..at a time before quick release seatposts have been invented.
Eamonn, what brand is the telescopic seat post on the slayer?
I'm looking for one with off set, which I haven't found yet.
Is the footage aired on the net somewhen?
i can't get into this too much because i don't know what what the hell i'm talking about… but what would burn? the jet fuel would be gone pretty quickly and there's nothing else that can burn with any degree of destruction.
and this idea the jet fuel burns at some ridiculous temperature melting gigantic iron beams is also questionable. It burns at 410F according to wiki. I roast my brussel sprouts at that temp.
I mean it's just perplexing. Simple logical analysis of the situation never leads to the clean implosion of two 110 story buildings. Plus a never explained third building.
Jet fuel may ignites at 210 deg C but it has a very high specific energy, that's what does the damage. If the fuel is pulverized properly, it can be ignited easily by any spark which were without doubt produced bythe crash.
There weren't only steel and concrete. The building (and the planes) had casing in- and outside, which burns easier than steel and concrete. So it wasn't just those two that burnt.
Question was a bit of a mishap. I can help myself with the search function, yes (will consult it again), but my question was meant in a more general way. I'm just curious if there's a benefit with a slightly forward position on touring setups. Like more lift in deep pow, less mobility at kick turns…
Mine are tared comfortably for up and down.
So it's all about one's personal preferences and the ski's characteristics.
I'm aware big skis are skied here too, but they're not as common as elsewhere, due to lack of pow days, I guess. Maybe it's the Alpes (especially the Eastern parts) where people tend to go for shorter skis and seem to be more backwards on them.
One of the fluffier days
Looking at all these mouth watering blower pow pictures which are posted here and on other boards (Rockies related), I recognised that most of the bindings on touring skis seem to be mounted slightly forward, other than the average European mounting position, which seems fairly in the back. Also Canadian/US skiers seem to ride longer skis than the average European guy does. So maybe it seems to have the bindings more forward but it's just the longer skis, which make other proportions on the pics.
A plus for forward mounting would be, that you don't sink to much, because one is in a more centralised position. A con could be that the ski is overturning to much, like oversteering in a car.
My 175cm planks with Fritschis are pretty much balanced. When I lift one ski neither tip nor tail move up or down. The middle of my boot coincides with the marking on the ski, which presumably stands for the ideal position.
What's the benefit of having the binding mounted forward? Is it for turning ease? Or is it all just in the contortion of the pictures?