I think there are a lot of different reasons that new skis might have defective tunes, though often, even usually, new skis are just fine out of the wrappers.
With the V-Werks skis, we are dealing with cutting edge construction, materials and design, so these are pushing the limits constantly of what is known about the whole process: and mistakes can happen along the way, as with any bold, new - sometimes better - way of doing things. Specifically, these are Volkl's effort to push the boundaries on carbon ski design and manufacturing. These skis are so lightweight and thin, yet sturdy, damp in crud and powder. They are stiff and dialed in, in terms of performance, but they use a completely new (and patented?) ridge down the middle of the ski. That thinness can cause unforeseen problems with tuning, as it turns out. And that high ridge down the middle makes the skis harder to base flatten. The product manager for North America told me that to get the skis flat with a Wintersteiger, one must "use very low air pressure with repeated. light passes"; if the normal flattening routine is used, he was saying, you get a badly rail high ski. At some point along the line, apparently, whoever tuned those problem V-Werks Mantras of mine must not have known that, or had other exigencies get in the way instead.
So, to me, it's worth a shout out, a warning, so other folks who might buy this neat new ski will be forewarned, and have an idea of what to do about it, hopefully, more easily than it was for me.
To me, in this case, the end product - those great, cutting edge V-Werks skis - are worth the effort, mostly.
Human endeavor, and invention, just requires constant learning, and constant adjustment. These guys turn out to be very good at it, for the most part, but with glitches.
* * * * *
I tune my own skis, mostly well, over many years, with lapses here and there. Sometimes I'll know what bevels I want on a particular ski and act accordingly. But I almost always ski a new ski first, right out of the wrapper, to see how it handles, and give it the benefit of the doubt in the process, when possible. If it handles well (usually), I'll leave it alone, then make moderate adjustments over time or as needed. I'm all for just skiing as much as possible instead of doing unnecessary work.
* * * *
The ski specs with tolerances that Atomic and Salomon publish (earlier post) were interesting to me in a number of ways, but sort of casually. Some notes: Those specs differed for race skis compared to freeride skis: often, the freeride and freestyle skiers testing the prototypes like greater play to their bases, and less sharp edges. All the brands have really amazing prototyping to arrive at their own tune specs, whether publicized or not. I've known some of the reps and testers who routinely get their prototype skis each year (usually unmarked black or white), and who then give detailed recommendations on all aspects of the skis and specs, based on many decades of experience in all aspects of the business, overall. Mostly, a wonderful process.
It's no accident that the wider the ski, the looser/more forgiving, in general, the specs applied; or that the specs for women's skis, for example, are also looser/more forgiving than for men's. Same with children's skis. For me it was helpful to realize the reason I rarely have had a ski's edge/base bevels match exactly my whole number degree tools: that reason is embedded in the tolerances or range to the specs, rather than exact, whole degree numbers.
Ski tuning is a human process, making mistakes is part of being human. Adjusting well is also.
With the V-Werks skis, we are dealing with cutting edge construction, materials and design, so these are pushing the limits constantly of what is known about the whole process: and mistakes can happen along the way, as with any bold, new - sometimes better - way of doing things. Specifically, these are Volkl's effort to push the boundaries on carbon ski design and manufacturing. These skis are so lightweight and thin, yet sturdy, damp in crud and powder. They are stiff and dialed in, in terms of performance, but they use a completely new (and patented?) ridge down the middle of the ski. That thinness can cause unforeseen problems with tuning, as it turns out. And that high ridge down the middle makes the skis harder to base flatten. The product manager for North America told me that to get the skis flat with a Wintersteiger, one must "use very low air pressure with repeated. light passes"; if the normal flattening routine is used, he was saying, you get a badly rail high ski. At some point along the line, apparently, whoever tuned those problem V-Werks Mantras of mine must not have known that, or had other exigencies get in the way instead.
So, to me, it's worth a shout out, a warning, so other folks who might buy this neat new ski will be forewarned, and have an idea of what to do about it, hopefully, more easily than it was for me.
To me, in this case, the end product - those great, cutting edge V-Werks skis - are worth the effort, mostly.
Human endeavor, and invention, just requires constant learning, and constant adjustment. These guys turn out to be very good at it, for the most part, but with glitches.
* * * * *
I tune my own skis, mostly well, over many years, with lapses here and there. Sometimes I'll know what bevels I want on a particular ski and act accordingly. But I almost always ski a new ski first, right out of the wrapper, to see how it handles, and give it the benefit of the doubt in the process, when possible. If it handles well (usually), I'll leave it alone, then make moderate adjustments over time or as needed. I'm all for just skiing as much as possible instead of doing unnecessary work.
* * * *
The ski specs with tolerances that Atomic and Salomon publish (earlier post) were interesting to me in a number of ways, but sort of casually. Some notes: Those specs differed for race skis compared to freeride skis: often, the freeride and freestyle skiers testing the prototypes like greater play to their bases, and less sharp edges. All the brands have really amazing prototyping to arrive at their own tune specs, whether publicized or not. I've known some of the reps and testers who routinely get their prototype skis each year (usually unmarked black or white), and who then give detailed recommendations on all aspects of the skis and specs, based on many decades of experience in all aspects of the business, overall. Mostly, a wonderful process.
It's no accident that the wider the ski, the looser/more forgiving, in general, the specs applied; or that the specs for women's skis, for example, are also looser/more forgiving than for men's. Same with children's skis. For me it was helpful to realize the reason I rarely have had a ski's edge/base bevels match exactly my whole number degree tools: that reason is embedded in the tolerances or range to the specs, rather than exact, whole degree numbers.
Ski tuning is a human process, making mistakes is part of being human. Adjusting well is also.
Last edited:
