Hellboys, like to thank you for responding. Neither quiz nor troll, just curious to understand. From your responses I'm gathering even though shapes may or may not be where it's really at they play a part. And shapes (dimensions) are relevant just so we're not comparing old(er) apples to new(er) oranges, right?
For discussion purposes and clarity going forward can we agree we're not talking about powder-oriented skis/designs, but rather piste-oriented skis that might occasionally venture off. Cool?
If so, drilling down...
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Is this a quiz? I guess I'll use some skis I've owned... (1) but I don't think you'll find comparable shapes as that is part of what has evolved to make modern skis much better than those of the past.
Compare a ski like the X-Scream and the Bandit X... two skis that defined the early mid-fat category of skis. Compare either of those to a modern 77-82mm waist ski (admittedly narrow in today's world) and (2) the newer skis are better on and off piste (thinking Head Peak 78, Blizzard Cheyenne or similar... little to no metal, easy to ski and used by a wide range of abilities).
Take another ski - the Rossi T-Power Viper - a ski that was one of the first short-turn all mountain skis to arrive on the scene and compare it to a ski like the Elan SLC... a no-metal fairly low level pure front side carver. (3) The SLC blows away the performance that the old Rossi offered... and Elan makes 3 or 4 models ABOVE the SLC in their range.
(1) The evolution over time in shape for piste-oriented skis was basically for the shovel to get wider relative to the waist, tightening the turn radius, and enhancing the "self-steering" effect. Yes?
(2) (3) Those responses to my question '...I'd like for you to explain how the newer skis "perform in many ways, better" than the older skis' are downright, well, Trumpian. You think the newer skis perform better - got that. How exactly? What do they do better?
Originally Posted by Rich666
It seems many people are not aware of the true and most significant development of the modern ski. There are three basic areas where the ski can change/advance which is construction design, materials and dimensions. The last of which, unbenounced to the un- or misinformed is the least significant. Understandably so, the shape dimensions are the only of these three feature that can be seen.and yet a feature of which its latest advances have only arrived under the heels of new construction design and its use of new materials that provide a ski with a softer and more balanced flex while retaining the characteristics of a torsional rigidity that we all have come to rely on.
Without the increased separation of ratio between the flex balance to torsional rigidity that found its way into skis in the 90's, the shapes we ski on today would have never existed otherwise would twist much too easily and never hold an edge in anything other than soft snow where carving a shaped ski is not a priority. If we had to choose between modern core design and materials on an old sidecut or deeply shaped sidecut with old design and materials, there would be no choice.
OK, you're focused more on new/superior core design and materials, got that. So, (particularly with some more modern shape), skis can be softer and engage into a turn easier, yet hold better. What has really changed in the last 10-15 years in that regard? Graphene?
I admittedly lag a little, but I don't deny that over times things can improve. Engineers of today have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of those who came before, and through small tweaks or larger leaps advance things. That's one very strong force at work. Another, in the world of commerce, is the very strong desire to keep the per unit manufacturing cost down - cut corners in the process and/or quality/amount of the materials. Just as with skiing where there's gravitational and centripetal forces at work that sum up in a resultant force that actually drives things in a certain direction my skeptical mind says in business there's a resultant force as well. Throw in the possibility of a third "shadow force" which may be in play as well - call it "planned obsolescence" - and some aggressive marketing, and my skepticism edges ever closer to cynicism with regards to "newer is better" dogma.
Anyhoo, getting back on track can we reel it in to compare two somewhat similar skis, an old(er apple and a new(er) apple? Head Peak 78 was mentioned. How does that ski perform better say than a Rossi B2 Bandit from 10 years ago?