Stance 96 mounting point

[troth]

I picked up a pair of Salomon Stance 96 in the 188 because the 182 seemed like it would be too short. After getting these in my hands they seem long, haha. Would it be a horrible idea to mount them a bit forward? Should I just sack up and ski them on the line like Salomon intended?

[axebiker]

I tend to trust the manufacturer's line, but moving a couple CM up never seems to matter that much. Don't overthink it - it's a ski.

[waxoff]

I picked up a pair of Salomon Stance 96 in the 188 because the 182 seemed like it would be too short. After getting these in my hands they seem long, haha. Would it be a horrible idea to mount them a bit forward? Should I just sack up and ski them on the line like Salomon intended?

What are you hoping to gain from the forward mount? Yer weight, height?

My general stance (no pun intended) for ya is to suck it up, mount on the line, and go ski them!

[kc_7777]

I always mount a bit forward.

Usually I first try to find info on that (eg here like you are), to see if going forward is feasible. Usually you get a bunch saying “on the line”.

Sometimes I will even contact the manufacturer, and any pros who are on that ski.

If I can’t find info I usually won’t buy the ski or I just mount forward.

For example, I wanted some Mindbender 108s. Mount is -9.75cm. I’m sure I could ski them there but I like -6cm. Couldn’t find anything on going forward on these except Blister said +2cm worked. Then I messaged a pro on Instagram...he skis his MBs at +7.75cm. Eg -2cm.


Head Kore another example....recommended is -11cm and pros are going +4cm to +5cm of that. Not that I ski like them. Haha. But interesting.

Personal preference. I wish more skis would do like Atomic and put a range on the ski.

Good luck.

[troth]

Thanks for the input. Im 5'10'' 190lbs, Im planning on using these as daily driver/ski everywhere ski. Probably 70-80 groomers and the rest poking around in the trees/bumps. I have never really thought about messing with the mounting point on a ski with more traditional shape, until now. But I'm probably overthinking it, might just go for +2cm which probably wont make much difference other than in my head , haha.

[waxoff]

I'm your size and weight exactly. I haven't fondled these in person, and I still don't completely get what you're trying to achieve with a forward mount. More maneuverability, liveliness? Maybe in certain situations, but with that short tail rise you'll also get more sticking out behind you doing the exact opposite in other situations. On the 182 I def wouldn't deviate from the line, on the 188 perhaps, but I'd probably limit it to a single cm. Don't really see the meaning of going forward past TC -9 with such a short raise in the tail. But, to each his own, I guess.

[westoxified]

@troth, my general rule is to mount on the line if skiing a shorter size (181) and if the longer size (188+) to mount +2. depends on the brand though. would never do that on an armada. and some brands would go even further than +2. i ski weird though with lotsa forward lean (14+) in my boots and hate having a ton of shovel.

i think in general salomon is pretty on point with mounting lines but the Stance is a directionally shaped ski so if you a looking for more pivot, better balance in the air and less drive like me then +2 is generally the solution.

[Benneke10]

Bumping this thread, has anyone tried mounting forward with these?

[troth]

Bumping this thread, has anyone tried mounting forward with these?

I mounted my 188s on the line and like them a lot, I also have the stance 102 in 190 that I mounted +2 and I am really liking that setup as well. The 96 on the line is defiantly a directional/traditional setup but that is the style of the ski. if you drive the tips/have more aggressive stance the recommend line should be good. if you tend to have a more neutral stance perhaps moving forward might be the right call but I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.