The Official Great Pacific Octopus Thread

[Wetdog]

Imagine how much easier it would be if people trusted the ski designer on the mount point of a modern design instead of living in the past with the "farther back is better for pow" mentality.

Trusting the designer is great as long as you ski like them. I can't begin to list the number of skis I've demoed where the mount point specified by the designer didn't work for me. If you read on line reviews like those at Blister, you will see that they try various mounting points until they find what is optimal for the tester. Rarely does it land on the designer's mount point, because that is only a recommendation for a starting point. I always urge people to demo skis that they are interested in and try different mount points which is easy to do with demo bindings. When skis are purchased they often are mounted forward or aft of the line. Manufacturers often place multiple lines on skis for that very purpose. Keith from Praxis has always admitted that he likes more centered mounts and tends to mark his skis as such. After speaking with him, he as designer, recommended I mount at -2. So just plopping your bindings centered on the 0 mid sole mark is giving in to blind faith which can result in disappointment and unnecessarily remounting skis. That is why we share information in these forums.

[Sessiøn]

Trusting the designer is great as long as you ski like them. I can't begin to list the number of skis I've demoed where the mount point specified by the designer didn't work for me. If you read on line reviews like those at Blister, you will see that they try various mounting points until they find what is optimal for the tester. Rarely does it land on the designer's mount point, because that is only a recommendation for a starting point. I always urge people to demo skis that they are interested in and try different mount points which is easy to do with demo bindings. When skis are purchased they often are mounted forward or aft of the line. Manufacturers often place multiple lines on skis for that very purpose. Keith from Praxis has always admitted that he likes more centered mounts and tends to mark his skis as such. After speaking with him, he as designer, recommended I mount at -2. So just plopping your bindings centered on the 0 mid sole mark is giving in to blind faith which can result in disappointment and unnecessarily remounting skis. That is why we share information in these forums.

If that's the way you see it then fine. But the reality is more along the line of: "I don't want to ride the ski as it is designed, I want to ride my own way. where can I mount it so that it not un-skiable, but still make me feel good about the choice." I think this leads to a lot of people buying and having a negative opinion about a design, when in reality they should have just bought a different ski.
I think mounting off the mark is the real gamble. You are right about different marks. They usually come along the lines of "team line", and "traditional". The team line in those cases is probably where it ski's best. The traditional line being a spot the can offer up as an alternative so as not to lose the sale to people who can't adapt their stance for the ski they are on.
You guys spent months "sharing information" about a mount on a ski that you guys didn't get on, that's the funny part. After all the months of pontificating I'm sure the majority who didn't mount on the line will just end up with an extra set of holes in their skis.

[AyasFreeski]

^^ Well put, Phiber.

To be fair, I've also gotten some good 'unconventional' mounting advice for certain skis from this forum. Yet from now on, I'm playing it skeptical.

[Wetdog]

If that's the way you see it then fine. But the reality is more along the line of: "I don't want to ride the ski as it is designed, I want to ride my own way. where can I mount it so that it not un-skiable, but still make me feel good about the choice." I think this leads to a lot of people buying and having a negative opinion about a design, when in reality they should have just bought a different ski.
I think mounting off the mark is the real gamble. You are right about different marks. They usually come along the lines of "team line", and "traditional". The team line in those cases is probably where it ski's best. The traditional line being a spot the can offer up as an alternative so as not to lose the sale to people who can't adapt their stance for the ski they are on.
You guys spent months "sharing information" about a mount on a ski that you guys didn't get on, that's the funny part. After all the months of pontificating I'm sure the majority who didn't mount on the line will just end up with an extra set of holes in their skis.

That is not the way I see it, it is the way anyone who has a passion for skis and setting up skis to get the best performance out of them sees it. To reference your quote "I want to ride my own way." Isn't that what skiing is all about? It is really about mounting a ski where the skier feels most comfortable, period. The real gamble is not as you say, mounting off the mark, but mounting a ski and not thinking about it, whether that is on the line or somewhere else. Some skis that I love at +1, friends of mine are digging at -1. Read the reviews. People are experimenting mounting skis all over the place and loving where they finally end up and it is frequently not on the line. When you say, "The team line is probably where it skis best," it is where the skier likes it best that is where it skis the best, not where someone else tells them they will like it best. Like I said before, it boils down to personal preference and experience. You said in reference to mounting off the mark, "I think this leads to a lot of people buying and having a negative opinion about a design." This is just as true about mounting on the mark. Many skis have come out with the mount point in a bad place and then had it moved by the manufacturer the next season based on feed back from skiers. Some people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but you may be missing out on a lot by mounting on the line and getting mediocre performance out of a ski that could otherwise be stellar mounted a bit forward or back for your specific needs. The manufacturers find the mark by having people test their skis and choosing the spot where they feel the ski performs best. A different group of testers might have come up with a different spot. When it comes to people, choice is relative. That little mark on a ski is where a select group of testers made a subjective evaluation of where it should be based on the way they ski and in the conditions they tested the ski.

[Dry]

If that's the way you see it then fine. But the reality is more along the line of: "I don't want to ride the ski as it is designed,

Nonsense.

Skis get mis marked all the time. Might be the designers fault. Might not be intentional. Might well be exactly where they wanted. Praxis alone has changed their recommended mount point on at least one ski (may be two) in just the last season. Praxis is not alone for skis that get the binding moved off the mark.

[Sessiøn]

Nonsense.

Skis get mis marked all the time. Might be the designers fault. Might not be intentional. Might well be exactly where they wanted. Praxis alone has changed their recommended mount point on at least one ski (may be two) in just the last season. Praxis is not alone for skis that get the binding moved off the mark.

They have...FORWARD. That only supports my statement of you fools turning your ski's in to fucking clownshoes by mounting back is assinine.

[sandflea]

LOL, I agree^

[Wetdog]

They have...FORWARD. That only supports my statement of you fools turning your ski's in to fucking clownshoes by mounting back is assinine.

Forward mounts have evolved in response to skiers who ski backwards and spin with their skis in the air or on the snow or like to pivot which promotes the new school upright stance which is great and has helped the art of skiing evolve, but for people who want to just ski their skis on the snow in one direction, that being forward, mounting forward doesn't make a lot of sense unless you ski hard pack or you love having your tips dive in deep snow, thus mounting further back. Conversely, powder skis that have rearward mount point points are too far back for some skiers who like to mount them further FORWARD of the line. I find generally mounts points have crept forward to cater to the new school, which is fine but I mount skis where I like them not where they ski best for the latest 19 year old jibber. Last year I demoed the Squad 7's on cat trip in waist deep blower powder. They were marketed as Rossignol's powder charger, but it clearly catered to the the new schoolers with the mount point. The tips kept diving severely in deep snow. It's not like I was having problems on any other skis I skied that trip or that the snow had changed. The mount point was too far forward for me. I kept mounting back until I was at -2 and then they skied great, for me. At least 6 others on the trip found the same thing and if you look at online reviews, you will find that many reviewers were mounting them back at at least 1 cm and in many cases -2, although some where going +1, c'est la vie. According to your philosophy I should have just suffered with diving tips because Rosignol in their infinite corporate wisdom decided upon a line at some point on the ski to cater to a target buyer group in order to sell more skis. In the case of Praxis, the GPO was developed as a comp ski to ski variable conditions where you would want a more forward mount. Drew Tabke, freeride world champ, who skis for Praxis, skies the GPO's forward of the recommended mount. For those buying this ski for other purposes than world freeride championships who like to ski soft snow and deep powder, the forward mount would not be advantageous, thus people are mounting them further back to optimize for deep snow performance. This is why some park skiers mount their skis with Marker Schizos, so they can be forward on hard snow in the park to do tricks and ski variable snow then slide further back to ski powder. Praxis sells their skis in custom flexes, soft, medium, medium stiff, and stiff, with or without carbon lay up and in various lengths to suit skiers choice. They also recommend different mount points for various skier styles. Are you going to dictate a flex and lay up and length to us in addition to a mount point? Or is it OK for skier to choose the type of ski they want and where to mount it? You can do what suits you best or you can just conform and do what you are told and suffer. You're free to conform and call others who don't asinine. It's a free world where people are free to pursue their preferences. Thankfully, there are ski companies like Praxis who recognize this and embrace their customers needs. This particular forum caters to people who like to explore and ski the way they like and be not preached to by ne'er-do-wells. There are plenty of online forums for that asinine kind of thinking. People come here to get info from like minded people who are open to expanding possibilities not shutting the door on them by conforming to convention. Seriously, is it that hard to understand or are you that narrow minded that your next post is going to be preaching about bringing prayers back to the classroom?

[shroom]

you're tryin' too hard, man.

[Wetdog]

you're tryin' too hard, man.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Some people you are never going to convince. Why do I bother wasting my time?

[SupreChicken]

Back to the thread about the gpo...

I'm 6'0" 165 and I already eat a ton of food.

I'm on the dimple on my 192 med/stiff carbons. And I love the ride in almost all conditions...except blower...I only like it there. Don't love it. Incredible in variable snow and if i have no clue what the conditions are going to be, i would grab these without hesitation. My 195 Folsom gambits (yes overlap, whatever, I'm in the market for billy goats, too) with their 148mm shovel and actually slightly more forward mount and shorter tip rocker have better float in blower. Is it the shovel? Slightly more pin tail? I dunno. But it makes me think that it might be worth moving the Sth on the gpo back to -1 and taking them into some deep snow. Not complaining about having these out on a deep day, but they aren't immune to tip dive. I am somewhere between old and new school. Taught to drive tips, love the loose feel of a more centered stance in trees and pow. But I actually feel somewhat backseat on them at the dimple.

So old schoolers who automatically mount rearward...how's that float in the bottomless? Any of you in the backseat or are all of you still tip driving in those conditions?

The obvious tgr solution is to just buy another pair of 192, but make em stiff with fiberglass and mount THAT pair at -1 and turn my current pair into touring sticks. But since I'm not ready to pull the trigger on that just yet, is it worth putting another set of holes in the current pair a back?

[abraham]

The obvious tgr solution is to just buy another pair of 192, but make em stiff with fiberglass and mount THAT pair at -1 and turn my current pair into touring sticks. But since I'm not ready to pull the trigger on that just yet, is it worth putting another set of holes in the current pair a back?

I'm getting my 192s mounted in the next week. Leaning toward -1 but not sure just yet. What's your bsl for a swap?

[adrenalated]

So old schoolers who automatically mount rearward...how's that float in the bottomless? Any of you in the backseat or are all of you still tip driving in those conditions?

Finally got out in 16-18" of new snow on top of a soft base - yeah, not truly "bottomless" but definitely skied some areas where nobody had been yet this season with no compaction in the snowpack. At -2, I don't feel backseat at all, I feel like I can drive the tips reasonably well with no dive. That said, even at this mount point I still feel myself skiing these much more centered than a traditional ski (my Praxis RX, for example). I ski them with very much the same stance as my BillyGoats - fairly neutral, with mild to moderate tip pressure.

[racesla]

This is exactly why I have been mounting my area skis with schizos the past couple years. The more I skied modern skis the more I've realized one mount location most definitely doesn't fit all. I was amazed how much very small adjustments to a binding location on these skis can really affect how they preform.
Here's a tale of two skis. First, I'm 5'11 175, racing back ground. I don't have centered stance. I drive those tips. The past two weeks I've been skiing my 187 GPOs, and my 191 Caylors. Both new to me this season. As I said in a past post I started my mount on the GPOs at a bit behind -1. Could I have lived with the mount there? Sure the skis were fun but they just felt lose , and I didn't feel like I had a real solid, planted edge on the hard groomers. The closer I moved the bindings to the dimple the better planted the felt. At the same time I didn't experience any tip dive, (haven't skied any blower yet) or that sticking feeling you get when there's to much pressure on the tips when your running on a flat ski. At the same time I could drive them, smear them, basically what ever I wanted, they did. Now the Caylors were a complete 180 from that. I started on the line. Very fun and jibby there but lacked stability, especially at speed when charging cut up pow, and varied snow. The reviewer on Blister went back -2, I tried -1 first. That one simple adjustment turn the Caylor into a snow crushing machine without losing any of the playfulness. I could carve mach one GS turns, slave off speed and then flick off tight swing turns. Next I went back to -2. Took away that playfulness, also didn't ad any more stability. Made them bit lumbering in fact. I've settled at just a about a mm past -1, or -11mm.
Saying you should just adapt to a ski when you have options , is like saying I should stuff my foot into you ski boot and suck it up even when those boots are killing me, and I can't feel my toes. That's why God created the intuition liners, and the ability to move bindings.

[Sessiøn]

Forward mounts have evolved in response to skiers who ski backwards and spin with their skis in the air or on the snow or like to pivot which promotes the new school upright stance which is great and has helped the art of skiing evolve, but for people who want to just ski their skis on the snow in one direction, that being forward, mounting forward doesn't make a lot of sense unless you ski hard pack or you love having your tips dive in deep snow, thus mounting further back. Conversely, powder skis that have rearward mount point points are too far back for some skiers who like to mount them further FORWARD of the line. I find generally mounts points have crept forward to cater to the new school, which is fine but I mount skis where I like them not where they ski best for the latest 19 year old jibber. Last year I demoed the Squad 7's on cat trip in waist deep blower powder. They were marketed as Rossignol's powder charger, but it clearly catered to the the new schoolers with the mount point. The tips kept diving severely in deep snow. It's not like I was having problems on any other skis I skied that trip or that the snow had changed. The mount point was too far forward for me. I kept mounting back until I was at -2 and then they skied great, for me. At least 6 others on the trip found the same thing and if you look at online reviews, you will find that many reviewers were mounting them back at at least 1 cm and in many cases -2, although some where going +1, c'est la vie. According to your philosophy I should have just suffered with diving tips because Rosignol in their infinite corporate wisdom decided upon a line at some point on the ski to cater to a target buyer group in order to sell more skis. In the case of Praxis, the GPO was developed as a comp ski to ski variable conditions where you would want a more forward mount. Drew Tabke, freeride world champ, who skis for Praxis, skies the GPO's forward of the recommended mount. For those buying this ski for other purposes than world freeride championships who like to ski soft snow and deep powder, the forward mount would not be advantageous, thus people are mounting them further back to optimize for deep snow performance. This is why some park skiers mount their skis with Marker Schizos, so they can be forward on hard snow in the park to do tricks and ski variable snow then slide further back to ski powder. Praxis sells their skis in custom flexes, soft, medium, medium stiff, and stiff, with or without carbon lay up and in various lengths to suit skiers choice. They also recommend different mount points for various skier styles. Are you going to dictate a flex and lay up and length to us in addition to a mount point? Or is it OK for skier to choose the type of ski they want and where to mount it? You can do what suits you best or you can just conform and do what you are told and suffer. You're free to conform and call others who don't asinine. It's a free world where people are free to pursue their preferences. Thankfully, there are ski companies like Praxis who recognize this and embrace their customers needs. This particular forum caters to people who like to explore and ski the way they like and be not preached to by ne'er-do-wells. There are plenty of online forums for that asinine kind of thinking. People come here to get info from like minded people who are open to expanding possibilities not shutting the door on them by conforming to convention. Seriously, is it that hard to understand or are you that narrow minded that your next post is going to be preaching about bringing prayers back to the classroom?

I'm pretty much done arguing with you when you say all forward mounts are a response to people wanting to ski switch, the squad 7 being a jib ski, and that your mount is more advantageous to Drew Tabke when it comes to deep snow. And you know fuck all when you say that park kids are the ones using schizo's. Because they aren't.

You obviously lack the ability to differentiate between a more traditional ski shape where moving the mount back may make a bit of difference, and a modern 5 point pin-tail(GPO, BG, Bibby, etc) where you are clearly working against the design of the ski. But hey, whatever you need to do so you can feel better about your shitty mount, and extra holes.

[Sessiøn]

This is exactly why I have been mounting my area skis with schizos the past couple years. The more I skied modern skis the more I've realized one mount location most definitely doesn't fit all. I was amazed how much very small adjustments to a binding location on these skis can really affect how they preform.
Here's a tale of two skis. First, I'm 5'11 175, racing back ground. I don't have centered stance. I drive those tips. The past two weeks I've been skiing my 187 GPOs, and my 191 Caylors. Both new to me this season. As I said in a past post I started my mount on the GPOs at a bit behind -1. Could I have lived with the mount there? Sure the skis were fun but they just felt lose , and I didn't feel like I had a real solid, planted edge on the hard groomers. The closer I moved the bindings to the dimple the better planted the felt. At the same time I didn't experience any tip dive, (haven't skied any blower yet) or that sticking feeling you get when there's to much pressure on the tips when your running on a flat ski. At the same time I could drive them, smear them, basically what ever I wanted, they did. Now the Caylors were a complete 180 from that. I started on the line. Very fun and jibby there but lacked stability, especially at speed when charging cut up pow, and varied snow. The reviewer on Blister went back -2, I tried -1 first. That one simple adjustment turn the Caylor into a snow crushing machine without losing any of the playfulness. I could carve mach one GS turns, slave off speed and then flick off tight swing turns. Next I went back to -2. Took away that playfulness, also didn't ad any more stability. Made them bit lumbering in fact. I've settled at just a about a mm past -1, or -11mm.
Saying you should just adapt to a ski when you have options , is like saying I should stuff my foot into you ski boot and suck it up even when those boots are killing me, and I can't feel my toes. That's why God created the intuition liners, and the ability to move bindings.

As I said in my previous post. I think there is a big difference as those are 2 vastly different ski's. With the Caylor being a more traditional design. I ski it on the mark BTW, but can see the case for going back. But then again it's a big ski with a big sweet spot.

But I think the fact that your skiing style doesn't adversely effect the the GPO(Only makes it better) on the mark proves my point even more when it comes to shapes like the GPO. I'm sure as the season wears on more people will be reporting the same thing. Because that is where the designers intended it to be skied.

[Wetdog]

I'm pretty much done arguing with you when you say all forward mounts are a response to people wanting to ski switch, the squad 7 being a jib ski, and that your mount is more advantageous to Drew Tabke when it comes to deep snow. And you know fuck all when you say that park kids are the ones using schizo's. Because they aren't.

You obviously lack the ability to differentiate between a more traditional ski shape where moving the mount back may make a bit of difference, and a modern 5 point pin-tail(GPO, BG, Bibby, etc) where you are clearly working against the design of the ski. But hey, whatever you need to do so you can feel better about your shitty mount, and extra holes.

I never said forward mounts we only for people wanting to ski switch or that the Squad 7 was a jibb ski or that a rearward mount is more advantageous to Drew Tabke or that only park skiers used Schizos. Learn to read. Actually I have a number of 5 point and reverse reverse skis some mounted with Schizos so I can move the mount around so I speak from experience having been skiing for 40 years on both traditional and modern ski shapes. There's no need to remount when you think about where you are mounting and have a forum like this to share info with others who are mounting skis in various places other than the line like you do. People have a right to share that info without being called asinine by idiots like you.

[JeffreyJim]

Forward mounts have evolved in response to skiers who ski backwards and spin with their skis in the air or on the snow or like to pivot which promotes the new school upright stance which is great and has helped the art of skiing evolve, but for people who want to just ski their skis on the snow in one direction, that being forward, mounting forward doesn't make a lot of sense unless you ski hard pack or you love having your tips dive in deep snow, thus mounting further back. Conversely, powder skis that have rearward mount point points are too far back for some skiers who like to mount them further FORWARD of the line. I find generally mounts points have crept forward to cater to the new school, which is fine but I mount skis where I like them not where they ski best for the latest 19 year old jibber. Last year I demoed the Squad 7's on cat trip in waist deep blower powder. They were marketed as Rossignol's powder charger, but it clearly catered to the the new schoolers with the mount point. The tips kept diving severely in deep snow. It's not like I was having problems on any other skis I skied that trip or that the snow had changed. The mount point was too far forward for me. I kept mounting back until I was at -2 and then they skied great, for me. At least 6 others on the trip found the same thing and if you look at online reviews, you will find that many reviewers were mounting them back at at least 1 cm and in many cases -2, although some where going +1, c'est la vie. According to your philosophy I should have just suffered with diving tips because Rosignol in their infinite corporate wisdom decided upon a line at some point on the ski to cater to a target buyer group in order to sell more skis. In the case of Praxis, the GPO was developed as a comp ski to ski variable conditions where you would want a more forward mount. Drew Tabke, freeride world champ, who skis for Praxis, skies the GPO's forward of the recommended mount. For those buying this ski for other purposes than world freeride championships who like to ski soft snow and deep powder, the forward mount would not be advantageous, thus people are mounting them further back to optimize for deep snow performance. This is why some park skiers mount their skis with Marker Schizos, so they can be forward on hard snow in the park to do tricks and ski variable snow then slide further back to ski powder. Praxis sells their skis in custom flexes, soft, medium, medium stiff, and stiff, with or without carbon lay up and in various lengths to suit skiers choice. They also recommend different mount points for various skier styles. Are you going to dictate a flex and lay up and length to us in addition to a mount point? Or is it OK for skier to choose the type of ski they want and where to mount it? You can do what suits you best or you can just conform and do what you are told and suffer. You're free to conform and call others who don't asinine. It's a free world where people are free to pursue their preferences. Thankfully, there are ski companies like Praxis who recognize this and embrace their customers needs. This particular forum caters to people who like to explore and ski the way they like and be not preached to by ne'er-do-wells. There are plenty of online forums for that asinine kind of thinking. People come here to get info from like minded people who are open to expanding possibilities not shutting the door on them by conforming to convention. Seriously, is it that hard to understand or are you that narrow minded that your next post is going to be preaching about bringing prayers back to the classroom?

Paragraphs. Check them out!

I suggest you read Brain Floss by Shane McConkey. He was by no means "jibby" and was all about new shaping technology bringing the mount point forward on the ski. That's the beauty of rocker and new shaping technologies. You can have a more forward mount and not lose float.

Tabke likes a more forward mount. He doesn't ski backseat. He skis these in deep snow. He's got more of a slarvy/centered stance than old school racer. In my opinion, if you like a more traditional mount, go DPS, they were designed around it. If you like a more forward mount, go Praxis. Going forward on DPS or going back on Praxis yields less than desirable products in my opinion...

[2FUNKY]

Paragraphs. Check them out!

I suggest you read Brain Floss by Shane McConkey. .

"Mental Floss", RIP Shane.

[JeffreyJim]

"Mental Floss", RIP Shane.

I stand corrected!

[Wetdog]

Paragraphs. Check them out!

I suggest you read Brain Floss by Shane McConkey. He was by no means "jibby" and was all about new shaping technology bringing the mount point forward on the ski. That's the beauty of rocker and new shaping technologies. You can have a more forward mount and not lose float.

