Me again!
In my ongoing quest for knowledge and research, I'm finding various advice about waist widths in particular as regards grip, edging and float - basically piste vs all-mountain vs off-piste. However, there's an awful lot of variation in tail and tip sizes as well, and this will affect sidecut radius and shape and all sorts of other things, no doubt. I'm sure that it's a bit more complicatd tan some of the product descriptiosn or generalised advice makes it seem.
So, if one takes 3 hypothetical modern-style skis (the numbers are just as examples, but they're based on skis which I've seen):
a) 110/70/100
b) 135/70/125
c) 135/90/125
What would you expect of each in terms of suitability and performance (in any sense that you interpret that) for a given (unspecified) length, stifness, torsional strength and design and construction type?
What I'm really interested in is whether it's absolute numbers or the mathematical ratios between them (or the radius of curve which they form?)
Also, my original thoughts were about waist size, as that seems to attract the most 'comment' on piste vs powder skis - but how much does tail and tip size matter as an independent measurement (as opposed to the combination/ratio of all three)?
My brain cells thank you in advance.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Grizzler wrote:
So, if one takes 3 hypothetical modern-style skis (the numbers are just as examples, but they're based on skis which I've seen):
a) 110/70/100
b) 135/70/125
c) 135/90/125
What would you expect of each in terms of suitability and performance (in any sense that you interpret that) for a given (unspecified) length, stifness, torsional strength and design and construction type?
You can't draw any conclusions about the suitability or performance of a ski from the geometry or dimensions unless you know the situation that the ski is going to be used in, for example, firm snow, icy snow, bumps, deep snow, choppy or crusty snow. Equally important is how the skier intends to ski, for example, hard charging, long turns, short turns, cruising around enjoying the scenery skiing, etc.
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?
Grizzler wrote:
What I'm really interested in is whether it's absolute numbers or the mathematical ratios between them (or the radius of curve which they form?)
I've never tried to calculate the or draw conclusions from the specific dimension for tip, wait and tail. Width underfoot and turn radius are the two factors that I'll pay a lot of attention to.
a Kinda an old shape - not far off stuff like the K2 Mod series or Salomon Screams from 15 years ago
b Fairly extreme, super spoony. Most skis are going to mid 80s waist for that tip n tail. In fact that tail might be very tough to ski without rocker - hardly a pintail.
c Good for a woman's non piste focused all mountain or a 50/50 ski for a bloke
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 25-11-15 21:08; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Just checked in the garage - got an old pair of Fischer Freerides of about 15 year vintage 105-70-95. Very straight and skinny by modern standards.
Just checked in the garage - got an old pair of Fischer Freerides of about 15 year vintage 105-70-95. Very straight and skinny by modern standards.
Do they show a turn radius on them?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
rob@rar wrote:
I've never tried to calculate the or draw conclusions from the specific dimension for tip, wait and tail. Width underfoot and turn radius are the two factors that I'll pay a lot of attention to.
OK - so one thing which I was originally asking, in effect, is whether it's absolutely the width underfoot which determines performance in a given condition/for a given use - which you seem to be saying that you pay a lot of attention to (and not to the tail/tip dimensions so much); but also, of course, the turn radius would be determined by the ratios and/or waist width (bit more unsure there...)
After all it is free
After all it is free
rob@rar wrote:
You can't draw any conclusions about the suitability or performance of a ski from the geometry or dimensions unless you know the situation that the ski is going to be used in, for example, firm snow, icy snow, bumps, deep snow, choppy or crusty snow. Equally important is how the skier intends to ski, for example, hard charging, long turns, short turns, cruising around enjoying the scenery skiing, etc.
Which is what in reverse I'm asking.
This isn't a question about any given ski, just how these varying ratios, side curve shapes (on a very generalised assumption) or waist widths, as applicable, would hypothetically perform in the types of conditions which you mention. Good, bad, horrid...?
Basically, I have heard that a narrow waist is good for piste and edging (and grip?) and a fat one for float and powder. So does this (generalised) hold true no matter what the tip/tail are or will these performance factors vary in proportion to the others too (and a lot or a little, if so?)
i.e. if a ski was 100/50/100 (i.e. 2:1:2), is there any comparison with a ski which is 200/100/200? (I think that's somewhat extreme, but does it make sense as to what I'm asking?)
