Elan Ripstick mounting point question...

[Woodserson]

6'2" 160lbs

I have the 180cm 88, which I skied all last year in the east, and the 180cm 96 now, which I have just started skiing. I love both of them. I really like how the shovel is about 25mm larger than the tail, it helps keep the tip up in softer snow/pow.

Mounting wise-- always a fraught discussion, but I have large feet, 30.5/31.0 Mondo 75mm and I mounted the 88's at -3cm and I really liked that. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH the marks for the 96 are 1cm forward of the marks for the 88. I initially thought that this was a graphics problem, but I saw a second pair of 96's from this current year and still the same-- so the 96's mount a bit more forward than the 88's. The skis are almost identical is every way-- dimensions, and flex, so I mounted the 96's in the same place as the 88's, which corresponds with -4cm on the 96 and wouldn't-you-know-it, they ski a little in the backseat! Overall they are fine, but I can tell they are not in the primo position. So I'm gonna move them up to -2.5cm. There's some physics thing going on there that I can't really figure out, the 96 is stiffer than the 88 and I think I just can't drive the tip as much as I want to.

Any mount forward makes skis turn easier. Mounting aft makes turning a little more effort, but less tip-dive. I like finding the balance. If you are happy at Boot-Center no need changing a good thing. If you feel you are overdriving the tips and they are flopping all over the place, then mount them back 2cm. You've got the weight to drive the 180s probably no problem, but the 172 will be more maneuverable for you in tight spaces, which is very helpful here in the East. The X2 is not particularly a very powerful binding compared to the Vice, which is what I'm using to drive my 180's around, so maybe take that into consideration too if you step up to the 180, which will be a stiffer ski than the 172.

All-in-all sounds like you have a good setup and you are happy with them! That's all that really matters, only go screwing with things if you like experimenting and are ok with the agony of defeat (I have definitely mounted several skis too far back and had to go back and drill a bunch of new holes!)

[rongon]

I took the Ripstick 96 / Switchback X2 combo out for their first spin in the backcountry last weekend. I first skied up and over the Whale's Tail Notch, which is not too steep, and then climbed about 2000 ft up Mt Marcy to ski down the skier bypass next to the hiking trail. Because of the less deep than normal snowpack, the ride down is bumpy, a bit steep, lots of obstacles, some boulders to send you airborne, lots of fast turns and quick stops necessary. Gnarly and rowdy. Classic Adirondack trail skiing.

So, how did the Ripsticks do? Well...

First, down the Whale's Tail there was plenty of untouched snow to the sides. I kept the Ripsticks in the powder as much as possible and they RIPPED. I was thinking 'This is the best ski EVER!!!!'

The climb up the Mt Marcy hiking trail went well. The Ripsticks are relatively light and did not present a problem skinning. All good there.

Then came the true test. How would they (and I) do skiing down the fairly well tracked out Marcy Ski Trail? It's funny but I found they felt like I have them mounted too far forward, even though they felt insanely great going down the Whale's Tail. Maybe it's just the the Marcy Ski Trail -- narrow, steep and bumpy as it is -- required constant short radius turns and hard hockey stops. I kept feeling like there was a lot of tail behind me that I had to keep from getting hooked up in all the bumpinees. Or perhaps I'm just not up to keeping that kind of intensity going over the course of a mile of gnarly downhill. I successfully negotiated some wicked boulder hops and streambed-like ditches, but I could not rail it. I fell three times, not hard, but enough to keep me good and humbled. I don't think it was the skis' fault. I think it's me, and conditions (skied out, so quite fast).

I'll need to take these skis up there and ski trails like that some more, see if I can figure out what's going on with them.

The Ripsticks do feel lighter and more playful than the Dynastar Cham 97 HM or Legend 96, but they definitely have more oomph and power than the Vector BC.

I'll report back once I've skied the Ripsticks some more. It's definitely a fun ski, but I'm still wondering if the factory mounting point might be just a little too forward for my taste.

[riel]

The Ripsticks do feel lighter and more playful than the Dynastar Cham 97 HM or Legend 96, but they definitely have more oomph and power than the Vector BC.

I'll report back once I've skied the Ripsticks some more. It's definitely a fun ski, but I'm still wondering if the factory mounting point might be just a little too forward for my taste.

One school of thought is that because telemark bindings are attached only at the front, the heel of the boot doesn't do as much as with an alpine binding, and it makes sense to move the binding a few cm backward so the boot center marking is a little closer to the ball of the foot, closer to the "center of power" for telemark skiing.

However, it is entirely unclear how much this matters any more with modern ski designs

[Stephen]

I hate ambiguity and have been going with BC on the mark.
The front foot pressure is probably behind designed location because there is no heel binding to leverage against, to put more pressure into the front of the ski.
Seems logical that the back foot *might be* pressuring the ski forward of design, but still, there is no heel binding to leverage against, so it might be that he back ski boot pressure is about where it belongs?

Another physics debate ...
with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
Colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
Of each one?"

[rongon]

Hey all -- In case you've been wondering (yeah, right), I now have more details on how the Ripstick 96s compare to my other skis, and how the mounting point question has worked out...

First, mounting point:
I followed everyone's advice and went with boot center on center mark on ski. It still feels to me like there's more tail out behind me than tip out in front of me, but I also notice that the Ripstick 96 is an insanely turny ski with plenty of power available from the tails when I dig my heels in for quick radius parallels or hockey stops.

I skled the Wright Peak Ski Trail (Adirondacks) on a hard/fast day, and the Ripsticks *encouraged* me to make lots of quick little wiggly turns and hockey stops, all the way down. That was some seriously rowdy fun.

I also skied a powder day on a trail-less Catskills 3500 peak (yes we get those too) and the Ripstick 96 worked great in 2.5 feet of freshly fallen "Catskills Cream Cheese" (dense, moist powder), making lots of quick turns around trees and smooth telemark arcs where the opportunity arose.

However, yesterday I skied the icy, refrozen groomers at Belleayre (Catskills again), and brought both the Ripsticks and my old Dynastar Legend 96 skis along to do a comparison. The Legend 96s were the first skis I mounted boot center on ski center mark. It also felt like I had a lot of tail out behind me, but I guess I'm getting adjusted to that now.

The Legend 96s I have are in 177 length. The Ripstick 96s are 172 length.

The Legend 96 has a slow rise, deeper tip rocker than Ripstick 96, which could mean they 'ski shorter('? ).
The Ripstick 96 has a more abrupt (shorter) tip rocker.
The Legend 96 tail has a slow rise but flat tail.
The Ripstick 96 tail has an upturned tail, a little twin-tip-like (but only a little).
The running surface of the Legend 96 is pretty short for its length. Lots of tip rocker and tail rise, and also a lot of tip and tail *taper*.

Both skis have Voile Switchback X2 bindings on them. Both are mounted boot center on ski center mark.

The Legend 96 is a stiffer and burlier ski than the Ripstick 96. The Legend 96 is also a bit heavier.

The Legend 96 is far more secure on icy hardpack and hard, icy moguls. The Ripstick 96 feels like a powder noodle in comparison.

Later that day, the hardpack began to turn into corn snow. It never got really soft and juicy, but there were some good soft turns to be had.

The Ripstick 96 tends to get overloaded when making a hard, sudden turn in heavy, dense corn. I guess that means it gets 'pushed around'. The Legend 96 feels stiffer and can charge through more of the chopped up piles of heavy corn or slush. The penalty is that it takes a lot more energy to make quick turns at slow speeds on the Legend 96. By comparison, the Ripstick loves to make slow, short radius turns.

So, for me, the Ripstick 96 is a fantastic little powder noodle that happens to hold an edge way better than expected on hard snow. The Ripstick (again, for me) is a great slow speed/soft snow/low angle touring ski with some oomph.

