or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Atomic Ramp Tech Plate

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

Will someone please explain what Ramp Tech is, what it does and how (in theory) will it improve my turns? The Atomic website has no hard information at all.

post #2 of 24
RampTech is one feature of DoubleDeck 3.0:

- The DD is lighter.

- The front inserts are yellow; rear inserts are red, loads up the tail more at the end of the turn.

- RampTech: just behind the heel of the boot there's a horizontal spindle in the plate, so the plate angle increases 10 degrees at the end of the turn.

All in all, Atomic rep says the ski should come around quicker. DD 3.0 is pretty much limited to the non-FIS skis, such as the 183 23m GSs I just got. Does any of this stuff work? Dunno, watch this space, I'll have an answer in about 3 or 4 weeks...

biggrin.gif
post #3 of 24
Thread Starter 

If actions speak louder that advertising hype then Ramp Tech works just a little less effectivly than Piston Plate, according to El Supremo Marcel Hirsher at Solden anyway.

post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

If actions speak louder that advertising hype then Ramp Tech works just a little less effectivly than Piston Plate, according to El Supremo Marcel Hirsher at Solden anyway.

WC skis would not have Ramp Tech

post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 

What's on the WC skis instead? Has anyone else on the WC used Piston Plates to improve the performance of D2? I read the Janka wanted to use them but was forbidden by his ATOMIC masters.

post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

What's on the WC skis instead? Has anyone else on the WC used Piston Plates to improve the performance of D2? I read the Janka wanted to use them but was forbidden by his ATOMIC masters.


I *think* the FIS legal skis have last year's plate...and Janka switched to Rossignol...

post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

What's on the WC skis instead? Has anyone else on the WC used Piston Plates to improve the performance of D2? I read the Janka wanted to use them but was forbidden by his ATOMIC masters.

NO Janka wanted to stay on the older Race 10.18. not use Markers.

 

I am not sure D2's before this season could accomodate a different plate. Apparantly it is a 3 piece setup with the middle section of the D2 being somehow removable. 

 

From the article!

 

In 2010, Atomic brought a new binding on the market. Carlo Janka was one of the racers who did not like it. We repeatedly asked for permission to use the old model. But Atomic remained stubborn, even though Carlo was an Olympic and World Cup winner much like Hirscher. That’s why I cannot understand that Marcel can now use a different brand,” Brunner said.

post #8 of 24
Thread Starter 

I saw a close up of the piston plate setup on British Eurosport and there appears to be two "terminal" blocks screwed to the ski to anchor the D2, one in front and one behind the piston plate which is mounted directly on the topsheet. Making the D2 discontinuous must seriously reduce its influence on the ski. There was also a quick shot of Dopfer's Nordica and he appears to be using a non Nordica raceplate too. It was a pretty quick shot but it looked like the same setup that Ligety uses on his Head skis.

post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

 Making the D2 discontinuous must seriously reduce its influence on the ski. 

 

More like completely eliminate The D2 influence. The D2 only works the way it does because it is one continuous element riding on top of the ski. The beef of the D2 is in the center section, the long ends that extend to the tip and tail are thin and soft. You could probably completely remove the entire D2, fill the holes, and just use the piston plate with the same intended effect.

post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

I saw a close up of the piston plate setup on British Eurosport and there appears to be two "terminal" blocks screwed to the ski to anchor the D2, one in front and one behind the piston plate which is mounted directly on the topsheet. Making the D2 discontinuous must seriously reduce its influence on the ski. There was also a quick shot of Dopfer's Nordica and he appears to be using a non Nordica raceplate too. It was a pretty quick shot but it looked like the same setup that Ligety uses on his Head skis.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKirk View Post
 

 

More like completely eliminate The D2 influence. The D2 only works the way it does because it is one continuous element riding on top of the ski. The beef of the D2 is in the center section, the long ends that extend to the tip and tail are thin and soft. You could probably completely remove the entire D2, fill the holes, and just use the piston plate with the same intended effect.


This!   If you look at what i posted on the other thread about Hirscher using the Marker piston plate, you will realize that the D2 plate front and rear sections on the world cup ski are effectively cosmetic now to maintain the linkage to the FIS race stock and retail skis for marketing purposes.  Whether it is the new Atomic center platte or the marker piston plate you consider, it is obvious that the front and rear sections are not really doing anything.  As the captain points out without the continuous D2 plate, these sections do not  have enough structural impact to do anything (remove a complete D2 plate and look at it, there is not a lot to it.  It works as a continuous element but not if disaggregated..   The D2 plate has been absent from the FIS slalom ski for at least 3 years now. i suspect next years FIS GS skis available to us commoners will also have done away with the D2 plate


Edited by ScotsSkier - 11/4/14 at 8:04pm
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post

RampTech is one feature of DoubleDeck 3.0:

- The DD is lighter.

- The front inserts are yellow; rear inserts are red, loads up the tail more at the end of the turn.

- RampTech: just behind the heel of the boot there's a horizontal spindle in the plate, so the plate angle increases 10 degrees at the end of the turn.

All in all, Atomic rep says the ski should come around quicker. DD 3.0 is pretty much limited to the non-FIS skis, such as the 183 23m GSs I just got. Does any of this stuff work? Dunno, watch this space, I'll have an answer in about 3 or 4 weeks...

biggrin.gif

I looked into this curious technology.  Ramptech appears to be simply a ramp under the heel piece that is higher towards the rear.  Thus, as the ski flexes, which forces the heel piece backwards, the height of the heel piece is raised.  The key point is that it thus imparts an added ramp angle that's in proportion to how deeply the ski is flexed.  In accomplished skiers the maximum flex, and thus maximum ramp angle, should be at the apex of the turn.

 

This technology is only available on their race skis (both FIS and non-FIS).  The market for these consists of high-level skiers and recreational racers.  While the technology is clever, I can't see them wanting this, since it seems it would mess up their technique.   I'd be interested to hear comments on this.


Edited by chemist - 11/16/14 at 5:06pm
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

I looked into this curious technology.  Ramptech appears to be simply a ramp under the heel piece that is higher towards the rear.  Thus, as the ski flexes, which forces the heel piece backwards, the height of the heel piece is raised.  The key point is that it thus imparts an added ramp angle that's in proportion to how deeply the ski is flexed.  In accomplished skiers the maximum flex, and thus maximum ramp angle, should be at the apex of the turn.

 

This technology is only available on their race skis (both FIS and non-FIS).  The market for these consists of high-level skiers and recreational racers.  While the technology is clever, I can't see them wanting this, since it seems it would mess up their technique.   I'd be interested to hear comments on this.


All I can tell you is that it's supposed to be wonderful...watch this space, live report coming shortly....

post #13 of 24

Amazing ski...quicker into the turn, cleaner in the middle, and rockets out at the end. Of course, the snow was perfect yesterday at Loveland and I was skiing well (for a change)...

 

:D

post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 

It looks like Fischer has a trick self elevating race plate for their 2015 GS skis too. I understand the mechanics but I'm skeptical that this is more about marketing than an advancement in technology. Are variable stand height/ramp angle plates FIS legal?

If so I wonder if the FIS measures the stand height; when the ski and the plate are flat or when flexed and elevated. This reminds me of adjustable ride height on F1 cars in the old days.

I noticed that a couple of the Fischer sponsored Slalom Ladies were using what appeared to be VIST plates instead of the Fischer race plate last weekend in Aspen.

What do you suppose is the effect of a stiffer or softer plate on ski performance?

post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

It looks like Fischer has a trick self elevating race plate for their 2015 GS skis too. I understand the mechanics but I'm skeptical that this is more about marketing than an advancement in technology. Are variable stand height/ramp angle plates FIS legal?

If so I wonder if the FIS measures the stand height; when the ski and the plate are flat or when flexed and elevated. This reminds me of adjustable ride height on F1 cars in the old days.

I noticed that a couple of the Fischer sponsored Slalom Ladies were using what appeared to be VIST plates instead of the Fischer race plate last weekend in Aspen.

What do you suppose is the effect of a stiffer or softer plate on ski performance?


Yep, interesting. The D3.0 plate on my 183 Atomic GSs looks like it has a higher stack height and one of my teammates and I figured out how it actually increases the ramp angle throughout the turn...which is probably why the FIS wouldn't like it, and is probably also why you aren't seeing it (to my knowledge) on the FIS legal Atomics...

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
 


Yep, interesting. The D3.0 plate on my 183 Atomic GSs looks like it has a higher stack height and one of my teammates and I figured out how it actually increases the ramp angle throughout the turn...which is probably why the FIS wouldn't like it, and is probably also why you aren't seeing it (to my knowledge) on the FIS legal Atomics...

Is its mechanism any different from what I described above?

 

I suspect a more likely reason it's not being used on the WC is that the WC skiers don't like having their ramp angle changed during the turn.  If they did -- i.e., if it provided them a benefit --  they could adjust it so that, even at max. ramp angle, the stand height at the heel did not exceed FIS limits.  Of course, WC skiers are different from you and me.  Nevertheless, I'm not sure I would like that effect either.  Having said that, it is a fascinating technology, and I like that they are continuing to try to experiment and innovate.

post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

Is its mechanism any different from what I described above?

 

I suspect a more likely reason it's not being used on the WC is that the WC skiers don't like having their ramp angle changed during the turn.  If they did -- i.e., if it provided them a benefit --  they could adjust it so that, even at max. ramp angle, the stand height at the heel did not exceed FIS limits.  Of course, WC skiers are different from you and me.  Nevertheless, I'm not sure I would like that effect either.  Having said that, it is a fascinating technology, and I like that they are continuing to try to experiment and innovate.


Don't know anything about the Fischer plate, and you're probably right about the WC skiers...and, yeah, they might not like it for the reasons you give, but I sure do...

post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
 


All I can tell you is that it's supposed to be wonderful...watch this space, live report coming shortly....

I'm not saying that the variable height plate concept might not be the greatest thing ever devised to improve skiing (it's likely not) but Man have you ever swallowed the ATOMIC Cool-Aid. D-2 was wonderful now variable ramp angle is wonderful. It looks like D2 is going the way of the Do Do and in 4 seasons ramp tech with its colour coded rubber bumpers will likely be on the junk pile too; but not before they have sold a bunch of them to the Early Adopters who heard that it's wonderful. My guess is that they didn't have anything substantially new to improve the actual ski so out comes a trick elevator plate. Don't misunderstand me, I really like my ATOMIC GS skis and the Atomic engineers are the best but I find the skis no better or worse than my Fischer, Nordica or Dynastar GS skis. They each have strong and not so strong aspects to their character but I'd be hard pressed to tell one from another midway through a race course. Fischer is my weapon of choice but I look with skepticism on the return of the hole in the tip from the 1970's. Back then it was to reduce wind resistance now it's for "weight reduction". So was the slant nose Dynastar and now that's forgotten too. Someone should start a thread titled "Questionable and short lived ski innovations", including but not limited to... Dynastar chicken hearts, para-blocs, low tip profiles and removable stiffening elements. I'm still unconvinced that the piston in the piston plate serves any real purpose and the UVO mass damper concept has been floated a couple of times too. If you stay around long enough you can see that very little is ever truly new. Although I have to admit that I believe this is the first time around for vertically variable suspension. I guess all the time I spent dialing in my boot setup was wasted.

I wonder if snow could get trapped and packed under the mechanism and one binding stays in the elevated position ...nah that couldn't happen.

post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

 Someone should start a thread titled "Questionable and short lived ski innovations", including but not limited to... Dynastar chicken hearts, para-blocs, low tip profiles and removable stiffening elements. I'm still unconvinced that the piston in the piston plate serves any real purpose and the UVO mass damper concept has been floated a couple of times too. If you stay around long enough you can see that very little is ever truly new.

Bingo!

 

Ski companies are constantly trying to find "ideas" to get consumers to buy new stuff. Not a bad thing, that's how they stay in business. However, if you look at how real GS skis are constructed, not much has changed since the late 1980's, with the exception of the shape. Of course, with the 35 M skis, we are basically back to the late 80's in GS...so nothing has really changed.

post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speeder View Post
 

I'm not saying that the variable height plate concept might not be the greatest thing ever devised to improve skiing (it's likely not) but Man have you ever swallowed the ATOMIC Cool-Aid. D-2 was wonderful now variable ramp angle is wonderful. It looks like D2 is going the way of the Do Do and in 4 seasons ramp tech with its colour coded rubber bumpers will likely be on the junk pile too; but not before they have sold a bunch of them to the Early Adopters who heard that it's wonderful. My guess is that they didn't have anything substantially new to improve the actual ski so out comes a trick elevator plate. Don't misunderstand me, I really like my ATOMIC GS skis and the Atomic engineers are the best but I find the skis no better or worse than my Fischer, Nordica or Dynastar GS skis. They each have strong and not so strong aspects to their character but I'd be hard pressed to tell one from another midway through a race course. Fischer is my weapon of choice but I look with skepticism on the return of the hole in the tip from the 1970's. Back then it was to reduce wind resistance now it's for "weight reduction". So was the slant nose Dynastar and now that's forgotten too. Someone should start a thread titled "Questionable and short lived ski innovations", including but not limited to... Dynastar chicken hearts, para-blocs, low tip profiles and removable stiffening elements. I'm still unconvinced that the piston in the piston plate serves any real purpose and the UVO mass damper concept has been floated a couple of times too. If you stay around long enough you can see that very little is ever truly new. Although I have to admit that I believe this is the first time around for vertically variable suspension. I guess all the time I spent dialing in my boot setup was wasted.

I wonder if snow could get trapped and packed under the mechanism and one binding stays in the elevated position ...nah that couldn't happen.


Whatever works for you...I like it, and so do 3 of my teammates who have skied on D2 3.0, so I think I'll stick with it...

post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiRacer55 View Post
 


Whatever works for you...I like it, and so do 3 of my teammates who have skied on D2 3.0, so I think I'll stick with it...

Of course you like them....new GS skis in your favorite flavor, what's not to like? I'm just saying that if they were fresh and you were to prepare them identically your old D2's would probably be just as good. This summer I bought a pair of Fischer WC GS and for the first time I bought the hole too. Watch this space for a report on how adding a hole has made them wonderfully quick and much superior to my pair without space age hole technology.

post #22 of 24

Speeder it's exactly what you wrote before... pure marketing BS. Fischer hole thing... if it would be so great, they would probably still have it, but except for SL skis (where whole thing ended up on some 2-3cm little hole from basically whole tip hole, and braking tips on beginning) there's no WC ski anymore with hole. For GS skis, they said there's no need for hole, now when tip is some 1-2mm more narrow as it was before, not to mention ski is 5+cm longer which would make even extra benefit of lower tip weight... if whole hole story would be true in first place. Head KERS system is another thing. Putting chip graphics on ski, and people feel ski completely different as before, even though it's just graphics, which means, you really need to buy new pair as it skis completely different then the one without that graphics on ;) I don't know anything about this Atomic plate, but I would assume it fits straight into above line of "inventions".

post #23 of 24

true WC skis really don't change that much at all. every 2-4 years theres a gen. change, maybe a diff shape, different structure (woods/glues/etc) but it's never the revolutionary thing they claim.
the plates (D2, blizzard fingers, nordica tongues, etc) are very nice marketing tools.

In reality the WC guys still ski on the same stuff made to look like the newest hot tech. look at HEAD, their skis are fairly identical new color top sheet and there you go.

Case in point many head athletes are still racing on the all white skis, atomic Marcel using piston plates and the "empty" plates seen by Scotskier, blizzard a few years ago racing with no fingers, and so on.
 

post #24 of 24

Ironically (at least from what I understand from reading ScotsSkier's reviews), the one recent improvement in FIS GS skis that is highly significant is one the manufacturer's don't seem to be interested in promoting -- ScotsSkier indicated they've figured out how to change the flex pattern to make up for the loss of sidecut in current FIS-compliant GS skis.


Edited by chemist - 12/7/14 at 6:03pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home