or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Tell me about radius vs waist width
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tell me about radius vs waist width - Page 2

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Just don't believe the part about wider bindings affecting edge to edge leverage. 
i didnt understand what that meant either . Lifting the binding makes easier indeed, but not sure what this wider bindings means. Also, He didnt mention the torque in the ankle and I guess knees, which is greater for wide skis on hardpack and ice.

70s is not too bad, 80s and higher would be too much for hardpack, I think.
post #32 of 55
I think i get the wide bindings comment. The bindings are wider! And, when you torque the ski on edge, that gives you more leverage, making it easier to tip the ski on edge...?
post #33 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

I think i get the wide bindings comment. The bindings are wider! And, when you torque the ski on edge, that gives you more leverage, making it easier to tip the ski on edge...?

 

No, that's what a rigid boot/ski interface does. Width has nothing to do with it.

post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

No, that's what a rigid boot/ski interface does. Width has nothing to do with it.
lets think it through.

The laterally stiff boot has no interface with the ski, it helps send all the force to the sole of the boot, which does interface with the ski.

Torque to teh ski is applied from the - lets take the right outside ski - left edge of the boot downwards and the right screws of the binding upwards. Also, even on the left side, it is divided between the left side of the boot and the left edge of the binding itself.

The further the right side screws are from the left side of the boot, the more leverage you have and the easier it is to tip the ski on edge...

So this must be the reason why most new wide ski bindings are wide,

Edit/correction.
As the right side of the boot pulls up on the binding, the up force is distributed between the right screw and the left screw upwards, - last one cancelling some of the force from the left side of the boot.

So an optimal design would be one where the bindings screws on the inside are closer to the middle while the outside screws are further out... But then you have to tip it the other way.... So just a wider binding will do the trick.
Edited by razie - 10/26/14 at 1:51pm
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


lets think it through.

The laterally stiff boot has no interface with the ski, it helps send all the force to the sole of the boot, which does interface with the ski.

Torque to teh ski is applied from the - lets take the right outside ski - left edge of the boot downwards and the right screws of the binding upwards. Also, even on the left side, it is divided between the left side of the boot and the left edge of the binding itself.

The further the right side screws are from the left side of the boot, the more leverage you have and the easier it is to tip the ski on edge...

So this must be the reason why most new wide ski bindings are wide,

Edit/correction.
As the right side of the boot pulls up on the binding, the up force is distributed between the right screw and the left screw upwards, - last one cancelling some of the force from the left side of the boot.

So an optimal design would be one where the bindings screws on the inside are closer to the middle while the outside screws are further out... But then you have to tip it the other way.... So just a wider binding will do the trick.

 

No

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

No
wow, I mean yeah... completely logical, thoroughly detailed and very informative opinion, how come I did not think of it that way....confused.gif
post #37 of 55

You feel the relationship between you and the boot.  The binding and boot handles the relationship between the boot and the ski.  So long as the binding is rigid and strong enough, it doesn't matter how it does that. You may be able to use a weaker binding meeting the ski closer to the edge due to the so called lever advantage of the wide binding, but a properly designed binding will do the job just as well without being as close to the edge.

post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

You feel the relationship between you and the boot.  The binding and boot handles the relationship between the boot and the ski.  So long as the binding is rigid and strong enough, it doesn't matter how it does that. You may be able to use a weaker binding meeting the ski closer to the edge due to the so called lever advantage of the wide binding, but a properly designed binding will do the job just as well without being as close to the edge.

I can absolutely feel the difference between a lesser "wide" binding and a narrower all metal variant. 

post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I can absolutely feel the difference between a lesser "wide" binding and a narrower all metal variant. 
in what way ?

a) wider easier to turn or
b) narrow but rigid easier to turn or
c) wide less rigid, just imprecise, mushy

Thanks
post #40 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post

Here is a nice chat about that http://theskimonster.com/blog/posts/why-ski-a-wider-ski/

Basic point is that for anything other than racing at higher levels on ice, a slightly wider ski has more benefits for everyday skiing through chop, slush etc and the technology has improved a lot, so they are not as hard to turn as they were a while ago.

I see that race skis are high 60s while most on piste skis are high 70s. Which is decent - I have a pair of 78s and they don't turn much harder or slower than my 66s. They're softer though, even if they are stiff as recreational skis go.

good read, thank you

Just don't believe the part about wider bindings affecting edge to edge leverage. 

This is very interesting. I have a friend who runs a top ski shop in NY. He is a expert snowboarder but a intermediate  skier so I have to watch what he says. He is a high volume Blizzard dealer.  I have been looking at the blizzard magnum 8.0 2013 and it has a piston binding with the IQ (integrated) system. I called him to see if he had one and he did but it was flat. No IQ system. I see several on the Internet flat and he told me the ski skis better without the wide plate and wide binding. Says it was two much leverage. I checked all new blizzards on the web site and they all have the IQ system and some have the piston with the wide plate. If you read reviews for the 8.0 with the IQ system I have never seen anything other then a stellar review. Blizzard must be dumping leftover 8.0s.

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I can absolutely feel the difference between a lesser "wide" binding and a narrower all metal variant. 
in what way ?

a) wider easier to turn or
b) narrow but rigid easier to turn or
c) wide less rigid, just imprecise, mushy

Thanks

When I put the ski on a specific edge angle it is there, a more positive connection of boot to ski and ski to snow. 

post #42 of 55
The key here is that Phil is saying the binding construction is more important than the width, as I understand it.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

The key here is that Phil is saying the binding construction is more important than the width, as I understand it.

Yes, "wide" bindings are marketing hyperbole, the construction is key. When you are paying more for a better binding, you are buying a better housing, not so much a bigger spring. 

post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post I checked all new blizzards on the web site and they all have the IQ system and some have the piston with the wide plate. If you read reviews for the 8.0 with the IQ system I have never seen anything other then a stellar review. Blizzard must be dumping leftover 8.0s.

 

I don't know which website you were checking out, but in the US the Magnums were sold flat.  I believe in Europe they were a system ski.

 

The Magnums don't seem to be made anymore.   I bought my Magnum 8.0 CA's new directly from Blizzard Pro deal two years ago.  They were only available flat.

post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

I don't know which website you were checking out, but in the US the Magnums were sold flat.  I believe in Europe they were a system ski.

The Magnums don't seem to be made anymore.   I bought my Magnum 8.0 CA's new directly from Blizzard Pro deal two years ago.  They were only available flat.

I think he's confusing yours with the precious model year that had the IQ binding design. The added visual of the new X-910 and the return of the IQ just tosses more gas on the fires of confusion.
post #46 of 55
Thread Starter 

As I said the magnum is 2012-13. I see them on the internet  with IQ and Piston plate. Right now all Blizzards below race have the IQ system. Dont understand why they would sell a flat magnum. 

post #47 of 55

My Magnum 8.0 CA's are the 2013 model.  Only available flat.  I don't know what you mean by you see them on the internet but when I google those skis all I see are flat.

 

Which Magnum are you talking about?  As Marko said the 8.1 was a system ski, but the 8.0's were not (in the USA.)

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

As I said the magnum is 2012-13. I see them on the internet  with IQ and Piston plate. Right now all Blizzards below race have the IQ system. Dont understand why they would sell a flat magnum. 

 

Do you have a link to the 2012-13 Magnum with "IQ and piston plate"?

 

Blizzard's "Magnum" lineup is very confusing from a historical perspective, because the Magnum's coming up this year are now the third generation of "Magnum" branded skis.  Each generation has been wildly different from the preceding version.

post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

 
As I said the magnum is 2012-13. I see them on the internet  with IQ and Piston plate. Right now all Blizzards below race have the IQ system. Dont understand why they would sell a flat magnum. 

Do you have a link to the 2012-13 Magnum with "IQ and piston plate"?

Blizzard's "Magnum" lineup is very confusing from a historical perspective, because the Magnum's coming up this year are now the third generation of "Magnum" branded skis.  Each generation has been wildly different from the preceding version.
When the Magnum was introduced, it was offered with and without the plate. Some of the first demos that we saw had the plates on them because they were easy to adjust and test. In skiing them both ways, I didn't notice any difference with or without the plate. I assume for price positioning, it was a better strategy to offer the ski flat. I am sure there are a few plated skis still around, they are not bad by any means just will be a bit heavier because of the extra hardware.
post #50 of 55
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

As I said the magnum is 2012-13. I see them on the internet  with IQ and Piston plate. Right now all Blizzards below race have the IQ system. Dont understand why they would sell a flat magnum. 

 

Do you have a link to the 2012-13 Magnum with "IQ and piston plate"?

 

Blizzard's "Magnum" lineup is very confusing from a historical perspective, because the Magnum's coming up this year are now the third generation of "Magnum" branded skis.  Each generation has been wildly different from the preceding version.

PM Sent

post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

The key here is that Phil is saying the binding construction is more important than the width, as I understand it.

Yes, "wide" bindings are marketing hyperbole, the construction is key. When you are paying more for a better binding, you are buying a better housing, not so much a bigger spring. 

To elaborate--the limiting factor on leverage is the exterior width of the boot where it meets the binding, which I believe is standardized one of the DIN standards. Functionally the binding and the ski are one entity, and it doesn't matter how wide the binding is--the width of the interface with the boot will be the same, therefore the leverage will be the same. A wider binding should be less likely to pull out of a ski, but only if the screw pattern is wider, and I believe that at least for some of the wider bindings it's not. Not sure about that last point--corrections welcomed. And this is just speculation--but maybe when Marker designed the royal bindings they realized that wider skis allowed them to make the binding wider which allowed them to place internal parts across rather than along the axis of the ski, therefore the binding footprint is shorter and interferes less with the flex of the ski. And then they decided to turn the wider binding into a marketing feature. Or not.

post #52 of 55

i don't quite follow. why don't we discuss this on the basis of "all else equal" i.e. take two heavy metal bindings, otherwise identical but one is wider and has the screws further apart.

 

i don't think you are correct that the ski and binding are one, since they are not glued in place. the forces and stresses upwards are transmitted via the screws and the binding's body. the correct mechanism of forces and levers that occur while tipping the ski is one i am too lazy to draw, but starts from the boot's outside edge tip, which tries to lever the binding off the ski, then goes to the binding's outside screw trying to pull it off and some to the other screw, also trying to pull it off...

 

the diagram would be a line (toe piece) with a pivot point on the left, boot edge pushing up in the middle and the outside right screw being pushed up and pulling the ski with it -  it logically follows that the further that screw is from the edge of the boot, the more leverage is actually applied via the body of the toe piece, unless the binding.

 

i'm mostly logically blowing smoke i.e. in the midst of a theoretical exercise, since i have not actually compared said bindings. but i have also seen zero explanations to the contrary, so far... many assertions, but not explanations...

 

cheers.

 

ok. i feel like playing.

 

we're talking about a third class lever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Classes_of_levers

 

for a narrow binding of 10 cm the mechanical advantage is 0.7 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=force+lever&a=*FS-_**LeverMechanicalAdvantage.MA-.*LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d1-.*LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d2--&f2=7+cm&f=LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d1_7+cm&f3=10+cm&f=LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d2_10+cm&a=*FP.LeverMechanicalAdvantage.type-_third

 

while if the binding is wider, with the screws at 14cm apart, the mechanical advantage is 0.64 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=force+lever&a=*FS-_**LeverMechanicalAdvantage.MA-.*LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d1-.*LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d2--&f2=9+cm&f=LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d1_9+cm&f3=14+cm&f=LeverMechanicalAdvantage.d2_14+cm&a=*FP.LeverMechanicalAdvantage.type-_third

 

it logically follows that i just shot myself in the foot and narrower bindings give you more leverage over the ski, making it easier to tip - unless my model is wrong.

 

there, settled! but now we know WHY wider bindings suck! unless my model is wrong... :yahoo: ... in which case we still don't know :devil:


Edited by razie - 10/28/14 at 7:58am
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post
 

i don't quite follow. why don't we discuss this on the basis of "all else equal" i.e. take two heavy metal bindings, otherwise identical but one is wider and has the screws further apart.

 

i don't think you are correct that the ski and binding are one, since they are not glued in place. the forces and stresses upwards are transmitted via the screws and the binding's body. the correct mechanism of forces and levers that occur while tipping the ski is one i am too lazy to draw, but starts from the boot's outside edge tip, which tries to lever the binding off the ski, then goes to the binding's outside screw trying to pull it off and some to the other screw, also trying to pull it off...

 

 

Doesn't matter if the binding is glued, screwed, or built into the ski somehow. Unless the screws pull out the binding and the ski are one--the binding does not move relative to the ski when you edge the ski. The lever arm should be calculated from the outermost parts of the boot that contact the binding, which is the same for every DIN--standard boot.

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

Doesn't matter if the binding is glued, screwed, or built into the ski somehow. Unless the screws pull out the binding and the ski are one--the binding does not move relative to the ski when you edge the ski.

pray tell - if you pick up a ski and lift it by touching only the binding - do you think the ski is lifted via magic or via the screws that hold the binding attached to the ski... .or rather, the ski attached to the binding?

post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by razie View Post


i didnt understand what that meant either . Lifting the binding makes easier indeed, but not sure what this wider bindings means. Also, He didnt mention the torque in the ankle and I guess knees, which is greater for wide skis on hardpack and ice.

70s is not too bad, 80s and higher would be too much for hardpack, I think.


I skied a 90 waisted ski (Steadfast)  all last season in the North East  in all sorts of snow and all sorts of conditions (patrol, teaching and freeskiing) and while it  wasn't optimal on some days it was certainly skiable every day. 

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 › Tell me about radius vs waist width