or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Good learning/teaching/carving/mogul/ice/groomer ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Good learning/teaching/carving/mogul/ice/groomer ski? - Page 2

post #31 of 35
Originally Posted by barrettscv
I try to think of the ski in three segments; tip, waist and tail.

The wider the tip, the greater the float in soft in soft snow and the easier the turn initiation, however the ski could feel "grabby" and the ski must be well built to avoid excessive torsional flex.

The wider the waist, the greater the float in soft snow, however the ski will feel slow from edge to edge and requires greater leverage to tip when used on hard snow.

The wider the tail, the stronger the carving power and the tighter the turning radius, however the ski will lack stability at speed, it becomes resistant to changing edges and becomes more difficult to skid.

Hope that helped,

I'm not trying to be difficult here, sorry if I seem that way, but maybe I do have it confused.

But the last paragraph here says a wide tail is hard to skid....I'd think that it would be easier to skid if the waist was also wide, so it seems to me that there should be some correlation between skidability and the difference between waist and tail.

For the z-9 and the atomic,

Z-9 = 126-74-105 = 31mm waist/tail delta
M-11 = 131-76-115 = 39mm waist/tail delta

In moguls, the tips will often be off the snow, yet the tail of the ski will be wanting to carve, and you'll need a more significant pivot to unhook it... I'd suggest that a key measurement for "carvability" is this waist/tail delta. The atomic has more carving power.

On the other part of the ski, the tip/waist deltas are 51 for the Z-9 and 55 for the M-11. This to me says that the atomic has a greater "self steering effect", so should be a poor skidder. (Having skied it, I believe that.)

The Head is 120/65/105, so by looking at the tip/waist delta (55), it should have similar steering power of the atomic. The waist/tail delta (40) shows that this ski would want to carve even more than the atomic. I'd think that this is a lousy skidder.

But the taper is only 20, so it ought to be a good skidder? Huh?? I don't think that anyone thinks that of the supershape. Everyone I've ever spoken to about it that has skied them says it's quite a lousy skidder, but a grrreat carver.

I think the measurement of "taper" is somehow flawed, since it does not take into consideration the waist. But I may be entirely confused.

post #32 of 35
I think of this first in the context of skis with roughly similar waist widths. If you were to consider one of these skis under discussion, say the Atomic as an example, and made two of them with different tail widths say 131-76-115 and 131-76-110 here is what you would get.

Wider tail = Tighter turn radius, stronger redirection at the turn finish, more tendancy to hold on to the turn.

Narrower tail = Larger turn radius, less power at the turn finish, a little easier to break it loose from the carve.

Of course the taper is a major contributing factor to "skiddability" but not the only one. Torsional stiffness is a player as well.

post #33 of 35
After doing some research on the term "taper" applied to skis it would seem that SJ definitely has this right. I just had never heard the term applied to the comparison of the tip to tail width. I was familiar with Dynastar's Pintail marketing term though.

In my research I found that this term actually pops up more often with water skis than snow skis. However here is a great link regarding ski taper at skibuilders.com: http://www.skibuilders.com/articles/skidimensions.shtml

I also found a link that used the term "taper" in a very different way (http://skiersjournal.com/modules.php...rticle&sid=910). Here the term is used to decribe how the thickness of a ski decreases from the ski midpoint toward the tip and tails. I personally don't think taper should be used to describe this feature.

So anyhow, this is a measurement I've evaluated in my own ski selections, but not quite in the same way. I've charted what I call the "tipcut" and "tailcut" (taking the difference in width between the tip and tail to the waist) and then evaluated the ratio of tipcut to tailcut. High ratios indicate "pintail" skis where the tip is much wider than the waist and the tail isn't much wider than the waist. Low ratios are generally found on twin tip skis that are designed to be ridden switch.

Anywho, thanks for the info on ski "taper" it's another measurement comparison I hadn't really given much consideration to before.
post #34 of 35
So after reading through the thread (and noticing that I created a "monster" on this taper stuff) I thought more about what ski characteristics you could possibly derive from the way SJ defines ski taper. IMHO I don't think you can compare the tip width to the tail width directly without taking the waist into consideration (and SJ kinda says this in one of his posts). The waist width will play into how the ski will respond to skidding and carving moves while the tip and tail widths remain constant. Right? A waist that is much narrower than the tail will cause the ski to run very differently than if the waist is much closer to the tail width.
post #35 of 35
if you do your csia 1s in december and start teaching, unless you know people at the resort you're probably going to get level 1/2/3 adults or really young kids up to 4/5.

now talking about tortional stiffness and taper on skis you use to teach 8 level one students on a magic carpet is a bit academic in my opinion.

you need something that is short (so you walk about on them), something without much shape (so you can skid and ski backwards) and something that a big, fat 50 year-old level 1 can ski/tread/stomp/fall on without making you wince - because - in all honesty they are going to get trashed. finally, and this might not be a problem where you teach, but be prepared to leave them lying around in high traffic areas - ie you might loose your 07 volkl allstars while taking 8 kids to the potty - but not your 02 dynastars.

the csia 1 and 2 courses aren't going to require you to ski anything monsterously difficult- as long as you can demo wedge turns and basic parallel well - the choice of ski isn't as important as you might think.

in the 04/05 season i did some lessons on the magic carpet and i used a pair of 02 dynastar speed 63s - soft, short skis that are good to carve on. i picked them up new on ebay for CAD$150 with bindings and a lot of my mates with whiz-bang gear looked at them with envy. use the money you save to by a big-mountain ski or a park ski or something!

well that's my experience anyway!
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 › Good learning/teaching/carving/mogul/ice/groomer ski?