New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Death of METAL???? - Page 3

post #61 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

No, stiff is stiff. Have been told by folks who build skis that metal is a dampener, not a stiffener. Or put another way, you can build a very stiff ski just with wood, or with wood and carbon, or with wood and metal, or just with metal. Only difference will be the thickness. But each material has its own resonant frequencies for a given dimension, with its own half-life for those oscillations. That will produce dampness. But personally, not even sure metal is always a dampener, since Blizzards have a ton of metal these days but are pretty un-damp, while Stocklis have a ton of metal and are very damp. Weight could be more relevant than anything. 


My experience with Blizzard is limited to a few runs on the Brahma, but they were damp to the extent that they felt like a brick.
post #62 of 76

^^^^ IMO there's very little agreement about what terms like "damp" and "smooth" mean. I'll operationalize. What I mean by Blizzards being "un-damp" is that they tend to give back a lot of snowfeel, or feedback vibrations from small surface features, and they tend to be "lively," meaning for me that they're stiff enough that they transmit a higher percentage of ski front pertubations to the skier rather than absorbing them. But they're very smooth (see below). 

 

Now keep in mind that many skiers really value snowfeel and liveliness. So not a positive or negative, just a quality. And other skiers I think might also define lively to mean "stored energy," as in a ski that you can load and then feel release, eg, "pop," so may not work for a stiff ski unless you're a big guy. And for some, "damp" means the same as "smooth," eg, absorbing larger, lower frequency perturbations or impacts that can have a resonating frequency rather than transmitting them to the skier. For me, damp is the ability of the ski to keep its edges in contact with the surface. Race skis are damp. Recreational skis, not so much.  A lot of recreational skis are smooth. Sometimes to a fault; Zombie Skis. No names...wink.gifRace skis can be smooth, but not as much as people imagine. 

 

Consider the Supersonic. A very very nice ski as is, decently stiff, great grip, lively middleweight, unusual snowfeel. Turn it into the G-Power, which is the same ski with a Marker WC plate, oil piston at mid-boot. Stiffer yet, but also damper, in the sense that the piston limits and slows a lot of the oscillations. So not as reactive in stiff crud, near-race ski grip, more planted at speed. Not as user friendly in bumps or soft snow. Not as lively. Wouldn't call either "smooth."

 

The trick that engineers mess with, I think, is how to make a ski a) feel like part of a "brand," that is different than other brands, and b) balance dampness and smoothness with the loss of feedback that vibrations provide.


Edited by beyond - 4/11/13 at 8:23am
post #63 of 76

"The trick that engineers mess with, I think, is how to make a ski a) feel like part of a "brand," that is different than other brands, and b) balance dampness and smoothness with the loss of feedback that vibrations provide." Very insightful post, Beyond. Materials, including the use of metal, are just one tool the engineers and designers use to this end.

 

Mogsie, I wonder how those Heads would feel if they were lighter as the only variable changed? I know my aging knees would appreciate it on the chair. And the lighter skis would open up some more skiing venues - like tricks. I own Volkl Race Tiger SL both in the modern heavy race version and an older flat (with plastic bindings) much lighter version. Very similar feel on the snow (affirmation of Beyond's brand idea) but I do notice the weight difference. As an interesting aside, I got the heavy ones brand new and they seem to have softened up to become a bit less lively over time.

 

My go to skis are old Goodes. Superlight and I feel everything from the snow. Not a feel for everybody. No metal (except the edges) and I'm on my 5th season on them! I've never had any ski hold up so well - admittedly they look like crap now and there is a lot of JB Weld fixing the dings. For me, metal is obsolete.

 

As I go up from Reno wondering what I should listen to and where I should ski, Montrose!

 

Eric

post #64 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

"The trick that engineers mess with, I think, is how to make a ski a) feel like part of a "brand," that is different than other brands, and b) balance dampness and smoothness with the loss of feedback that vibrations provide." Very insightful post, Beyond. Materials, including the use of metal, are just one tool the engineers and designers use to this end.

 

Mogsie, I wonder how those Heads would feel if they were lighter as the only variable changed? I know my aging knees would appreciate it on the chair. And the lighter skis would open up some more skiing venues - like tricks. I own Volkl Race Tiger SL both in the modern heavy race version and an older flat (with plastic bindings) much lighter version. Very similar feel on the snow (affirmation of Beyond's brand idea) but I do notice the weight difference. As an interesting aside, I got the heavy ones brand new and they seem to have softened up to become a bit less lively over time.

 

My go to skis are old Goodes. Superlight and I feel everything from the snow. Not a feel for everybody. No metal (except the edges) and I'm on my 5th season on them! I've never had any ski hold up so well - admittedly they look like crap now and there is a lot of JB Weld fixing the dings. For me, metal is obsolete.

 

As I go up from Reno wondering what I should listen to and where I should ski, Montrose!

 

Eric

My guess is... you change something on a ski, you change the ski... it's like a painting; if you find it perfect but you want to remove a color in particular, it won't be the same after that...

Lighter means probably less metal, means probably  less edge hold,means...

post #65 of 76

FWIW Marshal Olson of DPS has said that ON3P makes some of the dampest ski's around. ON3P doesn't use metal in any of their ski's. I have gone back and forth with a lot of ski's over the past few years, and I keep going back to the Bamboo and carbon layup that while being really damp has a tremendous amount of energy and pop.

 

Metal is not required these days to produce a damp ski with great torsional rigidity.
 

post #66 of 76
Mogsie, my Race Tiger experience suggests that it is possible to reduce weight without changing performance. Actually, Volkl added weight and kept similar feel as the newer skis are the heavy ones. But if the performance is similar, wouldn't you prefer the lighter ski?

Megadeath to metal!

Eric
post #67 of 76

Heavy crud, breakable crust, I'll take some ski weight, thank you! Did this yesterday on some Kastle MX 83's... very nice for a 'narrow' ski! Heavy ? Yep. They are.

post #68 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

Mogsie, my Race Tiger experience suggests that it is possible to reduce weight without changing performance. Actually, Volkl added weight and kept similar feel as the newer skis are the heavy ones. But if the performance is similar, wouldn't you prefer the lighter ski?

Megadeath to metal!

Eric

Is it possible? Yes it is... But I tried (and bought... gulp...) many skis this past year and I concluded that their is always a tread off... The ski is perfect but a little too heavy for you? A lighter version will have something else annoying you... Like markojp just said... So for me the game is to know your priorities for the ski you're wanting and the trade off you are ready to make...

 

Hum... I should write this down for the next time I will be about to buy another ski!!!

 

post #69 of 76

One of the burliest skis of all times, the K2 VO Slalom didn't have metal..hell it didn't even have a wood core. The VO was a foam core ski in a torsion box. 

post #70 of 76

I don't think the brown BD Zealot had metal either... those thing's are planks.

post #71 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

 

Mogsie, I wonder how those Heads would feel if they were lighter as the only variable changed? I know my aging knees would appreciate it on the chair. And the lighter skis would open up some more skiing venues - like tricks. 

Curious if the aging knees are a figure of speech. Because I have honest-to-god aging knees, and IME, a somewhat heavier ski makes skiing on variable surfaces such as crud with irregular ice underneath waay more enjoyable. Simple physics; the weight that far out on the lever arm produces substantially more force at the same speed. The ski does more work of the total work; I'll happily put up with a chair for that. Or tell your resort to look into modern chairs with foot rests. OTOH if you're seriously considering tricks, then knees must be fine, just be your conviction that any ski not made with carbon is on the wrong track. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post

My guess is... you change something on a ski, you change the ski... it's like a painting; if you find it perfect but you want to remove a color in particular, it won't be the same after that...

Lighter means probably less metal, means probably  less edge hold,means...

Yeah, these variables are all like a multiple regression. Economists trip all over themselves to proclaim what the outlook is, then duck for cover when their numbers don't predict anything real because they mis-weighted one variable and it messed with everything else. Which is why ski engineers should run the Treasury. Hell, can't be much worse than now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

FWIW Marshal Olson of DPS has said that ON3P makes some of the dampest ski's around. ON3P doesn't use metal in any of their ski's. I have gone back and forth with a lot of ski's over the past few years, and I keep going back to the Bamboo and carbon layup that while being really damp has a tremendous amount of energy and pop.

 

Metal is not required these days to produce a damp ski with great torsional rigidity.
 

I have heard from enough people I trust about how damp and smooth ON3P's are that I believe it. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

One of the burliest skis of all times, the K2 VO Slalom didn't have metal..hell it didn't even have a wood core. The VO was a foam core ski in a torsion box. 

About time someone brought these up. They were frightening to my VR17's, who otherwise ate small pets and children on the way to the lodge. So I think this is called falsification of the original hypothesis...

post #72 of 76

It is clearly not the metal that makes a ski damp.   Looking at the dampest ski I own, I think rubber has a lot to do with it, and so does using different materials that have to move together, and last but not least, looking at my newer skis, is the science behind frequency tuning and resonant vibration (locations along the ski to put the reinforcing and mass relative to the nodal length).

 

My old SGs have an intricately patterned sandwich of steel with various wood laminates and rubber, and other materials.   They are damp.

 

My Machetes have a wood core and stainless steep cap construction.  On hard snow (where it matters) they are very damp at slow speeds, well damped but still lively at medium to high speeds and hyper active, NOT DAMP, and trying to dance all over the place at  very high speeds where the SGs are calm and still well damped and just beginning to  feel lively.

 

My Fischers proudly proclaim their "Frequency Tuning" and you can see ridges to go along with the proclamation on the top sheet.   They provide plenty of feel, and indeed, don't feel as solid as say an old Atomic SX11 or even SX10 at lower speeds, but at speeds where the atomic SX10 felt like a paint-shaker on crack, the Fischers are still damp enough to be fully under control.

post #73 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

FWIW Marshal Olson of DPS has said that ON3P makes some of the dampest ski's around.
 

 

 

DPS added metal to the 112RPC and came up with a wonderful ski imo.

post #74 of 76

post #75 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

 

 

DPS added metal to the 112RPC and came up with a wonderful ski imo.


Well,

they did a little more than add metal, there is also the case of lengthening the turn radius, and making the tip and tail splay a little less. So it's really a totally different ski altogether. Honestly the RPC looks like something I could get down on, but the price......

post #76 of 76
Thread Starter 
Ahh, the beat goes on . . . I love the nostalgic anecdotes pertaining to skis way before my time, but I believe we are no closer to understanding why manufacturers use metal for some skis, but not on others. Perhaps they fidget with materials util something falls out that works well?:cool.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion