or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2015-2016 gear industry trends according to SIA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2015-2016 gear industry trends according to SIA - Page 4

post #91 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofort99 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Ski marketing is no where as bad as medical marketing. It's got to have either a laser, a robot, or preferably both.


Robot laser skis.

Wait. It's coming.

 

Before or after the Internet Of Things?

post #92 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn View Post
 

So, when you sandwich it into an epoxy layup, it gives a tremendous amount of resistance to flexing of the ski.

 

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

I've seen the skepticism regarding technological advances levied by non-engineers in the biking world for decades.

 

Yet when I compare my Specialized Tarmac SL4 to my old 1979 Peugeot UO8 I know those advances have added up massively!

post #93 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post
 

 

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Woohooo!  Apres Ski!

post #94 of 117

I did not read all 4 pages of this thread, but here's the thing.  It seems to always be sub 100 is X and over 100 is Y and blah blah blah.  I think it's kind of obvious at this point that skis in the 98 - 100 range are really the best for all mountain purposes (for the majority of skiers, putting aside big weight differences), hence the popularity of skis like the Bonafide and Experience 98 / 100 / whatever.  Everyone is always trying to push things in one direction or the other and they should probably focus on optimizing the middle instead.

 

My powder ski isn't really great for all mountain, and I don't want it to be, nor would I want a sub 90 ski to perform better in powder.

post #95 of 117
@afterburn, do the math, a Graphene sheet is many orders of magnitude thinner than 0.5 mm sheet of titanal. It's torsional stiffness and even elasticity is truly negligible. Just do the math.
Head can put some minuscule amount of Graphene into a ski, but it does not have to do anything, it just lets them claim a "breakthrough" material. Its perfectly plausible that there are great skis. Their greatness just has nothing to do with Graphene.

You say:
Graphene is "merely" a very light, very thin, very deformation resistant form of graphite. So the same, but more.
This is simply wrong. Graphite consists of stacked Graphene layers. First Graphene was made by peeling sheets of graphite with scotch tape. You claim that by peeling off sheets from graphite you make it stronger in absolute terms. It is simply a ridiculous assumption. It's the same indeed, but less, literally less.

If VWerks skis have graphite in them, then Head just found a way to rip off the technology and call it a new catchy name. Very clever indeed.
post #96 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

@afterburn, do the math, a Graphene sheet is many orders of magnitude thinner than 0.5 mm sheet of titanal. It's torsional stiffness and even elasticity is truly negligible. Just do the math.

 

OK, now that's just misleading in a pile of different ways.

    First, afterburn's  comments were directed to loading in tension , where torsional stiffness is not relevant.    What is the torsional stiffness of a bowstring?    Now try to bend the bow ends away from the archer, just try.   Putting one sheet of a material strong in tension on either side of a wood core is like putting two strings on that bow, one front one back.   That thing is  *not* going to bend, and it has nothing to do with torsional stiffness of the tensioned material per se. 

Second, elasticity has nothing to do with cross-section. 

 

Third, it is entirely possible to build a light weight, rigid structure out of something that is lightweight and strong in tension - particularly if you can fill the middle with something that is strong in compression.      The proof is every full beer can ever. 

Oh, hey, lookit that, I can do pushups on top of two full beer cans.   Amazing, innit, since we're talking about material thinner than 0.5mm total thickness. 
 
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post



You say:
Graphene is "merely" a very light, very thin, very deformation resistant form of graphite. So the same, but more.
This is simply wrong. Graphite consists of stacked Graphene layers. First Graphene was made by peeling sheets of graphite with scotch tape. You claim that by peeling off sheets from graphite you make it stronger in absolute terms. It is simply a ridiculous assumption. It's the same indeed, but less, literally less.
 

 

Have a look at a sheet of Coroplast sometime.    Is it stronger or weaker than the facing sheets themselves?    

Would you care to say that peeling off the top half of a thick sheet of PE in order to make a stronger structure with the same amount of material is ridiculous?


Edited by cantunamunch - 1/10/15 at 6:47am
post #97 of 117
Reading this thread reminds me of the Scott Adams (Dilbert) quote.....
"The main difference between Marketing and fraud is that criminals have to pay for their own alcohol".....
post #98 of 117

Look, I'm not saying that Head's use of graphene in this ski is, or is not, smoke and mirrors. In fact, I've already identified one possible way to "cheat" the designation and not be guilty of fraud.  Here is another. Head's "piezoelectric fibers" has always been an enigma to me. It simply means a material that translates physical phenomena into electrical. Acoustic guitar (and bass) pickups are a common example.  Does this resonate with Head's claims? Not really. And my totally subjective judgment is that Kastle's little polycarb window does more to quiet tip chatter than Head's fibers. 

 

But here is the kicker. Piezoelectric fibers could easily be graphene (or cruder carbon fibers).  They conduct electricity more purely than just about anything, although suggesting that they stiffen as a response would be a bit of a stretch. Laying these into the tip and tail of a laminate would cost very little (unless you overdid it). So Head's use of graphene COULD be just a repetition or refinement of this. 

 

But, to think that because it is really thin, graphene cannot be stiff is just wrong-headed. Cantunamunch's example of the beer can is perfect. After you finish that beer, tie it between two cars and send them in opposite directions. It will rip and tear. Its stretching will be negligible.  Same exact thing is true, once again of titanal. If I give you a .5mm titanal sheet in the size and shape of a ski, you will be able to twist it into a helix with little effort. My 5yr old could do it. 

 

Its all about the lamination and the properties of the materials in laminate (and the properties of the epoxy). Try to picture a deck of cards. Split it in half. Flex each half as if you are about to shuffle them together. You will see that the ends of the cards move relative to each other. The bottom card in the stack in your left hand is significantly farther left than the top card in the same deck. This is because they are NOT cemented together to form a laminate. Now, glue each card together until you have a whole stack solidly cemented. Now flex it longitudinally. The ends wont move relative to each other. Now flex it laterally (this is what we mean by torsional, which is really about twisting). You now have something significantly stronger longitudinally and laterally. Not because the cards are stronger, but because they are sandwiched together. 


Now, add a couple of sheets of graphene.  I guarantee your deck will be substantially stronger (assuming you've used an appropriate adhesive). 

 

Note that we don't know how many graphene sheets Head is using (or if they are even using sheets rather than individual fibers). They could be using dozens, hundreds. Could be.  Certainly Volkl's v-werks uses sufficient "crude" carbon fiber to make a dramatically light and stiff ski (I have held and hand flexed one, but haven't skied). And there is no doubt in my mind they are using it, because there is simply no other way to achieve the weight and stiffness.

 

So, once again. I have no idea how head is using graphene. It may be a ridiculous joke.It may not. But graphene itself is extraordinary stuff. And your inability to understand how it could be so strong doesn't change that. Every criticism you have made is true (more so) of titanal also. But you just aren't getting the physical dynamics of lamination. 

post #99 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

You say:
Graphene is "merely" a very light, very thin, very deformation resistant form of graphite. So the same, but more.
This is simply wrong. Graphite consists of stacked Graphene layers. First Graphene was made by peeling sheets of graphite with scotch tape. You claim that by peeling off sheets from graphite you make it stronger in absolute terms. It is simply a ridiculous assumption. It's the same indeed, but less, literally less.
 

 

I'll leave it to the engineers here to do a nicely coherent job of explaining physical properties, just make a point from 2nd semester chem: A diamond is an arrangement of carbon atoms. As are nanotubes. And pure coal. And graphite. And graphene. Or you might think about water and ice and water vapor. Elements can change their chemical and physical properties dramatically when you change the way the atoms are arranged relative to each other. And the mechanical differences do not necessarily scale in a simple or obvious way. The differences are dramatic enough that we don't call a diamond graphite, even though they're made of the same stuff. We give them different names to signify the differences in physical properties. Yes? 

post #100 of 117

Graphene is an ingredient, nothing more and nothing less. Like any ingredient, it need to be used in the right proportions to enhance and not overwhelm. Head is using Graphene in the whole Joy line but different ways, some it is used in the extremities, some in the mid body. 

post #101 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZrxMan01 View Post

Reading this thread reminds me of the Scott Adams (Dilbert) quote.....
"The main difference between Marketing and fraud is that criminals have to pay for their own alcohol".....


ZrxMan01:  You made my day when I saw that.  I've been a Dilbert fan for years.

 

Go Hawks!!

post #102 of 117

What an interesting read, nice topic starter Dawg!

 

up, down, all around. So much opinion, and quite a bit of knowledge. Amazing how many of us love our toys so much!

 

my 2cents, as I read most of this:

 

Whew, people are finally catching up..

 

but,

 

wait, i really like some of this new stuff, less hooky tips, easier to release tails, less likely to "catch and edge", there is so much good that has come out of this latest generation of design. was it waist width? that was a good one for some things, and not just deep snow, but lot of other good things. 

so, 

the tracing back to the bike analogy, the old single speed, hardtail iconoclast of some years, thinks I've been there all along. never liked wider then 98, so I was just so damn smart,

but no!

It's not back to the past, these things have gotten better and easier to do good stuff on, and less likely to screw up and end up doing a sonny bono.

case in point, I really, really liked the powertrack 89 a couple weeks ago. never though some of these new fangled 5pt blah blah would be something I would like, but I liked it. 

 

as has been said, we want the skis to hold on the "blue" snow, but still bend to the natural shapes well (ie: 3 d snow), we don't want SL skis, and this new 80 to 90something trend has the potential to take the fun that was learned in the wider skis and bring it to skis that hold well, but are not annoying in real terrain.

 

I do believe as sgarett (I think) said some pages back, all these industries have to swing radically back and forth, and hopefully they pick up little things that make the following swings a bit better.

 

Anyway, I think it's progress. the focus over 100 for most of us was always misguided, but you have to push the boundaries to learn new stuff. I honestly don't believe most normal skiers have the strength to hold a ski up on an edge angle that is wider then their boot sole. the super heros can do it, but those boys are freakin' strong. I ski OK, and I get over 98mm, my ski has too much leverage and wants to flatten itself on the snow.

 

bikes,

I have a 29er, a fat bike, and I owned 27.5 and 26ers to race this year. They are all super fun, and fun stories to sell, but I believe it has some of the same discussion, but is different. 

 

We ski for sensations, not many of us compete, but we like to feel, and can feel things differently everyday in snow changes, and terrain changes and speed changes. 

Yes, sensations are similiar in biking, but there is a much more bottom line nature to it for many of us imo. If I ride my normal trails and I'm waay slower, no me gusta. results and data stack up and slim the field.

 

graphene.... hum. not an engineer, but I've played with the racket as a tennis pro and wasn't a fan. lighter is often worse in so many cases, as is stiffer.

As Phil said, just an ingredient, and used well, could add something good. that said, I hope they are carefull with it.  super light skis tend to ski like crap, as do super light tennis rackets. in tennis, I tell people, play with as heavy a racket as you can get around quick enough. any lighter then that and arm issues and less stability can be the result. light skis get kicked around and feel "loud". mass can be good.

 

OK,

A bottle of wine and catching up on computer work, that was a bit verbose... dang. Maybe there was something worthwhile mixed in these musings.. maybe.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

post #103 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post
 

What an interesting read, nice topic starter Dawg!

 

up, down, all around. So much opinion, and quite a bit of knowledge. Amazing how many of us love our toys so much!

 

my 2cents, as I read most of this:

 

Whew, people are finally catching up..

 

but,

 

wait, i really like some of this new stuff, less hooky tips, easier to release tails, less likely to "catch and edge", there is so much good that has come out of this latest generation of design. was it waist width? that was a good one for some things, and not just deep snow, but lot of other good things. 

so, 

the tracing back to the bike analogy, the old single speed, hardtail iconoclast of some years, thinks I've been there all along. never liked wider then 98, so I was just so damn smart,

but no!

It's not back to the past, these things have gotten better and easier to do good stuff on, and less likely to screw up and end up doing a sonny bono.

case in point, I really, really liked the powertrack 89 a couple weeks ago. never though some of these new fangled 5pt blah blah would be something I would like, but I liked it. 

 

as has been said, we want the skis to hold on the "blue" snow, but still bend to the natural shapes well (ie: 3 d snow), we don't want SL skis, and this new 80 to 90something trend has the potential to take the fun that was learned in the wider skis and bring it to skis that hold well, but are not annoying in real terrain.

 

I do believe as sgarett (I think) said some pages back, all these industries have to swing radically back and forth, and hopefully they pick up little things that make the following swings a bit better.

 

Anyway, I think it's progress. the focus over 100 for most of us was always misguided, but you have to push the boundaries to learn new stuff. I honestly don't believe most normal skiers have the strength to hold a ski up on an edge angle that is wider then their boot sole. the super heros can do it, but those boys are freakin' strong. I ski OK, and I get over 98mm, my ski has too much leverage and wants to flatten itself on the snow.

 

bikes,

I have a 29er, a fat bike, and I owned 27.5 and 26ers to race this year. They are all super fun, and fun stories to sell, but I believe it has some of the same discussion, but is different. 

 

We ski for sensations, not many of us compete, but we like to feel, and can feel things differently everyday in snow changes, and terrain changes and speed changes. 

Yes, sensations are similiar in biking, but there is a much more bottom line nature to it for many of us imo. If I ride my normal trails and I'm waay slower, no me gusta. results and data stack up and slim the field.

 

graphene.... hum. not an engineer, but I've played with the racket as a tennis pro and wasn't a fan. lighter is often worse in so many cases, as is stiffer.

As Phil said, just an ingredient, and used well, could add something good. that said, I hope they are carefull with it.  super light skis tend to ski like crap, as do super light tennis rackets. in tennis, I tell people, play with as heavy a racket as you can get around quick enough. any lighter then that and arm issues and less stability can be the result. light skis get kicked around and feel "loud". mass can be good.

 

OK,

A bottle of wine and catching up on computer work, that was a bit verbose... dang. Maybe there was something worthwhile mixed in these musings.. maybe.

 

Cheers,

Holiday

Except that's not exactly what they did with the racquet ... supposedly they kept the weight the same or close to it (I think my racquet went from 12.3 to 11.7, so it's no superlight) but were able to move the location of the mass. They claim that graphene is in the shaft, keeping it strong but lighter, and then the weight saved was moved to the tip and handle, which is where you want it for stability.

 

Again, I can't say this is what they actually did or not, but I do like how mine plays, I thought it felt smoother when I switched (I went from Youtek Speed Pro to Graphene Speed Pro). I know what you are saying about light racquets: If my hand could handle it, I would play with a heavier stick, but I can't anymore. 

post #104 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn View Post

Look, I'm not saying that Head's use of graphene in this ski is, or is not, smoke and mirrors. In fact, I've already identified one possible way to "cheat" the designation and not be guilty of fraud.  Here is another. Head's "piezoelectric fibers" has always been an enigma to me. It simply means a material that translates physical phenomena into electrical. Acoustic guitar (and bass) pickups are a common example.  Does this resonate with Head's claims? Not really. And my totally subjective judgment is that Kastle's little polycarb window does more to quiet tip chatter than Head's fibers. 

But here is the kicker. Piezoelectric fibers could easily be graphene (or cruder carbon fibers).  They conduct electricity more purely than just about anything, although suggesting that they stiffen as a response would be a bit of a stretch. Laying these into the tip and tail of a laminate would cost very little (unless you overdid it). So Head's use of graphene COULD be just a repetition or refinement of this. 

But, to think that because it is really thin, graphene cannot be stiff is just wrong-headed. Cantunamunch's example of the beer can is perfect. After you finish that beer, tie it between two cars and send them in opposite directions. It will rip and tear. Its stretching will be negligible.  Same exact thing is true, once again of titanal. If I give you a .5mm titanal sheet in the size and shape of a ski, you will be able to twist it into a helix with little effort. My 5yr old could do it. 

Its all about the lamination and the properties of the materials in laminate (and the properties of the epoxy). Try to picture a deck of cards. Split it in half. Flex each half as if you are about to shuffle them together. You will see that the ends of the cards move relative to each other. The bottom card in the stack in your left hand is significantly farther left than the top card in the same deck. This is because they are NOT cemented together to form a laminate. Now, glue each card together until you have a whole stack solidly cemented. Now flex it longitudinally. The ends wont move relative to each other. Now flex it laterally (this is what we mean by torsional, which is really about twisting). You now have something significantly stronger longitudinally and laterally. Not because the cards are stronger, but because they are sandwiched together. 


Now, add a couple of sheets of graphene.  I guarantee your deck will be substantially stronger (assuming you've used an appropriate adhesive). 

Note that we don't know how many graphene sheets Head is using (or if they are even using sheets rather than individual fibers). They could be using dozens, hundreds. Could be.  Certainly Volkl's v-werks uses sufficient "crude" carbon fiber to make a dramatically light and stiff ski (I have held and hand flexed one, but haven't skied). And there is no doubt in my mind they are using it, because there is simply no other way to achieve the weight and stiffness.

So, once again. I have no idea how head is using graphene. It may be a ridiculous joke.It may not. But graphene itself is extraordinary stuff. And your inability to understand how it could be so strong doesn't change that. Every criticism you have made is true (more so) of titanal also. But you just aren't getting the physical dynamics of lamination. 

Well, I may not be getting the physical dynamics (what is that anyway?) of lamination, but I think I get some of the the physics. Graphene or graphite is not piezoelectric, and cannot be piezoelectric, because of its lattice symmetry. PM me if you need a detailed explanation why. People tried to make graphene piezoelectric, but mostly it have beed computational models (not the real thing in a research lab, and certainly not on an industrial scale).

Once again, graphene is a single sheet of atoms. It's extraordinarily strong for a single atomic sheet but it does not mean that it's strong in the macroscopic sense. After all it's 6 orders of magnitude thinner than the aforementioned titanal. Take your deck of cards and glue a sheet of microwave wrap into it. Did your deck get stronger? Now make that plastic sheet 1000 times thinner. Got stronger yet?

My guess is that Head is using graphite or carbon fiber in the skis to get the weight and stiffness, but calls it graphene for a sexy name. I'm am not arguing with performance, but the marketing is disingenuous.
post #105 of 117
I don't think Head coined the the word Graphene. It's my understanding that they have exclusive use of the material for sport application for a few years is all. In the end, you like how the product skis or not, though the nearly ubiquitous exchange of 'titanium' for 'titanal' sort of gets my eyes rolling. smile.gif
post #106 of 117

I'm struck how increasingly this thread is less resembling science than Democrats and Republicans arguing; ideology in search of data to support it. 

 

There are the cynics, who think that most tech is mostly marketing, and the idealists who think most tech is mostly real. Quick, go find data. We justify this on the grounds we're just having fun arguing, which lets us not have to examine our curious resistance to saying we're wrong about something we know must be true. Even when we're trained that saying we're wrong can be just fine. 

 

In turn, assumptions about tech rest on larger systems of belief we learned as kids about how the world works and our place in it. And of course the stakes in winning and losing arguments we learned watching our parents. Some minor adjustments when our prefrontals were still undergoing apoptosis before our early 20's, making their connections to the amygdala and hippocampus. We could go on for 100 more pages and not get those systems shaken up; by now it's literally hardwired. We know how the world is, we know why, and we get profoundly uncomfortable when that surety is challenged. So we find data to get comfortable again. Sadly, Popper didn't get that part. Lakatos sorta did. Feyerabend nailed it. 

 

Carry on. ;) 


Edited by beyond - 1/11/15 at 8:11am
post #107 of 117

I have always been of the opinion that most of the gimmicky sounding stuff that the ski industry comes up with actually does work. The question is: Can the average skier actually feel this stuff working?

 

In the end, I don't think it matters as the ski buyer doesn't need to know why or be able to describe why he/she likes a ski, they just need to have a great time with the ski on their feet in order to make a buying decision. After that none of the tech stuff matters.

post #108 of 117

Beyond: Its hardly idealistic to explain how a thinner material can be stronger or stiffer than a thicker one, or how laminates work. I said over and over that I have no idea how Head is using it. Could be crap. Could be real. Ski the ski. No wide-eyed capitalism Kool-Aid drinking idealism in that.  I even said that I think Head's piezoelectric fibers do little to nothing to reduce tip chatter.

 

Alex: Your right. Thin is weak. Thick is strong. Smoke. Mirrors. My mistake. Carry on. 

 

Marko: Right on brother. 

post #109 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn View Post
 

Beyond: Its hardly idealistic to explain how a thinner material can be stronger or stiffer than a thicker one, or how laminates work. I said over and over that I have no idea how Head is using it. Could be crap. Could be real. Ski the ski. No wide-eyed capitalism Kool-Aid drinking idealism in that.  I even said that I think Head's piezoelectric fibers do little to nothing to reduce tip chatter.

Agree, although not prepared to go that far about i tech. Was using the term "idealism," as an antonym for cynic, suggested by a thesaurus, believe it or not, not as "unrealistic." To set up the dichotomy as about how we see tech's place in the world: Usually less than meets the eye vs. as usually a form of progress. Glass half empty and half full. Etc. (Interesting that idealism has taken on so many negative connotations, much like liberal has. Suspect for the same reasons and from the same sources.) The philosophical referent at the end also tossed in an idea about the problems of falsification. 

 

My fail for using a non-standard antonym. :o But I'll stand on my argument that this thread is about far more than Graphene's existence in skis. 

post #110 of 117
Time to wrap this up. After all this is internet and everyone is an expert here :-). Life goes on.
post #111 of 117

Back to a bit of Dawg's original thread:  Unless the snow is consistently soft, I am pretty sure my knees prefer a narrower ski, so I'm ahead of the industry trend!

 

Maybe I could get a graphene transplant in both knees to replace the long-departed cartilage, and then I wouldn't need it in the skis?

post #112 of 117

It seems my shop is ahead of the trend. We only brought two skis in north of 100mm: The Line Bacon and The Line Magnum Opus….and we brought the Opus in because of it's two year carry over graphic. Fat skis are for powder. End of story.

 

I saddled a 29er hard tail for five-six years. When the the time came for a new bike I went back to the 26". No one puts the Yeti SB66 in the corner. No one. 

post #113 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn View Post
 

Beyond: Its hardly idealistic to explain how a thinner material can be stronger or stiffer than a thicker one, or how laminates work. I said over and over that I have no idea how Head is using it. Could be crap. Could be real. Ski the ski. No wide-eyed capitalism Kool-Aid drinking idealism in that.  I even said that I think Head's piezoelectric fibers do little to nothing to reduce tip chatter.

 

Alex: Your right. Thin is weak. Thick is strong. Smoke. Mirrors. My mistake. Carry on. 

 

Marko: Right on brother. 

More hilarity on Graphene. This is like CNN.  Speculation upon idle speculation of theoretical speculation with no facts, but "it could be".


Structural analogies of all sorts of things are all red herrings since they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. All materials in a ski by themselves are weak. We're not debating engineering structures and what can be done with thin materials. Analogies of violin bows, pressurized soda cans are interesting but have little to do with what we're talking about. Yet, we're cynics. :)

 

The disconnect is apparent in statements like "a couple of sheets of Graphene added.." and illustrate the misunderstanding. When alexn says Graphene sheets are "many orders of magnitude thinner" than 0.5mm it's not casual use of the term "orders of magnitude".  It's literally many powers of 10 thinner. I posted above some details on Graphene sheets. Still the beer can and Titanal comparisons pour forth in outrage of "what could be"!. 300 Graphene sheets in the below test were 100 nanometers thick. Luckily, there's 1,000 mm per meter so we gain some there. That makes the sheet 100 x10-9m x 1 x 103mm/m = 1 x 10-4mm thick. Which is 4 x 10-6  inches thick. (Those pesky mm are confusing).  Four millionths of an inch thick for 300 sheets worth!

 

"Honey, I dropped the Graphene sheets!"

-"Ach! I told you not to breath on them!"

"Well, the dog is licking them up now. Are they poisonous?"

-"I have no idea. Isn't it like eating burnt toast without the toast?"

 

But just to end it reasonably. What would an engineer order exactly when he's making up the materials list for his Graphene ski? (Note that "Graphene Ski" and "Graphene" are trademarked by random people so presumably they pay royalties? Can one trademark say Uranium?)

When you find that out, let the thread know. I'm very curious. No need for more structural analogies here like the strength of trees and aluminum baseball bats or some sort of philosophical musing on the nature of cynics and their destruction of society. Just tell us what the engineer orders to make a Graphene ski.

 

The 300 Graphene sheet test:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/dec/02/supersonic-bullets-test-graphenes-strength

 

Back to the thread, I have seen now that we have sufficient snow cover, the Head Super Joys! (yes that G word ski)  Their owners seem to be pleased.

Relevant to the trend ideas is the question,  Can a ski be too light? (whatever it's made of. Assume black box or micro soda cans.)


Edited by Tog - 1/12/15 at 9:26am
post #114 of 117

Thanks Tog. The study summary is quite interesting and speaks graphically to graphene's unique qualities. 


I too would like to come back to the question I posed on the previous page: "There are probably many more qualified than me around here to comment on the effect of ever-lightening a ski, all other things being equal. How would the performance of a Mantra, or an MX88 or a Bonafide change if you were to dramatically lighten it?"

 

I love my FX84 which is a stunningly light ski. I would describe it as fairly dampening, but by no means the dampest* ski. Do damp and light just not go together? Or does the skier's weight matter more than a few ounces in the ski? Or stiffness? A soft ski will deflect more than a stiff ski, which is at least part of the equation in dampening. 

 

*This is a bastard use of "damp", but I say we have simply exercised our linguistic rights in appropriating it as the adjective form of dampening, at least in reference to skis. 

post #115 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by afterburn View Post
 

Thanks Tog. The study summary is quite interesting and speaks graphically to graphene's unique qualities. 


I too would like to come back to the question I posed on the previous page: "There are probably many more qualified than me around here to comment on the effect of ever-lightening a ski, all other things being equal. How would the performance of a Mantra, or an MX88 or a Bonafide change if you were to dramatically lighten it?"

 

I love my FX84 which is a stunningly light ski. I would describe it as fairly dampening, but by no means the dampest* ski. Do damp and light just not go together? Or does the skier's weight matter more than a few ounces in the ski? Or stiffness? A soft ski will deflect more than a stiff ski, which is at least part of the equation in dampening. 

 

*This is a bastard use of "damp", but I say we have simply exercised our linguistic rights in appropriating it as the adjective form of dampening, at least in reference to skis. 

 

Scott has come out with the Rock Air at 103mm wide with a notch in the tail for attaching skins, it is extremely light and it is stiff. They have milled very thin strips from the core and filled them with carbon fibre. The Rock Air is great in soft snow for those that prefer a stiff ski.

post #116 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

(Note that "Graphene Ski" and "Graphene" are trademarked by random people so presumably they pay royalties? Can one trademark say Uranium?)

Just finished reading an article in the New Yorker about graphene. Lots about the history, technology, patenting, and lack of practical applications (so far) here.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question
post #117 of 117
I just had an epiphany.
The piezo electrics will generate juice
Onto my graphene top sheets so I can watch the super bowl while skiing bumps
And the uvo on my Volkls will smooth out the picture!!!
Erm sorry. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Carry on.
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 › 2015-2016 gear industry trends according to SIA