covers that discrepancy.
Besides having myself mounted a dozen or so solly bindings with said template, I've also done insert mounts with them without ever encountering anything close to being an issue. I am convinced that the template is correct.

If you disagree, use Jondrum's template. I think it's great. If you disagree with that, too, get a shop mount. If that's not to your liking, use a system binding.
I think it's great to offer choices.

[Alpinord]

That's 0.265 mm per hole.

Besides being well within the wiggle room an M5 machine screw has within the binding's holes, see my post above for reference of why I don't agree. Hell, the line thickness of Jondrum's template already covers that discrepancy.
Besides having myself mounted a dozen or so solly bindings with said template, I've also done insert mounts with them without ever encountering anything close to being an issue. I am convinced that the template is correct.

If you disagree, use Jondrum's template. I think it's great. If you disagree with that, too, get a shop mount. If that's not to your liking, use a system binding.
I think it's great to offer choices.

The fact that there is a little 'wiggle room' after installing the inserts and before the epoxy cures, I recommend mounting the binding with boot in place during the curing process. This forces an immediate fit check which can be tweaked or you can remove inserts and epoxy if it's way off. Also, this will utilize the binding and screws to force the alignment relative to any minor discrepancies that may occur during the process.

[Muggydude]

That's 0.265 mm per hole.

Besides being well within the wiggle room an M5 machine screw has within the binding's holes, see my post above for reference of why I don't agree. Hell, the line thickness of Jondrum's template already covers that discrepancy.
Besides having myself mounted a dozen or so solly bindings with said template, I've also done insert mounts with them without ever encountering anything close to being an issue. I am convinced that the template is correct.

If you disagree, use Jondrum's template. I think it's great. If you disagree with that, too, get a shop mount. If that's not to your liking, use a system binding.
I think it's great to offer choices.

Have you mounted STH2 though? Same toe pattern as the older gen, but molds can be slightly different between models. I'm not saying your template wouldn't work necessarily (especially if you lightly install bindings while epoxy is still wet, which I do). But I know my measurements are pretty spot on for this model. When I get back to Colorado in a week I'll post picture with some digital caliper measurements to show where I get my numbers.

You also didn't mention a fourth option, which is make my own templates with drafting/CAD software I've done it for fks, STH2, Marker, and attack. I also don't mount bindings in the middle of their boot size adjustment range, as pretty much nobody uses a 24.5 boot that would ever use my skis, so I try to maximize the usability of mine (I have 25.5 boots).

I wouldn't ever let a shop mount my bindings.

I'm not bashing you guys. I think what you do with the templates is awesome, most people don't have access to software or the time to make templates. I almost always start with you or jondrums templates when making mine.

[Knut]

Have you mounted STH2 though?

Not for inserts admittedly, but I doubt that wouldn't have worked. The template has been used for 9xx, STH and STH2 in my hands as well as quite a few other's I trust to be competent.

You also didn't mention a fourth option, which is make my own templates with drafting/CAD software

Of course, if you feel like something in the 0.1mm deviation range calls for that, it's an option. As it is if you just enjoy doing these kind of things. A very legit reason, imo.

[Breomonkey]

Wow, Knut. You are stubborn. So far as I can tell, you've got 2 engineers and someone with a solid machining background attempting to give you some constructive feedback. In small font with an * you even concede there's a difference and point the finger back my way. I'm happy to live on as a dramaqueen in your eyes.

In the post above you note you haven't used it for STH2 with inserts? They need a bit more accuracy than your everyday screw mount.

Let me reiterate. I've mounted 10+ pairs of skis this year and flubbed 2. Guess which 2, STH2 inserts off the template. Both drilled in succession as I was doing a seasons worth of skis for the family production line style. I fixed it by fill -n- redrill, but I'm convinced it was the template issue. I didn't mount immediate after install, which I now will. I'm not afraid to admit my mistakes.

I'll share the pic which I shared with you via PM for all to reference. Are those front cross marks lined up? NOPE!

Here's Jondrums template vs. yours.

It may be <1mm in total, but it's off. You can argue printer tolerances, binding tolerances, and even human tolerances all you want, but if you start off you're already erring towards a limit. In many lines of work 0.25mm off would be enough to send you walking.

To counter the direct response regarding line thickness, it's called a center punch for a reason. The intent is to land dead center, not just near the x. To your credit, landing in quadrants -x:y and x:y adjacent to your lines hedges enough of the error to likely negate, but users shouldn't need this inherent knowledge.

[Breomonkey]

Oh, and to further add. It's not just the width spacing at the front. As Muggy noted, it's a combo of the width and front to rear. I suspect addressing either one may be just enough to open the window of process capability enough to make it a non-issue.

[Knut]

Wow, Knut. You are stubborn. So far as I can tell, you've got 2 engineers and someone with a solid machining background attempting to give you some constructive feedback.

If you think you're the only source of my feedback (or maybe the only engineer mounting skis on the internet?), you're much mistaken.

And if you aim to give constructive feedback, maybe you should've started with noting that the issue you have is mainly the front-rear hole spacing, not the width of the front holes. Reflecting, maybe you should've started with constructive criticism instead of a strongly emphasised warning.

Given the amount of thumbs-up I've received for that template notifying me of successful mounts (standard and insert) with a wide variety of Salomon binders (just to give some numbers: the current version of the STH2 template has been downloaded 2500x, the old salomon alpine template even way more) , I am sure you understand that I do not rush in to change my template just because someone beats the drum harder than others.

I am sorry my template caused you any issues.

[Muggydude]

Did you look at the picture he posted?

Just saying. It's off. Sure it may work for some people, but it's definitely not spot on.

[Breomonkey]

There's enough facts here for people to make their own call on the issue. I'm out, as there's not much to add. Should you ever come around, which it doesn't seem is going to happen. Shoot me a PM and I'll clean these up so people don't get confused.

Warning! Was meant for others. If you were about to potentially mis drill a pair of skis wouldn't you like the heads up? Just trying to save others a headache.

[Muggydude]

STH2 Template Measurements - Compare my picture of the binding lined up with my template compared to the one further up with Powderguide's. Can judge for yourself. Unfortunately my templates are all in Solidworks, at some point if I get around to making some on some free drafting software I'll post them up.

Will be my last post about this- here's how I got my numbers (I measured these out more in depth 2 years ago (see post above), did the ones below in 5 minutes while taking pics with one hand).

Measured distance between innermost part of the front two holes (36.77mm), then of the rear two holes (34.24mm). I then added the diameter of one hole (5.6mm) to each number to get the final distance between the centers of the front holes (42.37mm) and the rear holes (39.84mm).

Both are slightly narrower (~.15mm) than my measurements I posted earlier.







For the distance front holes to back (30mm), I measured the distance between the lateral support struts, then added the thickness of one of the struts (1.13mm) to get the longitudinal distance between the two struts as well as their associated holes (31.13mm). So this measurement was a little longer than my old one.





If I'd ~average all these measurements for a new toe template I'd have:

Front hole width: 42.5mm

Rear hole width: 40.00mm

Front to back hole length: 31mm

I imagine these are the measurements Salomon's engineers orignally designed the bindings with - wouldn;t make sense to have odd '.03' mm numbers