Parsons Binding Comments on the front page.

[Horton]

Nick is right that a lot of us tweak our fins and not our bindings. In fact if a lesser skier than Nick had written this I would have dismissed it. Since Nick is at the top of the sport, this makes me rethink my ski set up philosophy.  

[RichardDoane]

you can definitely make bigger mistakes with handle control than having your fin off by .005"

[Horton]

to me bindings are a gross adjustment and fin is the fine adjustment.

[skibug]

For the last few seasons I think I have had my fin dialed in, for our ski site, and rarely make any changes to it other than remeasuring to make sure it hasn't moved.  I have moved my bindings based on water temp.  I start out the season, water temps 60-80 degrees, with the front binidng at stock, middle hole in my D3 plate.  Once the water starts to warm up between 80-85 degrees, I move the front binding one hole back to free the ski up.  This has seemed to work well for me.  It may be all in my head, who knows?  My theory is that once the fin is dialed in, it becomes a matter of weight distributions and the depth the ski rides in the water due to the density/water temp.  Just my 2 cents

[Horton]

Not to nit pick but older bindings adjust closer to 3/8"

[Horton]

The Radar boots alow for aprox 1/2 hole adjustments. 3/16" or close that. (1/2 of what we normally think of a one hole adjust) 

[Thomas Wayne]

 

With the Radar bindings you also have adjustments available from the underside of the plate that allow additional tweaks to the binding placement, as well as rotating the feet independently and canting (with shims).  Changing the specific placement of each boot may alter how the full- and half-hole attachment points position the boot(s) relative distance-from-tail numbers - though I haven't tested this hypothesis.

TW

[Roger]

TW, has something changed on the plate? I have two RS-1 systems and just went out and looked at my spare when I read your post. On mine, the front binding can go in one place only, there is no fore/aft adjustment, only rotation. The rear can be moved fore and aft though. Is your's different?

 

[DW]

I have noticed on, for example, the Animal binding that it will move in the slots if there is nothing that stops it.  For example, the rear Pivot setup, the early version ones would slide in the rear slots even if the binding screws are tight.  the center holes in the newer plate stop that from happening.  So, the slots on the front and rear portions of the plate really are alignment slots for fore/aft and the plate can float freely on the ski to minimize flex impacts.  The center holes control the fore/aft position.  Only point in this, lots of forces at work so the attachment needs to be robust.

[Thomas Wayne]

 

I haven't looked in a while, so I might be overlapping memory of the Approach plates with the sequence plate, but I thought both the front and back RS-1 boots could be maneuvered pretty freely - maybe it's just the back one.  The part I like best about the RS-1's, though, is the ease with which I can cant the individual boots and still have the plate riding flat on the ski

Years ago I designed a simple plate hole system that would allow micro-adjustments (1/32") using just the standard insert pattern (HO, Radar, O'Brien, etc.) in the ski.  It doesn't allow for angling the plate (ala the HO Approach rear boot), but would work very well with the Radar sequence plate - in fact, now that you guys mention it, I might just pull out those old drawings and modify my own plate in anticipation of test driving new skis this spring.  If I get around to doing that I'll send the drawings to Eddie and maybe it'll show up in future iterations of their bindings.

TW

[eleeski]

Hmmm, I think tiny adjustments in binding placement work about as well as microscopic fin changes (not!). If I want to feel a binding placement change I have to move 1cm - at least a couple of holes. Binding placement matters a lot but not .001" changes. If you replace bindings your foot position might change by 1cm even on the same hole. So even I might feel differences due to placement vs binding feel.

Also, canting a binding has a significant effect. So does offsetting a binding to one side of the ski. Note that with hardshells (including RS1 type boots) the profile is narower allowing significant displacements. The holes in the factory plate may not be optimal.

I will enable all you binding tweakers (and old pivot users) with a trick I use. Mount the binding in the slot exactly where you want it. Add some epoxy putty in the slot to fill in the open areas of the slot. Use a big washer on the mounting screw. If you do one screw at a time you can keep your exact placement. It is pretty easy to do. The epoxy is easy to clean out if you want to change positions but it stays in reasonably well if you like the setting. It can salvage an old plate by allowing you to oversize a hole for canting or offset. Without the putty, I have experienced DW's movements - in one ride.

Eric

[Thomas Wayne]

 

I haven't personally felt the need to make minute adjustments to binding placement, but insofar as this thread is partially about Nick Parsons' statement:

"Depending on how the water feels my ski usually requires a forward orbackward movement of my bindings of a 1/8 - 1/16 inch.  When skiing athome and dialing in a ski my binding movements often get down to a1/32-inch.",

I thought I would mention that incremental adjustment can be achieved with a slight plate design mod.

More importantly than making minute [binding] adjustments to tweak your skiing, I think having a very precise way of adjusting binding placement would have value as an initial setup concern.  After finding a comfortable setting I would be more inclined to make my tweaks at the fin level.

TW

[Horton]

Sorry to do this Eric but . . .

Everyone remember that Eric builds his own skis and his findings are not always the same as what you would find in the real world.