Results 26 to 50 of 756
12-06-2011, 10:39 PM #26
splat - aboutt 90cm of effective edge. give or take, i guess.
Maybe I wasn't clear on this. I don't really care about 'carving'. Give me 1 inch of good wet snow and I'll make any shape turn you want Skis good at 'carving' already exist. Narrower skis that crush crust, and super setup cream cheese pow don't. I know you've skied super tapered skis in weird snow....it's like it doesn't even matter. Those skis only exist in wider incarnations and I don't want to put dynafits on them. Quit paying attention to only the waist measurement and the 'midfat' junk that goes along with one measurement. I'm talking about a winter and funky snow specific ski.....because of the shape and rocker profile, not just the width. See where I'm going here?
12-06-2011, 10:55 PM #27
# dimensions: 125/140/138/139/108, you wanted to JUST narrow the 138 to make 125/140/127/139/108
The wide tip point is then 13mm wider than the waist and the tail is 12mm wider. That's good bit of sidecut added. You're right it's actually closer to a crj or a new school protest than anything. Definitely the same direction I'm thinking. Just cut down on that difference in the tail and I'll buy them.
12-06-2011, 10:59 PM #28
12-06-2011, 11:22 PM #29
12-06-2011, 11:34 PM #30
my question for you is: do you want different skis to ski deep pow and sun effect/wind board/etc? i want to be on the same ski, and only have to own 1 ultimate BC ski.
or, to put it another way, what i am asking you is what does making these skis narrower GAIN you? are you worried about 150g in weight like shirk?
i do know that you, like me, are riding DH bikes in the spring, not touring all day to ski a 1000 foot chute with jump-turns.
it seems to me that you are asking for a 6" dh bike. sure its fun, but it just isn't as fun as a n 8" dh bike, unless all you do is ride with uncle crud on 8 foot wide highways, and it isn't as fun as a 6" travel trail bike either, because you can't pedal the thing anywhere.
Last edited by marshalolson; 12-06-2011 at 11:46 PM.
12-06-2011, 11:48 PM #31Originally Posted by 10% Groomed
Here's a better idea of what I'm talking about when I say LONG taper. This is the praxis
A and B are the wide points of the ski more or less. Everything in front of and behind those points is tapered to their respective ends. The position isn't all that different from an S7/JJ setup. But the middle section on those skis is SO much narrower than A and B that you get the 'compacted' sidecut I was talking about. 140-115-130 is fine if those 140 and 130 numbers are way out on the end (think Bibby-ish). But when brought into A and B postitions closer to the foot, those same numbers produce a much smaller sidecut radius. They make a hooky snowblade. Why the hell this has become so common, I have no idea. The protest, ARG and 138 keep that hookiness away by still having all three measurements pretty compact, but they're not that drastically different in terms of magnitude so you maintain a larger radius, straighter ski feel. It also gets closer to the pivoty slarvy feel of a true reverse/reverse.
When I say skis like the EHP aren't what I'm talking about that's it. The A postion is much further from the foot/closer to the tip. Yeah it's tapered, but it's not tapered that much (or more to the point not tapered over as long an area). Lots of skis have a similar B located taper so I don't feel I need to do any preaching on that end. But living in the sierraS, one thing I've definitely learned is that the more you lean a ski over, the wider it is in front of your foot and to a lesser degree also behind your foot, the more it's going to hook. More taper the better in funky snow. The spatula was literally born in this shit.
I just went outside and measured my (old) 188 protests and 188 CRJs. In both cases the widest point of the tip (A) is about 40 cm down the ski. Boot toe sits at about 80-82 cm from the tip, so roughly halfway to the foot. You could even go further back towards the foot but this shape works and the further back you go, the less of a difference you need to keep between width at A and underfoot to keep the ski straight and stable. Anybody got some 138 measurements of where that taper starts? I don't have any to measure. I bet it's similar or even further back. But that's roughly the biggest feature I'm after. A narrow-ish ski with a taper that long. It just isn't out there.
12-06-2011, 11:53 PM #32
l138 has 60cm "forebody", which is what you are talking about, above.
12-07-2011, 12:01 AM #33
Why narrower though? Usually the reason for narrower is quicker edge control. But if you give a damn about edging, you don't want something with 80 cm of effective edge (a direct result of more taper).
Touring/weight is a legit reason, just too specific for me I guess.
12-07-2011, 12:02 AM #34
Show me one ski that doesn't plane out like a beyotch at 50mph. With the same rocker profile even a narrower version will go sideways just as easily (or at least close) as the current 138. At least half of what enables it to do that IS the rocker and taper profile, not the width. It's not like a REALLY rockered and tapered ski that's 115 at the waist WON'T turn easily. Come on, you know this. You've skied the same lines you're probably skiing now on powder pluses. I'm talking about a ski that's STILL wider all around with more surface area than a ski like that AND a proven shape, that you KNOW you can throw around in any kind of turn you want in any kind of snow you want. Same proven shape, just narrower than that shape has been made so far. That's all I'm saying. Discount the shape and you discount what you already know you like. It's not just the surface area. I'm not talking about toothpicks here....still 112-118ish in width, and maintaining that general width for a good bit of the ski's surface. You've been skiing longer than I have, you know that still would have been the fattest powder ski ever just a few years ago.
Thanks for the 138 taper point. That's a 192 or 202 so I bet it's similar ratio wise to where the toe goes. (bout halfway?)
Last edited by kidwoo; 12-07-2011 at 12:13 AM.
12-07-2011, 12:21 AM #35
Let's remember something.
These are the spatula dimensions.
115-125-110 They look kind of small now don't they?
Put that 125 just a tad more foreward, a 115 just behind it, and a 117 right behind that. would move those wide points further out towards the ends.....sounds like some surface area preservation since they wouldn't be tapering off as quickly.
This is not a 'small' ski. In fact.........it's really really really REALLY close to what the OG spatulas were.....just a little flat spot in the middle on the rail. Don't you dare fucking tell me you couldn't float or throw spatulas sideways So what was it? SOLEY the surface area.........or what's that other thing......oh yeah the shape
12-07-2011, 12:28 AM #36
you probably ride plenty of the same bike trails now as you did on some horse-shit karpiel disco-volante, that does not mean you ride them the same way. same thing applies to a pow-plus and a l138, and heck, the same thing applies to a w112 and a pow plus, or an rx/concept, crj, etc and a pow +. you simply can open up such higher speed with so much more control and creativity its almost a different sport.
i mean, people rode 3" travel bikes with canti's 40mph down trails too, they just couldn't do anything other than point it and hope to not die. that was basically a different sport than DHing today. same thing.
i am on your side, of course, for the record. i really love exactly what you are after. shovel taper is fundamental to a TRULY versatile soft snow ski.... rossi axiom, spatula, 120/138, lhasa pow, crj, etc all have it, and they all shred funky snow in a way less tapered skis just cannot.
i think shovel taper is a very undeveloped aspect in ski shaping, and have been talking about the concept a long time. i think its cool other people are getting their minds around this stuff too.
but yeah, i mean, if you know what you want, no reason to order a group buy, just call up jared @ folsom or pete @ wager. done deal.
ps- why do you think every single spatula improvement ski that has come out since the spatula (praxis pow, ARG, l138, moment donner party, pontoon, pm gear spaltula) has gone to 130mm+? maybe because every single ski designer to ski spatulas wished it was wider, so it would work better? just a guess? i know the first thing i thought, after skiing a few runs on spats and getting super dialed on them was: 1. i wish these were longer and then 2. i wish these were 10mm wider. you are welcome to search my posts. i can 100% guarantee you i posted that numerous times on pow-mag c. 2002-2004, and probably at least a few times on here too, c. 2004-2005.
edit- i am not arguing with you. i 100% agree with you. i just want a ski that can carve super aggressively, but is super clean and loose off-edge. you don;t. and that is all good. the whole point of me jumping into this thread was me hoping to help you round-out your concept of shovel taper, since i have been thinking about shovel taper a lot over the years.
pps- i have some REALLY out there drawings on some of this i have been sitting on for a year or two i might scan and email over to you at some point, if you want to really go to the next place with this...
Last edited by marshalolson; 12-07-2011 at 12:48 AM.
12-07-2011, 12:41 AM #37
Seriously though you can't hold onto the idea that it's ONLY the surface area that gives those skis their character. I know you know what I'm saying.
I'm not going to lie. I want keith to do this ski. Because I asked him to do it years ago. I'm about to ask him again. People will smile when they ride it. They will buy it once reviews come out. I really want to say I told you so. Nah mostly it's just because his construction is the shit.
Shoot me some emails regarding the folsom and wager. I've got no baseline with those guys.
12-07-2011, 01:37 AM #38Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
i have no technical background for ski design or engineering but have been on praxis pows since the first camo ones (and a second pair a year later) and have skied extensively on 3 different versions of the lotus 120, one version of the 138, EHP 193's and a whole bunch of other camber tweaked skis with varying degrees of sidecut, rocker and width. i still do most of my touring (about 70 days per year, almost all in Alaska) on the lotus 120's. this season i cleared out a bunch of skis to add a pair of 193 cochise for resort skiing and some 196 Protests for sled skiing with non-tech bindings/big pow days. based on that experience I've thought a lot about the kind of ski you're describing for the past few seasons.
i ski a lot of soft snow here and a lot of variable snow. for a lot of my days the 138's (or praxis pow's but 2 lbs heavier) are the most fun touring ski ever but over the last 2 seasons i find myself grabbing the 120's more often because i like narrower ski on sketchier ups on windward or varying slopes and the 138's can get a little unruly if there's going to be some really hard snow mixed in on the descent as well. i do miss the looser shape of the 138's but the big tip splay of the 120 keeps from hooking too much and they are still amazing skis. in the spring time i go even skinnier because it's just easier to handle a narrower ski when there's going to be a fair amount of hard snow on the up and down even if mixed in with some soft or breakable conditions. Many times during mid-winter spells of less-than-perfect-pow i wish I had some skinny, rockered and relatively straight so i can still surf the soft without the penalty on the firmer snow.
I only ramble on about all of this to explain why I think a narrower protest-like ski would be a fun toy to have for the days when the 138 is awesome in the softer and breakable spots because of it's shape but is less ideal in the truly hard snow because of it's width. i'd be interested in checking out a pair next season if they come to exist.
another minor point: in anything soft, if i'm skiing well and balance, I can ski hard on my 120's with my tlt 5 carbon boots (with intuition plugs and boosters). I plan to try them on the 138's but am guessing that it won't be as fun if i hit hard snow. paired with lighter boots like these, the kind of ski your talking about would be rad for the kind of spring trips i like.
thanks for bringing this up.
12-07-2011, 02:53 AM #39For the 123-115-117 in a 187 the radius value is:
Haha I am so dumb its the same ratio over splay over contact length = also 50m radius.
After officially teching out and ruining this thread...
What would be cool compromise between the original Pintail and a new skinnier version of it.
Camber length: 100cm
Total tip taper: 54cm
Total tail taper: 34cm
Same Rocker profile as the current 188/187
Creates a radius of 41m. Tweaking the sidecut dimensions can create a radius of 30-50m. Thats the ski I could imagine would work well but shit I am not a ski builder I was just playing the inner geek tweaker.
123-115-117 is just something that I could not justify in my quiver. I have too many fat skis. The surface area is still going to be large on these things if the dimensions were 115-118-110-114-108. I think me and Kidwoo want the same type of ski but with different levels of weight loss. Its about getting the thing in a skin track keepings its positive features like smearyness and tree skiing performance. The intersting thing in the much skinner "abgespeckten" version of the protest is that in my mind it will still be very floaty because the weight is supported by the wide points being clost to mide sole.
2 big things for me that would need to be in this ski for me to say I would commit to buying it right now and even put a down payment on it sight unseen. Its widest point to be at 120 or under and it to have a waist in the 108-112 reigon. I have a 100mm, 101mm, 115mm, 130mm, 136mm waisted skis. This would have dynafits and be an exclusive touring ski. It can dump 100cm of pure blower and this skinner version would still be banger. You would just need to up your anti and ski faster. Carbon/glass layup to keep it light in the 8lb range and its an all time touring ski.
Thats where I am at atm with my opinions to this skinner more BC orientated ski.
Sorry for not tuning in but as a euro it was way past my bed time.
12-07-2011, 03:52 AM #40
Interesting read for sure, and nice to see the CountDown V being brought into the discussion.
However: The CountDown 3 is probably closer to the mark? 190cms, 135-115-122, measured radii (FriFlyt) 28 in the tip, 54 underfoot, 36 in the tail (adding up to a 40m radius in total), and a measured sidecut length of 110cms meaning there´s a lot of taper in both the tip and tail... Want something narrower/lighter? CountDown 4, 180cms, 120-102-107, same functional geometry, 1850grams pr ski. [/shameless plug]simen (at) downskis.com DOWN SKIS
12-07-2011, 06:49 AM #41
anyhow, wagner and folsom do full custom skis. just be prepared to spend $1800-$2400 on the skis, at least. same with igneous. they will make you whatever you want. just it will cost $$$.
or come up with 50 folks with cash in hand, and i will get some hybrids made for $800 each i am sure keith and splat or scott would be into doing it, no idea what their minimum would be, but the cost of design and molds would need to be probably in the similar Qty i would think.
