EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski construction vs. shape
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski construction vs. shape - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Your shape and construction go together. The shape determines the load, and the construction carries the load.
post #32 of 45
Ghost, you are right but there are many ways to skin a cat, or different avenues to arrive at the same destination. For me I buy into the whole chip, intellifibers, and liquidmetal technologies found in the Head skis, for some others perhaps only a wood core, for others skis have to be s.w. or capped construction, even when all else is equal.
post #33 of 45
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. If it works it works. The FT on my Fischers really works. My old SGs are stable too using old technology.
post #34 of 45
Thread Starter 
OK..whats first..construction or shape?
post #35 of 45
Phil, i think the determining factor for a well engineered ski will be:

1) cost
2) goal of the ski / what the niche is

That will determine the materials that can be used. Once that's narrowed down, then they will move into design within the limitations of the materials available.

If you are designing a ski for the general masses to sell in great numbers generally you are not going to make it out of titanium, carbon-fiber, and Kevlar, likewise if you are going to make a $4k ski, you better make sure it has those all those materials and a ridiculous finish as well.
post #36 of 45
Kind of like aircraft design. What is the mission of the ski?

You ask .... "what's first, shape or construction?"

I ask .... "what's the mission?"

Shape and construction are not exclusive.

You can design an "SL like" ski to perform on soft snow and give you "SL like performance".

If you take that "SL like ski" on ice/hardpack, it will come apart at the seams.

Enter the world of materials and construction.

Take a Cessna 152 trainer .... then take a Cessna 150 trainer with the checkered tail (The Aerobat) .... essentially the same airframe but with slight difference in construction ... one can do basic aerobatics and the other will kill you if your tried the same thing.
post #37 of 45
I think the 'feel' of a ski is 70% design (shape) and 30% construction. Bearing in mind I am not talking about the differences in shape of 1 or 2mm here or there, I am talking differences between fat and skinny. When the first carving skis came out I was amazed at how completely different each one felt, even if they had very similar construction. And the same goes for the more recent fattening of skis - 2 skis of very similar construction can feel and perform totally different with a 30mm difference in width.

It used to be back in the day (of straight skis) an all mountain ski was just a detuned version of the race skis. But these days we categorise skis based on waist width, rather than flex or construction. The original Head IM103 was always described as a powder ski same as the , despite the fact that it was stiff as a fence post.
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
You are correct. Changed. IMHO, you were in the back of my thought process when I thought of this. In your purchase process, do you look at the construction or shape first and what is your deciding factor?
Hum...I really look at both together. It's the whole package vs. the intended use that really matters.

For all around (with hardpack), I like a 185-190cm, 85-90mm waist, 22-30m radius, in a wood core+metal sandwich.

For bumps, trees and powder, I like a ski without metal (wood torsion box, wood sandwich, or atomic beta). For pure powder, a very straight sidecut and very wide. For trees and bumps, around a 20m sidecut and 80-85mm wide.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this in my quiver.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
OK..whats first..construction or shape?
Yes.
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Hum...I really look at both together. It's the whole package vs. the intended use that really matters.
I agree. :

Construction and shape do need to be considered together. For example, if I were to look to buy a powder ski it is a pretty sure bet that while I would be looking at dedicated powder skis (say 95mm waists and up), I would not be looking at anything that was not a sandwich/laminate layup. Perhaps some think that is limiting my options but in my experience that is the construction that I prefer in skis of any shape. Also, as I said before, a well-built ski is also going to have a well designed shape for it's intended use. The decision comes down to the performance/feel expectations when the ski is being used for the intended use as well as other uses that may not fall into the manufacturers ideal intended use (skiing a stiff crud/powder ski in bumps, etc).

Later

Greg
post #41 of 45

Thread about skis or wimmin?

HeluvaSkier, Yuki, which will give you something you never knew you wanted?

Shape

or

design and construction?


My answer is already above.
post #42 of 45
Allow me to illustrate since the aviation analogy was over your head (nuk, nuk .. ) ....

www.BachelorettePartyDolls.com

They indeed all have shape and some are ....you be the judge .... :
post #43 of 45
When I am looking for a new ski, I pick shape first. The shape or dimensions give an idea of the classification.

My Sterlings are a midfat GS ski classification. In cars, a classification might be like a CrossOver SUV. By looking at that classification, one can get a rough idea of how the product should perform and what conditions it should be best in.

I think what really makes a ski work is it’s construction and materials. These elements produce different stiffness, weight, flex pattern, damping, etc.. The materials must be tuned to the shape to make a ski perform at its best.

For instance, the Sterlings use a shape that is rather common or one could say 'proven'. In fact, if the shape had been much different, I might not have bought them. I really like the GS midfat shape. I have owned three pairs of skis with similar shape; Volkl AC3, Dynastar 8000 and the Stockli Stormriders. They all have similar characteristics but their performance is completely different. The AC3s did what they were designed to do but were unimpressive. The 8000 for me are a step up in crud, powder and speed. The Stormriders were another step up, they are versatile across all types of skiing without any major weakness. The Sterlings are yet another step up, similar to the Stormriders, but with a lot more performance packed in them. Four skis with similar shapes but like night and day in their true performance output.

I feel that most ski shapes have been explored, some work, some don’t. When shape / dimensions are similar, I think what sets one ski apart from another is the quality of materials and the way the materials are combined. These two factors have a major effect on the overall feel of the ski. Some skis hit the mark and some don’t even come close.

In summary, shape tells me what the ski should be capable of, materials and construction determine how the skis really performs.
post #44 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdude View Post
When I am looking for a new ski, I pick shape first. The shape or dimensions give an idea of the classification.

My Sterlings are a midfat GS ski classification. In cars, a classification might be like a CrossOver SUV. By looking at that classification, one can get a rough idea of how the product should perform and what conditions it should be best in.

I think what really makes a ski work is it’s construction and materials. These elements produce different stiffness, weight, flex pattern, damping, etc.. The materials must be tuned to the shape to make a ski perform at its best.

For instance, the Sterlings use a shape that is rather common or one could say 'proven'. In fact, if the shape had been much different, I might not have bought them. I really like the GS midfat shape. I have owned three pairs of skis with similar shape; Volkl AC3, Dynastar 8000 and the Stockli Stormriders. They all have similar characteristics but their performance is completely different. The AC3s did what they were designed to do but were unimpressive. The 8000 for me are a step up in crud, powder and speed. The Stormriders were another step up, they are versatile across all types of skiing without any major weakness. The Sterlings are yet another step up, similar to the Stormriders, but with a lot more performance packed in them. Four skis with similar shapes but like night and day in their true performance output.

I feel that most ski shapes have been explored, some work, some don’t. When shape / dimensions are similar, I think what sets one ski apart from another is the quality of materials and the way the materials are combined. These two factors have a major effect on the overall feel of the ski. Some skis hit the mark and some don’t even come close.

In summary, shape tells me what the ski should be capable of, materials and construction determine how the skis really performs.
So, that is the shape that you like, but it is not one of the trend shapes, pretty much where I I was going with my question.
post #45 of 45
Phil,

The shape of the Sterling Matterhorn is a common shape. I think almost all Manufacturers have a ski in a similar shape. This is one of the shapes that has lasted the test of time. Some of the trendy shapes are fun but after skiing them for awhile, I often go back to my proven skis. Of course, this is all personal preference. We have not discussed nor touch on personal preference, skill level or why manufacturers think they need a new gadget or shape to compete. For me, all I want is performance and products that are not marketed to me like I am a 13-year-old boy.
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 › Ski construction vs. shape