 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I'm doing research on materials and equiptement, and I was wondering about the total change in shape and length over the past 10 years. I know the new shape makes it easier to carve and to turn for new skiiers, but past that, I'm a bit stuck. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I reckon that since the introduction of 'carving' skis (probably a bit more than 10 years ago? maybe not), ski lengths have dropped by 15% or more. The old long skis were waisted, but not to the same extent as modern skis; this is because although the middle region of the ski is usually not much wider than old straights, the ends (tips and tails) are maybe 50% or more wider. As you know, it is largely this which makes them easier to 'carve'. Short sis were around in the old days, used by some schools ('ski evolutif') as teaching aids before people progressed onto full length skis. These days there are even wider skis designed to perform well off piste, especially in powder. There are also skis which ski backwards as well as forwards because both ends are bent up instead of just the front ends. I believe that these are used by teenagers who like to show off in terrain parks and pipes and things.
That's a layman's view to give you a bit of background. I daresay one of the pros will be along shortly with a more learned discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I remember the transition to be sometime in the mid-late 90s. It seemed to be quite a sudden revolution, but maybe I just missed the initial stages?
I went from 200-205 cm GS skis down to 170-175 cm pretty much in a single step. Tips and tails sudddenly became much wider, with much more pronounced sidecut. Torsional stiffness has also improved dramatically. They've slowly been getting even wider in recent years, especially with more and more people venturing off-piste (which is now a lot more accessible on contemporary skis). "Mid-fat" or "All-Mountain" skis are now the most popular with recreational skiers, with typical widths of around 115-125 tip, 75-80 waist and 105-110 tail. Lengths from around 160-180 cm. Very general figures, as there are tons of models with small incremental width steps. Usually aimed at varying percentages of on/off-piste skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
princess orchid, what do you want to know? why skis are shaped as they are? what technology allowed the change in shape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I can remember a pair of Superforce 3F's at 61mm.... and I used them off-piste on the point de vue in about a foot of fresh stuff..... memorable...!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| JT wrote: |
| I can remember a pair of Superforce 3F's at 61mm |
Now, that is a short ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond,
I was going to post 61mm on a 190 but I knew you were around... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Arno: I'm interested in why the shape has changed and evolved, and also a bit on the technology, but more with the why than the how.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why they changed is a very interesting question. I don't believe it's got anything much to do with technology. The technology to design and manufacture wider shaped skis has been around a LOT longer than the skis themselves. It's more conceptual design I think. Someone thought of it, made some skis and the concept caught on. Ski manufacturers used to be very conservative, nothing much changed at all between 1970 and 1990. Perhaps the sudden change was prompted by the meteoric rise of snowboards in the same period? I must say that back in the mid-late 80s it did cross my mind that skis might just be excessively long and narrow for many uses. I remember attempting to ski powder on them! The concept of a more shaped sidewall was also discussed back then, but nobody was making them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| JT wrote: |
richmond,
I was going to post 61mm on a 190 but I knew you were around... |
Thanks for indulging me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| princess orchid wrote: |
| I'm doing research on materials and equiptement, and I was wondering about the total change in shape and length over the past 10 years. I know the new shape makes it easier to carve and to turn for new skiiers, but past that, I'm a bit stuck. Any ideas? |
Mass-market skis, on the whole, in the last 15 years have gotten shorter, curvier, narrower and lighter.
Some niche segments, such as powder skis, have become fatter.
All skis are now tangibly easier to control.
Mass-market skis in the next 15 years will become thinner and lighter. They will be even easier to control.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 15-12-06 15:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JT wrote: |
richmond,
I was going to post 61mm on a 190 but I knew you were around... |
Black and orange with a nice silver flash, like the pair in my garage ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Mass-market skis in the next 15 years will become thinner and lighter. They will be even easier to control.
|
Can you share with us why and how ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
Mass-market skis, on the whole, in the last 15 years have gotten shorter, curvier, narrower and lighter.
|
Shorter, curvier (is that a real word?), yes - although in a shorter time-scale than 15 years. It all happened in the mid 90s
Lighter - not convinced about that. I picked up my old pair of Volkl VP19s in the garage the other day - felt pretty light.
Narrower??? not from where I'm sitting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ski wrote: |
| Quote: |
Mass-market skis in the next 15 years will become thinner and lighter. They will be even easier to control.
|
Can you share with us why and how ? |
How?
Better materials. Better technologies. Better designs. Better production processes.
Why?
Thinner and lighter (while remaining stiff) will make skis easier to control. The sport will become quicker to learn and more enjoyable.
The main reason snowboarding took off was because it is easier than skiing (fewer edges and no poles).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| princess orchid wrote: |
| I'm doing research on materials and equiptement, and I was wondering about the total change in shape and length over the past 10 years. I know the new shape makes it easier to carve and to turn for new skiiers, but past that, I'm a bit stuck. Any ideas? |
Mass-market skis, on the whole, in the last 15 years have gotten shorter, curvier, narrower and lighter.
Some niche segments, such as powder skis, have become fatter.
All skis are now tangibly easier to control.
Mass-market skis in the next 15 years will become thinner and lighter. They will be even easier to control. |
I forgot to add -- many skipoles have gotten lighter and thinner in the last 5 years.
In the next 5 years, some skipoles will become shorter. They will encourage skiers to lean forward when they plant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Latchigo,
Sounds like them...but I don't recall a silver flash....but it was early 90's
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
In the next 5 years, some skipoles will become shorter. They will encourage skiers to lean forward when they plant. |
You can already buy short ski poles though if you want - the technology is already available
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
Mass-market skis, on the whole, in the last 15 years have gotten shorter, curvier, narrower and lighter.
|
Shorter, curvier (is that a real word?), yes - although in a shorter time-scale than 15 years. It all happened in the mid 90s
Lighter - not convinced about that. I picked up my old pair of Volkl VP19s in the garage the other day - felt pretty light.
Narrower??? not from where I'm sitting. |
Curvier is an adjective.
Mass-market skis, on the whole, have lightened by roughly 5 - 10% over the last 15 years. They are shorter and use more modern materials. Bindings are lighter, too.
Waists have gotten narrower for mass-market skis. Many skis used to go straight down from top to bottom. Nowadays, many curve inward at the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
In the next 5 years, some skipoles will become shorter. They will encourage skiers to lean forward when they plant. |
You can already buy short ski poles though if you want - the technology is already available |
I know, I have a pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
Mass-market skis, on the whole, have lightened by roughly 5 - 10% over the last 15 years. They are shorter and use more modern materials. Bindings are lighter, too.
Waists have gotten narrower for mass-market skis. Many skis used to go straight down from top to bottom. Nowadays, many curve inward at the middle. |
Interesting, I'll have to do some measuring and weighing at the weekend and report back. I have a couple of pairs of mid 90s old school planks kicking around in the garage to compare. I'm 99% sure the waists are considerably narrower than my current skis, but I'll check. True there's hardly any sidecut on the old planks, but they're not very wide at ANY point to start with. I'd be surprised if they're 5-10% heavier than my current skis either. I reckon they're actually similar or even lighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitegold,
| Quote: |
Better materials. Better technologies. Better designs. Better production processes.
|
What do you mean by this ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
There hasn't been any technological constraint on making narrower skis so I don't see why they will suddenly become the fashion. A bit of weight is actually helpful in a lot of situations but if someone can make a lightweight ski with the same feel and stability as heavier skis have today, they may be on to something
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
| There hasn't been any technological constraint on making narrower skis |
Or wider ones in the last 50 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I thought that there was a constraint on wide skis in the past - that people had not come up with material/construction combinations that gave adequate torsional stiffness in wide designs. Without torsional stiffness edge hold would be weak and/or unpredictable. At least that was what I was told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Well they somehow managed to make snowboards, which are pretty wide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| I thought that there was a constraint on wide skis in the past - that people had not come up with material/construction combinations that gave adequate torsional stiffness in wide designs. Without torsional stiffness edge hold would be weak and/or unpredictable. At least that was what I was told. |
Ok, more seriously, the "technology" to construct wide, torsionally stiff skis has been around for many years. but the ski designers just didn't see the design "concept". In other words, they never thought of it!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
uktrailmonster, my understanding is that technology used in snowboards paved the way for wider skis
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
jedster, I think that's true, but you're going back about 40 years. As uktrailmonster says, the materials etc. didn't change at the time shaped skis arrived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
princess orchid, so back to original post. Exactly how much research had you done again ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Cheers, everyone! Managed to do my writeup in good time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Whilst skis have got shorter, lighter, etc etc by an amazing coincidence, I have got older, balder slightly fatter and slower..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Only just seen this thread and obviously a bit late now, but for interest, I did a presentation on ski development a couple of years ago and research kicked up
| Quote: |
| 1868: Sondre Norheim demonstrated the Telemark ski, the first with a sidecut that narrowed the ski underfoot while the tip and tail remained wider. In the same way as the camber, the sidecut produced a ski that flexed more easily when tipped on edge, so that in a turn its edge followed the shape of the turn instead of skidding sideways. |
| Quote: |
1932 After wooden skis: came 3 layer laminated skis
After WW II ski designs were adapted to provide a wooden core sandwiched between plastic layers – a design that was adopted by the 1948 British Olympic team. |
| Quote: |
1959 Fibreglass: came along, and by 1968 had supplanted wood, aluminium and to a great extent, plastic |
| Quote: |
1990 (deep side-cut) Saw the introduction of the deep side-cut skis, finally escaping from the
Telemark design that had endured almost unchanged for 140 odd years.
In fact, five years earlier the carver was accredited to Frank Meatto in the USA, but was considered to controversial and radical, so it never really took off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Whitegold, lighter? I really don't think so - neither for skis nor bindings. But who cares, they don't weigh anything once you're skiing... (or rather, of course they do but you really shouldn't perceive that).
With some trepidation, I will humbly suggest to easiski, that the first skis I heard about designed specifically for Tomba were Atomic Arcs that I played on once in a 203cm on hard pack on a cold day in Courmayeur and I will submit that they are the only skis ever that I felt I simply wasn't heavy enough for. Required sooooo much effort to carve.
I believed that Elan (1993) per Wikipedia and Head led the shaped revolution.
I also heard that Elan's ex-racer head of design tried to build a short shaped ski in the late 50's (maybe late 60's) but simply couldn't get the materials to allow anything other than (or even?) prototyping of the design. Skis have been shaped for a very long time.
IIRC, the revolution began once someone (Salomon?) invented the monocoque construction which - with new materials - allowed the change in shape which was then driven by a need to make the skiing part of snow sports easier to learn (at least in the early stages) and help the skis mfrs to compete with the perceived threat of the emergence of snowboarding. I think people had started playing with shapes for racers around 1989 as the Dynastar WC SLs of that year had the waist of the shape much further back to facilitate the (I think) then fashionable J-turns through gates.
You will of course all understand that all research for this post was done with ski chums on chairlifts with hangovers or with chums in bars developing said h'overs. So can easily be called into question... 
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 20-12-06 9:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, Bode Miller was skiing on a pair of K2 4's and winning FIS level races a long time ago, he was one of the people who was first to move towards a shaped ski for racing...even though the ski was a recreational carver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEM, 1995 actually. Which isn't thaat long ago... (IMHO) The Atomics I mentioned were in 1989. And weren't shaped (beyond what all skis were shaped).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the last 10 years skis have got WIDER (sorry Whiteroom, I disagree with you) in the waist.
In 1996, the top 5 skis tested by Ski Canada were:
1. Kneissl Ergo Race - 92/62/92
2. Atomic Beta CarvX 926 - 97/62/88
3. Head Cyber 28 – 102/67/92 (I think)
4. K2 Four - 99/65/88
5. Salomon Axendo 9 - 100/63/89
Other popular skis back then:
Elan SCX Monoblock – 112/60/110
Fischer Revolution Race – 89/63/89
Rossignol Cut 10.4 – 104/62/94 (I sold a few of these!)
Now a "normal" width ski will be closer to 72-77 than 62-67. But, we also have a lot more variety in skis today. A decade ago the idea of having average ability skiers on skis over 80mm waist was unheard of - now it's one of the top topics of discussion on here - take a look at the number of threads about K2 Public Enemies, Volkl Karmas, etc. These skis are 85mm, and no one is saying they are too wide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
