 Poster: A snowHead
|
dickyb, a good simple idea. what figures would you roughly classify as pure piste , deep snow off piste and in between etc.
being a fat ba**rd i come in at 136 for my all round skis  109 for my SL skis...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
My ski's score 237 & I'm quite happy using them on piste 
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 11-05-09 13:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Slalom skis are very narrow underfoot but tend to have relatively wide shovels and tails. A wide tip certainly helps float. My slalom skis are much better in pow than my GS skis mainly due to the much wider tip, even tho the latter are longer, the same width underfoot and theoretically better by dickyb's formula.
Without over-complicating things (who, me?) it'd be better to approximate the rough average width by adding up the tip, waist and tail measurements then dividing by three, then using that as the width in dickyb's formula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
dickyb's formula gives me 255 in my 189 preachers With out accounting for the very wide nose. I should hover a few inches above the snow. Most who have skied these find they work well on piste too.
I score 174 on my Scott Neos 176 x82/83. And would agree with dickyb's assesment about float. It has good float on powder and is still fabulous on piste and in crud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Using this says that my slalom skis should float adequately... I can tell you that in practice, they do not! 160-180 for the factor is a bit conservative for all mountain. Even at my weight I'd want something 90ish for all mountain and that comes out at 220.
That said, I like the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
230 using the Shaman's dims and my current weight, RPF's comments about wide nose and piste feel stand here too.
If I use the Shaman's dims and my weight from the '08 EOSB then I get pushing 260 and should just be able to clear the top of RPF's head.
That's it no carbs for me for the rest of '09 (once I get back from the land of the free and the glazed everything).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sideshow_Bob, I get 280+ using tip+waist+tail/3 as opposed to 230ish using waist only. As all skis have some curve to them then whilst I reckon your idea is good (in a let's complicate things a bit sort of way) you would need to ramp up the cutoff figures on the use bands a bit.
To further complicate it: As shovel is more important in lift than tail maybe it should be [(2xtip)+(2xwaist)+tail]/5 or simpler (tip+waist)/2. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sideshow_Bob, Sidecut is an important consideration. Using your 3 point formula gives an interesting result for my current quiver.
My "on piste" skis head supershape magnums come out the same as my wider AC30's and only 8% less "floaty" than my "Off piste" Karmas with 87mm width.
Head Supershape Magnum 177 121/71/107 R 14.5
Volkl AC30 177 118/76/104 R 18.4
Volkl Karmas 177 119/87/117 R 20
Must get some fat boys and ditch the Karmas 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
skimottaret, flex probably has an awful lot to do with it as well. A stiff ski like an SS Magnum will be far more likely to tunnel under the snow than a softer ski like a Karma. Oh dear, we're complicating things again 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Awesome, i run at 350 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this really works and will be referencing it in all ski related business and pitches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, which version?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, with 350 you shouldn't touch down till Sicily
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Ok, i think that we will take the 3 measurements of the ski and find the average, x that by length and divde by weight in KG.
That's our reference we'll stick to it for the next 12 months and see how it works from a commercial and development POV.
I honestly believe the industry, after a couple of tweaks might run with this, we'll have to see how the data runs out. We've just been trying a good few skis and at the momment it's a bit hit and miss. Need to reduce the scale to make a more generalistic result. ie, divide final figure by 5 or 10 to see how skis segment themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Off topic but,
SMALLZOOKEEPER, called at Footworks 10ish one morning (two weeks ago wednesday) with heineken in tow. Despite the hours on the door there was nobody home. Call me an old cynic but I think 3 days of snow, the chance of sun, and the likelyhood of bug all trade had swung the pointer to 'lets go skiing'. Skiied the boots that day and next with the new liners with no problems, but would you be about in late August for me to borrow the hot blower thingy? Beers been left in the kitchen in Chamonix but I've put a postitnote on it saying 'don't drink' so that should be safe  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
midgetbiker, Ah yes, we're closed wednesdays. Beer's gone and so have we. The summer is here now and we're taking a sabatical, watch this space for radical developments for next winter. Good bye one and all, i skied 4 days this winter, the best winter since i've lived in the alps. I hope everyone had a great one and remember, the internet is the future, soon you'll be able to avoid seeing people like me and do the work yourselves, well, most of it. Keep it real, and remember, skiing is a feeling, dont think, just slide, let gravity do her thing. BZK? Busy Zebras Kneeling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
midgetbiker, The best I can do also using last years weight is 326, I'm not sure I'll be that weight again so I think SMALLZOOKEEPER, wins for the moment. I might call by Footworks with some pies though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Blimey, I go off to do a days work and ..... that's what I call feedback!
Smallzookeeper: Add up the three dims and take the average - good idea, would give a more accurate area estimate. If you do that with heavily sidecut skis it increases the FF by about 15-20%. (I have just set up a little Excel sheet) So the rough guide would become: normal piste skis up to 180, all-mountain up to 250, dedicated powder skis over 250 and then the sky's the limit.. ( I am basing those categories on my own testing of skis of different dims on the snow.) So maybe thats a better scale to use. Ignoring of course ski flex, core, skiing speed, gradient, ability, aggression of turn, 57 different varieties of powder .. well I said its a rough guide. Your feedback would be of interest. Basically its supposed to give people an idea of the minimum size of ski they would need to easily ski powder, based on their weight.
All my FF does is give you the inverse of the pressure on the snow. But I find it simpler to use a nice headline number than 'fraction of kg per square wotsit'.
Spyderjon: Your 237 would then become maybe 260 on a '3 dims FF' scale, either way I would rate that as a fat ski, or very long indeed, or you are fibbing about your weight!! if they work ok on piste what are you using??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
For float, the width underfoot is waaaay more important than shovel and tail dims.
I'd reckon you'd have to factor them in, but only as a minor feature - say 20% compared to underfoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosha Marc, underfoot is important, but so is shovel (especially if it's quite a bit smaller than tail) as you then get the front of the ski 'pushing up' out of the snow (with the tail relatively sinking in) this keeps you from submarining down into the snow. It would feel hideous to turn etc but surely the ultimate float ski would be fat underfoot, fatter at the tip & tapered to a point at the rear 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dickyb, spyderjon & Mosha Marc are both on the High Society FR's (last time I looked) a bit more 'traditional' than my Shamans (maybe the reason for my championing of tips compared to Mosha Marc's relative dismissal of such  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
midgetbiker, when I use (2xtip+2xwaist+tail)/5 I get the same answer as (tail+waist+tip)/3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Important clarification: which weight should we use? Your ideal of weight-in-the-morning-dressed-only-in-boxer-shorts-balancing-on-a-friendly-weighing-scale, or weight while fully kitted with backpack (and skis of course!), after a goulash+schnitzel+strudel+beer lunch? (or tartiflette etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
horizon, binding DIN levels assume drippin wet weight, why not use that for consistency..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| horizon, binding DIN levels assume drippin wet weight, why not use that for consistency.. |
Was that pre or post poop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
I honestly believe the industry, after a couple of tweaks might run with this, we'll have to see how the data runs out. We've just been trying a good few skis and at the momment it's a bit hit and miss. Need to reduce the scale to make a more generalistic result. ie, divide final figure by 5 or 10 to see how skis segment themselves. |
The banding will always be a bit subjective, but it should give you a good idea how much fatter a 100 kg bloke really needs to go to achieve the same inherent level of float as a 60 kg midget.
eg. if the 60 kg guy is on skis 170 long x 80 wide, then the equivalent FF for the 100 kg guy would be 185 long x 122 wide. They would both be exerting the same pressure on the snow surface skiing under the same conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| RPF wrote: |
| midgetbiker, when I use (2xtip+2xwaist+tail)/5 I get the same answer as (tail+waist+tip)/3. |
as would most (or very similar anyway) but I get a noticably higher figure as the front of my ski is 30 more than the back. I reckon the higher figure I would get would reflect the effect the ski was designed to give of the tail sinking relative to the front, so forward motion gives a lifting effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
the same inherent level of float as a 60 kg midget.
|
You having a pop at midgets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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 like this...my skis come out at 198 using waist and wieght and they do ok off-piste. I quite like them in that respect, it is their piste performance that would prompt a change...but that is because the TT tail robs them of vital lenght when hammering them hard..IME..
If they were another 5cms or so longer I wouldn't still be searching for a ski...
I'll demount them ( Dukes ) but probably still keep the ski ...I'll have a clearer idea when I demo some new skis in the not too distant future
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| .......It would feel hideous to turn etc but surely the ultimate float ski would be fat underfoot, fatter at the tip & tapered to a point at the rear |
midgetbiker, a tapering tail (although nowhere near to a point) is known as a pin tail design & they're real easy to turn. BTW I'm on 196cm Llasa Pow's at 140-112-122 & 39m radius so even at my 15st they still score really high in the floation stakes. The semi pin tail means you can carve or skid the tail at will but when carving you don't get 'locked in' to the turn. They've got a long rockered tip so on piste they ski to about 165cm.
One of the biggest factors that determines tip dive is the amount of camber the ski has, especially a stiffer ski. Even a wide ski underfoot & at the tip will want to dive when driven if it's got a lot of camber. I find the Shaman performs that way for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
JT, What you on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
spyderjon, so I know what the camber means on a midget for sure, but to clarify, I'm thinking on a ski it's a measure of the angle of the base as it slopes down from the high point underfoot to touching the ground at the tip. Am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, Gladiators....am thinking 184 Sluff, 189 Preacher
don't fancy the Glad at 191...altho that is also an option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midgetbiker, the camber is the amount of 'bow' (as in bow & arrow) in the ski. Place the two upright skis base to base so that the tips'n'tails touch & in most skis you'll see that there's gap between the skis underfoot. Measure the widest part of the gap & divide by two & that's the camber. The purpose of camber in the design of the ski is transfer pressure to the tips & tails (the stiffer the ski & the more camber the more pressure will be transfered) which is good for on piste but not good in powder. Your 184 Shamans will have 10mm of camber. The manufacturers will experiment with different camber/flex combo's to suit their requirements, eg the new WDF Preachers will have 5mm but the bigger more off-piste specific Redeemer has zero camber. After that you're into reverse camber skis which is were the skis bases touch underfoot when put together but then the tips & tails 'rocker' upwards, making them superb in powder but scary on hardpack. Then there's the inbetweenies like my Llasa's which have 2mm of camber but are very stiff in the centre section to make them very skiable on piste but have a softer rockered tip & a semi rockered tail (which don't get pressured that much) for float & to ride over variable snow etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Sadly not, '06 vintage that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, Have a look at the New range of skis from K2 next year, Darkside, Sidestash, Backstash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. My dissing of tip and tail girth was based on my forray into bottomless Utah champagne powder on my slalom skis.
