Volkl Nanuq Mounting Point

[AngryBeard]

I got the girlfriend a pair of 170 Volkl Nanuq's with Dynafit Radical St. Great setup for her, good deal. Only thing is that I need to remount it for her and I'm debating only moving the heel (note, heel is all the way forward for the previous mount). They're mounted on the line for a 297 bsl... her boots are 267. If I move only the heel she'll end up 1.5cm in front of the line which is kinda pushing it I feel.

I think the Volkl Nanuqs 2014 are the same as the 2013 model. Stay with me for a moment, as I understand it the Nunataq 2013 is also the same as the 2014 except they pushed the recommended mounting point forward. So questions are:

1) Does anyone know exactly what changed in the Nanuq 2013 to 2014?

2) Do you know if the recommended mounting point moved 2013 to 2014 and by how much?

3) Thoughts on mounting forward on the Nanuq?

Related... gf kills it, technical skiing background and she'll pick her way down more than a few nasty coolies this year. Bonus for me is that the old mount will work for my boots so I'm doing the mount with binding freedom inserts and when I need a fast and light setup I'll steal her rig.

Thanks!

[galibier_numero_un]

Bumping this old thread. A new pair of this years' (2016/17) 177 Nanuqs just arrived on my doorstep.

The boot center mark on the sidewall is 9.25cm behind the straight-pull midpoint. How are folks mounting these? On the line?

A little voice inside my head is telling me to push them back a cm or so. I drive the front of my ski boots.

Edit: I mounted on the recommended line (9.25cm behind straight-pull center point). The ski design has been fairly stable over the past 3-4 years, and I figured that they've had time to dial it in to the ski's intended application. Trying to not overthink this. I'll report back late Spring/early Summer and next year as I get a handle on these skis.

Thanks,
Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

A quick update after a first “dial-in” day today at A-Basin.

I mounted Vipecs on them at the recommended line: -9.25cm from straight-pull center. I tuned them up and laid a 1 degree base bevel after flattening the bases. I left the side edges alone for now and the skis were quite sharp - not ideal for the conditions, but there’s no sense throwing away metal until you know you need to.

The Nanuqs have a long effective edge. The ski's wide point at the front is 10cm from the tip, although this is already into the tip rise. It's a bit of a guess as to where the tip rocker translates into the tip rise, but let's call the wide point of the running surface as somewhere in the 15cm range from the front of the ski. The tail's wide point is 8cm from the tail. I dulled them to about 11 (tip) and 8 (tail). Again ... easier to remove metal than add it back.

There was no overnight freeze at the Basin, with wet Spring snow (no corn), although I did find a few “almost crunchy” spots. In this state of tune, they should have been quite hooky. They were surprisingly “un” nervous, although I’ll definitely take a stone to them and progressively work back toward where the early rise starts. It was hard to tell in these conditions, but I felt as if I could release the tip and tail easily to adjust my line as necessary.

These skis are a confusing a mix of attributes which I think is due to the mount point, and they show potential for their intended application (Spring as well as low-tide in the Winter). With their long effective edge, slight bit of camber, minimal rocker and flat tail, they tend to favor a bit of up-unweighting. They’re not pivot-y, but at this mount point the balance point feels a bit new-school, at least in longer arced turns. It’s a bit of a contradiction.

The stance you need to adopt is how I guess a Praxis GPO would feel when mounted on the line (I wouldn’t know – mine are mounted at -1). I can adjust to this sort of stance but it’s not preferred. The feeling when arcing longer turns is that you’re pressuring the rear third of your arch.

What confuses me further is that they felt well balanced for my preferred “pressure the front of the boot” stance when making tighter turns. As mounted, I think they’d be a good Spring ski for narrow places, but I think it’s time for two sets of inserts to determine the preferred mount – one set of inserts in the current holes, and a set located rearward by 1.25 to 1.5 cm. I suspect that the rearward mount will be my “happy place”, but I might have to go back and forth. We’ll see …

The tips felt relatively stable for a light ski – both straight-running as well as on “longer” arced turns. No one would confuse them with Wrenegades, but I’m sure you knew that. I think a rearward mount would help.

It’s been a while since I’ve been on a ski with a shorter turn radius, but they were less nervous than my expectations of them. Again … I think I’d like a bit more tip in front of me. They felt reasonably damp for a ski their weight – more so than some skis with carbon that I’ve been on. I’m not sure about carbon and light skis. Someone will have to prove to me that they can work.

These skis are not the latest in design or technology, but I can see why Volkl has kept them in their product line.

More … as I accumulate distance on them.

… Thom

[galibier_numero_un]

Dial in day #2.

Conditions: Spring slop at A-Basin (a bit wetter and slower than last week).

Mount Point: changed from on the line to -1.5cm

Hard to tell, but the tips felt more stable in this more difficult, sticky snow (in spite of the fact I didn't wax for warm weather). I did dull the edges back an additional 3" from the first day out on them as well.

In tighter turns, I found myself really having to drive the front of the boots to get them to come around quickly, but this was expected, and what I was after. They felt balanced and precise in shorter radius turns when aggressively, driving forward.

I found myself standing a bit more upright in longer radius turns and less able to control the ski. These were tough conditions however, and I think that the fact that I was comparing them to my GPOs which I took out later in the day makes for an unfair comparison.

I suspect that testing/dialing-in will carry into next season (over a variety of snow conditions).

My sense is, that if I dedicate them to frozen and corn snow, then the recommended mount point will be slightly better. If I want to allow for more difficult conditions like today, then the -1.5 point will work better.

... Thom