TacoMan

@thager absolutely moving your bindings back helps the turn due to a gain in mechanical advantage but now you've opened another can of worms. Your CG is now farther back on the ski relatively. Its like solving a rubics cube that wants to fight back. Im curious now to see if anyone has ever experimented with a ski that was say 1 or 2 sizes too large or "long" with their bindings on the extreme end of backwards form the neutral or stock position. In theory i would think if its possible by a less than conventional skier form modification in this scenario to have a larger center of mass shift nack and forth while skiing, unlike skiing a more conventional ski reccomended for your size where the optimal CG locations may be more closely aligned in turn and cross course. Also let's not neglect to recognize scenarios where your ski may be flat and not on edge where width or length in excess will always help here to maintain speed by causing the increase of surface area (for example during the split second you're changing edges). Let's face it your chain is only as strong as your weakest link. Maybe the Denali guys have it right with their design. The shorter length and increased width may provide more benefit from second wake to ball an in the turn than you could gain from ball to second wake with an increase in length of the ski in contact with the water would do knowing that there will be a slight negativeimpactat the ball.

@hammerski that is true, the point i was trying to make was when length is your only unconstrained variable with a pure physics definition. When you change the rocker in one and not the other you're now comparing an apple to an orange. But that is a good point. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Im sure the Denali guys can jump in on tunnel design as well. Effectively we have a infinite variable expression with a semi infinite solution. Good luck finding the absolute optimization. But back to the original post question on deciding length between 2 otherwise identical skis. Physics will always win.

I'd like to throw skiing technique out the window for a second and focus on pure physics for a second because ultimately physics govern the world we live in. Ultimately what we have is a ski in contact with the water at an arbitrary angle during a turn or while holding a straight line cross course. Now keeping that angle constent for this duscussion (45 degrees for example for which is the ski rolling around the long axis). This generates an incline plane which allows the water to gain a mechanical advantage on the skier. Keep this thought in mind now. Now how does this effect the length of the ski? In theory you are going to need a specific surface area of your ski in contact with the water to generate enough force or "holding power" to keep you on your path or "hold your angle behind the boat". This is independent of the length of the ski because surface area is a function of width and length. Now how come you cant run 38 off on a short and wide wakeboard or trick ski at 36mph? Due to the fact that the water has the mechanical advantage on you due to the incline length, you physically cannot get the ski deep enough in the water at speed and the result is sliding forward down course. Now how do you generate the surface area needed for the proper "hold" in the turn or cross course action when you are essentially constrained in the width direction? Answer: increase the length. This is also a double edge sword in your favor as well. Think of the surface area in contact with the water (as it remains constant). A long and skinny incline surface vs. Wider more square incline plane (while of course keeping the inclination constant). With this you are decreasing the horizontal and vertical components of the vectors representing your inclined plane and with that you are effectively reducing the mechanical advantage the water has on you and your ski requiring less work (force x distance) on your end. Now bringing it all together. On a short and wide ski, due to the resistance generated by the thick viscous nature of water (causing lift effectively) you are not able to get the ski deep enough to generate enough surface area for the proper hold. Thus, increasing the length knowing the ski will only ride so deep at cross course at angle will generate the needed surface area for "hold". Now for a 36mph skier there will be a point at which additional length beyond "x in." will allow for even more surface area then required for the hold needed on a set path cross course. The result is a increase in cross couse speed due to reduced drag via increased lift, and increasing the width only results in more ski out of the water. So in theory a longer ski will allow for a skier to gain mechanical advantage on the water, thus making cross course more efficient. However, due to length and scaling design as @horton mentioned, this generally means you or binding connectionat the ski (the applied force) will be at a greater distance from the fin (the applied load) and closer to the ski (the fulcrum just ahead of the bindings). In physics terms of a 3rd class lever this means you will be at a greater mechanical disadvantage making the ski harder to turn. Now for relationship of the skier height and relation of their center of mass while keeping the mass value (skier weight) constant: The taller the skier, the higher the center of mass is above the ski while keeping their weight constant between skiers. The skier in relation to the ski is a 2nd class lever. That means the ski surface is the fulcrum, the resistance is at the width of the feet and lateral binding pressure points, and the center of mass is the applied load. In the scenario of the 2nd class lever increasing the distance between the applied load and the fulcrum will increase the mechanical advantage the skier has on the ski making it easier to turn. That being said a 6'3 skier 180lbs (skier A) will be able to turn a given ski much easier than a 5'3 180lbs (Skier B ) skier. Now when you sum the total work done from our entire descussion with mechanical advantage in mind, skier A will be able to ski a Longer ski and generate more speed and turn the same radius as skier B with the same overhall input work of the function. Take that with a grain of salt because putting that all together only works if you the skier can put it together with proper technique to mirror the physics needed. Technique then with that in mind will have a huge effect on how a given skier may perceive how a longer or shorter ski may help them, and the world we live in is not perfect either and is filled with anomalies. I apologize for any spellimg or grammer in that long post, i went into engineering because i hated English class in school haha. I hope this helps with topic insight, but at the end of they day we'll be right back where we started with the gold standard "try it before you buy it".

@chrislandy i spent over a year in PT trying to gain more mobility and basically his a brick wall in therms of motion gained. Was told by medical teams this is the best I will probably get so i guess its time to work with what ive got unfortunately.

@stefan do you generate a considerable amount of pressure at the boot cuff and has your set up generated any pre releases?

I also am giving up skiing at 36mph and will opt for 32mph and ski recreationally from here on. How do you you guys think binding position will benefit me given the circumstances? Forward, backwards, same? Removal of the rear wing? Any advantages of set up given the limited range of motion I'll take.

@liquid d do you have to run your hardshells at a much stiffer release tension to stop a pre-release while wake crossing? Lools like it may be problematic with the extra boot cuff pressure (in the dorction of the boot release) you would be generating with that restriction of the boot motion you are imposing in the forward direction. Or has ot never been an issue with releasing?

@stefan I completely agree with the back foot heel lift. It should get my rear foot much more stable and stop myself from a constant unstable lifting of my heel now while skiing to try and allow me to get my front ankle to 0 degrees as @horton mentioned. Now in my case my rear ankle is much more restricted than my front so either a) i lift my heel while skiing so i can get my hips and body forward enough to get my front ankle to 0 degrees relative to my ski or B) i wedge the rear boot to accomplish the same thing and be more stable in the process.

Hi Guys, Looking for some input regarding overcoming ankle flexibility in the forward direction. Most guys can get 20-25 degrees forward, I can only get around 5 or maybe 10 (in both ankles) if im really pushing it due to injury. Currently I've got double Wileys with about a 1/2 inch riser under my front boot heel which helped a lot but im still struggling. Tip pressure is a huge issue (or lack there of). I used to ski an old hardshell and looking at maybe a reflex front with a heal strap and a Wiley rear. Ultimately im trying to find some moderate compensation to generate tip pressure. (I realize ultimately form and your hips fully up is the key to success in skiing and generation of tip pressure and control, however i cannot get to where i want to be ideally because of my lack of flexibility) Should i stay with rubbers now and shim the rear as well? (I am quite a heel lifter now in the rear). could i be looking at several pre-releases in a reflex with to much boot cuff pressure?