or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › Got my skis back from a stone grind and tune...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Got my skis back from a stone grind and tune... - Page 4

post #91 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

I have a pair of well used GS skis that came to me with a deep, straight structure.  I had been using them as early season rock skis simply because a GS ski is good on the cold, hard, man made snow.  I usually ski something in the low 90s in spring slop and slush bumps just for the water ski dynamics of it, but this season decided to give the 60 something GSRs with deep grooves a try.  To my surprise they really did seem to run faster in the wet cement than the fatter skis I usually use to blast over it more.  In all fairness, I did have a nice c10 coat of wax on them.  I'm sold on deep structure for slush.

 

I think the next time I do some work on my old RD Coyotes I will add some grooves to the bases tip to tail with the edge of a file then sand it with fine sandpaper before waxing them for spring conditions.  I know 60 grit sandpaper then working up is the preferred DIY method but I believe I can get the a patten very close to what is on the GSRs using a big nasty file edge carving one pass tip to tail.  Heck, if I wreck the skis I'm out the $90 I paid for them including bindings four years ago.  But, a quick test on the base of a retired ski makes me believe it just might work.Only problem might be the angle of the grooves could be lop sided since the file is designed to cut in a defined direction.  Hoping that sanding with fine grit will smooth it out enough.

 

Anyone else ever try something so crazy?

thats Volantaddicts preferred method.

post #92 of 114

My thinking is that by establishing water flow to the sides you are encouraging air flow to the center.

The USST used race skis I rave about had this structure and I have never found another that works as well.

I wish someone like Primoz or Dominator Tom who really knows something about the black art of structure would lay some knowledge on the Bears.

Skis should be squirrely up to a point, a 1 base bevel is a lot less stable than 1/2 during transitions.

post #93 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post
 

My thinking is that by establishing water flow to the sides you are encouraging air flow to the center.

 

 

So, since the teeth of the file have a distinctive edge hook facing one way, especially on the side edge corner I'm talking about using figure this.  How about I use one side of the file to carve the grooves down the left side of the ski and the other side of the file to carve the grooves down the right side if the ski holding it so both sets of grooves hook out towards the edges instead of in towards the middle?  The difference in the lop sided grooves will be very subtle after sanding, but it could generate some outward displacement of the liquid as I pass over it.

 

So a cross section would be something like this:

 

||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////||

 

Just not anywhere near that deep, just scratches really..

post #94 of 114

I'm just trying to see if I can top the flame thrower p-tex and base weld examples I've seen elsewhere in the tuning tips section hahahaha.  Although I really am going to try that next spring if I remember it when tuning the old RDs.

post #95 of 114

We will never know unless you try it.

You bring up a dumb ass idea like this you should do the right thing and carry on.....

Epic should have a special voted award for some of this stuff.

We could call this award the........

post #96 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post
 

I am curious about other people's experiences with structure??  I for one, haven't really noticed any changes in my skis with different structures. I haven't really dug into it and done any testing, but I do have the ski visions tool and get similar results with it as ski otter. I would say the only thing I have noticed is my skis getting sticky in the spring, and some fluro wax takes care of that pretty well. I have noticed a lot more difference in the skis glide with the right wax or the wrong wax. Mostly in really cold temps' (not hard enough wax) and skis get sticky. Also on really warm days (lots of friction)??

This season I had a pair of skis damaged by a deep linear pattern in combination with a rail high stone grind. The skis didn't want to turn, and I had to do a bunch of work on them. I think the linear structure might have worked on a straighter ski, like crgildart's gs skis, but mine had a good amount of side cut, and it seemed that the linear structure and radial side cut conflicted, not sure.

 

The rest of your observations here are exactly my own also.  


Edited by ski otter - 5/7/14 at 3:12pm
post #97 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 
As you can see from my picture a few post back, I have very straight structure. I use Dominator Hyperzoom wax and may ad some cold powder or yellow wax when the temps go that way.

I do find like most people when the sun warms the spring snow, you need to stay in the shade, or ski where its steep and the snow keeps getting moved around.

If that doesn't work....it's Miller Time!..

 

This spring I still intend to try the Dominator Butter wax, for mush (http://www.artechski.com/dominator-specialty-ski-wax.aspx#gsc.tab=0).

I'm just not sure how the skis with Butter on them will react on less slushed out terrain earlier in the day. :rolleyes

 

 Maybe instead I'll try Hertel Spring Solution. (http://www.hertelskiwax.com/Ski-Wax-Spring-Solution-p/spring-5bar-ski.htm)

 

 That "stop you dead in your tracks/face plant" feeling of slush isn't fun!

 

qcanoe uses Butter.  So maybe it works for mixed spring slush conditions, dunno.

 

 

My problem with deep structure for spring is I'm stuck with that come fall unless I get yet another stone grind or re-structure it myself, a bear to do. 

post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

This season I had a pair of skis damaged by a deep linear pattern in combination with a rail high stone grind. The skis didn't want to turn, and I had to do a bunch of work on them. I think the linear structure might have worked on a straighter ski, like crgildart's gs skis, but mine had a good amount of side cut, and it seemed that the linear structure and radial side cut conflicted, not sure.

 

Humm, they are older 21 meter GS skis.  Quite a bit deeper sidecut than the current 30-35 m GS skis.  But, the structure only bites on hard pack.  In slush or deep snow it doesn't seem to affect turning.  On hardpack it makes the skis track straight a little better when bombing, which is something I like about it.

post #99 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post
 

We will never know unless you try it.

You bring up a dumb ass idea like this you should do the right thing and carry on.....

Epic should have a special voted award for some of this stuff.

We could call this award the........


Hold my beer and watch this!:newkeyboard:

post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post

 

This spring I still intend to try the Dominator Butter wax, for mush (http://www.artechski.com/dominator-specialty-ski-wax.aspx#gsc.tab=0).

I'm just not sure how the skis with Butter on them will react on less slushed out terrain earlier in the day. " src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif">

 

 Maybe instead I'll try Hertel Spring Solution. (http://www.hertelskiwax.com/Ski-Wax-Spring-Solution-p/spring-5bar-ski.htm)

 

 That "stop you dead in your tracks/face plant" feeling of slush isn't fun!

 

qcanoe uses Butter.  So maybe it works for mixed spring slush conditions, dunno.

 

 

My problem with deep structure for spring is I'm stuck with that come fall unless I get yet another stone grind or re-structure it myself, a bear to do. 

 



smile.gif yes the delema about what to do next Fall. I have thought about that a lot. Before I put the skis away for the summer, I set them up for opening day. Go back to a medium structure, and put Dominator Hyperzoom on them. I do rub the metal edges with yellow wax just to coat them before I drip on the Hyperzoom. Oh, I mix in a little graphite wax to condition the bases.

I have not tryed the Butter, may be I should.

I do have some Spring Solution but haven't used it in years.

Oh the other thing I do if the weather is right, is leave the skis in the back of my Subaru Legacy wagon bases up so the warm sun can heat the skis and soak in some wax. Not as good as a hot box but you can see the wax get liquidy. Black car, black interior.
post #101 of 114

I have some Dominator "Slush" 

 

Not sure they still make it!

 

Works great in warm slushy snow!

post #102 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post

smile.gif yes the delema about what to do next Fall. I have thought about that a lot. Before I put the skis away for the summer, I set them up for opening day. Go back to a medium structure, and put Dominator Hyperzoom on them. I do rub the metal edges with yellow wax just to coat them before I drip on the Hyperzoom. Oh, I mix in a little graphite wax to condition the bases.

I have not tried the Butter, may be I should.

I do have some Spring Solution but haven't used it in years.

Oh the other thing I do if the weather is right, is leave the skis in the back of my Subaru Legacy wagon bases up so the warm sun can heat the skis and soak in some wax. Not as good as a hot box but you can see the wax get liquidy. Black car, black interior.
 

My car's maroon. Close enough!  :cool

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
 

I have some Dominator "Slush" 

 

Not sure they still make it!

 

Works great in warm slushy snow!

 

"Slush" is gone from Google, apparently.
 
Jacques on applying Butter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBCvK-TS8WI

 

(I got this when I googled Dominator Slush; it's about Butter, not Slush)

 

On this utube, Jacques says he uses another ski in am until it gets slushy. Then out comes the Butter skis, nicely buttered in with dedicated Butter brush and white nonabrasive fiber pad, also dedicated. And gloves to prevent fluoro poisoning for smokers. :eek 

post #103 of 114
I'm sure if you contact Dominator Tom he can get you some Butter. Haven't seen him on here in a while...
post #104 of 114

Just seeing this thread, and it's obviously been pretty derailed, but I'll try to address some things that haven't been covered. 

 

To the original post, it's hard to tell from the pictures, but the structure looks quite course, like a pregrind/flattening structure. If it feels like corduroy, which is what it looks like, it's probably going to be less than optimal to turn in any conditions.

 

With regards to flattening a ski with a stone grinder and having it returned base or edge high, this is most often do to impatience/incompetence on the part of the operator, or due to improper belt grinding followed by lazy stone grinding. One of the most important factors when flattening a ski is the feed pressure, which is the downward pressure on the ski as it passes over the stone.  If your skis topsheets have shape to them, be it plates, dampening, or whatever else, there will be more pressure exerted in those areas, and thus more material removed, leaving the skis base or edge high in those areas. The only way to compensate for this is to reduce the feed pressure to almost nothing, and take usually 50-60 passes to achieve the desired results. With a flat topsheet, like most Volkls, this can be as few as 6 passes. Keep in mind this is just for the flattening process. This step leaves a very course structure in the ski that you would never want to ski on. Next you need to re-dress the stone with a very tight, and fine linear to "blank" the ski, which essentially leaves you a new fresh surface to impart your finish grind on. The blanking stage is another 2-5 passes. Finally, you redress the stone for your final pattern based on ski, skier, discipline, conditions, etc. This is the final pass, and the one that imparts the structure which you are all talking about. 

 

As you can imagine, to do this process properly requires 40 minutes to 2 hours per pair of skis, and uses 3 separate stone dressing cycles, which aren't cheap. This is why 99% of shops put out bad tunes, they just aren't willing to spend the time required to do it properly, or they do not have anyone on staff that actually knows how to assess the skis condition in the first place, or bring it to where it needs to be. The sad truth is that most shops rarely have a complaint, because the vast majority of skiers have never had a good tune, and as long as the skis look nice when they pick them up they are happy. Geometry never even enters their mind as a factor. 

 

Speaking of structure, it is still a relatively new aspect of race tuning and tuning in general. It's really only been highly controllable and repeatable for the last 10-15 years, which means we all still have a lot to learn. The only way to really know if your structure is adding a measurable improvement is to test it on a glide track in very specific conditions. For a recreational skier, some structure is necessary in order to move water and increase glide, but very specific structures for conditions are almost never necessary. Most modern machines have 3 depths of cut, .01-.03mm, some have 6 where each step is a half step to a max depth of .03mm, and the really nice race grinders are CNC controlled and can do any depth. For almost all conditions anything over a .02 is too deep and will be grippy, unless you're doing an extra step where you run one final pass after your finish grind on a perfectly blank stone to take the high point off the cut.

 

The pattern itself can be linear or crosshatch, or variations of these, with the exception on the CNC machines that again, can do almost anything. A chevron, sine wave, arrow, thumbprint, or any of the center specific structures are all variations of a crosshatch pattern. These patterns require you to increase the speed of the diamond to the center of the stone on the first pass and decrease from the center to the end, and then do the opposite on the return pass. Or you can do it with a variable stone speed on some machines. All of the variables - stone speed, diamond speed, diamond depth of cut, feed speed, and feed pressure - will affect the outcome of the structure. In general, as has been stated, you'd run finer structures for cold dry snow, and courser structures for warm, wet snow like we have in the Sierras. The courser structure will move the abundance of free water more easily in wet conditions, while the fine structure will increase surface area and create more water to promote better glide in dry conditions.

 

For tech skis, SL/GS, we never run a linear because quick turning is the name of the game, and we barely want to feel it from edge to edge, because if we can it is most likely slowing you down. On speed skis, SG/DH, we run different patterns for different conditions, because most athletes have multiple pairs, but again, rarely do we run a linear. For your average recreational skier we almost exclusively run medium depth, and a variation of a crosshatch, and people love it. 

 

As for Dominator's Butter in the spring, it is an awesome product and pretty economical. I think it retails for $42 and as a rub on wax it will last you forever if you're only using it for yourself. I gave my Dad a block 3 years ago and he rubs it on every 3-4 runs in the spring when it gets sticky and swears it saves his back from the jarring spring stiction. We also had lots of spring podiums running Butter as an overlay in all types of events from tech to speed, skiier cross, and the mens and womens winners of the Rhalves Banzai Tour. I'd highly recommend all Dominator products, it's what we use pretty much exclusively, because we usually regret it when we don't. 

post #105 of 114

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmoothRides View Post
 

Just seeing this thread, and it's obviously been pretty derailed, but I'll try to address some things that haven't been covered.....

 

As you can imagine, to do this process properly requires 40 minutes to 2 hours per pair of skis, and uses 3 separate stone dressing cycles, which aren't cheap. This is why 99% of shops put out bad tunes, they just aren't willing to spend the time required to do it properly, or they do not have anyone on staff that actually knows how to assess the skis condition in the first place, or bring it to where it needs to be. ....

 

As for Dominator's Butter in the spring, it is an awesome product and pretty economical. I think it retails for $42 and as a rub on wax it will last you forever if you're only using it for yourself...... I'd highly recommend all Dominator products, it's what we use pretty much exclusively, because we usually regret it when we don't. 

 

Thanks for such a clear, knowledgeable explanation. 

 

Please let me know if you know the name(s) of any of those 1% near me or where I ski, Denver and the I-70 corridor up through Summit County, CO to Copper Mt.

I'm more and more into doing my own skis, but a good place for a stone grind would come in handy, most likely. 

 

Last, do the other Dominator waxes also last much longer than you'd suspect (and longer than, say, Swix waxes do), especially for non-racer, recreational use?

 

I have heard over and over they are noticeably the best, but I've used mostly Swix CH waxes (6, 7, 8, 10) because they're apparently cheaper (from Artechski, anyway), non-fluoro, and they work for the most part, as far as I can tell. 


Edited by ski otter - 5/10/14 at 1:08pm
post #106 of 114
My understanding, which is fairly primitive, is that structure is largely about managing the water under the base. The friction of the base against the snow creates a layer of water. Cold snow means a thinner layer of water, which doesn't cause a lot of suction, so a fine structure works fine, as it were. Warmer snow means more water, and more water means more suction. So the downside of a fine grind is that they'll suddenly grab going from firm snow to, say, a slope that the sun has turned to slop. OTOH, a coarser grind in the right pattern routes water toward the edge of the ski, breaking the suction, and is more about drawing air in than moving water out. So the downside of a coarse grind is that cold or fresh snow, with its smaller crystals, sticks in all those sharp depressions, slowing the skis down and making them hard to control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I had a coarse structure put in my skis once. Hated it. Never did get the skis fixed. An instructor also had it done and had it taken out. I think if it's a cross hatch it might be okay, but straight must take a way better skier than I am. I thought I'd never get down the hill.

Whether you do it yourself or get a good shop to take care of it for you, I think it's worth a try. My awful structure had a finer cross pattern, but the dominant cuts were very coarse and linear. I could stay on my feet, but my legs would be totally gumby after half a day of fighting the commandment to go straight at any cost. Standing still in fresh snow near freezing resulted in a few inches of packed snow sticking to my skis as though I had klister underfoot, and turning on anything that was consolidated, to say nothing of packed or firm or even icy, required laying the skis on edge, a skill I'm just barely starting to get down. eek.gif Forget about drifting or smearing, forget about sideslipping, and you'd better be ready to go uphill for speed control rather than feather edges. And this was after I got the linear grooves out of the base edges. That's when I paid out the nose for a hand tune at Sport Loft to fix the bases and put in a nice pretty structure. I had two days on them after that, and I can't describe what sweet relief it was to zoom around on conditions ranging from ice to stiff refrozen or heavy cut-up crud to powder to slush and everything in between and having my skis smoothly comply with whatever I felt like doing. Sure, I had a couple of staggers in a few predictable places toward the bottom of the hill, but that was worth 99% fun.

BTW, the structure on my Kenjas, which was done by a shop in Park City, is closer to the coarse structure the Powder House put on than Sport Loft's fine version, and after one day on the new tune I put them away because they just didn't feel as fun as I remember. Given what I've learned, I think I'll have their structure redone in November before taking them out again. I used to love them, but just like the Shoguns, I felt like I couldn't remember why I bought them in the first place. OTOH, Park City skis easily 10-15 degrees warmer than the Cottonwood Canyons, which could explain the moderately coarse structure. The Kenjas are nice and flat, so I'm hoping I can just get them re-structured rather than ground.

@nemesis256, if it makes you feel any better, my structure looked like the pattern I asked for, which seemed like what I'd had on at least one pair of skis in the past, but the sample I looked at was nowhere near as coarse as what ended up on my skis, or if it was, I didn't notice in the low light. I mean, I could stick my fingernail into the structure (including the ones they imparted to my base edges) and dig out wax even after all the brushing (and brushing, and brushing, and brushing) I did. I imagine there's a brush that could have cleaned it out, but it's not in my three brush series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothRides View Post

With regards to flattening a ski with a stone grinder and having it returned base or edge high, this is most often do to impatience/incompetence on the part of the operator, or due to improper belt grinding followed by lazy stone grinding. One of the most important factors when flattening a ski is the feed pressure, which is the downward pressure on the ski as it passes over the stone.  If your skis topsheets have shape to them, be it plates, dampening, or whatever else, there will be more pressure exerted in those areas, and thus more material removed, leaving the skis base or edge high in those areas. The only way to compensate for this is to reduce the feed pressure to almost nothing, and take usually 50-60 passes to achieve the desired results. With a flat topsheet, like most Volkls, this can be as few as 6 passes. Keep in mind this is just for the flattening process. This step leaves a very course structure in the ski that you would never want to ski on. Next you need to re-dress the stone with a very tight, and fine linear to "blank" the ski, which essentially leaves you a new fresh surface to impart your finish grind on. The blanking stage is another 2-5 passes. Finally, you redress the stone for your final pattern based on ski, skier, discipline, conditions, etc. This is the final pass, and the one that imparts the structure which you are all talking about. 

As you can imagine, to do this process properly requires 40 minutes to 2 hours per pair of skis, and uses 3 separate stone dressing cycles, which aren't cheap. This is why 99% of shops put out bad tunes, they just aren't willing to spend the time required to do it properly, or they do not have anyone on staff that actually knows how to assess the skis condition in the first place, or bring it to where it needs to be. The sad truth is that most shops rarely have a complaint, because the vast majority of skiers have never had a good tune, and as long as the skis look nice when they pick them up they are happy. Geometry never even enters their mind as a factor. 
@SmoothRides, that's great information. I've learned way more about structure this season than I'd really like to know, and as with so many of us, it's been because of bad tuning experiences.

But here's a question: after reading the posts about structure in this thread, along with what I've dealt with, it seems to me that structure involves two things: the pattern, and where it falls on the spectrum from coarse to fine. That is, you can get fine linear or coarse linear, fine chevron or diamond or coarse, etc. Is that anywhere near correct? Or if I ask for a fine structure, is that going to be a different pattern than if I asked for a coarse structure for wet spring conditions?

Also, if your ski is basically flat, my impression was that you can have a shop just change the structure without doing a full grind. Is that correct?
post #107 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

 

Thanks for such a clear, knowledgeable explanation. 

 

Please let me know if you know the name(s) of any of those 1% near me or where I ski, Denver and the I-70 corridor up through Summit County, CO to Copper Mt.

I'm more and more into doing my own skis, but a good place for a stone grind would come in handy, most likely. 

 

Last, do the other Dominator waxes also last much longer than you'd suspect (and longer than, say, Swix waxes do), especially for non-racer, recreational use?

 

I have heard over and over they are noticeably the best, but I've used mostly Swix CH waxes (6, 7, 8, 10) because they're apparently cheaper (from Artechski, anyway), non-fluoro, and they work for the most part, as far as I can tell. 

 

I do not know any shops in CO unfortunately, good or bad, just not personally familiar with any.

 

I wouldn't say Dominator waxes are more durable, but they use high quality raw materials and are made in the USA. Their anti-stats are the best I've used, and if you don't want to think or spend too much, but want high performance their race zoom series waxes are pretty hard to beat. If your running straight hydrocarbon without flouros or antistat, like the Swix CH waxes you mentioned, I don't think you'll really notice a difference in performance by switching to Dominators hydrocarbon.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by litterbug View Post

But here's a question: after reading the posts about structure in this thread, along with what I've dealt with, it seems to me that structure involves two things: the pattern, and where it falls on the spectrum from coarse to fine. That is, you can get fine linear or coarse linear, fine chevron or diamond or coarse, etc. Is that anywhere near correct? Or if I ask for a fine structure, is that going to be a different pattern than if I asked for a coarse structure for wet spring conditions?

Also, if your ski is basically flat, my impression was that you can have a shop just change the structure without doing a full grind. Is that correct?

 

First, you are mostly correct in terms of what you can ask for from a technician. Any pattern can be made courser/finer, but this is really a simplification. As you change the parameters of the structure when dressing, each variable has some effect on another variable. It's easy to lump structure into basics like course, medium, and fine, or into patterns with cute names that look similar, but what we are actually looking at when creating or manipulating programs is the length of cut, width of cut, depth of cut, shape, peaks and valleys, spacing between cuts and rows, angle, stone, diamond shape, and how all these things will *hopefully perform in the desired conditions for a specific ski and skier. This is why it's fun to experiment with structure for competitive skiers looking for every possible advantage, but for your average skier, a good universal grind for the conditions you ski the most is all you really need. 

 

As for the question about changing structure without doing a full grind when skis are flat - It really depends on what structure is being changed. If the old structure is really course and aggressive it may require a bunch of passes to remove the old pattern before you can blank and re-structure. If the skis are still flat, but have a heavily worn and fine old structure you can usually change it up pretty quick. Again, the type of topsheet plays a roll in the speed because of the feed pressure. The fully automated machines are much better at dealing with these types of skis, but unfortunately there are only a handful of quality shops that have these types of machines due to their cost. Most of the automated machines that are available to the public are at the bases of ski resorts, and are operated to maximize quantity not quality. On a manual machine with a feed roller, even when servo controlled for pressure compensation, the biggest issue is still the binding bridge and the topsheet. After the grind you'll also need to reset the base bevel, which usually leads to side edge work as well. 

post #108 of 114
Thanks for the response, SR. Sounds like an art to create the perfect structure. I never appreciated how important it could be until someone got it wrong. BTW, this was one of those fully automated top of the line machines, and as you put it, it must have been optimized for quantity, not quality.
post #109 of 114

Thanks SR, I hope this thread will help people decide to start doing there own tunes. As I've said before, I haven't had a bad tune since I began doing my own tunes 14 years ago.

 

For Dominator wax's. I found this season when we in NE we were getting fresh snow every week I could ski 6 or 7 day's may be more before I had to wax my skis. Normally on man made snow I get 3 day's. I use Hyperzoom on all my skis.

post #110 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothRides View Post
 

 

As you can imagine, to do this process properly requires 40 minutes to 2 hours per pair of skis, and uses 3 separate stone dressing cycles, which aren't cheap. This is why 99% of shops put out bad tunes, they just aren't willing to spend the time required to do it properly, or they do not have anyone on staff that actually knows how to assess the skis condition in the first place, or bring it to where it needs to be. 

This is true for manual fed machines, but for robotic tuners, we regularly race grind (and process the edges) - of 4 pairs of skis, that are in fair condition, in about 1 hour.  

 

Someone mentioned why ski centers with robotic tuners don't perform proper grinds and tunes - I would say that most likely, it is that they don't know how.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothRides View Post

 

First, you are mostly correct in terms of what you can ask for from a technician. Any pattern can be made courser/finer, but this is really a simplification. As you change the parameters of the structure when dressing, each variable has some effect on another variable. It's easy to lump structure into basics like course, medium, and fine, or into patterns with cute names that look similar, but what we are actually looking at when creating or manipulating programs is the length of cut, width of cut, depth of cut, shape, peaks and valleys, spacing between cuts and rows, angle, stone, diamond shape, and how all these things will *hopefully perform in the desired conditions for a specific ski and skier. This is why it's fun to experiment with structure for competitive skiers looking for every possible advantage, but for your average skier, a good universal grind for the conditions you ski the most is all you really need. 

 

 

 ^^^  This is one of the best explanations of grind patterns I've ever read.  Terms like coarse, medium and fine are used regularly because it is an easier way to describe patterns.  If I were to ask the client what depth, inclination and width of the bananas they wanted in their cross linear pattern - I would just get a blank stare in return.

post #111 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
 

This is true for manual fed machines, but for robotic tuners, we regularly race grind (and process the edges) - of 4 pairs of skis, that are in fair condition, in about 1 hour.  

 

Someone mentioned why ski centers with robotic tuners don't perform proper grinds and tunes - I would say that most likely, it is that they don't know how.

 

 ^^^  This is one of the best explanations of grind patterns I've ever read.  Terms like coarse, medium and fine are used regularly because it is an easier way to describe patterns.  If I were to ask the client what depth, inclination and width of the bananas they wanted in their cross linear pattern - I would just get a blank stare in return.

 

Chenzo, I am tossing around the idea of an automated stone grinder for flattening/blanking, and for recreational tunes. What machine were you using where you could process 4 pairs per hour with edges, and I'm assuming get consistent results? Any other info would be appreciated as I have limited experience with automated machines.

post #112 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothRides View Post
 

 

Chenzo, I am tossing around the idea of an automated stone grinder for flattening/blanking, and for recreational tunes. What machine were you using where you could process 4 pairs per hour with edges, and I'm assuming get consistent results? Any other info would be appreciated as I have limited experience with automated machines.

 

I am using the montana snow cruiser, and we have snow challenges corporately, that are capable of at least 4 "race tunes" an hour.  Sometimes you can do up to 8 an hour if you have similar length skis, and the same bevels.  The key to that productivity is to batch them (which you are already doing)  for each type of grind, (pre-grind, blanking, final grind) so you are not dressing the stone more than the minimum 3 times.  The condition of the ski dictates the amount of time processing (as you know), so its hard to peg an exact number, but 4 an hour is a conservative figure.  With a ski that we have previously tuned (or a ski that is flat) we can do a regular tune (linear grind) as quickly as 1 or 2 minutes.

 

Personally I am not a fan of robots that have autoloaders, waxing modules and the older single ski setups.  

 

One benefit is while a ski is processing, a confident operator can multi-task - for example one can wax skis, or do a binding mount, at the same time a ski/board is being tuned.

 

Theres a microjet on ebay right now, I've used this machine for three years in the past, and its capable of  good productivity.  I believe its been replaced by the mercury in the current ws lineup.

 

The negatives to owning one of these would be the maintenance.  Sounds like you are very capable of doing your own repairs, so I doubt that you would need a service contract, but if you can get some over the phone tech support from the manu's, you should be able to take care of any major issue yourself.  Lastly I would keep your present standalone units as a backup, or to tune equipment that may not fit into the robots config ie: 80cm or less skis, narrow race snowboards, super fat skis, non-flat topsheets (rtm's and double decks) etc.

