Progressive vs traditional mount point merits

[mattyTru]

This is interesting to me.

I got on some K108 last year and I actually found them easier on my legs than my progressive skis. I'm not aggressively leaning forward but they allow me to lay on my boot tongues more than I feel comfortable on the same length of progressive mounted skis.

I have fealt like a more progressive mount needs me to pay more attention to where I am and I'm in the back seat more.

I've heard it suggested that going longer on a progressive mount ski could help that and I think it makes some sense. Like I need a certain amount of ski in front of me to really trust it.

Sent from my SM-A536W using Tapatalk

Yep, I find a traditional mount point to feel much more stable. However, progressive mounts are much more nimble and maneuverable since you are closer to center. I think a progressive point is harder to ski 'well', but once you figure it out, it is really nice to have in tight, technical terrain. It 100% encourages a slashier style of skiing and can be hard to carve properly.

[SoVT Joey]

Yep, I find a traditional mount point to feel much more stable. However, progressive mounts are much more nimble and maneuverable since you are closer to center. I think a progressive point is harder to ski 'well', but once you figure it out, it is really nice to have in tight, technical terrain. It 100% encourages a slashier style of skiing and can be hard to carve properly.

Lol.

[MoeSnow]

Completely anecdotal:

I find more progressively mounted skis more difficult to ski. I have to be maintain a balance point on a smaller sweet spot. If I am able to maintain that balanced stance I am more prepared to pop off of features and feel a bit more balanced in air. Aggressive carving becomes a bit more difficult.

With a traditional mount I can just drive my shovels while putting pressure on my shins. Modifying pressure and rhythm for a different turn radius is, in my experience, a more intuitive way to ski and much easier on a traditional mount. Ripping turns is more fun.

I'm happy doing either. I'm not gonna get on a center-mounted park ski to rail groomers and I'm not gonna get on some ski that is 10cm back to do park.

Farthest forward I've been is -4cm on some ON3P Jeffs. Farthest back I've been is -10.7cm on some Volkl Kendos.

[alude]

Need to convince Alude to add waist center point to the Sooth Ski measurements.

Hum, you won't need to push hard! We already have that value, I just need to find some time to publish it on the website.

However, I might want to try a few different ways of calculating the position of the narrowest point on the ski, as simply finding the position of min waist width might not give you a very stable value given measurement noise and such. I like the method proposed by Marshal, but I think that might create some bias when there is taper (a small bias, but a bias). I might just do a arc fit to the center section of the ski and find the position of min width using that. Anyways, I can publish a few values and you can tell me what you think...

If I understand correctly this thread (I have limited experience playing with mount points but I like to think about it), it seems that the common idea is that we should put the ball-of-foot on the narrowest point of the ski, right? However, the problem is that the manufacturers recommended mount point is for the mid-sole of a mondo 27 boot, so we should adjust the where we mount out skis according to our foot size, right?

I looked a bit at the data we have, and I don't see any correlation between ski length and recommended mount point (you can make that graph in the comparator). Am I correct thinking that this suggest that manufacturers are using the mondo 27 boot length even for 150 cm long ski? This seems like it would put shorter skiers (with small feet) way back on their skis, right? Kind of weird to have the same -11ish cm mount point for 160 and 190 cm long skis...

Another thing that I noticed when measuring skis this fall was that Stoeckli's recommended mount point are super far back (at least for the Montero)... around -14 cm. See below how few skis have such far back mount point:


Another thing that we could add to the website is the front length of the ski with respect to the recommended mount point (or front running length, which is only the part touching the snow). I feel this can be related to one of the numerous metric of "stability" of a ski, i.e., the more ski you have in front of you, the harder it will be to flip forward (e.g., if you hit a slower patch of snow)...

Is there a definition somewhere of a ski's sweet spot?

[lowsparkco]

Just going to try and answer, “is their a definition of a ski’s sweet spot?” - and speculate no.

