EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Lets see if we can stump Phil the Ski Encyclopedia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lets see if we can stump Phil the Ski Encyclopedia

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
I got some skis for Christmas. They are old wooden skis that belonged to my Great Great Uncle Gunder. My dad was looking for ski poles that went with the skis but couldnt find them so he improvised and made some. Those are a topic for random humour!

These wooden skis are 90 inches long.
How'd they ski on those things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
What's the radius?

Hang on to those babies!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
Maybe we should ask Phil about the radius.
I'm sure he knows. He does seem to be a walking encyclopedia of skis/ski gear.

I'll have to take a picture and post it.
They are in great condition for being stored in the rafters of a garage for years.
As you all can see, the topic of another thread has led to the beginning of something interesting in Ski Gear Discussion.
Does any one(not just Phil) have any idea what the radius of these old skis would be?
The wooden skis between the 167 Burnin luvs and the 184 Volkl AX3's
They measure 90 inches (228 ish cm)
95/75/84

If we stump Phil, on this one Does he have to ski at Boyne Mountain with me and Kneale Brownson?
post #2 of 15
What are the tip, waist and tail widths? And FWIW, Northland skis were da bomb in the day .
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trekchick View Post
They measure 90 inches (228 ish cm)95/75/84

If we stump Phil, on this one Does he have to ski at Boyne Mountain with me and Kneale Brownson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
What are the tip, waist and tail widths? And FWIW, Northland skis were da bomb in the day .
I posted the information you should need. See!
post #4 of 15
I don't relish the memories of my Northland skis. They had the old Dover cable binding which came out of the guides and you had to dig the ice out with your bare fingers and reinstal the cable. The skis themselves had been handed down through several skiers. They were all wood with a badly painted black topsheet (my pair before these i did not even know what kind they were as the topsheet had been repainted.) The edges were screwed on and very rusty. I think the ski was all wood. I think the bases were just a fancy kind of paint. The skis did ok running accross the hill, but they did not really have any "dynamic" turn qualities.
My next pair of skis were again second hand, but with some fiberglass in them and cubco bindings allowing you to step in-then on my 7th Christmas I received a new (1st) pair of Head GK04 with salomon 444 bindings. These were a metal fiberglass ski with real step in bindings-thought I had gone to heaven. These skis coupled with plastic boots really opened up modern skiing for me.
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineac View Post

They had The edges were screwed on and very rusty.
Factory specs: 1 and 2. Kind of rough on the file when you hit the screws!

My next ski after Northland were Heads.

I remember my brother got a pair of Fisher Quicks.
post #6 of 15
I think I had skis that long when I was eight or nine years old (that was in the 1940s). I think I broke a pair of those running into a tree because I couldn't turn them much. There was no "turn radius" because those kind of skis were turned by totally unweighting, either with a two-legged jump or in a stepping maneuver. One pivoted the tails of the skis mostly to reorient their direction for turns.
post #7 of 15
I had a pair of Northlands shortly after I came to America, but they were metal skis. Head, Hart and Northland all had metal skis in the 60s if I remember correctly.

...Ott
post #8 of 15
I come up with a 73m sidecut radius using P-man's formula.
post #9 of 15

northland golden jets

1965, nothland golden jets 190ish. boy, did they rock! could go through anything----even walls. not really a turning ski but they were fast.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
I come up with a 73m sidecut radius using P-man's formula.
Hmmm, I was thinking between 70 and 80m Depending on the contact length I am sure there is some variables.
post #11 of 15
Didn't Northland make the Stein Erikson L21?
This was yellow metal/fiberglass sandwich as I recall.
post #12 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
I come up with a 73m sidecut radius using P-man's formula.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
Hmmm, I was thinking between 70 and 80m Depending on the contact length I am sure there is some variables.
I'm going to make an assumption that Lower body strength is a must to ski on something like this and get them to turn. They sure do intrigue me, but not enough to try them out.
post #13 of 15
Dear Dr Phil, if I have some 1967 Cubco bindings and some 1969 Hierling boots and 1974 Olin Mark IV Ballet skis does that make me a good skier?

How about if I use some lime green Scott Boots or some banana yellow Hanson boots?
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramshackle View Post
Dear Dr Phil, if I have some 1967 Cubco bindings and some 1969 Hierling boots and 1974 Olin Mark IV Ballet skis does that make me a good skier?

How about if I use some lime green Scott Boots or some banana yellow Hanson boots?
Need more info. What poles? If you have Collins subtract 1 to ability Scott Orange ones that match the Ballets +2.

The Yellow Hansons, Avanti model, could be too heavy for Ballet, the Orange Avanti would have been acceptable. Are the Scotts Superlites or Superhots (I or II)?

I would also suggest upgrading the Cubcos to the obvious Spademens or maybe a Burt I or Moog.

What color White Stag outfit? and unless you have a Marlboro man moustache, we cannot talk any futher
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
I come up with a 73m sidecut radius using P-man's formula.
I get that too, for the left ski. The right ski is 78m unless you ski it on the left foot, in which case it's 90 +/-.

You might want to check my math.
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 › Lets see if we can stump Phil the Ski Encyclopedia