Leveling out binding height

[MattP]

So I had played around with this idea in my head earlier in the season, but with my decreased water time this season I tabled it for a while and just focused on my skiing.

 

With my OB4 & RTP set up I noticed that my feet were not on the same plane. My RTP is some what of a custom job. I pull the foam padding off and put grip tape down so I am standing on the aluminum plate. This puts my rear foot 1” lower than my front foot after you take into account the plate, binding plate, binding, insole, and liner. In my mind this also makes it more difficult for me to balanced and flex over the top of the ski. I feel like I am constantly fighting this and end up riding the tale. I skied last night with 1" of foam added under my RTP and I felt much more balanced and stable on the ski. Am I moving in the right direction to help my skiing or am I just chasing a crazy idea? Should I just try a 1/2" and see if it makes an improvement before going for a full 1"? I think that this idea is overlooked by most RTP skiers were double boot skiers are automatically on the same plane with their binding height.

 

Normal set up

1/2" Added under RTP

1" Added under RTP

[Horton]

@MattP‌ have you thought about just shortening your front leg. I am sure @E_T‌ would be happy to break it for you.

[MattP]

@Horton‌ hacksaws get messy

[SkiJay]

Definitely on the right track @MattP‌.

[gregy]

I'd ski some on both thicknesses and see which one you like best. But I agree with you that the difference in heights could cause difficulties in get up over the ski. I've thought about putting a wedge under my rear boot to lift it up and help to do the same.

[MattP]

@SkiJay‌ thanks! I was hoping you would chime in. @gregy‌ hopefully I will get to play with it next week.

[skialex]

@MattP‌ I have a picture for you, in order to level my feet I put a 3mm plate on top of an other 3mm plate with 3M tape adhesive, I have tried it 4 years ago and still works great for me, now my bottom plate is 2mm g10.

I believe you are in the right direction.

Good luck,

Alex

[SkiJay]

Great idea for avoiding extra weight. Out of curiosity @MattP‌, is it a totally rigid foam or a little bit spongy?

[A_B]

Totally agree on being level, but not so sure about the 1". One of the greatest skiers of all time recommends getting your foot closest to the top of the ski as possible. AM.

[bbirlew]

@MattP‌,

I was on an old obrien mapple years ago with double rubbers. The front binding ripped on me and I went to the local ski shop to find a replacement. (These were the old obrien advantage bindings that had your foot basically right on the ski).

I was leaving for nationals the next day and the only high end binding in the shop was a different brand with a THICK foam footbed.

The ski was never the same after that.... I struggled with it for the remainder of the season and finally gave up on it!

Level them out!

B

[gregy]

My thought was to have the heel a higher by using a wedge shape. It would keep the balls closer to the ski and the higher heel would help push you forward over the ski.

[Nando]

On the older HO Animals the front was about 0.25 inch higher than the rear. I used a piece of 0.25" nylon under the rear with longer bolts and it made a big difference. Took a few sets to adjust to but felt more balanced when they were even- though that may have been the placebo effect.

[bishop8950]

@Mattp totally agree. I noticed the same in my Reflex/Animal set up and played with 1/8", 1/4", and 3/8" plastic sheets between the mounting plate and the binding. You can see my footbed inside the Reflex giving you an idea where my front foot is. I think the back foot is about the same with the addition of a 1/4" riser. I also tested it by feel and skied on all three and liked the 1/4" the best.

[A_B]

Well Matt, you could test the limits of the buildup to see if you can add a foot or so, and then you would gain an advantage at 41!

[thager]

Just make a plate the proper height and width out of "Starboard" then attach your toe piece. Mount to ski using longer screws

[BraceMaker]

If you are using something compressible like foam - be careful on your screw length - they will pop through the ski if they are tightened down.

[thager]

Starboard is HDPE. You will not compress it. I used to built fin protectors and binding plates out of it.

[BraceMaker]

@thager - yes but his image is foam.

 

 

[thager]

Ahhh! Now I follow you.

[fu_man]

@MattP Looks like your RTP was custom cut out of a larger piece of rubber. I have been looking to get a larger piece and cut it to size. However, Radar wants $60 on their website!?!?. (Whole new setup is only $70.) Saw no listing for just the strap on Wiley's website. Any ideas where I can get a strap without getting taken to the bank?

[MattP]

@fu_man‌ Wiley's or Performance sells replacement rubber for like $20. Check their websites or just give them a call. Mine is custom. It is gum rubber Andy cut for me. You can but it in sheets/rolls online. It's a different feel, looks slick but when it's wet it has great grip.

[Chef23]

The old Maharaja bindings were all gum rubber and they held your foot tight.

[Deke]

@fu_man‌ here's the link to Wiley's Toe Rubber https://www.wileyski.com/Rear_Toe_Rubber_and_Overlay.asp?catID=88

[davemac]

Matt, please keep us updated w/ your findings/experiments.

@gregy I experimented last year w/ wedging up the heel of my rtp (with intentions to get more on the balls of feet and front of ski). In my experience anyway, I found too big (1/2" or more) of a wedge to be counter-productive to what I was trying to accomplish. It forced too much bend and softness in rear knee, which resulted in tendency to lock front knee and tail ride. I settled on a very slight wedge of only about 1/4".

[MattP]

@davemac‌ I have 1 set with the 1" riser and it did not go so hot, but that could have been the conditions. I might give it another go.

I also have 1 practice set and 3 rounds of a tournament under my belt with the .5" riser. I felt much more balanced on the ski and I noticed a increase in performance from the ski as well. I think I am moving in the right direction as set up goes. I skied a tournament best for the season in my 2nd rd. and tied it the 3rd round. My skiing has its faults, but I am working on those as well.

 

 

@SkiJay‌ I am using some interlocking foam flooring I cut up that was laying around in the garage just to test for a few sets before I buy something less spongy.

 

@AB‌ I agree wit the Mapple statement and have followed it for years. One reason I run grip tape on an Alum plate, but I think that logic came along when he was skiing on rubber bindings with the plate cut out of the foot area and was resting right on the ski. I think skiing and skis have changed since then allowing us to get away from this logic a little. I know @mmosley899‌ @Wish‌ and @bishop8950‌ have put up some serious scores in 39&41 with their feet raised off the ski a little so I'm not to worried about performance too much.

 

@thager‌ I will be picking up some HDPE this week to make a more sturdy platform for some more testing.

[gregy]

@mattp last I saw Mapple was on reflex front. It doesn't seem to hurt him much if any. He still seems to be on top of his game. I suspect that the extra support of hard shells more than makes up for extra elevation above the ski.

[Deke]

@davemac‌ careful with the heel wedge as it is somewhat counter intuitive as I have learned in ice skating. Raising the heel moves your knee forward which forces you to "sit" more so that your hips move back to compensate. Kind of automatically makes your knees bend but doesn't necessarily change where the foot pressure is. Arguably you can end up with more heel pressure this way. It does help keep from over flexing your ankle if you have limited dorsiflexion though.

[davemac]

Agreed, which is why I am so interested to hear how Matt's experiment (of raising the entire rear plate onto same plane) turns out. As you point out, inserting the heel lift had the opposite effect of what I was looking for.

 

"Counter Intuitive" & "Muscle Memory" ....the two terms which makes an already difficult sport all that more difficult

[Jordan]

@Deke. I not sure that ice skates make a good analogy. FWIW, I have been involved in a lot of profiling stuff regarding skates.

 

Anyhow, the desire to get your feet level to each other is important. If the back foot is lower than the front, your weight must be back. I think it's important to get to neutral in your set up.

 

[DefectiveDave]

@MattP, @SkiJay‌, @gregy, @skialex‌, @davemac, @bishop8950‌,

 

After reading this I realized my rear binding is about 1/2" lower than my front binding. I'm a bit too busy at work to ski at the moment and play with binding height, but it did prompt me to do a quick, impromptu study at home. I shimmed my scale such that I could get into a slalom stance with either my feet level or my back foot lowered by 1/2". I then did a neutral stance and a stance where I moved as much weight onto my front foot as possible without lifting my rear heal. Granted, there are some control problems with this study and I don't know the accuracy or precision of the scale, but I repeated my results as consistently as I could. Here are the results:

 

Level Feet - Neutral Stance (My Total Weight = 160 lbs)

Weight on Front Foot

Test 1: 75 lbs

Test 2: 77 lbs

Test 3: 78 lbs

Test 4: 74 lbs

Test 5: 77 lbs

Average: 76.2 lbs

 

Rear Foot 1/2" Lower - Neutral Stance (My Total Weight = 160 lbs)

Weight on Front Foot

Test 1: 63 lbs

Test 2: 62 lbs

Test 3: 65 lbs

Test 4: 62 lbs

Test 5: 60 lbs

Average: 62.4 lbs

 

Level Feet - Forward Stance (My Total Weight = 160 lbs)

Weight on Front Foot

Test 1: 103 lbs

Test 2: 107 lbs

Test 3: 113 lbs

Test 4: 112 lbs

Test 5: 109 lbs

Average: 108.8 lbs

 

Rear Foot 1/2" Lower - Forward Stance (My Total Weight = 160 lbs)

Weight on Front Foot

Test 1: 88 lbs

Test 2: 92 lbs

Test 3: 95 lbs

Test 4: 90 lbs

Test 5: 89 lbs

Average: 90.8 lbs

 

In general there was an approximately 15 lb weight shift associated with a 1/2" change in rear foot height. My feet are about 12" apart at the ankle joint, so assuming a zero moment for my body during the test this is approximately a 1" shift forward in COM. I'm a bit worried about confirmation bias since I knew what the outcome of the study should be (just based on basic geometry), but I tried to be as consistent as possible in what I consider a "neutral" comfortable stance and in the effort I used to move my weight forward without lifting my heal. I had no control over exactly where I placed my feet, but I tried to keep them approximately 1 inch apart.

 

I really did feel that I naturally balanced better when my feet were at the same height and it was much easier to move my weight forward. Maybe you guys who've been leveling out your bindings are onto something. Mine have become un-level as I've made binding changes and I never even considered that it could be an issue until I saw this post. I'll definitely be leveling my bindings to give it a try when I get back on the water.

 

Anyone else care to try repeating my study? I did the shimming with old textbooks and 8.5x11" notebooks.

[ScarletArrow]

IMHO, this is the only flaw in the OB4 system...

 

Radar (Feather Frame) and HO (Exo) engineered binding systems to reduce/eliminate as much distance from the foot's connection to the ski.

 

Yeah, the Exo's seem to be a failed experiment, but I liked the concept.

 

As a RTP user myself, I don't want to have to come up with a custom mod on my own in order to make this work (I would probably hurt myself) and the idea of a riser just seems to counter-intuiative to me.

[mmosley899]

@ScarletArrow‌ that is not an OB4 flaw, just requires thicker foot pad or riser if you use a rtp... Easy to resolve.

[eleeski]

@MattP‌ Great observation. I was considering switching to a RTP. Your insight just removed one variable on that experiment.

 

I'm still struggling with hip problems. I wonder if even more level lift could help. Another experiment!

 

Eric

[MattP]

@ScarletArrow‌ The HO Exo system did not achieve keeping the feet close to the ski. The bindings are resting on a metal bar I would assume is the same thickness or thicker than the OB4 plate.

No reason for you to have to come up with the modification. I'll just make you one. My plate required more lift than most because there is no foam or padding on my RTP.

@eleeski‌ Anytime. Keep us updated on your testing.

[MattP]

Here is an update on the project. I got some 1/2" HDPE today and with the help of a jigsaw and table saw I was able to make my new lift plate. The foam I was using was starting to compress.

[Chef23]

@MattP did you cut the slots in the plate to allow it to flex easier?

[MattP]

@Chef23‌ yes. It's 1st Gen I have a few more ideas running through my head to remove weight and improve flex.

[Wish]

MattP if you want to lightn the weight a bit more, use different sized paddle drill bits from large 1-1/2 on down and drill holes so it is a honey comb affect but not all the way though the material. Not sure how that would work with all the slots but it might.

[DefectiveDave]

@MattP,

 

I ordered some marine HDPE just yesterday for the exact same purpose. Great job and good call on the slots. I'll have to incorporate those into my design as well.

[thager]

Nice job @MattP!

[MattP]

Version 3.0. Much lighter and more flexible

[DefectiveDave]

@MattP,

 

Nice work, what material is it made of? Looks like you're not using the HDPE anymore.

[MattP]

@DefectiveDave‌ still HDPE just a coat of black paint.

[davemac]

Looks good, Matt....sorta reminds me of the sole on those Reebok running shoes. Anxious to hear how it works out on the water for you.

I found a site online that sells black Starboard HDPE (in various thickness) cut to size. Looks like approx. $10 for 6" x 14" piece.

[MattP]

@davemac‌ thanks. Yeah it kinda does.

Could you post or send me that link? I have found some similar but for over double that price.

[davemac]

tapplastics.com/product/plastics/cut_to_size_plastic/king_starboard/526

[Wish]

Say, that looks like mine. How did you manage the large squareish holes (not all the way through). I used various large sized paddle bits for mine. You got square bits? ;)

[MattP]

@wish with a drill bit and a jigsaw anything is possible. The holes go all the way through. There is way more flex and it is considerably lighter than the first go around.

[DefectiveDave]

@MattP,

 

Thanks for the continuing progress updates. I just got the chance to cut the slots into my version 1 last night with a friend's table saw. I cut 1/4" slots into the 1/2" work piece and have noticed that it is still stiffer than desired. I plan to go deeper tonight using a hand router to make it a bit more flexible and to round out the grooves reducing stress concentrations. How deep did you end up making the grooves on your version 3.0?

[davemac]

With the full cutouts, I am assuming that the striated relief cuts allow water to drain out, rather than collect in the "cut-outs"?