I think it’s in here earlier… but, to reiterate. Ball of foot is a great starting place because it’s how we apply pressure in an athletic and intentional way, but it’s not the definitive center of gravity. Forward lean, stance, body mechanics, etc. will also effect how you apply fore/aft pressure on the ski and where you find the “sweet spot” hence the different preferences for mount points. Your earlier paraphrasing on the dilemma of everything being dictated by the 315 mm shell is exactly how I understand it. Spot on. So, if you’re going to progressive mount for a 24 mondo you might be +2 of the line or now -9 instead of -11 from cord center, but you may still find the sweet spot at another +2 so at -7.

I don’t know another way to find sweet spot other than moving the binding. We could describe what we feel or like and dislike when we find the right spot, but that might be different for different styles of riders, too.

I just moved a mount forward 2 cm on a pair of cambered Kastles and it shocked me, as it’s already a short ski for me, but it was about hooking it up at the right spot in the mid-tip and most importantly how the ski let go when releasing out of torsional pressure.

[SnakeMagnet]

So I ought to drop everything on my 335 shells 1cm back then..

Probably not on the Mantra 102's. Everyone seems to like those at +1 here so it makes sense why it works best on the line for me.

[TexasGortex]

alude:

I think having the data of narrowest area of the ski would give us a lot of insight into what the designers were going for when comparing it to where they put the recommended line. Might do a lot to explain some of the outlier mount points as well as validate why some fan-favorites here get so many suggestions to move the mount point (the current Dynastars come to mind).

I’d personally greatly value this info for further understanding why I like the skis I do, making better purchases, and having more confidence choosing a mount point.

[lowsparkco]

alude:

I think having the data of narrowest area of the ski would give us a lot of insight into what the designers were going for when comparing it to where they put the recommended line. Might do a lot to explain some of the outlier mount points as well as validate why some fan-favorites here get so many suggestions to move the mount point (the current Dynastars come to mind).

I’d personally greatly value this info for further understanding why I like the skis I do, making better purchases, and having more confidence choosing a mount point.

Are mags reporting they like further back on some of the new Dynastars? I have a pair of X106’s from 2018 or so, think Cham, and I’m starting to think I’ll move the mount back. They’re on the line right now and feel like a pair of 165’s.

[TexasGortex]

I think foreword actually. Note: I’ve only casually browsed the Dynastar thread and haven’t been on any modern ones so I may be recalling incorrectly. The M-Free has just been very popular here so it’s been on my comparison list for the past several years.

[whambat]

I’d disagree with the ball of foot as the focus in skiing and instead think of the strongest position with heel and ball weighted equally. You don’t do squats on the ball of your foot for max strength. You keep your heel down. In mountain biking, there has been a big shift from ball of foot to more centered position for at least downhill and trail riding because it’s a stronger position.
We may have more ball of foot weighting to initiate a turn, but a stronger position is center weighting when the g forces get stronger in the meat of the turn.

[J. Barron DeJong]

I’d disagree with the ball of foot as the focus in skiing and instead think of the strongest position with heel and ball weighted equally. You don’t do squats on the ball of your foot for max strength. You keep your heel down. In mountain biking, there has been a big shift from ball of foot to more centered position for at least downhill and trail riding because it’s a stronger position.
We may have more ball of foot weighting to initiate a turn, but a stronger position is center weighting when the g forces get stronger in the meat of the turn.

I’d think it would depend on skiing style? More upright stance maybe you keep boot center constant, but if you really drive the front of the boot that’s shifting pressure on the ski forward and maybe better if ball of foot stays constant?

That’s one of the thing I’m interested to see if Alude gets waist points in Sooth Ski. On a freestyle oriented ski, where it’s expected that the skier will have a more upright/centered stance, is the recommended mount point further forward relative to the waist than a more carving oriented ski where it’s expected the skier is driving the tips more?