The Legend 96 is stiffer and brawnier. It wants to be skied faster. It can go much faster than the Ripstick 96 (although I'm sure some of that perceived speed limit was due to the Legend 96 being 5 cm longer length). The flipside is that the Legend 96 needs a lot of input when I want to make slow, careful, short radius turns (such as down a moderately steep, narrow, hardpacked hiking trail).

Horses for courses. I love how different the Ripstick 96 is from any ski I've been on before. I'll be saving it for backcountry touring and powder days. The Legend 96 will remain my hard snow/resort ski. It would also serve well as my Big Trip Out West ski.

...And I guess the factory mounting point is OK. I've been enjoying being able to rooster tail hockey stops and dig my heels into the ski for short radius parallels at will. It works!
--

[Knuckle-Dragger]

Just want to briefly share my experience with where to mount tele bindings on Elan Ripsticks

tldr;
Boot Center on Recommended
Ball of foot on Recommended

I'm an intermediate freeheel skier (recovering snowboarder). My Goto setup is a K2 Backlash 181 with 22 Designs Alx's mounted 8mm back. Garmont Syner-G 3-Buckle duckbills. Seeking a lighter setup for touring I purchased a pair of Elan Ripstick 94 tours, 178cm (which as far as I can tell from the specs is the women's ski with a different paintjob). All the info I could find on forums and YouTube seemed to suggest that Boot Center on Recommended is the best, so I mounted there and took them out for a test. Not Good! They were fine and actually fun making parallel turns but just felt weird/wrong when I dropped a knee. At first I thought it just may be that I'm not used to the ski, but I kept feeling like I was way to far forward. Not wanting to turn them into swiss-cheese with mounting holes I did more online research, and found that pin line on balance point put me in the same location as ball-of-foot on recommended, this location also 'looked right' so I remounted there and took the skis out. Much Better! I immediately felt comfortable making tele turns and enjoined the ski.


Original Boot Center on Recommended ski is on the left, remounted for better tele to the right. about 70mm diff.

[rongon]

That's a big difference!
How do parallel turns feel with the binding mount that far back?
I know what you mean about the factory mount position making parallel turns feel much more natural than telemark turns. I've been wondering about moving the bindings back perhaps 2cm. Just haven't worked myself up to it yet. But to tell you the truth, p-turns are working so well with this setup, I'm afraid to break a good thing.

[Knuckle-Dragger]

I mostly make tele turns so I was focused on that when evaluating, but I do recall the ski feeling less 'natural' making parallel turns after I moved the bindings back. I'm tempted to try splitting the difference, or going 2cm forward of where I have them but again don't want to turn them into swiss-cheese.

[Montana St Alum]

I'm a fan of mounting bindings boot center over the recommended mounting point. It seems that people think those mounting points are on center. They are not, generally on center for total length or for running surface length. In the case of the Elan Ripstick 96 (2019-2020 season, at least) the recommended mounting point is 8cm AFT of center.

"Factory Recommended Mount Point: -8.0 cm from center; 80.7 cm from tail".
Unless it's a dedicated park ski, I wouldn't expect the mounting points on skis to be centered, but it's worth checking.

https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/ ... ipstick-96
 
I haven't found any ski to ski better on tele gear by mounting further back than recommended and have found some that ski better shifted forward.

I have a pair of M Free 88's that I mounted over recommended and that's back at least 8cm from the center of the running surface and a whopping 25cm back from the total ski length! I moved it forward about 3.5cm (the distance between screws on the Outlaw x just to make moving them easier) and they do everything better now. Quicker, carvier, better switch....
Even after moving them forward the boot center mark is still aft of the center of the running surface.

But, I have NO experience mounting more BC/XC gear, and only applies to skis that manufacturers have marked.

[fisheater]

I’m skiing the shortest 177 cm, widest 97 mm underfoot, with the most active binding Voile Transit, all of the above are for me. The shortest, widest, ski with the most active binding in memory.
I mounted boot center on the recommended mounting point. The ski rips, very quick edge to edge. I’m thinking about moving a mount on another ski forward, to the boot center mark (3 cm)
Just my experience