 Poster: A snowHead
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
DaveC,
Anything over 111mm is a lost cause. |
In Europe? For you? Might need to explain this one a little more 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
DaveC, Lateral torque forces on the knee and binding if trying to use the ski on it's 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?
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, you have an opinion on touring bindings (that can be used with a normal alpine boot) ?
Should I consider it, or just go with an alpine binding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| DaveC, Lateral torque forces on the knee and binding if trying to use the ski on it's edge. |
The solution there is to use a ski that doesn't need or want to be put on its edge 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
DaveC, Name me a ski without edges and i'll believe you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Ronald, Buy a Marker Duke, that way you'll have the touring option, albeit they are not lightweight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| DaveC, Name me a ski without edges and i'll believe you. |
Volant Spatula/Praxis/Any other reverse sidecut ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC, So the Spatula didn't have any edges?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DaveC, I don't think I've ever seen a reverse sidecut ski other than in photographs. Do you get many in Fernie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
DaveC, They're out of production and no other manufacturer bought into the concept. Rocker skis over 120mm seem to be on the increase. We're going to stick to our guns leaving us with Pro Rider XXL and Katana as out big powder models. I kinda like the Salomon Rocker. Best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
http://praxisskis.com/ski/
http://www.dpsskis.com/page.php?pname=skis/lotus/138
both very much still in construction, though not sure if you can resell them, or if they're very suited to Euro conditions, but they're both an experience I feel everyone should try...
Personally, I don't like the Hellbent (too floppy) or Pontoon (too floppy, clown shoe tip, can't ski chop, a step backwards from the spat). I'd really like to try the Salomon Rocker. Volkl Kuro and Rossi S7 next year sound like they'll be excellent and more mainstream...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
DaveC, The DPS is conventional sidecut. All of the 3 skis mention still have edges, no matter how badly you want to look after them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| DaveC, Name me a ski without edges and i'll believe you. |
Visu Avalanche
Lightningboards are debatable.
| DaveC wrote: |
| Volant Spatula/Praxis/Any other reverse sidecut ski? |
Gauer 
(well, there was also the Goode Scoop, but one look at the Gauer and the heritage is clear...)
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Mon 11-02-08 18:47; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
No, skiing can cause shin splints but it's more what your leg is being asked to do when skiing, the fact you are wearing a ski boot is coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 - was really hoping for a solution that didn't start with "several weeks rest", but nevermind 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
DaveC, You need to find one of the 'Disney' Boot Balancing guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, Not who's right, just what's right. You stated, wide skis are heavier and less stiff torsionally, i gave you two examples of this not being true. It's my job to understand these things and feel the users of SH's don't need to be mislead. Sorry if that upset you. We regularly use 100mm plus skis for the piste although by preference we would take Race skis onto the piste as they carry speed alot better. This thread was about All mountain and Powder skis, to my mind that's around 90mm underfoot with a 19m radius. Then what would i know, i sell/test skis for a living. |
I thought it was about All Mountain skis rather than just powder skis? The OPs original list certainly were not powder skis.
If you were a ski designer, you'd have to make compromises in your design. If you have a 100 mm wide slab of ptex, it will be heavier than a 70 mm wide slab. Same goes for the rest of the construction. If a narrower ski weighs as much or more than a wider ski, where do you think the weight comes from? Sure, designers can make lighter stiffer skis than they could 10 years ago, which has helped fuel the wider ski trend. But there's still a compromise. If you made a race slalom ski wider, for whatever reason, you would have to make it heavier. Or have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Yup you miss something.
if I take a FIS racestock slalom carver, currently at 66mm waist. They are stiff as hell.
What happens to the flex if you add 30mm ?
It becomes 50% harder to bend!
So the wider ski has to use less material per mm of waist to have a similar longitunal stiffness/flex pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, if you look at the DPS link I put above, you'll see that some companys are starting to use carbon fiber. Ultra light, adds a lot of stiffness. PMGear (who make their Bro series) are also doing this. But that's a bit irrelevant really, Ronald and SZK are right in what they're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could use carbon in any ski to add stiffness, so I don't see how that's relevant to this debate.
I still don't really see how increased section will make a ski lighter overall, but I understand the increase in section will make it stiffer in bending. But you can't increase section without adding material in the first place. There must be some compromise between section, stiffness and weight. Most manufacturers currently seem to make their All Mountain skis in the 80-85 mm width range, so that must be significant. Reading this thread you'd think a 100 mm waist was close to optimum for on-piste skiing! I suppose if the emphasis is on powder skiing and on-piste performance is not taken seriously at all, then a 90+ waist might be the way to go. But I'm not that convinced the technology is currently out there to make a true allrounder that wide. Given the choice, I still prefer race skis on piste than anything over 80 mm wide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Both my High Society FR's (92mm & 104mm underfoot) are surprisingly stiff & light due to the carbon fibre in their construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, Mate we can ski around in circles forever here (did you see what i did there?). Could we please however stop making such sweeping generalizations. You did state that the wider the ski the heavier and less torsionally rigid. I see us debating the validity of that statement, nothing else.
Does a ski with a 66mm waist and a radius of 40m ski better on piste than a ski with a waist of 92mm and a radius of 18m?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Oh I give up. I'll pass on the fat skis with silly sidecut debate thanks. Just choose whatever SZK recommends then, invariably a powder ski of some sort!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| therefore how does a ski being narrower help it be an allrounder? |
Less lateral motion of the centre of mass between straight-running base of support (ski bases' centreline) and edged carving base of support (demilune defined by sidecut, flex, load and tipped angle).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, Floatation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, I didn't include ski length either so as not to muck too much with front to back balance issues. It would have been of some interest a few years ago, in the carving whipped cream thread.
EDIT: yes, I do see that a statement of preference for narrow skis as all-rounders has significant implications with regards to individual technique and physiological limits. Do you use the same pow-ski limit above with wider pelvis populations (e.g. laydeez) or is it lower?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| Oh I give up. I'll pass on the fat skis with silly sidecut debate thanks. Just choose whatever SZK recommends then, invariably a powder ski of some sort! |
Well, it all depends what you consider a powder ski. I just bought some 90mm stiff skis for my groomer day skis and love them - I guess by your reckoning these are ridiculously fat. To me they're nice and stable, with a small compromise of turn radius to a big gain in all mountain stability - I can arc tight turns on groomed runs on them - can you ski windcrusted chutes off piste with your 65mm carvers? It's not like I'm biased - I have 13m radius 65mm waisted carvers here, and they've seen snow 4 days this season, 3 of which being an instructor course where I didn't want to rock the boat, and the other was re-learning how to ski them before being evaluated on them... They don't really do anything better than my 90mm waists. They're also lighter than my carvers, due to not having the metal hostage/riser plate and damp heavy construction as to not get deflected too much on non-perfect slopes.
From the way you argue, it sounds like you haven't tried "fat skis with "silly" sidecuts" yet. You really should. This argument comes up a lot on threads I read here, and people seem to have a very hard time accepting what SZK is saying - there're pretty much no drawbacks to a wider ski. Especially for those who do weeks away, a more rounded, competent on everything fat ski makes a lot more sense than a "groomer only" thin ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
i'm interested in what people think is a "silly sidecut" on a fat ski. i'd say 14m is silly; and 40m is eminently sensible but maybe that's just me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| DaveC wrote: |
From the way you argue, it sounds like you haven't tried "fat skis with "silly" sidecuts" yet. You really should. This argument comes up a lot on threads I read here, and people seem to have a very hard time accepting what SZK is saying - there're pretty much no drawbacks to a wider ski. Especially for those who do weeks away, a more rounded, competent on everything fat ski makes a lot more sense than a "groomer only" thin ski. |
I don't remember advocating narrow race skis (sub 70mm) as a good allround choice for on and off piste? But they're still the reference I compare skis to for their on-piste performance. My current allround skis are 83 mm wide, which you would probably consider too narrow too? They're specifically designed to be an allrounder, like most skis of that width. If you think there are no drawbacks to going wider then fine. Where is your limit 90, 100, 110mm? I guess that depends on how you like to ski etc. Looking at it the other way, I don't have a problem skiing in powder on 75-80mm skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have really enjoyed my Icelantic Nomads- fantastic off piste which is why I bought them... but you have to work that much harder on piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Arno,
Yes, I can't see the point of a radius that shallow ( 14mtrs).... 20mtrs plus seems ok to me for a fat ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I would have thought a fat ski with a really tight sidecut would compromise its off piste performance? I always thought a larger radius sidecut was better suited for off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
uktrailmonster, Not in all cases. The Icelantic Shaman has a small side cut and has received nothing but great reviews for powder performance. They were designed for tight lines. The 161cm has a TR of 12m and the 173 a TR of 15m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| I can arc tight turns on groomed runs on them - can you ski windcrusted chutes off piste with your 65mm carvers? It's not like I'm biased - I have 13m radius 65mm waisted carvers here, and they've seen snow 4 days this season, 3 of which being an instructor course where I didn't want to rock the boat, and the other was re-learning how to ski them before being evaluated on them... They |
Your carvers are a little on the fat side aren't they? I spent some time exploring the Tarentaise OP a couple of years ago with a big fella who was using 63mm waisted Masters' slalom skis. Of course, he was way better than me, and still is.
Naturally, my own skis 76mm and 77mm would be way too narrow to be considered usable by you all over the mountains. Not everyone needs a fat ski, some of us are not fat enough to need the extra width, clearly.
http://picasaweb.google.com/bandit2106/SkiAnniviersJanFeb08/photo#5163212178780810258
Based on this new wave of "fat = credible" I feel I must immediately stop at the nearest decent restaurant and take up deckchar residence, as my skis are clearly no longer practical.
Alternatively, I could just go skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Wot's wrong with Scott Missions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Wot's wrong with Scott Missions? |
I'm sure they're great (would like to try them sometime), but to hear some reviews you'd think they were the most exciting piste ski ever created. Perhaps they are, but I somehow doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
If you try them though, you'll learn pretty quickly the edges are there for traversing/sidehilling and are detuned to the point they're curved not edged... accidentally pressuring a tip is something you do once and learn rapidly not to do again 
