EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fat skis with Short turn radiuses: What is the list?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fat skis with Short turn radiuses: What is the list? - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Sidecut radius and turn radius are two totally different animals.  Sidecut radius is the radius of a circle that is derived from the ski's dimensions when flat on the ground (the arc/curve made from the hourglass shape of the side of a ski).

Turn radius is a lot harder to determine because of all of the factors mentioned above (flex, rocker, etc.).  I don't think the true turn radius of a ski can really be determined since much of it is also dictated by skier style, weight, etc.  A ski that's quick turning for me may not be so for someone else.

Recently even sidecut radius has become a bit "murky" because many of the new skis have a complex geometry incorporating two or three different sidecuts down the length of the edge.
post #32 of 46
Thread Starter 
Hey guys, thanks for the info.

I just want to reiterate that my present skies have a sidecut of 34M which means I have
to kneel on the slope to carve them, and it just gets frusrating.

In my skiing, I prefer a 18M sidecut on very strong skies (Monster Chips).

So this is why a 100mm ski with a 18-20M radius would be a une ski quiver for me...

Thanks again for the suggestions!
post #33 of 46
yes, to carve yes, but they may rock in the pow in trees....
post #34 of 46

Add the Nordica Enforcer to your list - and make sure you couple it with a wide ride binding like the Marker Gryphon - turns really tight and great float.

post #35 of 46



Turn radius traditionally has referred to the carved turn that results from putting the ski on edge and utilizing the ski's sidecut while evenly weighted and with no slipping. If a ski is specified with "0" turn radius that means you can't carve in the traditional manner.  You can skid and smear turns with any skis, regardless of sidecut, although rockered skis "smear" much easier.  You can also carve a tighter radius turn than is specified for a ski that has sidecut by getting up and hooking up the tip.  Conversely you can cleanly carve a larger radius turn that is specified by introducing a sublte slip.

Re. floatation I remember when everyone skiied powder on narrow 210 GS skis with very little sidecut and we locked our skis together to get floatation.  Today some of those people refer to fat rockered powder skis as "cheaters".  I embraced the newer shaped skis when they came on the scene 15 years ago because they took a lot of the work out of skiing and make it that much more fun.  I love to carve so I haven't tried the rockered skis yet, but after spending a few hours skiing with Andy Mahre I was blown away by what is possible in the way of very short radius turns on such a large ski.  The only reason I haven't tried them yet is because I am so addicted to carving that I can't imagine smearing turns to be much fun.  On the other hand, when the snow is deep and heavy and the terrain is steep and treed I think somethign big and soft would be nice.

 

and seeing what you can haveare just so much fun.

Quote:

what's the point of listing "turn radius" of a ski if there's a different 'effective turn radius" ? 

post #36 of 46

Manufacturers typically specify a sidecut radius, which - exactly as Noodler mentions above - simply describes the relative width of the tip, middle and tail of the ski. It's (approximately) the radius of a circule that passes through three points along the edge of the ski: where it engages at the tip, the narrowest place (about underfoot) and where it engages at the tail.

 

A lot of people refer to the sidecut radius as the "turn radius," which accomplishes nothing other than to create confusion. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone try to describe a "turn radius" as something distinct from the sidecut radius ... or at least not in any systematic way. I don't really think the term has any meaning, except as a misnaming of the measurement that's more properly called sidecut radius. Of course, random people who post stuff, and some ski writers in magazines or whatever, post all sorts of things, many of which have little in the way of actual meaning.

 

A ski that's not narrower in the center than it is at the tip and tail doesn't have any definable sidecut radius, because there's no circle that passes through the three points (okay - to be perfectly accurate, unless the ski is perfectly straight, there is a circle, but it's on the wrong side of the ski).

 

As others have mentioned, sidecut radius is really most relevant in describing how a ski will turn when laid on edge in carved turns on hard packed snow. Turning in powder doesn't really even use the sidecut - so, while sidecut radius does tell you something about the ski's dimensions, which in turn affect how it will feel in various different conditions (including powder) it doesn't really tell you much that's meaningful about the radius or shape of turns you'll make in powder.

 

Of course, it's is quite relevant if - as seems to be the case for the OP - you're looking for a multi-condition ski and want to know how it'll perform on packed snow.

post #37 of 46

How strange so many answers and all WRONG.  Shortest turning radius in both Powder (and impressively on top of the snow) are K2 Pontoons.  In power the stiff and narrower tails droop deeper into the snow which ramps the very soft shovels up where they easily turn by "deflection."  More impressive is on top of the snow where the wider and reverse edge contour under the boot allows the skier to ski them like they are ice skates.  My Nastar time on the Pontoons is only three seconds slower and on my highly tuned (rilled and waxed) Atomic racing skis.  In both cases the trick (as with a lot of Powder skis is to learn to control the ski further back under the arch (but not behind the boot).

 

In any case, again I live near and ski a lot at Aspen and have developed relationship with best ski performance ski stores (race a lot) and get best tuning and can take out any ski I want for testing.  As yet, nothing compares to the Pontoons.  In fact, the vast majority of newer softer reverse camber skis chatter (a lot) on hard pack)

 

Finally as to another post regarding length.  A lot depends on weight and speed (build up of force on the turns).  I ski longer Pontoons - but if I had it to do over again (buy a powder ski) I would ski on shorter (174's ?)

 

regards

post #38 of 46

Just to reiterate, in slightly clearer terms:

 

"Sidecut radius" is a number that describes how much sidecut a ski has (smaller number = more sidecut). People often refer to this (somewhat improperly, but not a big deal) as "turning radius."

 

The original poster, I think, was indeed asking about sidecut radius. He clarified the reason in post #32. It seems that he clearly understood what he was asking and why it matters to him.

 

It looks like he got some good information on the question he actually asked, way up among the very first posts in the thread.

 

Talking about "turning radius" as a measurable number - unless you're using it as a slightly confusing synonym for "sidecut radius" - is a fool's errand. How tightly a ski will turn depends on many variables, most importantly technique (and also snow conditions, etc.). If you just want to do a hockey-stop-esque turn at low speeds, you can do a turn with a radius that can be measured in inches. For that matter, if you do a kick turn, you can do a turn that has a radius that's so small it's undefined.

 

 

 

post #39 of 46



I agree for the most part of your statement but I don't think Turn Radius was meant to desribe the radius of a turn other than the Minimum radius when cleanly carved, not skidded. The general term used loosley by the industry does not take into account the many factors mentioned here such as weighting, snow conditions and so on (its just a relative guide of how turny a ski could be).  As you know there are several caculations used and I see many TR's on skis that are wrong; I think for published for marketing purposes 1/2 the time. I understand the difference between the sidecut radius and turn radius but I don't really think it has a lot of value in general- it's use to the buyer is pretty much the same?  All said, I don' think I ever thought of the two factors as they should be and I do agree that the better term is Relative Sidecut Radius- Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post

Just to reiterate, in slightly clearer terms:

 

"Sidecut radius" is a number that describes how much sidecut a ski has (smaller number = more sidecut). People often refer to this (somewhat improperly, but not a big deal) as "turning radius."

 

The original poster, I think, was indeed asking about sidecut radius. He clarified the reason in post #32. It seems that he clearly understood what he was asking and why it matters to him.

 

It looks like he got some good information on the question he actually asked, way up among the very first posts in the thread.

 

Talking about "turning radius" as a measurable number - unless you're using it as a slightly confusing synonym for "sidecut radius" - is a fool's errand. How tightly a ski will turn depends on many variables, most importantly technique (and also snow conditions, etc.). If you just want to do a hockey-stop-esque turn at low speeds, you can do a turn with a radius that can be measured in inches. For that matter, if you do a kick turn, you can do a turn that has a radius that's so small it's undefined.

 

 

 

post #40 of 46

Honestly, at this point the manufacturers publishing a single sidecut number is actually doing everyone a disservice.  Most skis these days have complex geometries where no single sidecut number can accurately describe them.  Mutiple sidecuts extending down the edges of a single ski are now the norm.  And as mentioned, forget about it once you get into 3D snow conditions.

 

I wish the industry could come up with a standardized number by which you could actually compare the "turning preference" of one ski to another.  As things stand, a manufacturer is free to put whatever sidecut number they feel like on a ski without having to abide by any standards.   By my calculations, lately I've had to seriously question some of the numbers some of the manufacturers put on their skis.

 

And while we're at it, I'd also like to see the load area (surface area of the base) printed on skis.  That one should be easy and would give us a good way to compare float between skis.  As it is now I have to use Physicsman's formula which is at best an approximation of the actual load area.

 

post #41 of 46

the shortest turn radius for a fat ski is negative something.

post #42 of 46

Josh are you smokin' that crack stuff again?  I thought you were going to lay off of it.

 

But seriously, what exactly are you referring to by negative sidecut?  It is true that reverse sidecut skis show negative values using a traditional sidecut formula.  Physicsman's sidecut calculator is really dated at this point and makes too many assumptions about typical ski geometry IMO.  That's why I said we need a new industry standard value to compare skis "turniness", but I doubt we'll ever see something like that.

 

The new "fun shapes" are definitely changing the game and it'll be interesting to see what the new Praxis Concept ski does to rock the fat ski design world yet again.

post #43 of 46

With all respect due: physic'sman's calculator is dead and irrelevant due to the factors listed by Noodler. Just look at Kastle's skis. They appear to be traditonal designs but if you read the site, you will see they have 2 sidecut radius' and a JJ and many other milti-dimensional skis just make the whole sidecut/TR thing irrelevant. I am sure Josh is correct and it just goes to prove the old model needs to be revised.

post #44 of 46

Hendryx skis have crazy tight radii.  I'd love to get a Purple Haze pair in a 182 for the tight trees around here.  Too bad about the price though.  

 

http://www.hendryxskis.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=65

post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




Skier haha that guys sucks!!!

 


... lots of upper body movement. Does not commit to the fall line. Ready to break out of the intermediate stage.

 

Like the guy on the camera said - it's good for him! He should have been better next time 'round.

 

post #46 of 46

Just thought I'd update this thread with what I decided to pull the trigger on.  I bought the ZAG Heli Gold in 189cm which has a sidecut radius of 17.5m and dimensions of 144-98-121.  It has a pretty substantial early rise tip (more than the Line Prophet 115) so I'm expecting the contact length to actually be manageable for me even though it's the longest ski I've purchased in 20 years.  It seems to be fairly light (haven't weighed them yet), not super stiff, but no noodle either.  It has a bit of a kick tail and the dimensions show this to be a ski with a pintail design (with a taper of over 12) - fairly narrow tail considering the very wide tip.

 

My idea for this ski is for playing in the 6-12" "dump" days that are more common in Colorado.  I wanted a ski that would play in pow, but still handle the following crud in the afternoon.  I may still pickup a fun shape ski (most likely the DPS Wailer 112RP which we're all still awaiting the shipment).  This ski replaces the spot in my quiver previously held by the Elan M999 (which will still be used as my early season rock skis for going off-piste before we have a good base).

 

I had purchased the Line Prophet 115, but had major second thoughts on it and some buyer's remorse without even hitting the snow so I returned them.  I'm definitely glad I did because I scored a seriously good deal on the 2010 ZAG Heli Golds.

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 › Fat skis with Short turn radiuses: What is the list?