Tech & alpine binding mounts on the same skis (via inserts), how would you offset?

[DtEW]

This is kind of a corollary of the Swiss Cheese Experiment, but I figured people might have opinions on this even apart from the desire to multi-mount via inserts (eg. Binding Freedom, Quiver Killer).

Suppose you've got a pair of skis that you'd like to use both inbound and out, and are therefore putting in two sets of inserts, one for a pair of tech bindings, and the other for a pair of alpine bindings. Let's suppose it's a mid-fat 95-105mm in width (corollary: would fatter or skinnier sticks change your calculations?) There is one preferred location you'd like to mount on the skis.

But there is a mount pattern hole conflict and there is no heel/toe rail adjustability to either binding set. Yes, I realize this is not entirely realistic esp. for the alpine bindings, but lets just go-with-it here to simplify the question.

Would you offset the tech binding mount location ahead of the alpine binding mount location, or vice versa? Let's suppose the offset doesn't need to be great, like only ~1 cm. Yes, it may not make much of a difference. But what is your theoretical preference?

[Norseman]

Move the alpine pattern back 5mm and the tech pattern fwd 5mm.

Alpine boot will better drive the longer tip, easier to apply power. Softer AT boot will have an easier time with the shorter/quicker feel of the fwd mount.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I've done this. Alpine +.5, Tech at -.5. If I reversed it wasn't going to work nearly as well. Boot/binding difference was more notable than the mount location.

[eskido]

Easy answer for me is -1 tech / on the line for alpine. Shorter tails equals easier kick turns and usually a minus mount (depending on skis) tends to work well in soft snow. I actually have this same set up on my Q’s and dig it except the alpine binders I specifically bought to accept my touring boots has a funky ramp angle with them in so I still have to use different boots which REALLY pisses me off!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[galibier_numero_un]

Agree with back for touring - softer snow, easier kick turns (much as I gravitate to the former and try to avoid the latter).

Usually what happens however, is that I'll ski with one mount for a while, and then decide if I got it right. If I did, I make every attempt to mount the second mount in the same location.

If I think I was off, I'll adjust the second mount accordingly.

Lately, I've been paying more attention the differences in ramp angle (growing more sensitive to this) and stack height (which I've always been sensitive to).

I'm constantly reevaluating those differences, and this may inform/modify my approach. I'm planning on cutting toe shims for my Vipecs.

... Thom

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[Foggy_Goggles]

Just get IONs and Wardens. They don't conflict.

[toast2266]

Agreed with Gallbler and Eskido - mount the alpine where you want it. Mount the tech back from that, wherever it needs to be to handle the hole conflict.

I've done this in the past, and would do it again if I were so inclined.

[Shorty_J]

Easy answer for me is -1 tech / on the line for alpine. Shorter tails equals easier kick turns and usually a minus mount (depending on skis) tends to work well in soft snow. I actually have this same set up on my Q’s and dig it except the alpine binders I specifically bought to accept my touring boots has a funky ramp angle with them in so I still have to use different boots which REALLY pisses me off!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[sethschmautz]

Move the alpine pattern back 5mm and the tech pattern fwd 5mm.

Alpine boot will better drive the longer tip, easier to apply power. Softer AT boot will have an easier time with the shorter/quicker feel of the fwd mount.

Just did this for my Beast 14/Radical 2 mount. They share the same toe, but my boots end up with midsole about 1cm apart due to believe differences. I mounted Alpine where I wanted it to be (longer bsl boot) and the shorter touring boot ended up about 5mm forward.

I think the other suggestions are good, with Alpine ahead of touring, if not sharing the same toe.

Seth

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Norseman]

Guess I'm voted off the island. Shrug

I still stand by my *opinion* re. putting the bigger boot back on the ski to better drive the longer feel. Maybe I'm getting hung up on the waist class the OP states... it ain't a pow ski, and would be edged/skied aggressively inbounds and more relaxed OB.

If pow touring on a wider ski, then sure, light boot back and float em up. A weak counterpoint to shorter tails being less snaggy in kickturns is that a longer tail can make trailbreaking easier as the tip rises more readily.

Lastly, perhaps Thom's point about system ramp is most important, as it determines the fore/aft position of skier's CG moreso than 1cm mount difference.

Nerds

[skis_the_trees]

I made my own swap plates years ago for Dynafit and Look PX series. I moved the looks forward a bit to be more pivoty inbounds and the Dfits back for a touch more tip float (that was the idea anyway). The BSL was different by 5mm at the time so it negated some of the difference. But it actually didn't matter, because as noted above the boot/binding/ramp feel is more substantial than the 1cm difference in mount.