Does anyone 'cant' their bindings?

[roberto]

All

Just to be clear......Looking at the ski from the front, does anybody wedge the side of the bindings to compensate for the natural bow of the lower leg?

I know this is done in snow skiing to make sure that the skier runs flat on the ski and doesn't favour an edge .

Given todays hardshell technology a secure ankle cuff will naturally pick up the lower leg inclination, in theory this could produce a natural inclination to one edge. Doe anybody measure this or compensate for it?

Thoughts please!

[Bill Gladding]

I canted my front binding when I was using Wileys in an attempt to improve my offside turn which it did.  I switched to Stradas which allow rotating the front binding which seems to work better.  I canted the Wiley by stacking fender washers between one side of the binding plate and ski top and using sligthly longer machine screws.

[skispray]

I cant my rear binding, in the sense that the front of my rear binding is closer to the right edge of my ski than the left.  This is what I think of when I hear the term "canted".  It sounds like Bill raises one side of the binding in relation to the other, so it may be sitting perfectly straight on top of the ski with one side directly on the ski and the other side "lifted" slightly.  I've never heard of that before, but is Bill's form of cant more common than I realize?

[DW]

Yes, I cant my front binding.  Used the same technique as Bill for adjusting cant and for the same purpose.  I use Animal bindings.  As noted, you will need longer machine screws for the lifted side.  I also canted my older snow skis, newer boots now come with that adjustment as you probably know.

[DW]

It would be good to get the terminology ironed out on this, people have numerous different definitions for cant.  Cant (in other industries) is commonly referred to as the incline or tilt from the vertical axis in the lateral direction, which would also be the same as camber.  Rotating the binding around the horizontal axis or twisting it seems to be commonly called canting on this and other forums, but IMO that should be defined as twist.  If the binding is not set centered on the ski, I would think that would be called offset, since that is offset from the centerline.

[Marco]

Custom othotics can achieve the same or better results, although much more expensive than washers and longer screws...

[roberto]

Bill and  DW

How much cant are you using.  2/4/6 degrees? Or 1/16, 1/8, 1/4 " raise? 

Sorry to be nosy, but what was the main driver for you to make the adjustment.

(DW..I am using an Animal / RTP, and  RFF. Although not bowed legged favour walking on the outside of my foot.) 

Appreciated....Apologies for the typos in the original message.

Roberto 

 

[DW]

Roberto,

I cant my boot .130"  (inside edge raised) so just over 1/8".  The main driver was asymmetry in onside v offside turn

Marco, I agree to a point, but the orthodic will not tilt the boot cuff, IMO snow ski bindings which tend to be canted and have an orthodic.  I agree, it will help and provide additional beneficial results.

[Bill Gladding]

Roberto, I never measured but was using two or three thin stainless fender washers.  I added them one at a time and then subtracted one when I felt I had gone too far.  My problem was the ski just wouldn't edge back into the course.  The washers made a significant difference.

[eleeski]

I moved my bindings to the left by about 5mm (3/8"). I'm RFF so this makes it easier to load the offside edge. While my boot is flat on the ski, this is a similar effect to canting the boot. But my ankles rattle a lot so canting hasn't worked well for me. Plus my hardshells are very soft.

The asymmetric binding placement helps make my offside turn as good or better than my onside. Kirk's Z7 with bindings flat and in the middle worked very well for me - I really liked having a killer onside turn. So maybe helping the offside turn at the expense of the onside (remember, everything is a tradeoff) is not the best thing for buoy count.

Eric

[skibug]

Hate to correct your math but 5mm is less than .200" and 3/8" is 0.375".  Not being picky but you know how this measurement thing goes.  I guess the reason I ask this is because I am wondering how big of incremental movements of offest are used.  Binding position (front to back) seem to go in 1/8" increments and that is accepted as small enough unlike being in the thousandths for fin measurements.  I would think the offset movement would need to be in smaller increments (like in the 1/32" or 1/64") due to the fact that the ski width is much less in proportion to ski length.  As an example ski width is ~7" and average ski length is 67" so the ratio is about 10:1.  Is there a correlation between increment of movement versus axis of ski?

[h2odawg79]

I do not "Cant". But, I have turned my rear binding inward and preloaded my rear foot for the off-side. This seemed to allow me an easier off-side counter and helped me have a better off-side turn. I got some strange looks from other skiers who noticed my  rear RS-1 turned in slightly instead of out! (of course, I've never been one to care too much about what others thought anyway!) =ha,ha!

[eleeski]

Skibug, my math conversion was in error. I use both english and metric tapes to measure. I have done this offset to many skis. I remembered measuring 5mm and I remembered measuring 3/8". Note that some of the skis have been quite wide so 3/8" might be porportionally the same as 5mm. And I don't measure anything to the thousandths on my skis. Sorry for the mistake.

Regarding the increment of adjustment, the effect is subtle so I need a large movement. The 1/8" binding hole spacing is mechanically driven (you need enough space for discrete holes). I ended up needing movements on that scale or larger. But initially I thought smaller movements would be better so I elongated the holes to the side a couple of mm (purposely vague measurement reporting). The bindings did not stay placed where I set them - but I didn't notice the changes. I ended up with slots instead of discrete holes and I fill in the open part of the slots with some epoxy putty to lock the position I choose.

Note that I am testing skis with radically different "feels". I am incapable of feeling tiny changes that others who don't frequently switch skis and settings might be able to feel.

H2odawg, I too enjoyed the performance benefits of the reverse rotation on the rear boot. But that setting seemed to cause a weird hip injury. No falls, but on a big pull my left hip would light up in pain. It was pretty painful. I reluctantly turned the rear boot the conventional way and my hip got better. Note that I am old and arthritic and get beaten up tricking (this was certainly not a latent trick injury) so your body might be able to handle that boot placement better.

One of the advantages of hardshells is the narrower profile which allows more movements. Not another variable to tweak!

Eric

[Horton]

I just can't read this!

[DW]

Eric, two sets of holes offset by a half diameter would halve your discreet hole distance problem and the resulting undesired binding movement problem.  It is commonly done on Indy car wing mounts, they use an offset set of holes for the wing mount to allow smaller wing angle adjustments.  Unintended wing angle "adjustments" are very undesireable at 200 mph!

Bruce, the way I was looking at binding cant was more geometrically, thus adjusting the ski to closer to perpendicular relative to my spine angle (assuming it does not look completely like a pretzel).

Roberto, the .130" actually corresponds to 3 washers, so it looks like Bill and I are in the same ball park.