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.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
b Fairly extreme, super spoony. Most skis are going to mid 80s waist for that tip n tail. In fact that tail might be very tough to ski without rocker - hardly a pintail.
Sorry: what does "spoony" mean? And are you therefore saying that there must be some sensible proportionate relationship between tip/tail and waist for a ski to function properly? Also, why the comment about the tail?
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
c Good for a woman's non piste focused all mountain or a 50/50 ski for a bloke
Why the gender difference and what % is 'all mountain', if not 50:50?
Thanks.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Grizzler wrote:
Basically, I have heard that a narrow waist is good for piste and edging (and grip?) and a fat one for float and powder.
That's not a bad rule of thumb.
Grizzler wrote:
i.e. if a ski was 100/50/100 (i.e. 2:1:2), is there any comparison with a ski which is 200/100/200? (I think that's somewhat extreme, but does it make sense as to what I'm asking?)
I don't believe they would ski the same, not least because the 'rule' in the previous sentence.
I think it's easy to get hooked in to marketing for skis, thinking that each ski is unique and distinct from other skis. In reality there's a large amount of overlap of performance and 'suitability'. I spend most of my time on a couple of different pairs of skis, one with more of a piste focus, another with a bit more all-mountain flavour. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but there's enough that is common to both to not make a vast difference between them. I also have a few other pairs which are bit more specialised, but I don't spend so much time on them because they are specialised.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@Grizzler, I think you're approaching from the wrong way round.
As Rob says, overall width affects "sort of" suitability for hard/smooth versus soft snow (generally wider lends itself to softer/deeper snow) and radius determines suitability for short or long turns, smaller the radius the shorter the typical turn.
So, for an analogy to your ratio question, my daily ski is about 30mm wider than my giant slalom skis but has a very similar radius (sidecut), stiffness and torsional rigidity. So they ski like fat GS skis. But are much easier to ski in powder and crap. They make for a much more all round ski, but aren't nearly as quick or accelerative turn to turn so would be fairly uncompetitive in a race.
I could ski my GS skis every day too, but my fatter ones are, all round, more useful and more all round fun.
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.
@Grizzler, width underfoot is probably the biggest determinator of whether a ski is designed for onpiste or offpiste.
How much wider (or narrower in the case of reverse sidecut skis!) the tip and tail are, and what the turn radius is, tells you more about how it will ski in those conditions. Some people really like powder skis with tips much wider than the waist to improve float and avoid tip dive (also sometimes due to the misconception that a small turn radius means the skis are easier to make small turns with, however that only holds true when carving). Personally, I prefer much straighter skis in powder, partly as I like the 'frictionless' feel you get, and partly as I find they are happier making both larger and smaller turns than skis with very aggressive sidecuts.
You also have to look at where those measurements are - on '5 point skis' or skis with tip/tail taper, that widest measurement isn't actually at the ends of the ski.
Also length - if you keep the widths the same but increase length, you end up with a straighter ski with a bigger turn radius.
Ski construction will also have a very big impact - stiff, damp, light, heavy, torsionally stiff, soft, poppy, etc. Soft and floppy makes them easy, and again improves float, but also makes them unstable at speed. I also find that the tips of really soft skis tends to fold and then plough in powder, rather than plane over the snow.
And then camber/rocker profiles have big impacts too too.
To try and answer what I think you're really asking, you can't isolate any single aspect of ski design and use that to determine how it will perform on various different types of terrain, snow, and skier approach; you have to look at the whole package together. However your 50mm underfoot ski will be a horrifically twitchy symmetrical piste/park (park as it'll carve equally well going backwards), whereas the 100mm underfoot would be a horrifically twitchy all mountain ski.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Grizzler wrote:
Sorry: what does "spoony" mean? And are you therefore saying that there must be some sensible proportionate relationship between tip/tail and waist for a ski to function properly? Also, why the comment about the tail?
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
c Good for a woman's non piste focused all mountain or a 50/50 ski for a bloke
Why the gender difference and what % is 'all mountain', if not 50:50?
Thanks.
My word for an extreme shape imagine a spoon sideways in ice cream hard to push it in a straight line. A thinner tail makes it easier to release the turn and skid/pivot as necessary.
Women are generally smaller than blokes and therefore need less surface area in a ski to float less mass.
All mountain is kinda a bollux marketing category so doesn't really mean anything. Personally I think it's a kind of code for a ski that won't be too scary for someone who fancies a dabble off piste but in reality will spend most of their time in the comfort of the groomers.My own all mountain skis are 160-110-130 with a radius of 17m or so. But then I usually mean all mountain not just all pistes
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
under a new name wrote:
I could ski my GS skis every day too, but my fatter ones are, all round, more useful and more all round fun.
You've mellowed in your old age - need the crutch now?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
rob@rar wrote:
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Just checked in the garage - got an old pair of Fischer Freerides of about 15 year vintage 105-70-95. Very straight and skinny by modern standards.
Do they show a turn radius on them?
Covered by binding - I'd guess at mid - 20s. They skied fine from what I remember but on a soft groomer think I'd rather be on my Shiros which behave like a big GS ski at 119mm 30+ radius.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Couldn't resist dredging up this >old thread< with a selection of ski's I've used over the past few decades (frightening really), and their geometry etc
So my everyday ski last few years is a 180 with 136/106/126. While they are great all round performers imo, what they have more of than my past skinnier skis is the ability to get me home almost on autopilot. There can be days when i have banged myself around and then stopped for a medicinal wine or 3 and that 106 underfoot just seems to punch through any crud or slop with me just along for the ride. But that does take some good muscle memory i will add.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 26-11-15 3:00; edited 1 time in total
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?
Yep it's something that the piste ski marketing doesn't really recognise that for some the day doesn't end at 2 pm nor the season in February. Having a bit of heft to deal with softening and funkier conditions keeps the whole day fun.
Exactly, with a well selected current design the march afternoon slush is actually just another kind of mountain condition to go play and have fun in, as opposed to the get home without getting hurt survival run it used to be (and still is for many).
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
What i am not clear on is can a beginner or 3 week intermediate enjoy a well shaped 106-108 waist ski. I suspect yes they can.
@essex, I suspect it won't optimise the learning experience however.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
essex wrote:
What i am not clear on is can a beginner or 3 week intermediate enjoy a well shaped 106-108 waist ski. I suspect yes they can.
Being on a ski that wide would make it more difficult for them to develop some important skills, and will make it more likely they develop an ingrained habit of pivoting their skis at the start of the turn. IMO, being on the wrong "category" of ski is a bigger problem than being on the wrong "performance level" of ski.
After all it is free
After all it is free
essex wrote:
... seems to punch through any crud or slop with me just along for the ride.
For me, punching through the sloppy crud of late season warm days normally means the ski has to go forwards rather than being twisted, using the sidecut of the ski to shape the turn far more than skidding the ski (which is obviously way more difficult in sloppy snow). So more of a carved turn than anything else, minimising how much I'm twisting the skis, providing I'm on terrain that means I don't end up travelling at warp speed. For those kinds of turns a wider ski doesn't help, for me something a bit narrower gives me much control of my edge to edge rate and range of movement.
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.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
under a new name wrote:
I could ski my GS skis every day too, but my fatter ones are, all round, more useful and more all round fun.
You've mellowed in your old age - need the crutch now?
Nope, just upped/modernised my skiing game. I still think most people I see skiing around Cham are on skis way too wide and rockered for what they're mostly (always?) doing.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
rob@rar wrote:
essex wrote:
What i am not clear on is can a beginner or 3 week intermediate enjoy a well shaped 106-108 waist ski. I suspect yes they can.
Being on a ski that wide would make it more difficult for them to develop some important skills, and will make it more likely they develop an ingrained habit of pivoting their skis at the start of the turn. IMO, being on the wrong "category" of ski is a bigger problem than being on the wrong "performance level" of ski.
And that is why i like to generally leave the advice to teaching pro's like yourself. I take at least a week of very individualized instruction each year and am never sure if changes i feel are due to equipment or technique. But i know it took me many years and $$ to get rid of the pivot initiated turns you refer to and replace them with a side to side 'roll'.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
essex wrote:
But i know it took me many years and $$ to get rid of the pivot initiated turns you refer to and replace them with a side to side 'roll'.
In my experience, initially developing that skill and subsequently being able to use it to get performance from the ski early in the turn are made more difficult by skiing on ever wider skis. The rate and range of edge to edge 'roll' becomes more compromised with additional width, and skiers compensate for this by pivoting the ski (pushing it sideways and twisting it). As a result the ski doesn't grip until late in the turn (fall line or even later), so all the work that needs to be done in that turn is compressed in to the final phase typically by bracing and slamming on the brakes. At this point in the turn more skilful skiers are releasing the forces to flow more smoothly in to the next turn.
