I have the Toko that
@scott43 shows and I have replaced it with some fixed guides that Grump shows. I don't like the way the file is held in the Toko and feel it can flex in use. You are taking off about 0.001inches, so it better be precise and solid, and you should apply very light pressure with a very sharp file.
Good to know about the flex with the Toko. And yeah, real sharp file.
Tele skiing may change things, I am a Alpine race coach and have experimented with base bevels a lot. Anything from 0-2.0 is useable. I have personally skied a base bevel from 0.25 to 2.0 in increments of 0.25 degrees. I should have asked for 0 bevel and started from there. The step from 0.25 to 0 is not a biggie like I was led to believe, but most think it is. I personally like 0.5/3.0 on all 12 skis I own. Even my 143mm powder ski has as 0.5/3.0 tune. That is me. As Atomicman says, 1.0 is the typical all around good skiing base bevel. You go lower in 0.25 increments, and each step makes the ski engage or react quicker. Not drastically, as most believe, but noticeably. I liked the 0.25 deg which was on my 88mm wide Slalomon X-Drive ski. It was quicker reacting than most of my other skis. Maybe on a race ski that would be too quick, but I doubt it for me. I also have very snug and precise race ski boots, so that is pretty important factor in what YOU will like.
The immediate drive to experiment is hoping that more base bevel will encourage getting my skis out from under me more. I have felt that I'd like my edge to engage later, particularly my inside edge.
Also a high base bevel may be a training aid that forces me to go out further, then with that expectation/skill I can apply it to lower base bevels that are more standard--.5/3 currently on my SLs.
Running race liners in race boots, tight fit. But there is the tele dimension.
You are getting good advice to start low, .25 or .5 and go up in .25 increments. An adjustable guide seems the way to go for this. Ideally you would measure your bevel after filing and before skiing to make sure you really filed what you think (again as was said, easy to overbevel). A "race grind" back to 0 and reset bevel will be needed if you go farther than you ultimately want to use.
When you increase base bevel, you loose grip unless you adjust your side angle too. Seems like you are aware of it. I do see a flaw in using different bevels on inside edge vs outside edge, you turn both ways in a course so you will loose a little grip/response in your uphill ski, but maybe that's OK if almost all your weight is on one ski edge. I think tele changes that so I don't know what to say.
I was planning on updating the side bevel to match the base so the skis won't get any duller.
Asymmetry in base angle is an interesting dimension.
With tele the inside ski is doing very different stuff than the outside ski:
- The inside ski center is ball of foot + pressure forward from springs in the bindings--on race springs this can lead to significant weighting of the fore of the ski.
- The fact that stiff race springs are a thing supports the idea that either the bent leg is getting some support from the spring and/or the forebody of the ski is more weighted. These springs are not floppy duckbill bindings.
The outside ski/edge has no forebody pressure, free heel and all that. I try and keep the action around mid arch but honestly it is all over the place. Instruction from US tele team coach Kieth says get as much as possible on the downhill ski, pretty standard I'd say compared to alpine.
For me, I am controlling my turns from the inside ski and letting the outside ski do what comes naturally--this is mirrored in some alpine instruction where the inside ski is the "brains" and the outside ski is the "brawn". If I can delay when the inside ski engages then I think the outside will engage later as well but I can see that as an argument to have the same bevel. Or if the outside ski has more bevel it will go out further to go find some edge hold.
And there is the ballet of the lead switch which gets very complex around when edges change.
I'll probably evaluate by increasing one edge bevel, ski it inside/outside just to rough out what it feels like. I have done single ski modifications to try and sort for/aft differences as well and like the approach.
I have skied a tune on a GS ski of 2.0/7.0. Yes 2.0 base and 7.0 side edge. I didn't know what the tune was when I was on the ski. Measured it later. These were an ex racers skis and that's how he liked them. I hated the delayed response and boy did they lock in once angled enough. They were like an on/off switch. No feathering involved, but would probably stick like glue on an icy race course. (take your ACL out too if you f***ked up. Too radical for me, but shows you the limits of what's used. With a 0.5 base, they would have been a ACL tear waiting to happen. Now I use 0.5/4.0 on my race skis and that's as far as I want to go. I could see most people wanting an increased base angle, as I am a Clyde and weigh 240lbs.
Lastly, just my opinion, its probably more about your technique than base bevel, but since Tele you might just get along with a 1.0 base much better. If you do, than use it cause that fits YOU the best. I think you are on the right track to experiment and see, and it will help sort out if its the ski or your technique as the root cause, or both?
Thanks for the feedback, yeah, there is a lot to experiment with. The most important piece of equipment modification is my brain so technique is a huge part of all this.
The lore/coaching around tele-racing is oriented towards GS turns so I am on my own with figuring out SL stuff and pulling from alpine knowledge.
Interesting that you go with 0.5/4, been thinking about that as well--have a razr tune so keep such an edge is possible without too much effort. Glad I have kevlar undies.
I got to track down some cheap SLs that I can use as a test bed.
Thanks again and I'll report back if I find anything interesting.
