"you building what? Are you mad?"

twizzstyle · Post by **twizzstyle** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:53 pm

Looks like a ski! Build it!

Richuk · Post by **Richuk** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:48 pm

If I understand the design correctly I would suggest it was a little short - probably best to ask what did you have in mind MR and who's the rider?

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:52 pm

Richuk wrote:If I understand the design correctly I would suggest it was a little short - probably best to ask what did you have in mind MR and who's the rider?

rider is me

I usually ride 170--175. I wanted skis for tight places not too wide as a powder specific skis, at the same time not too narrow for the groomer (under 80). More like all mountains skis New England style

For the first skis I don't want to make something big or wide. in any event will be replaceable tip/ tail sections of the mold so big rocker will be later

:

to all honesty I don't know how this design will turn out. Designing first pair of skis very frustrated

Richuk · Post by **Richuk** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:30 am

I wonder whether the running length is a little short and more could be taken from the tip. If the tip remains the current length, you may find it starts to steer the ski more than you might like?

Another tool for analysis might be to calculate the bearing surface of the ski you have designed. If you transfer your design into DraftSight, you'll be able to complete this calculation.

Looking forward to reading the test report.

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:54 am

Richuk wrote:I wonder whether the running length is a little short and more could be taken from the tip. If the tip remains the current length, you may find it starts to steer the ski more than you might like?

IIRC running length equals 160--165 skis which is average length around here.
I spoke with local shop manager he made a few suggestions like early rise no more than 50 --70 mm, sidecut radios extend into the tips and different tip/tale thickness of the core to make tales stiffer

Another tool for analysis might be to calculate the bearing surface of the ski you have designed. If you transfer your design into DraftSight, you'll be able to complete this calculation.

Looking forward to reading the test report.

I'm not a designer. Swimming in unfamiliar territory here.
I don't know what to say except ask for help

vinman · Post by **vinman** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:00 pm

For rocker lengths on a mixed camber ski I usually go with 12-20% of total length and for tail rocker 11-16%. I don't like to have more than 1/3 of the overall length taken up by the rockers or it make the running length much too short for my liking.

On 185 cm ski this gives you an approximate range of 22 cm to 40 cm of tip rocker and 20-30 cm of tail rocker. I try to keep the running length at ~2/3 of the overall length. If I'm going with a mixed camber ski.

skidesmond · Post by **skidesmond** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:40 pm

MadRussian wrote:Got to start somewhere.

This is designed I going to make. Before to late can use some suggestions and criticism.

I usually make my tip 140-160 in length. Tail between 60-80. The tip (left side) looks more like a tail design and the tail (right side) looks more like a tip design. Are you using SnoCad-X?

vinman · Post by **vinman** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:23 pm

Your camber is set way back also. Most folks go with 55% of the ski length as a place to put the camber apex and ski waist.

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:38 pm

skidesmond wrote:
I usually make my tip 140-160 in length. Tail between 60-80. The tip (left side) looks more like a tail design and the tail (right side) looks more like a tip design. Are you using SnoCad-X?

I wanted to try something a little bit longer in tip and tail. Early rise about 100mm on tip and 50 on tale. Also sidecut extends into the tip
Yes I design skis this way. Don't know how it will work. Is there any problem in this design?
Yes on snocad-x

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:44 pm

Vinman wrote:Your camber is set way back also. Most folks go with 55% of the ski length as a place to put the camber apex and ski waist.

55% of overall length or Running length? What happen if you put too far back?

vinman · Post by **vinman** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:47 pm

Problem...no. It might just be the next best thing. No way to tell until you ski it. It does have a very "unique" shape though.

If you place your camber too far back it won't be as effective for you in spinging u into the next turn. Plus placing the side cut that far back will probably make the radius seem longer tha calculated, as you'd have a lot of side cut up front and very little side cut in the tail.

Since this seems like a groomer type of ski this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

For 55% of overall length vs 55% running length....I still debate this. 55% RL will usually place the camber a bit farther back. My best advise is do the math and see what looks right.

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:52 pm

some modifications

MadRussian · Post by **MadRussian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:15 pm

Vinman wrote:Problem...no. It might just be the next best thing. No way to tell until you ski it.

If you place your camber too far back it won't be as effective for you in spinging u into the next turn. Plus placing the side cut that far back will probably make the radius seem longer tha calculated, as you'd have a lot of side cut up front and very little side cut in the tail.

looks like I'm going to change sidecut setback to 0

Since this seems like a groomer type of ski this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

86mm by south New England standards almost considered pow skis

It does have a very "unique" shape though.

honestly I don't know much about ski designs and what parameters to change to achieve certain characteristics.
Thoughts on this design... what to expect from it. I understand it's my bit difficult but any input will be helpful and better than nothing at all

vinman · Post by **vinman** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:03 pm

86 under the foot is barely a mid-fat by VT standards and might be more of an all Mtn carver at a 16m turn radius. But I'm partially to fat skis and long turns.my narrowest ski is 105 under foot and my powder ski is 122...

But this is all very subjective and those skis work well for me in the conditions that I ski in. That's the beauty of making your own skis, you can make anything you want. You'll probably love them no matter what.

skidesmond · Post by **skidesmond** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:15 pm

I say go for it and let us know how it performs. I made a pair of 86mm wide skis this year and loved them. About the same side cut, around 16.5. Great for big carving turns, and super smooth and stable.

What's you core dims going to be?

Ski Builders Forum

Ski Builders Forum

"you building what? Are you mad?"