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.
One of my favourite pairs of skis for late season slush are a rather aging and almost for the bin FIS GS skis. They for some reason cut through it like butter and like nothing else in my garage.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
rob@rar wrote:
essex wrote:
But i know it took me many years and $$ to get rid of the pivot initiated turns you refer to and replace them with a side to side 'roll'.
In my experience, initially developing that skill and subsequently being able to use it to get performance from the ski early in the turn are made more difficult by skiing on ever wider skis. The rate and range of edge to edge 'roll' becomes more compromised with additional width, and skiers compensate for this by pivoting the ski (pushing it sideways and twisting it). As a result the ski doesn't grip until late in the turn (fall line or even later), so all the work that needs to be done in that turn is compressed in to the final phase typically by bracing and slamming on the brakes. At this point in the turn more skilful skiers are releasing the forces to flow more smoothly in to the next turn.
I understand that we have different ideas and use different progression methodologies but respectfully "pushing it [the ski] sideways and twisting it" is not "pivoting the ski".
IIRC that movement is what was once called a stem christie.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Mike Pow, I was trying to keep the language simple, and that's as much a semantics difference as anything else (which is why I explained what I meant). You will know more than most that pushing the ski sideways and twisting it to change direction is not a great tactic for skiing in deep snow.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
One of my favourite pairs of skis for late season slush are a rather aging and almost for the bin FIS GS skis. They for some reason cut through it like butter and like nothing else in my garage.
My 10 year old stockli stormrider XL love that stuff too - 116/75/102 at 174cm but "race room" construction - they chop through crud and slush in away many people on wider skis would struggle to believe. Less surface area of course so speed is your friend My problem with those skis is that they are so good I can't justify buying some proper GS skis. First world problem!
getting back to the OP I think that middle sidecut you describe would be pretty unskiable - very hooky in soft snow (i.e., hard to get of a turn) and on hard pack I think turn initiation might be tricky - grabby tip
Perhaps some real world comparisons - my skis:
a) 116/75/102 @ 174
b) 134/100/125 @179
c) 138/108/119 @186
a) and b) have very similar turn shape - 18m radius. Both are really carving machines.
a) is like a slightly floatier GS ski (although since they were made FIS rules have increased legal radii i.e., made them less turny).
b) is slightly less damp and stiff but much floatier given the area. It is still a bit of a compromise in soft snow because the pronounced tail shape means you need some finesse at the end of the turn to avoid hooking up (basically crossing your weight over and finding the skis don't want to come over!). It is not quite as surefooted as a) when the pistes are hard and you really want to crank it over partly because of lateral stiffness but IMO also just because a fatter waist means the edge is further offset from your weight carrying bones - more torsional force on your ankles.
c) is in principle a longer radii ski but in practice its not really built for carving turns (although can when needed). The side cut doesn't tell the whole story because rocker etc makes it easier to handle and it is more suited to drifting, pivoting and skarving when the snow is soft rather than following the side cut. The less pronounced tail helps a lot in flicking the skis around but does mean you don't have that grip power when you let your weight shift back at the end of the turn
so I guess the conclusion is - side cut is just part of the story!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@jedster, a great, great ski.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
My skis are 122/74/104
I like them.
They're crap in crud and slush.
But I don't like crud and slush.
When it's like that it's normally Spring so I go kitesurfing instead.
I have a 135x42 TT. I like it.
And 7/9/12 kites. I like them too.
Horses for courses.
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?
rob@rar wrote:
You will know more than most that pushing the ski sideways and twisting it to change direction is not a great tactic for skiing in deep snow.
Is a really interesting example. It isn't that far from 140/112/120 and indeed they ski quite similarly in most conditions. The main difference between the two is the dramatic difference in the performance of the tail. The first (the Whitedot Ranger/R108) is only 3mm wider in the tail than the waist than the second (the Lhasa Pow) but that additional 3mm makes an enormous difference to the performance of the ski. While you can't really feel the tail of the 186 Lhasa on firm snow, you can really feel the tail of the R108. It is surprising how a tiny difference makes an enormous difference to the feel of the ski.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I still think most people I see skiing around Cham are on skis way too wide and rockered for what they're mostly (always?) doing.
My problem with those skis is that they are so good I can't justify buying some proper GS skis. First world problem!
... "they" 're not crap...
