or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › B5 and Slalom Sidecuts in Big Turns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

B5 and Slalom Sidecuts in Big Turns - Page 2

post #31 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Do you want a medal?
lol...

I also think Checkracer has it right. At one point, I was racing on shelf Salomon 3Vs and felt perfectly comfortable freeskiing on them in all radii. They were great skis. The following season I switched to some race stock Rossis and found that they only wanted to do slalom on rock-hard snow. The flex and weight hypothesis seems to make sense here.
post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer
Hmmmm, I'm not sure what the difference is. Maybe the average type of terrain you ski, skiing background (ie: where you learned, east/west, hard snow/soft snow, racing, bumps, whatever) I grew up (and live) in the midwest, and ski at least one week per year in the west. Usually Jackson Hole. Last year I spent 2 weeks at Jackson, one day at Snowmass, and one day at Squaw. I come from a racing background on hardpack to ice, largely man made. When I ski in the midwest, on 600 feet of vertical, I want race skis. I would never put on a pair of Metrons at home. At Jackson, I seek out the steepest, most challenging terrain I can find. Often very narrow, often with rocks and/or trees. A deep sidecut ski like the Metron will get very squirrely on extremely steep sections. Especially chalky, windblown "hardpack" which will make the tail "catch". Sometimes you need to be able to "smear" your turns, carving only portions. The Metrons mainly want to carve. The only groomed runs I ski are just the runouts to get back to the lift. Ie: Amphitheater. A couple years ago, I followed Tommy Moe down "Grand", doing big, fast, carved turns. It had been groomed that morning. He was on 193 GS's, I was on G4's. We were going so freakin fast, if I would have had a turnier ski, I would have killed myself! The problem with skis like that at high speeds is the transition. A strong race technique gives you a ton of rebound at the end of the turn.
I rebounded myself right into the air upside down on a pair of 182 6 stars on a fast groomer at Targhee a couple of years ago. That's when I decided that a 6 star was too turny for out west. I couldn't let them run either. For out west, I LOVE my G4's, and I suspect I would love the Mantra's even more (I may soon find out.....) I think it's just all about your skiing style. That probably doesn't answer many questions, but hopefully adds something to the discussion...
Thanks, U.P., this is a very interesting line of conversation, I think.

I grew up skiing in the midwest (Nubs Nob and later the micro-bumps in southern Michigan with that lucky annual trip to Blue Mountain), and did some racing in high school (late '70s). My technique on straight skis was definitely high on rebound, and I most enjoyed SLs that really "popped" at the transition.

Two years ago when I took on teaching in an effort to make the house payments (yeah, I know!), I began the retooling of my skiing from the ground up. As a result, I have eliminated most (but not all!) of the "pop" in my transition. As I have done this, I have grown to prefer the "hypercarve" skis.

I suspect that this is part of the difference. I also don't doubt that you regularly ski faster than I do. I expect I'm in the 35-40mph range most of the time and rarely go much faster (although I'm told we were skiing in the 50s during coach's day at Big Sky's ESA last year--me on my RX8s; I wouldn't know since I've never been clocked and have no reference). I will say that I didn't find any issue skiing "fast" all over Summit County and Vail last year on the b5s (or the RX8s). Certainly at speeds that the vast majority of skiers never reach.

I would argue that those who do reach those higher speeds are unlikely to take the advice of anyone else when it comes to skis, anyway (for example, neither you nor I are likely to purchase a ski before we've been on it and selected it as a result of our personal experience, I would bet).
post #33 of 80
Thread Starter 
It's just funny that Keelty used to say that the SL9 was a versatile ski in all turn shapes and sizes and now says the same thing about the B5.

He rated the SL9 ski of the year in the past and now the B5 currently holds that title.

Nothing is going to compare to a GS ski on a long icey run but can you take them in the bumps or trees easily?
post #34 of 80
One thing's for sure: this year's "amazing miracle ski" will shortly be an "also-ran". Ski technology has improved so much in the past few years that "King of the Hill" is a short-lived title.
post #35 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
It is not physically possible to truely carve a turn larger than your sidecut radius, you are skidding and only partially carving. When you are carving a longer turn on a small radius ski, at close to but still smaller than the sidecut radius, it must be at a relatively low speed, because you will generate alot of centripetal force if you are going too fast.

It is possible, however, to carve a turn much smaller than your sidecut radius. This is why I don't really ski anything under a 20m sidecut - I can lean the ski over and bend it into smaller arcs. I find it pretty useless to be on a ski that stops carving effectively above 30 mph.
I agree with half of your synopsis. I have resisted the temptation to get ultra low radius skis for precisely the reason in your first paragraph. If I am carving on short radius skis, it will be at lower speeds, since my knees can't handle the high stresses of trying to carve at faster speeds.

Trying to carve SR turns at fast speeds will overpower the edge grip at best, or will damage my already messed up knees. IIRC, the force relationship is m*(v**2)/r. If I use 10 M radius vs 20 M, the force is doubled at the same velocity. To maintain the same force at 20 M as at 10 M, the velocity must be raised by the square root of 2.

eg. let v**2/r = V**2/R . r is the short radius and R is the long radius. In the example, R=2*r.

So, solve for V in terms of v: 2 * v**2/r = V**2/r or

V = sqr(2)*v. Which means you can ski about 1.4 times faster on a 20 M radius turn than on a 10 M radius turn before the same forces arise. (Or about 70% of the speed on a ten meter turn. That means, 40MPH on a 20M turn is equivalent to 28 MPH on a 10M turn. )

But this says only that at your max ability/desire to handle the load, you will be carving more slowly in a short radius turn than in a long radius turn. It says nothing at all about the relative merits between SR and LR skis.

Your second paragraph is correct too, but there is a slight implication that is not -- the implication that you'll actually be carving at the higher speed during the shorter radius turn. You will be carving to your ability to manage the force and the ability for the snowpack to maintain the carve at the given speed -- totally irrelevant wrt ski radius... FWIW, the formulas above only speak to the speed of the skier and turn radius, not the radius of the ski.

A bigger impact on LR skis in SR turns is the height of the edge angles that you need to develop to make the ski carve. Isn't turning 1/2 radius or the ski a 60 degree edge angle? There is a huge implication that the snow pack could handle such oblique forces, especially at speed. There is the other implication that your body can handle the load.

And forget totally about carving the really short turns on the LR skis.

Personally, I don't want to go less than 14/15 M, 'cuz I like to carve, but don't want to ski as slowly as I would have to when carving the ultra SR ski. I like the longer 18M especially. I ski alot on 21 M, 'cuz it's easier...

As to SR skis on LR turns, why does full-on edge engagement matter if the ski and skier are tracing out turns of the same radius? I say it does not. The only implications are in poor snow conditions, where the SR ski could be thrown. IMO, the metron gets around this by adding mass -- it's a tank, so it goes straight at high speeds without wobbling.
post #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
Nothing is going to compare to a GS ski on a long icey run but can you take them in the bumps or trees easily?
You'd rather ski bumps on a Metron or a modern SL ski with uber shape than a nice GS ski? Thats weird to me. The GS boards are a lot better for me in the bumps, easier to get together, easier to steer at low edge angles...

I don't ski them in the bumps as a rule because my fatass tends to bend them. At the same time, Metron-like shapes are a total PITA in the bumps.
post #37 of 80
skiingman, it depends on what we mean by "bumps" and how we tend to ski them.

I enjoy my b5s in the bumps, but I do not take a "slap-slap" line through them. I use the bumps, and vary my turns depending on conditions. We get enough good snow here that I tend to aim for the snow in the bumps and just play with them. I think if I skied eastern bumps (at least they way that I used to), I wouldn't like the tail in them; too likely to grab. But, I haven't tried it, so I might be wrong about that.
post #38 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
As to SR skis on LR turns, why does full-on edge engagement matter if the ski and skier are tracing out turns of the same radius? I say it does not. The only implications are in poor snow conditions, where the SR ski could be thrown. IMO, the metron gets around this by adding mass -- it's a tank, so it goes straight at high speeds without wobbling.
...and this leads to the technical discussion of skis. Skis are far more than their sidecut. They are mass and its distribution, flex and its distribution, and tortional resistence and its distribution. These characteristics are blended to result in target performance. So, a ski that is stiff tortionally but soft longitudinally will ski different than a ski of the same sidecut that is soft tortionally but stiff longitudinally (ugh!). In addition, modern materials and manufacturing allow designers to custom tailor different attributes at different points along the ski. The Puls and beta5 bars on Atomics are an example of techniques to do this.

In other words, there's a lot more here than meets the eye.

At the end of the day however, for me, it's about the sensations that I get when I'm sliding on snow. I don't really care if I'm "carving", "arcing", of anything else that someone else can identify. All that matters to me is that I have a big-o smile on my face, I'm whooping uncontrollably, and enjoying myself as its only possible to do while skiing.
post #39 of 80
I've skied my 168 6* at a clocked 54 mph in normal parka and pants on a deserted stretch of Breckenridge with buddies and radios strung out along the route. At that speed the ski wants to do almost anything except run straight, and the shovel wants to do that anything all directions at once. Keeping an edge stabilizes the ski but slows it. Challenging but not fun. Don't plan on a repeat. Haven't skied a B5, but cannot picture being even 20 mph slower on a shorter ski with an 11 or 12 m radius. Find myself agreeing with those who advocate bending a longer radius. It's the old issue of what we can make it do versus what a ski is best at doing.
post #40 of 80
You bet, beyond! If I was skiing in a tuck or wanting to ski on flat skis, the Metron would be the very last choice on my list! However, I grew up skiing in the midwest where hills are bumps, and I tend to like to turn more than many. As a result, skis that have the versatility to turn tightly while still letting me run a bit (not up to 50mph all the time, for sure!) is a nice compromise.
post #41 of 80
Talking about dampening, people have mentioned width and mass, but no-one has yet talked about the B5 system, the combination of plate and the "power channels". When they launched the Metron, Atomic claimed:
"On some skis power return can be so brutal it becomes uncontrollable. B5's suspension system stores massive amounts of energy as the skis compress into turns, tames it and returns the force through the Power Channels for smooth, supercharged exits."
So it's designed to "tame" the rebound.
Of course, for someone wanting to ski the zipperline in bumps aggressively, the Metron would have too much swing weight for those totally pivoted turns. But for carving, or introducing people to carving, it's a great ski.
When I skied it I found I had to be doing super G speeds and super G radius turns before I noticed the tight sidecut as a disadvantage.
post #42 of 80
Martin, thanks for that... If you say it can handle Super G speeds, that settles it for me! You're one of the few here who actually knows what those really are!

I agree with your comments about the construction. That's what I was attempting to generically describe in that earlier post... The "power channels" (doesn't really matter what they're called) are a way of handling the dynamics of the ski while they are being skied. As a result, they ski differently than they "measure" (in terms of sidecut, tortion, flex characteristics). This is an example of why we can't take one characteristic of a ski (like sidecut) and judge its performance by it.
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
So what you are saying is that the Metrons and high end slalom skis are not carving effectively above 30 mph?

I am just curious about this theory because many people rate skis such as the Atomic SL9, Metron B5, Head Supercarve, and other 13m radius and under skis as very versatile skis.

I can't imagine that people do not ski them above 30mph on a consistent basis.
Scalce, consider the source!
post #44 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Scalce, consider the source!
true

true
post #45 of 80
I have mentioned this before and it is once again being missed in this thread

Taper Angle! as someone else had mentioned, the radius is just one part of the equation. The tail dimension in relation to tip and waist dimension is
a defining factor in the turn characteristic of a ski, not just the final radius but the actual shape.
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Bell
Talking about dampening, people have mentioned width and mass, but no-one has yet talked about the B5 system, the combination of plate and the "power channels". When they launched the Metron, Atomic claimed:
"On some skis power return can be so brutal it becomes uncontrollable. B5's suspension system stores massive amounts of energy as the skis compress into turns, tames it and returns the force through the Power Channels for smooth, supercharged exits."
So it's designed to "tame" the rebound.
Of course, for someone wanting to ski the zipperline in bumps aggressively, the Metron would have too much swing weight for those totally pivoted turns. But for carving, or introducing people to carving, it's a great ski.
When I skied it I found I had to be doing super G speeds and super G radius turns before I noticed the tight sidecut as a disadvantage.
Well said!
post #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
I've skied my 168 6* at a clocked 54 mph in normal parka and pants on a deserted stretch of Breckenridge with buddies and radios strung out along the route. At that speed the ski wants to do almost anything except run straight, and the shovel wants to do that anything all directions at once. Keeping an edge stabilizes the ski but slows it. Challenging but not fun. Don't plan on a repeat. Haven't skied a B5, but cannot picture being even 20 mph slower on a shorter ski with an 11 or 12 m radius. Find myself agreeing with those who advocate bending a longer radius. It's the old issue of what we can make it do versus what a ski is best at doing.
Who in the hell would judge any modern shape ski by how it skis flat or in a tuck? Not what they are made to do. Get a real super G or Dh ski if you want to go straight & flat run!!!!!!

Shows nothing but ignorance! These skis are made to turn and be on edge. An absolutely ridiculous assessment!

ssh you were way to nice to him!@!!!!
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
Who in the hell would judge any modern shape ski by how it skis flat or in a tuck? Not what they are made to do. Get a real super G or Dh ski if you want to go straight & flat run!!!!!!

Shows nothing but ignorance! These skis are made to turn and be on edge. An absolutely ridiculous assessment!

ssh you were way to nice to him!@!!!!
What: ! You don't mean those ski mags have lied to me, telling me the Rossi Oversize 9S was stable at "fast" speeds. Telling me the SX10 was made for speed, telling me that the SXB5 could replace my quiver. They wouldn't say it if it weren't true, would they?
Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so!
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
What: ! You don't mean those ski mags have lied to me, telling me the Rossi Oversize 9S was stable at "fast" speeds. Telling me the SX10 was made for speed, telling me that the SXB5 could replace my quiver. They wouldn't say it if it weren't true, would they?
Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so!
Yes!!! They are stable at fast speeds:


ON EDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #50 of 80
...and not even a lot of edge. Just tipped enough that the snow won't grab both sides of the ski and toss me around...
post #51 of 80
Thread Starter 
Sometimes I like skiing so fast that the wind is so loud you can't hear anything and your shell turns into a parachute when you get out of your tuck.

and to imagine I've done it on Metron XIs

the horror

the horror
post #52 of 80
I have skied my XI's in

bumps
trees
powder
groomers *high and low speed
was it the perfect ski in amy of those conditions? NO, but it was 90%+ in those conditions and that is fine for me as an "all mountain/one ski quiver" ski. And I wasn't aware of ANY of the hype before I skied them.
post #53 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
I have skied my XI's in

bumps
trees
powder
groomers *high and low speed
was it the perfect ski in amy of those conditions? NO, but it was 90%+ in those conditions and that is fine for me as an "all mountain/one ski quiver" ski. And I wasn't aware of ANY of the hype before I skied them.
I followed Byron and his ski buddies all over Okemo's deserted blue runs in the morning at a pretty good clip on my XIs.

and went in some bumps on them
post #54 of 80
Taper angle my ass....
post #55 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Taper angle my ass....
You could see a Dr. about that issue.

post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Huh?
That about sums it up, eh?
post #57 of 80

Atomicman: Ease up on the caffeine

Love how some of you guys fling around terms like "ignorance" and "ridiculous" while misquoting people. I never stated that I was running flat, did I? You assumed that. I did for a few hundred feet, when I hit 54. In fact, most of the time I had a light edge on, as I did say, making very long radius turns. And it slowed the skis into the mid-high 40's, while stabilizing them a bit - although still had twitchy shovels and extreme fore/aft sensitivity. Nor did I say I was in a full tuck, which I think are adolescent outside a Super-G or downhill course. You and ssh assumed that. The point of my own experience was to argue it is possible to ski a short radius carver fast, and under control, but it isn't their strength. I didn't enjoy it even in a 14 m ski. Is that so "ridiculous?"

Some of you need to drink less coffee, slow down and actually think about the posts, before leaping onto your keyboard. Also nothing wrong with using less inflamatory language when you disagree. Called "civility," for those of you brought up on TV's shouting heads. We're not idiots just because we have a different take on something than you...
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Taper angle my ass....
I'd love to!
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
I followed Byron and his ski buddies all over Okemo's deserted blue runs in the morning at a pretty good clip on my XIs.

and went in some bumps on them
Heh, Byron was following us all over Okemo.
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
Love how some of you guys fling around terms like "ignorance" and "ridiculous" while misquoting people. I never stated that I was running flat, did I? You assumed that. I did for a few hundred feet, when I hit 54. In fact, most of the time I had a light edge on, as I did say, making very long radius turns. And it slowed the skis into the mid-high 40's, while stabilizing them a bit - although still had twitchy shovels and extreme fore/aft sensitivity. Nor did I say I was in a full tuck, which I think are adolescent outside a Super-G or downhill course. You and ssh assumed that. The point of my own experience was to argue it is possible to ski a short radius carver fast, and under control, but it isn't their strength. I didn't enjoy it even in a 14 m ski. Is that so "ridiculous?"

Some of you need to drink less coffee, slow down and actually think about the posts, before leaping onto your keyboard. Also nothing wrong with using less inflamatory language when you disagree. Called "civility," for those of you brought up on TV's shouting heads. We're not idiots just because we have a different take on something than you...
You just threw your .02 cents in at a bad time. I am just tired of hearing about the short coming of smaller radius skis. you can't generalize that much and there are many more issues that affect a skis characteristics. is radius a big yes! Are there others hell yes!

Got a problem with TV , huh?
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 › B5 and Slalom Sidecuts in Big Turns