Tabke likes a more forward mount. He doesn't ski backseat. He skis these in deep snow. He's got more of a slarvy/centered stance than old school racer. In my opinion, if you like a more traditional mount, go DPS, they were designed around it. If you like a more forward mount, go Praxis. Going forward on DPS or going back on Praxis yields less than desirable products in my opinion...

Thanks for the info. I read that about a decade ago when I bought my first pair of Volant Spatulas designed by Shane who wrote Brain Floss to let people know how to get the most out of the Spatulas. I am quite aware of what kind of skier he was being a big fan. I included in the forward mount reference also people who like to pivot, such as Shane did with the Spats and K2 Pontoons he designed. I wasn't suggesting that he or anyone did all of the above, but that forward mounts favored skiers who liked one or more the those skiing styles and that skis had developed in response to this. In the case of Shane it was slarving and pivoting for others it was jibbing and skiing switch in or out of the park.

I bought some of the first pair of Praxis Powders from Keith when he was making them in his garage and didn't even put a mount mark on them, instead he gave skiers a range and let them decide based on how they liked skiing them, so I was an early adopter of the slarvy centered stance myself. I also own several DPS skis and other Praxis skis as well as a number of older more traditional skis and adapt my style to what I am skiing. Most of my skis are mounted on the manufacturer's line and perform best there for me there, but several are mounted off the line as well or with Schizo's so I can move the mount around. My point in all of this, is simply that people don't always mount skis on the recommended line for various reasons dependent on personal style.

Initially, there was a whole movement of people mounting powder skis forward of the line like dps skis which had more rearward mounts. Now there are a number of skis with more forward mounts that people are mounting back. This whole thread is about that in reference to the GPO and as I stated above, and you have repeated, the Praxis skis tend to have more centered mounts due to the designer Keith preferring that style rather than the skis being specifically designed to be skied that way. Keith himself has admitted that and he has recommended to many, including myself, to mount back of the line on some models which many reputable skiers who have contributed to this thread have found work better for them. I was responding to PhiberAwptik who was suggesting that anyone who didn't mount on the line was foolish and was doing so because they couldn't handle a particular ski or was compensating for not being able to ski properly. I respect the fact that others have opinions, even those I don't agree with, but when their opinion is that everyone else who doesn't agree with them is wrong, I take issue with that. Hence my response. I hope that helps clarify my position a bit.

[SupreChicken]

Abraham, I'm 310mm. You?

[Dry]

Hilarious! I likely have clown socks to fit my clown shoes, that are older than the ones screaming, "I know WTF I am talking about...been skiing all my life"!

What are ya, 12?

Guys, skis turn left and they turn right. WTF happens between turns is up to you. If you can't manage a ski mounted anywhere 3cm either side of the suggested mount point you need to go back to school or get some clown shoes.

I have, I do and I ski where ever the fook I think the mount is appropriate. Measure twice and drill once is my motto. YMMV not that I give a chit where ever that might be

Let me explain more

Not everyone skis like Tabke or Kevin. Could be some of us don't want to...foolish as that is, I know. Funny enough I do have friends that ski with Tabke on occasion. He aint using a GPO WHERE THEY ski. Just like I aint skiing my GPO where Tabke skis his. And I guarantee he aint skiing a -3 mount there either no matter wtf ski he is on. No one ski is perfect every where, but you can take advantage of different skis, different terrain and different snow by using different skis or even the same ski mounted slightly differently to get the full effect you want want from the design.

If you have half a clue you have already figured that out. If not you are likely on TGR telling everyone else "your mount point is assinine and you wear clown shoes". Turns out you're just as likely the window licker on the slow bus clicking away on your oh, so smart phone. Yes, sucks to be you. Better to have choices.. And better yet to know how the choices you do have, are best used.

[neck beard]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

Flatten dat tail out a bit, otherwise... really interested.

[spindrift]

It'd be nice to see some full profile rocker shots or an "engineering" PDF. I suspect we are seeing some serious distortion in the pic. From what I understand, there are a couple other modest tweaks as well. Definitely curious about how it tests out.