New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bevel Angle Thread - Page 3

post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
There can still be progression: the torsional rigidity isn't set to be that of a stock race ski.

We skied 0 base 0 side on straight skis just fine because the tips and tails had low torsional rigidity limits.

Hence the subsequent point of lateral camber and preload for the hypothetical megafat railed setup.
that was an entirely different situation. i submit it was ot the torsional rigidity that was an issue (Did you ever ski on Red sleds, Kastle or Atomic super G's or Vr17's for that matter. there was no problem building a torsionally rigid ski with skinny tips and tails. In fact torsionally rigidity became an issue as ski tips and tail became wider and wider not when they were narrow!

How do you keep a very wide tip torsionally rigid? New materials and construction techniques. This is why it is now possible to have wider skis that are torsionally stiff. Early wide skis suffered from lack of torsionally rigidity and the manufacturers had a much more difficult time separating torsional rigidity from longitudinally rigidity. Mnay skis that were torsionally rigid were also longitudianlly stiff. or vice versa.

The reason we bevel now is the shape of the ski!!! Not the torsional rigidity.

Wide tips and tails with no base bevel do not make a user friendly ski.

the old skis had tips and (and some time tails narrower then the waist. But also that old 90 degree edge was not progressive back in the day. they were pretty much on or off. You don't remember check turns??? or check hops!

Or stepping uphill to make it through the gates, because you really couldn't just roll the ski on edge at the top of the turn?
post #62 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
When you say hihger bevel? What does that mean ? And are you talking base or side edge?
Maybe both.. 3 side/0 base on the side under the boot and bindings, 1/1 on the rest. Idea being a more acute angle under the part of the si what carries most of the weight and pressure.
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Maybe both.. 3 side/0 base on the side under the boot and bindings, 1/1 on the rest. Idea being a more acute angle under the part of the si what carries most of the weight and pressure.
I have tried it. don't like it! Stockli's supposedly come tuned similar to your idea. And i do know some folks who do like it. I like a very consistent geometry.

I thnk you would find thouh that a 1/1 to 0/3 under foot would be very bizarre to ski on. I would see no reaosn to decrease the side edge bevel in the tip.

I think what could make more sense is a 1/3 to a .5/3 underfoot to a 1/3 in the tail.

But my experience is the ski builds pressure really weird under your boot like this
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
In fact torsionally rigidity became an issue as ski tips and tail became wider and wider not when they were narrow!
We're talking past each other again.

My point, restated so we're not wasting more time: there is a completely unexamined part of the performance envelope in mega fat skis that aren't torsionally rigid and that aren't base-flat, so that progression can be defined in terms of lateral flex instead of the combination of ski shape and longitudinal flex.

Quote:
The reason we bevel now is the shape of the ski!!! Not the torsional rigidity.
The shape and longitudinal flex govern the progressive engagement; the torsional rigidity makes the engagement possible.


(Oh and Red Sleds yes, Vr17s yes, the rest no).
post #65 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
We're talking past each other again.

My point, restated so we're not wasting more time: there is a completely unexamined part of the performance envelope in mega fat skis that aren't torsionally rigid and that aren't base-flat, so that progression can be defined in terms of lateral flex instead of the combination of ski shape and longitudinal flex.

The shape and longitudinal flex govern the progressive engagement; the torsional rigidity makes the engagement possible.


(Oh and Red Sleds yes, Vr17s yes, the rest no).
I think got it.
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I think got it.
Heh.

I don't even know that it's remotely a good idea yet, flipping preload concepts from an Anton Glider 90 degrees onto a fat ski.
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post

Unless you can ski slalom like Benni Raich or Ligety (they run 0 often times) I would stick to a .5 to a 1 degree. I like a .7

And easier is a subjective term.
Dude.... You need to get a hobby. I've never seen anyone get so worked up over THOUSANDTHS of an inch.
I work at a medical device manufacturer. We make stainless steel and titanium surgical implants and instruments. We have computer controlled machines that cost half a million dollars. We can't even hold the tolerances that you are talking about. The difference between .5 and .7 degree base bevel??? You've gotta be kidding me.
Whatever, man. If it makes you more confident, or makes you feel like you ski better, fine. If spewing your infinite knowledge makes you feel important, fine.

The facts are, we really aren't talking about something as precise as a lot of people like to think.... Yes, you want some base bevel, but not too much. Yes, you want some side bevel, the amount of side bevel makes very little difference.

Listen. Tune your skis to what is generally accepted as 1 and 3, and you will be happy. If you could actually measure that very accurately, it would vary from that, but it's close enough.








(cue Atomicman telling us about his expensive bevel meter that is accurate within 10/1000's of an inch)
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
Dude.... You need to get a hobby. I've never seen anyone get so worked up over THOUSANDTHS of an inch.
I work at a medical device manufacturer. We make stainless steel and titanium surgical implants and instruments. We have computer controlled machines that cost half a million dollars. We can't even hold the tolerances that you are talking about. The difference between .5 and .7 degree base bevel??? You've gotta be kidding me.
Whatever, man. If it makes you more confident, or makes you feel like you ski better, fine. If spewing your infinite knowledge makes you feel important, fine.

The facts are, we really aren't talking about something as precise as a lot of people like to think.... Yes, you want some base bevel, but not too much. Yes, you want some side bevel, the amount of side bevel makes very little difference.

Listen. Tune your skis to what is generally accepted as 1 and 3, and you will be happy. If you could actually measure that very accurately, it would vary from that, but it's close enough.








(cue Atomicman telling us about his expensive bevel meter that is accurate within 10/1000's of an inch)
Typical response from an area Rep. Your guys reputaion for accurate info preceeds you.

And who is worked up other then you! I am totally calm. Seems like you are really defensive DUDE!

But just for the record, from a .5 to a .7 is a 40% increase in base bevel. if you don't think it makes a difference, that is your problem. it is common knowledge that it does!

I will post the article that proves this! ( Although I don't need to) Most of us know it is true!

the amount of side bevel makes very little difference? You gotta be kiddin' me. Are your feet and legs numb or is it between your ears?

I never said the bevelmeter was accurate to some ridiculous 10/1000's but it is certainly more accurate then scrubbing off ink or eyeballing with a true bar!
post #69 of 80
Time to get graphical here....again?

As my engineer dad always says: "It's all relative." For some, 0.2 degrees IS something. For most, it's hard to fathom ANY relevance and paralysis sets in.







(For more images and details check out or Edge Detail page.)
post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post

But just for the record, from a .5 to a .7 is a 40% increase in base bevel. if you don't think it makes a difference, that is your problem. it is common knowledge that it does!
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Time to get graphical here....again?

As my engineer dad always says: "It's all relative." For some, 0.2 degrees IS something. For most, it's hard to fathom it's relevance and paralysis sets in.







(For more images and details check out or Edge Detail page.)
So according to your graphic, if you increase your base bevel from .5 to .7, you will have to move your knee an additional 2 mm to get the same edgebite? 2 ENTIRE millimeters????

Well..... I guess I stand corrected. That IS significant!!
post #73 of 80
You forgot to add the variable terrain too, it isn't a constant 40* slope, in fact it's all over the place at different parts of the same ski unless the zamboni just flattened your piste..
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
So according to your graphic, if you increase your base bevel from .5 to .7, you will have to move your knee an additional 2 mm to get the same edgebite? 2 ENTIRE millimeters????

Well..... I guess I stand corrected. That IS significant!!
My bad, I rounded up. The actual difference is: 1.980388 mm at the given knee height with no other variables.

Precision isn't a bad thing to strive for, but at some point getting hung up on the minutia can be detrimental. As said, it's a personal preference and about acceptable tolerances, but having a sense of why and where one should target is helpful. Experimenting is good too.
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
Didn't she ski down Corbett's

Without a helmet?

In flames?


post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometjo View Post
Well, suppose you hike up to some steep, exposed, patch of snow, hoping you'll get to ski some corn when it softens up--then it doesn't soften up, but hey, you still want to get down alive. It's nice if those fat skis bite on ice. Doug Coombs does a 3 degree side bevel in his "Quick and Painless" Tune video, and I think I've heard him recommend 1/3 for most skiing.
I've basically been tuning my skis just like in Coombs's video since about 1992. As long as I have a fairly sharp edge underfoot, I'm happy. And if you actually think he's putting an exact 3 degree edge bevel on that ski freehand with a panzar file, you need to check your sense of humor.
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post

Precision isn't a bad thing to strive for, but at some point getting hung up on the minutia can be detrimental. As said, it's a personal preference and about acceptable tolerances, but having a sense of why and where one should target is helpful.
Amen, brother!
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Didn't she ski down Corbett's

Without a helmet?

In flames?


Actually, that's just a random picture I found on the web.... not my daughter. But I'm glad you remember that thread!!! It was pretty entertaining!
post #79 of 80
Methinks I'll stick with 0.5 and 3. Interesting graphic on the base angle, BTW. A lot of that movement has to occur in the knees, and they're not designed to flex all that much in that particular direction.
post #80 of 80
Thread Starter 
Post number 3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer View Post
Ok.... now that I'm done with the smartass answer... Here is the real answer:

Regardless of what manufacturers CLAIM that their "factory" bevels are, chances are they vary widely.

When getting your skis tuned, do this.

1. Set your side edge bevel to 3. A 3 degree side edge bevel will give you great edgehold on hardpack and ice, and will not be a detriment in soft snow. It won't be an advantage either, but the bottom line is, in soft snow, it makes no difference what the side edge bevel is.

2. Set the base edge bevel at 1 degree. This will work well for 99% of all skiers. Those who want MORE edgegrip may want to try a .75 or a .5 degree. I would not recommend 0 degree for anyone other than a world cup slalom skier, and I doubt many of those would even use 0.

There you go. End of thread.

Thank you.

Good night.
77 posts later....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion