Progressive vs traditional mount point merits

[Bushwacka]

I dislike having my foot locked in a forward lean position for skiing. I like to be more upright, then flex into the boot as needed to drive the ski. If I start off being locked in a forward lean, I find I have to be even more forward to drive the ski. If I start off upright, I can transfer energy into the ski as soon as I begin flexing forward. Also, being stuck in a forward lean leads to drastically more leg fatigue in my experience. For this reason, I remove rear spoilers from ski boots and use booster straps for a nice progressive flex.

I find that skis designed around a progressive mount work better for me because of my preference to be more upright and neutral. A well designed progressive mount ski will feel way more maneuverable to me than a traditional mounted ski and if it is long enough I won't ever feel like I'm going over the handle bars. Also worth noting- I much prefer a substantial tail rocker for progressive skis so it's easy to break the (comparatively longer) tail loose.

do you think shoulders should be forward or do you think shoulders should be upright?

Do you have video of you skiing?

[singlesline]

Get on some skis with demo bindings and test it for yourself.

If you really want to test it to extremes, mount the skis with demo bindings tailored to your BSL (so the most forward toe position fits your boot when the heel is also in the most forward position) and with the most rearward position on the recommended mount (unless you think you want to try going even further back).

On attack 13s, this would give you 6-7cm of range (standard demo mount gives you less range since it needs to accommodate different boot sizes)

[Kevo]

do you think shoulders should be forward or do you think shoulders should be upright?

Do you have video of you skiing?

Only helmet cam footage, which won't show much I don't think.

I ski with my body stacked like I'm doing a front squat, so my upper body is aligned with my lower body. My shoulders are over my knees throughout a range of motion that starts most of the way upright and ends with my knees a bit above 90 degrees in a front squat as I flex into my boots while making turns.

[carlh]

Interesting points here. I did run back through Marshall’s thread and am on board with mounting skis where they are designed to be mounted. I am trying to figure out if I am missing something sticking with skis mounted around -10 instead of skis designed to be mounted around -5. I grew up skiing New England ice and driving my tips.
Maybe I need to demo some appropriately long and stiff progressive mounted skis to really figure it out.

[SoVT Joey]

I don’t…. What? I guess that’s mostly what I expect from a backseat double pole planter.

I suspect most of our disconnect here is terminology. I’m not skiing around on my tiptoes or unweighting my heels or anything, but keeping my balance point around the balls of my feet is precisely what helps me avoid opening up my ankle and gives me the best fore-aft balance.

But sure, dude. Your continued discussion is what I was referring to… where if the point where the ski seems to want to be driven feels like it’s behind my balance point, I don’t love it and can’t seem to jive with that ski until/unless I shift that back a bit so it’s closer to the middle or even slightly ahead of middle section of my boot. It’s all visualization, really, so what’s actually happening might be different.

How all that relates to traditional vs. progressive is what I was trying to address.

i get what you are talking about I think. When I go from my Corvus to my Atris it takes me a few turns to figure it back out. Both are mounted on the line and fairly progressive, but the construction makes the ski act very differently. I sometimes find myself almost feeling like I am about to go over the handlebars in turn initiation when I first get on it on the Atris. I have to bring my balance more up right and control this ski from a little farther back in the tip. My Corvus on the other hand will allow me to get out as far as I want on the tip to initiate a turn. I think it has to do with construction as well as the progressive mount.

A really good comparison of traditional mount vs progressive on similar ski constructions the katana and Cochise vs the Corvus.

[Kopi_Red]

Traditional ski = Traditional mount
Progressive ski =Progressive mount

Once you go forward you'll never go back

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I disagree. If you put me on a ski with a mount point around -6 from center or closer, I cannot get it off my feet soon enough.

Interesting points here. I did run back through Marshall’s thread and am on board with mounting skis where they are designed to be mounted. I am trying to figure out if I am missing something sticking with skis mounted around -10 instead of skis designed to be mounted around -5. I grew up skiing New England ice and driving my tips.
Maybe I need to demo some appropriately long and stiff progressive mounted skis to really figure it out.

IME you're not missing out on much. My favorite ski, LP 105, has a mount point around -12.75 and my next two favorite skis evar have mount points at -7 (GPO) and -7.5 (mfree 108). Mount points around -5 don't allow me to feel stacked on the ski. It feels like my hips are too far forward and I'm steering from my heels. It could be my gaper technique that leads me to feel this way but as it stands I much prefer skis with mount points a little further back. On a different note I'm really sensitive to ramp angle as well so take that for what it is.

[altacoup]

I disagree. If you put me on a ski with a mount point around -6 from center or closer, I cannot get it off my feet soon enough. IME you're not missing out on much. My favorite ski, LP 105, has a mount point around -12.75 and my next two favorite skis evar have mount points at -7 (GPO) and -7.5 (mfree 108). Mount points around -5 don't allow me to feel stacked on the ski. It feels like my hips are too far forward and I'm steering from my heels. It could be my gaper technique that leads me to feel this way but as it stands I much prefer skis with mount points a little further back. On a different note I'm really sensitive to ramp angle as well so take that for what it is.

I guarantee that if you mounted your lp 105s + 3 that they would become even more “favoriter”. Progressive mounts work even better on skis with “straightish “ side cuts. And 25+ turn radius skis just ski better. More tail=more recovery potential. That’s why the dude on the fwt on m108 is mounted like +4/5. If feeling the middle of the side cut on a groomer relative to your mount point is your concern, I suggest soul7s.

[Kopi_Red]

I guarantee that if you mounted your lp 105s + 3 that they would become even more “favoriter”. Progressive mounts work even better on skis with “straightish “ side cuts. And 25+ turn radius skis just ski better. More tail=more recovery potential. That’s why the dude on the fwt on m108 is mounted like +4/5. If feeling the middle of the side cut on a groomer relative to your mount point is your concern, I suggest soul7s.

Mounting my LP 105s at +3 is a terrible idea. It's just about as bad as mounting a 196 Bodacious at +3...

[altacoup]

Well I hated my bodacious @ recommended. +2 is money. RC112 at +3 and if I could I’d go +5. To each their own but I’m a big fan of directional chargers with a progressive mount. Makes a directional charger more fun to ski, more tail=better big air composure, quicker yet still unflappable in variable conditions.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[Ville]

I personally don't like "progressive" mounted skis for anything else than goofing around lifts, finding side hits and park skiing. It just feels that tails are always in wrong place, hook up in crusty snow etc.

I guess it comes down to how you want to ski and where you ski. I don't like slashing and sliding that much, I prefer keep my tips downhill and depending on steepnes and snow either ski short agressive turns or carve longer turns. Back in the day, I did couple of seasons in Hakuba and skied mostly Powderboards and first version of ON3P C&D. When I only skied powder those were just fine. After those I slowly went back to more traditional skis, because they just do it for me better.

That said, I also don't like tight sidecut, flat camber or full rocker on skis that I ski out side pistes or tour.

Right now my all time favourites, which will remain on my all the time changing quiver are Head Monster 108 for hard pack, Rossignol super 7 RD for powder/side country and for touring BD Helio 116(mounted couple of cm back from the BC line). So quite traditional. Touring and alpine boots have about 16 degree forward lean.

Lots of my friends skis on more progressive skis and they seem to have as much fun as I do, so I guess there's no one right choice for everyone [emoji28]

Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[SoVT Joey]

I personally don't like "progressive" mounted skis for anything else than goofing around lifts, finding side hits and park skiing. It just feels that tails are always in wrong place, hook up in crusty snow etc.

I guess it comes down to how you want to ski and where you ski. I don't like slashing and sliding that much, I prefer keep my tips downhill and depending on steepnes and snow either ski short agressive turns or carve longer turns. Back in the day, I did couple of seasons in Hakuba and skied mostly Powderboards and first version of ON3P C&D. When I only skied powder those were just fine. After those I slowly went back to more traditional skis, because they just do it for me better.

That said, I also don't like tight sidecut, flat camber or full rocker on skis that I ski out side pistes or tour.

Right now my all time favourites, which will remain on my all the time changing quiver are Head Monster 108 for hard pack, Rossignol super 7 RD for powder/side country and for touring BD Helio 116(mounted couple of cm back from the BC line). So quite traditional. Touring and alpine boots have about 16 degree forward lean.

Lots of my friends skis on more progressive skis and they seem to have as much fun as I do, so I guess there's no one right choice for everyone [emoji28]

Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

a progressive mount has zero to do with skiing in the fall line. It helps me release and initiate faster being more balanced in the center of the ski, but I’ll still rail turns in the fall line. And I guess I don’t understand how tails get in the way. That sounds like you have some issues in your stance. Like uphill ski divergence which is usually caused by two footed back seat skiing. But what do I know.

also if you are mounted on the line on that super 7 it’s a -7 mount which pushes towards a progressive mount. The soul 7 is like -11 and more traditional.

[Ville]

a progressive mount has zero to do with skiing in the fall line. It helps me release and initiate faster being more balanced in the center of the ski, but I’ll still rail turns in the fall line. And I guess I don’t understand how tails get in the way. That sounds like you have some issues in your stance. Like uphill ski divergence which is usually caused by two footed back seat skiing. But what do I know.

also if you are mounted on the line on that super 7 it’s a -7 mount which pushes towards a progressive mount. The soul 7 is like -11 and more traditional.

For sure it has to do with stance, I'm not perfect skier by all means. No back seat, but I'm not racer either. I was just saying, that something that works for others might not work for you.

