Elan Ripstick mounting point question...

[rongon]

Hi everybody,

I finally got my new pair of Elan Ripstick 96 skis mounted with Switchback X2 bindings, with the center of the boot sole right over the 'Ride' mark on the ski. I took the new rig out yesterday, and wow! That's the turniest ski I've ever been on. I mean, I was able to make the quickest turns, in control, so precisely. It felt like cheating. Really, I couldn't believe it. I thought, "Wait... There has to be a problem. Maybe the bindings are mounted too far forward, and this is going to suck in deep snow..."

I brought the skis to the local backcountry-savvy ski shop and asked their tech if I had mounted the bindings too far forward. He basically told me, "They look fine. I always mount on the factory recommended spot. A lot of thought goes into finding that spot, so you should use it." He also said the Amphibio asymmetric sidecut makes the ski turn differently when used telemark, so I might find myself weighting the front ski more than I'm used to, and I might also stay more upright so the skis track better in a tele. (???)

So, anyone out there skiing Elan Ripsticks? Where did you mount the bindings? Boot center on ski center mark? 1 cm behind the ski center mark? 2 cm behind?

I have the 172cm length, and I'm 5' 7" (170cm) tall, but heavy (190 lbs). Maybe 172cm is too short? Could that be it?

I have to say, for a ski this light they really did rail on the soft, melty corduroy Monday. I was really impressed with them. I mean, I even landed a four-foot huck. Never was able to do that before. Whaah???

[Montana St Alum]

Sounds like you have "normal" foot sizing. Some guys with big feet mount aft. It also sounds like you're having fun and shouldn't mess with "a good thing"!

[phoenix]

I've read nothing but glowing reviews of the Ripsticks. Haven't tried 'em myself. I think Woodserson (I don't know how to do the "@somebody thing") has a pair, but maybe the 86's.
I'm thinking like Montana; if they're feeling good, just ski 'em. 172 sounds a lil' bit on the shorter side for your size, but hey, they work for you!
My personal preferences would likely differ; I lean towards BOF on CRC, or even (gasp) chord center, depending. Just making conversation, not suggesting you should change anything.

[rongon]

I don't mind any conversation about skis!

I've been mounting my skis BOF on CRS for years now, although I did end up preferring my Madshus Annum skis mounted pins on cord center. But I'm not sure I ever did find the best spot for the last two downhill skis I've skied, Dynastar Cham 97 HM (with a flat tail that's also pretty skinny, Dynastar's "pintail") and Dynastar Legend 96 (with a more normal upturned tail).

The Cham 97 HM 172cm skis mounted with the bindings at BOF on CRS ended up feeling like the bindings are too far back on the ski. They feel OK, but not great. They have really wide tips, but those skinny 'pintails'. It makes them feel squirrely on hardpack, but they do ski great in powder.

The Legend 96 177cm skis have their bindings mounted BOF on CRS, but this puts them farther forward, so the skis feel like I'm really up close to the tips with a lot of tail out behind me. I haven't had these skis in powder yet, but I feel like I'm always conscious of how much tail I have out behind me. Maybe it's just because it's a longer ski... (177)

Those Dynastars are both stiff skis, which is, I think, why I've ended up not liking them so much. They also have a lot of tip and tail taper. They have that five-point sidecut like the Rossignol Soul 7 had. I might not like that either.

The Ripsticks have less wacky of a shape, but they have that asymmetrical sidecut. I got them because they were on sale and have received many glowing reviews. But you never know how you're going to get on with a particular ski.

On the Ripsticks I again feel like I don't have a lot of ski out in front of me, which feels weird to me because I come from an XC background. I also feel like there's more tail out behind me than ski out in front of me. But with the upturned tail of these Ripsticks and the slight bit of rocker back there, these skis don't make me feel like the tails are trying to push me forward all the time. I really enjoyed slarving the tails around, using them to control the shape of my turns. On the other hand, when I telemarked to a hard stop, I found I could whip myself around to almost a 360, no problem at all. It's like I had to stop turning way earlier than with my other skis. That's what feels like cheating. I'm always being told to 'finish your turns', but these skis feel like I can turn so sharply I can send the tips pointing uphill on command, so I have to actually abbreviate my turns. Really weird. But then they also feel stable and fast making long GS-style turns. Doubly weird. What's the catch??

They feel like they'll be the best ski I've ever had for tight trees, even in those skied out, steep glades that always feel too fast for me. Perhaps they're just great skis, and their personality works for me. Could be.

@Woodserson -- What do you think of all this?

[Stephen]

I have them in 188 with Meidjos + TX pro.
Binding mounted as recommended on BC.

I have the “over-turn” thing sometimes, but on all the DH skis I have, not just that one.
A technique issue I’m working on…

I would attribute the snappy turns to the Weight / Length ratio you are skiing them at.

I’m 6’3”, so my 188 skis are “right” for my hight, but 170# “dry,” so kind of wish I had got them in the 180 length.
I have other 180 skis that turn easier than the Ripsticks do.
The thing with the Ripsticks is that they are actually about 2-3cm shorter than the “nominal” length of most other skis.

Like others have said, if you’re having fun, don’t sweat it!
Unless you can swap the skis, it’s all academic at this point…

[Montana St Alum]

I don't think I'd worry about it.

Saying skis "overturn" is like saying "her breasts are too big".

[lowangle al]

Sometimes you find a ski that just suits you. I also think your previous skis may have been holding you back, what were they and how were they mounted?

[Rodbelan]

Remember Mark Twain books? «If the pump works, don't fix it»...

[rongon]

Sometimes you find a ski that just suits you. I also think your previous skis may have been holding you back, what were they and how were they mounted?

My previous skis:

- Dynastar Legend 3800 - 172cm (skinny, 75mm waist, no rocker, mounted BOF on CRS which ended up as boot center -2cm from ski center mark)

- Dynastar Cham 97 HM - 172cm (5-point sidecut, rocker tip with lots of taper, 97mm waist, flat pintail, pretty weird ski but works great in powder, mounted boot center -1cm from ski center mark)

- Dynastar Legend 96 - 177cm (later model of Cham 97 HM, just longer and with some rise to the tail - It feels weird, lots of tail out behind me, mounted boot center on ski center mark).

- Voilé Vector BC - 170cm (probably too short and too light for steeper terrain, although I like the straight tail, mounted boot center -1cm from ski center mark)

[lowangle al]

I'm not familiar with the Dynastars. I am with the Vectors though and I can see where a similar ski could have a smoother flex and better balance, the weak points of the original vector. Not having scales will make for a smoother turning ski also. It's nice when things work out that well.