Binding ramp angle differences

[chemist]

I wonder how/why Tyrolia is variable (other than shimming).

Don't know, but here's some text from Tyrolia's manual:
"The FR Pro Toe is adjustable by changing the position of the Anti-Friction-Slider (AFS Metal) to cover alpine and touring boot norms." So if the toe lugs for AT boots are thinner than for alpine (again, I don't know), maybe they raise the AFS to accommodate the AT lug, thus giving the lower delta for AT boots and the higher delta for alpine?

 

[Erik Timmerman]

seems like that is not really adjustable then, but acknowledging that the delta is different depending on the type of boot.

 

[Levy1]

Solomon x 16 lab are either .5 or 0 delta. You could buy a plate and shim anything plus have the option to change it.

 

[chemist]

seems like that is not really adjustable then, but acknowledging that the delta is different depending on the type of boot.

Yes, if my latter speculation is correct, then my earlier use of the term adjustable wasn't.

Of course, they are adjustable with different ascent modes, in which the ramp angle can be increased by either 7 or 13 degrees (which entails lifting the heel pieces by centimeters, not millimeters), but that's not what we're discussing here, which is the delta for descent.

 

[Tony S]

Muleski, I think all ski coaches should participate in some ski testing where they have an opportunity to change only one parameter at a time and feel the affects on their skiing performance. I have put together a quiver of identical skis, set up with three different parameters (delta, cant, mount position). Three pair for each parameter where the delta rotation included a neutral or stock ski, a ski with 10mm of increased toe lift and a ski with 10mm of increased heel lift.

When the testers skied on these different set ups they became keenly aware of how their bodies automatically adapted to the changes and how their fellow testers looked while skiing the different parameters. This is a huge benefit to coaches and instructors to learn to identify and separate technique issues from equipment issues and know when to consider alignment work.

I told Phil if we ever have a gathering in Tahoe area I would be happy to put something together like this again for members to test.

(Latecomer to this fascinating thread.) That would be awesome, Bud!

 

[sinbad7]

The Attack 13/16 has a small screw that moves the anti-friction plate forward and backwards (and therefore up and down) on an angled ramp. Since the toe piece and wings don't move the adjustment is to allow various toe depths to accommodate AT boots as well as Alpine boots. The below promo video (at about the 2:27 mark) shows the same thing for the Adrenaline AT binding.

 

[Mike King]

Thanks! I took the easy way out and bought a pair of Dukes. They'll go on my new MX98's --scored one of the few left in the warehouse to replace my old MX98 setup.

Now all we need is snow...

Mike

 

[Smear]

I'm one of those that has gone fully anal ballistic with shimming every pair in my quiver to a similar delta. (And also canting shims and leg leg discrepancy compensation while first at it ). HDPE-sheets from ebay, canting shims from Cantco and good selection of screws. Screws can be challenging. Most of my skis have plates or machine screw inserts and that makes things easier and very reversible. One pair have system bindings and those now have 6 mm more delta and I'am 1,5-2 degrees over edged on those compared to the other setups. To me that now takes all the fun out of using that pair of skis. I could probably adapt, because I had lot of fun on them before the tinkering started, but NO those skis will have to go...


I used to be a believer in shut up, adapt and just ski. What caused the change and spiked my interest at first was getting new AT-boots and dynafit bindings for a pair of skis that I previously used with frame bindings and alpine boots. The new setup was great for walking up, but when getting to the downhill part then, hey this does not at all feel like it used to, and felt like bad habits where creeping up everywhere. I could sense that it was not the performance of the boot itself that caused trouble but somehow the angles. And then one gets kind of obsessed....

I'm basing my adjustments just using feel. No video, timing or other input. Problem with that approach is that it's easy to get used to something and then think that any big change that feels akward in the beginning is for worse. Or just being a victim of confirming my own theories of what kind of modifications are needed. Bought a used video camera with zoom and viewfinder last spring so hopefully I will be able to see myself on video this season. But can you really see the difference on 2 mm in delta or say a 0,5 degrees on canting? remains to be seen.

 

[Smear]

continuing rambeling from last post:


The AT-boots had two settings on forward lean. The first felt to forward and the second felt too far back. Not so surprising since they where 4 degrees apart. Geometrically that would be similar to a 20 mm delta change in lower leg angle with my booth length...

First objective was to replicate what I had on the alpine boots/bindings on the AT-boot/dynafit setup. Forward lean modification was not easy to do, so I reluctantly left it alone and just lived with it.

Then doubt phase. But is the forward lean/delta I have on the alpine setup really the most appropriate for me? In the mean time I got a new pair of skis with marker plates, with 2mm stackable shims for toe piece and heel. After experimenting and gradual reduction over years I have ended up on -2mm. The AT-setup not used much the recent years. When I was back on it this spring the least forward setting actually felt too far forward. Or the bottom of the foot felt high heeled. So then I mounted a 6 mm shim under the dynafit toes, and it felt better. So ironically in the opposite direction from what first felt weird when all of this started...

Racers that can easily mess with delta since the bindings are on a plate and often comes with screws and shims will mess with it. The same way as people with demo bindings will mess with binding location. The end result might be similar.

But what is important to note is that all of this is very relative. It's not like 0 mm is cool, negative kind of rad, +8 mm is dumb crazy high, 4mm must be ok and 6 mm borderline. The variability on boots in ramp angle and forward lean must be much bigger than that. And then there is the impact on peoples calf shape and size, dorsiflexion range needs etc. All of this must have a much bigger impact on peoples for/aft balance than a few mm on the binding. That someone else on found that flat or x mm is best for them on on their skis, in their boots, with their calf shape and other body proportions should mean nothing to anyone else. And if you change boots your preference for a certain delta might change, a lot!

Anyone might ski a slight bit better or worse with a couple of mm more under the heel or toe. My advice would be to keep delta fairly similar in the quiver and beware when buying skis with system bindings. If you later find that there is reason to change it, then change it with shims on the boot. Then the change will effect all of your skis in a similar way.

 

[sinbad7]

I'm on record somewhere saying something along the following lines.

1mm delta change - don't notice
2mm change - marginal
3mm change - starting to feel a difference
4mm change - definitely feeling a difference

There's nothing scientific in this, just years of ski demos whilst taking casual notice of the type of binding (and the ramp) on each ski. I take notes on some of my demos, and I've occasionally had to search for binding ramp angles after the fact. I will say that information on toe / heel heights for various bindings can be frustratingly hard to find, and occasionally inaccurate.

 

[cantunamunch]

Bring a caliper? Besides, shouldn't one also take the ski thickness variation into account and measure to the bases?

 

[sinbad7]

Bring a caliper? Besides, shouldn't one also take the ski thickness variation into account and measure to the bases?

Yes one should. That's why I said 'taking casual notice' of ramp. On a flat ski the toe and heel heights of the binding should give an fairly accurate measure, subject to the varying thickness of the ski itself at toe and heel. System bindings are another story - they can be all over the place.

 

[chemist]

Besides, shouldn't one also take the ski thickness variation into account and measure to the bases?

My Stockli Laser SC's and Head Icon TT80's are both 0.6 mm (+/- 0.1 mm) thicker at the toe than the heel. All my other skis (various Head carving skis, Head Rock 'n Rolls, and Volkl Ones) are symmetric to within 0.2 mm (based on a quick check; some may be < 0.1 mm).

 

[ted]

Like most things in life, I think "it depends" applies to binding ramp.
For some people it matters a lot, others barely notice. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those that it makes a huge difference. If I'm heel high, I can barely ski. As stated above some barely notice.
I'll add a data point, measured a pair of marker squires yesterday, heel is +5mm over toe. Compared to the other binding I skied on at +1mm, back to back, my quads worked noticeably harder,especially on run outs and it was much harder to stay centered. So far me +5mm is definitely deleterious to my balance.
Does anyone know if Marker has a toe shim kit fit for the Royal bindings. I can easily make a shim but the screw issue is a bigger problem.

 

[Philpug]

Like most things in life, I think "it depends" applies to binding ramp.
For some people it matters a lot, others barely notice. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those that it makes a huge difference. If I'm heel high, I can barely ski. As stated above some barely notice.
I'll add a data point, measured a pair of marker squires yesterday, heel is +5mm over toe. Compared to the other binding I skied on at +1mm, back to back, my quads worked noticeably harder,especially on run outs and it was much harder to stay centered. So far me +5mm is definitely deleterious to my balance.
Does anyone know if Marker has a toe shim kit fit for the Royal bindings. I can easily make a shim but the screw issue is a bigger problem.

They do not but it is the same hole pattern as their new race X-Cell bindings that there are ones for you. You can also find the very first Royals that had a taller toe and 0* ramp.

 

[Jersey Skier]

Just spent way tool long making plexiglass shims and grinding 8 pan head screws into flat heads. Apparently, finding long flat head binding screws is near impossible. I'll now have a nearly flat delta with my STH2's. If that is too much I'll have to start shortening screws and removing some of the shim.

 

[ted]

They do not but it is the same hole pattern as their new race X-Cell bindings that there are ones for you. You can also find the very first Royals that had a taller toe and 0* ramp.

Thanks for that
Any idea if anyone stocks the
Xcell shims?
Interesting about the older toe pieces, I swore I had read somewhere that the Royals were flat-
I was doubting feeling off because I thought they were flat. Glad I measured. Just goes to show how much of a mess it is trying to sort out the lack of solid info from manufacturers.

 

[bud heishman]

Guys, I haven't been staying current on this thread but would like to clear a couple things up so as we all communicate we are talking the same language.

Delta is an angle created by the
"stand height differential" between the toe piece AFD height (contact point) and the heel piece height (contact point)
This angle varies depending on boot sole length, but the stand height differential is constant
Ramp angle is the angle created inside the boot by the boot board or zeppa.
Let's not interchange Delta and Ramp as it gets confusing when talking with a boot fitter.

Regarding the importance of proper saggittal plane alignment and whether someone can notice 1 or 2 or 3mm in stand height difference. The better the skier the more sensitive to these small increments. On hard snow a good skier can feel 1mm difference on the sagittal plane and 1/2 degree on the frontal plane, and 1cm in binding mount position. As I have noted before there are four parameters on this sagittal plane and they all need to be coordinated to optimize fore/aft balance and the ability to manage pressure along the length of the skis.

 

[Philpug]

@bud heishman , you are correct. the two words have been interchanged my many (including myself). I will do though the thead and clean it up.

 

[oldschoolskier]

I have several thoughts on this.

First I agree with @bud heishman that better skiers are likely to notice changes vs less experienced skiers.

Second, just because the top elite skiers are doing this it may not help you as much as you think, don't forget they are going for that 0.01 second advantage over the rest of the pack. In some cases the speed advantage is gained through sacrifice of other desired important characteristic.

In that regard, unless an inexperienced skier is really out of wack in setup (this requires a good instructor/coach that understand these things to make recommendations/changes), don't mess with it. I would even extend this to advanced/expert skiers unless they really understand what they are doing.

Constantly tweaking and adjusting multiple settings at the same time does not allow one to adapt to any one setting, this in turn gives false feed back and can take you down the garden path so to speak, so that you never find the correct set up because everything is so far off. You will never be happy.

When I make changes I always change one thing and ski it for several days to ensure it's not just a "I like this because it's better not because it's different issue". The several days let's me not notice that change and only notice the change for better or worse.

While this thread is about binding/boot set up it applies to all setup issues. Think of any change as an ROI, what do you give up vs what you gain and is it worth it.