Like I said, I have plenty of friends who skis more progressive skis and progressive style and have fun too. So those work for sure. I have also skied loads of progressive skis and had fun, but now after 20 years of 80-130 day seasons, I seem to prefer bit more traditional style skis.

Now that I think it more, it's probably not only mounting point thing, but that combined with tight radius, that I don't prefer. Like you said, Rossis are quite forward, but with shitloads of camber and 30m radius they work for me just fine.

[Mustonen]

I still feel like we’re talking about (at least) two different things. There is mount preference within the designed mount area and then there is the actual designed mount area. Both are subject to preference and could be described by words like “progressive” and “traditional.” No?

Also, when it comes to preferred mount point boot size comes into play as well. Small-ish boots at 25.5 surely influences me preferring to go back a centimeter or two particularly on “progressive” skis.

[nickwm21]

A really good comparison of traditional mount vs progressive on similar ski constructions the katana and Cochise vs the Corvus.

That’s why Corvus is so polarizing - They took a the rocker profile and construction of a traditional charger and slid the mount point and radius forward. That ski has a long, stiff tail that doesn’t benefit a skier with a forward stance and will fuck a skier with a progressive stance if they get unbalanced. It takes a very unique skier, skiing a unique way to really jive with it. It’s a good example of how not only mount point and radius center needs to change when you go forward, but also rocker and flex.

a progressive mount has zero to do with skiing in the fall line.

Every design decision on a ski will affect how the ski skis both the fall line and the wide line.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[nickwm21]

I still feel like we’re talking about (at least) two different things. There is mount preference within the designed mount area and then there is the actual designed mount area. Both are subject to preference and could be described by words like “progressive” and “traditional.” No?

Also, when it comes to preferred mount point boot size comes into play as well. Small-ish boots at 25.5 surely influences me preferring to go back a centimeter or two particularly on “progressive” skis.

Yeah - let’s ground this conversation in using the skis as designed. IE: within the “balance” of the ski as it relates to center of radius, center of flex, center of camber/rocker profile


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[californiagrown]

I ski at a mountain with steep, super playful terrain, and few opportunities to really open'er up and charge. Additionally, ive become a pussy and going mach chicken on groomers scares the pants off me (not in a good way). The ability to slash, pop, wash, quick carve, butter, and ski in a super active/quick manner are very important to me, for where i ski and the type of skiing i currently enjoy most. So, progressive mounts are my MO when mounting new skis. Also, lift lines are long, so milking a lap for all the fun possible is a priority.

Whenever i go and ski a different hill with F&F that have racing backgrounds i get blown away on groomers, but have a pretty funny role reversal when we get off-piste and im going much faster than them, but also bee-bopping around being super playful with the terrain while doing so. I can still "charge" pretty hard through chop and rough snow, but frankly im happy that i dont need to be going +35mph to have my skis come alive... Id rather they make me giggle at 20mph.

In pow, with fat rockered skis, i really dont notice any benefit to more traditionally mounted skis. Give me a progressive mounted 120 rockered ski and ill ski just as fast in a wide open bowl (to a point), but have more fun when the terrain gets tight and tech.

[Ville]

That’s why Corvus is so polarizing - They took a the rocker profile and construction of a traditional charger and slid the mount point and radius forward. That ski has a long, stiff tail that doesn’t benefit a skier with a forward stance and will fuck a skier with a progressive stance if they get unbalanced. It takes a very unique skier, skiing a unique way to really jive with it. It’s a good example of how not only mount point and radius center needs to change when you go forward, but also rocker and flex.



Every design decision on a ski will affect how the ski skis both the fall line and the wide line.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I just loved my corvus freebirds, you could just load the ski and fly from turn to turn. Damn all kind of different skis are fun [emoji28]

Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Mustonen]

I just loved my corvus freebirds, you could just load the ski and fly from turn to turn. Damn all kind of different skis are fun [emoji28]

Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Well, see, there’s your problem. Your deltoids are facing outward across your medial plane and your soft boots are allowing your solar plexus to open up your inner thigh. If you get a much stiffer boot and practice my dolphin turn technique with double pole planting you’ll notice that you can mount your Corvus freebirds at minus 28 and achieve a much higher level of skiing, as agreed upon by top tier advisors to the international freeride team based in Vermont.

[EWG]

Yeah - let’s ground this conversation in using the skis as designed. IE: within the “balance” of the ski as it relates to center of radius, center of flex, center of camber/rocker profile


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Ok, but some skis are designed with flexible mounting points. Some aren't.

I have some Supernaturals that I really like. Trad mounting point, and they really respond to driving the middle of the tip. I love that feeling of the ski accelerating through a turn. You don't really get that with a more progressive ski. So this is a ski designed for a trad mounting point.

