 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm somewhat puzzled (as usual). I have a large lexicon of ski adjectives: fun, funky, rockin', dull, boring, dead, awesome, slick, "really fast edge-to-edge", orgasmic, terrible, "ski powder like frikkin submarines", "hmmm, float nicely", et al.
However, without delving into my bemusement over Epicski's morbid fascination with geometry ("116-94-108, man they just won't float" - I mean just what is that all about...) I cannot get my head round people describing skis as stiff. Or not.
Can someone enlighten me as to the feelings that "stiff" engenders?
Just so you know, last season found me on the following: Rossi 9XO 160s (2004), Stockli Laser SL 165s, Stockli Laser GS 178s, Volkl RCS SL 150s, Atomic x10s (I think? previous years top all mountain ski) 170s, Rossi 9S 160s (2002?), Volkl G3 185s, Volkl P40 RD SL 170s, Rossignol "Grand Courbe" 210s (1989 Womens Club DH ski), Fischer RD GS 188s, Bandit B2s (who cares what length, just soooo not my skis), Atomic SX:9s (those neither, Ugh!). Oh yes, and Solly Scramblers, Street Racer 8s, someweird black Scott twin tips and a pair of old somethings that made so little impression I can't even remember what they were.
In no case did I ever think, "ooh, these are sooo stiff". Or not.
What's it all about then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
On old straight skis stiff meant you would have to give yourself bruises on the shins in order to get the skis to turn where you bloody well wanted them to.
On modern shaped skis the difference is probably not as noticeable as it used to be because you don't have to apply as much shin power to skiing as you used to.
Hard skis + :
Try taking a pair of ostensibly soft skis and hurtle at unreasonable speed down the Kandahar in Garmisch on an ice day (one day after the W.C downhill is good). Then take a pair of ostensibly hard skis and do the same. The difference will be pretty obvious once you reach 'can I handle this' speeds. The hard skis should give you much better grip on the ice, but only at speed, and should also relieve you of the feeling that you are about to have a bad accident, which on the soft skis you are in fact quite a lot more likely to have due to resonace and chattering causing you to not have a lot of edge in contact with the ice.
Soft skis + :
Try taking a pair of hard skis and plunge down a virginal untouched powder field filled with knee deep. Now do the same with a pair of soft skis. the first thing you will notice is that if you want to get the goddamn hard skis under control you have to ski FAST in order to get them to float on the powder... The softies are a lot easier, and probably a lot more fun in the powder.
Now create an Excel spreadsheet and create a matrix with hardness on one axis and ski dimesions on the other (maybe two dimensions won't cover it). After some extensive testing you'll be able to talk along with the best of them at Epic.
Back to my nip. Springbank. Always makes me talk more than I should 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Mike Lawrie, Ahhh, Springbank. Delightful. Enjoy.
I agree re old skis, but one of the models played with last season were old (1989) straight DH skis in a 210cm length. They don't feel stiff. Just very responsive and a delight in a straight line and on ice. Also extremely refined as one might expect from a true race dep ski.
I'm somewhat convinced by your soft skis in a fast straight line argument, but less so on the soft snow conditions. I did also ski a very soft pair of Tua touring skis and the only place that the "softness" was apparent was in well melted crud. Not so convinced about hard skis being poor in powder, however...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PJ - you're evil. 
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
PJ - you're evil.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And where does dampening control come into the equation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, thanks, although I smell an overpowering odour of "morbid fascination" as previously noted above rather than the brimstone one might expect if you were truly evil.
However, I guess Physicsman, has some point, in that he can interpret a set of correlated statistics into an expectation of ski performance. I wish I could do that sort of matrix algebra in my head! The first links confirms my intuition, stiffness per se is meaningless in isolation. (Also that Physicsman, is way smarter than me).
The second is nonsense, at least as far as I read, until Physicsman weighs in with some sense.
I think I need to get on with some work, so I'll leave the third till later.
So am I right in thinking that anyone saying "Oooh, it's too stiff", "I like the stiffness", is in fact talking rot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
No I don't think it is rot.
To give my humble and in this case grossly over simplified opinion:
If you are an advanced skier (a loose term as just about everyone I have ever hired skis too has been an advanced intermediate) you will get more out of a ski that is stiffer. The chances are you will be travelling at higher speeds on steeper terrain and you will be (trying) to make the ski follow along the length of its edge more than skidding it round the turn. This means you will want to get more grip out of the ski and that is in very general terms easier with a stiffer ski. It will feel far more stable and responsive at high speeds on steep ground. The ski will also be more responsive at the end of the turn meaning that you can get accelaration as a stiff ski that you have bent during the turn is allowed to straighten and propel your body into the downhill movement to needed to change edges and start your next turn. It would take longer for this to happen with a softer ski as the ski will not push back as hard as you start your transition into the next turn.
For skiers of lower ability, however, a ski that is too stiff can be fatal, (not literally). The forces involved to bend the ski and therefore make it turn when travelling at slower speeds are less meaning that it is far harder effect the radius of the turn. At slower speeds you would be pretty much limited to allowing the ski follow its own curve shape by sitting on a tilted edge or you would have to resort to skidding the ski round to complete a tighter turn. This makes it very hard for an intermediate skier to move on from a skiddy turn to a pure carve. Starting a turn is harder and as is effecting the shape of the turn on the way round.
As for powder speed does play a big part in it. ONe of the things i have found is that stiff skis tend to be a lot heavier because of the bindings and plates used to help stiffen the ski. This does make it harder to get the "bouncing" movement you get on a great powder run. Also try straightlining down a moderate slope with a pair of short slalom skis on in deep powder and see how long it takes before you can see the tips starting to surface.
Sorry - not quite as concise as I wanted to make that but you know how these things run away with you! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, stiffness isn't the only factor which determines how a ski skis. However, stiffness along with sidecut and length are three very important factors
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think stiffness can sometimes be confused with 'rebound', ie the ability of the ski (& the speed it does it) to return to it's original cambered shape after being de-cambered/flexed during a turn.
My old 5*'s weren't stiff to flex but still had very good rebound, resulting in turns that "popped" from one to another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
waitingforwinter, Arno, spyderjon, good points all, and I thank you, but I still am - apologies for poorly articulated thinking - that IMHO, AFAICS (as far as i can see...), duly caveated, etc., skeptical that anyone can ski on a pair of skis and isolate "stiffness" as being why they like/don't like them.
Yet, it seems to be one of the most commented on characteristics - in isolation. When clearly we are all in agreement that a ski's "feel" is determined by manifold factors of which longitudinal rigidty is but one.
Oh, well, not to worry, I'm probably in danger of trolling at this stage. Question over (from my p.o.v. at least).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, don't give up yet!
Consider that, of the characteristics mentioned above, for a carved turn on smooth snow:
- damping does not affect turn radius
- ski weight does not affect turn radius
- torsional stiffness does not affect turn radius (assuming that there exists a minimum required to hold the carved turn)
Now, consider the three characteristics length, longitudinal flex, and sidecut shape. All three directly affect turn radius for a carved turn on smooth snow.
Can you isolate 'shape' as why you don't like a ski?
Can you isolate 'length' as why you don't like a ski?
Why not 'longitudinal flex', then?
+++++++++++++++++++
spyderjon, I don't speak of 'rebound' as a separate characteristic, I consider it to be directly described by 'longitudinal flex', which certainly need not be a single fixed value over the entire length of the ski, nor does it need be a uniform value for the entire range of possible flexion/decamber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
comprex, so what construction generates a less stiff ski with good rebound?
| spyderjon wrote: |
I think stiffness can sometimes be confused with 'rebound', ie the ability of the ski (& the speed it does it) to return to it's original cambered shape after being de-cambered/flexed during a turn.
My old 5*'s weren't stiff to flex but still had very good rebound, resulting in turns that "popped" from one to another. |
As you say, there is only longitudonal stiffness and damping in the equation and both can be made to change along the skis length (unless there is some power storage device or strange mystical energy) So if you have two skis of the same length and same overall stiffness and damping, by that I mean the skis deflects the same amount if suspended between tip an tail and the same weight applied at mid point, if one had a stiffer mid section and softer tip and tail than the other which would givebetter "pop". Or is it less about stiffness and more about damping? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
spyderjon, I see no flaws in your reasoning. (doesn't mean I'll stop looking)
rich, not the only way to do it, I'm sure, but consider the old slalom stereotype of soft tip and shovel with a stiff tail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Murdoch,
You probably ski too well for most skis to be too much of a handful. I agree that most people regard a ski as too stiff if they have problems skiing it. When they don't stiffness isn't a factor, and responsiveness is the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
JT, thank you most kindly. You are almost certainly correct (not about my skiing I hasten to add) - that "stiffness" is used somewhat incorrectly as a descriptor for "difficulty" of ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
ski test day when on a couple of softer flexing skis that seemed to have a lot of rebound energy.
