Progressive vs traditional mount point merits

[carlh]

Starting a discussion around the advantages and disadvantages of different ski mount points for all mountain (not park or switch) skiing. What does moving a mount point forward enable and what does it detract from. For example ON3P wren vs woods vs Jeffrey what are the reasons to go with each.
Search did not find a thread on just this so hopefully we can have a useful discussion that will be helpful to me and other moving forward.

[rfconroy]

There's a couple of things that I can personally experience:

NOTE - These comparisons are to a traditional mount point ~ 9-11cm back from TC

1. More tail will typically be easier to preload and pop with, allowing you to get more air.
2. Easier to slash the tails, because its easier to bias your weight forward over the tips.
3. More tail for hard landings - bias the tails during landings to provide a little more suspension when hucking to flat.
4. Quicker to get the tips around - this can be helpful on tight/deep bumps.
5. Need to be more balanced/center stanced - since you're already over the tips the ideal body position needs to be more precise, so its harder to charge without that OTB feeling.
6. Generally less stable, see numbers 2 and 5 for further detail.

[nickwm21]

The merit of a traditional mount is that one can “more aggressively” carve/rail the fall line at speed with the skis on edge by utilizing a forward stance.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Doremite]

Read the Heritage Lab thread

[2FUNKY]

Read the Heritage Lab thread

Yep. Marsh went over this topic in great detail.

[adrenalated]

Traditional mount is for boomers
Progressive mount is for backseat gapers

[kamtron]

Traditional mount only for me. I hate diving tips in powder.

[goran]

Read the Heritage Lab thread

I searched for the thread but couldn't find it my that name. I may just suck at searching. Mind adding a link?

[Westcoaster]

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ted-Love-Songs

[goran]

https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ted-Love-Songs

Thanks!

[Mustonen]

Yep. Marsh went over this topic in great detail.

So we can’t talk about it here because Marshal talked about it that one time? The fuck….? Are you new here?

[2FUNKY]

So we can’t talk about it here because Marshal talked about it that one time? The fuck….? Are you new here?

Where did I say that? Chill out musty dude. Just giving the guy some reading content. You can fellate to your hearts content. Also not the first time this topic has been brought up and beat to death.

[Rob Stokes]

Traditional mount only for me. I hate diving tips in powder.

Same. I think that's more related to tip length vs mount point though.

If I ski a ~185cm ski then it needs to have a traditional mount to float the tip, a 190cm ski can have a more modern mount and keep that same tip length for float.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[CHAIR_97]

Traditional ski = Traditional mount
Progressive ski =Progressive mount

Once you go forward you'll never go back

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[DGamms]

Traditional ski = Traditional mount
Progressive ski =Progressive mount

Once you go forward you'll never go back

For me personally, this rings true.

It was a long time ago, but around 2009-10, I went from skiing the metal Katana 184 cm (recommended mount around -13cm from TC, skied at -10.5 from TC) to the Rossignol Sickle 186 cm (rec’d mount point -6 cm from TC, skied on the line and at - 4cm from TC).

At first, I disliked/felt awkward with the transition to skiing a progressive mount. The OTB feeling was disconcerting, and it seemed like I couldn’t ski as fast in variable snow.

It took me 10-15 days to get used to the Sickle that season. But once I did, I have never purchased another ski with a mount point of more than -6 cm of TC.

IMO, you may lose some of the ability to lean maximally forward in your boots and charge variable by going to a progressive mount point. And for some skiers that won’t be worth it.

But if you are not an ex-racer, the potential benefits of having a more playful ski (mounted closer to -4cm from TC) and enjoying the mountain in creative ways can’t be overstated.

Easier to slash, pivot, ski switch, jump, spin, etc

[Mustonen]

Where did I say that? Chill out musty dude. Just giving the guy some reading content. You can fellate to your hearts content. Also not the first time this topic has been brought up and beat to death.

Hah. Well fine. I was taking umbrage at the imagined implication we couldn’t beat a tired old topic into the dirt a few more times. That’s kind of what we do. At least it’s about skiing. Apologies.

I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately. I’ve had a few pairs of skis lately where the sweet spot seems to be behind the ball of my foot, and I hate that. It seems to correlate with progressive mount points, but not perfectly. I’ve gotten along fine with progressive mount points in the past…. But more than a few pair of skis also seem to have mount points suggested that reward backseat skiing (sorry, a “centered stance”) and I’ve had a hell of a time picking that up out of reviews and ski descriptions prior to dropping holes.

That’s not really meant to disparage a centered stance. I see lots of skiers with these centered stances who can do things I can’t dream of…. But I want to stand on the balls of my feet and resist adjusting to standing on (what feels like) my heels. Surely I’m not alone here. Maybe Marshal talks about it…. One of these days I’ll have to wade through those 64 pages of reminiscing and fadgasming over old ski designs and check.

I’ve long maintained that a longer ski can make a stiff ski more accessible, and I’d expect the same to hold true for tails. Somewhat counter intuitively, having more tail makes a tail less punishing even if it makes it more unwieldy.

[Bushwacka]

Hah. Well fine. I was taking umbrage at the imagined implication we couldn’t beat a tired old topic into the dirt a few more times. That’s kind of what we do. At least it’s about skiing. Apologies.

