Binding placement

[Horton]

I was reminded today of how many skiers misunderstand binding placement. First of all it is very important that your bindings are in the right place.

In the old days stock was generally middle binding hole. That is just not true anymore. If you have a new HO or D3 ski and the same brand binding then this rule is true. If you put a Wiley binding on a Fisher ski or HO binding on a Radar ski this is not a sure thing.

You  must measure and check your factory numbers.  

[slow]

I'm not even sure the manufacturers know the binding placement. They them to think stock using their recommmendation is the center hole.

I called Connelly and told them I couldn't even install their draft bindings at stock(67" F1 29 1/8). You have to grind the hinge to install the rear screw in the front boot. Also the rear and front binding plates overlap. The Connelly expert was in denial until he tried it himself. O'brien front boot position for a 67.5" at stockwas the forward most hole.

 They both agreed that they haven't moved their insert positions back in years.

 

[thager]

One has to remember that the stock settings for binding or fin settings are averages. Good places to start but are not carved in stone. Binding settings vary with temperature just as fin settings do. I got away from chasing fin settings three years ago and now move my bindings forward for colder water and back for warm. Can vary by up to three holes with my approaches on a 2004 1.0 Sixam. Performance about the same either chasing fin numbers or binding movements.

[Horton]

Yea I am not sure I can stand behind that idea. A bit too radical.

[slow]

It's a good thing I can spell. Back to the point. The manufactures aren't on the ball with respect to delivering a ski to the market with the proper binding location. It's a lack of follow through on the product before it's delivered to the client. All the work done to shape a ski and get the flex right and then get your inserts in the wrong spot is poor execution. 

Also I've had better luck tweaking the fin than moving bindings around.

[Horton]

My point is that there is a right place for your front foot and there is not a lot of room for error.

[Skihack]

I believe you want to get your binding as close as possible to the center of the sweet spot. You would have to take your bindings and fin off and lay the ski on a perfectly level table, sort of like an engineer's table. Then you would slide a piece of paper from the front and one from the tail until you hit the spots where the ski actually touches the table. The distance from the pieces of paper will be your flat spot. Now, here is where it gets tricky. If you are a technically sound and neutral skier, placing your binding over this spot will work well. If you are not a technically sound skier, you will have to move your bindings forward or backwards depending on how you ski. If anyone has a more sound theory or a better one please advise. It's sort of like a rocking chair, you want to be centered right over the middle of the sweet spot which is going to be where the chair doesn't rock. Just my two cents.

[skibug]

I have a comment and a few questions on this discussion. 

In regards to binding placement, all the emphasis seems to be on front binding placement.  If I remember correctly, front binding movements tend to affect your off side turns. 

So, does this mean that, in general, the warmer water temps tend to affect skiers' off side turns??

Do we tend to disregard our strong side turns because we can overcompensate/overcome little inconsistancies??

I guess what I am hunting is; when is it a good idea to move both bindings in together, forward or back?

[Horton]

Personally I do not do a lot of adjusting for water temps. If I did I would do it all with fin.

I see a lot of skiers who are forward of stock. Almost every time I convince them to go back to stock they ski better. Binding movements are much more radical then fin movements. If you are a 35 off or better skier and you are moving your bindings then I am going to trust that you are doing the right thing. If you are not running 35 then I would tell you to leave your bindings stock unless a pro level skier recommends otherwise.

As for front binding vs. back binding movements. I generally move them together if I can. Rear binding placement is a fine tune option and for me it is more about comfort. I am not really picky about rear binding placement but front binding placement is the most important adjustment on a ski.  

Binding placement does more for wake crossing them most skiers realize. Yes, moving your binding forward will help the ski turn but as you move past the optimal point the ski gets slower and holds less angle. Bindings back a little will help wake crossings and get you out there wide and early. (would you rather turn hard and fast but lose angle or turn slower and keep all the angle?)

The whole water temp thing bugs me. If you are in Michigan or Nebraska and you have 55 degree or colder water for ½ the season then, yes you need to tweak on your fin depth once or twice a year but it should not be an ongoing science experiment.

There has been some grumbling here about how the factories do not know where the bindings should be. I totally disagree. There are some inserts that are in the wrong place and binding plate holes that out of whack but as far as I know all the factory spec binding placements are on the money. If you are more then ¼” from the factory spec I would rethink your settings.

I guess I just really want to make the point that tweaking is not always the answer and binding tweaking rarely the answer.  Yea you need to try stuff, I am just saying that bindings far from stock has never worked out well for anyone I have ever skied with.  I started this thread based on what I found when I realized that the bindings my Radar were forward of stock. I am skiing the best of my life on it that way but I expect to do even better with the new settings.  

I know there is someone out there who runs 70 off and has their bindings 3 inches forward. Ok for that one skier it works.

 

[RS]

Yeah, but that dude also has a 29ft reach.