So, If I go into the how to section, it suggests making a single arc. If the tips are wider than the tails, the narrowest point (and hence mounting point? -- correct me please if I'm sorely mistaken) would be back of center. If the tips and tails are the same width, the narrowest point is exactly on center.
Is this the parameter most people are using or are you using two different arcs (or something other than a circle) for the front and back of the ski? Mounting position isn't a spec' manufacturers list, but I'm wondering if the single arc turn radius with tip/waist/tail dimensions describes it well enough for most skis or if I'm missing something big.
TIA.
How far back for mounting point
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
Feldybikes,
I ski tele and mount the pin hole for the boots on the cord center as per the hammerhead instructions for a regular pair of skis. CC by 22desings is determined by measuring the length of the ski and divide in half. If the ski has a long flipped up tail divide the distance from the end of the running length to the tip of the tail in half. Then measure to the tip from that point and divide in half. I also check to see where the balance point is for the ski. It has been within 1 cm + or – on all of my skis. I have used both they seem to work equally well. I really can’t tell the difference when skiing.
I used the above for an alpine setup too and that seemed to work fine for the guy that uses the skis and for my daughters skis.
For my rocked tip and tail skis I measure the length and divide in half, but I check for the balance point of the ski, which on the last pair was 1cm forward of the CC. That is where I setup my binding for them. It just seemed like the best option.
I look at the side cut ark but don’t make the determination of where to mount based on that. Most of my skis have a lot of taper, 20mm like my Blizzard Titans. It sets the narrowest point back on the foot but I like the effect. You get set back in the “chair” a bit but the skis like to stay on the fall line and release easily at the end of the turn.
YMMV
Hafte
I ski tele and mount the pin hole for the boots on the cord center as per the hammerhead instructions for a regular pair of skis. CC by 22desings is determined by measuring the length of the ski and divide in half. If the ski has a long flipped up tail divide the distance from the end of the running length to the tip of the tail in half. Then measure to the tip from that point and divide in half. I also check to see where the balance point is for the ski. It has been within 1 cm + or – on all of my skis. I have used both they seem to work equally well. I really can’t tell the difference when skiing.
I used the above for an alpine setup too and that seemed to work fine for the guy that uses the skis and for my daughters skis.
For my rocked tip and tail skis I measure the length and divide in half, but I check for the balance point of the ski, which on the last pair was 1cm forward of the CC. That is where I setup my binding for them. It just seemed like the best option.
I look at the side cut ark but don’t make the determination of where to mount based on that. Most of my skis have a lot of taper, 20mm like my Blizzard Titans. It sets the narrowest point back on the foot but I like the effect. You get set back in the “chair” a bit but the skis like to stay on the fall line and release easily at the end of the turn.
YMMV
Hafte
-
feldybikes
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 5:23 pm
Thanks for the reply. I guess I should've reworded at least the title. I was referring more to methodology for designing the mounting point rather than finding it on an existing ski.
The chord center method has nothing to do with the sidecut of the ski. I'm guessing it works out because most skis are pretty close to each other, and I guess I'm asking the best way to make skis that aren't too "weird" -- at least to start with.
The chord center method has nothing to do with the sidecut of the ski. I'm guessing it works out because most skis are pretty close to each other, and I guess I'm asking the best way to make skis that aren't too "weird" -- at least to start with.
I use a single arc mostly because I'm still waiting for my cnc machine to be finished by odin. When I get a cnc machine I want to experiment with radii that change slightly and continuously from tail to tip. I envision having the radius get smaller towards the tip.
Right now my skis are made completely by hand so the most funky thing I could do would be to change the radius once or twice along the length of the ski. Changing radii at the narrow point is a good place because it is easy to create tangent circles.
With a constant arc I can use one guide to glue on my edges and keep everything from warping. The base material can point to the front or the back and still stay on the same arc. This would get trickier if the arc changed.
I have a set up that is made from a skinny template that is split lengthwise (both are identical). These halves can be arranged so I can keep the same sidecut radius but open up the tip or tail, add filler at the tips and tails to create new templates with different tapers. I have not made any templates with this set up yet.
Right now my skis are made completely by hand so the most funky thing I could do would be to change the radius once or twice along the length of the ski. Changing radii at the narrow point is a good place because it is easy to create tangent circles.
With a constant arc I can use one guide to glue on my edges and keep everything from warping. The base material can point to the front or the back and still stay on the same arc. This would get trickier if the arc changed.
I have a set up that is made from a skinny template that is split lengthwise (both are identical). These halves can be arranged so I can keep the same sidecut radius but open up the tip or tail, add filler at the tips and tails to create new templates with different tapers. I have not made any templates with this set up yet.