Rank the Race Skis in Order...

[ski otter 2]

One thing, you dwell on flat or zero base bevels, but I only brought that up because that is what everyone skied for decades,
with no problem, not because I'd choose that now. Never had an injury, or problem, me or lots of friends.

Only folks I've known who use that tuning in recent years are slalom skiers, at a top level, at least just a few years ago,
including Ted Ligety (because my rep friends know his race tech, and it's their business to know that sort of thing, in spite of what you say).

I'm sure on many levels about your machines, I could learn a lot from a technically and real life experienced guy with any of the tuning machine brands.
And I hope that things have improved each year.

But I'd rather go by the professional guys using the car rather than the ones in development or sales of it,
when it comes to how a particular car - or tune machine - does, recently or currently.

You are wrong about the detailed experience regional and national brand reps have about tunes, and their qualifications/experience:
they are usually elite skiers, and to survive they have to have detailed, real world knowledge -
with long, detailed experience - of how to best do both race tunes and other best tunes for specific regions and skiers,
on a full range of skis - from near race skis and frontside biased skis, up to wider all mountain skis, big mountain and powder skis,
including freestyle skis and freeride skis, often for the top pros on their brand.

These brand reps have a hand in what the pros in their region are on and want to be on, and the amazing range
of both tunes and mount points these pros have chosen: prototyping every possible combination imaginable.
These reps almost always are deeply involved with the prototyping for new models being developed, and this process
they often have a hand in managing/coordinating/prototyping. The success and failures of these processes often depend
on the great experience of the reps. Some of the brand rep associates (in a constantly changing network) specialize in
coordinating and handling - and doing - the tune processes involved. And the ski tune shop - and machine - choices
they make each year, change, but are also critical: for both pros and reps doing the prototyping and for the success of
the various national and regional demos these guys handle, both wholesale and retail. Going to the wrong tune shop
or using the wrong six figure costing tune machine can make or break a demo day, month and year. Not only are influential
retail and shop buyers at these demos, but so also are the top ski outlets in the country. (The buyers of some of these
top selling shops, or the shops with particular race ski franchises, make annual and long term ski buying decisions on a large scale.
I've watched these decisions being made in a few high volume shops here in the Rockies.
Real working knowledge of tune details for skis of all types are important in this process, decide success and failure.

I get accused, and acknowledge, going into too much detail as it is, for this website.
So the technical side of this detailed a discussion is something I'd rather not have here further, but have had,
repeatedly from year to year, for many years, with both friends and brand rep friends,
and owner/managers of some of the top tune shops and ski shops in this area
(including the official race provider/tune shops here for Rossi and the all mountain shop for Fischer, who also does tunes for a lot of ski teams);
and also with the buyer(s) for some of these ski shops and others, making to me very interesting and informed decisions depending
on a lot of fleet demoing, and of necessity a lot of knowledge about tunes - both bevels and base flattening.

I'd rather go by what those guys are saying each year, albeit evolving, than anything I get online, especially around disagreements here,
or from a guy with an iron in the fire, so to speak, with a particular tuning machine brand.
(It's like being told that Chevies are the most dependable cars on earth, for example, by a GM exec, mechanic or salesman, sorry.)

At least when last I checked, guys in the biz don't agree with what you're saying about the big machines for base flattening, at least up to the last time I checked in detail, the season before last (even though these machines are great for what they do well, for the reps I spoke of).

One vivid example coming to mind is watching the owner and most experienced tech&boot manager (and good friend) of at that time the highest volume ski shop in this region, spend half a day trying to get various current sample skis really base flat (after repeated discussions with their Wintersteiger rep), rather than slightly base curved/edge high, to no avail.

And then having them call their WinterSteiger rep repeatedly, before and after continued experiments over the next few weeks or so after that,
again, to no avail, including bringing in the most experienced techs they could find in their system. They really tried.
And they had decades of shop experience between them.

Over the course of a month they finally decided that for all practical purposes they could not get a ski really flat enough on their six figure
Wintersteiger machines, but could get it good enough for the general public, and who really needs a flat base, after all, except some racers, which were not their target customers?

