 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi guys,
So i've decided that its high time to start tuning my own skis. Ive read through a few internet guides including jons ski guide all of which has been pretty helpful.
I decided to leave the base bevel as is but went out and bought an 87 degree file guide as i thought this angle would suit my needs best. I'm using this with some files and stones i already have. A second cut Fitzwilliam grade file and a set of diamond honeing stones (Actually more of a plastic backed plate) used to sharpen chisels.
I marked the edges with permanent pen then used the Fitzwilliam file on my heads (As far as i could find were set initially at 88 degrees) removed a bit of the pen eventually i got to within half a mill of removing all of the pen but couldnt seem to remove the final bit no matter how many passes i gave it? the file still felt and sounded like it was cutting metal but i trimmed back the side wall with a sharp edge in the same manner as a sidewall remover seems to work just using my fingers as a guide. This seemed to help and i eventually i got most of it off in some places but like im just about to describe i had problems with consistancy along the length of the edge.
I also have a par of atomics which should already be at 87 degrees yes? i used the stones on these however i couldnt seem to get a consistant sharpness along the edge the file was held securely and i was using long medium pressure strokes i also found that when using the black pen it wasnt taking all of the black pen off. Im loathed to Fitzwilliam file this one unless i really have to as its down to about 1mm left.
One thing i should say is im not using a ski vice just a non slip mat. This holds the ski securely enough but could the camber in the ski be causing this problem? or problems with the flatness of the base? the skis were not dry when i have been filing but they have been scraped properly.
All in all this is turning out to be a bit more of a black art then i thought!
Thanks for taking the time to read this and any help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Actually i should say that im using the tried and tested fingernail nail removal sharpness test to detect these inconsistancies some places i get some scratching and some places i don't and yes im using a gummi stone to de burr after using the stones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
mmrm2, Head say they ship their skis 1,1 but I've seen a few new ones at 1,2 lately. It sounds like you need a bit more sidewall removing on the Heads to allow you to set a set a consistent edge.
Yes, all Atomics are shipped 1,3 but as with many skis you'll need to trim back the sidewall to allow access to the side edge. Atomics have a really tough sidewall so some force is required, even when using a pucka tool.
Your technique sounds spot on but attempting to remove sidewall & then set a steeper side edge angle without the ski properly viced/clamped is a ballsey move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ok cool i'll see if i can bodge together a better sidewall trimmer. Thanks.
Will i actually be able to feel the inconsistancies whilst skiing? I was wondering what makes the bigger difference, the angle of the edge or the sharpness of the edge?
I've also heard of people varying the angles along the length of the ski on purpose (mainly the base bevel) have you got an opinion on this ? sounds like a very bad idea to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
mmrm2, You can have a less acute angle at the ends, this still prevents tip and tail sliding on ice but doesn't hook up as much. It is way more preferable than de-tuning the tips (I think that that is one hell of a bad idea).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| mmrm2 wrote: |
| .......Will i actually be able to feel the inconsistancies whilst skiing? I was wondering what makes the bigger difference, the angle of the edge or the sharpness of the edge? |
If you're a high end racer then probably yes. If you ski like me then no. However setting a consistent edge to start with makes tuning a lot simpler thereafter as you can just make full length passes knowing the edge is being kept true.
| mmrm2 wrote: |
| .......I was wondering what makes the bigger difference, the angle of the edge or the sharpness of the edge? |
I'd rather ski on a well maintained 2 degree edge than a poorly maintained 3 degree edge. However on hardpack you'll always be better with sharp edges on sharp angles.
| mmrm2 wrote: |
| I've also heard of people varying the angles along the length of the ski on purpose (mainly the base bevel) have you got an opinion on this ? sounds like a very bad idea to me |
It's common for slalom racers to run a shallow base edge angle (0.3 to 0.5) for most of the ski but to add additional base edge angle nearer the contact points (0.5 to 1) this allows the edge to to engage more progressively as a very shallow angle could be too grabby/hooky, but still give full length hold once the edge was engaged fully, ie the modern day alternative to detuning the tips & tails.
Variable side edge angles along the ski are less common but in some instances it's relevant. I recently prepped a new pair of big mountain skis for a ski mountaineer who skis 45-50 degree slopes in what could be turn or die situations. I set the side edge to 3 degrees in the middle third of the ski then blended the side angle down to 1 degree at the tips & tails. The skier wanted very good edge hold underfoot but didn't want to risk catching an overly sharp edge at the tip or tail when doing jump turns etc. As the ski would be used virtually 100% off piste & often in variable snow then there was no down side but you wouldn't set up a piste ski like that. This ski had a 1 degree base edge which was upped to 1.5 at the contact points for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok cool i'll keep plugging away at mine till i get them true.
Thanks for clearing that up for me its all interesting stuff i can definately understand the big mountain set up with the variation in edge bevel.
However what i was really thinking is that by changing the base bevel along the length of the edge you are surely changing the straightness of the edge Ie: making it curved. Is this curve significant? would doing this effect the way the edge worked, infact would it actually allow you to turn in a tighter arc with the same ammount of effort than with a straight edge?
Ive drawn a little diagram but cant seem to attach it  do you see what i'm getting at though?
maybe this helps?
[---] Normal results in curve the same as the flex induced by the skiier
[\__/] Varying base bevel results in a smaller radi curve than the curve induced into the ski by the skiier.
Im not in anyway intending to do this! but its just a thought thats been puzzling me for a while and you seem very clued up thanks for all your input thus far.[/img]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mmrm2, I know what you mean & you're right, but for those specialist applications I'm only suggesting increasing the base edge angle at the contact points, probably no more than 40/50mm at each end of the ski.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Thu 4-12-08 13:45; 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.
|
|
Ahh ok cool. Maybe i'll try it sometime on an old pair of skis could be interesting! Thanks for all the info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