 Poster: A snowHead
|
DaveC,
I'm not saying that at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The downsides are quicker dulling edges (although Spyderjon hasn't found this), as a result more frequent honing (and metal removal) required, more sidewall removal needed for 3 as opposed to 2, most tuning shops are set up for 2 side and therefore unless you get a sympathetic tech who will change the machine just for you it will negate your setup, 3 as opposed to 2 won't make you ski any better............
But hey - it's your skis so do what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Well, I asked because I have my own tuning setup. It's not like diamond stones take off much metal, or running them down the edges every few days is any great worry since I'm waxing them that often anyway...
But yeah, thanks for the interesting thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| The downsides are quicker dulling edges ... |
Presuming that you meant to add (IMHO) in that statement  , what are the mechanics that would dull a 3 degree edge quicker than a 2 degree edge? The difference of the internal angle of the edges is not that great - the internal angle of the edge is 89 degrees for a 2 degree edge and 88 degrees for a 3 degree edge (assuming a 1 degree base angle).
DaveC, I agree, an interesting thread this - thanks to all so far. Incidently, I thought I'd check to see how much metal is shaved off to get to a 3 degree edge from a 2. At the maximum point 0.035 mm of metal is removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| ....Incidently, I thought I'd check to see how much metal is shaved off to get to a 3 degree edge from a 2. At the maximum point 0.035 mm of metal is removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| ....... most tuning shops are set up for 2 side and therefore unless you get a sympathetic tech who will change the machine just for you it will negate your setup |
Agreed, although there's as many shops in Europe set-up for a 1 & I've come across a few that tune to 0. BTW, I've assumed from the start of this thread that this discussion has only been applicable to those that tune their own skis.
| veeeight wrote: |
| .......3 as opposed to 2 won't make you ski any better......... |
we'll agreed to disagree re the wear issue but surely a 3 will give you more bite than a 2 if the exact same technique is applied so while this won't improve your technique it could help in a tricky situation, especially for those who don't have your high level skills that you can instantly apply. A bit more grip could just be the difference between staying upright or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I use 0.5 and 3. Definitely noticed an improvement on my dryslope slalom skis when moving from 2 to 3. Maybe dulls a bit quicker, but since you can notice the edge going after 3-4 runs on the matting and they're pretty dull after 1hour it's not really an issue. The bigger issue is how keen I am on getting them sharp for the beginning of the session.
3 side is probably a bit OTT for my off-piste skis, but rock hits etc are going to have a way greater effect on the edge than any angle-related dulling, and they've not got brilliant grip to start with, so any help there on the rare occasions I do get onto a hard piste is a definite benefit - but principally it's that I can't be bothered to get a different file guide.
JT, listen to spyderjon this time...you are talking bullocks. The only time higher angles are going to result in significant loss of metal is if you decide to change them every time you tune - in which case you deserve what you get.
Tuning your edges is dead easy, so get your own gear and get on with it. The biggest problem is if you get a file guide that doesn't have a good flat to run up along the base to give you a reference. There are some with rollers that don't go across the whole width of the plate. Before I fixed on a single angle set across everything I felt I needed a variable angle guide so got one of these. My experience is that this type is useless, soon gets to a point where it's flopping all over the place, and does remove a huge amount of metal. Get a single angle guide and croc clip and that sticks to a consistent angle fine. Full works (1ea guide, file, stone, 300g wax, with maybe a ceramic or gummi thrown in) costs about £50, i.e. about 2 services from S&R, and you're set for about 40 tunes. (Maybe an iron would push it up a bit). Sounds a much better deal to me.
Must go now and sort my own now for tomorrow's training session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC,
Surely you're in Fernie where this season edges are irrelevant ( or is another liquid based precipitation event in the offing?)
I have no opinion on edge angles besides knowing mine are in very poor shape but I know a well tuned ski does feel nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
GrahamN,
How can it be bullox...? both agreed that they would have to take more metal away initially ( that exact use of words ..with the confiormation of 'exactly' by Jon) to get away from 1.1 and then they just try to keep it at that angle. That is assumng they are shipped like that.
So in simple terms, if you have a cake and cut a bit off to get it the right shape...or whatever...you will then be left with less cake to divide up.
So you think you can take metal away...however small ..and still be able to slice it the same......??? yep, sounds like bullox to me..!!!
You use the word 'significant', I don't. Variables would be the type of file used etc.
My main take on this is that you need to keep it simple and consistant above all else.....and to keep it this precise because it serves your purpose takes a lot of work. How much benefit you'd get free-skiing.... well, I wouldn't go there..
AFAIK, none of the protaganists do it for gates, maybe they can enlighten us.... and maybe a few before and after pics wouldn't go amiss..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
JT, you're miss-quoting me. My comment of "exactly" was in response to Foxy's confirmation that the metal removal is NOT from the 'tip width' & so doesn't effect wear. See Ray Zorro's post above re the amount of metal removed - but note that this metal is from the top of the side edge NOT the lower edge/tip engagement area - & there's plenty of 'cake' in that area that will never be needed again. Assuming a 1,3 is equally durable then once set there's no additional metal removed to keep it in tune than there would be from a 1,1 or 1,2. Plus one of the benefits of hand tuning is the ability to keep the edge in shape with just a diamond stone(s) which removes boogerall material compared to a file. You're "cake" argument sounds plausible but with respect it shows a lack of understanding as to were the cake is being initially trimmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
DaveC,
Surely you're in Fernie where this season edges are irrelevant ( or is another liquid based precipitation event in the offing?)
I have no opinion on edge angles besides knowing mine are in very poor shape but I know a well tuned ski does feel nice. |
No rain on the hill since the Dec 6th pinapple that's still haunting us for stability. Was just wondering really - We had a week without snow before the megastorm that hd caught, so the carvers got dusted off and made me wonder if their edge angle (3) would hurt my everyday skis (1).
I'll never understand the "you're not a world cup racer, you don't need this" or "you don't get filmed heliskiing, you don't need fat skis" - surely anything that facilitates greater enjoyment of skiing without significant sacrifice is a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| ......I'll never understand the "you're not a world cup racer, you don't need this" or "you don't get filmed heliskiing, you don't need fat skis" - surely anything that facilitates greater enjoyment of skiing without significant sacrifice is a good thing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I'll never understand the "you're not a world cup racer, you don't need this" or "you don't get filmed heliskiing, you don't need fat skis"
|
Try you're not a world cup racer, you don't really ski the same conditions they ski all the time, and if your skill set isn't approaching theirs, then a 1 degree change in side bevel isn't going to benefit you a whole lot Do you spend 95% of your time on water injected courses, or do you spend your time freeskiing the whole mountain?
Consider how you actually achieve the critical edge angle (Ron Lemaster) - how often do you really ski as per first picture?
With respect to equipment, is you setup, alignment, condition, lack of slack/play in the whole system *really* that good that you will benefit from that extra 1 degree?
Finally - if you apply that extra degree to a torsionally stiff ski (eg: slalom ski) and have the skills to keep that ski on a clean edge, then sure, you'll benefit.
Apply a 3 instead of 2 degree side edge to an all mountain ski, and you'll probably find that, combined with a less than perfect skill set, it will not make a blind bit of difference as the front half of the ski will be flapping around the place anyway as the ski itself does not lend itself to a good clean edge hold on hardpack
So, to answer the OP question directly:
| Quote: |
| For example, my powder/soft snow skis don't really need amazing edge hold but I figured it can't hurt |
No it won't hurt. But I doubt there's much benefit, perhaps even more chattering.
But if it makes you feel better and you have more fun, then go for it!!! 
Hmmm. I wonder if he's on 2 or 3........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I can't believe I am doing this... but
you have a 1cm sq block of metal....
The angle you want to attack is currently 90.... you change it to 89, 88 87, and you are able to take ALL the metal from the top to attain this whilst maintaining the initial amount of metal at the bottom ( base )
You then ...for the sake of simplicity here, carve off 1mm slices ( tunes ) and maintain your angle of 89 or 88,87 etc.... but you want exactly one of these so you must maintain it but again in the interest of keeping it simple, the top of the block is now thinner. To maintain the angle, what you take off the top must come off the bottom otherwise the angle is destroyed ..and say the diff is 1 degree = 1mm, for the sake of argument, if you changed from 90 to 87, you have lost 3 mm if you maintain that angle exactly. Therefore, for the sake of this simple demonstration, you have 3 less tunes you are able to make until you run out of metal.
I am, of course, not suggesting you file away 1mm or that, in this case, 1mm really must = 1 degree, it is just in case anyone else wants to be bothered with following this. I know I don't
An very simple and semantic little demo, but I didn't start semantics here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
JT, steady on mate! deep breath and count to 10 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
Consider how you actually achieve the critical edge angle (Ron Lemaster) - how often do you really ski as per first picture?
|
All the time
| veeeight wrote: |
With respect to equipment, is you setup, alignment, condition, lack of slack/play in the whole system *really* that good that you will benefit from that extra 1 degree?
|
Likely not to feel the whole benefit, but I definately *think* I can feel a difference between 1 and 2. I've only ever skiied my carvers on 3, and they're so thin compared to my point of reference that I have no idea what difference any edge angle makes there. Even if the difference is purely psychological, that's fine with me - hence the question if there were any drawbacks.
| veeeight wrote: |
So, to answer the OP question directly:
| Quote: |
| For example, my powder/soft snow skis don't really need amazing edge hold but I figured it can't hurt |
No it won't hurt. But I doubt there's much benefit, perhaps even more chattering.
But if it makes you feel better and you have more fun, then go for it!!!
|
I can't say I've felt any added chatter, then again you're hinting that any positive I feel is likely psychological anyway, I guess I could be blanking any chatter out too I do take your point that it's only a minor difference, but imo it's one to experiment with, and I'm always open to anything that could improve my skiing (ski boots = the source of ultimate paranoia)
JT - I have no thoughts, positive or negative, towards the adverse effect of tuning skis, so you can keep battling this one out with Jon I will say that I really couldn't care less if I take double the edge off that most home tuners do (I can't imagine I'll ever keep up with people that get shop tunes due to grinds...), I'll likely of sold/changed skis by the time it's relevant anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DaveC,
No, its ok, I'm done...been round the houses etc... It isn't a big deal to me either...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I don't really see this as a debate but more of a choice and there is no right or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Let's face it, there ain't many sH's on here that achieve the speeds, G-forces, high edge angles of a Europa cup racer. In most situations a 1,1 is plenty.
