Lotus 138 mounting point vs other R/R skis

**deeppowdr** · 11-17-2009, 08:36 AM

When I look at a pair of Lotus 138 compared to any other Reverse ski one thing draws my attention - mounting point. The problem with it is that it looks far back than normal leaving a very long tip and almost no tail.
From what I can understand a typical r/r ski is designed to be skied from the center with tips and tail being of almost equal length. This is easy to understand because you are loading the center of the ski w/o any tail gunning or tip driving.
My question is why this rule doesn't work for the 138's?
From what I know the 1st generations of the skis were more center mounted but almost every one seemed to be happier mounting at -1. After that every year the MP is place more and more towards the back of the ski and closer to the tail. So, why is it like this? Any ideas?

**deeppowdr** · 11-17-2009, 12:13 PM

No idea?

**njfreeskier** · 11-17-2009, 12:54 PM

I've always wondered this myself. The mounting point, even the one closest to the tip, is still set fairly far back. I have two schools of though on this, neither of which may actually be true, but it's the only thing i can think of.

1) First, is that the the 138 is not really a full on reverse camber ski, like the spats or praxis pow. The skis actually have very minimal sidecut. There is early taper in the tip and tail so that it resembles a reverse sidecut ski, but its dimensions are actually 140-138-139. Hardly any difference whatsoever, but when you look at a reverse/reverse ski like the praxis pow, it get continually wider to its fattest point, and then continually narrower again at 131-136-124.

2) The second thing is the way the rocker is used on the ski. It is not continuous curve rocker like on the spats or the praxis pow. It is rockered in the tip and tail, and zero camber underfoot. There is a flat spot on the dps skis, whereas the praxis pows have no flat spot, and are more like a surfboard with a continuous curve throughout the length of the ski.

I think the combination of the sidecut and flat spot/shape with the rearward mounting allow you to have a really sick pow ski. Where the tail sinks, you have a lot of balance and get good stability and control underfoot to drive the tips or smear the skis, and the flat spot with the tip rocker allow the tips to pop and stay up.

Just my .02 cents. Don't know how accurate it is.

**deeppowdr** · 11-17-2009, 01:42 PM

Don't know how accurate it is.

Neither do I, but it sounds pretty reasonable. Thanks.

**rip** · 11-17-2009, 02:01 PM

if only there was a way to search through old posts and bring up threads like this that already discuss things like mounting points of a certain popular powder ski.

sure would be great. oh well, maybe some day..

**deeppowdr** · 11-17-2009, 02:25 PM

if only there was a way to search through old posts and bring up threads like this that already discuss things like mounting points of a certain popular powder ski.

sure would be great. oh well, maybe some day..

Yeah, your right! But this is more a kinda discussion on the MP rather than explanation.

**dynodonkeyaltabird** · 11-17-2009, 02:58 PM

i just compared my praxis pows with 138s mounted at -1 and the mount on the 138s isnt much further back. if the two skis were the same length the 138s would be maybe 1-2cm back from the prax mount. although i mounted my prax at the very back of recommended fwiw.

**rip** · 11-17-2009, 03:17 PM

sorry, just had to razz you a bit

I think njfreeskier pretty much nails it.

The taper starts much further ahead of the binding on the 138 than it does on a spatula or even a ARG. It really is more of a hybrid of a traditional super fat ski and a r/r ski, hence the more traditional mount point.

and this pic deserves a repost

**deeppowdr** · 11-17-2009, 03:19 PM

and this pic deserves a repost

Quoted for truth =)

**shasti** · 11-18-2009, 07:15 AM

sick photo. Wonder why we dont see more pros on 138s or similar. not a ski for all terrain but I bet it would work when that AK snow was deep n soft.

**marshalolson** · 11-18-2009, 08:03 AM

the mounting point for the 138 is designed for skiing 40-50 deg pitches at 50 mph, not banging super tight trees - which really is what the near center mount of the praxxis and spatula excel at.

i just moved evil e to +1.5 on his 138s to make it a bit more similar to the mount point of his praxis, and loosen the ski up and make it more smeary. i think he will really dig them, but i personally have no desire to ski them that far forward.

**skifishbum** · 11-18-2009, 08:24 AM

I messed around a bit with the mounting point on the 138's last season with the the pair http://wasatchpowderskis.com/ (shameless plug) has with demo binders. Natty's -4 didnt work for me. I was happiest with on the line or -1. I wish somebody would make a 12+ din AT binding
that had mount movement like the schitzo. I'm debating putting a pair of Jondrums duke dyna plates on my pair to give them more versitility.

**JeffreyJim** · 11-18-2009, 09:39 AM

I think Marshal has a good point...it's all about what you plan on doing with them.

I compared this too about two weeks ago and wondered the same thing. Although the 138 does have a flat spot and minimal sidecut as opposed to TRUE reverse camber and reverse sidecut, the 138 has gobs more rocker (net rocker) in the tip and about the same or more in the tail.

This leads me to think you *could* mount more forward and not have any tip dive/other weirdness going on but maybe lose a little stability at speed.

Finally, I think it comes back to what you are used to. I suck at skiing a "traditional" (aka: old school) mount. I really ski better on a more centered mount ski...but I think a lot of this comes from what I'm used to and my background (bumps, ski from the center of the ski as opposed to drive the shit out of the tip etc)

Personally, IF I ever get a pair of 138s (Marshal, are you listening? I want a pair of hybrids!!!! hehehe) I'll mount more forward than most. I love me a smeary surfy pow ski...

**hoarhey** · 11-18-2009, 10:42 AM

Jondrums, please make the following two plates:

1) Duke a la schizo: Three sets of holes +2, 0, -2 cm

2) Dynafit a la schizo: Three sets of holes +2, 0, -2 cm

**marshalolson** · 11-18-2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by JeffreyJim

Marshal, are you listening? I want a pair of hybrids!!!!

in stock, ready to ship, and going fast.

nut up.

**jondrums** · 11-18-2009, 11:08 AM

I can see doing it for dukes - it might sell
I'll keep that under advisement...

(what does schizo mean?)

**marshalolson** · 11-18-2009, 11:13 AM

new marker binding that is allows toe and heel adjustment +/- up to 3cm

**hoarhey** · 11-19-2009, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by jondrums

I can see doing it for dukes - it might sell
I'll keep that under advisement...

(what does schizo mean?)

Please consider for this winter.
I've got a pair of 138's coming tomorrow and want to have this capability for March.

I think the maggots would line up in droves for this.

**jondrums** · 11-19-2009, 10:23 PM

^ what happens in March?

**hoarhey** · 11-19-2009, 11:55 PM

Trial run of 138's in Jackson (fondling them now).
Possible ensuing trip to AK... (emphasis on possible)

I'll be in Jackson Dec 25 thru Jan 12, but didn't expect these plates to be ready by then, hence March.

**hoarhey** · 11-29-2009, 07:44 PM

bumping to check for jondrum's consideration of this multi-position
duke mounting plate...

**jondrums** · 11-29-2009, 09:55 PM

take me on your trip to AK, and I'll make whatever plate you want, whenever you want

**TheDon** · 11-30-2009, 12:06 AM

I've thought the same thing about the BD mega watt. Looks like so much fun but don't think I'd like the super old school mount point.

**hoarhey** · 11-30-2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by jondrums

take me on your trip to AK, and I'll make whatever plate you want, whenever you want

If getting these plates depend on my going to AK, the chance of having these plates is pretty low. :-)

**AlpenDude** · 12-02-2009, 12:13 AM

In regards to the far back mounting point- Has anyone given the same consideration to Lotus 120's? Has anyone mounted at +2 or any further forward?

I have 190cm Lotus 120 flex 2 mounted with dukes on the line. I feel there is soo much ski in front of the binding. I was leary with this mount from the beginning but DPS warned that mounting forward would start to sacrifice planing, especially at low speed by going too far forward.

I'm quite content with this ski at high speed in open terrain but more often I'm not skiing in those conditions. I ski these through the resort, mostly for sidecountry, and a bit for touring. So I really use it in all conditions, including shorter radius turns through the forest with variable snow. When i'm in the slarve portion of a turn and the skis are nearing perpendicular to the fall line orientation the uneven feeling of the mount is most prominent. I'm hoping that mounting further forward would make the ski a bit more utilitarian. Thoughts, Experience?