[whambat]

It does depend on skiing style, but in a strong ski racing turn, the weight starts on the front, moves to center, then finishes towards the tails. And, that’s in the crouched type skiing. You don’t have a strong carve staying on the shovels: you will wash out.
Going back to my earlier post, a more traditional ski mount is more rearward because it doesn’t have a twin tip and or tail rocker. You loose several CM of a ski behind you when you just finish with a flat tail on a traditional ski. A progressive freestyle ski is usually much more center mounted because it has a lot of tail that probably isn’t touching the snow all that much. A more progressive ski is easier to overweight the tips and the beginning of a turn because the shovel is shorter. Comparing two 185cm skis: a progressive ski is much like skiing a shorter ski than a traditional ski because less ski is touching the snow. You are essentially further forward because there is a twin tip with several Cm now behind you. If you take a 185 and 175 traditional mounted skis, you can’t pressure the tips near as much on the 175 because there isn’t enough shovel. However, you don’t need to. The short ski will initiate a turn with less pressure. Same thing with a progressive ski of the same size as a traditional ski. It’s basically just a smaller ski when looking at contact with the snow. And with the freestyle ski, sometimes washing out can be intentional, isn’t that essentially what a butter is?

Also, even though there may be a chunk of a tail not touching the snow, doesn’t mean it’s not beneficial: it balances the weight of the ski for spinning and sliding on rails. And landing in powder, a rockered tail still provides some stability reducing backslap. And the rockered tail, if not too tapered, still provides tail support while on edge, but easier to smear when you ease up on the edge angle. You just are going to want a longer ski than something traditionally mounted. My 190cm Wildcats ski a lot shorter than my 187 Bonafides and way shorter than my 192 LP105s, but are way more fun in powder in the trees.


On a slight tangent, I’d encourage one to think about pressuring different parts of the ski versus weight on the foot. From a sports psychology/ neuromuscular development standpoint, having external focus is better than internal focus.

[whambat]

This isn’t the video I was initially looking for, but here’s one using the Carv insoles to show proper weight shifting through a turn. Because of the pressure sensors in the soles, it provides feedback and metrics of the weight shifting. I don’t have the Carv soles, nor am I recommending them, but they do have some decent information and instruction on YouTube for free:
https://youtu.be/RI6Dpeo5pAM

I’ll add the one I was originally looking for if I find it.

edit: here’s the one I was looking for, and it really shows what happens if you stay forward over your skis.
https://youtu.be/6sdEFYz7i2g

[SoVT Joey]

This isn’t the video I was initially looking for, but here’s one using the Carv insoles to show proper weight shifting through a turn. Because of the pressure sensors in the soles, it provides feedback and metrics of the weight shifting. I don’t have the Carv soles, nor am I recommending them, but they do have some decent information and instruction on YouTube for free:
https://youtu.be/RI6Dpeo5pAM

I’ll add the one I was originally looking for if I find it.

edit: here’s the one I was looking for, and it really shows what happens if you stay forward over your skis.
https://youtu.be/6sdEFYz7i2g

first video guy is squatting to finish his turn. At that point he is removing power out of his next turn initiation.

second video is great if you ski with your knees locked together like it’s 1999.

Carv does nothing more then make you compete against some shitty PSIA turns. If you are riding tails to finish a turn you are in the back seat and your boots are probably too stiff. Hence dolphin turns.

Whambat nails it in his write up. Tip starts the turn. If you are relying on the ball of foot you are already late on your edge initiation.

[whambat]

first video guy is squatting to finish his turn. At that point he is removing power out of his next turn initiation.

second video is great if you ski with your knees locked together like it’s 1999.

Carv does nothing more then make you compete against some shitty PSIA turns. If you are riding tails to finish a turn you are in the back seat and your boots are probably too stiff. Hence dolphin turns.

Whambat nails it in his write up. Tip starts the turn. If you are relying on the ball of foot you are already late on your edge initiation.

I’ll disagree a little bit on it being outdated technique from 90’s. We had a lot different techniques before shaped skis. A lot more pivot turn initiation then lock edges in for the traverse. Carv isn’t the direction I’d send people for freeride, but it does show decent for for piste. If you can learn to carve with your hip on the snow, not only is it fun, but you have a lot more balance in the rest of your skiing.


Just about every ski racer finishes with some tail pressure. The key is getting back over at turn initiation. Also, ski racers legs are actually pretty close together, the skis gain width and separation by shortening the inside leg. Here’s the queen

PSIA preaches a center weighted at all times technique. And there’s a lot of other issues I don’t always agree with PSIA, especially their aversion to banking/ inclination, I think out of fear of looking like ski patrollers. Meanwhile, it can be effective and energy conserving in off piste. There’s a reason why so many patrollers adopt the technique and you even see it a bit on the FWT.

