Pintail Skis? What differences?

[nickd13]

Hi all

Basically I've never skiid a pintail design but was checking out the Lhasa Pows and EHP and they have pintails...

Splat told me that they ski very different but couldn't find a TR where this was explained, so basically could you help me?

What differences does it have with normal skis?
Any negatives?

Thanks

[D(C)]

Pintail both helps the back of your ski sink to keep your tips above the snow and helps with releasing from turns and not being locked into a particular radius, making it easier to vary turn shape.

As for comparing Lhasa and EHP: [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2347171"]Lhasa 186 vs EHP 186?? - Teton Gravity Research Forums[/ame]

[nickd13]

But what are the main changes I would feel if I was riding them, would you need to be more centered?

Also the no radius thing sounds amazing! So kind of like the slarvy pivoty R/R skis? Or am I totally mistaken?

[D(C)]

^^^
Pintails are only one part of the equation. How they ski and what balance they have depends on numerous factors such as tip to tail taper, rocker, mount point, sidecut, etc, etc. Using a ski with a pintail design will add some of the results I mentioned above but you cannot generalize about how pintailed skis ski. Many skis achieve a similar result through varying and balancing various design features. You're best to either demo or read reviews on specific models that interest you.

[toast2266]

I'd echo what D(C) said.

generally speaking though, I've found that pintails let you keep your weight farther forward than you could otherwise.

[Beyond]

IMO, a bunch of skis are called pintails when they're not. The Lhasa Pow would qualify as a semi-pintail, with a 18 mm taper, in same ballpark as a Mantra. The EHP has a 6 mm taper, so not even close. The Billy Goat, Prior Doughboy, and DPS Lotus 138 are true pintails, with well over 20 mm taper, and obviously the Pontoon takes the prize.

Of these, I've owned the Lhasa, Mantra, and Doughboy. I think that while D(C)'s totally right (it's hard to isolate one aspect of a design, any design), in general people seem to really like skis like the BG without realizing the taper is the biggest factor that sets it apart.

Meaning that if you could (mythically) keep all other variables constant, what a pintail theoretically gives you is the ability to break the rear loose or keep it tracking, your choice, without the full time looseness you get in a rocker tail. So it's a nice approach to variable conditions like you get in chutes, where you may need to get around fast, but also can need to deal precisely with really hard snow, followed by higher speed runouts in pow.

I've also noticed that a pintail is an interesting alternative to front rocker, since both yield a tip that wants to rise/stay up. But IME, you need to work more with a pintail to get its potential, compared to rocker. And neither design is optimal for landing.

And since you can't keep all the variables constant, yeah, it devolves back to demoing. Which can be tough for some indie skis.

[Ender]

Wow, that was heavy. Pintail lets you slide the tail around on hard snow, its fun. Lets you vary turn shape and "sink and pop" and pivot in deeper snow. Its fun. Go with it.

And (totally my opinon here) i dont think the mantra remotely qualifies as a pintail, pure traiditional shape. Im staring at a mantra and lhasa on my wall and just...no.

[Beyond]

i dont think the mantra remotely qualifies as a pintail, pure traiditional shape. Im staring at a mantra and lhasa on my wall and just...no.

Hear you, but they have 1 mm diff in the taper...

[SiSt]

Let me just add that pintail + tail rocker works like a charm. That´s all for now.

[nickd13]

So (theoretically) on hardpack the tail can slide around and in soft snow I can be more forward and sink the tails but also make shorter turns?

This all sounds cool, but I skiid the mantra this year and it really did not have any difference to other skis? So the Lhasa's would probably be the same?

[Beyond]

That's why I said that IMO the Mantra and Lhasa are "semi-pintails." I find a small effect in bumps or tight spaces where I need to pivot or smear. But the Mantra's tail is so stiff that I think the taper gets mostly cancelled out. The Lhasa's tail is easier going, but it also has a very mild tail rocker, so hard to know which is causing the effect.

The Doughboy, by contrast, with 25+ mm of taper and a flat tail (just raised at very end), is seriously easier to wiggle through soft in trees, including forming bumps. So that's a real effect. Can't speak to real pintail plus real tail rocker, have never skied it. Suspect it might be too specialized for me, could be exactly what some folks are looking for.

[SiSt]

A comparo:


Ski_____________specs_________tip-tail_______tip-mid_____tail-mid

BG 186_______140-116-125_______15___________24_________9

Lotus 120_____140-120-125_______15__________20__________5

LhP 186______140-112-122_______18___________28_________10

Ehp 186______129-116-123________6___________13_________7

Mantra_______133-96-116________17___________37________20


So: huge differences all over these skis, IMO, only the Lotus 120 can be said to be a real pintail, with the BG and Lhasa in an in-between position.

[SCCSkis]

Well it's been said but the pintail really lets you pivot/slarve in soft snow. They make tight trees much easier to ski. I've been doing a lot of work with the amount of rocker coupled with the pintail, minimal rise but long (>45cm) tip rocker seems to give great flotation.

[nickd13]

So pintail and rocker gives you great soft snow without sacrificing so much the hardsnow performance?

[Sessiøn]

So pintail and rocker gives you great soft snow without sacrificing so much the hardsnow performance?

You're not going to be railing GS turns, and banging gates on a pintail.

[SiSt]

It means you have to finish your turns yourself, not rely on the ski to do it for you. Keeping your weight forward helps.

But I find tail rocker helps a bit in this respect, with the rocker seemingly adding a bit of pseudo-sidecut in the tail and making the ski more lively. Having a pintail + rockered tail means the ski is really stable (in the same way that rev/revs are stable, ie not prone to do anything you don´t want, but with a loose feel) and not prone to hooking due to minimal sidecut in the tail, while retaining a playful character in all conditions.

[pfluffenmeister]

so approximately what difference in dimension (tip to tail) does it take to be a pintail?


i've been on the Goliath 191 (135-108-124; 30m r) for awhile (clearly not a pintail with only 11mm difference tip to tail + it has a square tail).

i recently picked up the Goliath Sluff 184 (134-99-116; 23m r) for something with a bit smaller turn radius. i'm going to mount some dynafits on them for a touring set-up. so the Sluffs have a 16mm difference tip to tail and have a slight twin.


pintail?


not that classifications make that much difference to me, just idle thought ...

in fact, i'm generally against classifications as they tend to cause division which in turn causes suffering.


is it winter yet?

[D(C)]

is it winter yet?

Sadly no, although I will be skiing this weekend.

[bridge]

How do pintails ski switch? I've never done it but seems to me like it would ski like an R/R on hardpack switch... anybody tried this out?

[nickwm21]

The only pintail experience I have is on the pontoon, perhaps the godfather of pintails (160-130-120)

I would like to echo what most have said. In powder, the pintail lets you slide out any sized turn, and the huge shovel allows (sometimes requires) you to be forward and weight the tips more. On hardpack, you will never get that locked in edge to snow feeling of a traditional ski, you need to slide out turns as well.

Being a pintail the skis are nowhere near symmetrical. This means skiing switch on them is retarded. There is a whole genre of pow sticks made with skiing switch in mind (JJ, ARG, Bentchetler, chopstick)

[Ira]

You guys are forgetting about the Rossi S7 or Super7. Although not a published dimension, the tail tapers significantly from the waist after a "normal" sidecut... Make smearing so easy with a tailliene that, and more versatile than the Toon...

[GeezerSteve]

No mention yet of the Shaman (160/110/130) with 30mm of taper (tip>tail), which is the best goddam wet pow/unconsolidated bottomless mush touring ski I've ever used. IMV, taper is more about avoiding tip dive more than the ability to smear the tail.

[JimLad]

I always thought a true pintail was narrower than the waist, not the tip...

[SiSt]

Like this then: Carpathian Skis, only two dimensions, tip and tail, straight taper inbetween.

Any other skis you know to satisfy your criteria?

[Beyond]

A comparo:


Ski_____________specs_________tip-tail_______tip-mid_____tail-mid

BG 186_______140-116-125_______15___________24_________9

Lotus 120_____140-120-125_______15__________20__________5

LhP 186______140-112-122_______18___________28_________10

Ehp 186______129-116-123________6___________13_________7

Mantra_______133-96-116________17___________37________20


So: huge differences all over these skis, IMO, only the Lotus 120 can be said to be a real pintail, with the BG and Lhasa in an in-between position.

I always thought a true pintail was narrower than the waist, not the tip...

Curious about functional definition. Meaning, what does a pintail defined ^^^^ do, or not do, compared to a pintail defined as significantly narrower tail than tip, regardless of waist?

Obviously, only difference is sidecut.

How will sidecut affect the tail? Seems to me that a very narrow tail coupled to a similar or wider waist (like a Pontoon) will smear and pivot beautifully, but be unhappy if you try to carve. Because the ski will behave a lot like an extreme dual radius: No curvature left for the end of the arc. (And maybe not much for the beginning.) It will plane differently, too, with a more pronounced angle up to the shovel. This is my experience with the Lotus 120, too. You need to seriously flex whole ski to create enough of an angle to carve all the way, and even then it's mumbling about getting back to the powder and could I please skid the last bit?

By contrast, a deep sidecut pintail will keep a potential to carve, and retain a tail that sinks, but it won't be quite as loose. And the midsection will have less float than the tail, so the tip won't achieve as big an angle. But it will still be easier to pivot or smear than a "normal" design. This is how a Mantra acts.

Whatever you want to call it, seems to me that second approach produces a more versatile ski, while first produces a more distinct experience in deeper soft.

FWIW, most reviewers and manufacturers seem to buy into the tip/tail taper def. But I agree that if you're talking powder, the waist/tail taper may more relevant.

But design questions: 1) The two pinups for pintail (Pontoon and Lotus 120) also have major front rocker. If the waist to tail taper already assures the ski will sit up in front, why also put in so much front rocker? Or is the rocker simply to increase the effective length in soft snow, rather than to change orientation of ski? (Not saying it doesn't work, trying to see why it works.)

And 2) How does complex sidecut affect this? Seems to me that the S7, for instance, ends up with a true pintail by ^^^^ definitions, since the taper from the rear reverse sidecut to the end of the tail is considerable, regardless of the deep waist traditional sidecut. OTOH, the tail rocker erases some of this taper except in deep powder, so less of a pintail in 6" than 2'.