or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Damp, vs rebound, vs liveliness etc...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Damp, vs rebound, vs liveliness etc... - Page 2

post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Crab View Post
 

   You walked into that one..! 5'2"  

 

well, flat on her back, she looks like she would be fairly 'tall'... at least in the upper torso region... so I'm still correct. 

post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

well, flat on her back, she looks like she would be fairly 'lively'.

 

 

FIFY

post #33 of 38
Rebound and pop are the same thing to me. However if i use the word pop instead of rebound it's a literal pop into the air from the rebound.

Dampening as others have stated is more about how the ski handles rough conditions and speeds. Do the skis flop around or ride like a soft Mercedes.

I mostly see liveliness as not a great word to use. Do they mean fast transitioning or the rebound? Could it mean it corners tight in slalom corners? Could mean different things to different people.

It's really like suspension on a car or motorcycle. You have the stiffness, rebound, and pre load (dampness). Everyone wants something different.
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post

On the flip side, it wouldn't make sense to characterize damping and stiffness with numbers. People already have trouble remembering their own DIN setting! I doubt they will remember the overall stiffness constant of their skis in N/m and I'm not even talking about unit conversion between the United States imperial system and the internation SI unit!

Personally I would love if they could come up with a standard system for rebound and stiffness. They have standardized boot flex, binding settings, and radius. Why not the rest they used to have a stiffness rating?

It would make those that keep track have an easy time picking out a ski. Right now it's a huge guessing game, hear say, maybe a demo if you can get that lucky.
post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollin View Post
 

 

I need a lawyer. You scared me...I am certain that I am sure that I may or may not know :)

Don't sue, I'm harmless. Just some b.s. about other b.s. I worked on once upon a time. The real issue is how someone as obtuse as Donald Rumsfeld got it it so right by getting it so wrong...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Beyond is definitely someone you want to ride the lift with, but every second or third trip is probably the max for most of us. One trip for the wax, the next two for the hot box to let it soak in.

If I were sitting beside me, I'd look for a soft place to leap out. :D My wife just steers the conversation toward her boots or where we're eating later. She knows...

post #36 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahsaint View Post


Personally I would love if they could come up with a standard system for rebound and stiffness. They have standardized boot flex, binding settings, and radius. Why not the rest they used to have a stiffness rating?

It would make those that keep track have an easy time picking out a ski. Right now it's a huge guessing game, hear say, maybe a demo if you can get that lucky.

 

I suppose it would be cool (but I dont think it could be dome) if they could have scale systems or ratings for each category such as perhaps something like ....

                   Stiffness

     Damp 1--------------7 lively,  and then also similar scales of 1---thru---7for "rebound" and also "torsional rigidity"

 

And may be incorporate the numbers on the model name e.g. 343Many ski brands now do use waist width in the different models of the same series of skis. So its sort of a similar thing.    Whatever the ski is named it would just look like e.g.   "name 84/232" , then the next model perhaps  "name 88/342"

 

It sounds like a good idea to me but there could be many problems with it. They would first need to establish a standard (as a given number) in each of the categories to use  as a gauge in order to base the scale rating off of.   But I don't know if such a given standard gauge could actually be determined. The different widths and side cuts for each ski I assume would work to throw off any standard given number anyway as that all adds to ski behavior.  And then things like rocker and camber and exactly where they begin may all perhaps cause changes in each category in different parts of the very same ski.   So where exactly can one ever place a standard as a given starting piont? Even if I am wrong about some of what I just mentioned I would assume there's just too many variables to come up with one.

 

But perhaps each brand could come up with its own rating system for each category within its same sister ski series. E.g. each rossi experience ski could have its own ratings compared to the other rossi experience skis. Or the Head revpro series could rate each one vs its sister skis. etc for each brand.

post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

:ahijack: Sorta. My point was not about the math, nor really about theory, but about the linguistic categorization of the results. Our minds tend to think with words, and languages tend to have discrete categories, with definienda that are created by inclusion and exclusion: "Table" is the set of all things with the following characteristics...Then we use modifiers or create new words to indicate overlap: "Sofa-bed." "Rather fast." "Lime green." The problem is that these words have a poor correlation to wavelengths and weight and such. Your lime green overlaps with my lime green, not congruent. Wavelengths are messier than words.

 

The "sorta" is because I know in some circles Platonism is making a big comeback, but I doubt most scientists are into it. For the vast majority, math is the tool, not the fundamental reality. And most mathematical descriptions of reality typically are about scale or degree or magntitude, eg, ratio level data. Not about doing the equation, but its solution. So you can (usually) solve an equation, and for sure, if you can solve it, and follow the rules, it'll be correct or incorrect, black or white. (Hmmm. Well, assuming it has a single unique solution. Not sure various schools of theoretical physics buys that, and does it work for topology or the computer science guys who worry about limits to what we can prove deductively, or all the solutions that are actually successive approximations? Don't know enough higher math to say, but my logic says that a whole lotta math is only black and white in the sense that it's classically deductive, not because it produces a solution that's black or white in terms of what it means.)

 

But moving on, let's say we can get a true black and white conclusion, as a number, and within some degree of probability, our number means our hypothesis is upheld or falsified. That number's relevance to reality is entirely contingent on probabilities. Think about recent cosmological debates on whether radiation from the edge of the universe is structured enough to say it has structure. Or this forum and our endless debates about bindings, and whether the forces being modeled have enough connection to real world forces and real world injuries. All probability, all grey. Does the, er, lack of injuries fall within some range that is unlikely to occur by chance? (I know, don't go there. And the epidemiological answer would be no, anyway.)

 

So (finally, if you've lasted this far) my conclusion: the solution itself, the actual number, is what we care about linguistically; we move on from whether the equation is true. So if I'm trying to decide what number that characterizes frequency of waves along my ski corresponds to "damp," I still end up having to use language, and it will create an artificial cut that isn't there in nature. Moreover, "damp" will reflect several numbers that are the result of various physical systems interacting. Language is poorly equipped to deal with those kind of continuous, multivariate interactions. It's our language that's awkwardly black and white, and perhaps the solving of the equation, but not physical reality. 

 

What can be shown, cannot be said.


Evidemment.  

post #38 of 38

I don't think it is all that difficult.  We already have side cut numbers, width at the tip mid and tail.  Back in the 90's the k2's on a pro form always came with the number for stiffness.  I am sure it would be easy to figure out rebound based on the camber and stiffness.  As far as how damp and other things that might not be as easy to figure out.  Its going to very based on materials.  That is the one number that would be difficult to come up with.  I am sure based on the rest though you could make very good assumptions on how a ski will handle.  I would also bet any world cup skier is given more of the numbers.  I know factories have to keep to track of every millimeter of the ski or they couldn't duplicate skis.  They are just not transparent with those figures and probably have different measurements based on the manufacture as others have stated. 

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 › Damp, vs rebound, vs liveliness etc...