New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Variable Bevels....Why? - Page 2

post #31 of 38

I'm all for the variable base bevel, but here's my question: in the age of rocker and early rise, how relevant is it? 

post #32 of 38

   I would probably just save it for race/carving skis that spend a good deal of time on firmer snow. :)



post #33 of 38

Good point! 


I think it matters more on what you want from the ski and what type of ski it is than it does what base bevel it has.  If its a ski you want to rip and carve with on the groomers, I can see using a variable bevel but if its a soft flexing powder ski with lots of tip and tail rocker, I can't see spending any time concerning yourself with a variable base bevel.

post #34 of 38

I tried a varaible base bevel on my GS ski and on my son's Gs race skis. (By the way he won a City League Race last night on a Variable Base Bevel) 


We both skied on it 2 nights. 1st night was grippy hard with some icy spots. 


Last night was extremely cold hard snow. 12 degrees, In the race course he said it was fine, but he did not like it freesking!  Saiod it is just a different level of aggrssion in the race course that is nearly impossible to duplicate out of the gates. 


I feel the .25 is too extreme underfoot. 


Both pair have a .7 tip and tail, .5 fore and aft body and Apprx. .25 underfoot. with 4 degree side edges. There were some extremely variable icy patches and the skis were amazingly grippy. But I have decided I like a more progressive edge engagement on a GS ski. Maybe the .25 portion is more appropriate for slalom. 


Edge engagement just seems too abrupt underfoot and I could not vary "neutral duration" easily. Plan is to go to a .5 underfoot to match the fore and aft body and leave the tips & tail as is. 


It also may be that our preferred edge engagement is from the tip of the ski. I think about pressure from the tip back through the ski length when engaging not from the center and then fore/aft


I want the tip of my ski to begin carving first not the center and there may be the rub, no pun intended:D 

Edited by Atomicman - 2/5/14 at 5:11pm
post #35 of 38
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post


I feel the .25 is too extreme underfoot. 




  Wuss.................................................:duck:  Just kidding!!!!!!!! Yeah, my SL's are at .25 underfoot--my GS-ers are at .5. :beercheer:




post #36 of 38
Originally Posted by zentune View Post



  Wuss.................................................:duck:  Just kidding!!!!!!!! Yeah, my SL's are at .25 underfoot--my GS-ers are at .5. :beercheer:




Guilty as charged in my case, but not my kid!  :D

post #37 of 38
Thread Starter 

Since I started this, I used to ski with a 0 base on my old straight skis (originally because I didn't know better and without detuning).  As I started following on what was happening tuning wise, I stated with side bevels still on the straights.  Now that I'm shaped skis, well I'll stick to the 0.5/4 set up.


I'm a lot older than when I started and it does hurt in the morning and the following morning when the skis bite you so that little bit of forgiveness might be a good thing.


Though, if I ever get a chance  I think I may want to try your SL skis zentune (maybe a couple aspirin after the experience may be required).



post #38 of 38

  Well I did nearly end up upside down and airborne last weekend after taking one too many liberties on some firm stuff...ended up torching my right quad to save it and had to take some pain relievers and do some stretching the next day. The moral of the story is, with really low (or no) base bevels, you will get caught off guard from time to time! :eek            


  P.s. I have a 293 bsl if you ever want to try 'em :beercheer:




New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs