or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Smart ski - Page 4

post #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Those following this thread FYI if you haven't figured it out this is who you are dealing with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_SCX

Yes that Jurij.

I suspect that he knows more about skis than the entire group does. Play nice and help, someone in the know is sharing something new and exciting.

 

I think the main bone of contention here isn't the technical knowledge, but the lack of ability to present his ideas or adapt to what the market wants. It seems Jurij is taking the engineering perspective of telling us what the right answer is. He is failing to recognize that when you are selling something, the right answer is whatever the heck the customer chooses it to be. 

 

This concept is a wild departure from what skis have been up to this point, more extreme even than the introduction of the SCX in the 90's. It's essentially an entirely new invention of ski technology. Do you know why Edison was such a successful entrepeneur? Because he never developed a new product without first knowing there was a market for it. Trying to tell your market what they want or need is a pretty well trodden path to failure. 

 

 

I mentioned that starting the ski at a 66 waist is going to miss the North American market entirely. The response is that I SHOULD be skiing a 66 waist, because that's what he thinks is best for me. Guess what? He just lost a customer. I won't purchase this ski unless it thoroughly saturates the market and proves itself as a viable technology. I'm not going out on a limb to try an entirely new technology for someone who is going to try to tell me what I want/need in a ski. If that's the approach he is going to take, he is going to fail. Regardless of how good his product is.

post #92 of 118
Thread Starter 

I believe we should started a new thread, but OK.

 

First of all I have to apologise for choosing wrong words, I said I can not find the right expression, I have degree in physics, not in English, sorry. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

 

It's on slide 12 ("Influence of Torsional Stiffness GJ").   It can be easily found with either a quick visual scan, or simple word search, of the webpage.  Again, the link is:

http://sport1.uibk.ac.at/mm/publ/194--Moessner--2007--Effects_of_Ski_Stiffness_in_a_Sequence_of_Carved_Turns--lecture.pdf

 

 

Yes, I have read claims as: Increased GJ -> Less ski twist (true), Increased GJ -> Larger penetration at ski ends  (not measured, suspected), Increased GJ -> Larger side force thus less skidding (wrong), Increased GJ -> Smaller turn radius (true).

Your interpretation was  Increased GJ -> Less ski twist -> Larger penetration at ski ends -> Larger side force thus less skidding -> Smaller turn radius. 

 

So again: skidding is geometry problem not edge grip problem. If the geometry of the turn and ski edge don't fit, there is no theory to ski without skidding.

 

In above experiment there is a general error in interpretation of results: 

- CG of the load is not projecting inside ski boot area all the time, at the end of the run it si projected in front of toe piece

- because of above M(x) for less torsionally stiff ski will make the torque (thanks for correcting me) rotating the ski out of the turn more than torsionally stiffer ski.

 

Quote:

 

I stand by my general point that the experiment you describe isn't adequate to demonstrate what you claim.  And insisting people who are skeptical try it for themselves doesn't address the problem, because what people are going to doubt isn't that you got the results you did, but rather that the results of such an experiment say anything about how a ski actually skis. 

 

 

Comment:

You are just confirming my point. What I am saying that edge grip has nothing to do with ski performance, I am sorry if I do not have ability to put it more clearly.

The question is, if (we both are) true, then where is the difference? My answer is M(x)

 

Quote:

 

"Skiing is movement of skier on curved path in space consisting of translation and rotation (1)"
This definition is incomplete, since it leaves out flexing and bending.  I.e., there are also (slow) vibrational degrees of freedom.

 

Comment:

The scope of modelling physical systems is that first you determine the system, in this case the system is skier+skis+boots+...googles, and the system interacts with snow slope. Fist step is to observe the system in time frame of interest - several turns = 10-20s. In this scope there is only translation and rotation. Internal vibrations can and should be neglected. One can determine rough constrains out of simple model. On this basis you go to time scope of 1s or less and explore behaviour of the system in this scope.

This kind of modelling was successfully used in development of skis for years

 

Quote:

"Edge grip is force perpendicular to the length of the ski (4)"

I disagree with this -- if you're standing flat on the ski, there's reaction force from the snow perpendicular to it.  Yet there is no edge grip.  I think edge grip is the sum of the lateral components (those parallel to the snow surface) of the snow reaction force along the length of the ski that are perpendicular to the length of the ski at each point.

 

Comment:

See above, simplification used in rough model, final equation is taking all that into account M(x) where x is position on the ski edge (curved in euclidian space of ski slope)

 

 

Quote:

"But we all feel the difference in ski performance. The answer is in our perception of edge grip. During skiing the ski and the skier rotates. How fast the ski rotates at given CG position, angulation and load is perceived as edge grip."

This is a very confusing statement.  It needs to be explained much more clearly for someone to understand what you really mean.  By load do you mean static load? And if you change the angulation but keep everything else the same, what happens to the perception of edge grip?  None of this is clear.  In any case, to the extent I can make sense of your statement, I don't agree with it, because I can choose to rotate the ski in a skidded turn at the same rate as it would rotate in high-g carved turn, yet there will be far less edge grip in the former case.  More importantly, I think there's a much more straightforward way of explaining what accounts for our perception of edge grip: it's the same as what I gave above for measured edge grip.   I.e., our perception of edge grip arises from how much lateral force we're resisting during a turn.  And no, I am not, as you accuse, confusing feelings and measurements.  I have to ask:  Do you yourself know what edge grip feels like in a carving ski, i.e., do you have any video showing you personally have the experience of carving -- and I don't mean just riding the sidecut, I mean really loading the ski so it visibly bends, and resisting the forces that are generated? 

 

Comment:

As I explained at the begining, I am maybe not proficient enough in English, but I try my best. It is not my fault to make English so dominant that we are forced to deform it at our best knowledge :-)

I can not make shorter and more precise explanation as I did. 

- load = dynamic load at given moment

- You can not change angulation without changing turn radius and therefore load - skiing is done in equilibrium of all dynamic forces, if not, skier makes a nice fall

- skidded turn the same as high-g carved turn - yes at the same radius, but not at the same speed and the same load and the same ski edge angulation

 

Quote:

 our perception of edge grip arises from how much lateral force we're resisting during a turn.

 

 Comment:

Yes, this is the feeling or perception that I oppose. That is why I have defined edge grip as measurable quantity, not perception and upgraded to how your perception could be presented in some kind of physical property of the apparatus - the ski

 

Quote:

 "M – momentum of the external forces acting on the skier"

This is very confusing.  I think you might be trying to define a torque, which is a moment of force.  "Momentum" and "moment" are two completely different things.  In your defense, I suspect this may be a problem with your English rather than your physics.

 

Comment:

You are right, Torque, sorry

 

Quote:

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not making a personal comment about you.  Rather, I'm saying the presentation on your webpage gives the impression you are completely confused about physics, and that you also don't understand skiing, and that's going to hurt your marketing.  It seems what you have is very innovative, and I'd hate to see it fail because of a bad presentation. Regarding the physics, I'd urge you to partner with a professional physicist, explain to him or her what you're trying to say, and have that person re-express it a way that makes sense to other physical scientists and engineers. [And out-of-place statements like "Because speed is much lower than speed of light, we can forget about Einstein" aren't helping you either, because it comes off like someone trying to sound like a physicist without being one.]

 

Comment

As professional physicist I confess I have limited ability to explain complicated problems in simple way, I will hire a marketing guy to sell you dry stick of dead fish as sushi.

 

Jurij

 

PS

I will try to rewrite the page, wish me luck :-)

 

post #93 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Those following this thread FYI if you haven't figured it out this is who you are dealing with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_SCX

Yes that Jurij.

I suspect that he knows more about skis than the entire group does. Play nice and help, someone in the know is sharing something new and exciting.

Hi!

 

Thanks for your post, but I am not 100% shure of the claim you made. I am exploring this stuff for my fun (theory of skiing) and I got some lucky moments in the past.

 

Jurij

post #94 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

 

I think the main bone of contention here isn't the technical knowledge, but the lack of ability to present his ideas or adapt to what the market wants. It seems Jurij is taking the engineering perspective of telling us what the right answer is. He is failing to recognize that when you are selling something, the right answer is whatever the heck the customer chooses it to be. 

 

This concept is a wild departure from what skis have been up to this point, more extreme even than the introduction of the SCX in the 90's. It's essentially an entirely new invention of ski technology. Do you know why Edison was such a successful entrepeneur? Because he never developed a new product without first knowing there was a market for it. Trying to tell your market what they want or need is a pretty well trodden path to failure. 

 

 

I mentioned that starting the ski at a 66 waist is going to miss the North American market entirely. The response is that I SHOULD be skiing a 66 waist, because that's what he thinks is best for me. Guess what? He just lost a customer. I won't purchase this ski unless it thoroughly saturates the market and proves itself as a viable technology. I'm not going out on a limb to try an entirely new technology for someone who is going to try to tell me what I want/need in a ski. If that's the approach he is going to take, he is going to fail. Regardless of how good his product is.

 

I had different experience in the past, sorry. Carving ski was mathematical exercise, nothing to do with market, functionality or what skiers wanted. At that time expert skiers did not want it at any cost and racers rejected the ski until youngsters started to win. It is fun, but in this case 'market' did not win :-)

 

Jurij 

 

PS what if the feeling or ease of skiing in deep powder with my 66mm ski is the same as with yours 100mm?

post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post

 

 

LUUST SKI: "Skiing is movement of skier on curved path in space consisting of translation and rotation (1)"

CHEMIST: This definition is incomplete, since it leaves out flexing and bending.  I.e., there are also (slow) vibrational degrees of freedom.

LUUST SKI: The scope of modelling physical systems is that first you determine the system, in this case the system is skier+skis+boots+...googles, and the system interacts with snow slope. Fist step is to observe the system in time frame of interest - several turns = 10-20s. In this scope there is only translation and rotation. Internal vibrations can and should be neglected. One can determine rough constrains out of simple model. On this basis you go to time scope of 1s or less and explore behaviour of the system in this scope.

This kind of modelling was successfully used in development of skis for years

 

Here you're describing the motion of the skier, and bending and flexing is something the skier does every turn.  So I don't understand why you're saying that, within the timeframe of several turns, there is only translation or rotation.  Yes, I of course understand the use of model simplification, since it's a key part of our work as well.  And maybe, for the purposes of your analysis, you can ignore the bending and flexing of the skier.  If that's the case, then I think you need to say this explicitly, and explain why it can be ignored.   That's different from saying that the movement doesn't exist within the relevant time frame in the first place, right?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post
 

 

 

PS

I will try to rewrite the page, wish me luck :-)

 

I would urge you to find a Slovenian engineering or physics colleague that is fluent in English, and that preferably also has some teaching experience (and has thus developed a skill set for explaining physical concepts in the clearest and most easily understood way) to help you with this!   You could offer him or her a pair of skis in exchange for the work :).

 

QUOTE: It is not my fault to make English so dominant that we are forced to deform it at our best knowledge :-)

 

On that you have my sympathies.   I have often thought it unfair that my foreign colleagues are effectively forced to do science -- something already incredibly difficult -- in a language not their own.


Edited by chemist - 5/9/16 at 5:27pm
post #96 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post
 

 

 

PS what if the feeling or ease of skiing in deep powder with my 66mm ski is the same as with yours 100mm?

 

I'd say you already lost me when you told me what I should want to ski on. And I don't ski powder on 100mm. I ski them on 117mm waisted skis. My daily driver is a 96 underfoot. 

 

Long story short, telling your potential customer they're wrong and they should want what you're selling rather than what they're asking for is a sure fire way to not make a sale. 

post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Those following this thread FYI if you haven't figured it out this is who you are dealing with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_SCX

Yes that Jurij.

I suspect that he knows more about skis than the entire group does. Play nice and help, someone in the know is sharing something new and exciting.

Actually, I suspect there are many that post here that have significant backgrounds within their fields, including some who are generally recognizable for their work.  But it doesn't matter.  We're all supposed to play by the same rules, regardless of who we are.


Edited by chemist - 5/9/16 at 5:17pm
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

 

I'd say you already lost me when you told me what I should want to ski on. And I don't ski powder on 100mm. I ski them on 117mm waisted skis. My daily driver is a 96 underfoot. 

 

Long story short, telling your potential customer they're wrong and they should want what you're selling rather than what they're asking for is a sure fire way to not make a sale.

 

I think a narrow ski could succeed, if people find it really does meet his performance claims.   He'd just need to get it in the hands of some ski magazine testers, and if they are wowed by it, you've got some buzz.  And if it's made available during industry demo days, at least some industry people are going to want to try it, since it's a cool new technology.  And likewise I think most consumers would want to give it a try as well, if it were made available during consumer demo days.  Indeed, I suspect if you were at a consumer demo day, and the ski were there, you would try it yourself.  Yes, you can't approach people with the attitude that "I know better than you what's good for you" -- no one likes to be treated in a condescending manner.  But you can approach them with "we understand why you ski wide skis in powder.   But here's a new technology that actually allows a narrow ski to work with the same ease in deep snow, and, since it's narrow, it gives much higher performance on groomers, etc."    It could work.  It all comes down to how the ski actually performs, which is what we'd all like to be able to determine for ourselves.


Edited by chemist - 5/9/16 at 5:20pm
post #99 of 118

According to Jurij, Smart Skis will eventually be available with wider gliders. He is starting with narrower gliders because most Europeans prefer narrower skis and Europeans buy more skis than Americans. Jurij has repeated this a few times. I believe that, compared to Americans, Europeans are much more into getting their skis on edge and carving so they would/should prefer narrower skis.

 

In Tahoe, I see a lot more good carving done on narrow skis and more skidding on wide skis. That is a generalization with lots of exceptions but that is my viewpoint. I love wider skis as long as the snow is deep enough that I don't feel the leverage against my edges but if the snow is less than an inch deep I prefer skinny skis. Based on my understanding of east coast "Snow" I'd ski mostly on skinny skis out east.

 

I really like the SmartSki versatility. Some days its hard to guess how firm the snow will be. I've brought as many as three pairs of skis with bindings with me so that I can choose the right option once I figure out what the snow will be like. It would be much easier to bring a quiver of gliders and snap on the best ones for the day. Having adjustable stiffness would give more range to each set of gliders. This way you have one set of bindings for all of the skis. One potential disadvantage is the lift between the bindings and the riding surface. I like lift on skinny skis but not on mid fats or wider. 

 

I think Jurij will be much more productive here once he has good videos showing the operation of the skis and of skiers carving great turns on them. Now we are mostly wallowing in trying to understand the physics of the features which are too complex for most of us including me. On the other hand, I think it might be too early for Jurij to try to get our interest in the skis. Since he is famous for pioneering the shaped ski revolution and has many influential contacts in the industry, he just needs to get a few working demos on the boots of the right people and he will be on his way. He shouldn't be be too concerned about what we think. I wonder if Jurij has a similar thread in any European ski forums and how they are responding to the concepts.

post #100 of 118
Thread Starter 

Hi!

 

It is summer, but I am continuing my work on the project.

https://vimeo.com/170500890

shows how to control a simple servo using of the shelf electronic and smartphone.

 

Jurij

post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post

Hi!

It is summer, but I am continuing my work on the project.
https://vimeo.com/170500890
shows how to control a simple servo using of the shelf electronic and smartphone.

Jurij

Anyone else having trouble playing that video? Just goes black and silent after showing you the silver thingy with the arm?

Will try embedding it here to see if that changes anything.
Nope.
post #102 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


Anyone else having trouble playing that video? Just goes black and silent after showing you the silver thingy with the arm?

Will try embedding it here to see if that changes anything.
Nope.
 
 

 

Thanks for reminding me, it is just this arm on servo, black is just my error, wait few minutes to upload the corrected version, Sorry again

 

Jurij

 

Just fixed, it is just 20s long.


Edited by LUSST SKI - 6/27/16 at 9:28am
post #103 of 118
Thread Starter 

Android app is now getting closer to Version 1.0 functionality.

 

 

Upgrade to version 2.0 - connection to GP planned in February

post #104 of 118
Got to admit I find this interesting although totally unmarketable.
post #105 of 118
Thread Starter 

Wait a bit, imagine your car without power steering! When power steering when introduced, was for 'pussies', not for 'real driver' who want to 'feel the road', but now one even want a car without power steering. Why not use the same approach in skiing, changing performance with changing snow conditions...

 

On teh other hand, I have fax ( it was before e-mail time) of American sales representative for a well known brand saying that carving skis are good for skiing but completely unmarketable, (as was Apple Newton (later I Phone)...). 

 

Wait and see :-)

 

Jurij

post #106 of 118

Sorry if I missed it, but can you tell me if you can adjust the longitudinal flexibility of the ski.  I personally have no user for torsionally non-rigid skis, but do see the utility of easing the longitudinal rigidity for slower skiing or skiing snow as opposed to boiler plate.   If so can you explain how this works?

 

Thanks.

 

I would still have to ski it to beleive it, as far as a ski that comes apart under the bindings skiing as well as my my Fischer WC SCs in carving short turns or my antques in terms of high (aka insane - but not ludacrous :D - space balls reference)  speed carving.

post #107 of 118

Wow this is awesome.  I'd love to test a pair!  I remember my first pair of parabolic skis.  I did not know how to use them.  I hated them and gave them away.  

Years later I tried again.  Once I learned how to ski them (shaped skis) I never looked back. 
I am impressed with the construction process.  I never cared about top sheet art anyway.  Good luck and feel free to ship me a pair to test!

Question:  Can they ski switch and could they spin as seen in this video of me.   Also can they do jumps?  Thanks
 

post #108 of 118
Did you ever notice that everyone wants to test the experimental stuff on this forum and not actually pay for it? popcorn.gif
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Did you ever notice that everyone wants to test the experimental stuff on this forum and not actually pay for it? popcorn.gif


No I did not.  I did not read the thread.  Just the OP's first post.  Then I looked at all his videos and read all his stuff.

 

Usually "testers" don't buy the tested items.  They test them and return them. 

post #110 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 

Wow this is awesome.  I'd love to test a pair!  I remember my first pair of parabolic skis.  I did not know how to use them.  I hated them and gave them away.  

Years later I tried again.  Once I learned how to ski them (shaped skis) I never looked back. 
I am impressed with the construction process.  I never cared about top sheet art anyway.  Good luck and feel free to ship me a pair to test!

Question:  Can they ski switch and could they spin as seen in this video of me.   Also can they do jumps?  Thanks
 

 

Hi!

 

Yes, you can spin (move the lever forward, and you will never stop), but not jump - for the time being.

 

To test - not yet in US, I will post on this forum, when it will be possible.

 

Jurij

post #111 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Sorry if I missed it, but can you tell me if you can adjust the longitudinal flexibility of the ski.  I personally have no user for torsionally non-rigid skis, but do see the utility of easing the longitudinal rigidity for slower skiing or skiing snow as opposed to boiler plate.   If so can you explain how this works?

 

Thanks.

 

I would still have to ski it to beleive it, as far as a ski that comes apart under the bindings skiing as well as my my Fischer WC SCs in carving short turns or my antques in terms of high (aka insane - but not ludacrous :D - space balls reference)  speed carving.

 

Hi!

 

No, it is not longitudinal flexibility. I will not reveal exact mechanics, but the functionality is exactly what you described. If you can understand :

enacba1.png

then it is easy to figure it out :-)

Just a hint, beveling edges will change ski performance...- > a(x)

 

Jurij

post #112 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 


No I did not.  I did not read the thread.  Just the OP's first post.  Then I looked at all his videos and read all his stuff.

 

Usually "testers" don't buy the tested items.  They test them and return them. 

Hi!

 

Sorry, but after having expenses only for years, I am forced to sell skis :-) and make some money.  As I said testing will be possible starting in US probably in Colorado, but I do not have a clue when, maybe in March???

 

Jurij

post #113 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 

Wow this is awesome.  I'd love to test a pair!  I remember my first pair of parabolic skis.  I did not know how to use them.  I hated them and gave them away.  

Years later I tried again.  Once I learned how to ski them (shaped skis) I never looked back. 
I am impressed with the construction process.  I never cared about top sheet art anyway.  Good luck and feel free to ship me a pair to test!

Question:  Can they ski switch and could they spin as seen in this video of me.   Also can they do jumps?  Thanks
 

 

Hi!

 

Yes, you can spin (move the lever forward, and you will never stop), but not jump - for the time being.

 

To test - not yet in US, I will post on this forum, when it will be possible.

 

Jurij

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 


No I did not.  I did not read the thread.  Just the OP's first post.  Then I looked at all his videos and read all his stuff.

 

Usually "testers" don't buy the tested items.  They test them and return them. 

Hi!

 

Sorry, but after having expenses only for years, I am forced to sell skis :-) and make some money.  As I said testing will be possible starting in US probably in Colorado, but I do not have a clue when, maybe in March???

 

Jurij


Thanks for the replies.  I hope to see them someday at a ski demo where i can demo a pair. 

I'm sure you will make them "air-able" because that's going to be needed.

I am intrigued with the construction.  Could you also use that construction method to create a "conventional" ski?  I assume if you could you would have done so already.  Then again you know how assumptions go. ;)   Take care and best to you in your endeavor. 

post #114 of 118
This is a really cool engineering exercise, at least as far as I can follow it. But I wish Jurij would ponder what Freeskier919 has said, twice.

I'll put it a third way: What does Jurij have to demonstrate that a sufficient number of skiers will pay up front for this design, rather than go with what they're familiar with? Focus group data? Dealers encouraging him? Crowdfunding?

Put a fourth way: Simply inventing a novel or allegedly "better" technology does not insure it'll be accepted. The history of the past two centuries is littered with interesting, and a few great, ideas that failed because they couldn't displace existing approaches, early adopters or no.
post #115 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacques View Post
 

 

 


Thanks for the replies.  I hope to see them someday at a ski demo where i can demo a pair. 

I'm sure you will make them "air-able" because that's going to be needed.

I am intrigued with the construction.  Could you also use that construction method to create a "conventional" ski?  I assume if you could you would have done so already.  Then again you know how assumptions go. ;)   Take care and best to you in your endeavor. 

 

Hi, You are right. 'Conventional ski can not be done properly in this technology for two reason, first the length of the ski nad second, more technical, because it si very hard to manipulate thickness of the ski using my technology - the usual way to manipulate performance of the ski today.

 

Jurij

post #116 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

This is a really cool engineering exercise, at least as far as I can follow it. But I wish Jurij would ponder what Freeskier919 has said, twice.

I'll put it a third way: What does Jurij have to demonstrate that a sufficient number of skiers will pay up front for this design, rather than go with what they're familiar with? Focus group data? Dealers encouraging him? Crowdfunding?

Put a fourth way: Simply inventing a novel or allegedly "better" technology does not insure it'll be accepted. The history of the past two centuries is littered with interesting, and a few great, ideas that failed because they couldn't displace existing approaches, early adopters or no.

 

Hi!

 

Risk management is of course part of my job - invest only if you can afford it and push R&D up to end product. It is not my intention to go to Kickstarter by making nice web page and promise what I can not deliver. 

Currently I can deliver up to 50 pairs of skis made with this technology - run of 20 pairs now in assembly process in my basement

I am also applying for EU funding (yes, we have this possibility here too :-)

 

I have the supreme judge and tester to convince first, that this is the right solution: my wife. And yesterday I was close to this goal, later today I will publish short video. We have snow here and I was testing on a smole ski slope in Austria. Whole day of skiing in icy slope using different settings. It looks fine, but still waiting for my wife's approval :-)

 

Jurij

post #117 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUSST SKI View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

This is a really cool engineering exercise, at least as far as I can follow it. But I wish Jurij would ponder what Freeskier919 has said, twice.

I'll put it a third way: What does Jurij have to demonstrate that a sufficient number of skiers will pay up front for this design, rather than go with what they're familiar with? Focus group data? Dealers encouraging him? Crowdfunding?

Put a fourth way: Simply inventing a novel or allegedly "better" technology does not insure it'll be accepted. The history of the past two centuries is littered with interesting, and a few great, ideas that failed because they couldn't displace existing approaches, early adopters or no.

 

Hi!

 

Risk management is of course part of my job - invest only if you can afford it and push R&D up to end product. It is not my intention to go to Kickstarter by making nice web page and promise what I can not deliver. 

Currently I can deliver up to 50 pairs of skis made with this technology - run of 20 pairs now in assembly process in my basement

I am also applying for EU funding (yes, we have this possibility here too :-)

 

I have the supreme judge and tester to convince first, that this is the right solution: my wife. And yesterday I was close to this goal, later today I will publish short video. We have snow here and I was testing on a smole ski slope in Austria. Whole day of skiing in icy slope using different settings. It looks fine, but still waiting for my wife's approval :-)

 

Jurij


Yes.  Best to have wife's approval before posting video of her (skiing -or doing anything else) .

post #118 of 118
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 


Yes.  Best to have wife's approval before posting video of her (skiing -or doing anything else) .

 

In fact she made a short video of me skiing on my skis, we have snow .-)

 

https://vimeo.com/191476040

 

I have spent all day skiing on very hard snow with different settings. In the morning my skis were set on hard and in the afternoon on soft - just fine for the first day of skiing. On video all setting was hard.

 

Jurij

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion