EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › OK, That Was Weird, Newby on Straight Skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OK, That Was Weird, Newby on Straight Skis - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Aaaah great pic, that looks like fun and I love the warm ski clothes too!  I tried to talk my husband and brother into renting skis with me at Christmas (we didn't have any with us or ski gear), wearing our jeans and regular coats and just going skiing like we did in the 80's when we were all under 22, as we drove past Mount St. Loius Moonstone, Ontario but they weren't into it. I thought it would be nostalgic and fun to see the looks we got as we all skied past in our jeans and jackets, on our rental skis, and we might just have a lot of fun.

I'm a little off topic, but I hope the fellow learning was having fun and some people just don't have the money....skiing is so expensive.  Maybe he had the binding tested for release.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mapnut View Post




Exactly. It wasn't that hard, even to learn!  40 years ago everybody learned on long, straight skis and there were more skiers per capita in the population than now.  You could be having fun by the second day. 
Me as an advanced novice.  Note the grin: http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=galimg28226
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

What is all the fuss about yet again?
Most of you have been skiing long enough that you did decades on "older" skis. I want to believe you were having fun and enjoying the sport or you wouldn't still be doing it. So he might have been better served on a shorter pair of skis. That's what was made available to him. He was out on the snow covered hill sliding around. Why is there only one "right" way for some people? Don't you remember just "going skiing".

Short or long, brakes or straps, conventional or shape......just get out there and have fun

+1
skiing is skiing, and whoz to say he wasn't havin more fun than some egg-spurt rippin up a pow stash? its natural to take the next step, but there's hardly a more exciting time than when 'beginner' happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDoyal View Post

I think you guys are missing an important point. We, (as an industry) need more folks to take up skiing and STICK with it. What is the easiest way to do this? Make sure that the newbs have a good time when they first start out. Get them into the right cloths so they stay comfy and warm and get them on gear that makes the sport as easy to learn as possible. Old, straight skis do not fit that bill.

Easy is not necessarily the most fun.
Yes, we could use a few more skiers, but that good time is brought on by the excitement and richness of the experience, not neccesarily the 'ease'. Sure, ehlping 'progress' makes everyone happier. And GLM was a major part of making that happen. So organized instruction is best served by the latest and greatest. But this guy chose 'long and straight'. So he might end up feeling accomplished or frustrated. In either case. my guess is, he's gonna be back with the next 'game plan', whatever that might be.
These days, its not just falling into the 'straight mode', you really got to make an effort to have the stuff together and working. My 'straight' radar is always on high and I spot them all the time.
I always have a chuckle cause when they come closer, they always seem to have a SEG on!

When you see someone on straights, I would say, no worries; cause they're prolly in their own zone and havin a hell of a fun time!
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

I skied on 40 meter side cut skis today are those straight or what are they?

 


40 meter side cut skis?  Either you are not very good with using the metric system or I am really bad with ski technical terms.  You do know how big 40 meters is right?  From home plate to second base is less than 40 meters.
post #34 of 47
Before Shaped skis.
5-78.JPG

After shaped skis.
marski5.jpg
The ridicule of skiing deep wet snow that no one else will on SL skis.  It's all mine. At least I don't have to worry about getting clocked from behind by some yahoo.
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post

40 meter side cut skis?  Either you are not very good with using the metric system or I am really bad with ski technical terms.  You do know how big 40 meters is right?  From home plate to second base is less than 40 meters.
actually, that would be a 'short' on the old fit scale.
most old school SL race 205s had radii of between 50 and 55 m, with GS being slightly longer, and DH being considerably longer. Some of the more 'All-Mtn' old school bds broke into the high 40s. 'THE ski, Pre, K2, maybe some french stuff...
Don't have the specs for my current straights at hand, I did run those numbers a few months back and I'll post a few them when I get home.
Easy enough for anyone possessing all those fine sticks in the retro thread to confirm. here's Physicsman's radius calculator thread, a v-nice tool...
Most of what I still have is late mid 80's or '90-ish, except for a pr of 204 VRs from mid 70 - haven't run those numbers.
I also kept a pr of Head Killy DHs from '69  (220-ish ???) . It will be fun to see what those 2 old sticks spec out to...
stay tuned...

the key of course was, when you skied, you had to bend them... what a crazy idea !
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post

40 meter side cut skis?  Either you are not very good with using the metric system or I am really bad with ski technical terms.  You do know how big 40 meters is right?  From home plate to second base is less than 40 meters.

OK, using Physicsman's calculator

89-90ish  205 cm Elan RC Titanium Comprex measures 88-66-78
is 47.8 m radius
...skied these for 3+ hrs last Friday and had a total ball!

75-76ish 204 cm VR 17s 204 measure 87-67-77
is 53.7 m radius - as I remember they were very quick turners...

68-69ish  220 cm Heady Killy DH measure 90-73-82
is 72.1 m radius - I need to put some binders back on these...
Elan-VR-HeadDH-web.jpg
post #37 of 47
I like your Gezes^
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post





40 meter side cut skis?  Either you are not very good with using the metric system or I am really bad with ski technical terms.  You do know how big 40 meters is right?  From home plate to second base is less than 40 meters.

they are 40 meters 

141-120-131 192cm easy to ski on in fact well in the right conditions.  they are straight but super fat. and i was only trolling dumb people you werent exactly the fishes I was looking for:).
post #39 of 47
Hook it ya gotta play it.
post #40 of 47
I was damn close to buying a pair of rossi straights for rock skis from a pawn shop today, but then considering bindings would be 100 and mounting would be 50ish im not sure what to do, ive never skied straights since ive only been skiing for 6 years but something about them has always attracted me
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowyphil65 View Post

I was damn close to buying a pair of rossi straights for rock skis from a pawn shop today, but then considering bindings would be 100 and mounting would be 50ish im not sure what to do, ive never skied straights since ive only been skiing for 6 years but something about them has always attracted me

again what about them exactly? 
post #42 of 47
 This is BS.. entirely depends what type of skiing your talking about. Downhillers are using long skis with very minimul shape. Shape skis are great for helping bad skiers make turns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




kinda of I know your point, but you cant skis as well on straight skis as you can on anything modern.

and dont bring up Plake or anyone else, even plake skis on shaped skis now.
post #43 of 47
Since I'm too broke to buy a lift ticket today, I've spent a few minutes making up a table showing what sidecut radius turn radius and speed would give you a perfect edge-locked 2g turn, for various sidecut radius skis.

You can see that a 40-m sidecut ski is very good for arcing big (19-m radius) edge-locked 2-g turns at 42 mph.

Of course if you are skidding and pivoting your turns, it won't matter what the sidecut is.

Sidecut
 Radius (m)
Turn
Radius (m)
v(m/s) mph
10 4.472136 9.36714 20.9536949
11 4.9193496 9.824339 21.97642061
12 5.3665631 10.26119 22.95362272
13 5.8137767 10.68018 23.89088799
14 6.2609903 11.08335 24.79274616
15 6.7082039 11.47236 25.66293037
16 7.1554175 11.8486 26.50456051
17 7.6026311 12.21326 27.32027564
18 8.0498447 12.56734 28.11233171
19 8.4970583 12.91171 28.8826752
20 8.9442719 13.24714 29.63299951
21 9.3914855 13.57428 30.3647887
22 9.8386991 13.89371 31.07935208
23 10.285913 14.20597 31.7778517
24 10.733126 14.51151 32.46132456
25 11.18034 14.81075 33.13070064
26 11.627553 15.10406 33.78681781
27 12.074767 15.39178 34.43043408
28 12.521981 15.67422 35.06223786
29 12.969194 15.95166 35.68285663
30 13.416408 16.22436 36.29286417
31 13.863621 16.49255 36.89278687
32 14.310835 16.75645 37.48310894
33 14.758049 17.01625 38.06427707
34 15.205262 17.27215 38.63670434
35 15.652476 17.52431 39.20077365
36 16.099689 17.7729 39.75684077
37 16.546903 18.01805 40.30523689
38 16.994117 18.25992 40.84627099
39 17.44133 18.49862 41.38023184
40 17.888544 18.73428 41.9073898
41 18.335757 18.96701 42.42799845
42 18.782971 19.19692 42.942296
43 19.230185 19.42411 43.45050654
44 19.677398 19.64868 43.95284123
45 20.124612 19.8707 44.44949926
46 20.571825 20.09028 44.94066886
47 21.019039 20.30748 45.42652805
48 21.466253 20.52238 45.90724544
49 21.913466 20.73505 46.3829809
50 22.36068 20.94556 46.85388618
51 22.807893 21.15398 47.32010548
52 23.255107 21.36037 47.78177598
53 23.702321 21.56478 48.23902827
54 24.149534 21.76727 48.69198683
55 24.596748 21.96789 49.14077039
56 25.043961 22.1667 49.58549231
57 25.491175 22.36374 50.02626091
58 25.938389 22.55906 50.46317978
59 26.385602 22.7527 50.89634807
60 26.832816 22.94471 51.32586073
61 27.280029 23.13513 51.75180879
62 27.727243 23.32399 52.17427954
63 28.174457 23.51133 52.59335679
64 28.62167 23.6972 53.00912102
65 29.068884 23.88161 53.42164959
66 29.516097 24.06462 53.83101688
67 29.963311 24.24624 54.23729446
68 30.410524 24.42651 54.64055128
69 30.857738 24.60546 55.04085371
70 31.304952 24.78312 55.43826575
post #44 of 47
Great picture, Mapnut ("Note the grin: http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=galimg28226"). Eaton Mountain...wow! Ten years after that photograph was taken, I was teaching there at Eaton Mountain, extremely part-time when I was in school. There probably aren't many people here who could even tell you which state that's in.

But, I will say, skiing was so much fun back then, on those old long straight skis. While I appreciate the great advances in equipment these days, and I'd never go back, and skiing has remained a full-time passion for me, it is NOT true that it was any less fun back then--at least, for me. Things just keep getting better and better, but that doesn't mean they were ever bad!

Pretty much every sport has an "ugly" phase as a beginner, before it starts to become truly fun. Certainly, "shaped" skis have reduced that phase for many people. You really don't need to develop much skill before you start to feel the exhileration of skiing--something that may well have taken longer in the "straight ski" days. But on the downside, because it takes less skill to start having a great time, far more skiers now plateau at a very much lower skill level than in the past. Shaped skis do not make anyone ski better. Instead, they just allow people to ski worse (while still having a good time at it).

Truly masterful skiing today, as always, requires virtuosity of the full range of technique and tactics. Great skiers still possess the skills that would allow them to ski on old lumber with bindings attached if they had to--even as they extract the maximum performance from the great equipment of today.

The beginning skier described in the original post, on his antiquated equipment, might not have had as much fun as quickly as if he were on modern skis more suited for learning (especially without a good instructor--which was and still is the key to connecting with the joy of skiing as quickly as possible, and avoiding the bad habits that plague and limit most skiers out there). But if he sticks with it, I guarantee (and agree with TreeWell) that develop skills that many skiers lack today. (Yes, if he learns on his own, he'll also pick up some bad habits that can be stubbornly difficult to unlearn.) But when he gets a chance to adapt to modern gear, those skills will still serve him well.

Here's to him, I say!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #45 of 47
Wow, Ghost--you really must have some time on your hands! But that's a pretty cool chart you've made. I'm guessing that you've assumed that the edge angle on the snow for all of these turns is 90 degrees from the skier's angle of inclination (which means no angulation to increase the angle further), and that you're skiing on very hard snow. There also appears to be no consideration given to the slope angle, which subtracts from edge angle in the top half of a turn (thus lengthening the radius) and adds to edge angle in the second half of a turn.

Regardless, the "message" is great: at high enough speeds and with sufficient edge angle, even a ski with very long-radius sidecut can carve a mean turn. I remember fondly, pre-"shaped"-ski, when a bunch of us used to go out at night on our 200-210 GS skis and have a blast leaving scars and trenches on the nearly deserted long blue runs of Keystone. Yes, we went fast. Yes, it was fun. And yes--we definitely left clean tracks, and savored the sensuous sensations many skiers can now experience at much saner speeds, in much shorter turns, on today's skis.

I also remember skiing in spring slush on appropriately soft skis, which would bend easily in the soft snow and carve turns that felt very much like the carved turns of today.

Nothing, really, has changed. Today's skis just make it easier to feel sensations that once required greater speed, strength, and skill. Today's skis carve shorter turns with both less pressure and less edge angle, encouraging skiers to carve rather than skid, and producing the addicting sensations of multiple g-forces much more easily. They've provided new opportuntities. But as any great skier demonstrates, they've made no skills obsolete.

Best regards,
Bob
post #46 of 47
Your assumptions are correct Bob.  Simply centripetal force twice into the slope force for a critical tilting angle of ski to slope of 63 degrees.  If you were on a 30 degree slope the centripetal force would be along the slope, but gravity would change direction throughout the turn.  The angle required to tip the skis to hold a twice-your weight force at an apex with skis pointing down the fall line would be even bigger, due to having only cosine(30 degrees) * g pushing into the snow. giving you a smaller turn radius for a given sidecut radius, but I didn't want it to get too complicated.  You could tip more at the top and less at the bottom without blowing out.

I wish I was skiing.
post #47 of 47
Skinnies rule! 

I do have to admit that on a ski trip to WY last week and looking at everyone around me, on the days I pulled out the old skinnies I felt like I was on cross country skis...

For anyone who cares, here are the current FIS World Cup minimums from what I could find on their website:

DH men: 215cm, 45m radius
SG men: 205cm, 33m radius
GS men: 185 cm, 27m radius
SL men: 165 cm, any radius

Yesterday I was in a local MN ski shop and saw a new pair of Head Super G race skis, 220cm - they don't even list them on the Head website.  I have no idea why the shop had them since there's no DH or SG race within 1000 miles of here.  But it did my heart good to see a new pair of long straight skinnies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › OK, That Was Weird, Newby on Straight Skis