They were not happy with this result, but they were sick of failure and all that wasted time also, and had to turn away my skis, after that.
To this day.

Driving up the road, to one of the two regional official shops for Fischer skis at the time, a shop that does race skis in volume,
I found something very similar, without going into a lot of detail. They use a smaller, older machine for real flattening,
by their most experienced tuner. Only then do they run their skis through the giant Wintersteiger.

Those guys I see a lot, skiing and also talking about the biz they are in.

And every year it's been similar, again, each story evolving in great detail.

So I went back to flattening my own skis for best results - here in the Front Range area -
Including giving race skis progressive base bevels by hand, by feel, by experience - again, for best results, in my case,
after lots of learning the hard way in shops - for this particular area.

 

[ski otter 2]

P.S. It might be fun to learn more about the big tuning machines these days, how they are doing, including with race skis.

I just found out that eventually, the folks at my favorite ski shop, with the help of their Wintersteiger rep more than likely,
found out lack of base flattening that time was a problem with worn out bearings more than likely, that maybe now is corrected,
but that wasn't for quite some time, I believe. A few seasons or more, seems like. But not sure.

Thanks, @Toddski13, for stirring an old guy into looking further into what happened down the road.

But that's just one of many stories of problems with base flattening on the big machines. Early next season I'll ask around to see if such problems are still common, among the fleets of demo skis.

I also just learned that Volkl routinely had 1500 pairs of demo skis in their recent "fleet," for early last season. That's a lot of ski tuning from the factory, eh? (All coordinated by one rep, I was told.)

 

[ScottB]

Wow, your math and scientific method here leave a lot to be desired... there is no adjustment here for ski width, which has to be part of the discussion even without your mention of a ski that's 88 underfoot. I'd also offer that in a dynamic activity, like skiing, 3 to 5 degrees of tilt is almost nothing, hence the accepted belief that a true zero degree base bevel is incredibly hooky. It seems like you're assigning random values of degrees of tilt to make a point, but there is no correlation in your scenario between the proposed angle and the tilt required... you're moving on a linear scale with no data-based starting point. You also aren't accounting for varied snow conditions which will absolutely be a variable that needs to be controlled for in order to draw a straight line between base bevel angle and tilt angle required to start the edge bite. Additionally, if you are aiming for more edge grip without modifying the quickness of the ski, modifying side edge angle is definitely the easier way to achieve a positive result - just look at the range of available side edge bevels... we see tools ranging from .2 on the base to 1.5, that's a spectrum of 1.3 degrees total. For side edge, it's easy to find 1, 2, 3, and 4 degree tools, with options existing for 5 and even 7, though the latter is more commonly used to 'backfile' sidewall material and keep it out of the way so that lower angle tools can precisely impart their desired angle, all while minimizing the reduction of strength-giving material against the edge. Just the sheer difference in spectrum size here would suggest there is a more effective way to alter edge grip.

I completely agree with the opening sentence to your last paragraph that altering base bevel can improve certain issues, I'd expand that to say that altering base bevel can significantly change the behavior of the ski and there is almost always a compromise as you mention. But, even measured against the clock, a DNF from lack of consistent, controllable behavior from a ski is often far outweighed by something slightly more forgiving and user-friendly.

You seem to read into posts what you want, not necessarily what the intent is. I have never operated a tuning machine, but have done a lot of skiing on hard race course surfaces (which is the entire context of my post) and stand by my interpretation of my experiences. I have either hand tuned different base bevels (and side bevels) or had them done by SKIMD. One thing I can add, is I measure my bevel results when doing experiments, so I am not assuming what the ski is tuned to.

I do agree I just made up my roll angle and bevel math, but its my estimate of what I experienced. Its definitely just ball parked numbers.

 

[Toddski13]

One thing, you dwell on flat or zero base bevels, but I only brought that up because that is what everyone skied for decades,
with no problem, not because I'd choose that now. Never had an injury, or problem, me or lots of friends.

I'm just trying to point out that, given the available technology of the time, I'm highly skeptical that you were actually skiing on a flat ski or a ski with no base bevel. Forty years ago, base bevel was being imparted just through daily maintenance when skiers were 'flat filing' the base edge to help with sharpening. The vast majority of belts, which is how everything was 'tuned' pre 1984-ish, at least in the US, are comprised of material that actually removes metal at a higher rate than plastic, so belted skis were both not flat (too much play in the system to actually put the ski in plane, though they did look flat because the belt conformed to the inconsistencies and provided a uniform appearance) and were imparted with base 'bevel' as the belt 'relieved' the edge from the height of the base material.

Only folks I've known who use that tuning in recent years are slalom skiers, at a top level, at least just a few years ago,
including Ted Ligety (because my rep friends know his race tech, and it's their business to know that sort of thing, in spite of what you say).

I work regularly with your friend in Colorado who is the Head rep (he's also the Wintersteiger rep)... and visit the race rooms of several major manufacturers in Europe on an annual basis. The only certainties I can provide are that 1) there is no one universal set up for any given athlete at that level, even within one event, and 2) the information about how a ski is setup is some of the most tightly guarded information out there. While I'm not saying the information about how some of Ted's skis may have been setup is wrong, it's one athlete and one setup, not a broad enough sample size to generalize with and also potentially years-old information at the time that it trickled down to you.

I'm sure on many levels about your machines, I could learn a lot from a technically and real life experienced guy with any of the tuning machine brands.
And I hope that things have improved each year.

But I'd rather go by the professional guys using the car rather than the ones in development or sales of it,
when it comes to how a particular car - or tune machine - does, recently or currently.

I've got roughly 25,000 pair tuned at the highest-end racing level all the way down to the rental level on automated machines in the last 10 years. Think of me as the pit crew for the 'professional' guys using the car. The drivers convey what they want changed because they'd like it to work better, not break as often, whatever the case may be... and I'm one of the crew behind the scenes that works to turn that demand into a reality. This might mean an update to a part or software or it might mean an examination of how the car is being driven and how the driver could change things to achieve their desired outcome. Remember the tire wear showdown between Robert Duvall and Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder? My role also places me in a fairly unique situation - I field inquiries and complaints from close to 100 machine operators a season, which challenges me to expand my thinking, understanding, and problem-solving to help them achieve their desired outcome; this is completely atypical for so many ski shops where they are just trying to empty the incoming pile of skis to be tuned.

You are wrong about the detailed experience regional and national brand reps have about tunes, and their qualifications/experience:
they are usually elite skiers, and to survive they have to have detailed, real world knowledge -
with long, detailed experience - of how to best do both race tunes and other best tunes for specific regions and skiers,
on a full range of skis - from near race skis and frontside biased skis, up to wider all mountain skis, big mountain and powder skis,
including freestyle skis and freeride skis, often for the top pros on their brand.

Respectfully, having 24 years working in the ski industry, with 18 of them spent on the vendor/manufacturer side of the house, I disagree with this sentiment. I'm not saying they're clueless, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that they have detailed experience in this arena... and generally speaking the idea of best practices when it comes to tuning isn't something that's on their radar. I'm not suggesting that they don't have a nicely polished response when asked about factory specs for the various levels/categories of skis in their lineup, but as you also said, Volkl has one person overseeing the initial tuning of 1500 pair of demo skis each season... how much on-hands experience can a rep be expected to have when they aren't seeing or working with or dramatically adjusting skis out of the wrapper but rather are shipped boxes of skis that are ready to shine on-snow?

These brand reps have a hand in what the pros in their region are on and want to be on, and the amazing range
of both tunes and mount points these pros have chosen: prototyping every possible combination imaginable.
These reps almost always are deeply involved with the prototyping for new models being developed, and this process
they often have a hand in managing/coordinating/prototyping. The success and failures of these processes often depend
on the great experience of the reps. Some of the brand rep associates (in a constantly changing network) specialize in
coordinating and handling - and doing - the tune processes involved. And the ski tune shop - and machine - choices
they make each year, change, but are also critical: for both pros and reps doing the prototyping and for the success of
the various national and regional demos these guys handle, both wholesale and retail. Going to the wrong tune shop
or using the wrong six figure costing tune machine can make or break a demo day, month and year. Not only are influential
retail and shop buyers at these demos, but so also are the top ski outlets in the country. (The buyers of some of these
top selling shops, or the shops with particular race ski franchises, make annual and long term ski buying decisions on a large scale.

I completely agree that an on-snow demo experience can make or break a buying relationship and also markedly skew consumer perspective at non-B2B events. That said, I'm not sure what your basing your statement about prototyping on - my experience has been very different. The reps you mention who are strong skiers might get an opportunity to try (and even give feedback) on a prototype with a domestic product manager, but the only area where they are steering the ship is in market feedback. They're in the business of knowing what their market demands and advocating for it, which is a critical piece, but from there, more typically, the pit crew takes over to translate those needs into reality. I also really feel that this has become exacerbated in more recent years as ski companies get gobbled up by publicly-traded parent companies.

I've watched these decisions being made in a few high volume shops here in the Rockies.
Real working knowledge of tune details for skis of all types are important in this process, decide success and failure.

I get accused, and acknowledge, going into too much detail as it is, for this website.
So the technical side of this detailed a discussion is something I'd rather not have here further, but have had,
repeatedly from year to year, for many years, with both friends and brand rep friends,
and owner/managers of some of the top tune shops and ski shops in this area
(including the official race provider/tune shops here for Rossi and the all mountain shop for Fischer, who also does tunes for a lot of ski teams);
and also with the buyer(s) for some of these ski shops and others, making to me very interesting and informed decisions depending
on a lot of fleet demoing, and of necessity a lot of knowledge about tunes - both bevels and base flattening.

I'd rather go by what those guys are saying each year, albeit evolving, than anything I get online, especially around disagreements here,
or from a guy with an iron in the fire, so to speak, with a particular tuning machine brand.
(It's like being told that Chevies are the most dependable cars on earth, for example, by a GM exec, mechanic or salesman, sorry.)

None of what I'm saying or advocating for here has anything to do with the brand I work for besides that my role there exposes me to the most complete spectrum of needs. I was a salesman - in Colorado even - for two brands that I believe(d) in, which the only reason I approached anything in the arena of success in that role. My interest lies in improvement and education and I'm lucky enough to have carved out a niche professionally that allows me to dabble with my interests. But, if you feel like I'm presenting a biased bent, please let me know where so I can change that moving forward. I'm also not knocking the guys who you are getting your information from except to say that I get to focus on tuning and machinery for a large portion of my day... given the current ski shop landscape can you say the same about your contacts?

At least when last I checked, guys in the biz don't agree with what you're saying about the big machines for base flattening, at least up to the last time I checked in detail, the season before last (even though these machines are great for what they do well, for the reps I spoke of).

One vivid example coming to mind is watching the owner and most experienced tech&boot manager (and good friend) of at that time the highest volume ski shop in this region, spend half a day trying to get various current sample skis really base flat (after repeated discussions with their Wintersteiger rep), rather than slightly base curved/edge high, to no avail.

And then having them call their WinterSteiger rep repeatedly, before and after continued experiments over the next few weeks or so after that,
again, to no avail, including bringing in the most experienced techs they could find in their system. They really tried.
And they had decades of shop experience between them.

Over the course of a month they finally decided that for all practical purposes they could not get a ski really flat enough on their six figure
Wintersteiger machines, but could get it good enough for the general public, and who really needs a flat base, after all, except some racers, which were not their target customers?

This experience, while in the past, illustrates a need for improvement on our part. I truly believe that we have improved our (Wintersteiger) response to addresses problems like this markedly in the last five years, but the 30,000 ft description of the issue encountered leaves me with a number of questions.

They were not happy with this result, but they were sick of failure and all that wasted time also, and had to turn away my skis, after that.
To this day.

Without knowing more I can't say with complete certainty that the problem is solvable, but I can tell you that resources available to solve the problem exist today that didn't even five years ago.

Driving up the road, to one of the two regional official shops for Fischer skis at the time, a shop that does race skis in volume,
I found something very similar, without going into a lot of detail. They use a smaller, older machine for real flattening,
by their most experienced tuner. Only then do they run their skis through the giant Wintersteiger.

I believe I know the shop you're referring to, with their most experienced tech being a frequent contributor on Ski Talk... but without knowing the shop exactly I can offer this - the premier tuning facility in Colorado, which isn't really open to the general public, also uses a manual machine to perform base flattening at the start of their grinding process. But, as an important caveat to that statement, they do so for efficiency, not because they can't achieve the same result on either of their two automated machines, it's because they use four plus steps to flatten, then blank, then structure the skis they are working on. In total they have four stones at their disposal and are typically using three, or all four, of them separately to prepare each pair of skis. For the level that they are doing skis, the efficiency loss and increased consumable cost of sticking to one or two stones to get from start to finish is roughly equal to the maintenance (and consumable cost) of keeping old machines in service and increasing the number of stones they have to use.

Those guys I see a lot, skiing and also talking about the biz they are in.

And every year it's been similar, again, each story evolving in great detail.

So I went back to flattening my own skis for best results - here in the Front Range area -
Including giving race skis progressive base bevels by hand, by feel, by experience - again, for best results, in my case,
after lots of learning the hard way in shops - for this particular area.

How are you flattening the skis? What tools are you using for your base beveling? Your particular area is one of many around the country loaded with shops that 'flatten on the belt' (not possible) and 'finish on the stone' which is an efficient way to quickly output a bunch of good-enough tunes, but would leave a lot to be desired for advanced intermediate skiers and beyond that have a good feel on their skis (you).

 

[ski otter 2]

Thanks, I guess, for some of this. A lot of great info, sort of. But it's so mixed, from the start to the finish, at least in my experience -
and unasked for, from the start.

In my younger days, I didn't use the old belt flattening: seems it was never accurate enough for racing, even at my level.
I used files-under-boards, mostly, as I recall, to keep them straight and flat enough, for the most part. So did most of those around me, as I recall.
But that was in another era, probably long before the era you refer to.

Much of what you're saying, as it applies to the reps I've known and to me, is just not accurate enough about many, in my experience,
especially for the ones I've trusted most. Those guys could talk for hours, and very little of what they said seemed off or ill-informed,
or not aware of shared experience, whereas that is not the case with your posts; which partly seem accurate, partly not;
and pretty much seem intrusive, more to the point, even though on some technical levels, maybe all good.

For me, this is no longer the place to go into such detail, with no real reason to do so also.
It's sort of none of your business and a waste of my time to go into how I'm flattening my skis - with you, or on this site right now.
(Some years back, with the tuning folks back then, primarily when it was the Epic website,
I once did a lot of tune info sharing while it was useful to me and others, until that was no longer the case.)

At this point, If I have a problem, I'll fix it, and know who to ask about this or that. Otherwise, nuts.

(And it just happens that most of the folks/reps I know prefer and are now associated with the Montana machines [which also have some problems and some pluses, seems like], for their own reasons, and that is not something I'm knowledgeable about, myself, in spite of what they are saying:
I'm good with tuning my own skis. I've had lots of feedback on the ways I have done that, on the slopes.)

And if I finally get told that one of the machines, and a shop within reach that is using it, is good enough to not create more problems than solutions,
then I may use it for base flattening (the only tuning process that's more effort and time than I'm going to prefer as I get older).

Oh, and that one rep for Volkl in charge of getting those 1,500 demo skis tuned for demo days, he wasn't just over-seeing the operation;
he was hand-tuning them all, as needed, for some 30 hours a week, after running them all through a Montana machine over in Vail/Avon.
We found we had a lot of tuning experiences in common, both by hand and using the six figure machines (him with a lot more experience than I, for sure).
(There's more to this story, but it's too much detail to go into, and the story is constantly unfolding!)

 

[Philpug]

and unasked for, from the start.

As that might be, but as I have said many times over, when replying in a thread you aren't replying to just the people in the thread but the thousands of eyes reading the thread.

