 Poster: A snowHead
|
(164 x 210) / 90 = 382.666667 skiers are ghey. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
spyderjon, so it is the same kind of thing as i was imagening. The way you explain it (ie measured in mm) it's a bit of a crude indicator then, as a ski with a 10mm camber at 184 length to me has less bow than a ski with 10mm camber at say 150 length, but the measure of camber is the same (that's why i was thinking it would be measured in degress to the horizontal of the base as it goes tip to waist).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Mosha Marc, Never mind, surely you must have copped for the odd big day in eurozone this season (there was enough of them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
midgetbiker, I follow your logic but usually the same make/model of ski has the same camber (in mm) in every length. This would suggest that it would be easier to pressure the tips & tails of shorter lengths of the same ski however the ski's construction is tweaked in the longer lengths (stiffer) so that they effectively perform equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swirly, ha ha ha even relatively modest skis outscore you...mine are 396 per pr... who's gay now.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, I'll check them out but I hope they are a departure from the old cluncky heavy Apache series...or at least more on the lines of the Coomba
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I agree - underfoot is the most important measurement for float in turning. On a straight run the camber in the ski should be flattened out purely by the skiers dead weight so the pressure will be spread along the length of the ski. But on a turn the pressure bends the ski and I reckon more of the pressure is in the middle and tip, then on the tail. So in a sense, average of 3 will measure cruising float, mid width will measure turning float! Is this getting complicated?
Thats why to Keep It Simple Stupid and make the maths easy I take just the mid width, and trust the ski designer to have shaped the rest of the ski accordingly.
So to avoid endless confusion since we now have two methods to work out Flotation Factor (let alone 2xtip+2xmid+tail/5)!! you need to distinguish the two eg:
FF1 - Underfoot dim only: Up to 150, piste only, 150 - 200, good for both on-off , 200+ mainly powder ski, 250+ fat fat
FF3 - Three dims average: Up to 180, piste only, 180 - 240, good for both on-off, 240 + mainly powder ski, 300+ fat fat
Spyderjon - very impressed by your double snowboards, do you have an air pilot's licence? Flipping 112 edges on piste may be a pissacake for you, but I wouldn't send a beginner out on those!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then there are skis like the Redeemer with 5 dims. 138/142/128/132/128.
Hats of dickyb. Nice to see an easy basic comon sence approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Ah but... skis edges aren't straight from tip to waist and then from waist to tail.
For a better estimate of the effective width I suggest: (tip+waist+waist+tail)/4
This would weight (pun intended) the waist dimension relative to the others to compensate for the curves.
Edit
I've just had a shufty at PhysicsMan's spreadsheet. He uses length*(tip+(4*waist)+tail)/6 in his estimate of ski area. (Actually he divides by 60 to get the result in square centimetres)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| altis wrote: |
Edit
I've just had a shufty at PhysicsMan's spreadsheet. He uses length*(tip+(4*waist)+tail)/6 in his estimate of ski area. (Actually he divides by 60 to get the result in square centimetres) |
| mosha marc wrote: |
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. |
Damn, I'm good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Mosha Marc, lucky guess 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
midgetbiker, or we wait for ski manufacturers to start advertising skis by surface area (ala water skis) as well as length?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Sideshow_Bob, then there would be nothing to post during summer time 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Mosha Marc
Bof! You were out by 13%!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, Dont get me started. You could also factor in the Special Relativity effect - the faster you go, the shorter your ski gets.
Back to nice simple FF1 = 176 x 85 / 85 kg for me. I can tell the answer is 176 without a calculator.
And what's more........Wide tips and tails can be easily twisted. (Just grab one and try) So their effective pressure resistance is probably about the same as the torsionally stiffer mid section. So the mid section dim is all you really need!
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 13-05-09 12:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Sideshow_Bob, Icelantic do, shows what they want you to do with their skis 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
dickyb, but that's no fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
JT, indeed. Per pair mine come out at 520.
Perhaps "someone" should sack up and finally buy the swallowtail tea tray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Swirly wrote: |
| (164 x 210) / 90 = 382.666667 skiers are ghey. |
Interesting. 1 board @ 380, would be 2 skis @ 190. 190, nice FF for a powder /all mountain ski. Seems to work for boards too.
Of course we skiers do have to remember to weight both skis and keep them tight. Make out like a board really... so does that make us ghey or fey?
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 14-05-09 23:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd been playing round with the title and wondered 'Do fatter skiers have lift?' Then I had a quick flick through what you have all been chatting about and wondered if you had considered the extra weight that a wider (overall larger) ski will possess in its own right, as well as the weight of the skier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 don't really see how you can put a number on "float factor" with different shapes, rockers, flexes, sidecuts... I'm pretty sure those stupid Nordica Jah Loves would have the highest float factor, but it turns out they're pretty miserable in all departments even though they do have a 140mm waist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| altis wrote: |
Mosha Marc
Bof! You were out by 13%! |
Nah, [tip+(4*waist)+tail] is [10%+80%+10%] of anyones 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Just don't tell midgetbiker OK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| I don't really see how you can put a number on "float factor" with different shapes, rockers, flexes, sidecuts... I'm pretty sure those stupid Nordica Jah Loves would have the highest float factor, but it turns out they're pretty miserable in all departments even though they do have a 140mm waist. |
Still a good way to compare how a particular ski might suit people of different weights in terms of off piste performance. But I think it goes without saying that different skis of the same dimensions wouldn't all float the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
dickyb, BC's Navis is a fantastic ski - did a short write up on them a while ago. A touch heavy and likes a firm hand. Feels good in bumps, tight spaces and can still cut it on the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
uktrailmonster, Yes. Concrete skis tend to have less float.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
