Talk sidecut radius

[FlimFlamvanHam]

There was time when sidecut was the enemy of the ski used in deep snow. Now, not so much, if at all.

Many still claim, "i want a high 20's radius" or my favorite (when referring to a tight radius big ski), "I found it hooky in deep snow".

I can appreciate wanting a high 20's radius if you actually honestly prefer long, open GS turns, but my guess is skis with an 18m radius can do similar but also are more willing to turn on pack and, to me anyway, that is just more engaging at a resort where conditions do no allow 50mph (because you will hit and kill someone or the morming groomed refreeze is all uneven and at those speeds you will blow up).

I know 10+ years ago a big sidecut was hooky in deep snow, but today's designs, with the way tips and tails are tapered, makes a good deep snow ski with the added benefit of hooking up more readily on edge. Two great examples: the Head Kore 105 and Dstar x106. (I am only talking about side cut and turn radius here so my negative opinion in every post I make of lightweight skis is not part of the discussion).

I guess the point I am trying to make is that a seemingly extreme sidecut/tight radius on a bigger ski still has a negative take on it. Should it?

[mr_pretzel]

A small radius doesnt feel as stable when going fast in variable snow, not just deep snow.

[adrenalated]

I don't like a tight turn radius, on any ski, in any conditions. Yes there are design attributes that can make a tight radius ski less hooky but all things remaining equal, the long radius will still hook less.

If you like tighter sidecuts, that's fine. But I still have never skied anything with a turn radius smaller than 22m or so that didn't feel hooky to me.

[TAFKALVS]

Dstar x106.

The only thing that I've found holds that ski back is the lightweight and lack of metal. If it had the layup more like the early Legends, no one would even mention the radius. it's not hooky.

[Cocximus]

Big radius works best for rad big carves and tight hop/skid skiing. Fuck with that and the ski sweet spot is too specific. Maybe we need some DPS certified tree runs that match their side cut.

[nickel]

What tripe.

[swissiphic]

Kinda found imo/ime that truly fat skis with a well designed tip rocker with mid to high 20m sidecut radius and have med flex stiffness have a great blend of versatility in turn shape. You can load them up and bend them into responsive short carves, pivots or windshield wiper turns while if you ski with soft paws basically have a nice stable unlimited turn radius for high speed maching in a wider variety of snow conditions...or you can stand on the downhill ski and just ride the side cut if things are a bit sketch.

Agreed on the tapered tips/more sidecut thing up to a point...my armada jj's are pretty damn versatile but just don't have the extra wide performance envelope as a less tapered tip, big fat med flex longer sidecut spec'd ski like the k2 darksides, volkl 2, k2 sidestash, volkl kuro, atomic phat boy powder plus, 194 volkl gotama, atomic heli star, Volant tii Chubb, etc...

The caveat for me is a longer sidecut radius fat ski that is too stiff and/or insufficient tip rocker just don't work for me at all. No feedback, no sexy flex, too much work, no love.

Having said that, I've never met a shorter sidecut radius ski that i've really liked aside from the jj's...found others leaned towards hookiness that different tunes never alliviated, they ski tour horribly in double penetration snow with a mid ski fold and bavarian beer belly bounce, and tips wander straightlining in breakable crust, upside down slabby snow and punchy moist spring snow.

[DropCliffsNotBombs]

I've met the enemy... And the enemy is excessive sidecut.

[XXX-er]

all the dentists love the wailer 112 , a great ski if you spend most of your life with your hands in someones mouth instead of skiing, I had the shinny topped ones, I liked em but I didn't love em, I actualy had a hell of a time keeping up to my buddy on his fairly soft Stokes becuz they did 23M turns and my Wailers did 16M turns or SFT, sold em & got the Lotus

[FlimFlamvanHam]

^^ yeah see, I don't get it. (edit this response is to dcnb's post not xxx-er)

I can move the widest point of tip back to under toe of my binding and widest point of tail back to under my heel, so now my ski has a 0.5m turn radius. As long as the ski in front of widest fore point and behind widest aft point is relatively close to those widths it will act similarly to a super long side cut in deep snow.

That is an extreme example. Look at the Kore 105 shape: that is what they are doing. The tips and tails are tapered but not pin tapered. It's like they are square. i mean really, these shapes are employing an almost reverse sidecut in front of and behind the actual sidecut that is in contact with hard pack.

Anyway, I dunno if I believe people are skiing todays shapes and really thinking, 'fuck, way too much sidecut' in deep snow. I contend that deep snow has no idea the Kore has an 18m radius for instance.

[SiSt]

At one end of this discussion, you have very short radius sidecuts, say 10m, where a 190cm ski ends up being an unskiable abomination.

At the other end, you have a completely straight ski, which is rather uninspiring on hard snow, but that would do pretty well everywhere else with the right flex and rocker profile.

Everything in between is a matter of compromise, depending on how, where and when you want your design to excel.

Sent from my SM-G950F using TGR Forums mobile app

[nickel]

I hate anything with a sub 25m radius. Also, turn radius does not correspond to size of turn in pow or any kind of 3d snow.

[sruffian]

At one end of this discussion, you have very short radius sidecuts, say 10m, where a 190cm ski ends up being an unskiable abomination.

At the other end, you have a completely straight ski, which is rather uninspiring on hard snow, but that would do pretty well everywhere else with the right flex and rocker profile.

Purely out of curiosity - do we have examples of this? I've skied straight skis but they've been skinny / not great for soft snow, and I've got a pair of 120 lotuses with a 54m sidecut and mellow rocker profile that are definitely not straight but do less than abominably on hard pack (surprised me with this). Just wondering if there are better examples than this

[Banh Mi]

I heart a 32 radius ski.

Praxis Rx, best ski ever


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

Long radius skis smear. Short radius want to carve on edge. Which means if you try to throw a short radius ski sideways at even moderate speed, it'll resist a smear and try to break into a carve. In other words, it hooks.

Skis like the kore 105 are somewhat acceptable because the tips don't really taper - they just go straight. So half of that ski effectively has a very long radius, which sort of makes up for the middle part of the ski having a short radius. None of that makes up for the ski being too light, of course. But it separates it from skis that taper inwards dramatically at the tip, which makes for a defined wide point that's hooky, and it makes for a ski that feels short on harder surfaces.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Banh Mi]

skis that taper inwards dramatically at the tip, which makes for a defined wide point that's hooky, and it makes for a ski that feels short on harder surfaces.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I have this experience with most skis that have a dramatic taper point in the tail. Like JJs. That wide point grabs the snow. I think I am overdriving skis like that though..


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[old goat]

Long radius skis smear. Short radius want to carve on edge. Which means if you try to throw a short radius ski sideways at even moderate speed, it'll resist a smear and try to break into a carve. In other words, it hooks.

I have no problem smearing my Automatic 117's with a radius of 19m. I was looking at a lot of 106ish skis recently and while I didn't look at the specs of every ski on the market I think 17m was as short as I saw. My Bonafides with a very similar radius don't care to go sideways.

I like skis with that radius. Hooky means the ski wants to turn tighter than you want to go. As an old decrepit skier i'm usually turning tighter than the ski wants to go so I never find a ski to be hooky; I'm more likely to be washing out my tails. The ski has to match the skier.

[MTT]

Where is epic ski when you need them. get these shit stains out of my internet ski world

[tuco]

I heart a 32 radius ski.

Yep

[nickel]

I feel like some would benefit from reading Shane's Brain Floss.

[toast2266]

I have no problem smearing my Automatic 117's with a radius of 19m. I was looking at a lot of 106ish skis recently and while I didn't look at the specs of every ski on the market I think 17m was as short as I saw. My Bonafides with a very similar radius don't care to go sideways.

I like skis with that radius. Hooky means the ski wants to turn tighter than you want to go. As an old decrepit skier i'm usually turning tighter than the ski wants to go so I never find a ski to be hooky; I'm more likely to be washing out my tails. The ski has to match the skier.

For whatever it's worth, I found the Backland 109 (same shape as the Automatic, I believe) to be super hooky. Whereas I found I could smear the Bonafides pretty easily (at least relative to other comparable skis).

I think the wider the ski is, the easier it is to smear, regardless of sidecut radius. I also find I have an easier time smearing traditionally shaped skis with a stiffer flex, regardless of width (hence my experience with the Bonafide). But I think that may just be what I'm used to skiing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[XXX-er]

I've got a pair of 120 lotuses with a 54m sidecut and mellow rocker profile that are definitely not straight but do less than abominably on hard pack (surprised me with this). Just wondering if there are better examples than this

yeah I have 2 pair of the red 2011 model Lotus 120 IME they do work suprising well everywhere, slarve completely sideways or let em make huge turns or anything inbetween.

The S/N are only 3 #'s apart so very definatly the same model, measuring the rocker by sliding paper under the ski ends on a flat surface the 184 has more rocker than the 190, 60cms of early rise vs 50cms

I don't know if thy had to do this to make the 185 turn easier but it defiantley is easier to handle, might be easier if I had another 40lbs to load them?

I still have a pair of JJ's for the rocks but I'm so over the 5 point design

[ill-advised strategy]

It's just a matter of what you're used to and what your default body positioning needs to be stable.
If skidding feels stable to you, a super long radius ski feels stable and a ski that wants to carve is hooky. If locking onto an edge feels stable to you, a shorter radius ski feels stable and a ski that won't do that feels like a plank.

It's all personal. There's no absolute right and wrong.

I love short radius skis, it's not hard to overdrive them into a skid once you get used to them. To me, it's easier to skid a carvey ski than to rail a ski with no sidecut...although I can steer and pressure a planky ski into a carve just like anybody else who grew up racing straight skis. If all we had was planky skis, I'd be fine, but I love the carvers. Everybody's different.

[GeezerSteve]

It's just a matter of what you're used to and what your default body positioning needs to be stable. * * * It's all personal. There's no absolute right and wrong.

This

I like skis with that radius. Hooky means the ski wants to turn tighter than you want to go. As an old decrepit skier i'm usually turning tighter than the ski wants to go so I never find a ski to be hooky

Likewise, these days for me. 15 years ago I preferred 25m+ radius, then moved to low 20s. I now make more turns and prefer 18m or so with modern tip/tail no-hook design that prevents hooking up. YMMV

[XXX-er]

Actualy there is right or rong depending on the situation, a carver is great for carving but I don't carve much out in the side country in fact I have skis i wouldn't take out there cuz I would get my ass handed to me

the carvey people carve and the planky people slarve, we are on the same hill but we don't see each other till the end of the day in the bar