Printable View
My first year reverse Corvus didn’t really have a flat spot but the rocker was very low. I’m overall happy with my one ninety four R one ten, they truck through heavy crud and stiff pow while still able to change direction at will.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Thank you! Super helpful. Front half more similar than I had thought!
From those pics the R one ten looks very similar to the Hoji
I did detune the tips on my Rs, in heavy and/or wet snow they felt like they were plowing a bit rather than slicing. I’ll report back after this week, we’re supposed to get a bunch of new snow.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The FR I got from MO were drilled for attack. I changed the toe to demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by skinipenem
Played around a little bit. But honestly they aren’t that sensitive. Of the top of my head I think I ended up at-6?
Had to ski relearn centered stance. But then again when I had a fresh line I found I could pressure the shin and it didn’t sink. But went back to centered just for the fun.
Been a while since I was on full reversed
These are amazing. Groomers you can arc. Cat tracks aren’t squirrelly. Very impressive ski.
Some of you have been on similar (newer) reverse over the years so take my input with a grain of old salty balls.
Please help a mag out here with mount point on the FR110
skis to be mounted 186cm HL FR110 ... stoke is high!
option: mount with p18s shimmed to zero delta ( stack height 19mm I think) OR salomon strive demos (stack height 24.5mm will shim to a zero delta.)
Some datapoints from skis I own. All mounted @ zero delta with look pivots.
Bear renegade 184 cm @ -1. skis well there. not perfect, kills it with almost no speed limit at high speed in utah chop and chopped utah pow bumps. high speed in dense chop, think shitty hot pow/wet, this ski kills me.
Bear renegade 191 cm @ 0. slow turning ski. skis well in fresh but not nimble. feels too long up front for me. Only skied it a handful of times so this could be an adaptability, me, issue.
Faction 1.0 CT 2021 183 cm (unicorn year) @ -1.5 This is perfect. Switch would be better a little forward mounted, but whatever. Tons of support up front and crush the forebody. thanks to @noslow for mount reccs. Firm snow ski. enjoys being driven aggresively.
Faction 1.0 CT 2021 178 cm (unicorn year) @ -1.7 Perfect. Firm snow ski. enjoys being driven aggresively.
Devastator 184cm 2018-2019 @+0.5 over the frickin bars in hot pow chop. forces me to ski with too bent of knees and quad burn. skis well at moderate speeds with the ability to float sideways over chop, but high speed chop is death. feels too short especially up front.
Bonafide 180 cm 2015 @ 0. This was the year the skis were still stiff. skis well at this length and mount point. large sweet spot so not sure mount point would matter much. Would have preferred a 185cm for higher sped limit and more 3d snow settings.
Kye 120 189cm @0. Skis well there, but the entire ski prefers to spend time under the snow surface. No real over the bars though. I don't think mount point is an issue on these as they likely have a large sweet spot and skiing within the snow may be by design.
So thanks in advance for me derailing the thread into a specific mount point question.
Best to put some inserts in and mount the strive demo bindings to play around with mount point? Or would this not translate well to a permanent pivots mount?
Or bite the bullet and mount looks at whatever you guys recommend?
Im 5'9. 185#. BSL 295. short legs, long torso. competent skier; but not spinning or dropping big cliffs. Obviously sensitive to delta (zero), ramp (pretty close to zero at this time), etc... Spend lots of time dialing in boots for an efficient skiing style and to accommodate some alignment issues. I'm happy on cambered and rockered skis; just depends on the style of the day.
thanks!
I went - one on the R and they feel good there. I won’t remount but if they were on recommended I’m not sure I’d hate them. For context I’ve hated mount point on all my quiver and love them all back between one and two and a half cm. I think the FR mount point is further forward than the R?
I’m similar height and bsl, but leaner and sexier. Given your past experience I expect you’ll be happy on the line or back zero point five cm. MO seems to have the mount point pretty dialed.
It’s important to clarify measure from center of ski vs distance from factory line.
There’s no line on the HL skis that I’ve had. Only a recommended boot center minus distance from the ski center. It’s been on a piece of masking tape on the ski on my Rs and published on the HL website for R nine nine and C ninety.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah I intentionally don’t print lines on the topsheets and try to force measuring the mount position, since topsheets can migrate a good few mm +/- in the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
If anyone has q’s on that, shoot me an email any time! Or tell me I’m an idiot and too picky and just print the lines, haha!
