or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Stability..more nails for the straight ski coffin..(Long)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stability..more nails for the straight ski coffin..(Long)

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I like stable skis.Skis that will now and again..run in a straight line..without ridiculous effort/tip control.To a point..without too much sacrifice.Yes I am aware of the inherent stability in the ski VS the stability that you have to/can put into a ski.At a point you need lumber under you plain and simple.Sure I have a pair of Kastle's..180's..these things are astonishingly stable..that is WHEN I put the stability in them.They rival pretty much anythng in roughly that length.An awful lot of skis simply get humiliated in this department by them.These things are almost as stable as some old straight relics that I have.At the speed I ski..which is not blazing fast.Certainlly not fast enough to fairly compare some of my old straight skis to.But I am not talking racing..downhill,super g,gs speeds..just recreational skiing.
So I have a bunch of old straight skis left.Some legends..rightfully so.Legends for their stability..not just at eye ball peeling speeds..but for recreational skiing.They have that feeling/tracking..unshakeable..and yes..they can..do and will run like an arrow in a straight line.I do enjoy the odd spin..but these as they get more stable are NOT NICE! skis..turning..especially at slow speeds..
"Shaped" ski stability..running in a straight line..shorter lengths.That inherent stability is simply not there.Of course there may well be more than enough stability for you..or that you can easily impart it to the ski.
You simply can't line up a short shaped ski against one of those old classic straight skis.And expect the shaped ski to be even in it's league when it comes to straight effortless stability.It is a question of physics..and not a fair comparison.True great strides have been made in newer skis.Stability is still here..make no mistake..some g/s,and obviouslly d/h,s/g skiis.But we're talking about recreational skis.
Recreational?I picked up a pair of Dynastar Speed SF's..they were in fairly good shape..yes they need a tune..but they are skiable.They were $9.Nine..why?cause they're 197's! 197's..only reason I bought them was..cause they were practically free.Shaped..ya..they're about 102 64..I think they are a 2001 model.
These things seem like monsters..unweildly..not only tall..BUT some fat to them.Almost intimidating.
First..soon..turn attempt..I am expecting turn attempt in the old genre..of about a 200 straight ski.Wrong.Turning these is very low effort in comparison.Not only that they carve somewhat with little effort in comparison.These are EASY skis to ski in comparison.After several runs I get to thinking..ok they're long..huge..and the reason for those old straight skis is the old length/stability..time for a little of that comparison.
I started upping the speed a little bit..and running a bit straighter..and relaxing a bit..letting the skis track/run.Conditons were not good for any more speed..but I did get them going fast enough.I remember passing the speed limit on some other skis I had skiied.Then more skis.This became a simply direct comparison between a newer..well 2001..197 "shaped" ski..and pretty much anything recreational I had..or had ever skied on in the "straight" ski.
True..there is a lof of running surface on this ski..at 197 and 102.Compared to a skinny at 205 or so and 85 width or so.

I'm left scratching my head now..I wouldn't have believed that any fairly modern ski of that length 197..and a recreational ski..could possess that kind of stability..and rival..maybe beat..just about any "straight" ski at it's own game.Let alone the fact that this ski is fairly easy to ski..and will turn turn turn.

Any advantages left to "straight" skis?..perhaps medium speed quick very short radius skidded turns,moguls

So much for that "shaped" skis aren't stable,can't run straight..ya get 'em long enogh they will!

I guess there are plenty of other "shaped" skis in that length..that can do exactly the same thing..
post #2 of 23
I spend 99.997% of my time turning. Maybe I am just an odd kinda duck, but I haven't found this to be a problem. I think I would have been a bit more sensitive than most having spent almost thirty years on straight long skis.

Tried to use some of the straights as fire starter, but it just stinks up the cabin with that burning plastic odor.
post #3 of 23
Physicsman likes a stable ski too.

