Progressive vs traditional mount point merits

[Marshal Olson]

@EWG - I would argue that the Mach1 would be the ideal boot for a hard charger on Jeffs, because it’s more upright lean angle (12deg IIRC) matches the more neutral mount (ie midsole 2-4cm ahead of the waist of the ski, depending on boot size).

I know folks that can ski OG race boots w/ >20deg leans on center mounted skis, but it’s pretty outside the norm. generally the more forward lean your boot, the more rearward the mount, relative to the center of sidecut. it’s just about putting center of mass in the right spot relative to the stance and relative to the ski.

with respect to figuring out what the right amount of lean is, that is about bio-physical properties: ankle flexion, tibia/femur ratios, etc. it’s also about activating muscles.

I personally ski +1.5cm on the same ski with my Hoji touring boots (15deg IIRC) versus my Dobermanns (>20deg). This is because I like a super compact stance skiing inbounds, as a former soccer goalie, I feel very athletic and powerful, like I am crouched ready to explode defending a penalty kick. I don’t want that amount of muscle activation touring, cause I am just putting less energy into each turn. It’s less about explosion and more about balance and flow, so the cuff angle and resulting mount match that modification.

[EWG]

Marshal - great points about lean angle. I’m going to have to think about this a little, especially relative to how upright you stand (I’ve been messing with pole length and that’s been changing how upright I am)

Cool thoughts.

[iriponsnow]

I generally have one progressive ski in the quiver, but more of a training tool. Helps to learn to ski / feel differently!


Now for the AM I GONNA DIE QUESTION to the group- I have a special park ski that is intended to be center to minus 2, but I want to use it more all Mtn. Can I go minus 6-8 off TC? Owner of company was horrified when I queried him.

[Kopi_Red]

I generally have one progressive ski in the quiver, but more of a training tool. Helps to learn to ski / feel differently!


Now for the AM I GONNA DIE QUESTION to the group- I have a special park ski that is intended to be center to minus 2, but I want to use it more all Mtn. Can I go minus 6-8 off TC? Owner of company was horrified when I queried him.

.

[zerospinskier]

It took me a long time to learn that the body composition plays a really large part. I have very long femurs, a short torso, and a stiff lower back. I have never been able to ski well with a traditional mount point. Even with boots at a 21+ degree forward lean. I can’t pressure the tips to save my life. But put me very close to center and I suddenly have full control in all conditions. I know I am a very extreme case, but I wish body composition was brought up more often.

[skinipenem]

It took me a long time to learn that the body composition plays a really large part. I have very long femurs, a short torso, and a stiff lower back. I have never been able to ski well with a traditional mount point. Even with boots at a 21+ degree forward lean. I can’t pressure the tips to save my life. But put me very close to center and I suddenly have full control in all conditions. I know I am a very extreme case, but I wish body composition was brought up more often.

I think you have a very good point here. Anatomy in relation to boot alignment, mount point, and ski design probably trumps/ drives a lot of the thoughts above that is aside from the differences in intended ski design.

Marshall touched on this, although more from a person of being a soccer goalie in a former life, with how boot forward lean changed muscle 'activation' and erectness/crouched. I suspect he meant quad activation and the ability to ski more athletically vs efficiently. This is only considering forward lean though; obviously, fore and aft balance includes ramp angle, boot/binding delta and forward lean; and likely boot stiffness.


Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[SoVT Joey]

It took me a long time to learn that the body composition plays a really large part. I have very long femurs, a short torso, and a stiff lower back. I have never been able to ski well with a traditional mount point. Even with boots at a 21+ degree forward lean. I can’t pressure the tips to save my life. But put me very close to center and I suddenly have full control in all conditions. I know I am a very extreme case, but I wish body composition was brought up more often.

that sounds like a delta issue at the same time. It would be interesting to know what bindings you ski and then change the delta.

skis are the least important link in the setup. If a boot doesn’t start some what correct for your body and foot (meaning matching ankle flex, natural stance, and a general overall decent fit), and the binding doesnt allow proper balance for your body, then it doesn’t matter what the ski is or where it’s mounted.

I can pull a Lange 27.5 LV out of the box, and link it to a marker royal and put it on any ski and that gives me a baseline of the ski then. same goes with tech bindings, plum guides and dynafit ST are perfect out of the box, ATK is too flat and my dumbass had to put a 3/8” heel lift on my alpinist for it to ski well.

But I also know that I can’t ski a pivot without a ton of heel lift and a redster just doesn’t fit my foot. So I don’t use them. I could make both work, but why would I?

I think that a lot of performance of skis has to do with bad or good setups between boot and binding and the user.

but this is TGR, so it better be a pivot binding with a 150 flex boot and red skis, cause those are the best. But for real, every one balances and is built differently, just because a pivot works for someone doesn’t mean it will work for you. Sometimes it’s the ski, but 90% of the time it’s the boot and binding and not the ski.

[Kevo]

that sounds like a delta issue at the same time. It would be interesting to know what bindings you ski and then change the delta.

skis are the least important link in the setup. If a boot doesn’t start some what correct for your body and foot (meaning matching ankle flex, natural stance, and a general overall decent fit), and the binding doesnt allow proper balance for your body, then it doesn’t matter what the ski is or where it’s mounted.

I can pull a Lange 27.5 LV out of the box, and link it to a marker royal and put it on any ski and that gives me a baseline of the ski then. same goes with tech bindings, plum guides and dynafit ST are perfect out of the box, ATK is too flat and my dumbass had to put a 3/8” heel lift on my alpinist for it to ski well.

But I also know that I can’t ski a pivot without a ton of heel lift and a redster just doesn’t fit my foot. So I don’t use them. I could make both work, but why would I?

I think that a lot of performance of skis has to do with bad or good setups between boot and binding and the user.

but this is TGR, so it better be a pivot binding with a 150 flex boot and red skis, cause those are the best. But for real, every one balances and is built differently, just because a pivot works for someone doesn’t mean it will work for you. Sometimes it’s the ski, but 90% of the time it’s the boot and binding and not the ski.

Funny. I seek out bindings with as little delta as possible. I ski Moment Voyagers (ATK) specifically because they are just about the flattest touring bindings with a brake in existence. I also really like pivots.

I think in general I hate being forced into a forward lean either by boot cuff angle or heal lift. Skiing with my heals higher than my toes feels awful. It feels like I'm forced backseat and it makes my quads fatigue way faster because of a "skiing while wearing high heals" feeling.

Body mechanics do seem to play a major part. I've referenced it elsewhere in this thread, but I have found that I prefer more "progressive" mounts.

[Sargentdrufus]

Funny. I seek out bindings with as little delta as possible. I ski Moment Voyagers (ATK) specifically because they are just about the flattest touring bindings with a brake in existence. I also really like pivots.

I think in general I hate being forced into a forward lean either by boot cuff angle or heal lift. Skiing with my heals higher than my toes feels awful. It feels like I'm forced backseat and it makes my quads fatigue way faster because of a "skiing while wearing high heals" feeling.

Body mechanics do seem to play a major part. I've referenced it elsewhere in this thread, but I have found that I prefer more "progressive" mounts.

Same here, I have found I am super sensitive to ramp angles and forward lean. I shimmed the toes on my IONs to decrease the delta down about 4mm and I have reduced the forward lean on my boots as much as possible.

The difference in my balance and the reduction of fatigue in my quads is huge.

I prefer more progressive mounts that allow for a more upright stance as well. You can always pressure the front of a ski but to be able to do so from such a balanced and ready body position is really really nice. Controlling and pressuring the front of the ski from the balls of my feet feels way better than needing my shins and knees to provide that pressure

[zerospinskier]

that sounds like a delta issue at the same time. It would be interesting to know what bindings you ski and then change the delta.

skis are the least important link in the setup. If a boot doesn’t start some what correct for your body and foot (meaning matching ankle flex, natural stance, and a general overall decent fit), and the binding doesnt allow proper balance for your body, then it doesn’t matter what the ski is or where it’s mounted.

I can pull a Lange 27.5 LV out of the box, and link it to a marker royal and put it on any ski and that gives me a baseline of the ski then. same goes with tech bindings, plum guides and dynafit ST are perfect out of the box, ATK is too flat and my dumbass had to put a 3/8” heel lift on my alpinist for it to ski well.

But I also know that I can’t ski a pivot without a ton of heel lift and a redster just doesn’t fit my foot. So I don’t use them. I could make both work, but why would I?

I think that a lot of performance of skis has to do with bad or good setups between boot and binding and the user.

but this is TGR, so it better be a pivot binding with a 150 flex boot and red skis, cause those are the best. But for real, every one balances and is built differently, just because a pivot works for someone doesn’t mean it will work for you. Sometimes it’s the ski, but 90% of the time it’s the boot and binding and not the ski.

Yes ramp angle does help me as well. If I have some good binding delta and a good forward lean, that gives me more ability to move my mount point back. But I’m still limited due to my body. I can’t go farther than -5cm even with an aggressive delta/lean setup. At that point it’s so extreme that I get all the classic issues like burning quads and inability to absorb landings. But ultimately I’ve spent 15+ years getting used to skiing close to center, so it works.

[Bushwacka]

Funny. I seek out bindings with as little delta as possible. I ski Moment Voyagers (ATK) specifically because they are just about the flattest touring bindings with a brake in existence. I also really like pivots.

I think in general I hate being forced into a forward lean either by boot cuff angle or heal lift. Skiing with my heals higher than my toes feels awful. It feels like I'm forced backseat and it makes my quads fatigue way faster because of a "skiing while wearing high heals" feeling.

Body mechanics do seem to play a major part. I've referenced it elsewhere in this thread, but I have found that I prefer more "progressive" mounts.

forward lean really is an individual thing and every component binding and boots, has to play nicely with both the skiers skill and tib to femur ratio. Also old pivots come with 5mm of lift for the toe GW pivots are flat already, so pivots mounted with those are basically flat but other wise they have a ton of heel lift.

The irony is ramp my boots (external heel lift) to play nicely with flat binding but it makes me hate anything but a flat binding. I have played around with negative ramp binding on powder ski and quite frankly love that set up but it make it hard to ski moguls because as I flex deeply my COM moves to far back.

[skinipenem]

Cool discussion, but for the love of God can people please use consistent terminology

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no expert. Only the best skiier on the mountain:

Ramp- boot board angle
Forward lean- cuff angle
Binding delta- height of afd toe vs heel
Boot delta- height of boot sole toe vs heel (aftermarket grinding adjustment)
DL- dick length

Fwiw when I last measured the GW pivot the binding delta is 1mm heel higher than toe.

My question is what does each a adjustment do individually vs another. Obviously, there is some overlap in effect.

I'll start:
Binding delta and boot delta do the fans thing however boot delta transfers from ski to ski whereas binding delta only affects said ski.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[SoVT Joey]

Cool discussion, but for the love of God can people please use consistent terminology

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no expert. Only the best skiier on the mountain:

Ramp- boot board angle
Forward lean- cuff angle
Binding delta- height of afd toe vs heel
Boot delta- height of boot sole toe vs heel (aftermarket grinding adjustment)
DL- dick length

Fwiw when I last measured the GW pivot the binding delta is 1mm heel higher than toe.

My question is what does each a adjustment do individually vs another. Obviously, there is some overlap in effect.

I'll start:
Binding delta and boot delta do the fans thing however boot delta transfers from ski to ski whereas binding delta only affects said ski.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

yes. You are correct.

I would never modify a boot and change boot delta unless there was something wrong with the cuff angle of the boot for said athlete/skier. Delta should be dealt with between the ski and binding, so that when a person has a quiver of boots, the ski skis the same or close with a different boot that also fits correctly. But that also goes to say that boots should be matched to the needs of the person by proper fit, and not trying to force something that doesn’t work.

canting is different completely and too deep of a hole to dig into.

the guy that I saw touring last week that couldn’t have any of his buckles closed or strap tight on his right boot was learning that lesson the hard way, price was right, fit was garbage.

sorry for the digression.

but yes they all work together and will all have a different result and feel. Langes and Marker Royals work for me. A ski will feel completely different otherwise. My kingpins have a heel shim of 3mm. My alpinist has a shim of 3/8”. But now they feel like I am standing in a royal.

[skinipenem]

Cool discussion, but for the love of God can people please use consistent terminology

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no expert. Only the best skiier on the mountain:

Ramp- boot board angle
Forward lean- cuff angle
Binding delta- height of afd toe vs heel
Boot delta- height of boot sole toe vs heel (aftermarket grinding adjustment)
DL- dick length

Fwiw when I last measured the GW pivot the binding delta is 1mm heel higher than toe.

My question is what does each a adjustment do individually vs another. Obviously, there is some overlap in effect.

I'll start:
Binding delta and boot delta do the fans thing however boot delta transfers from ski to ski whereas binding delta only affects said ski.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

I apologize for thread jack. We already have a thread for this topic.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Sessiøn]

@EWG - I would argue that the Mach1 would be the ideal boot for a hard charger on Jeffs, because it’s more upright lean angle (12deg IIRC) matches the more neutral mount (ie midsole 2-4cm ahead of the waist of the ski, depending on boot size).

