Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    S-E-A-T-O-W-N
    Posts
    1,732

    Zero G 105 mount point question

    I just dropped a pair of new Zero G 105s off to be mounted, and remembered something:

    I think the ski had two boot sole midpoint bumps.

    Can anybody confirm, and what the difference between these two bumps is? Wondering if I need to give the shop a call to specify.
    that's all i can think of, but i'm sure there's something else...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,783
    Mine only have one bump.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    26
    Mine also have two bumps, this year and last years. I used the further forward of the two- on the idea that I generally liked the 0G 108 better ~1-2cm In front of the mount point. Id be interested to hear a more nuanced take on this though

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,533
    Quote Originally Posted by counterfeitfake View Post
    I just dropped a pair of new Zero G 105s off to be mounted, and remembered something:

    I think the ski had two boot sole midpoint bumps.

    Can anybody confirm, and what the difference between these two bumps is? Wondering if I need to give the shop a call to specify.
    I have mine on the rear mark and am happy with them - 170-175 lbs, shorter than you . . . they turn plenty quick and float very well. I would call them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,783
    Could someone measure distance to the two marks from the tail? I'm curious.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,292
    Quote Originally Posted by m04e1d View Post
    Mine also have two bumps, this year and last years. I used the further forward of the two- on the idea that I generally liked the 0G 108 better ~1-2cm In front of the mount point. I’d be interested to hear a more nuanced take on this though
    Is this year's new mount forward or rearward of last year's?

    The Zero G 108 has like a -11.X mount, and I thought the Zero G 105 was quite a bit forward from that, like -9 ... ? I'm looking to get a pair and the more forward mount point is a selling point for me, personally. I have my Zero G 108s mounted like +3.5, which I did it partially for hole conflict reasons but also because I like progressive mounts. It's almost too far forward for the sidecut, but the ski feels a lot more balanced there to me.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 11-20-2020 at 02:08 PM. Reason: typo
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    26
    The bumps are 80cm and 81.5cm from the tail in a 180cm 0G 105. Interested to hear how that compares to the 108 mount point. I guess that puts the forward point at -7.25? I’m not well versed on any of this, but I gather that’s distance from ski center?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,783
    I think last year's line was around -7cm. I'll check in a bit.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,783
    My 180's are just over 81cm from the bump to the tail notch.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,292
    Quote Originally Posted by m04e1d View Post
    The bumps are 80cm and 81.5cm from the tail in a 180cm 0G 105. Interested to hear how that compares to the 108 mount point. I guess that puts the forward point at -7.25? I’m not well versed on any of this, but I gather that’s distance from ski center?
    Yes, mount points are usually spec'd as a distance rearward from ski center, which gives you a sense of how traditional or new skool the ski will feel.

    Aside: measuring from the tip or tail is the most reliable way to ensure the mount point is accurate (because graphics), unless the mount point is physically stamped onto the sidewall (ON3P, Praxis, etc). But it's otherwise a pretty useless way to discuss mount points of different skis.

    Park skis are usually mounted dead center for riding switch and equal swing-weight when spinning, while old school mounts are usually in the -12 cm range. I personally find mount points further than -8 feel unbalanced doing anything but carving or skiing deep pow. But I grew up on modern skis and I prefer a fairly neutral stance (vs hard shin pressure). Powder skis are usually mounted a little further back because it helps the tip plane up and it's more forgiving of non-perfect balance in 3D snow. Center mounted skis can be tricky to ski in pow -- very easy to go over the handle bars if you get too far forward. Whereas you don't really have that problem in 2D snow (like in park where center-mounted skis were designed to be skied).

    Most skis can be mounted a couple cm forward or backward from the mfg recommended mount point, but it depends on the ski as to how sensitive to the mount point it is. You don't want to get too far outside of the center of the sidecut radius or the ski feels weird. ON3P's powder skis with reverse elliptical sidecut (RES) are much more sensitive to mount point than their all-mount skis.

    -7 would be awesome. Stoked on that! The old 185 Zero G 105 has a mount point of -11.5 ish cm.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Not Brooklyn
    Posts
    7,783
    ^^^ the line on my 180s is 7-7.5 cm behind center depending on how you measure. Lee Lau said -7cm in his review.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TGR Forums mobile app

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,029
    Sorry nothing to add, just giving props for the Brad Neely avatar
    TLDR; Ski faster. Quit breathing. Don't crash.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    S-E-A-T-O-W-N
    Posts
    1,732
    Rad, I still think of this video most days.



    Mounted the skis at the back line, took them out in low-end-of-mediocre conditions yesterday at Crystal. They ski good. Good on hard flat groomers, good in the half dozen nice deep soft turns I found, and for the difficulties I had on everything in between I will not blame the skis.
    that's all i can think of, but i'm sure there's something else...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,533
    Quote Originally Posted by counterfeitfake View Post
    Rad, I still think of this video most days.



    Mounted the skis at the back line, took them out in low-end-of-mediocre conditions yesterday at Crystal. They ski good. Good on hard flat groomers, good in the half dozen nice deep soft turns I found, and for the difficulties I had on everything in between I will not blame the skis.
    Good to hear. I was getting rattled badly on anything not groomed on 188 Rustler 11's!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    410
    any news on this issue? If not I might put them right in the middle of the two lines...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maine Coast
    Posts
    3,543
    Have not skied yet, but I went with the back more traditional mount. Reasoning was I ski a shorter touring ski.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    西 雅 圖
    Posts
    4,533
    Mounted my new pair of 180's on the rear line yesterday . . . now we need some snow.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    S-E-A-T-O-W-N
    Posts
    1,732
    Wow, last year I was using brand new touring skis at Crystal in November! This season started a little different, I finally got out there yesterday with my very shittiest rock skis.

    Through many tours last year I stayed happy with my ZG 105s mounted on the back line.
    that's all i can think of, but i'm sure there's something else...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Zurich, Switzerland
    Posts
    410
    For future reference: IMHO the rear mark is the point to go.

    I asked @nordkette who seems to be taking 105s to way rougher rides than I will ever do. He is also liking his boot-centers at the rear mark and so I mounted there, too.

    I have just had two touring days on them but conditions were at least "variable" from powder to tracked out to different crust variations on dust and wet heavy stuff so I think it can already sum it up a bit:
    I am 180cm, ski 188s and like conservative mount points. I can not envision anyone wanting to go further to the front than the rear mark. Plenty of tail left and theses skis turn nice and easy. I you would go forward I think you will miss some of this nice medium/big turn performance the 105s give you if loosen the breaks and press the tips...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •