Max Skis-2013

Document your personal work here. Show photos, movies, and share your secrets.

Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp

Post Reply
maximegb5
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Max Skis-2013

Post by maximegb5 »

Hello!

I had attempted to build a pair of skis two years ago with mitigated results, but I got experience and it was a lot of fun! It was for a final project for grade 11, which is the end of high school here in Quebec. I had some other projects going on and didn't have time for skibuilding. I recently got back on it during the fall, and started profiling cores. I could not get a straigth core, it was always slanted laterally by 0.5mm. WOAH! Bad news.

So I completely redid my router bridges rails (and they were as perfect as possible) and did some further testing. I realized that my table was slanted, which made my router bridge and therefore made the cores slanted. I then rebuilt a new, and overkill, table which allowed me to get a straight core.

I had vacuum pressed my first pair at a local technical school, but I no longer had access to the vacuum setups as I had not decided to attend it in the end. One of my friend had built a pneumatic press, and he told me it was fully functional at 40 psi without any deflection. That would be perfect! But no, the press was complete crap. It was built with 2”x2” steel tubing, 8 inches wide. There were only 5 ¼” aluminium rods supporting the top steel tubings, and the bladder was the kind of stuff used to help kids float in the pool. I pressure tested the bladder, and it started leaking at 6 psi. I went to my ski hill, and managed to get some of the tubes used for the snow canons. They had extras, so they gave it to me for free thanks to my father who is in the ski patrol. I built a decent bladder with them and tested the press.

Image


The supporting rods were bending like crazy at 20 psi, and the bladder was leaking quite a lot (I was at 10psi after 30 min).

Image

I flipped all the middle sections laterally, added two other tubes and used some 5/16” annealed steel rods to have a more decent/usable and (I hope) much less dangerous press. It worked a lot better, and I did not have a significant amount of deflection at 40psi.
I bought some biaxial carbon fiber at 5.5oz, which were put top and bottom of the core, with some 2” wide strips of uni on either side. Poplar with maple sidewalls, profiled at 2.3-11.5-2.3 (I will verify the middle thickness when I will get back home; I am at my cottage right now). Wood veneer on top, with a polyurethane varnish to finish it up.
Image
The pressing was a REAL PITA. It was one ski at a time, and the epoxy has a 12h cure at a minimal temperature of 25 celcius. But my basement floor is at 15, so as we had some electric house heat source, I used them to have a decent temperature! The bladder was still leaking, and I had no way to repair it. It was built with two layers of membrane, which made reparation of the inner membrane almost impossible. I had pretty tight deadlines to be able to present this pair at my school’s science fair, so I could not replace it in time to be able to press both skis before the fair. I pressed with this bladder, and had to restart the compressor every 30 minutes to be able to get enough pressure. Of course, my compressor automatic shutdown was broken, so I could not just leave it open (It is now repaired, and will be installed with another control valve soon enough). I did not sleep of the whole night. My Cal 3 class on the following day was really interesting…
Image

To make the end short, I won second place and public’s choice at the science fair (350$ less to pay!!), and have been shredding the skis for about one month. They have minimal camber with rocker tip and tail, and (almost) no tip, which was not intended but rather resulted from the lack pressure during their cure cycle. It made them somewhat dangerous in the moguls, but it did not impact them on the groomed runs. I had a couple of other good skiers try them (aka level 3 and 4 ski instructors, etc…), and I skied them a lot. The main comment I got was that they are hard to pivot, as if the skis were too stiff torsionally. It seems that it always wants to set its edge and just follow the curve of the ski. It is also quite short, which makes for an interesting combination. They are super stiff, and the skis do not have that much length on which to bend, which sometimes made them “track”. I personally found that it was hard to be able to generate a lot of rebound in the transition between two curves, probably due to the combination of not enough length, and too great stiffness. On the other hand, they are really cool park skis, as they are super light and are stiff enough to be able to have a good edge hold on ice in between the sections of the park (that park design really sucks).

There are some more pictures on there, I will post some more soon:

http://s1312.photobucket.com/user/maxim ... sort=3&o=0

I just bought a planer, and will start playing with it as soon as I have some free time. I have started a pair of fat skis for a friend. I will keep you posted on that in the following weeks. Sadly, ski is almost over. But that means more building time!
-Max
sammer
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:37 pm
Location: Fernie B.C.
Contact:

Post by sammer »

This picture scares the crap out of me...

Image

Glad to see your back though.

sam
You don't even have a legit signature, nothing to reveal who you are and what you do...

Best of luck to you. (uneva)
skidesmond
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Western Mass, USA
Contact:

Post by skidesmond »

Glad to see you're back. Pressure is a scary thing.
maximegb5
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Post by maximegb5 »

Hello,

I am building a planer crib for a pair of fat (145-117-134, 19m@180cm), and was wondering how thick the core should be in order to have a medium stff ski. I am not too sure how the length and width will affect the overall stiffness of the ski. My last pair had a 2.3-11.5-2.3 poplar core with maple sidewall (108-74-104, @160cm) and they were WAY too stiff. I am using 5.5oz biaxial carbon with 2" wide 9oz uniaxal carbon stringer. What thickness should I use for this new pair, with the same layup and once again poplar core?
twizzstyle
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Kenmore, Wa USA

Post by twizzstyle »

Is the biax going diagonally?

All else the same, a wider ski will be a little bit stiffer, but not a ton.

I bet if you just bring your tip thicknesses down to 2mm (which if you're using 2mm thick tip spacer, will match up better also) and leave the middle the same you'll be happy. Hard to say without just building it.
skidesmond
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Western Mass, USA
Contact:

Post by skidesmond »

twizzstyle wrote:Is the biax going diagonally?

All else the same, a wider ski will be a little bit stiffer, but not a ton.

I bet if you just bring your tip thicknesses down to 2mm (which if you're using 2mm thick tip spacer, will match up better also) and leave the middle the same you'll be happy. Hard to say without just building it.
yea, tough call because your new ski is 20cm longer and the shape is much larger so you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Also what is stiff to you may be stiffer/softer to us, depends on weight and skiers ability. Going 2mm in the tip maybe all that's needed since your taper to tip and tail is longer.
twizzstyle
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Kenmore, Wa USA

Post by twizzstyle »

Also, are you just doing a straight linear taper?

My skis have a swoopy spline profile to them so they're fairly stiff around the middle of the ski, but get very soft near the tips. Small differences in thickness can make huge differences in overall stiffness. Also keep in mind where you put the center of thickness on the ski, longitudinally. My first few pairs I had the thickest point at the true center of the ski, well ahead of boot center, and it made the tails way too soft for me. Now I put the thickest point at boot center, and I've been happy.
maximegb5
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Post by maximegb5 »

My thickest point is on the boot center, but I am not sure either it is going to be a linear profile. It is the first I profile with a planer, so I am not sure if they are going to come out linear or tapered.

Skier's level is expert. I will bring it down to 2-11-2, and pray!
User avatar
MontuckyMadman
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:41 pm

Post by MontuckyMadman »

something sounds amiss here in your numbers, a ski like that with the composite you list should be not very stiff at all, in my experience.
Is this like a 24K tow carbon or what?
Sometimes the shorter the ski at those dims will be stiffer than a longer core due to bend of the beam and thickness over a given distance.
sammer wrote: I'm still a tang on top guy.
maximegb5
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Post by maximegb5 »

The uniaxial is 12k at 9oz, while the bidirectional is 3k at 5.5oz
maximegb5
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:30 pm

Post by maximegb5 »

Hi,

It took me much longer than expected to build this pair, as I received an offer I could not refuse on a (much much bigger) ski press! Lots of epoxy, tip spacers, bases, edges, CNCed planer cribs and molds coming with it, along with heat blankets. I am now officially forced to build skis during the next couple years!
Image
Image

After moving everything in my garage, reassembing the press and doing a handfull of tests, I was finally ready to press my first pair with this new gargantuan toy.

They are 145-117-133 with 21m radius at 180cm. 30 cm rocker in the front and 25 cm in the back. Made with a 2-10.7-2mm poplar wood core with maple sidewall. 5.5 oz-biaxial (+/-45) carbon with a 2 inches strip of 9oz uniaxial carbon running from the contact point of the back to about 10 cm in front of the fixation. I also tried using 2mm tip spacers for the first time, and it seems to have worked fine!

During layup, I almost had a problem as I had not put enough hardener in one of the batches, but I actually realized it 2 seconds before pouring it on the skis. I am a bit disapointed by the graphics of one of the skis, as the epoxy bleed much more through the veneer topsheet than expected, and the color of the epoxy destroyed the contrast between the blue wood and the dark one. Furthermore, the topsheet shifted a little, which means that we see the carbon on the side of the veneer (last picture). On the other hand, the maple veneer that covers most of the skis is insane! I didn't think it would be so nice!

I will probably try to rabbet the maple sidewall on my next pair, as the edges on this one forced a lot with the base, as you can see on the first picture:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
skidesmond
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Western Mass, USA
Contact:

Post by skidesmond »

The veneer looks awesome.
Post Reply