Twin Tip Cord Center?

I think tele specific skis should come with a boot center mark. Pins on chord center, ball of foot/center running surface/balance point and other methods for mounting tele bindings are cumbersome and unreliable. Manufacturers have the ability to find the sweet spot of the ski better than we do.

Got to agree and if you are paying big bucks for a ski, what use is the technology if you are putting a bunch of holes in your $700 ski?

Updated:
I called Marmot in Bellevue to see what their take is on the mounting locations for the 96 TStix.
The guy I talked to mounted the tele bindings- pin line inline with the triangle on the side of the ski (approx one cm in front of cord center). That puts the back two screws on the front of the 01 binding in the cavity of the hexagon marker that Aaron was talking about. Wow what a mess. I can't deal with a gap between the screw and the ski base. So it's got to go forward.

I went down and talked with Louie at Greenwater skis.
They do not do a lot of tele mounts. But he also does not like that tele ski manufactures do not define locations to mount the bindings like alpine skis do. He gave me Fishers number to call to specify. Next suggestion ask around, look at all the options for mounting and make a best guess based on the average mounting concepts. Be somewhere in between.

The quest for knowledge goes on...
Joe

Manufacturers have the ability to find the sweet spot of the ski better than we do.

in my opinion, i think finding the exact location of the "sweet spot" can be somewhat difficult, in a sense that it really depends a lot on technique (i.e., how the ski/snowboard is loaded/unloaded), specific use of the instrument, tuning, and other complicated factors that can't be controlled during design and manufacturing. but some devices do have a wider sweet spot, and thus they fit a broader range of users, like a one-size-fits all kind of thing.

I also believe there is no difference for the sweet spot between alpine or tele.

back when i was purchasing skis, i tended toward alpine skis for tele. don't ask what i'm building now, because i don't know. anyway, i've yet to try David Mazzarella's ScottyBobs, which is a tele-specific ski. as far as differences in sweet spots, this is an ongoing debate, but certainly, the skiing technique is different between the two.

I've had good results with mounting both my HammerHeads and BD-01's on Twins "Ball of foot" on "Center of Running Surface".

This mounting position is back a bit from where you'd mount using the Alpine boot and ski marks. -- But I also think that Alpine manufacturers take into account the fact that the vast majority of alpine skiers spend most of their time "in the back seat".

I determine "Center of Running Surface" by placing the ski on a hard floor and running a credit card along the floor until in touches the ski edge at either end and taking the mid-point of those two marks.

Finding "Ball of foot" precisely is a PITA -- but I've found a good approximation to simply be the bottom point of the bellows.

Also I'm not inclined to obsess about this too much -- I think most people can't detect differences in performance from variations in mounting positions of less than an inch or so.

I mounted up my Kehuas using Aaron's method which I found on t-tips. I measured from the middle pin hole to the back of the heel on my boots, divided that by two, and measured up from the boot center mark on my ski to get pinline. It surprisingly ended up matching another pair of twin tips that I mounted using a different method. Those skis ski well so I'm hoping the same for my Kehuas.

The funny thing is that I was mounting these up last night while you guys were discussing it.

The even funnier thing is that I'm not skiing this weekend :'( :.

One other thing I did was to stand in my bare feet on the skis and feel where my edging pressure points are. I made sure that the ski was narrowest at these places (btw the ski measured out narrower than advertised which is okay by me anyway).

Thanks to those that supplied valuable information to help me get the skis mounted.
I went to many websites, called many backcountry ski shops to get an idea on the best location to mount the bindings.
All I got was more confusion...The mounting location variance was anywhere up to 6 inches difference!
So in short form it took me over 10 days to finally decide where to put the bindings.
To those that give a hoot- I took the few concepts that made the most sense (to me).
1) Fisher 186 96 t-stix- I measured tip to 1/3 of the way up the twin in back (like a swallow tail).
2) Marked 1/2 measurement on ski (34.5in from tip). That ended up being 3 cm ahead of the triangle mark on the side of the ski. Given the size of my boot (13) I thought that to be the appropriate place to pin line.
3) The triangle mark was the balance point of that ski. Measured by balancing the ski on a level screw driver on a ski vice..as Kam says,"Close enough for government work."
4) That location (34.5" from tip) was the middle point between Aaron's location and Marmot's/Fishers suggested locations. Other suggested locations like mid boot on the triangle were not in the running.

Took them out for the afternoon yesterday at Crystal-perfect corn, slop and powder combo.
Ran into Kuharicm on REX and we skied the afternoon together groomers, frontside crud, and BC Powder-Good to see you Matt!
The ski skis wonderful! Very happy with my placement decision. Skied really well centered.
Initially it took a bit for the springs in the new 01 binding and my knees to break in.
SKI REVIEW_Great in firm packed Northback trail (I-5), crud, slush, dirt patches (not sure about ice) and of course the usual ski testers comment, "Yeah their great in POWDER!" :
There is a very large sweet spot on this ski, so I don't think it would make much difference 1 cm +/- unless you were to do the dramatic placements fore and aft.
Thanks for the help.
Joe

Got to agree and if you are paying big bucks for a ski, what use is the technology if you are putting a bunch of holes in your $700 ski?

Especially in fat skis, a few extra holes aren't going to make much difference. Having the mount in the right spot can potentially make a huge difference.

Case in point. I recently replaced my well loved Voelkl Explosivs with the new Mantra, which is roughly the same size, but much more shapely. To account for this, and a slightly turned up tail, Voelkl put the mount point well forward of where it traditionally sits on a powder ski. Makes sense, and the new PSIA style of tele skiing I've been trying seems to jive with it, pressure the ski dead center, with both feet, to carve it right.

So, I mounted them boot center on Voelkl's boot center mark.

The result is mixed. When I'm totally on my game, in a high stance, hammering the ball of my foot, the rear ski carves like a race ski. I can rail carves in tele mode like never before. But, as soon as I leave that sweet spot, the skis are all over the place. Tips dive, tail catches, crazy stuff. Maybe I'll be able to adjust for it over time, but I think a few cm back from the factory boot-center mount makes a lot of sense for an alpine ski mounted tele, especially one that sees a lot of use off the groomers. So, I am probably going to move mine about 2cm back from the recommended mount point, holes be damned.

It's worth noting that there really is no hard and fast rule anymore. I just mounted a set of K2 Phat Luvs alpine for my girlfriend, and the factory mount seems to be too far back for her. K2 skis, in general, seem to run long for their stated size and are mounted farther back. Atomic (and by association, BD) tends to run shorter and forward, and I think Voelkl is somewhere between the two.

Anyway, sounds like you hit it right the first time, good job.