Why do carvers have edge hold on ice?

[AngryAnalyst]

So...op started a thread about carving on ice but really wanted an all around east coast mid fat for trees? I guess that's creative.

OP started a thread asking what makes carvers carve because he wants to figure out how to get that design characteristic into a midfat for trees. Which is why the thread was titled what makes carvers carve not help me design an awesome race ski

 

[Tony S]

OP started a thread asking what makes carvers carve because he wants to figure out how to get that design characteristic into a midfat for trees. Which is why the thread was titled what makes carvers carve not help me design an awesome race ski

Probably need to go back to definition of terms. If you're skiing eastern trees you're not carving, no matter how icy the conditions. So why care about design characteristics of carvers?

 

[mdf]

Probably need to go back to definition of terms. If you're skiing eastern trees you're not carving, no matter how icy the conditions. So why care about design characteristics of carvers?

So is the real question "what makes carvers hold on ice?"?

 

[AngryAnalyst]

So is the real question "what makes carvers hold on ice?"?

It’s almost like someone carefully titled the thread, then responded to one of the comments in a bit too much haste to be equally careful. Funny how that works

(Thanks by the way)

 

[AngryAnalyst]

So is the real question "what makes carvers hold on ice?"?

Because it is inconvenient to swap skis if I I decide to take a run on a typically icy groomer for a change of pace and impossible if my trees drop me out on one. So, I want to get as much edge hold on ice while staying with a modern rockered shape as possible. I actually tried to be careful not to say “carve” for most of the thread, I may have made a mistake here and there.

There are a number of skis that already exist trying for this balance, I’m wondering about a combination of characteristics I doubt any current ski has.

 

[mdf]

I find a good tune makes almost any ski hold at least "ok" on ice. But yeah, my slalom are substantially better than "ok". But I'd be guessing if I picked out the features that cause that

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Maybe what you want is this ski:

https://segoskis.com/collections/mens-skis/products/cleaver-88

 

[HardDaysNight]

Maybe what you want is this ski:

https://segoskis.com/collections/mens-skis/products/cleaver-88

I did note that this ski is reported to have: “Directional Moustache Rocker”. That would solve everything I would think.

 

[James]

Yeah I guess Sego changed their tune a bit. We toured the factory after skiing Targhee during the Jackson gathering. That was 2015. I recall at the time the designer expounding on how no one who's any good skis a ski with a sidecut under...I can't remember but it was very large. 26m I think. Maybe even 28. It was an odd conversation.
So...we move on to 2018. Progress I suppose.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

It was kind of a fun ski, but a race ski it aint. I think it would be a pretty fun shape in the woods.

 

[Josh Matta]

Yeah I guess Sego changed their tune a bit. We toured the factory after skiing Targhee during the Jackson gathering. That was 2015. I recall at the time the designer expounding on how no one who's any good skis a ski with a sidecut under...I can't remember but it was very large. 26m I think. Maybe even 28. It was an odd conversation.
So...we move on to 2018. Progress I suppose.

that guys sounds very out there, in a not good way.

 

[Johnny V.]

"The Cleaver 88 is our tool for carving arcs into corduroy. It is an unmatched turning machine with titanal reinforced camber and a precise side cut profile that will put your racing background to its full potential. If you don’t have a racing background, it will give you one. With this ski in your quiver you will dominate your beer league, become a master of technical form, find yourself rooting for high-pressure systems, and, with time, ascend to on piste enlightenment."

Wow! I guess if this ski doesn't do it, it doesn't need to be done! Wonder if it makes you feel great and have lots of girlfriends?

I did note that this ski is reported to have: “Directional Moustache Rocker”. That would solve everything I would think.

Probably the right ski for 'Mustache Ride" at Winter Park............................

 

[Vitamin I]

...So, here's the question. If I'm willing to give up a bit of energy out of a turn from skis like the Kastle MX and Stockli AX by throwing a super aggressive tail rocker on to the back (instead of the flat tail), could I still keep (most of the) edge hold?

Yes, I believe that's possible. But a careless tweak can easily "ruin" other ski performance attributes. Surely you already know there are complicated trade-offs between many variables in ski performance---not just between rebound energy and edge hold.

If you merely seek fulfillment in the design "journey", then by all means go for it and have fun---but $2k for custom construction seems excessively expensive to me if the "destination" sucks (i.e. if you end up hating the performance of the actual ski).

On the other hand, if you want to actually hit the performance objectives, then I'm sure we all would have plenty of advice on that. You know, like lean on Wagner's experience in interviewing people in your situation---maybe they've already solved your problems after serving other similar customers in the past. Also, by trying more ski models, you might better dial-in your own tastes in ski performance, and maybe get even better at connecting ski model attributes with your tastes, etc. Who knows? For example, maybe trying an old Nordica Helldorado might reveal more about some of these attributes you like, and maybe an old Blizzard "The Answer" might reveal more about attributes you hate, even though those models are wider than your target...or whatever. Or if your performance objectives are truly absent in the market, then instead of rushing to spend $2k at Wagner, I'd say buy a cheap beat-up used Kastle MX/Stockli AX/Monster 98/etc., or maybe even just a cheap old race ski, and home-bend some rocker into the tail, and then go ski it to learn more. If it feels too beat-up and soft, then you can even epoxy woven fiberglass right onto the topsheet to stiffen it up, and go ski it again. No matter how unique you are, I'm guessing Wagner could nail it after interviewing you about your experiences with not-so-expensive ski experiments like that.

.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Yes, I believe that's possible. But a careless tweak can easily "ruin" other ski performance attributes. Surely you already know there are complicated trade-offs between many variables in ski performance---not just between rebound energy and edge hold.

If you merely seek fulfillment in the design "journey", then by all means go for it and have fun---but $2k for custom construction seems excessively expensive to me if the "destination" sucks (i.e. if you end up hating the performance of the actual ski).

On the other hand, if you want to actually hit the performance objectives, then I'm sure we all would have plenty of advice on that. You know, like lean on Wagner's experience in interviewing people in your situation---maybe they've already solved your problems after serving other similar customers in the past. Also, by trying more ski models, you might better dial-in your own tastes in ski performance, and maybe get even better at connecting ski model attributes with your tastes, etc. Who knows? For example, maybe trying an old Nordica Helldorado might reveal more about some of these attributes you like, and maybe an old Blizzard "The Answer" might reveal more about attributes you hate, even though those models are wider than your target...or whatever. Or if your performance objectives are truly absent in the market, then instead of rushing to spend $2k at Wagner, I'd say buy a cheap beat-up used Kastle MX/Stockli AX/Monster 98/etc., or maybe even just a cheap old race ski, and home-bend some rocker into the tail, and then go ski it to learn more. If it feels too beat-up and soft, then you can even epoxy woven fiberglass right onto the topsheet to stiffen it up, and go ski it again. No matter how unique you are, I'm guessing Wagner could nail it after interviewing you about your experiences with not-so-expensive ski experiments like that.

.

Brilliant! Think you’re on to something there.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Maybe what you want is this ski:

https://segoskis.com/collections/mens-skis/products/cleaver-88

Marketing copy - yes. Skiing characteristics? Not sure. Would be happy to try but not sold on the specs to be honest. Skeptical it will be stronger.

 

[cantunamunch]

https://www.zagskis.com/en/our-products/skis/2-freeride-patrol-skis/328-h-88.html

 

[Eleeski]

Yes, I believe that's possible. But a careless tweak can easily "ruin" other ski performance attributes. Surely you already know there are complicated trade-offs between many variables in ski performance---not just between rebound energy and edge hold.

If you merely seek fulfillment in the design "journey", then by all means go for it and have fun---but $2k for custom construction seems excessively expensive to me if the "destination" sucks (i.e. if you end up hating the performance of the actual ski).

On the other hand, if you want to actually hit the performance objectives, then I'm sure we all would have plenty of advice on that. You know, like lean on Wagner's experience in interviewing people in your situation---maybe they've already solved your problems after serving other similar customers in the past. Also, by trying more ski models, you might better dial-in your own tastes in ski performance, and maybe get even better at connecting ski model attributes with your tastes, etc. Who knows? For example, maybe trying an old Nordica Helldorado might reveal more about some of these attributes you like, and maybe an old Blizzard "The Answer" might reveal more about attributes you hate, even though those models are wider than your target...or whatever. Or if your performance objectives are truly absent in the market, then instead of rushing to spend $2k at Wagner, I'd say buy a cheap beat-up used Kastle MX/Stockli AX/Monster 98/etc., or maybe even just a cheap old race ski, and home-bend some rocker into the tail, and then go ski it to learn more. If it feels too beat-up and soft, then you can even epoxy woven fiberglass right onto the topsheet to stiffen it up, and go ski it again. No matter how unique you are, I'm guessing Wagner could nail it after interviewing you about your experiences with not-so-expensive ski experiments like that.

.

I had lots of fun bonding carbon and wood on some old skis. Added a huge amount of camber (matched the waterski rocker in the press I used) and made skis that wouldn't "bend". Interesting performance characteristics. Unskiable on anything but boilerplate where they rocked. It was also fun grinding on the mod to play with the flex pattern. I learned a bit. But I did not end up with a useful ski.

I also added carbon to my dead Race Tigers. But I didn't get good longevity out of that experiment as the carbon delaminated.

Playing with old skis is fun. But don't expect too much. Playing with new skis is more fun but more money. And it will take many tries to get something useful. I did succeed with my waterskis but it took many tries. I built a lot of failures and spent a lot of money. And while my skis work for me, I can't sell them.

If you enjoy the process, pursue it. Old skis or new doesn't matter if you are having fun. You CAN build something that is optimized for you. If you are rich and persistent enough.

Eric

 

[sjjohnston]

As someone else mentioned, along with other factors (like camber - normal camber - is necessary for the ends of the ski to exert any force, unless you make a rockered I-beam), consider the width underfoot. The difference in leverage between an edge that's pretty nearly directly under the side of your boot sole and one set out a bit is substantial. I once ran a GS training course in 88 mm skis, got late and tried to lay way over to crank a turn, and pulled the binding screws out of my outside ski.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Update for those interested: spent a bit of time making some calls (a few suggested on this thread). My revised sense of the problem for me is I am on the large side relative to my ski length (6 ft, 210-220 on 181 skis).

The obvious solution to add stability, getting on a longer ski, may hurt nimbleness more than a stiffer ski would. Hence the conundrum. I may not need something that is as dramatic as I originally thought, but I could definitely get a stiffer ski construction than the current skis it sounds like.

 

[cantunamunch]

The obvious solution to add stability, getting on a longer ski, may hurt nimbleness more than a stiffer ski would. Hence the conundrum. I may not need something that is as dramatic as I originally thought, but I could definitely get a stiffer ski construction than the current skis it sounds like.

Umm, from reading your thread earlier I did not get the impression you were looking for stability - can you quickly sum up what direction of stability you're looking for, on what sort of terrain? Thanks.

Also - what is the last time you had someone (professionally) look at your on-snow stance?