 Poster: A snowHead
|
OK, this is just my mind playing around with the information that I've been assimilating. I want to see if I'm understanding more about skis and how my education is proceeding - please let me know if I am completely wrong here and also if you can add to/straighten me out if wrong.
Lots of people talk about how fat skis are good for powder and slush (the slush aspect interested me as we got lots of this in February and it was sometimes more difficult to ski in) - presumably because in the simplest of terms there is more surface area to take the weight and they don't dig in as far. I also understand that the more 'waisted' a ski is the easier it is to turn.
On the Elan web site it gives the specs of the Wave Magic:
Length / Radius Geometry
152cm / 10-16M 115 / 70 / 103
158cm / 10-16M 115 / 70 / 103
166cm / 10-16M 115 / 70 / 103
Now I know that they've not comitted themselves too accurately over the turning radius, but I was wondering about the difference in the lengths. I guess the geometry relates to the maximum width at the tail? / minimum width in the centre / maximum with at the tip? (possibly vice versa?). However if the ski's are different lengths it must mean that the distance from the tips to the centre are different and therefore the angle of the curve is different - more acute on the shorter ski. So is the shorter ski presumably easier to turn? That's leaving aside the fact that a long ski may carry a heavier person who can flex it more - I seem to remember a mind play with a plastic ruler that someone gave me once.
When it comes to these so called 'wide' skis what is more critical - the overall width at the centre or the difference between the maximum and the minimum lengths (taking into account the overall length). Are people wanting powder skis still looking for a ski with a waist so that they can turn it well or are they looking overall for a ski with more area on the ground which might mean it is less waisted.
In the great scheme of things is the ski I'm getting more suited to groomed on-piste - which is what I want now, or will also do some general purpose skiing if I ever want to in the future? The web site and advertising blurb says it should, but if I hadn't read that could I tell this by looking at the geometry given above - is there a magic formula of width differences that defines the purpose of a ski? Mine should be a 160 length, but the Elan site doesn't give that dimension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Nope, it's techno-babble, and should be ignored. The usual advice - don't buy a ski you haven't tried. If you do, don't be surprised if it doesn't resemble the description you were sold. Everyone has different "sweet spots".
With good technique every ski is general purpose. With bad technique every ski sucks. But - you've read all this already!!
I would challenge anyone to accurately tell me what a ski is going to feel to me like by reading manufacturers pseudo specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Ok, this is my stab at this!
>> I guess the geometry relates to the maximum width at the tail? / minimum width in the centre / maximum with at the tip?
Correct 
>> So is the shorter ski presumably easier to turn
Yes. so why doesnt everyone ski short? because (in most cases) you sacrifice some stability at speed and also float in powder.
>> When it comes to these so called 'wide' skis what is more critical - the overall width at the centre or the difference between the maximum and the >>minimum lengths
It's the width at the centre, which gives you float in the area where your feet are, ie the area where you are pressing down most on the snow. However, a wide shovel at the front can also help lift you out of slush, powder...
>> will also do some general purpose skiing if I ever want to in the future
Any ski will go anywhere, years ago when we all skiied "skinny" skis, in deep powder, in slush, and on the piste. IMVHO the wider skis just make deeper snow and slush easier as you float rather than sink in!
Your skis will be fine for piste and mucking around off piste. If you ever get a huge dump of snow, try hiring a pair with > 90 underfoot and see if you notice a difference 
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| I would challenge anyone to accurately tell me what a ski is going to feel to me like by reading manufacturers pseudo specifications. |
You're getting pretty good at charmtrolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
comprex, what's charmtrolling?
I would challenge anyone to accurately tell me how a ski is going to feel to me by reading the numbers on the back of the ski/specs/etc. Honest, I really would.
In fact, and point of the matter my skis say the following (or something like it),
Sidecut: R&D
Radius: R&D
Length: 165
OK, so...how will they ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kitenski wrote: |
Ok, this is my stab at this!
>> I guess the geometry relates to the maximum width at the tail? / minimum width in the centre / maximum with at the tip?
Correct
Greg |
Sorry but that's wrong. 115-70-103 is the maximum width at the tip / minimum width in the centre / maximum with at the tail, ie the tip is wider than the tail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, read it wrong!! My teachers always said read twice....
Tip, centre, tail.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, you're definitely getting a great understanding of what's going on, no doubt about it (better than most I would expect). The issue I have here is that (as with the phrase, "It's a stiff ski") - I'm not sure what information you can really derive from these numbers. Personally, I think it's confabulation confounding the issues of whether you'll like the ski.
kitenski, unfortunately, AFAIK, not necessarily completely so...Not trying to be contentious although I'll probably be viewed that way and definitely not wanting to start an argument...honest...
I believe that "Geometry" can involve a sidecut of changing radius. In this case I wonder whether the 10 - 16 refers to a sidecut that starts out with a 10 metre radius and passes through 16 possibly returning to 10 or somewhere in between. How is that helpful to know?
I disagree that you necessarily sacrifice stability at speed. My understanding is that modern materials mean this is no longer always the case. I have yet to reach an unstable speed limit on my 165s. I have skied quite quickly on them. However, deep sidecuts can introduce the impression of instability as the tips and tails catch with inadvertent edging...
While I would agree that underfoot width is indeed important, in many cases - unless you're ripping great arcs through bottomless, an all round ski will be reasonably narrow underfoot with widish tips and tails (c.f. Atomic Metron, Rossi Oversize, etc.) I am convinced (although increasingly less so) that the castoring effect of a wide underfoot makes for trickier and less smooth edge to edge transitions.
Back to slush, I'm not at all convinced that all skis "good" in powder are "good" in slush. No idea why not, but that's my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Megamum, Terrific question, I'm learning lots from the replies already! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
spyderjon, by jove, he's absolutely right. Amazing!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spyderjon, but how will they feel? Twitchy? Easy to ski? (they are) Comfortable off piste? (Better than expected) happy to run a long turn without snagging? (depends on the surface) Good in bumps? (Not as good as I'd hoped)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
spyderjon, which forest did the wood come from?
David Murdoch, or it just means that they did not bother to associate -which- of the lengths the 10m or the 16m corresponds to in their sales literature.
PS, I like the 'castering' effect idea (note spelling change so beavers don't get all excited) but notice the requirement of good front-to-back balance with large surface area in front of and behind the foot and notice also that more surface area further away from the boot means a greater twisting moment on the boot by the snow, and more work required by the skier to twist to any angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| spyderjon, but how will they feel? Twitchy? Easy to ski? (they are) Comfortable off piste? (Better than expected) happy to run a long turn without snagging? (depends on the surface) Good in bumps? (Not as good as I'd hoped) |
If you have a problem and if you can find them perhaps you too could fit a vist plate. 9/10 cat owners prefered it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| spyderjon, but how will they feel? |
Another easy one:
For you - superb &, of course, fast.
For me - bit of a noodle for my fat ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DB, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
I disagree that you necessarily sacrifice stability at speed. My understanding is that modern materials mean this is no longer always the case. I have yet to reach an unstable speed limit on my 165s.
Back to slush, I'm not at all convinced that all skis "good" in powder are "good" in slush. No idea why not, but that's my experience. |
Hmm, ok, I agree that you, I or the average punter will probably not outski a modern 165 slalom ski on the speed front, but shirley if you were on a 150 or somesuch you would agree that you will loose some stability at speed?
I guess a true powder "barge" probably won't be much good in slush, but I've found all so called "all mountain" skis like the 1080, mission etc to be v good in powder and also slush [ or maybe I just ski slush so much I enjoy it I just love spring in the mountains!]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I believe that "Geometry" can involve a sidecut of changing radius. In this case I wonder whether the 10 - 16 refers to a sidecut that starts out with a 10 metre radius and passes through 16 possibly returning to 10 or somewhere in between.
|
David Murdoch,
That's an interesting notion. Is the waist of the ski always absolutely in the middle of the ski - if it was slightly fore or aft then the arc either side could be steeper or shallower and this could account for the radius difference - a different value for each arc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Great question megamum, here is some marketing doodah on the scott mission....
Dual Radius
Two combined radii create the sidecut or “shape” of the ski. The Dual Radius concept makes our skis more versatile, and less confined to one type of skiing or terrain
Pre Track
In developing Pre Track, Scott designed skis with wide tips and/or slightly turned up tails. This allows for a variable effective edge depending on terrain. With Pre Track, Scott skis employ a smaller effective edge for short radius turns on groomed slopes and a longer effective edge when making bigger turns or skiing off-piste. The result is a more precise, stable, reliable and versatile ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
kitenski, So they effectively alter the effective length of the ski on the snow - which we know alters turning radius - by making the end of the ski curve upwards - the more extreem the manoevre the more ski contacts the snow and the turning radius alters. A different take on moving the waist of the ski - which of course it must effectively do and if only turned up at the tail (rather than a symmetical bend at both ends) then it means that the waist is no longer symmetrical on the ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, On reading that thread I think some of the same areas were probably touched on, but I read it then and didn't understand it. On reading this thread and then the 'original' one, the 'original' seems more understandable, but I think the terms being used here still convey the subject in a more understandable way IMV.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 19-09-07 22:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
It's like choosing a women, if in doubt go for the one with the biggest tips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And when choosing a man? Maybe better not to go there......eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
comprex, yeah, the whole oversize/deep side cut thing is interesting from a torsional point of view. I would guess you have to get the rigidity just right or they'd be horrible to ski on. Now, that said, I once broke a ski just in front of the toe binding and could hardly notice the difference on piste. Bizarre.
Anyway, back to the topic, I presume that overdeep sidecuts require softer torsional rigidity at the tips and tails assuming that the main edging moments arise roughly underfoot. So reducing castoring.
kitenski, re lengths, well you might think so but Mrs DM has a pair of 150cm "WC" (i.e. not really) Volkl Sls and I find them quite fun. That said, I can easily overpower them if I want. Not any more squirrelly though than the 165s.
Re slush, I'm sorry, I should have read properly. Yes, I'd be amazed to find a pair of 1990 203s that were any easier in slush than any wider ski produced these days! 
Megamum, the waist is generally not in the middle of the ski - although my perception is that it's usually around the middle of the foot. There have been some exceptions to this...but having the waist fore or aft wouldn't necessarily affect sidecut radius, more the "attitude" or angle of attack of the ski as viewed from above. I think what's being discussed is a side cut that changes along the length of the ski - an increasing or decreasing radius curve - like bits of a spiral. I'm not entirely sure I understand the Scott pretrack stuff. Referring up a few paras to my broken ski and to a chum who bent his Acryglass race skis upwards in bumps and was faster through gates thereafter - I'm not sure it's entirely clear what bits of the skis' edges that are doing what.
[off to do some research]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
A lot of this knowledge has obviously sunk in though. It's amazing how potential ownership (I haven't got them yet) focuses the learning curve - its like the boots, understanding gives you confidence. NB. I've been playing with my boots tonight practising doing them up as per the instructions on the other thread. I still can't believe I've taken the plunge for skis - I wonder how many of you thought that I'd sercombe in the finish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so here's the fun with numbers.
Which of these cars is likely to do better at the Le Mans 24Hrs?
Car 1:
BHP 245 bhp
Torque 240 Nm
Max Speed 174mph
Car 2:
BHP 245bhp
Torque 246Nm
Max Speed 135mph
Not the hardest question in the world. This one is though. Based on those numbers, which one will be easiest to drive in the wet and to take your kids to school in?
And harder still...name those cars (P.S. one is quite historic)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Murdoch, Car number 1 should be easier to drive in the wet - less torque - drive is applied more gently. Car 2 might be better to take the kids to school in though - more torque - better and quicker accelaration better for quickly nipping along and pinching the car parking space from the oncoming mum in the land rover look alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
| I'm not entirely sure I understand the Scott pretrack stuff. |
Take a generic rec slalom ski. Make it slightly fatter underfoot, i.e. a generic rec fat slalom ski. Now attach an extra piece from a fat almost-no-sidecut powderski to the tip of each one of your generic rec fat slalom ski. Much like ah, what was that french company, Zag, did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Going back to the women/ski anology for a moment......
Big tips, narrow waist and a nice curvy tail end will probably be a lot of fun although a larger waist will generally give a softer ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