I know folks that can ski OG race boots w/ >20deg leans on center mounted skis, but it’s pretty outside the norm. generally the more forward lean your boot, the more rearward the mount, relative to the center of sidecut. it’s just about putting center of mass in the right spot relative to the stance and relative to the ski.

with respect to figuring out what the right amount of lean is, that is about bio-physical properties: ankle flexion, tibia/femur ratios, etc. it’s also about activating muscles.

I personally ski +1.5cm on the same ski with my Hoji touring boots (15deg IIRC) versus my Dobermanns (>20deg). This is because I like a super compact stance skiing inbounds, as a former soccer goalie, I feel very athletic and powerful, like I am crouched ready to explode defending a penalty kick. I don’t want that amount of muscle activation touring, cause I am just putting less energy into each turn. It’s less about explosion and more about balance and flow, so the cuff angle and resulting mount match that modification.

I know I'm late to the party on this. But I just want to say I ski the entire Jeffrey lineup in a Mach1. Been my favorite pairing of boot and ski for a few years now. I switch back and forth between the Jeffrey and the BG for my widest ski, but the quiver has has included skinnier Jeffrey's for some time.

[Shorty_J]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong then since I'm in a mach1 boot on katana 108s mounted at +1?

These boots are new to me for this season and have been a game changer for my skiing, but even my other skis that are ostensibly more progressive mounted I'm skiing better on, and at the same place they were mounted before (or even slightly back, in one case).

[skinipenem]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong then since I'm in a mach1 boot on katana 108s mounted at +1?

These boots are new to me for this season and have been a game changer for my skiing, but even my other skis that are ostensibly more progressive mounted I'm skiing better on, and at the same place they were mounted before (or even slightly back, in one case).

Probably doing something wrong if you have the exact same body as Marshall.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Mustonen]

I think when we stray away from “preference” and “style” we get into some weird territory. I bet most good skiers can adapt well to changes in delta, forward lean, and mount point. I know variations that used to throw me for a loop earlier in my skiing journey barely even register anymore. Kind of like cutting grams on an uphill setup…. Losing a few pounds around the gut will have a much bigger impact than constant tinkering to save 100g for 90% of those who debate those things. But the latter is more fun to stew over….

[Marshal Olson]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong then since I'm in a mach1 boot on katana 108s mounted at +1?

These boots are new to me for this season and have been a game changer for my skiing, but even my other skis that are ostensibly more progressive mounted I'm skiing better on, and at the same place they were mounted before (or even slightly back, in one case).

if you are skiing well and happy… you are doing something right. And mounting a touch forward on the katana would be a small part of that!

[kc_7777]

I’m a progressive mount guy. I love that there is finally a thread dedicated to this, as I do obsess about mount points.

I’ve tried to like skis with further back than -7cm mounts. Hasn’t happened yet.

I ski with a more upright, centered stance and I initiate my turn from under the ball of my foot. So my carving style is definitely more neutral, with an upright stance probably cause I don’t have a racing background and this makes more sense and seems intuitive to me.

It was this thread that got me onto the Season Eqpt Aero.

The Aero rec mount is -2.75cm. And I’ve always liked Pollard’s skis, eg the Opus and Bacon at their forward -2.5cm mounts.

Spent the weekend skiing at Whistler on the 180cm Season Eqpt Aero, mounted at -3.75cm. I actually went -1cm from rec. Haha.

Felt right at home from the first second on these. Comfortable skiing fast everywhere from chalky steeps, to groomers to packed pow.

I think you are who you are. And it’s hard to change. Eg I’m not gonna feel comfy on a -10 to -11 cm M102/K108. I’m sure those are great skis. But I feel right at home on a -3cm to -4cm Aero.

Neither is right or wrong.

Here’s the Aero below….pretty centered mount point but such a sweet, balanced ride (for me).

[SnakeMagnet]

Counter-point, or perhaps an additional perspective. I've found it's not so much just the mount point, but also the amount of ski I have in front of me that determines whether I agree with the planks. Therefore if I want to mount progressive the whole ski needs to be longer. I think it boils down to the fact i'm highly aggressive when skiing with effort, leaning forward and driving the front, and the last thing I want is to feel like i'm lacking support and going over the handlebars. I learned on hand-me-down straights into the late 90's and grew up on the flattest village around, so going fast and abusing the mountain just to get back to the chair is what I know. With just slight adjustments on the first run or two after sitting on one mount point for a while I can transition between a -11 and a -6 and feel comfortable on both without really changing -how- I ski. Then I can pick the ski to use based on what the snow is and I want to do. Staying on the ground and hatefucking hardpack, go traditional to keep most of the edge in front and keep the tails from squirreling. Catching air and tighter terrain, I go progressive for the additional balance and support in the back.

I've determined that length of ski in front of the mount point (boot-line) to be around 101cm; anything straying further than a smidge shorter than that gives me that handlebar feeling when I push it. Of my own quiver: 2013 Mantra and M102 in 184(-11.5/103cm); Moment Wildcat in 190 (-6/100cm); Paradise Vice 113 in 190 (-7/102cm), all are great rides. 177 Kendo (99cm) is okay, and 181 Red (-5.5/97cm) force me to dial it back. There are probably more variables and taper and stiffness sure play a part, but it's lined up with my testing on demo days: The less ski there is in front from that number, the less I like them, regardless of mount point.

Now where can I find a 200cm Aero to try out?

[kc_7777]

Counter-point, or perhaps an additional perspective. I've found it's not so much just the mount point, but also the amount of ski I have in front of me that determines whether I agree with the planks. Therefore if I want to mount progressive the whole ski needs to be longer. I think it boils down to the fact i'm highly aggressive when skiing with effort, leaning forward and driving the front, and the last thing I want is to feel like i'm lacking support and going over the handlebars. I learned on hand-me-down straights into the late 90's and grew up on the flattest village around, so going fast and abusing the mountain just to get back to the chair is what I know. With just slight adjustments on the first run or two after sitting on one mount point for a while I can transition between a -11 and a -6 and feel comfortable on both without really changing -how- I ski. Then I can pick the ski to use based on what the snow is and I want to do. Staying on the ground and hatefucking hardpack, go traditional to keep most of the edge in front and keep the tails from squirreling. Catching air and tighter terrain, I go progressive for the additional balance and support in the back.

I've determined that length of ski in front of the mount point (boot-line) to be around 101cm;

Now where can I find a 200cm Aero to try out?

Good post. I’m on this program as well and I track this info in Excel.

I’ve historically like a 179-182cm ski at -5 to -6.5 so 95cm to 96.5cm from boot center to tip has typically been my sweet spot. I’m 170cm. 178cm skis feel short to me, mainly cause there is not enough “tail” for the way I ski, and the tips look short.

Lately I’ve been going up to 97.5cm “in front” on 184 rockered 4FRNT Ravens and Renegades, which feels right for that style of ski. The extra 2 cm in length of ski is negligible with the rocker and less effective edge.

PS I did experiment going forward on a 2020 177 (~179cm) M102 at -9.5cm (eg +2.5cm vs -11.5 rec) and the tail didn’t feel right. I’m not sure if thats cause I should have mounted at rec (-11.5cm) or should have said f it and gone even further forward (-6.5). I’m starting to believe it’s the latter for me…can you imagine me posting in the Volkl thread I’m at +5cm (-6.5cm) on the M102. I bet I’d like it better than rec. And people would lose their minds. Listened to a great podcast by Eric Pollard on Blister where he talks about him mounting skis way forward back in the day, before progressive mounts, and just not giving a rip about rec.

Here’s my Excel. You can see the Aero (last ski in first list) has only 93.75cm “in front” but I didn’t seem to mind. It looked short, but didn’t require any adjustment while skiing. The tail felt great. Considering a Season Eqpt Nexus next year….183cm at -3.6 = 95.1cm. That works.

[Marshal Olson]

Good post. I’m on this program as well and I track this info in Excel.

I’ve historically like a 179-182cm

Love the nerdery here!

One thing you might add to this spreadsheet is the length of tip taper, length of tail taper, length of EE, and the resulting %'s vs the overall length.

My suspicion is that the Aero taper ratios match the difference you see in mount point.

[Shorty_J]

One thing you might add to this spreadsheet is the length of tip taper, length of tail taper, length of EE, and the resulting %'s vs the overall length.

Totally agree with this.

[kc_7777]

Love the nerdery here!

One thing you might add to this spreadsheet is the length of tip taper, length of tail taper, length of EE, and the resulting %'s vs the overall length.

My suspicion is that the Aero taper ratios match the difference you see in mount point.

Thx Marshall. Will add that info.

PS just checked the properties on my Excel file….I created it in 2012 and have been lovingly updating it for >10 years now.

Since then I’ve been divorced (2013), lived in my truck (2014), lived at a Baker cabin (2015), moved to North Van (2017) and got remarried (2019) to a skier. Lots of life changes but my ski spreadsheet has always been there.