I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately. I’ve had a few pairs of skis lately where the sweet spot seems to be behind the ball of my foot, and I hate that. It seems to correlate with progressive mount points, but not perfectly. I’ve gotten along fine with progressive mount points in the past…. But more than a few pair of skis also seem to have mount points suggested that reward backseat skiing (sorry, a “centered stance”) and I’ve had a hell of a time picking that up out of reviews and ski descriptions prior to dropping holes.

That’s not really meant to disparage a centered stance. I see lots of skiers with these centered stances who can do things I can’t dream of…. But I want to stand on the balls of my feet and resist adjusting to standing on (what feels like) my heels. Surely I’m not alone here. Maybe Marshal talks about it…. One of these days I’ll have to wade through those 64 pages of reminiscing and fadgasming over old ski designs and check.

I’ve long maintained that a longer ski can make a stiff ski more accessible, and I’d expect the same to hold true for tails. Somewhat counter intuitively, having more tail makes a tail less punishing even if it makes it more unwieldy.

there is no reason to stand on the balls of your feet, its a really weak position that tend to open up your ankle. I am very much a trad mount guy and I ski in basically un flexiable foot but the general consensus amoungest elite level tech skiers whether high end instructors, racers, or high end free ride guys who coach is, heel pressure with shin pressure and moving the upper body for and aft to get tip and tail pressure management. If you think the BOF is the sweet spot I would honestly check your for and aft alignment.

Just I think BOF versus heel pressure is very crude and wrong understanding off for and aft balance on a ski as you can control so much though the top of the boot while keeping either your BOF or heel on the ski as your leverage the cuff back and forth.

I just did the ski essential ski test and skied several progressive mounted ski. What I had to do get the skis to track though crud progressive mounted was exhausting and less control than the more traditional mounted skis, and even moving the progressive mounted ski back -2 or -3 made the ski not only track better I could also be more playful with it as well. All the ski still smeared well back and honestly got better in the tracked up woods I was skiing.

This doesnt even bring into discussion ramp angle of binding/boots and skiers tib to femur ratio and how much spinal bend the skier likes to use.

[Mustonen]

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.

[kootenayskier]

I’m an old school traditional ski equipment and technique snob, but even I can acknowledge that there are a variety of ways to ski at a high level, and that for the way some people ski (and the upright boots they tend to use) a forward mount makes sense. I’ve always understood that skis are designed around an ideal mount point, and therefore trying to make a traditional ski work with a forward mount (and vice versa) is at best a compromise, but whatever works for you.

[Kevo]

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.

[Mustonen]

I’ve always understood that skis are designed around an ideal mount point, and therefore trying to make a traditional ski work with a forward mount (and vice versa) is at best a compromise, but whatever works for you.

Right, though there is some wiggle room there…. Most skis can go +/- 2cm without going outside of what they’re designed for, right? Usually that’s all I’m talking about. And that isn’t really what we’re talking about with progressive vs. traditional mount point/design.

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.

So is that truly progressive vs. traditional? Or is that just +/- a few cm for preference?

[Self Jupiter]

Traditional mount only for me. I hate diving tips in powder.

Ski faster

[Kevo]

So is that truly progressive vs. traditional? Or is that just +/- a few cm for preference?

My favorite skis have a factory recommended mount point at -6cm and -5cm from true center, but they are also designed around having the skier in that position from the perspective of where the sidecut, camber, flex pattern and rockers are located on those skis.

Sure, that's a couple CM forward of other more traditional mount points, but I don't think moving forward on a ski designed a traditional mount point would make me as happy as being on a ski designed around skiing from a progressive mount point.

[beeshbeesh]

For me, the benefit of a progressive mount is that when you slarve or slash a turn your noses aren't hooking up and trying to whip back up the fall line. The tip and tail of the ski remain balanced in their resistance to the snow, so you can basically throw them sideways and keep them there without needing to lean aggressively forward to fight the tips.

My favorite skis have a factory recommended mount point at -6cm and -5cm from true center, but they are also designed around having the skier in that position from the perspective of where the sidecut, camber, flex pattern and rockers are located on those skis.

Sure, that's a couple CM forward of other more traditional mount points, but I don't think moving forward on a ski designed a traditional mount point would make me as happy as being on a ski designed around skiing from a progressive mount point.

This ^ in conjunction with flex seems most important to me. Take the Revolt 104 as a more radical example. -2 mount with plenty of tail rocker and more side cut taper in the tail than in the nose. In addition, the noses are stiffer than the tails to help with the management of the longer tail. This effectively allows one to ride a longer length and retain a significant amount of the ability to drive the tips when carving but with the added benefit of the surfiness.

Like imagine a 188 revolt 104 with 20cm of the tail chopped off. You're looking at a 168cm ski with a -12cm mount point. If that length fits you, I bet it would ski quite traditional really.

[XXX-er]

Everyone knows what a DPS wailer is, so with demo bindings I was able to back to back test a set of wailers at everything from -2 to + 6

In pow the tips didnt sink as long as the ski was moving even at +6

at -2 the ski bogged down & it was like a boat that couldn't plane,

+6 felt a little unbalanced landing off small rises, but otherwise not bad

I eventualy settled on leaving them at +4

the local shop was mounting them at +2