I have Jeff's mounted on their recommended (prog) line. They ski completely differently. Instead of driving the ski you float on it. You can drive the edge under the boot side-to-side but it doesn't love being driven forward, and the balance point in which it'll carve well is very small - but it's there and it'll do it if asked. For a daily driver all over the mountain, it's not just that you can throw it around or that the balance is different. - it's a totally different way to ski. It's like surfing. Instead of skiing the front edges of the ski you ski the entire ski. When I'm on my game I can even do little things with tail edges to change turns and speed, and I can feel the entire ski in my boot the whole time. I love it. Super free feeling after growing up with the forward pressure beat into my head. This is a ski design for a prog mounting point.

I have a pair of mordecais that were originally mounted almost true center slightly ahead of recommended. It was fun to start, but rapidly became annoying. They were fun but the balance seemed fucked up to me as I was always fighting tip dive or that feeling of going over the handlebars. After some research it turned out the an earlier model (same except for the topsheet) had two recommended mounts - one very centerish and one maybe 5cm further back. I mounted them about 1cm ahead of the back line (still very progressive) and the ski opened up. Powder performance is now excellent, no forward throw, and the ski is like a full suspension mtn bike now. Could not possibly be more fun. One of my favorite skis. This ski works with two points. Marksman is another with a few ways to ride it. I think the more forward point would be appropriate for riding switch a lot, which I barely do, and you would give up some performance with regular skiing for floating and control while switch.

I think a misnomer is that you don't drive prog mount skis at all. While I said I don't drive forward on the Jeffs, that's compared to a trad race heritage ski. I drive the hell out of them in bumps, trees and steep variable stuff, but it's not the way you carve them in groomers. It's more situational, and they'll take every ounce of pressure I put on them with my smax 130s. But after you drive into them on a feature you then release into a stance that feels the entire length of the ski.

My kid is in Mach 1 140s and he's on Jeffs quite a bit. I've had people ask about the mismatch between the progressive ski and the super stiff boots. It works fine, and for the on and off ground hits he's taking, and the speed he skis at, he needs the support of the stiff boots - and the Jeffs take the pressure fine. But when you see him skim over the top of a bump field you see the stance difference. Super quick legs, super balanced body and really high speed works great on a more center mounted ski. Yes, you'll see jerrys try to emulate this style going too fast and out of control, tail gunning on their long tails, but don't use that for an example of how it's supposed to work. It's not. It's like skimboarding.

But moving between the Supernaturals and the Jeffs is hard for sure. Usually takes me a few runs to recalibrate my body language to the ski.

I would not want to give up either ski. There's a place for both, and one person can have different skiing styles to take full advantage of the equipment that's out there. Hell, it's all turns on snow and it's all fun as shit.

[Bushwacka]

Only helmet cam footage, which won't show much I don't think.

I ski with my body stacked like I'm doing a front squat, so my upper body is aligned with my lower body. My shoulders are over my knees throughout a range of motion that starts most of the way upright and ends with my knees a bit above 90 degrees in a front squat as I flex into my boots while making turns.

sounds about right.

3rd person would confirm though..

[Ville]

Well, see, there’s your problem. Your deltoids are facing outward across your medial plane and your soft boots are allowing your solar plexus to open up your inner thigh. If you get a much stiffer boot and practice my dolphin turn technique with double pole planting you’ll notice that you can mount your Corvus freebirds at minus 28 and achieve a much higher level of skiing, as agreed upon by top tier advisors to the international freeride team based in Vermont.

Thanks for the analysis, I thought that some credibility stickers to helmet and skis plus of course blaming the gear over the internet would have helped me to advance up to next level [emoji16]

Lähetetty minun LYA-L29 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Stuntmonkey]

All this thread has done is confuse me as to why I suck.

[XXX-er]

You ^^ suck there fore you am

[galibier_numero_un]

All this thread has done is confuse me as to why I suck.

i suspect none of us will know why we suck and why we're on the wrong skis and at the wrong mount point until quantum computing is a reality - so we can run all the variables with enough computing power to arrive at a meaningful answer ;-)

... Thom

[SnakeMagnet]

That’s why Corvus is so polarizing - They took a the rocker profile and construction of a traditional charger and slid the mount point and radius forward. That ski has a long, stiff tail that doesn’t benefit a skier with a forward stance and will fuck a skier with a progressive stance if they get unbalanced. It takes a very unique skier, skiing a unique way to really jive with it. It’s a good example of how not only mount point and radius center needs to change when you go forward, but also rocker and flex.



Every design decision on a ski will affect how the ski skis both the fall line and the wide line.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Are you able to elaborate on what kind of skier that would be? I just picked up skis that are semi-twins at -7, and about a 6.5 on the tips and a 8.5-9 in the tails and it's like you have to balance on a pin if you're upright or you get punished hard if your balance ever goes backwards, and need to be leaning quite forward to get the ski to flick and pivot. Like a playful charger with extreme emphasis on charger.