Originally posted by Arnold:
I like stable skis.Skis that will now and again..run in a straight line..without ridiculous effort/tip control.To a point..without too much sacrifice.Yes I am aware of the inherent stability in the ski VS the stability that you have to/can put into a ski.At a point you need lumber under you plain and simple.
Not necessarily. See, for example, this thread. Or this one.
Any advantages left to "straight" skis?..perhaps medium speed quick very short radius skidded turns,moguls
-Brainstorming noises-
- Spanning crevasses on tour?
- Better rescue sled runners?
- More visible patrol X's?
- More forgiving of edge bevel stuff-ups?
- More spectacular tip rolls?
- Character development?

yuki, it's the -wood- core skis you want to torch. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
post #4 of 23
For the "creativity award" .... hands down .... COMPREX!
post #5 of 23
Arnold: By any chance, did you happen to do a back-to-back comparison between your "new" SF's and a straight ski, or are you doing the comparison from memory? The reason I ask is that I have a pair of few year old 198 Stockli Stormrider I (105-73-97, 27 meter sidecut radius, & extremely stiff - 2 thick layers of metal) that are my current "stupid-fast" skis. When I take them out after being on my more modern, shorter skis, they feel like tanks - absolutely rock solid when running flat or in long R turns.

OTOH, I also have a pair of 205 Volkl Zebra's (87-69-77, 60 meter sidecut radius, maybe early 80's vintage, and even stiffer than the Stocklis). I keep them in good enough shape to take out about once a year, both for the fun value, and also as my "standard reference ski" that never changes from decade to decade. Compared to the old Volkls, the StormRiders feel absolutely fidgety (unless they are up on edge a bit).

Yuki: I also spend 99.7% of my time turning, if I'm actually skiing. OTOH, I guess I also understand the attraction of occasionally bombing down some light blue or green (deserted) slope and not need to have to even make shallow turns. Its a type of fun that I think most skiers have forgotten about (unless one races SG or DH).

Comprex: You are right, I do have a real fondness for stable skis. However, I'm no fool (I hope), and as it gets steep, narrow, and/or bumpy, I like my short, low-swing weight, quick turning skis as much as everybody else. PS - Loved your list!

Tom / PM
post #6 of 23

Get thee a test ride on a pair of Atomic R:EXs, 198, 191 or even 184s.
post #7 of 23
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. 'Skiing skis in shorter lengths is fun and offers advantages but also has trade offs'. Same when I ordered new Atomic 9.20s in 180 instead of the 190 I previously had them in. Thinking was the ski had better dampening (aerospeed) and would offer the stability through better materials. NOT! I immediately regretted downsizing. The 180 did great short rads and was very versatile but was not as good at what I wanted it for. Namely early morning, midweek rips on groomed steep blues. I still have the 190s and they're currently on eBay because no one wants these 'long' skis. I skied the SF in a 198(7?) and they were solid. 80km/hr on edge they wouldn't waver for much of anything. You could even make them do short radius although make them was the operative phrase. I opted for the 192 detuned SX as an all mountain bump and steeps ski. Loved it. Shaped or otherwise shorter skis will do some things well but other things they will be lacking for.

[ December 15, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: L7 ]
post #8 of 23
I just got back from the PSIA-E Masters Academy at Killington. Dave Merriam was on a Volkl 6-Star at 168, Terry Barbour was on a Rossi 9S Oversize at 158 (same as me). Katie Fry was on a 6-Star at 161. None of us had any trouble going fast. I didn't see a single coach on any ski longer than 170 or so. Dave Merriam skied faster than anyone I've ever seen outside of a closed racing or training course.
There may be a trade off between stability and easy turning, but with current technology, the better compromise is way shorter than it was even a couple of years ago.

Regards, John
post #9 of 23
My current 2 ski quiver consists of my main ski, a fun shorty carver, the Sollie X-scream-9 169 cm, and my rock ski, the Head Cyber 44 177cm.

Both have about the same t-w-t measurements (a tad narrower on the heads), both are 63mm under foot.

The Sollies simply REFUSE to run straight for any reason.

The Heads are much more cooperative.

When/where/why am I trying to run them straight?

Flat spots, traverses, runouts. I like to practice balance by skiing on one ski where it's pretty tame, either straight or in a very subtle turn. The Xscreams put me on my ass more much more frequently.
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 
P.M.Tom..you didn't think you'ld catch me giving other than an UNADULTERATED side by side/back to back/back and forth road test did you..
I really did not know what to expect with those monsters..(the SF's)..like I said..I bought them ONLY cause they were practically free..and a few spins..for the experience..$9..was well worth it to me.With that length..197 I had TERMINAL visions of tips..OUT THAT FAR..AHOY! out there..doin' a lil' of the old tip waver.HEHEHAHA..I ALSO had visions of getting into an UGLY speed wobble.C'mon these things are long for shaped skis..if the tips ever did get crossed/they'd just keep goin.opposite directions..1 N pole..1 S pole.
I approached these things with caution..especially since the bases/edges did need a minor tune.
Tension?I think I was knock knee'd for a while.NO WAY was I gonna relax ONE BIT!!!..It was a bit before I realized they were user friendly..and started to relax..and let them run a bit..straight.Yes I did edge them a bit..very independantly.They didn't grab an edge..or a tip and want to head off.I edged deliberately off a few times.These things were calm..and stable.I treated them for a while EXACTLY as I would a "straight" ski in straight running..and man oh man were they stable..effortless.
I also..had with me a pretty good reference standard a pair of Dynamic VR27 Equipes in a 208..to be perfectly honest..203/205 in just about any old straight ski..PROVIDED they have good dampening/behaviour..is..way more than enough ski/stability for me..I am a fairly good skier..about 6' 210..and have felt at 197/198 "straight ski" that ya I could use just a tad more stability.But then I always hated how they turned when they got to the 205 or so length(What?? turn???)Any of the "straight" skis that I have left..quite a few..to me..all have about the same stability..meaning I haven't approached it..so that if someone says that a 205 carefull hand race tuned ARC does not have enough stability..so.I've seen what they can do..and I AIN'T gonna be on it when the speed hits the needle where the stability is a factor on that baby.

And no..I did not take these Dynastar Speed SF's up to the point of instability..I am very confident..judging from the feel of them..at that speed I did go..and some old reviews I have hence read..I ain't gonna be goin' there.

So yes I did ski them sometimes 1 run each(Dynamic vs SF's)and sometimes a few runs each.

There was a "difference" in the feel.To me the Dynamics had that heavy,rock solid stability..weight..that really enhanced the confidence.No sh** Sherlock..these things are just that..tanks.
The SF's "seemed" unweildly..cause of their girth..which detracts from the confidence.And to me anyway they did not have that rock solid HEAVY feel to them.They felt stable..and unflappable..they also felt fantastically dampened/supple..much more so than the Dynamics.

I tried REALLY hard to just concentrate on the relaxed running of these two skis.And the conditions were such..and the speed down enough so that dampening wasn't really a factor.

To me it was an eye opener..the Dynastar Speed SF's which are obviouslly "shaped"..and sure they're long 197's..had absolutely every once of stability in straight line running that I need..probablly that I ever had.Every bit as much as the Dynamics at 208

We're talking recreational skis here..well..the Dynamic is really pushin' the envelope here.THAT is a LOT of ski.Not fun.Not for turning..good for what?Probablly nothing.Now.The Dynastar Speed SF can be the new reference.

It does start to beg the question for me..a few top level competitors..one on the old "straight" Dynamic 208 and the other on the "shaped" 197 Dynastar Speed SF.Even on a speed run.

Too fast for me..

Thanks for the suggestions about the Atomics NE1..and Tom on your Stockl's..if your Volkl Zebras are more stable than them..I don't know..I haven't skiied the Stockls..I have had Zebras..and other long straight Volkls..I was never really a fan of old Volkl's..not that I knocked them.I think that the speed at which it could be determined that Volkl vs Dynamic..inherent stability..TOO fast for me.. matter of fact today I skiied on those as new 205 P9'SLs(hand made)that I had posted about a bit ago..I had several runs on them.No..I didn't even care how stable they were..so I didn't really test them or compare..SADLY I had just had several GREAT! FUN! runs on a pair of 190 Kastle Aeropspeeds..then I skiied the Volkl's.I hated the way those straight Volkl's skiied TODAY..ESPECIALLY after the "shaped" Kastles..and those things ain't no slouches in the stability program either!I bought the Volkl's cause they had some as new Solly's on them.Cheap.Not to knock Volkl..or P9's..the bindings will be off tomorrow..the skis relegated to the get rid of pile.I don't doubt for a second that there are other "Shaped"skis that have inherent straight line stability..maybe shorter..maybe that would beat the SF's..

Not that 197's SF's are as put already.. thanks!L7..real willing in the short turn slalom department..of course they're not..they are fairly easy to ski..and forgiving..but they'll simply mop up pretty much any "straight" ski in that department that even dares try and compete in the stabliliy game.

Now that I have tasted real stability..I have my nose in the air as to how short I can go.
post #11 of 23
>...you didn't think you'd catch me giving other than an UNADULTERATED side-by-side / back-to-back / back-and-forth road test did you...

You're right. From your past posts, I should have know, but I felt it was my duty to ask . Actually, I guess the real reason I asked is I know how abysmally poor my own memory is for detailed sensations from years ago. That's exactly why I keep my old Zebras in running order.

Yours was a long post, and I'm not sure exactly where to jump in, but all I can say is that I can recognize my own kind. You obviously fall into the category of "connoisseur of fine skis".

Gotta go.


Tom / PM
post #12 of 23
Arnold, do you have a postal scale or something like, to tell us about the weights of the tested skis? If you can tell us something about the distribution, that might be of interest?
post #13 of 23
.PM..Thanks! for the compliment..SHOULD I take it?.."As" a compliment.."Connosseur of fine skis"..I don't consider myself a connosseur.True I have had a LOT of skis over the years.THEN I literally get crippled with disease.Ski season MIGHT be over for good.I battled back..and would have given my soul for ANY!! skiing EVER! again!.NO-ONE was sure I would ever ski again..me neither.After an 8 month battle I WOULD TRY and ski again.TRY.
C'mon fellow skiers just WHAT would you do?In my position.A life long passion taken away.SOOooo..a life long "straight" skier.Shaped skis were here..out.I hadn't skied any.From what I heard/read "straight" skis still had some CLEAR advantages left...BUT their days were numberred.I have ALWAYS had a passion for "testing" skis.I had several pairs of high end skis.Off I go to the ski store..early in that season.Sorta just to see what was what.A pretty big box type ski store chain.I had bought lots from them before.I see a sign..SOME SIGN.."Straight ski BLOWOUT"..ya ya..$20..TWENTY bucks Cdn...ya ya..what's the deal with this??..must be a joke..some catch.I ask.NO catch.ALL straight skis $20.SOOOoooo You name it..they had it.I drooled over several pairs..and headed to the cash.WE'EL see..they rang it in at about $500..typical.The cashier said "These"(G9's with a plate) WERE NOT! $20..I asked to call the ski guy..he said he "Thought" they were.They called the manager.$20.I paid and left.Hunh.1 down.Out to the car.Back in I went.Could I buy another?More?Sure!..I bought SEVERAL pair.I skied.I came back.ETERNALLY grateful..for 1 ONE more turn.
Oh and I bought skis.And tested them.I QUICKLY had 30 or 40 pair..my bench and drill were running full time!..I tried to sell some that I didn't want.Couldn't get ANYTHING for straight skis.The $20 for a new pair was just a cost of the day's skiing and I was HAPPY to be back! and pay it.Finally I pretty much gave up on trying to sell them,The charities were selling SOME but a lot they just threw out.SOooo I took a magic marker and some duct tape with me in the car.Headed off skiing.When I was "finished" with a pair.If the bindings were old..they stayed on.If they were new.I pulled them.And I wrote on my morning coffee bag."Free skis..PLEASE take! Enjoy!"..and I left my p#,email and that I was a member.Then duct taped it over the skis.Just so no-one thought it was a joke.Then I placed them in the ski rack outside.People looked..GAWKED..some skis were gone INSTANTLLY..others a few days.People called,emailed me WTF?..how much did they owe me?They asked how much for bindings?What else did I have..etc.,I was just HAPPY they weren't going directly in the garbage.
One guy..ROFL..LMAO..told me he saw some.Took the bag off.The bindings actually fit his boots..the releases worked ok for him.He decided to leave his new shaped skis as sort of a deposit?Unlocked..in case I came back?HUNH??..he fell in love with the skis I had left.And wanted them.So he took them..and left his there..in the rack..unlocked and without the free sign.And called me.To make a "trade".I get home 100 miles away to this message..can't reach him..can't reach anyone at the resort.The Police I called and told this bizarre tale to were "less than happy" (to put it VERY mildly..WORSE when I offerred them too some free straight skis)about going to "rescue" skis that hadn 't YET been stolen.But they did.

Disease was NOT finished trying to cripple me..and came back..SOOOoo what would ANY skier do??..That's right! Buy yet MORE skis to "test".

A few years of this and into the 2nd season..about 75 days(50 days/season)..saw me as having bought a pair for every day I skiied.At around 70/80 days..and that many pair of skis.It easily clocked 100.MIND YOU..I am NOT rich..these skis were ALL dirt cheap!!..I am sure if anyone asked anyone that knew me..how many pairs of skis that I had bought they woudl say this.I admit it..I got STOOPID about this..buying identical skis..but in different lengths.

I've had a lot of skis..I don't see it as anything to brag about..this is just how I ended up in this DIRE STRAIT..I just ask others..and tell them this."Here..let me cripple you..THEN you can CRAWL back..THEN I'll place you in front of a HUGE rack of skis..and you can have ANY you want for $20..You're gonna buy ONLY 1 or two pair.??? Sure you are.You're gonna do like me WOO HOO!

PM/Comprex..I will post the rest of this actual ski test..weights etc...
post #14 of 23
Arnoldtheskier, you're back! This is most excellent.

Your story reminds me of the one I have from last weekend: German guy fresh from Europe, skied all his life, wants to take the kids to snow and save money on rentals. Of course he heads straight for the $15 Vipers: why pay $300 for a ski to wedge with?

It was really, really funny watching the racerette trying to get him to buy her ($300!!!???!) P40s.
post #15 of 23
I've skied for several years on 198s, with a 106 mm tip, as my "main" skis. There's nothing outlandish about a ski that long. Sure, they are different from a 180, but it's just a matter of degree.

So far as I can tell, the only use for which people are still favoring "straight" skis ("straight" meaning something like 85-65-75) is for moguls.

Outside of the full-on mogul skiers, nobody's even considering skis with a sidecut radius in the 50 meter range. The conversation now is all about the 12-25 meter range, and even the high end of that is falling into disfavor.
post #16 of 23
Originally Posted by sjjohnston
I've skied for several years on 198s, with a 106 mm tip, as my "main" skis. There's nothing outlandish about a ski that long. Sure, they are different from a 180, but it's just a matter of degree.
If you look at current catalogues, you won't find many skis that long anymore. Even a 180 is long enough for a GS ski, and longer tan any modern SL ski.
post #17 of 23
Hey, I like to go out and mach around on long skis as much as the next guy.

Arnoldtheskier: You mentioned the skis were in need of tune. Consistent basebevel and a flat base makes a truly noticeable difference in the "stability" of any ski.

And long skis are fun. I have a pair of race-room P40 GS (198) with an old K2 plate on them...skis like that are fun on a spring morning at Snowbird when the off-groomed is all rocksolid. Nothing beats leisurely debarking the tram, buckling the boots, clicking in, skiing down, walking to the tram room...and still waiting for the tram to make it back. :lol:

I also have, for purely crazy fun...a pair of RD Coyotes. 207, IIRC. Haven't been out in a couple years, they'll see some love this season though. They are about an inch thick under the bindings...
post #18 of 23
I just pulled one of my trusty antique speed-demon skis out of the garage to look up the details. They are 208cm Kastle RX National Team SG, " Authentic super g racing ski for long and short turns", tri-cor with at least tow metal plates, and I don't know how many layers of dampening material over the bevelled edges. I'm not big or heavy, but I figured at the time if I'm going 4x as fast as everybody else I need to generate as much impulse as someone 4x my weight . My daughter describes them as ORC skis. They double as a weight-training program. They served me very well through my crazy speed demon years. They are the only ski I've ever skied that I haven't been able to push past their speed limit. Even frozen slush does not bother them. I got them when I was young, invinceable, and as all young men seem to think they are, imune to any type of injury, and basically aimed my skis at the bottom, making as few turns as possible (mind you they ALWAYS put an obstacle at the bottom of the steepest narrow runs) with as little lost energy as possible, always trying to keep the turns smooth and rooster-tail-free. These ski's will turn on a dime if something wanders into your path, even at speed, but you have to dig the front edges in when you need to swerve NOW. A forward stance and gentle pressure under the ball of the foot will do fine in anything but emergencies. I really like them for their tenacious grip and ability to generate high gs at high speeds on hard snow. Sadly they are too heavy and long for bumps, especially the Eastern variety where I am stuck these days. I've taken them through everything, and believe you me you feel the burn at the bottom of a tripple black diamond bump run. They carve well enough, but are simply too heavy for last minute mid-air changes, and are a little too awkward when the bumps are 4 meters high and 1.5 meters apart.

I rented some demonstrators last season, Rossi 9x and 9s oversize. I rented the longes ones they had in the shop; they only come in short lengths. The 9Ss are great in the bumps, but neither one has the edge grip to generate exciting cornering acceleration at high speeds. Mind you it's pretty much impossible to get up to a high speed on the hills out east. Aim them straight down for 100 meters or so and even the GS oversixed skis are, as expected, past their limit.

Volkls (sp?) look to be the ticket. They didn't have any 6 stars where I was able to ski last year. I might get around to trying some this year.

I got a pair of 190 Fischer RC4 Vacuum Technic SLS (slalom skis I hope) at a yard sale for next to nothing this summer. I'll let you know how they do.
post #19 of 23
Originally Posted by Ghost
... I figured at the time if I'm going 4x as fast as everybody else I need to generate as much impulse as someone 4x my weight .
16 times, but who's counting? If you ever see someone on skis who's 16 times your weight, you must be awfully small, or you're skiing in some strange company.
post #20 of 23
I had 16 times as much kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2), but momentum is just force x velocity, so the impulse which depends on change of momentum is just proportional to velocity, not velocity squared .
post #21 of 23
Oops. You're right. I sort of shot right by your (correct) use of the term "impulse." Although ... in my defense, for a given radius, centripetal force is linear with respect to mass, and with respect to the square of velocity. So I think (and I may, again, be wrong) that the ski "wouldn't know the difference" between, say, a 240-lb skier making a 10-meter-radius turn at 20 mph and a 120-lb skier making 10-meter-radius turn at 28.3 mph. With the significant qualifications that (i) inclination would be different, all other things (esp. angulation) being equal, (ii) the base would "know" it was sliding over the snow at a higher velocity and (iii) skis don't actually "know" anything anyway (the pathetic fallacy).
post #22 of 23
THANKS! for that Comprex..appreciate that..

Ski weights:Atomic ARC 208?9 16lbs..Gone from quiver.Dynamic VR27 Equipe 208 15 lbs.Gone from quiver.. I kept a pair of 204's(same) Kastle 180's..(straight)..9 lbs.Dynastar Speed SF 197 10lbs.Kastle 190 Speed series 12 lbs.Dynastar Speed SX 186 13 lbs..gone.Dynastar 186 Outland RL 12 lbs..gone.Dynastar Speed SF(race) 190 10 lbs.

I added a few skis to the test!..The Dynastar Speed SX's..186..these started to do the "tip waverring"..that SO many shaped skis are accused of..and started feeling touchy,squirrelly..needing a LIGHT touch..these couldn't really be ramped up.Skiingman nailed that down! Thanks..they LOOKED good..bases,edges..and were NOT old..ya..YA..one light pass showed just how much had to be taken off to flatten them!!.That was the end of that "shaped skis aren't stable" nonsense for those skis.Different skis now.they can run in a straight line with little effort.They could NOW be ramped up..BUT STILL NEEDING! a light touch..they still felt too touchy/twitchy/unstable at speed..I'ldno..maybe me..6' 200lbs..was too heavy..,running them too hard.. man-handling them..LOL..they aren't/weren't really intended for what I was doing..REAL NICE skis though..LIGHTNING!! quick edge to edge..I think either 62 or 63 waist

The Kastle 190 Speed Series..WILL run real hard,straight and fast..with VERY little effort and GREAT stability

Dynastar Outland RL 186..I wasn't thrilled with their performance..BUT they too could run a straight line fast with little effort and very stable.

The Dynastar SF's in a 190(race) are the same as the 197's in stability..harder to bend..because of their length..a little more "in my face".0 effort to run them..keep them straight..EVERY bit as stable as the 208 Dynamics..for recreational skiing..AND WAY more fun!

Picked up some Dynastar Speed Carves..03..new and cheap to test..
Never did get around to testing..even MOUNTING my Fischer 208 sg's..

post #23 of 23
Your right, for a given radius my acceleration would be a=v^2 /R, and force required varies as M v^2/ R, so to go round the same corner with 1/2 the mass and 1.41 times the velocity would result in the same centripetal force.
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 › Stability..more nails for the straight ski coffin..(Long)