EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Could someone explain why doing it upside down is mechanically different?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could someone explain why doing it upside down is mechanically different?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Ski builders/bored engineers -  Here's the basic explanation of the Blizzard "flipcore" (this from an Epic shop that will remained unnamed, since they still have the temerity to be skiing in June), but pretty much what you can find other places:

 

"The Blizzard “Flipcore” skis take the opposite approach by using a core that is basically built upside down. The molding process then does not have to place stress into the core when the rocker is shaped."

 

Now I have skied a flipcore ski, and liked it a lot. So it appears to work. All for it. But I cannot understand how building a laminate or pressing in a curve upside down is in any significant way mechanically different than building it or pressing it in the normal orientation. Assuming you're not Volkl, and cutting your curve into the laminate itself, you begin with a straight piece of laminated wood, and then you apply pressure and heat. Stress one direction versus stress 180 the other. You will be pressing central camber with gravity, sure, but that's a trivial force compared to those being applied to bend the wood. 

 

So why is doing it upside down more than just turning the camera upside down? biggrin.gif

post #2 of 12

Marketing gibberish?  popcorn.gif

 

 

post #3 of 12

Could they manufacture it in Australia right side up and get the same results?th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #4 of 12

I haven't personally seen the ski or the building process so I'm just speculating. 

 

Wood is a reasonably advanced composite. It can carry lots of load and have nice rebound characteristics. Wood isn't bad all by itself - my mom raced on wooden skis. The fiberglass (or whatever material used) skins can work with the wood core to define the performance of a ski.

As you press a wooden core into shape in the mold you could add a preload onto the core which could affect the performance of the ski. The design of the skin will hold the shape of the ski and the preload. This assumes that the core is carrying a significant portion of the load and has enough strength to carry the extra preload.

A honeycomb, foam, balsa or air core will not carry much load so the design of the skins alone will determine the performance of the ski. The light core with engineered skin composites are more efficient at carrying loads. But structural efficiency is one small part of ski design.  Blizzard might be on to a clever building technique. Engineer the preload - or lack therof - for the best performance on the snow. 

Or it could be marketing hype.

 

Eric

post #5 of 12



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Could they manufacture it in Australia right side up and get the same results?th_dunno-1[1].gif



Is that why their bindings are on the base side?

 

I would like to hear a non-marketing explanation of "Flipcore.

The way i read it, (if there are vertical laminate cores) they would be

bandsawing/sanding the rocker shape.?

 

post #6 of 12

the properties of skis probably have a lot to do with tension built (glued) into the laminating process, cutting and/or bending to various degrees for the camber/rocker. I imagine that all the major companies have proprietary processes, structures, and materials. Blizzard just chose to talk about theirs.

 

this is part of why it takes decades of experimentation to get this stuff right, IMO, and why reverse engineering someone else's ski is not possible.

post #7 of 12

Oh, ski building...never mind.

post #8 of 12

the difference on the skis you skied beyond is alot more apparent than the free mountain line up that has metal.

 

The mechanical difference is that the skis is alot more likely to bend into full reverse camber, I am sure you felt that beyond so despite calling it marketing jibberish you felt it and they have skied on the ski yet and wont because of the graphics.

 

The bushwacker's ski significalty different than any other 88mm ski out there, its lighter on snow and feels alot more poppy than anything else on the market. You can ollie a good 3 feet on them. blizzard going to come to the front of the jib scene once they make a twin tip verison of it and make an effort to market it going to be better than anything else out there.

 

The bonafide, and cochise are class leaders. they do not feel as different as the bushwacker but IMO are better skis for more people. The bonafide edge grip is superior to the bushwacker. The bigger skis great IMO better than anything else in their size range, but do not as feel as different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #9 of 12

biggrin.gif  I had the same reaction when I saw this thread title.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimintokyo View Post

Oh, ski building...never mind.



 

post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytierney View Post

biggrin.gif  I had the same reaction when I saw this thread title.
 



 


Great minds thinking alike...in the gutter.cool.gif
post #11 of 12

Of course the marketing is giberish.  That doesn't mean the engineering in the ski is.  Anybody got a cross-section diagram or link to some actual ski construction details?

post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

The mechanical difference is that the skis is alot more likely to bend into full reverse camber, I am sure you felt that beyond so despite calling it marketing jibberish you felt it and they have skied on the ski yet and wont because of the graphics.


Yeah, to be clear to all, I didn't use the term marketing gibberish. And definitely noticed that BWPA's BW's went into reverse camber with less fuss, more energy than I expected. Which may be the preload business mentioned above; perhaps the ski has more load against the camber, so less force required to bend it other direction. Still unclear why making it upside down helps, but then I've never built a ski, so not the only thing I'm clueless about.

 

Graphics are fine, incidentally. Somehow work much better in person with a little bit of snow on the tops. wink.gif

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Could someone explain why doing it upside down is mechanically different?