a TRULLY straight ski?

[creaky fossil]

who has dimensions from a Clif Taylor GLM ski? those things were all about the heelpusher tactic

[Skiwurrel]

The Scott's may be on to something, they are supposed to be straight underfoot with sidecut at the tip and tail. I found they were totally bomber grip and smeary but if you really leaned the skis over and drove them they would start to carve. I liked the tail which was a twintip but felt like it had alot of power and grip. Skied the 190 but I would size down for a bit more maneuverability, plus they are pretty stout.

[Hugh Conway]

Lots of XC skis are straight, e.g., 44-44-44

aren't jumping skis pretty close to straight?

[BigDaddy]

And you have to dance to turn...

Which then makes them ghey...



It's a proverbial Catch-22.

[bbense]

aren't jumping skis pretty close to straight?

Jumping skis are completely straight, no camber, and they've got very soft tips and tip rocker these days.
. Short ones are 230cm, long 275cm.

[SiSt]

Jumping skis are completely straight, no camber, and they've got very soft tips and tip rocker these days.
. Short ones are 230cm, long 275cm.

And 110mm wide. Perfect for mtnlion.

[Cocximus]

Damn, I want a pair. 275 for mega core pounts.

[mntlion]

humm, might have to find a old pair of short jumping skis now....

[Cocximus]

Jong me, but why all the rocker...? Increase flotation in the air?

[skimaxpower]

Jong me, but why all the rocker...? Increase flotation in the air?

Less chance of a massive digger when making styly telemark landing?

[SiSt]

Jong me, but why all the rocker...? Increase flotation in the air?

Probably that and some more forgiveness on how they set up the skis relative to the direction of travel. Bad things happen when you get tipdive in the air.

[tuco]

Jumping skis are completely straight, no camber, and they've got very soft tips and tip rocker these days.
. Short ones are 230cm, long 275cm.

You forgot no edges.

[Cocximus]

Doesn't sound like they need edges. Just bomb down. I am sure they can stick a landing

[Beyond]

This is all IMHO...
Get it up on edge, and you're carving a straight line...

Uh, no, you get it up on edge and load it, and it flexes. Which produces a curved edge, and a turning radius.

OP: Most classic skis from the 70's and 80's had radii that were essentially straight, as in 50 or 60 m. As above; you either knew how to bend a ski or you went in straight lines until you stemmed back the other direction.

[Ted Striker]

Uh, no, you get it up on edge and load it, and it flexes. Which produces a curved edge, and a turning radius.

OP: Most classic skis from the 70's and 80's had radii that were essentially straight, as in 50 or 60 m.

But those skis did have some sidecut and/or taper, plus they had camber. They flexed into an arc because a part of the ski was wider than the waist, and the camber kept the tips (and sometimes tails) engaged. That's how you loaded them.

The OP was pondering about something 100% straight and flat, and significantly wider than your boot sole.

If you did jump turns, driving the tips onto the snow first you could load the shovels enough to carve a turn, but if you just rolled into it, I don't think you'd be able to flex it much because the whole edge is already engaged.

You can't really put a reverse sidecut ski on edge on hard snow and load it because you're pushing on the widest spot. A purely straight and flat ski would be only just shy of that.

[Beyond]

^^^ From what I understand of the physics, even in a flat straight ski, the middle will bend more than the ends as the skier's weight is applied, because the load is not uniformly distributed along the length of the ski, the ski is not uniformly stiff, and the snow surface is never perfectly hard. Put another way, the edges are not uniformly engaged.

So as the load is applied, the ski edge underfoot will sink minutely more into the surface, producing a very long reverse arc even if the tips and tails are no wider than the middle.

If snow were completely unyielding, and skis were equally stiff front to back, then you're right, you couldn't ever bend a flat straight ski against it.

[Cocximus]

But those skis did have some sidecut and/or taper, plus they had camber. They flexed into an arc because a part of the ski was wider than the waist, and the camber kept the tips (and sometimes tails) engaged. That's how you loaded them.

The OP was pondering about something 100% straight and flat, and significantly wider than your boot sole.

If you did jump turns, driving the tips onto the snow first you could load the shovels enough to carve a turn, but if you just rolled into it, I don't think you'd be able to flex it much because the whole edge is already engaged.

You can't really put a reverse sidecut ski on edge on hard snow and load it because you're pushing on the widest spot. A purely straight and flat ski would be only just shy of that.

I might have been young, but I am prettty sure they did not have any sidecut or taper.

[DoWork]

humm, might have to find a old pair of short jumping skis now....

No edges either, have fun with that JONG! (lol)


I have a single 230cm in my garage that's being converted to an 8 or 9 person shotski. Trust me though, they are not made for ripping anything. They're made to be super light boat sails you can click into for the most part. The straight ski idea is bad enough, but a jumping ski is infinitely worse than that even haha... I'd look into a pair of speed skis instead. Those are stiff as hell, almost straight and have edges and stuff too. I've seen a pair @240 that I couldn't even begin to hand flex.

[Ted Striker]

^^^ From what I understand of the physics, even in a flat straight ski, the middle will bend more than the ends as the skier's weight is applied, because the load is not uniformly distributed along the length of the ski, the ski is not uniformly stiff, and the snow surface is never perfectly hard. Put another way, the edges are not uniformly engaged.

So as the load is applied, the ski edge underfoot will sink minutely more into the surface, producing a very long reverse arc even if the tips and tails are no wider than the middle.

If snow were completely unyielding, and skis were equally stiff front to back, then you're right, you couldn't ever bend a flat straight ski against it.

Sure, I'll buy that.

[Ted Striker]

I might have been young, but I am prettty sure they did not have any sidecut or taper.

"Straight" skis from the 60s and 70s typically had a 7 mm sidecut. In the 80s (when I was in high school - yeah, I'm old :nono: ) sidecuts were increasing to about 10 mm. The 90s is when sidecuts went crazy.

All "straight" skis had tips wider than their tails, so they had taper too.

[westoxified]

That avatar means mtleon is trully straight, righ?

And to the Jong that said "infinity radius"- ha, impossible.

I love me some sidecut, but I guess straightness could be good for tele.

[tuco]

^^^ From what I understand of the physics, even in a flat straight ski, the middle will bend more than the ends as the skier's weight is applied, because the load is not uniformly distributed along the length of the ski, the ski is not uniformly stiff, and the snow surface is never perfectly hard. Put another way, the edges are not uniformly engaged.

So as the load is applied, the ski edge underfoot will sink minutely more into the surface, producing a very long reverse arc even if the tips and tails are no wider than the middle.

If snow were completely unyielding, and skis were equally stiff front to back, then you're right, you couldn't ever bend a flat straight ski against it.

Wouldn't it be the ends of the ski that are bending to make that reverse arc. I don't know of one ski that is more flexy in the middle than the ends. Maybe I don't understand what your saying here?

[mntlion]

any new thoughts on this?

anyone have a goode or Coreupt version that they want to sell/give so I can try this?

[skiitsbetter]

kastle bmx 128 tails are only 6mm wider than the waist. might get you close to what you are looking for. My brother has a set sitting around in his garage.

[Game Over]

333 skis?