 Poster: A snowHead
|
Have been looking at ski reviews and references to quickness of "edge to edge" keeps cropping up. Have searched the web but cant come up with what this means. Is it good, is it bad, what does it mean?.
Ta
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
It means the time to get the ski from the edge on one side to to the edge on the other - ie the time to change from turning in one direction to the other. It is a good thing for racers and mogul skiers to be quick and efficient changing direction, hence the narrower skis which are quicker to get from edge to edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Frosty, have a quick gander at your skis.
If you look closely, you may just be able to make out two strips of metal down each of the long sides. These are known as edges.
Stand on your ski and rock the skis from side to side. You are moving them from edge to edge.
On snow, the faster you do this, the faster you change direction. You tend to be be able to do this faster on thin skis, but slower on fat skis.
But I may be wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
marc gledhill, Hey thanks for that, I did wonder why the edges where sharp metal, very dangerous if you ask me.
Is a ski that is quick "edge to edge" a good thing for say a learner, Intermediatte, or an advanced. Is a quick E2E ski harder to control?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Frosty the Snowman,  Thats not a bad question really. The young turks in the park use wide skis for stability on landing and grinding, so that would tend to show that they'd be good for beginners who'd benefit from the feeling of stability.
But, as they're also slower to turn, they may also put the fear of god into a beginner as he tries to carve at slower speeds. Nothing would seem to be happening.
On balance, I think learners and early intermediate should lean towards the thinner "quicker" skis.
After that, it depends where you want to ski. On groomed runs a "quicker" ski, like a race carver, would probably be more fun than a back country plank. In deeper snow, you'd want the wider "slower" ski with a larger turning circle to stop you face planting quite as much.
As for control, I think that the quicker ski is easier to control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| As for control, I think that the quicker ski is easier to control. |
The quicker the ski, the easier it is to get away with mistakes, frequently, but not necessarily the easier it is to control. (If you've ever had someone set up a pair of race stock slalom skis for you, then tried to ski them normally, you'll know what I mean!  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too have puzzled about this. The speed to go from edge to edge is instant (on a smooth slope where the undulations are bigger than the width of the ski) for any ski. It is either on the left edge, flat (and thus on both edges, ignoring the edge base angle of around 1 degree) or on the right edge.
However, skiing is a dynamic thing, all about weight etc. So as the skiier moves their weight accross from the left edge to the right, the time for that weight transfer to get accross the flat portion is more for a woder ski. What puzzles me is how I can feel this when the wide ski is only a few milimetres wider than a narrow one ?
I also suspect that the wider a ski is underfoot, the less sidecut it may have, so longer natural turning radius. As the ski flattens onto the snow, ski flex has less and less affect on the turn radius, and the sidecut takes over. Thus longer/wider skis turn less and feel slower edge to edge.
I intend to do lots more skiing on different skis in different conditions. THis may lead to more understanding, or it may just be fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A variety of skis for different conditions is something that some coaches aren't too keen on when teaching youngsters - it encourages laziness. So kids in race clubs aren't supposed to use slalom skis when free skiing, for mucking around on piste, nor fats or even 'all mountain' skis in powder/off piste. GS skis are used nearly all the time, making them work at turning, ensuring technique is bang on whenever they go off piste or ski trees.
Not suggesting everyone should do this, but younger skiers or indeed anyone intending to make serious progress with their technique might bear this thinking in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| lampbus wrote: |
What puzzles me is how I can feel this when the wide ski is only a few milimetres wider than a narrow one ?
|
Just did a quick measure with a ruler...
My on-piste skis: 66mm at the core centre
My off-piste ones: 95mm at the core centre.
that's a 44% diference, and definitely noticeable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, the most rapid edge-to-edge performance from skis was probably achieved in the last years of leather boots, when skiers retained a degree of ski control from the ankle, rather than having the ankle locked in a plastic shell. The strongest most athletic skiers in that era (say late 1960s) could perform amazingly quick wedel turns on a moderate smooth slope - i.e. putting in very rapid snaking 'part-turns' in the fall-line.
Skis had already achieved quite high precision performance levels by that time, as fibreglass had entered production from the early 1960s, and ski edge qualities were already quite impressive by then.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Mon 28-11-05 14:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| PG wrote: |
| A variety of skis for different conditions is something that some coaches aren't too keen on when teaching youngsters - it encourages laziness. So kids in race clubs aren't supposed to use slalom skis when free skiing, for mucking around on piste, nor fats or even 'all mountain' skis in powder/off piste. GS skis are used nearly all the time, making them work at turning, ensuring technique is bang on whenever they go off piste or ski trees. |
When I was struggling with my technique at the start of last week I did suggest to my instructor that I might find it easier if I changed from GS to slalom skis. He said it would be easier, but it would be better for me to stick with my GS skis than change to a shorter radius ski. On reflection I think this was good advice, even if it was quite hard work getting to grips with the GS skis (I had a couple of high speed wipe-outs). By the end of the week I felt as if I was beginning to adapt my technique to the skis & conditions, rather than change my skis to accommodate poor technique. I doubt I'll take my GS skis off-piste though - that would be too much like hard work, regardless of how quick they are edge to edge!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Grrrr.
Whilst "edge to edge" is a very valid term in describing how agile a ski or boot is in the lateral plane, the phrase gives rise to a multitude of sins when trying to teach/coach skiers.
Many simply believe that good skiers just go from "edge to edge" - as a result some pretty ugly skiing can be seen these days, with many forgetting the *transition" of going through *neutral*, via a crossover, crossunder etc. etc.
As a result we see many skiers today just slamming their skis from "edge to edge"
<rant over>
*opens can of worms*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, but the extra 29mm you have to move is in relation to the overall move of your centre of mass from turn to turn.This could be around a meter or so, so the ski width difference is 29mm in c1000. However this is a simplification as weight is transferred to the other ski during the transition.
I have been told I think about things too much . . .
David Goldsmith, Hmm, this could be because they are keeping the ski edged and flexed even as their body becomes more vertical (as you say, only possible with lateral ankle flex & not possible now unless you are doing things with your upper body).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
lampbus, if you had a go on Wear The Fox Hat's skis you would find the difference very noticeable. I think the point is that when the edges are almost under either side of your foot, getting the ski on edge can be done just by tipping your foot in the right direction (I'm not saying this is good or bad technique...). With wider skis, your foot sort of lifts off the the ground. This while you have quite a lot of pressure on the foot.
I used to notice quite a lot of difference between a pair of skis with 66mm underfoot and another with 80mm. My fat skis are now 97mm so it really will require quite positive movements to go from edge to edge in the proper way
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
lampbus, Arno has almost said it: the foot comes off the ground. That, however, is not linearly proportional to the angle the ski is edged to and is harder to notice as it goes as W/2sin(Θ)
Path length change is linear with regard to edging angle and easier to notice: If the ski with waist W is edged to an angle Θ on either side, the path of the middle of the bottom of the foot is 2x(ΘW/2) or just ΘW. So, assuming WTFH edges to something in between 0 and Π/2 the path difference (of the bottom of the foot, between his two skis) is between 0 and 45.5 mm.
This is linear with regard to edged angle and easier to notice, even for novices uncomfortable with high edge angles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| lampbus wrote: |
I also suspect that the wider a ski is underfoot, the less sidecut it may have, so longer natural turning radius. As the ski flattens onto the snow, ski flex has less and less affect on the turn radius, and the sidecut takes over. Thus longer/wider skis turn less and feel slower edge to edge.
|
IMO you're almost on the right track here. My computation above is for a ski with infinite turn radius for simplicity; the term 'edge to edge' as used in ski reviews is intended to include words something like 'with each edge fully engaged along the sidecut' which means that tip & tail dimensions/curvature enter into the picture, along with ski flex.
Don't forget, a ski goes past flat into decamber on the snow!
| Quote: |
| I also suspect that the wider a ski is underfoot, the less sidecut it may have |
As the most recent crop of metrons have shown, this is not the case. Underfoot width and sidecut are independent variables.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 28-11-05 17:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
No one has yet mentioned the beneficial effects of plates and leverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
veeeight, I almost did, but that would involve a force or speed/acceleration computation, a little harder to visualise intuitively and lends very little to the path length computation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
But is probably one of the biggest influencing factors in getting a ski faster from "edge to edge" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
comprex, doesn't a plate ADD to path length? i suppose theoretically, it reduces the amount of force required to move along that path length (forgive me if I fail to speak proper scientfic lingo). Anyways, I thought the main benefit of a plate was to prevent people achieving high edge angles from booting out
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
comprex, veeeight, As I read the maths bit, I thought 'plates' and thus how they affect the situation. I heard once that racing rules limit the base to boot sole height to 50mm (may be different now although my Volkl 5* is 49mm) ans this will also affect the forces required to swap edges.
I tried the Metron B5 (162cm ) at the PSB and liked them v.much - very quick e-e but I cannot say if this was a valid comparison as all the other boards I tried were 175+, but it helps support my theory that when people say 'narrow ski is faster e-e than wider' what they mean is 'tighter sidecut ski is faster e-e then longer sidecut'.
Maybee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lampbus wrote: |
I tried the Metron B5 (162cm ) at the PSB and liked them v.much - very quick e-e but I cannot say if this was a valid comparison as all the other boards I tried were 175+, but it helps support my theory that when people say 'narrow ski is faster e-e than wider' what they mean is 'tighter sidecut ski is faster e-e then longer sidecut'.
|
Have you considered the possibilty that both are valid? Perhaps the next comparison you need to make is between a Metron and a slalom ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, why would you use 97mm waist skis in anything other than soft snow? In which case you aren't having to lift up at all?
Also, I would add that perception is often very different from specs. The 210cm DH skis I've used in the Inferno feel (and are quite wide underfoot) much faster edge to edge than, say, the preproduction Xscream Pilots (the very first ones) which, to my taste, were dogs anyway and definitely felt like I was raising myself up to go on edge. My recollection is of similar waist size in both cases.
Very self-centring and I didn't like it.
Also, I though plates major benefit was just allowing higher edge angles before boot out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
Grrrr.
Whilst "edge to edge" is a very valid term in describing how agile a ski or boot is in the lateral plane, the phrase gives rise to a multitude of sins when trying to teach/coach skiers.
Many simply believe that good skiers just go from "edge to edge" - as a result some pretty ugly skiing can be seen these days, with many forgetting the *transition" of going through *neutral*, via a crossover, crossunder etc. etc.
As a result we see many skiers today just slamming their skis from "edge to edge"
<rant over>
*opens can of worms*
|
I agree, its of the the 1st things you learn a freeride boarder is how to control the transition from 'edge-to-edge' as opposed to tearing the mountain into shreds. Sensuous and speedy is the way we like it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Arno, it's a hard life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, you are just soooo irresponsible
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
David Murdoch, I wear a helmet, that's what makes me irresponsible...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Wear The Fox Hat, clearly hee hee hee
Although, do you class pocket rockets as fat? I played with a pair in hardpack/windblown in Alta and while I'm sure they're nice in powder, they weren't great in anything else (as you'd expect). Point being however that I didn't notice your oil tanker effect. Maybe I just skidded more, I dunno.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I wedelned on Pocket Rockets at Val Cenis...it was fun but I think I was just muscling them around
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| Although, do you class pocket rockets as fat? |
Um, I don't recognise them as skis, but no, they aren't particularly fat - from memory they are about 88mm at the waist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
My on-piste skis: 66mm at the core centre |
That's fatter than my off-piste skis - I will have to start saving for a pair of Bro-Models I think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, $599 + $85 shipping to Europe. mmmMMmmmmMMMMMmmmmm
David Murdoch, the main problem with the Pocket Rockets (blue noodles) is that they're too soft to really truck 'em. They can't hold the same kind of edge as a stiff fat ski. Same problem with the first Faction models. In fact, ducking out of WTFH reach, it's the reason why I don't like the Seth Pistols but I've not (and probably won't) ski the Vicous. Blue Noodles are no longer a fat ski, but they may have been once. I've toured a fair bit on blue noodles and enjoyed them, they're forgiving and I'd recommend the 1080 Guns to any intermediate skier who wants a really fun mid fat ski for skiiing the whole mountain.
It will be interesting to see what my new Prophet 130s will be like edge to edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
A convert, 
.
. I obviously phrased the question wrongly 