[whambat]

first video guy is squatting to finish his turn. At that point he is removing power out of his next turn initiation.

https://youtu.be/vaPDpU1_OrU

That is a common misconception. Watch this video at minute 11, and this high level racing coach talks about how the expert level of carving found on World Cup, you actually squat during the transition and extend into the turn. This is the higher level technique and he talks about how it is different than what is taught at most ski schools, but you can see it from the WC footage it’s what the pros do. And if you think about it, it’s also what mogul skiers do as their transition is when they are absorbing a mogul at its peak with the knees are near the chest and then extend into the trough behind.

[Marshal Olson]

I’d disagree with the ball of foot as the focus in skiing and instead think of the strongest position with heel and ball weighted equally. You don’t do squats on the ball of your foot for max strength. You keep your heel down. In mountain biking, there has been a big shift from ball of foot to more centered position for at least downhill and trail riding because it’s a stronger position.
We may have more ball of foot weighting to initiate a turn, but a stronger position is center weighting when the g forces get stronger in the meat of the turn.

I definitely concede that you know way more about the alpine race coaching side that I do, but I would just point out that while stronger yes, such a stance is also more planted and static. great for some things like carving at FIS levels, not so great for others like skiing down the falling in tracked setup snow. powerful vs dynamic. Elites set up their boots differently for tech and speed events, as an example. YMMV and all of that.

Irrespective on subjective analysis on BOF vs heel and that sort of thing, the method I describe has worked very well for me, both personally finding spots I like, and in setting up folks at the right place on skis! I still advocate for mounting your midsole near the center of sidecut, moving forward a bit for smaller and/or more upright boots and the opposite for larger/high lean boots. My observation is that folks that like a -5cm mount (as an example) are generally speaking more discussing that they like skis with similar amounts of tail and tip taper, and a small-ish amount of tip width to tail width delta -- and the center of sidecut happens to be close to -5cm or -6cm on the ski overall.

@Alude - assuming the radius of the ski is a single radius circle in the measured area and the designer didn't blend multi radiuses in the measured region (why I do 1cm wider fore/aft and not more), then as long as you are bisecting the chord at a perpendicular, and the ski has the same radius on both sides, that would define the ski's waist. So for sure a few assumptions in there, but just FWIW it has proven out for me over the years. Very curious for your take!!!!

[whambat]

I definitely concede that you know way more about the alpine race coaching side that I do, but I would just point out that while stronger yes, such a stance is also more planted and static. great for some things like carving at FIS levels, not so great for others like skiing down the falling in tracked setup snow. powerful vs dynamic. Elites set up their boots differently for tech and speed events, as an example. YMMV and all of that.

I’m just going to try to ignore the fact that you would call GS or slalom racing as not dynamic.

Marshall, as you’ve built quite a reputation here and the type of skis you are building, I would suspect that you don’t stay on your balls of your feet throughout your whole turn. I’m sure you initiate it that way, but you’d end up washing your turns out if you stayed there. In terms of it not being effective in fall line soft snow skiing, think of the strength that Aymar Navarro has to have to hold on at the midpoint of his turns. You just aren’t engaging your posterior chain with your weight on just the balls of your feet.

Here’s a screen shot I grabbed of McKenna Peterson in deep pow. Notice the similarities to the shot of Mikaela I posted earlier. She’s developed space between her skis by shortening her inside leg (and determining her turn shape and edge angle by that shortening), pressing out on the outside leg, and her hip is dragging on the snow. She carries her race training into her career as a freeride skier pretty well and in my opinion has some of the best form of anyone in soft snow.


As far as your comment about mount points, we are pretty close in opinion about a lot of it. And you have a lot of experience setting up people with what works well for them.

[Marshal Olson]

Oh for sure man! I think we are agreeing >95%, for sure. And love the conversation.

Just to clarify, my earlier point on BOF was intended to illustrate how cuff angle effects where on energy tends to manifest on the ski, relative to the sidecut. more of an average…

I wasn’t trying to literally say one skis off the ball of the foot, as that isn’t really possible, since your foot is in a mostly fixed position (boot) and in a fixed position relative to the toe (binding w/ forward pressure).

but you are exactly right of course, through a clealy
carved turn, weighting moves fore-to-aft. My response to this was to (attempt, poorly!) illustrate how different and active someone straightlining cut up snow is, as compared to racing gates…

but I don’t think I did that well, as I clearly over simplified and wasn’t clear. My apologies!

[mattyTru]

Lol.

Do you disagree?

[whambat]

My goal with posting so much race crap was to try to help take down the widely held misconception that racers or people with steep boot cuff angles are always forward and pressuring their tips and their weight is always forward. While they do pressure their tips, it’s not for the whole turn. And, often in the turn, they even have their hips way behind their boots giving the appearance of being in the backseat.

Going back to mount points, I wonder with small differences, like a CM or less, is how much the individual can compensate without knowing. The snow surface is a great feedback tool and a good skier will most likely compensate to get their weight centered over the side cut of the ski, often unconsciously.

Anyhow, just one more stupid racing video that I was looking for earlier that really shows the difference between extending and retracting for turn initiation. It’s actually an awesome way to ski dynamically and absorb while skiing through chopped up crud at very high speeds and keeps you centered on your feet. The act of retracting is an act of absorption. While they’re more upright with the hips not as close to the ground, many pro free riders do it to start their turn. Specifically, I think it’s part of why Kristopher Turdel looks so smooth.
https://youtu.be/gTvcFiIy_74

[kamtron]

Loving the race stuff. Makes me rethink a lot of stuff I was taught

[lowsparkco]

I don’t doubt that 1 cm or so can be compensated for with technique. I for one gave no credence to a couple cm's of movement until I started moving bindings around. It can be like a completely different ski + or - 2, 4, even 6 cm. It would be amazing if there was a way to experiment without drilling but alas…. hence all the black magic.

[kootenayskier]

I don’t doubt that 1 cm or so can be compensated for with technique. I for one gave no credence to a couple cm's of movement until I started moving bindings around. It can be like a completely different ski + or - 2, 4, even 6 cm. It would be amazing if there was a way to experiment without drilling but alas…. hence all the black magic.

When adapting to significant changes in ski design, I’ve mounted skis with demo bindings and experimented with different mount points. I prefer traditional rearward designs and mounts, but sometimes going slightly (+1 or 2) forward made a positive difference to a skis performance on hard pack. Modern demo bindings aren’t terrible and having skis you can adjust and loan to friends or family often useful,, or then just remount. However now that I’m deep in a Volkl (Katana -Mantra-Kendo) obsession, and have experimented to no effect, I just mount them on the line.

[Marshal Olson]

My goal with posting so much race crap was to try to help take down the widely held misconception that racers or people with steep boot cuff angles are always forward and pressuring their tips and their weight is always forward. While they do pressure their tips, it’s not for the whole turn. And, often in the turn, they even have their hips way behind their boots giving the appearance of being in the backseat.

Going back to mount points, I wonder with small differences, like a CM or less, is how much the individual can compensate without knowing. The snow surface is a great feedback tool and a good skier will most likely compensate to get their weight centered over the side cut of the ski, often unconsciously.

Anyhow, just one more stupid racing video that I was looking for earlier that really shows the difference between extending and retracting for turn initiation. It’s actually an awesome way to ski dynamically and absorb while skiing through chopped up crud at very high speeds and keeps you centered on your feet. The act of retracting is an act of absorption. While they’re more upright with the hips not as close to the ground, many pro free riders do it to start their turn. Specifically, I think it’s part of why Kristopher Turdel looks so smooth.
https://youtu.be/gTvcFiIy_74

Really good stuff. Got my mind turning a bit for sure. Agreed on the mount piece, and small adjustments. I like to help folks with mount line, and opperate in 5mm increments for advice, since people are putting holes in their ski, why not be as precise as possible, but generally think 1cm is about as small as folks can detect.

Your note on retracting, I think, is more how I ski and what I was (poorly) describing as dynamic skiing - just I personally ski way less across the fall line vs the video! haha. but essentially bedning your knees, bringing your feet up to unweight, and then placing the feet on the opposite edge, all while keeping your chest square.