Originally Posted by Max_501
Oh, sorry for the confusion.
Ok, thanks cor clearing that up, it definately didn't make sense to me, buti was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Originally Posted by Max_501
... So, if I'm going to end up with a midfat ski that has a GS feel then I'll likely go for the wider model which gives a bit more float and stability (the IM82).
Since the carbon is so light and torsionally rigid, even at very wide widths, I'm even thinking of switching from the Wailer 95 to the Wailer 105 for the dedicated powder ski for the same logic. [The im82 or Cassiar 80 will take care of everything except the few real deep days, or (fewer) Heli-days, and then, why not max out that use. The 105 still has normal camber and sidecut - 131/105/118 28m @ 188 - but with a long shovel].
So, the im82 will remain the first demo.
Just to whet your curiosity, this is a post from someone from DP on TGR on 7/6/06. It was in response to someone complaining that the previous years ski came delivered heavier than he expected. I have taken the liberty of bolding some text for emphasis, and adding a weight comment in italics and brackets about the im77 and Cassiar - enjoy:
"Last year, starting from scratch, and due to the cramped R&D to production cycle, we intentionally overbuilt (high carbon/ultra thin) a few models, namely the shapes that hit harder snow (Wailer 95 and 105) to blow their torsional stiffness and performance through the roof (redundancy for lack of testing time)- As a point of comparison, we have tested skis straight off the World Cup course (race room top secret jazz), and a standard DPS will measure 20-30% torsionally stiffer (more powerful).
Carbon is twice as strong as Aluminum and Fiberglass and half the weight. Still, you keep piling on carbon, and it starts to weigh something (some flex 185cm Wailer 95's from this year weighed in as high as 1800g- fairly robust for a carbon ski). One of the beauties of a pure carbon construction is that you can build a light ski that will have way more power than anything conventionally built of equal weight.
We knew going into this spring we could fine-tune the layup, while thickening the ski, thereby maintaining steroidal physical properties, but dropping 200g on a single ski for the Wailers- that process is going on right now.
The weight reduction will be 100g on the Lotuses as they already benefited form 50% of the new layup during last year's short run.
Engineering Specs have this summer's run coming out in the neighborhood of the following:
185cm Wailer 95: 1650g- 7.26 lbs/pair
188cm Wailer 105: 1730g 7.6 lbs/pair
190cm Lotus 120: 1850-1900g or 8.1-8.36 lbs/pair
192cm Lotus 138: 1925g or 8.48 lbs/pair (stay tuned on this one as we are also making a shaping change here)[For comparison, I think the im77 is about 2100gr. And, although not listed here, I think the Cassiar 80 is about the same as the Wailer 95 - even @ its narrower dimensions because they beef it up as it is made for hardpack (still way lighter than a im77 or im82).]
We like these numbers. They are nice and light, yet the boards have unmatched physical properties and are sandwich with a fair amount of plastic where you need it. In the big picture, with a pure carbon ski, there is still room to shed another 10% of core weight with a wood change, and that may or may not happen in the future based on testing, and even another few hundred grams by going to aeropace foam cores and a cap. That's not necessarily the ski we are after though.
We design for flat-out on snow performance, strength, and weight. It's intended as a ski of zero compromise: one that will out ski the heaviest, beefiest double aluminum laminate builds, stronger, yet is far quicker, and more fun to move around with. Philosophically, we are not gram counters, but weight is an inherent part of performance as it endows power and freedom in turn transitions and obviously makes touring more fun. So, our goal is to get within range of "light" while having uncompromised performance and strength, not to be the "lightest" per say, if that makes sense.
Fiberglass skis in the Touring/Tele weight class have Touring/Tele performance, without exception, just due to the modulous of the materials used in conventional skis. (in order to make a ski light you have to remove fiberglass or go to lower density woods or foam, both of which sap performance, whereas the choice of core material in a carbon ski has miniscule impact on performance because the carbon laminates dominate the ski with their incredibly high modulus).
We don't aim to be the lightest ski in the touring class or even to be included in it per say, if that makes sense. The goal is to make the highest performing skis made, physically speaking, and in doing so, make sure that the weights stay down in a place where people are psyched to tour on them, even on the big skis, and that they know they will be able to make ultra-quick moves while on them that match the superior power generated by the materials."