big kam, kelvin, and I were thinking of trying out a new ski design. it's a little different in that it involves a hybrid sidecut with the top half (towards the tip) using an inverse sidecut and the rear half using a regular or straight sidecut.
we're thinking that maybe the rear portion will add a little more control a spatula-like ski. any thoughts?
I noticed that rossignol does this on a very small scale. If you look at the shovel of their ski, you should notice that the widest part of the tip is well back from the end of the running length. An example of a ski that goes the other direction with this concept are the salomon pocket rockets. The running length ends while the ski width continues to get wider as it raieses up off the snow. This makes the PR's ski dimension rather diceptive the tip and tail width at the ends of the running length are a few mm narrower than listed in their specs. Take a look at the rossi's & see what you think about their tip profile.
davide i'm having trouble visualizing those numbers. is it supposed to be something like this?
so it's like a tapered inverse sidecut right? seems cool. it's like a tabla rasa crossed with a spatula. well, sort of. just curious, what's the idea behind the design?
it's interesting about the rossi and salomon tips. i read in K2's old catalog that they do the same thing as what you mentioned about the PR's, hoseman. they claim the geometry gives the ski increased edge contact while turning. i wonder if you can really tell the difference?
I'm guessing that it is all a personal preference thing. I've learned over the years that I tend to like things a little differently from most, therefore I try not to dish out too much advice about any product being really great or totally crap. I have a little odd history with the whole sidecut deal. In the early 90's I owned a couple of Lamar snowboards which had the same sidecut/running length relationship that the PR's have. I really liked those boards. I really like my PR's. I tend to not like products which are over-engineered. For example, I really hate the way most Burton snowboards ride & they have a variable sidecut which is supposed to be the next best thing to icecream..... not to me. I don't like most LINE skis. I thought it was a too-soft-flex thing, until I bought PRs. The PRs are considered pretty soft but I think they are spectacular in most conditions. They'll carve a trench on any piste but ice, which makes no sense because of their width, but they do! So I'm beginning to think that my dislike for the LINEs is a geometry thing rather than a flex thing.
The sum of my ramble is basically that I will probably mimic the PR style of ending the running length before the sidecut on my first few pairs, because I seem to like that geometry in my snow sliding toys. I think that your design will probably work really well in your BC excursions where there is no piste. The short section of sidecut centered behind your heel might make for a wacky ride on piste.
I also offer the caviat that all my likes/dislikes are strictly from alpine experience, I only started tele last spring, so I don't have my skills down pat enough to be judging gear tele-style yet.
Sorry I tought it was clear.
I started playing with pictures of water-skis. I stretched them to have a kind of ski proportions, and I got this:
So the numbers I calculate just try to follow this shape.
As you know, I like very much the idea of having a larger surface in front of the binding, to avoid tip diving. As the tip is most of time out of the snow, I tought that having a large surface at about 40 cm ahead of the binding could be a good idea. Of course I am not interested in carving performances on hard snow. By the way, I think reverse camber allows to have a good edge hold, but the edge/snow contact lenght is only 80/100cm around the binding. The main problem is that, as they are pretty wide, it is difficult to put them on the edges. But who cares? I found that sliding is funny anyway.
that looks like a promising design there. have you started building it yet? davide, i can't remember but were you the one doing the surface area measurements of your skis to determine the affect on turning? or something like that? if so, how do these skis fit in with your findings?
Yes, I did the surface area measurements.
Actually, even if the tail is wide, it is possible to have a large difference between the front and the back surface area, if the bindings are mounted back enough.
I am planning to build 4 pairs soon: 165-170-135, 108-110-104, 110-80-95 and the one above. That one is actually the last in the production line.
davide: i like your design. personally, i would try to ski it backwards. i'm thinking about making a ski with the tail wider than the tip, like an arrow. i'm curious if the design would provide a bit more support when weight is shifted backwards. but then again, it might be a design that leads to excessive "tip dive".... though we would have to give it a try.
one thing i love about building my own skis is i'm free to do whatever you want... at some point we should have a conference and get everybody together to show off their rides....
I would think these skis would be similar to the design of my burton fish snowboard. The board as a very shallow sidecut (below 8m) and a tapered tail. It makes for very surfy feel for the the bottom gives out easily to quick slashing turns. The bindings are also set way further back than typical. This would be really interesting to see in a ski!
one thing i love about building my own skis is i'm free to do whatever you want... at some point we should have a conference and get everybody together to show off their rides....
Actually I had a similara idea.
We should organise two meetings (one in Europe and one in North America) where people will come with their own home-made skis: there could be an exbition, where people present different contruction tecnique and designs. Of course most of the time will be devoted to skiing, and partying.
In april in Livigno (I), they organise a telemark festival, that lasts one week. I talked with some people in the organisation, and there is the possibility that next year we will lunch a "Ski Construction School", durign the festival. We will provide materials and tools, people comes, do some skiing during the day, then in the evening they do some cutting and laminating, and they leave few days later with their own skis.
We will see if I manage to arrange everything in time...
excellent. i think we should start talking more seriously about this annual conference to gather SkiBuilders. personally, i'd like to test ride other people's work and share information. if an official event doesn't take shape this year, then definitely the following year. i think the Europe and N. Am. idea is great!
Little Kam and Kelvin: how about a small (unofficial) get-togther this year somewhere in N. Am.??? Feb. or March seems like a good month. Everyone's invited. ideas anyone???
littleKam wrote:so how does the burton fish ride on the harder stuff?
It's possible to ride on harder stuff but it is far from a crud busting machine. More a board for taking the to pow in the trees due to its quick turning and shortness.