 

Good luck, you have a tough and expensive choice, but a robot is definitely the way to go if your doing around 1500-2000 plus tunes a year.

 

cheers

post #113 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski otter View Post
 

 

This spring I still intend to try the Dominator Butter wax, for mush (http://www.artechski.com/dominator-specialty-ski-wax.aspx#gsc.tab=0).

I'm just not sure how the skis with Butter on them will react on less slushed out terrain earlier in the day. :rolleyes

 

 Maybe instead I'll try Hertel Spring Solution. (http://www.hertelskiwax.com/Ski-Wax-Spring-Solution-p/spring-5bar-ski.htm)

 

 That "stop you dead in your tracks/face plant" feeling of slush isn't fun!

 

qcanoe uses Butter.  So maybe it works for mixed spring slush conditions, dunno.

 

 

Butter is *way* faster than Spring Solution in slush unless you get a lot of resin/pollen/windborne dust/tree crud in your snow.   

post #114 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
 

This is true for manual fed machines, but for robotic tuners, we regularly race grind (and process the edges) - of 4 pairs of skis, that are in fair condition, in about 1 hour.  

 

Someone mentioned why ski centers with robotic tuners don't perform proper grinds and tunes - I would say that most likely, it is that they don't know how.

 

 ^^^  This is one of the best explanations of grind patterns I've ever read.  Terms like coarse, medium and fine are used regularly because it is an easier way to describe patterns.  If I were to ask the client what depth, inclination and width of the bananas they wanted in their cross linear 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
 

 

I am using the montana snow cruiser, and we have snow challenges corporately, that are capable of at least 4 "race tunes" an hour.  Sometimes you can do up to 8 an hour if you have similar length skis, and the same bevels.  The key to that productivity is to batch them (which you are already doing)  for each type of grind, (pre-grind, blanking, final grind) so you are not dressing the stone more than the minimum 3 times.  The condition of the ski dictates the amount of time processing (as you know), so its hard to peg an exact number, but 4 an hour is a conservative figure.  With a ski that we have previously tuned (or a ski that is flat) we can do a regular tune (linear grind) as quickly as 1 or 2 minutes.

 

Personally I am not a fan of robots that have autoloaders, waxing modules and the older single ski setups.  

 

One benefit is while a ski is processing, a confident operator can multi-task - for example one can wax skis, or do a binding mount, at the same time a ski/board is being tuned.

 

Theres a microjet on ebay right now, I've used this machine for three years in the past, and its capable of  good productivity.  I believe its been replaced by the mercury in the current ws lineup.

 

The negatives to owning one of these would be the maintenance.  Sounds like you are very capable of doing your own repairs, so I doubt that you would need a service contract, but if you can get some over the phone tech support from the manu's, you should be able to take care of any major issue yourself.  Lastly I would keep your present standalone units as a backup, or to tune equipment that may not fit into the robots config ie: 80cm or less skis, narrow race snowboards, super fat skis, non-flat topsheets (rtm's and double decks) etc.

 

Good luck, you have a tough and expensive choice, but a robot is definitely the way to go if your doing around 1500-2000 plus tunes a year.

 

cheers

 

Thanks for the prompt and thorough response. The idea of the skis processing on the stone while I'm doing something else is the main motivation for such an investment. Edges would be a bonus, so stone and edge modules are all I need. I hardly ever use a belt, and I can't see how you would ever want to mix water and wax. My biggest concerns are consistent results and down time due to maintenance issues. Its tough to find reliable info from the manufacturers because they all tell you their machines are perfect for every situation, but with even a quick glance you can see where their potential weaknesses lie. 

 

What have your issues been with autoloading? 

 

Also, I've seen microjets but never personally run one, and the idea of everything being upside down seems great in theory, but I notice they aren't still using that design. 

 

With skis like RTM's are you completely screwed with Montana's system, or are there work arounds? Have you run machines with narrower feet that can deal with this type of topsheet? If so, did they then have pressure issues in those areas?

 

Thanks again Chenzo

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › Got my skis back from a stone grind and tune...