or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why do most wide skis have little sidecut?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do most wide skis have little sidecut? - Page 2

post #31 of 49

Such a bitter man.

post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
 

I have read that 12 year old article.................so what! I like sidecut..............sue me!:rolleyes

 

I would never ski a ski like that.....not my style!  Guys loved the K2 Seth Pistols, may be the worst pile of toxic firewood I have ever skied on! Absolute junk!


Really....Seth Pistols is your reference?

post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
 

 

As usual you missed the point.......................... he said sidecut doesn't matter in powder.............................if it doesn't it matter, it can't be good or bad......................based on the clink83's comments ........not mine

 

 

it does not I am on 40 meter sidecut ski in this video....... flex, platform, mount point and rocker profile matter in powder the turn radius of a skis sidecut.

 

post #34 of 49
But side cut is a good proxy for the designer's intentions.

The flex matters more in uncut, but the side cut is printed on the ski and usually is highly correlated.

I like sidecut in mixed crud, long before you get to true hardpack.
post #35 of 49

The size and shape of an airplanes wings matter, and the variation of width along the length of a ski designed to be skied in 3-D snow matter.  Just because you can't understand the relationship between area, pressure, force, leverage and beam displacement and how it affects ski performance and turn shape doesn't mean it isn't there.

post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post
 

Interesting insights. Possibly for another thread, but I seemed to be offered fairly long skis in the demo. Would a shorter ski with sidecut alleviate some of the pressure lever arm problems? Realizing that length adds stability at speed, there might be a tradeoff with a shorter ski. And if sidecut slows you down as well, OK. I'm comfortable going slower (as an older guy who still wants to play in the trees).

 

I wonder about the sidecut because at Squaw the powder is gone right away turning into soft tight bumps. Those are so much fun but I don't want to change skis to get that. I'm OK with a multiple ski quiver but not during one morning!

 

Most wide skis rock the pure powder. When the powder turns to crud then bumps, the versatility of a ski becomes more important.

 

Eric

You mean, "like a snowboard"  ?  (there was a video to go along with this, but I can't seem to recall where it was posted - anyone?)

post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
 


Really....Seth Pistols is your reference?

No reference just a popular ski people liked and thought was a great powder ski that I disliked and about as oold as the article spinner posted:rolleyes

post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

The size and shape of an airplanes wings matter, and the variation of width along the length of a ski designed to be skied in 3-D snow matter.  Just because you can't understand the relationship between area, pressure, force, leverage and beam displacement and how it affects ski performance and turn shape doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

I think the point several folks were making was that the way sidecut influences turn radius on firm snow is a result of how the edge contacts the snow. Whereas its influence is in the form of the impact of its surface area distribution in deep soft snow --- not so much the "radius" itself. And, broadly speaking, because it makes managing turns in 3D snow harder rather than easier, overall sidecut is minimized or eliminated from the designs of powder-specific skis.


Edited by spindrift - 3/30/14 at 6:05pm
post #39 of 49
Why is this so hard to understand? Powder skis have sidecut because you're not always going to see soft snow. In a resort you have to get back to the lift on packed snow, in the back country there is corn, revrozen crap, windcrusts, you name it.
In 3d snow you turn by flexing the ski into an arc, not by balancing on the edge.
Brain=asploded
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post
 

I demoed a bunch of wide skis. Pretty straight edges on most of them. Nice feels on most of them.

 

But what happened to the shaped ski revolution? Where's the wide shaped ski?

 

Eric

Incorrect premise. Plenty of skis over 100 mm with sidecuts under 20 m. Head, Praxis, Stockli, Armada, Atomic, Rossignol, Nordica, DPS, in fact, I'd bet the majority of all manufacturers make at least one or two models. But that's OK, we'll hare after your conclusion anyway...

 

If your definition of shaped skis is a sidecut down in the low teens, like a SL, you and your ACL can have a talk about it after surgery. 

post #41 of 49

You could shape the ski with flex alone and have a nice bend in the ski, but then it would be too soft to be stable at speed.

You could have uniform bending resistance, and shape the curve of the ski riding in the snow using sidecut alone, but then the ski would be too difficult to control.

Skis strike a balance, using both flex and sidecut.

 

If you can't ski a ski with a 20 m sidecut in deep snow, you can't ski very well; it's only harder if you work against the ski instead of using its properties. 

post #42 of 49

The OP's starting question in this thread has been answered, but as usual this thread has taken a few detours.  Unless a ski has an actual reverse sidecut then most skis (no matter how wide) are still clearly part of the shaped ski revolution.  Remember that our original "skinny" skis were at least 40m+ sidecuts (and typically much higher).  Most wide skis without much sidecut still come in under 40m sidecuts.  So as modern skis they're still relatively "shaped".

 

We have had lots of threads over the years going back and forth about whether or not sidecut has any kind of "play" in 3D snow.  I'm in the camp that believes that it does and this is based on the pressure distribution principle across the length of the ski.  More surface area at the tips and tails means more pressure is developed in those areas so the tips and tails will float more than the skinnier waist.  I'm also in the "tiny turns" camp when powder skiing.  I like to turn, turn, and turn some more - skis with heavy amounts of rocker make it even more fun for skiers like me when it comes to skiing deep powder (really easy to make lots of little turns).

 

As noted earlier in the thread, sidecuts published by manufacturers are really rough approximations.  The published 15m sidecut on my 190cm DPS Wailer 112RP is really derived from the very short contact length and large amount of rocker.  In reality there's really not all that much sidecut on that ski if you purely look at the tip-waist-tail dimensions.

post #43 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

You could shape the ski with flex alone and have a nice bend in the ski, but then it would be too soft to be stable at speed.

You could have uniform bending resistance, and shape the curve of the ski riding in the snow using sidecut alone, but then the ski would be too difficult to control.

Skis strike a balance, using both flex and sidecut.

 

If you can't ski a ski with a 20 m sidecut in deep snow, you can't ski very well; it's only harder if you work against the ski instead of using its properties. 

 

It is not a matter of can or can not. Sidecut is not your friend in deep snow the way it is on firm snow. That's just reality. Can you tame it? Yes.  I prefer not to have to work that hard to defeat my skis...

 

Also, I have tried to qualify my statements a bit because sidecut radius does not stand alone. What is the sidecut length? How does it relate to camber (incl rocker) and flex? A short length of 18m sidecut radius on a modern 5 point ski is a very different beast than the same radius running virtually the full length of a traditional cambered ski.

post #44 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
A short length of 18m sidecut radius on a modern 5 point ski is a very different beast than the same radius running virtually the full length of a traditional cambered ski.

Nice point. 

post #45 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
A short length of 18m sidecut radius on a modern 5 point ski is a very different beast than the same radius running virtually the full length of a traditional cambered ski.

Nice point. 


Yeah what's the deal there. I don't understand it but I like it,a lot. There as much fun as a SL ski but more versatile.

post #46 of 49
And I don't. I could tame a 5 point design, but I prefer skis that do what I ask them to.
post #47 of 49

FWIW, my Atomic Rituals have a 5 point design, wide tips but only a 103mm waist, a claimed 20 m sidecut, but  it is variable being longer in the front and tighter in the back. The ski is also stiffer in the front than in the back so it carves turns differently depending on where you weight.  My point is that the manufacturer's claimed sidecut number by itself does not tell you much about the ski's performance, particularly in deep snow.

post #48 of 49

The 5 point skis do anything I ask without hesitation.

post #49 of 49

My 5 point skis don't need taming. On the groomed they turn like a champ, in the 3D they do the same, just differently.

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 › Why do most wide skis have little sidecut?