Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 100
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    7,926
    In my case, selecting a 100ish woman's ski to replace my wife's old skis, i primarily I wanted a ski that has a loose tail and low swing weight to help her stay confident and off of her heals in steeps with chunder and bumps. This is where she struggles.

    She also doesn't have a lot of angulation on piste. She learned to ski later in life than most of us.

    Will metal help her? No. She doesn't go fast through chop or rip high speed high angle turns.

    Can a metal ski have a loose tail? Sure.

    Does she have enough angulation and speed to take advantage of metals dampening and torsional characteristics on a 100 ish skis on groomers? Meh, probably not.

    Her old skis don't have metal either, and they have been kicking her ass lately. ON3P Viciks that were my stepsons, then hers. They worked fine for her for a few years as she has built on her fundamentals but she has been following me and now our daughter into ever more aggressive terrain and they have not been doing her any favors.

    Santa Ana was a leading contender but she doesn't need the metal and the reviews I read from woman don't agree with my opinion of the E104 which imo couldn't be any more loose and turny unless maybe they were a street hooker.

    She demoed Ripstick 102's last year. They weren't an improvement. I wouldn't let her demo the female version of the Rustler 10 because those were some of the worst skis I have ever skied.

    I wish she could have tried the SA and a few more skis.

    So, based on Blister mostly, Rallybirds it is. It isn't about the lack of metal so much as it is just a ski that targets what she needs right now.

    Also,.the Rallybird Ti certainly sounds more demanding than the Rallbird.

    So the answer is probably yes, but it depends.
    Last edited by uglymoney; 09-27-2022 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Danby
    Posts
    2,359
    Even though rustler 10 isn’t a fan favorite around here, it is a favorite amongst a lot of beginner to intermediate skiers. It doesn’t do what I need it to but I know a lot other people that love it. Bottom line is, there is a zero percent chance any of us buy skis without demoing them, or buying them with the full intention on reselling if they suck for us. With that being said, if your wife needs new skis, then the last person selecting them should be the person not skiing them and basing decisions on your own wants, desires, and preconceived notions of how a ski will act, because it’s going to be totally different for anyone. I’ve played this game with my fiancé enough times to know that the only one able make her decision on a ski is her…. Same reason I don’t pick out her clothes. What the fuck do I know?!

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    so much here!
    Quick .02---

    Versus a straight Fiberglass ski, metal laminates add weight and torsional rigidity without adding all that much longitudinal stiffness. Metal also adds rebound vs a straight fiberglass ski (the metal in a ski is essentially adding a leaf spring to the structure).

    So generally speaking, when comparing apples to apples (ie same flex pattern/stiffness/radius, etc), a metal ski is heavier, more rigid on-edge, and more lively... so yes, that is, generally speaking, more "demanding" for some, and more "rewarding" for others.

    In particular, heavier skis are "damper" due to simple Newtonian physics. Heavier skis push snow, where lighter skis get pushed by the snow. But it is more complex than that, where "too stiff" or "too soft" skis (both longitudinal and torsional) for a particular skier, or poorly tuned skis, etc will feel "chattery".

    Also, core and laminate really matter, beyond "just metal" with respect to "dampness", where these extra materials provide vibration sinks, since a sheet of metal itself will resonate like crazy (tuning fork). many heavier fiberglass skis are super damp, since the resin in the fiberglass kills vibration really effectively. But that can also make fiberglass feel lifeless too (ie OG K2s), unless the ski is very stiff (ie Faction Thirteen).

    Lastly, the flex pattern really matters too, as skis with softer tails (ie Nordica Enforcer) are much less likely to punish getting out of balance than those with stiffer tails (ie. Dynastar LP), but they also don't have the top end or acceleration of the stiffer tail skis either.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    7,926
    Lolz.

    Maybe the questions should be, do people that love the R10 inherently suck and have no hope of improving, ever?

    I have hope for my wife.

    But seriously, we had limited time, and so we put that one on the back burner because I hate it and she didn't have time to try it.

    But also true, I'm not a perfect husband ski advisor.


    Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Deep in the heart of....
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by SoVT Joey View Post
    Bottom line is, there is a zero percent chance any of us buy skis without demoing them, or buying them with the full intention on reselling if they suck for us.
    This is a big thing. A lot of the time we don't see skis being available for demo until mid January/early February around here (Canada west). So there comes blister, shop advice and this echo chamber for a potential purchase and then resale if that's the case.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    so much here!
    Versus a straight Fiberglass ski, metal laminates add weight and torsional rigidity without adding all that much longitudinal stiffness. Metal also adds rebound vs a straight fiberglass ski (the metal in a ski is essentially adding a leaf spring to the structure).
    Marshal, can you explain why metal doesn't add much longitudinal stiffness to a ski?

    Aluminium has twice the Young's modulus of most tri-axial fiberglass and a thin layer of aluminum (0.3mm) is still relatively thick when compared to the thickness of fiberglass used in most skis (1 mm).

    My understanding is that designers aim for a certain longitudinal stiffness and they can achieve that with any material/laminate (same for mass and torsional stiffness). When they add metal to a laminate they also remove some other stuff (or make the ski thinner) to maintain the desired longitudinal stiffness. If they just added metal onto an existing construction the ski would be much stiffer longitudinally, right.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    4,494

    Metal skis - inherently demanding?

    The 4frnt Cody/Gaucho feels like a good example of what Marshal described above and they have a sheet of titanal.

    The skis kinda feel like noodles when you hand flex them. But they’re predictable, pretty damp but also quite poppy with great edge hold for a 100 under foot playful, twin tip ski. Assume the torsional stiffness from the metal layer plays a role with that. They’re not demanding to ski for how capably they’ll mash through choppy snow at a decent clip compared to other ‘’playful’’ skis I’ve tried.
    Last edited by Self Jupiter; 09-28-2022 at 09:10 AM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Howdy! Good point for clarification.

    My point was that in an A-B test of a metal ski and fiberglass ski, with the same core profiles, it is not hard to design the ski to comparable stiffness by modifying the fiber content in the 0deg (and/or 45's). One could also modify the ski thickness as you correctly point out, but then that gets into apples and oranges territory.

    As a follow up question, when you are looking at Young's modulus, are you considering pre-laminated F/G? or post-laminated?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Land of the Long Flat Vowel
    Posts
    1,091
    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    In my case, selecting a 100ish woman's ski to replace my wife's old skis, i primarily I wanted a ski that has a loose tail and low swing weight to help her stay confident and off of her heals in steeps with chunder and bumps. This is where she struggles.

    She also doesn't have a lot of angulation on piste. She learned to ski later in life than most of us.

    Will metal help her? No. She doesn't go fast through chop or rip high speed high angle turns.

    Can a metal ski have a loose tail? Sure.

    Does she have enough angulation and speed to take advantage of metals dampening and torsional characteristics on a 100 ish skis on groomers? Meh, probably not.

    Her old skis don't have metal either, and they have been kicking her ass lately. ON3P Viciks that were my stepsons, then hers. They worked fine for her for a few years as she has built on her fundamentals but she has been following me and now our daughter into ever more aggressive terrain and they have not been doing her any favors.

    Santa Ana was a leading contender but she doesn't need the metal and the reviews I read from woman don't agree with my opinion of the E104 which imo couldn't be any more loose and turny unless maybe they were a street hooker.

    She demoed Ripstick 102's last year. They weren't an improvement. I wouldn't let her demo the female version of the Rustler 10 because those were some of the worst skis I have ever skied.

    I wish she could have tried the SA and a few more skis.

    So, based on Blister mostly, Rallybirds it is. It isn't about the lack of metal so much as it is just a ski that targets what she needs right now.

    Also,.the Rallybird Ti certainly sounds more demanding than the Rallbird.

    So the answer is probably yes, but it depends.
    Fwiw, my wife completely transformed her skiing after getting on a pair of Volkl Kenja (maybe 2018 model; full 2xtitanal). She's still skids her turns a bit, but now she skis faster than most and is so happy with her skiing.

    It took two runs demoing those Kenja, and she went straight to the shop and bought them.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    341
    Great info, great thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    ...Rustler 10 because those were some of the worst skis I have ever skied.
    Here here! Worst ski I've been on. They should round up all the R10s in the world, throw them in a pile, and have a bonfire, or maybe I just shouldn't buy intermediate skis anymore 'The R11 is great, the R10 will be at least as good...'

    Quote Originally Posted by SoVT Joey View Post
    I’ve played this game with my fiancé enough times to know that the only one able make her decision on a ski is her….What the fuck do I know?!
    Yup, took me far too long to learn this; turns out, just like me, she just needed to get on a few different ski designs to figure out what works for her style and preferences. Sounds straight forward doesn't it? Haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Island Bay View Post
    Fwiw, my wife completely transformed her skiing after getting on a pair of Volkl Kenja (maybe 2018 model; full 2xtitanal).
    Same for my wife, but Secret 96. Volkl's lineup is pretty diverse right now, and also pretty dialed. Good skis for myriad different skiers.


    Back to metal. I like skis with metal, and some without. For me, the ones with metal are generally more compliant at high speeds, and therefore, generally less demanding (interesting that this has a lot to do with the construction surrounding the metal). I'm sure there are outliers that I have yet to ski, and binding plate aside, I'm hoping that Squads will be one. Sure sounds that way.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    My point was that in an A-B test of a metal ski and fiberglass ski, with the same core profiles, it is not hard to design the ski to comparable stiffness by modifying the fiber content in the 0deg (and/or 45's). One could also modify the ski thickness as you correctly point out, but then that gets into apples and oranges territory.
    Makes sense. Some people say that adding metal (like in adding without removing or reorganizing anything) doesn't change the longitudinal stiffness. I think it is important to realize that the designer is also changing something else when they "add metal".

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    As a follow up question, when you are looking at Young's modulus, are you considering pre-laminated F/G? or post-laminated?
    I was talking about the effective young's modulus of the fiberglass once in the layup (i.e., with resin and considering the fiber arrangement of the fabric). You can find the specs here of a common fabric that gives you some torsional stiffness (40% of the fiber are at +-45 deg):
    https://vectorply.com/wp-content/upl...6/ETLX2400.pdf

    The young's modulus (Ex) is 2.5 to 4 MSI. Aluminum as a Ex of 10 MSI. You would get a higher effective Ex for fiberglass for a fabric that has more of its fibers at 0 deg (but less torsional stiffness).

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by arild View Post
    ...inherently more demanding...
    ...less demanding...
    I'm curious how people here interpret the word "demanding" when unaccompanied by any more context or precision. Like, do people assume everyone means "demanding of exertion"? Or "demanding of technique"? Or "demanding of concentration"? Or "demanding of exertion for tight turns in tight spaces at slow speeds"? Or what?

    .
    - TRADE your heavy PROTESTS for my lightweight version at this thread

    "My biggest goal in life has always been to pursue passion and to make dreams a reality. I love my daughter, but if I had to quit my passions for her, then I would be setting the wrong example for her, and I would not be myself anymore. " -Shane

    "I'm gonna go SO OFF that NO ONE's ever gonna see what I'm gonna do!" -Saucerboy

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntmonkey View Post
    This is a big thing. A lot of the time we don't see skis being available for demo until mid January/early February around here (Canada west). So there comes blister, shop advice and this echo chamber for a potential purchase and then resale if that's the case.
    Not to mention the demo fleet toos out at 184ish usually which is useless for me. I buy skis all the time without demoing. Make demo skis long again.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    5,013

    Metal skis - inherently demanding?

    Can we just go with make skis long again?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by alude View Post
    Makes sense. Some people say that adding metal (like in adding without removing or reorganizing anything) doesn't change the longitudinal stiffness. I think it is important to realize that the designer is also changing something else when they "add metal".
    Totally agree! Really good point.


    Quote Originally Posted by alude View Post
    I was talking about the effective young's modulus of the fiberglass once in the layup (i.e., with resin and considering the fiber arrangement of the fabric). You can find the specs here of a common fabric that gives you some torsional stiffness (40% of the fiber are at +-45 deg):
    https://vectorply.com/wp-content/upl...6/ETLX2400.pdf

    The young's modulus (Ex) is 2.5 to 4 MSI. Aluminum as a Ex of 10 MSI. You would get a higher effective Ex for fiberglass for a fabric that has more of its fibers at 0 deg (but less torsional stiffness).
    I would just add that 500gsm (15oz) glass is fairly light for a fiberglass-only high performance inbounds skiing (unless adding carbon stringers, metal, etc). For example, I know Rossi used to spec 800gsm (24oz) in their performance fiberglass skis (ie Sickle era), with the long lengths stacking 500gsm to the laminate (ie 1300gsm total).

    My personal favorite all time skis I have ever skied were full thickness bamboo/poplar cores with 900 gsm (27oz) glass and 0.4 titanal. Abraham still has a pair of these. They are quite stiff, but certainly not unskiably so (designed to be same stiffness as a Faction Thirteen, just 500g per ski heavier). For the right person and the right terrain.

    Lastly, you might find the In Plane Stiffness (EA)x a little more helpful metric when comparing these materials.

    Oh, also consider the ~2mm to ~10mm thick wood core between the laminates!
    Last edited by Marshal Olson; 09-28-2022 at 04:38 PM.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Deep in the heart of....
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by SirVicSmasher View Post
    Not to mention the demo fleet toos out at 184ish usually which is useless for me. I buy skis all the time without demoing. Make demo skis long again.
    Every damn time theres a tent at the base of the hill its some midget ass crap. Fine for the wife, terrible for me. Because of this I have a quiver to run through this year so see what I actually like and hopefully find some metal skis to demo. I wish there was somewhere to demo the masterblasters.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    341
    Love it when Ski Design 101 randomly breaks out in these threads. Learning a shit load. Thanks.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuntmonkey View Post
    Because of this I have a quiver to run through this year so see what I actually like.
    This is what I did last year. Went through ten (?) pair, skied most a min of 5 days, and more for the ones I liked (obviously). Not terribly hard to find long lengths steeply discounted so usually didn’t lose more than $100-200 per flip (tax inclusive). Not cheap (and fortunate to be able to pull it off), but I now have a much better handle on what I like. Speed dating at its finest. Plus, it was fun as fuck!

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Middle of Norway.
    Posts
    2,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvan View Post
    Love it when Ski Design 101 randomly breaks out in these threads. Learning a shit load. Thanks.
    Honestly,that was my hope. Equally glad it went this way!

    Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

  20. #45
    Rasputin's Avatar
    Rasputin is online now Полые тростник на ветру
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    4,489
    Personally I don't find my Cochise 108s to be very demanding, and they are chock full of metal. Damper skis are easier to ski if one allows the ski to eat. The muscle required is not used in forcing the ski to do things, it's required to pull Gs as you ride through the turn. If you're muscling your skis around, you're doing it wrong.
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. -אלוהים אדירים

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    4,582

    Metal skis - inherently demanding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitamin I View Post
    I'm curious how people here interpret the word "demanding" when unaccompanied by any more context or precision. Like, do people assume everyone means "demanding of exertion"? Or "demanding of technique"? Or "demanding of concentration"? Or "demanding of exertion for tight turns in tight spaces at slow speeds"? Or what?

    .
    Good question. For me, it is exertion. I describe a ski as demanding when it requires a ton of physical effort to control. When in shape/not yet exhausting yourself the ski is really responsive and you’re on your game but…. as soon as you tire / get lazy the ski reminds you there is an battle for control at play. You are taking the ski down the fall line or it is taking you.
    “Demanding” skis tend to suit physically strong in-shape balanced skiers that know how to turn a ski. Even the best of us may struggle with such skis in December and bring them into their element come February once you’ve skied 25+ days (Your Dec-Feb MMV). Rider weight / strength can obviously lessen such struggles.

    Just how I think about (have experienced) rider “demand” and agree there is no norm.
    Uno mas

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Golden B.C.
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    For example, I know Rossi used to spec 800gsm (24oz) in their performance fiberglass skis (ie Sickle era), with the long lengths stacking 500gsm to the laminate (ie 1300gsm total).
    So… have you been looking into those Sickle era layups for any particular reason??


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Olson View Post
    I would just add that 500gsm (15oz) glass is fairly light for a fiberglass-only high performance inbounds skiing (unless adding carbon stringers, metal, etc). For example, I know Rossi used to spec 800gsm (24oz) in their performance fiberglass skis (ie Sickle era), with the long lengths stacking 500gsm to the laminate (ie 1300gsm total).

    My personal favorite all time skis I have ever skied were full thickness bamboo/poplar cores with 900 gsm (27oz) glass and 0.4 titanal. Abraham still has a pair of these. They are quite stiff, but certainly not unskiably so (designed to be same stiffness as a Faction Thirteen, just 500g per ski heavier). For the right person and the right terrain.

    Lastly, you might find the In Plane Stiffness (EA)x a little more helpful metric when comparing these materials.

    Oh, also consider the ~2mm to ~10mm thick wood core between the laminates!
    I think we are saying the same thing, just coming from different point of views.

    I think in term of fundamental material properties (E, which only depends on the fiber orientation and not the gsm) and then consider thickness, width and position in the laminate. I put all these values in a custom code to get the EI/GJ, so I don't often think further than that.

    You seem to use the gsm of the fabric and EA. EA seems to be E x thickness (a little bit missleading as A is supposed to be the area, but the unit of EA match the thickness). I can see these values as being a bit more convenient/faster to use when dealing with production and small changes to an existing product without the need of firing up a calculator.
    SoothSki - Compare measured specs of thousands of skis!

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by alude View Post
    I think we are saying the same thing, just coming from different point of views.

    I think in term of fundamental material properties (E, which only depends on the fiber orientation and not the gsm) and then consider thickness, width and position in the laminate. I put all these values in a custom code to get the EI/GJ, so I don't often think further than that.

    You seem to use the gsm of the fabric and EA. EA seems to be E x thickness (a little bit missleading as A is supposed to be the area, but the unit of EA match the thickness). I can see these values as being a bit more convenient/faster to use when dealing with production and small changes to an existing product without the need of firing up a calculator.
    Cheers man, great conversation! My understanding of EA(x) is that it is cross-sectional area (so essentially thickness). Love what you are doing at SoothSki. It is a great resource.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,118
    I've noticed that many skis with metal are still tinny and scrapey on shit snow, and many skis without metal are quiet and smooth on shit snow.

    My old Line EP Pros were heavy AF, no metal, just maple and fiberglass, floppy soft as hell, yet decently quiet on edges on crap snow, especially for their width. My ON3P skinny billy were the same story. No metal, damp as hell.

    Then my Kastle BMX105 HPs are quite scrape-y sounding, and the worst example I've ever found was a pair of Renoun skis I used to have. They had 2 sheets of metal, and made so much noise underfoot the first and only day I skied them, that I got rid of them. I blame their use of carbon, and lack of enough VDS rubber.

    Stockli allegedly uses a urethane adhesive instead of epoxy, AND metal, AND 2 full length full width sheets of rubber, AND full edge rubber strips. They're by far the dampest skis I've ever skie, and I think it's because of the massive amounts of rubber vs any other difference.

    I'd like to see a stockli made with the visco elastic polymer that Renoun uses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •