Why don't the indie companies put metal in their skis?

[adrenalated]

Paging iggyskier to the ski building courtesy phone.

I can't think of any small ski company that uses metal layers in any of their skis. ON3P, Praxis, PM Gear, Moment, etc etc all make fantastic skis, but none of them make a ski with metal in it. Why is this? Is it too hard to do without some sort of expensive equipment that the little guys can't afford?

I'm a huge supporter of the small, USA built ski companies, but I do really like the damp, smooth feel of a ski with metal for a resort setup. Right now that means I have to go to a mass produced company.

[Sublime]

Paging iggyskier to the ski building courtesy phone.

I can't think of any small ski company that uses metal layers in any of their skis. ON3P, Praxis, PM Gear, Moment, etc etc all make fantastic skis, but none of them make a ski with metal in it. Why is this? Is it too hard to do without some sort of expensive equipment that the little guys can't afford?

I'm a huge supporter of the small, USA built ski companies, but I do really like the damp, smooth feel of a ski with metal for a resort setup. Right now that means I have to go to a mass produced company.

If I had to guess it would be that titanium is damn expressive to buy at a smaller level. Not to mention the tools that it would cost to fabricate and cut the TI to spec. Not like you can cut the stuff with Home Depot specials. You can do a whole lot more with carbon fiber then with TI at a fraction of the cost.

[doughboyshredder]

It's not titanium.
It's titanal, which is just aluminum with a special coating to promote adhesion.
(interestingly I did some google searching and found that some companies are using titanium and titanol interchangeably in their marketing, which is bullshit, but oh well).
from the K2 site:

METAL LAMINATE TECHNOLOGY
With two sheets of lightweight titanium alloy running the length of the ski, metal laminate skis are the highest performing and most complex constructions available from K2. Built from the base up, this construction consists of alternating layers of fiberglass and titanium above and below the wood core. Metal laminates provide damp, accurate, unshakable performance, ideal for expert level all-mountain skis.

METAL LAMINATE SKIS
Our women’s skis use a thinner layer of Titanal compared to the A.M.P. line which further reduces the overall weight of our women’s skis while still providing the dampening characteristics produced by a metal laminate ski construction

probably just a mistake by the marketing gurus that don't know titanal is aluminum.

I personally don't see any purpose in adding titanal to a ski that is going to be used for anything other than groomers and most indy skis aren't built for groomers.

The dampness felt in most mass produced skis with titanol is not necessarily due to the metal, it's mostly due to other factors. Mass produced metal skis are thicker and stiffer with extra reinforcements to counteract the inherent flaws of having a metal layup. High end race boards (skis) that are built properly with metal are incredibly damp, but will literally fold if they are severely over flexed by taking a digger or hitting a lift tower, etc...

[åsanisse]

Can I have two tit-anals?

[Spats]

Metal makes skis delaminate more easily, since its coefficient of thermal expansion is very different than that of fiberglass and wood. (This is why Volants tend to delaminate: metal on the outside, where it gets coldest, exacerbates this problem.) They can also bend.

In other words, more warranty returns.

[single]

I'm a huge supporter of the small, USA built ski companies, but I do really like the damp, smooth feel of a ski with metal for a resort setup. Right now that means I have to go to a mass produced company.

I would try to get my hands on a hybrid DPS to try out if I were you... Or an iggy, depending on the shape you were looking for.

Metal makes skis delaminate more easily, since its coefficient of thermal expansion is very different than that of fiberglass and wood. (This is why Volants tend to delaminate: metal on the outside, where it gets coldest, exacerbates this problem.) They can also bend.

Not only that, but it is not easy to get metal to bond well. Look at volkl. Tons of delams on the mantra/explosive/aura, and they have been doing it for ages.

[Sinecure]

The Alpine snowboard business went through this whole titanal thing a few years ago. Now most of the small mfgs offer Titanal boards (Prior, Donek, SG, etc.). It has definitely enhanced damping in the boards. And there aren't delam issues. The metal that's in there is a sheet almost like tin foil. Its easy to cut. But it definitely added to the manufacturing complexity and cost.

FWIW, I've found my Lhasas to be surprisingly damp. What's more, I've been really surprised by the fact that the early-rise nose on them doesn't impart lots of vibration to the underfoot part of the ski when it is flapping around at high speed on groomers. I haven't run the skis at total mach looney, but I have done fast carving turns and straightlining on very firm snow. The only time I notice the shake in the tips is if I look down at them. If I watch where I'm going, they still flap around, but I can't feel it underfoot. At first I found this weird, now I like it.

[Name Redacted]

Good question Adrenalated. It's because these small indy fabs survive mainly on the money shelled out by consumers who are more interested in skis that are unique than functional. These indy manufacturers need only to build a basic ski design that any major manufacturer could spit out in a few minutes, then charge a premium for that ski because there are only a few hundred in production. Why would they add expensive metal to their skis when they don't have to? You retarts are gonna buy them anyway because of the pretty colors, 150mm waist, and mainly because someone on an internet forum said they were cool.

That's my jaded thanksgiving post doused in a fine layer of sarcasm gravy.

Actually, it's probably because metal skis bend if you ski them too hard. I've seen 60+yo guys bend volants on groomers.

[Mannix]

Good question Adrenalated. It's because these small indy fabs survive mainly on the money shelled out by consumers who are more interested in skis that are unique than functional.

I've only skied a handful of the "indie" skis. That said, I've been largely underwhelmed.

Most of the indie skis have struck me as damp (read: lifeless), lame, ehhhh-whatever skis; I find myself looking for something _to_ like about them.

Example - not an indie, by any stretch, but I skied a short (177?) Mantra one day a couple of seasons ago. Not a ski I expected to like (groomers with kid, did not really matter what I was on), but I found it's happyspot; for me, medium-radius turns at medium speeds. I could find _something_ they were good at. I'm sure the Mantra is a great ski, just not for me - but I can see _why_ people like them.

The indies I've been on? I can't figure out why people buy them. They just do _nothing_ for me, I could not even make them do SOMETHING nicely/well. At least on the Mantra, I found something that made me "get" it.

I've kinda come to the same conclusion as Shredgnar (understanding that his comments are a bit in jest, or at least I think they are) - the indies are selling not only a ski, but a culture, logo, topsheet, "lifestyle" or some other such nonsense.

Disclaimer, not skied all of them, and I've skied lousy big-company skis, too, I'm sure some are fantastic, just because it is an indie does not mean it sucks, etc etc etc - I've just yet to get on an indie-ski and say "I must have this."

Shrug. Dunno why the indies don't have metal, probably cost/bending/etc. I am starting to develop a shredgnar-esque jaded viewpoint of the indies, though.



Iain (and just about anything works in powder, and that's all most of us care about anyway.....)

[roadgap]

I've owned 3 different sets of 'indie' skis - one pair were pretty much total garbage, the 2nd pair (from the same company) are great skis which I absolutely love, and the 3rd are sitting in my living room waiting to be skied once there's enough coverage - but look fantastic and are obviously very well constructed.

[DudeLebowSKI]

I'm pretty sure that the main reason indie companies don't use metal is that it poses production problems that small in-house operations are unable to deal with.

I also agree that most indie companies are making niche skis IE. Super fat, in which case you would have a weight issues using metal. Park skis, in which case you have delamination issues with metal.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I have a pair of indie skis that are badly made that I love. I had a pair of beautifully made indie skis that sucked. I keep buying indie skis to use with Dynafits (dps, pmgear, interested in Praxis BC carbon) because no one else makes 7.5-8lb/pair midfat-fat skis that aren't noodly or easily pushed around(K2,G3, Dynafit). If they had metal I wouldn't buy them.

[Chowda]

I'd guess weight is a major factor, since much of the indie market is bc oriented.

Also, I think metal is sort of a legacy tech. Now with so much freedom to use shape and profile to change ski behavior metal is just not needed. IMO early rise and decreased camber effectively "dampen" skis as much as titanal.

[Shorty_J]

I too, tend to like skis with metal in them. I find them damper and more forgiving. I find I can make almost any ski "poppy" with the right technique, but I don't like getting bounced by a ski when I didn't intend it.

There is definately a market for lighter skis for touring, and I own a pair myself, but if some indies offered their ski in a thinner core profile with metal, I would buy them for resort skiing.

[verbier61]

Very interesting.
I'm learning tele, and i've found that a k2 with a bit of metal has a shorter learning curve compared to a non-metal counterpart.
Said that, it would be so useful to have insight from stephan, splat, iggy.......

[Shorty_J]

^^^ I think damp skis (i.e. with metal) are more forgiving because they dissipate the energy of terrain irregularities and technique mistakes.

[capulin overdrive]

PM Gear Super Bro has metal.

DPS has some metal this year, but used deferently.

guess Line, probably doesn't count as Indie anymore, but Motherships have metal.


yea some of the old flat metal skis are damp, but i'm also getting them out of the quiver and replacing them with INDIE BAMBOO.


bamboo bend, not break!


Indie vs Big Guys? i'll go with the Indie! better edges, bases, etc. Price is a non issue, or maybe even an edge to the Indie guys. the Indie guy's early prices are better than the big guys for new models. to get deals of the big guys, you gotta buy the year old stuff in the early fall.

[bennettc14]

I'd guess weight is a major factor, since much of the indie market is bc oriented.

Also, I think metal is sort of a legacy tech. Now with so much freedom to use shape and profile to change ski behavior metal is just not needed. IMO early rise and decreased camber effectively "dampen" skis as much as titanal.

I'm surprised no one brought this up sooner. Push around/hike with some XXLs with PX18s for a few days and you'll get the point pretty quick. You can make skis plenty beefy with just fiberglass/carbon fiber (think M1s/Garbones, 192 Bros) and not add the weight of metal layers and the cost of manufacturing said above and the bending. Still nothing wrong with an XXL/Explosiv though if you don't mind the weight, however most will go lighter any day if they have the option. My 187 XXLs with PX18s are significantly heavier than my 192s with Dukes that are wider and just as damp.

[XtrPickels]

PM Gear Super Bro has metal.

Made by AK

[single]

Made by AK

which, in regards to volume, is still pretty indy. Unless they have some hudge euro market I am missing.

[nate s]

For me it's the weight for touring. The mass produced skis that are 8 lbs are not even close to a Lotus 138 in skiability.

In bounds, however, I like the heaviest, dampest skis I can find.

FWIW, I've found my Lhasas to be surprisingly damp. What's more, I've been really surprised by the fact that the early-rise nose on them doesn't impart lots of vibration to the underfoot part of the ski when it is flapping around at high speed on groomers. I haven't run the skis at total mach looney, but I have done fast carving turns and straightlining on very firm snow. The only time I notice the shake in the tips is if I look down at them. If I watch where I'm going, they still flap around, but I can't feel it underfoot. At first I found this weird, now I like it.

Are you talking about the carbon Lhasa? Just curious as I find it one the most undamp skis I have ever ridden. Yes, they rail on groomers but bulletproof off piste conditions are difficult. If it is soft, they are $, I really like them as a touring ski but find them incredibly jarring on anything refrozen or chunky. Compared to a Pow +, XXL, Shoot or Axiom kind of ski there is no contest.

[eldereldo]

I have 186 carbon Lhasas and 196 Fiberglass and I found the Fiberglass to be much better damped, they will ride over chopped up stuff that throw the carbons around, I am sure the 10cm extra length helps, but still the fiberglass seems to take away more of the jarring.

[splat]

For us to make a ski that swings equally superb both in and out of the resort, equally satisfying all parties in the damp to light dichotomy controversy of glass/carbon vs metal is, as you know, our ultimate goal. I have some ideas that have not yet been put to test that would achieve more damp without adding weight, but they'd increase cost. Between hemorrhaging money and pressing skis and protos on one press for seven years, full time testing suffers. We have a punchlist of new things we'd like to do that we think will improve many aspects of the skis, including some ideas to get that desired light/damp correlation, but alas, we can only go so fast without doubling the price of the skis to support the R&D we'd like to be doing.

[kidwoo]

I've only skied a handful of the "indie" skis.

Most of the indie skis have struck me as damp (read: lifeless), lame, ehhhh-whatever skis; I find myself looking for something _to_ like about them.

Hahaha!


Keep on truckin!

[Mannix]

My mistake. Should have read "most of the indie skis that I've skied on...."

They don't ALL suck. I can think of 6 that I have skied. I can think of one that I'd consider buying, one I liked, the rest were just....there.

So, in my admittedly small sample, 66% strike me as dead, uninspiring skis.

Absolutely does NOT mean I think all the indies suck. Not the case; I just see Shredgnar's point re: "more unique than functional." I've skied a lot of skis, and when it comes time to buy a new pair, there's a few on the list that *are* indie-brands (DPS, Ski Logik and Fatypus). I'd like to ski them first, and I certainly HOPE they're at least comparable to the corporate-giant variants, but I'm not going to buy an indie ski just BECAUSE they're "indie" or "core" or whatever, I'm going to buy the ski I like the most. If it comes down to which brand - two similar skis, one indie, one Walmart - I'll buy the indie.

To be clear; I'm not saying they all suck (that's basically what I said, but did not mean to, oops), just that 2/3 of the ones I've been on did not strike me as Skis I Had to Have.



Iain