 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
meh, Correct to some degree, the interface at it's narrowest point it through the lugs and binding interface, then below at the screw width to ski drill points, however, the axis width through the "cant" rivets is the direct "wide point" so can too be looked at as a possible "torsion point" as too can the foot's widest point in the boot as at a certain point of flexing and driving the boot and ski this has an "energy transfer". Once the boot height to ski sole vs ski width is looked at we have an equasion that shows us how difficult it will be to drop the ski onto it's edge, and the stresses placed on knee or binding to ski interface. The science is there, the tools to test the forces are expensive, but available to us at the factories. We are also still concerned about flex ratings on the binding dins. Having now started to speak to the binding designers thoughout the industry it seems this is certainly a point to develop, especially as we are now looking at the binding elasticity and ROM outside of that of standard DIN settings. Where is Jonny Ball when you need him!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
CH2O, cheers, gleaning from the above you are saying wider than boot width skis:
- Put more force on your joints.
- May compromise binding release.
I'd definitely agree with the first bit through experience and the latter I defer to someone who knows more about bindings such as yourself. Although care should be taken because I think the assumption being made is that the skis is on edge on a hard surface rather than the typical conditions you would ski a wider ski where the contact surface is often the entire or majority underside of the ski under the boot. That would significantly change the way the forces are distributed.
I was interested as my normal skis are pretty much spot on to what you and slikedges were suggesting without having really thought about it.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 2-04-13 10:29; 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?
|
| meh wrote: |
| DB, same with piste skis. Weight and skill are the determining factors because they are the main causes of the forces applied to a ski. That's just stating the bleeding obvious. |
Maybe to some but how many people come on here asking what width ski they "need" for offpiste/powder skis without giving their weight? When the ave British skier rents piste skis the shop normally sorts out the right level of piste ski for them. When they buy themselves wide skis the shop/internet sites don't ask any questions about weight / skill etc. Look at the London touring thread, circa 100mm wide skis for a 57 kg skier 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
DB, not all skis are equal. One 100mm underfoot ski can be almost entirely different to another even if you only factor in ski length and stiffness. There isn't some prescribed level of 'flotation' one must not, on the pain of death, exceed after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| meh wrote: |
| DB, same with piste skis. Weight and skill are the determining factors because they are the main causes of the forces applied to a ski. That's just stating the bleeding obvious. |
Agree. If someone is looking at wider skis without a comprehension of this then they are seriously f**ked. Often models seem to scale down a bit in width in shorter lengths to provide some degree of compensaation. I know as far as demos go if they don't carry the longest length |(or next to longest in the mid-high 180s) of a ski I find the demo almost meaningless as it's clearly not built for my weight.
On the boot width/ski width point I don't know the answer - I do know wide skis generate more knee strain if you ski them badly. Personally my quirk is once I get to widths above say 115 I start to straight run them, (on hardpack) on an inside edge (kinda like a very subtle snowplough) as I find it very difficult to get a flat base on both skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
meh, Agree regarding softer snow, however we need a constant to provide data, given that we already use a static 100% resistant surface/machine to test DIN/Flex of boot/radius, we have to use the same to get any kind of symetric data. One day, one will be on ice, with one's 130mm skis/Dynafit Bindings and TLT5's, this kind of material vs data would prevent many skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| DB, not all skis are equal. One 100mm underfoot ski can be almost entirely different to another even if you only factor in ski length and stiffness. There isn't some prescribed level of 'flotation' one must not, on the pain of death, exceed after all. |
So a 57kg skier needs a softer ski, yes ? Ski touring isn't all about fluffy powder - side slipping down an icy slope isn't going to be a lot of fun for a 57kg skier on soft wide skis. I suspect the most common width of touring skis sold are around 85-90mm (maybe that's why dynafit have sold out of crampons for this skis width size this year). 57 kg is below average weight, if it's bleeding obvious that a lighter skier doesn't need as much surface area as a heavier skier why are we saying a 57 kg skier should be on circa 100mm wide touring skis? Maybe it's because we tend to pick a ski that suits us than him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, typically lighter skiers also tend to be smaller so a shorter ski is often in order rather than a 'less stiff' one and these days a ski being soft (or softer) doesn't mean it isn't torsionally stiff so can still get a reasonable edge grip on ice. Frankly I don't see anything particularly useful in thinking about skis in such a one dimensional manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
CH2O, yup, totally understand the need to repeatable tests, am just musing. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel a little 'bad' today. Just picked up a bargain new pair of Gotamas this afternoon. That will add 17mm extra under foot compared to my much loved and faithful 90mm pocket rockets. I tried retiring these a few seasons ago with some scott punishers but never got on with those. So 10 years back I was on fats that have become quite skinny, now I'm a little fatter again and rockered (never skied on rocked skis but the marketing men ensure me they are good for me).
Back to OP. I do think fats allow less experienced skiers to move to off piste (powdery off piste) before they are perhaps technically ready. I know one skier that has pretty much jumped straight on to fat skis, skipped pretty much any piste skiing with very poor technique. They have after several full seasons become quite competent off piste. BUT they certainly could have improved much quicker and to a far better level by working on their core skills on piste and resisting the wide planks. They do allow you to get away with shoddy technique, particularly in powder.
For me it's about a different kind of ride, I used to ski off piste on SL skis, then moved to what were fat skis at the time. The difference is the amount of effort required, ease of use, floatiness, platfullness, etc. I'm hoping now to get a floatier ride allowing me to open up the turns in the powder, hopefully the gotamas will be as playful and responsive and quick to turn. If not there's always ebay.
The only real bad skiers on wide skis are the ones stealing my untracked powder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
waynos, I guess the question is really:
Do you have to ski on piste to develop good fundamentals?
In the example above surely the issue is not learning the core skills fundamental to skiing and not the fact they skied badly off piste. After all there are loads of piste skiers with poor technique who rely on their skis being easy for the terrain in question. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| waynos wrote: |
| Back to OP. I do think fats allow less experienced skiers to move to off piste (powdery off piste) before they are perhaps technically ready. I know one skier that has pretty much jumped straight on to fat skis, skipped pretty much any piste skiing with very poor technique. They have after several full seasons become quite competent off piste. BUT they certainly could have improved much quicker and to a far better level by working on their core skills on piste and resisting the wide planks. They do allow you to get away with shoddy technique, particularly in powder. |
+ 1
| waynos wrote: |
| The only real bad skiers on wide skis are the ones stealing my untracked powder. |
The worst to me are those who attempt something offpiste well beyond their abilty that screws up the powder for others. These people are often as described above on wide skis. They fall over in couloirs and block them holding people up. They completely screw up snow on a slope so that few can enjoy the virgin powder to it's full extent because they've just put a big zig zag through it. If others take the time and trouble to build up their technique, is it fair that these people trash the powder snow for others ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, yup the mountains are free to everyone, even the elitist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Actually second thoughts, the worst are ex-snowboarders who obviously aren't used to having to build up a set of offpiste skills for longer than a weekend and jump straight onto a pair of fat skis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I'd recommend moving somewhere less crowded! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I've tried that, used to live near Tenbury Wells and it was bobbins.
Besides it doesn't matter if there's only two people wanting to go down the offpiste route, it only takes one to screw the whole thing up. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Assuming avalanche poodle duties is the only way forward in that case. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
meh, imagine standing in your shoes and leaning back on your heels: the back edge of your shoe doesn't stick out enough to stop you from falling backwards. Now imagine standing in skis and leaning back on your heels: the tail of the ski sticks out so it stops you from falling backwards. Same happens with ski width on a smaller scale. The protrusion of the ski sideways beyond your foot tends to resist you toppling sideways (edging). This is one of several reasons why fatter skis are more difficult to edge and slower edge to edge, and of course means that if you have a wider foot it's easier to edge any given ski. This holds in all situations but of course may be overcome or overshadowed by many different factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
