MikeK wrote:I'm pretty sure your skis are the easy skin, no? I think the 125 was only made with the generation.
The previous ones had a very specific way to adjust your mounting position. FWIW, I think it works. Some other people have deviated and wound up back, or near what they recommend.
On the previous ones, balance was very far forward. It just so worked out that they had marks right about at balance, and that the balance was +1 to +2cm from chord, depending on the model of ski. If the mark is there, I would use it. There was also some smaller marks that were used to make slight adjustment for boot size. The nominal, large mark was for a size 42 and each mark was for the next size smaller (toward the tail of the ski) or larger (toward the tip). I think the marks are 2.5mm apart IIRC (it's on this forum). I'm not sure if the 125 (or the newer S Bounds) have those marks, but I'd check balance and chord and see what the relationship is. If balance is forward of chord by like 2cm, I bet they are the same (marks or not) and I'd use that previous procedure.
I wear a size 43 or 44 boot, and I mounted on the large mark (balance/42) for both my S Bounds. Both work great (2.5mm is pretty small compared to the ski length). It seems that Fischer's actually engineering these skis to be mounted up this way, and designed them such that they balance out nearly at that point (unlike many other skis). They also assume you are going to use FH bindings, not like a Vector or any other DH ski which may be setup for Tele or AT in which boot center may be the given mark. I don't really doubt Fischer on this. These skis work pretty well.
PS The same could be said about the Annum and the marks on those, but IIRC, the marks for the Annum were 1cm forward of the Epoch. I can't recall what the Eon was, I'd have to check my notes. Either way, I believe the Annum was the most aggressive in terms of moving the foot forward and was the farthest from the skis balance point. I really don't think balance has much to do with how the ski turns (although some will disagree) but perhaps it rather leads us more to the skis shape and fore/aft distribution/rocker/etc.
Whoa, that's a lot of info there!
From what I can remember, there's no 'mount here' mark on this pair of SB 125's. I'll have to look again when I get home. I don't know what year these skis are from. They're dark blue and black, and the bases have a white extruded kick pattern area, black sintered tip and tail.
I'll have to double-check where the BP, CC, and BOF/CRS points fall on the ski. I measured all those a few weeks ago, and have them penciled on a piece of masking tape on the skis. I'll get back to you on this...
I too found that the Annum's mounting line marks were quite far forward. I mounted mine as recommended to start with, and skied them like that for a season. I found that they felt like there was a lot of tail sticking out behind me, which I didn't like. The next season, I moved the bindings back to pins-on-CC, and found that I loved the skis that way in any kind of soft snow, including more than two feet of fresh powder on one memorable day. Like others, I've found the Annum to be a really good ski for XC skiing in deep, untracked snow, and not bad for turns in soft snow.
I'm hoping the S-Bound 125 will be similar, but with more of an emphasis on downhill performance, while retaining reasonably good XC performance. To compare to my Vector BC's, I find the Vectors to have terrible kick-and-glide performance, really only good for shuffling along on the flats. They are really good for making turns, though. Far better for steeper-and-deeper than the Annum. But the Annum is a far, far better XC ski. If the SB 125 strikes a compromise between those two, then I might really love it.
Anyway, I'll get back to you on where the BP, CC, and BOF/CRS points are on the SB 125.
--
No really.
