|
Post by ToddW on Nov 18, 2013 19:17:52 GMT -7
Don't worry, Todd. I've crash-tested my pair at speed, and the binding released just as I was thinking "it'd be really nice if this ski came off right about now..". Dan, You're amazingly cool and composed under pressure. I'm proud when I can muster a two-word thought under those circumstances. Yesterday when two snowboarders decided to straight-line the steepest open slope and see how close they could buzz the only skier (me) on both sides, all I could manage was a primal scream of terror. One of them brushed my arm, but his buddy was too chicken for physical contact (and lost the race by about two body lengths.)
|
|
|
Post by superbman on Nov 19, 2013 6:28:22 GMT -7
I choose my skis for the day as much by turn radius as width, based on how fast I plan on going. Going fast on a 12m ski or slow on a 23m ski isn't fun for me. I'm 5'7" and down to around 150lbs now. Dan, Do you think that is a function of turn radius or nature of ski construction…I have skied skis in the 18-21m range that are easier to ski slow (such as the RnR, Past head monsters, the Howitzer, etc) than some shorter radius skis that were designed on more of a burlier, race-construction platform and no 'modern' enhancements (aka: rise and rocker and round turned up tails). It just seems that it is not just the sidecut ratios of the skis you use, but the general burly GS ski vs. slalom ski. The RnR is easier to ski (as you'll find out) at moderate speeds even on a semi busy slope than full-bore race room rippers of any turn radius. At least that is my experience. Also, why can't you go fast on a 12m ski?? How fast is fast? I used to ski a élan speed wave 14 that had an average radius of 14m, I think I skied that faster than any other front side I have been on. And my 172cm Contact 4x4's (14m turn) were also better at speed than my higher turn radius skis. All that said, I like your commitment to race-oriented skis, helps to make every ski day a focused athletic endeavor. Do you like the women's gs ski? I had thought of going that route to get a modern race gs ski with a lower turn radius than 27m. I remember once reading a post by Joey Cordeau when he was pimping his Sun valley Mogul Method where he recommended mid length Women's GS skis as the Ideal bump ski (for his style of bumping). I've always wondered if that was good advice.
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Nov 19, 2013 8:33:28 GMT -7
Dan, Do you think that is a function of turn radius or nature of ski construction…I have skied skis in the 18-21m range that are easier to ski slow (such as the RnR, Past head monsters, the Howitzer, etc) than some shorter radius skis that were designed on more of a burlier, race-construction platform and no 'modern' enhancements (aka: rise and rocker and round turned up tails). It just seems that it is not just the sidecut ratios of the skis you use, .... The excellent point you are both making is that the "published turn radius" isn't really the turning radius, it's the radius of the sidecut of the ski when the ski is flat. Turn radius is a function of bending the ski, and as SuperBMan says, a softer ski will be easier to turn at slow speeds because it is easier to bend without the greater momentum of faster skiing. So Svend or Living Proof will get shorter turns out of a given model and length of ski than Dan or you or I, because they are 6'2" or so and 30 lbs heavier, and therefore will bend the ski more at a given speed. Force = Mass x Acceleration (or deceleration in this case), and greater mass equals greater force on the ski at a given speed.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 19, 2013 9:11:42 GMT -7
this is due to the overall construction of the ski. I just posted on this to Mike. A ski will turn/react differently given the position of the TR (widest point of ski) on the shovel and tail, taper, flex pattern, rocker profile, materials used in the core and.... Mount point. The mathematical stuff way too techy; but sounds so good This is why getting too wrapped up in width is not a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Nov 19, 2013 11:32:28 GMT -7
This is why getting too wrapped up in width is not a good idea. Agreed, which is why I calculate the actual surface area of my skis and keep them ordered by "float", not by published sidecut numbers. I make more of my ski for the day decisions based on how much float I anticipate needing. I've already figured out the sidecut side of things in what I have purchased (and most of my stuff has pretty deep sidecuts) so that kind of cuts out that element in the decision making process.
|
|
|
Post by livingproof on Nov 19, 2013 17:07:29 GMT -7
Dan, Do you think that is a function of turn radius or nature of ski construction…I have skied skis in the 18-21m range that are easier to ski slow (such as the RnR, Past head monsters, the Howitzer, etc) than some shorter radius skis that were designed on more of a burlier, race-construction platform and no 'modern' enhancements (aka: rise and rocker and round turned up tails). It just seems that it is not just the sidecut ratios of the skis you use, .... The excellent point you are both making is that the "published turn radius" isn't really the turning radius, it's the radius of the sidecut of the ski when the ski is flat. Turn radius is a function of bending the ski, and as SuperBMan says, a softer ski will be easier to turn at slow speeds because it is easier to bend without the greater momentum of faster skiing. So Svend or Living Proof will get shorter turns out of a given model and length of ski than Dan or you or I, because they are 6'2" or so and 30 lbs heavier, and therefore will bend the ski more at a given speed. Force = Mass x Acceleration (or deceleration in this case), and greater mass equals greater force on the ski at a given speed.Jim, Let me disagree with the hypothesis that bigger people get shorter turns. I've skied with Helluvaskier, who is 5'8" and 165 lbs or so, and, nobody gets tighter turn radius than him...well almost nobody except Harald. Look at High Angles's avatar and observe his body angles. I can't turn with High Angles! To me, it's all about the angles we make that result in increased angles of the ski with snow. Look at your avatar, and mine too, we do not begin to match what High Angles can obtain, and, he's not the the biggest guy on the forum, but, one of the most accomplished skiers. Angular velocity, from high edge angles, offsets body mass, there are two independent variables in the Mass x Acceleration equation. There is another equation stating momentum = mass x velocity (squared). Great skiers don't scrub their momentum like you and I. What I would agree with is that if a heavier skier just points his skis straight down the hill, that skier will obtain a higher velocity than a lighter skier skiing beside him (all other factors being equal). Here acceleration is a gravitational constant. BTW, if you need to better understand the angular velocity concept, check out this discussion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocityand then explain it to me! Or at least that's what I think, but, I have been known to be wrong....on a whole bunch of topics.
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Nov 19, 2013 17:22:13 GMT -7
For a given ski at a given speed. (so maybe I should have added for a given skill level)
The point I was trying to make is that there is a lot more to turns than just the sidecut. I will look at the angular velocity later, and then "might" try to explain it. I think you are more of an engineer than I.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Nov 19, 2013 20:41:04 GMT -7
This discussion brings up the whole ski flex issue. We speak often on the PMTS forum about the fact that many skis (if not most) are far too stiff for most recreational skiers. The thought is that stiffer skis "feel" better for skiers who use technique that results in heavy late edge sets. In order for PMTS movements to reward the skier, the skier should be able to flex the ski sufficiently when they are successfully performing the movements. When we're learning we're generally moving slower so it's even more important to get on a ski that doesn't out-gun your abilities.
So Heluva, HH, Max_501, etc. use skis that have more accessible flex patterns - they can really work the ski from tip to tail from the top of the turn and through the apex. Body mass obviously plays into this, but technique plays the larger role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 21:03:52 GMT -7
This discussion brings up the whole ski flex issue. We speak often on the PMTS forum about the fact that many skis (if not most) are far too stiff for most recreational skiers. The thought is that stiffer skis "feel" better for skiers who use technique that results in heavy late edge sets. In order for PMTS movements to reward the skier, the skier should be able to flex the ski sufficiently when they are successfully performing the movements. When we're learning we're generally moving slower so it's even more important to get on a ski that doesn't out-gun your abilities. So Heluva, HH, Max_501, etc. use skis that have more accessible flex patterns - they can really work the ski from tip to tail from the top of the turn and through the apex. Body mass obviously plays into this, but technique plays the larger role. Ain't that the truth! Well said, and I whole-heartedly agree. There are a lot of people I know who should read that post, and then get their ego out of the way and read it again until it sinks in. This is true, I'm sure, for whatever technique someone uses, whether PMTS or other. Good one, H-A.
|
|
|
Post by danboisvert on Nov 19, 2013 22:04:59 GMT -7
Dan, Do you think that is a function of turn radius or nature of ski construction…I have skied skis in the 18-21m range that are easier to ski slow (such as the RnR, Past head monsters, the Howitzer, etc) than some shorter radius skis that were designed on more of a burlier, race-construction platform and no 'modern' enhancements (aka: rise and rocker and round turned up tails). It just seems that it is not just the sidecut ratios of the skis you use, but the general burly GS ski vs. slalom ski. The RnR is easier to ski (as you'll find out) at moderate speeds even on a semi busy slope than full-bore race room rippers of any turn radius. At least that is my experience. Also, why can't you go fast on a 12m ski?? How fast is fast? I used to ski a élan speed wave 14 that had an average radius of 14m, I think I skied that faster than any other front side I have been on. And my 172cm Contact 4x4's (14m turn) were also better at speed than my higher turn radius skis. All that said, I like your commitment to race-oriented skis, helps to make every ski day a focused athletic endeavor. Do you like the women's gs ski? I had thought of going that route to get a modern race gs ski with a lower turn radius than 27m. I remember once reading a post by Joey Cordeau when he was pimping his Sun valley Mogul Method where he recommended mid length Women's GS skis as the Ideal bump ski (for his style of bumping). I've always wondered if that was good advice. I think it's a combination of things, but I haven't tried nearly as many skis as most of you guys have. Most of my exposure is from hanging out with racers the past few/several years. SL's are always short and turny, GS's not so much, etc. Short radius and softer flex go well together to make a low-speed, turny ski. Longer radius and stiffer flex go well together to make a higher-speed, less turny one. A long ski with a short radius, like the Head GTO, sounds like a great way to kill myself. The 200cm length is going to make me want to fly, and then I'm going to put it on edge and get a cheater GS radius. If the thing hooks up at speed (and with 200cm of edge it just might), I don't think I'd be able to hold the forces generated, which sounds like it'd be an unpleasant discovery at the speeds I'd want a 200cm ski for. I think it's probably possible to make a short-radius ski super stiff, but then the tip would be too stiff for it to be very useful, so I don't think it'd arc very well. I don't like skis that are noodly in general, so making a long-radius ski really soft doesn't sound appealing to me, either. Anyway, I probably know the least of anybody here about skis, but that's my take on it. A 12m ski wants to turn too tightly for me to want to go fast on it. If I try to keep it flat, the sidecut responds to minute surface variations and wants to pull it to either side too quickly to be stable, so I have to keep it a touch on edge, which gets it turning faster than I really want. GS skis are way more stable and confidence-inspiring at speed. I don't know how to quantify "fast". I'm not one of those guys who tracks stuff and uses GPS's or radar guns; I just go skiing with fast dudes and try to keep up. I like that women's GS ski a lot. I actually wanted SL's at the time, but Glen picked out the GS's for me and convinced me to buy them instead. I was really glad I listened. It opened up a whole new sensation of security at speed for me, and I could finally keep up when he brought out GS skis. Prior to that, I had to literally track him down the mountain by the trenches he left, and catch up with him at the lift. Mine may be for sale if I'm able to handle the men's GS's. Rule 1 when I bought them was to keep them out of the bumps, because I'd wreck them. I was told it's easy to bend or break a GS ski by skiing bumps with it, so that advice you mentioned from Cordeau sounds strange to me, but he probably forgot more about skiing than I'll ever know, so who am I to say?
|
|