I'm good with tuning my own skis. I've had lots of feedback on the ways I have done that, on the slopes.

While your technique might be working well for you, it is definately not the norm according to @Toddski13, who is arguably one of the most respected people in the field we need to have information here which is globaly recognize as the standard.

 

[Toddski13]

Thanks, I guess, for some of this. A lot of great info, sort of. But it's so mixed, from the start to the finish, at least in my experience -
and unasked for, from the start.

In my younger days, I didn't use the old belt flattening: seems it was never accurate enough for racing, even at my level.
I used files-under-boards, mostly, as I recall, to keep them straight and flat enough, for the most part. So did most of those around me, as I recall.
But that was in another era, probably long before the era you refer to.

Much of what you're saying, as it applies to the reps I've known and to me, is just not accurate enough about many, in my experience,
especially for the ones I've trusted most. Those guys could talk for hours, and very little of what they said seemed off or ill-informed,
or not aware of shared experience, whereas that is not the case with your posts; which partly seem accurate, partly not;
and pretty much seem intrusive, more to the point, even though on some technical levels, maybe all good.

For me, this is no longer the place to go into such detail, with no real reason to do so also.
It's sort of none of your business and a waste of my time to go into how I'm flattening my skis - with you, or on this site right now.
(Some years back, with the tuning folks back then, primarily when it was the Epic website,
I once did a lot of tune info sharing while it was useful to me and others, until that was no longer the case.)

At this point, If I have a problem, I'll fix it, and know who to ask about this or that. Otherwise, nuts.

(And it just happens that most of the folks/reps I know prefer and are now associated with the Montana machines [which also have some problems and some pluses, seems like], for their own reasons, and that is not something I'm knowledgeable about, myself, in spite of what they are saying:
I'm good with tuning my own skis. I've had lots of feedback on the ways I have done that, on the slopes.)

And if I finally get told that one of the machines, and a shop within reach that is using it, is good enough to not create more problems than solutions,
then I may use it for base flattening (the only tuning process that's more effort and time than I'm going to prefer as I get older).

Oh, and that one rep for Volkl in charge of getting those 1,500 demo skis tuned for demo days, he wasn't just over-seeing the operation;
he was hand-tuning them all, as needed, for some 30 hours a week, after running them all through a Montana machine over in Vail/Avon.
We found we had a lot of tuning experiences in common, both by hand and using the six figure machines (him with a lot more experience than I, for sure).
(There's more to this story, but it's too much detail to go into, and the story is constantly unfolding!)

Ski Otter, I apologize if my responses seem intrusive. I'm not trying to be curt or patronizing, I'm a mix of genuinely curious about your experiences and protective about the spread of mis-information... as Phil points out there are thousands of eyes here and my statements are based on real world knowledge - my job is to literally suss out (through interaction with machine operators & technicians at every level), refine, and teach best practices for ski tuning, regardless of by hand or with any brand of machine.

For me, ultimately the end-user (and the clock in the racing arena) are the ultimate judge of the quality of work. I'm glad what you've been doing works for you - that doesn't mean it will for everyone, and my unasked for commentary is about conveying best practices and painting a more objective picture for others following this thread. My offer to you still stands - I'd love to personally show you what is possible with a well-maintained machine and an operator who knows how to run it, but I understand if you'd rather just drop it and keep doing what you know works for you.

 

[ski otter 2]

No, I'll keep tuning into what friends with decades in the biz tell me, those with no stake in the game other than
that they work in the ski industry full time here in Colorado, in high volume settings, and are knowledgeable
at the level where the rubber (ski stuff) hits the ground, so to speak - who love to ski and love what works.

 

[Philpug]

No, I'll keep tuning into what friends with decades in the biz tell me, those with no stake in the game other than
that they work in the ski industry full time here in Colorado, in high volume settings, and are knowledgeable
at the level where the rubber (ski stuff) hits the ground, so to speak - who love to ski and love what works.

And I would bet dollars to donuts that if those tuners you trust have a Wintersteiger will defer to and trust @Toddski13 or whoever Montana and Reichmanns counter part of him is.