- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
Maybe you need two of those plates, one mounted backwards.
I could be wrong, but I think that on the Fischer race plate delta changes as the ski bends.
Your point about not always being able to rely on your feelings is a good one (though my suspicion is that fore-aft is one adjustment where feelings, and what's objectively superior, align). Ideally you'd send video of yourself with different deltas to a coach whose eye you trust, and combine this with timed runs (just as you did in verifying your improved performance on the larger radius GS skis). Of course, your current fore-aft may be fine.So, for me, the question becomes, how do you define what is the "correct " (or optimal) position. And under what conditions? And what objective control measures do you use?. I am genuinely interested to understand. I can change the tune and wax on a ski and see the difference on the clock. I was an early adapter of the bigger radius GS skis and saw the improvement on the clock, despite it feeling less comfortable and demanding more precision than the smaller radius ski.
It's been my experience that fore-aft is trickier to adjust than lateral canting—a good aligner can usually get your lateral canting pretty close in the shop, but dialing in fore-aft often requires on-snow testing. Perhaps what you mention is part of the reason for this. Though I'd say the main reason fore-aft is tricky to get right is that it combines three different things -- delta, zeppa (bootboard angle), and forward lean (and that's just the skier's inherent fore-aft; there's also the fore-aft position of the skier on the ski).I'm still fascinated by the transition from flat running onto edge. I'm not at all convinced that delta angle on a _flat_ ski stays relevant in the same proportion when the ski is edged.
The point about not always being able to rely on your feelings is a good one (though my suspicion is that fore-aft is one adjustment where feelings, and what's objectively superior, align). .
You mean shim under your toes, right? [If you're trying to get them closer to flat.]I think the Dukes are the closest, I have a shim under my heels to get them closer.
Lots of debate. All I know is that delta matters to me, and it is even more important as I have a short boot sole length.
That being said, I'm in the market for bindings. I want flat. Does anyone know what frame bindings (dukes, barons, tours, adrenalines, etc.) are flat?
Mike
Interesting! I don't know anything about AT bindings; why would they typically have negative deltas?No, under the heels, they are toe high, but not as much as most AT bindings are.
Interesting! I don't know anything about AT bindings; why would they typically have negative deltas?
Again, don't know anything about AT bindings, but that table is for differences in pin heights, which are going to be different from deltas (differences in sole heights) unless the vertical distance from the toe pin to the sole is the same as the vertical distance from the heel pin to the sole. Based on the pics, though, it looks like the latter is much greater than the former. But assuming those distances are industry standards, you could convert the pin height differences to deltas. I.e, if:Is the Delta as important here in 3D snow as it is on skis for firm snow? Here are the numbers WildSnow.
Is the Delta as important here in 3D snow as it is on skis for firm snow? Here are the numbers WildSnow.
OK, but why wouldn't they put some material under the heel to compensate, to make the deltas more conventional (i.e., non-negative)? In alpine boots, most skiers would struggle with a negative delta. So is there something about AT boots that makes negative deltas suitable?Hinging the toe takes up some space.