Mark the sidewall?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
5'8" / 160 lbs / 295 BSL on 180 FR 110sQuote:
Originally Posted by skinipenem
I'm an oldschool directional skier, also not spinning, and prior daily drivers in maritime snow for the past ~10 years were OG Cochise on the line (~ -11 cm, or maybe even further back?), and Influence 115s (~ -8 cm).
I mounted my FR110s at -7.5 cm from center with demo clamps (~2 deg delta per interwebs) to play with mount point, but I'm more than happy w the way they feel at -7.5 cm. In fact, I'm more than happy w the FR110s overall, as they've exceeded expectations outside of soft snow use cases. I could easily drive these daily, although I've got AM100s on the way for shallow & firm days.
FWIW, I was more sensitive to the recommended mount point for my 178 BC105s while wearing a loaded 32L pack, and feel like -8 cm is the BC105's sweet spot for me, which is similar to what others wrote about preferring ~ -8 cm for the BC90s.
I have no problem with measuring to find my desired boot center. I measure on skis that are marked.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m mounting mine at -6.75. Same are my FR120 ST. Love the Swallowtail at that mount.
Same, I measure everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah. I wasn’t saying y’all are doing it wrong.
You’re doing it right.
Just saying if Marshall says -5 and you go back one more cm that’s different than going-1 from center
All my discussion about mount point is anchored around recommended.
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
However, perhaps, distance from recommended and distance from center are both limiting in the application of translating one skis mount point to another?
Oh, and, yeah, I always measure to confirm marked recc line. In fact I measure a few times; I don't even trust myself.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
this is what the early ON3Ps did and I really dug itQuote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
mounting skis is stressful and my perfectionism really dislikes the notion that my measured boot center lines are off by 0.1cm, though is somehow fine with the idea that the printed ones might be off by that much (personal agency is a weird beast)
Praxis also punched (punches) a mark in the sidewall at recommended mount
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Have those been measured to be any more or less accurate than anything else? I have a couple trade-ins here I can measure here later in the week, will be interesting to see. My view and experience is that if it is manual in some capacity (from laying topsheets to punching dimples), it is open for variance, and the person most invested in getting it right (the skier) is the most likely to be the most accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarhey
My longer term plan is to begin pressing the standard/most neutral line into the skis via the mold, so it's the exact same every time. But I really need/want to have enough data about mount preference from folks to do that. Certainly getting there, but a permanent thing like that really is good to have sufficient data size!
Once implemented in a couple years, every every ski will have a standard mount point where I believe ~75% of skiers will be most happy, and then I will share what one standard deviation +/- to cover the next 10% of skiers in each direction to be most happy and invite folks considering two deviations from that to drop me an email to stick the landing.
Even if you move your recommended around based on skier feedback, you’ll get a more precise measurement from some arbitrary but precise marking in the middle of the ski than measuring from the tail of the ski and dealing with flat vs straight pull, curvature, where IS the end of the tail anyways (material length perpendicular to the top sheet, end of the top sheet), etc.
Maybe you put a marking at the “center” and still just publish recommended from material center mount points.
I will also say that measuring from the tail on swallowtails adds some fun to it. I ended up taping across the cutout so I could measure from the center of the ski in the same place on both, but it was annoying
To add on a bit more: you could argue, and you’d be right, that marking the middle of the ski will result in a non-zero number of customers mounting with that as boot center.
This just raises a fundamental feedback problem that this actually solves for, though. Mounting boot center at ski center will be immediately obvious to anybody looking and will be far easier to pull out of the noise than all the mismeasurements inherent in tapes from tails.
Rather than customers quietly not liking them because they screwed up their tape, they’ll hate them because they won’t ski great from ski center at all and you can be more confident that the rest of your feedback better accounts for mounting screwups.
We already suggested upthread that one tenth of a centimeter matters (though I’m not so sure). I guarantee you that there are at least three points in my process that inject at least that much uncertainty in my mounting measurements, and I’d fight anybody who suggests their own process measuring from tail is really that much better. A pencil marking is bigger than one tenth of a centimeter.
Jeebus, this isn’t rocket surgery. Pull tape, mark at desired distance from tail, check from tip, check from tail again, sip libation, drill, sip, glue, mount, sip, admire, sip, party!
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Also agreed. But we’re clutching pearls over one mm here. If we’re actually worried about that let’s remove a few variables hey?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWOFUNKY