NateW Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 http://www.twsbiz.com/twbiz/profiles/article/0,21214,724880,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Dasai Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Thanks Nate, this was really interesting stuff. I like the story about his meeting with the K2 engineers back in 1985: <blockquote>So that day at K2 I said, “Hey why don’t you build a ski with super-deep sidecut like I have on my snowboard?” They all laughed. I was super humbled. I was just a kid there--these guys were my heroes. They said, “Well, if you put a deep sidecut on it, it would be too narrow where your boot is. The lines of the sidecut would cross, there wouldn’t be a ski there.” And I went, “No, why don’t you widen the whole ski? Widen the tips?” And then they laughed again at me and I was like, “What’s so funny?” And they said, “You can’t do that.” I said, “Why can’t you?” They said, “It would never turn.” And I said, “Why not?” They said, “It'd be too wide.” I went, “Huh? Well, this thing (my snowboard) is twelve inches wide and it turns.” And then they all scratched their heads and went, “Huh? It must be because you have two feet on it that it turns.” At that I point I went, 'Well they must know what they’re doing.’ I did ask them if they’d tried it--if they’d experimented with sidecut much? They said, “To be honest--we don’t even really work on that. Our main effort is materials and decoration.” (Which meant new ways to put graphics on and materials.) I’m saying, “You don’t work on sidecuts at all?" They were like, “Oh no. We’ve had those established for years.”</blockquote> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Even today, most skiers dont <i>get it</i>. I won a free subscription to Skiing magazine at a Warren Miller movie, and the ski tests they do never list sidecut radius. Hello?? Also I just checked the websites for Atomic and Rossignol - they both only list sidecut radius for one length of any particular model. I say again - Hello??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skategoat Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Jack: Isn't the problem with technique and not equipment. With skis, radius doesn't really matter because most old school skiers still turn like they did on straight skis and never actually finish a carve. I know that's the way I used to ski on my Rossignols (210 cm.). I would use maximum unweighting and jump from edge to edge. I never gave a thought to natural turning radius. I'm eager to try skiing again after 3 seasons of snowboarding. I'm guessing I'm a better skier having learned to carve - sort of. HK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Michaud I won a free subscription to Skiing magazine at a Warren Miller movie, and the ski tests they do never list sidecut radius. Hello?? Read Ski Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy D Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by skategoat I'm eager to try skiing again after 3 seasons of snowboarding. I'm guessing I'm a better skier having learned to carve - sort of. After learning how to carve, I discovered my skiing DID actually improve. I was quite surprised, but then stepped back to look at why, and realized it was a two way street: techniques used for snowboard carving benefitted my skiing and viseversa. Snowboard carving improved my weight transfer and balance on skis, and skiing has helped my edge control and turn initiation (not to mention coping with anything the trails can throw at me) on the snowboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rick ferguson Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'd agree that the masses on ski's are still pushing snow, it seems that MOST of those that are carving on ski's are the young kids and ex-racers. I never skied before carving and in the last 2 years have been doing split time on board and ski. If you can rail a board, you can pick up ski carving in just a few runs. Last season I think I spent more time on ski's than boarding. Now when arriving for first tracks it's a toss up on what to ride, both give the same feeling on edge and laying it over low. In fact, SKIER'S have problems with CARVING SKIERS because NOW they too are leaving DEEEEP trenches at twice the rate! If the first trench don't get ya the secound one should!:D P.s go short! I went from 178's to 165's , plenty of speed , power and tight arc's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy D Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by rick ferguson P.s go short! I went from 178's to 165's , plenty of speed , power and tight arc's. Definitely! I've been skiing 25 years or so, and it's hard to shake the old school mentality of longer is better. The new gear just works great in the shorter lengths, and is no less stable, and more fun. Makes me wonder why a lot of carvers are railing long snowboards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rick ferguson Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'd have to say it's about effective edge, boarding on one edge vs. ski's with two. Granted most of the pressure is on one ski while carving,yet you still have the trailing ski's edge in the mix as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skategoat Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I've been looking to buy new skis since last March and still cannot make a decision on length. I've been recommended everything from 165 to 190. I'm 190, 5'10". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark.Andersen Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'm almost exactly your size and I ended up on 170s (Atomic C9). However, I ended up choosing more on sidecut radius (they are listed, you just gotta hunt). The first pair of skis I demoed were something like 22M and I couldn't turn them to save my life, and I used to ski on straight 195s before converting to snowboarding. I kept expecting the ski to carve under me like a snowboard and I'd fall to the inside of the turn. When I got on the Atomic C9s, they turned like I expected them to. The radius is 15 or 16M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rick ferguson Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I went thru the same deal, so many options and so many people telling what size, I was nervous on going soo short, it didn't seem right to go shorter than my carving boards, but I am a believer now! I did soo much research on so many model and lengths and found the dynastar omnecarve 9 or 10's ( only difference is a metal binding plate-stiffer or a composite -still stiff, but a bit more flex ) huge sidecut on these puppies! I am 5'8" and around 185lbs. and they go plenty fast, plenty of float, the nose is so wide with a tiny waist that it looks like a shovel. The one thing I found is that those in the shop's telling me "not" to go that short, haven't a clue on what we do when we say "carving, laying it over and trenching" In europe there is ec groups on ski's , just like ec boarder's, amazing stuff and they ride ultra short -150-155 seems to be the norm and no poles. It's almost hard to tell if they are skiing or boarding-full body layouts! I'll try to remember the web site promoting , great pic's and they all state type and size of ski and boots used. Just don't tell them they are on sled dogs or ski skates- They frown on those guy's, not legit was the vibe I got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Hey, nice picture of Olson on an old Race Room in that article - I've got that board, it was the first one I used plates on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skategoat Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I think I'll just spend this whole winter demoing. I'll throw my ski boots in the trunk whenever I go riding. If I find a demo tent that day, I'll try out some skis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirror70 Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Michaud Even today, most skiers dont <i>get it</i>. I won a free subscription to Skiing magazine at a Warren Miller movie, and the ski tests they do never list sidecut radius. Hello?? Also I just checked the websites for Atomic and Rossignol - they both only list sidecut radius for one length of any particular model. I say again - Hello??? Isn't this because the sidecut matters less with a ski because they flex so much more? The so-called "natural arc" of a snow-riding tool is not purely a function of its sidecut. With flex characteristics varying so much, giving only the sidecut can be misleading. Also, it's not uncommon for skis of the same family but different lengths to have the same sidecut radius. There is no technical reason for this, it's simply because people would think the skis look funny otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by mirror70 Isn't this because the sidecut matters less with a ski because they flex so much more? I really don't think so. Skiers didn't start carving at resort speeds until they started using deeper sidecut. The so-called "natural arc" of a snow-riding tool is not purely a function of its sidecut. With flex characteristics varying so much, giving only the sidecut can be misleading. Not really. The sidecut is a major limiting factor to how much the ski can be flexed. A ski with no sidecut could never be decambered. There has to be three point bending. A ski can be deformed into a slightly tighter arc by leaning way forward in your boots, but then you're not using the whole ski. Modern skis are ridden more like snowboards - centered - relying less on flex and more on sidecut. Bottom line, the sidecut of your ski is something you need to know. Why skiers haven't picked up on this is beyond me. Also, it's not uncommon for skis of the same family but different lengths to have the same sidecut radius. There is no technical reason for this, it's simply because people would think the skis look funny otherwise. [/b] Example? I'm pretty sure Atomic used to do this with the 9.14, 9.18, 10.22, etc. model designations, but I'm pretty sure they don't do that anymore. When they did do it, did the models come in a wide range of lengths? I would think not. I would think the aesthetic appeal factor as you described would be the opposite - a 180 and a 165 with the same radius are going to look strikingly different, and funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Here is a link with some pics of carving skiers. Ant they also list their equipment: carving-ski ...interesting that they also have a couple of guys on skwals on that site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rick ferguson Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 thanks hagen, that's the one. What a great site for ski carving! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 ...I guess one of these days I have to try some alpine skis again. But for now I can't wait to receive my TD2s and try those out. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trikerdad Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 There's a guy in the middle of those "carving ski" pictures with some kind of boot/mitt thingy on his hands. Anybody know what they are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 ...could be one of those forearm guards that they use for slalom races or something similar. He just put it on his hands. Or may be someone is making a special plastic protector for carving?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Dasai Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Michaud Even today, most skiers dont <i>get it</i>. Neither do most snowboarders. But your point about ski manufacturers not even listing sidecuts is a good one. Originally posted by rick fergusonI'd agree that the masses on ski's are still pushing snow, it seems that MOST of those that are carving on ski's are the young kids and ex-racers. The masses of snowboarders are also still pushing snow. And where I ride (in Japan), the proportion of skiers that carve is much higher than the proportion of snowboarders who carve. The carving skiers tend to be a similar demographic to the carving snowboarders - older guys (30s and up, and I've seen quite a few guys in their 60s on carving skis carving perfect railroad tracks). Kinda cool. Carving is more of a "ski-thing" than a "snowboard-thing" here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gecko Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by Baka Dasai Neither do most snowboarders. Carving is more of a "ski-thing" than a "snowboard-thing" here. There is something inherently wrong with this statement...not that I disagree just that coming from a pool/ramp skater background not carving is just so WRONG...fruitbooters can't carve in a pool they just slide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlpentalRider Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by Baka Dasai Carving is more of a "ski-thing" than a "snowboard-thing" here. Your statement is a generalization and just plain wrong. Carving is neither a ski thing or a snowboard thing. Both are tools used to carve. The issue of people not carving has no bearing on what tool they are using, but instead has to do with their experiance level at carving. The same holds true for the 90% of people who "bowl" that don't have a clue as how to properly execute a shot. When people learn how to carve, they will be able to do it on whatever tool they choose to do it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Dasai Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 Originally posted by AlpentalRider Your statement is a generalization and just plain wrong. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning - I was talking about the <i>popularity of carving in Japan</i> (note the "here" at the end of my sentence you quoted). If I'm wrong it would only be because the mountains I ride at are not representative of Japan as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.