Last edited by marshalolson; 12-07-2011 at 07:16 AM.
12-07-2011, 07:48 AM #42
Although it hasn't really been spoken, we also both agree that 110-115 under foot still floats great. Sure, maybe not 130 good but "so what" if you sink into the snow a tad bit more? I don't see the downside to that most of the time. Not to mention, its something I prefer coming off airs (punching into the snow a bit is a good thing!)
At 110-115 under foot, leverage starts to become more 1:1 (boot width is closer to width of the ski). This makes edging in firm environments far more realistic and easy. As much as I love skiing my praxis pows or 138s (when I had em), it can be a lot of work on the knees/ankles. With regard to crud and in bounds skiing, bringing the waist down would allow me to be a bit more precise with the ski in firmer environments.
Again, the idea is to keep the ski "unhooky", somewhat surfy, and fun in untracked snow environments but still retain stability, precision and control in harder environments. To me, that means a longer radius sidecut, no bigger than 115 under foot, Praxis-like splay (low), and a running length similar to a lot of your current "do everything" pow skis out there.
EDIT: I didn't refresh from midnight when I wrote this. Looks like I need to catch up before my response means "anything". P2 coming shortly...
12-07-2011, 08:19 AM #43
And yeah, I get the whole "I wish the Spat was wider thing" but I also think a lot of that is due to the fact you were never going to take that ski out on a harder day so "why not?". There really isn't a downside in that case.
Finally, I think what KW is REALLY asking for is a "modern trail bike" with DH bike pedigree/geometry. The three of us all know what that means. Everything short of a Top level/WC race course (or AK spines in this case) the ski will shred nearly as well as its DH bike brethren.
12-07-2011, 08:24 AM #44
Not quite sure what you are saying about needing to taper the shovel even more than the spat to retain the unhooky performance. In my experience, you don't need much taper (or splay for that matter) to gain the performance benefits. (Look at the Praxis pows at 134-138-129 for instance...they are essentially straight from the mid point to the tip and I have no problems throwing them sideways...)
12-07-2011, 09:08 AM #45Originally Posted by marshal
(1) NOW we all know how much shorter rockered skis feel stability wise compared to flatter skis. Closer to center mounts contribute to that as well. The fact that someone my size and my buddy who was 6'3" and 215 were on the same ski was silly. Props to DPS for knowing that longer was part of the equation (and the other guys that followed). I'm 5'8" though, 186 with a centerish mount is about all I can herringbone walk with without stepping all over the tails anyway.
(2) I remember every company out there in the 'race for fatter'. This was definitely that time period. Line's prophet 130, the moment comi.....there were lots of people thinking fatter for fatter's sake was better.
(3) One thing a lot of the changes you mentioned addressed was how sharp the taper was on the spat. The praxis pow in particular tapered more gradually so there was more surface area in front of the foot....it stayed closer to that wide point a little longer. Even I remember a few times thinking the spats didn't hook......but they did have kind of a dragging feeling near the tips where they got pretty skinny compared to underfoot. What keith did with the pow, he and tabke did with the protest. Just in terms of ratios, the tip stayed wide for longer with a 'mellower' taper. I went straight from spats to praxis pows and that's the first thing I noticed. But they were also fatter all around.....
I may be wrong. I can't 'know' exactly what everyone else was experiencing on those skis, just what I did. But I'm also coming from the west coast paste perspective more than the continental folks. FWIW there were TONS of guys around here that literally skied their spats until they fell apart (I still see these guys). Some people fell in love and never went back. Either that or poverty......I'm just assuming it's the former.
Thanks for the info on prices. I'm not paying 2k. I just don't have it. I can ski on my crjs and just enjoy skiing easier than I can come up with that much money right now. 50 pairs for a run? Damn that's almost as bad as tires.
12-07-2011, 09:31 AM #46
I know this doesn't concern the OP, but I would think this ski would also be awesome in spring skiing conditions.
12-07-2011, 09:51 AM #47
Not that I don't think your dream ski would be rad KW, but what about a skinner Pontoon?
Something like 110-124-112-106.
Long subtle rocker, 1-2mm camber (would it work on such a ski?), flattish tail.
12-07-2011, 10:17 AM #48
12-07-2011, 01:04 PM #49pura vida
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- The bottom of LCC
I was reading up on the Protest and I came across this quote from KW which I thought was somewhat related.
12-07-2011, 01:18 PM #50