• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Why is edge to edge speed important?

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
If down hill speed is what is important in a bump field, zipper line is the last thing you want to do.
Not sure I agree, or maybe I'm not understanding. Down hill speed in a bump field is probably off topic, but I'd love to hear your views and discuss if you want to start a thread.

but the entire point of posting that video was to see 109mm NOrdica El capos do not looks slower edge to edge. The reality is most people will not be affected by slowness of lack of edge grip from a wider ski. Its there skills and tactics not skis that are holding them back.
No doubt skills are holding folks back. I think their skis may be too.

Your El Capos are a great example of how a wide ski can have a lot of the characteristics of a narrower ski. I think many of the preconceived notions about the limitations of wider skis are due to many wide skis skiing like clown shoes :) (credit @UGASkiDawg I believe). Clown shoes are going to take longer to engage the edge and likely never get an edge in firm snow.

A stiffer flexing, cambered wide ski should change edges fairly similarly to a narrower ski of the same construction, yes?

I wonder how much of my preferences about where I enjoy my own narrower skis is due to the differences in length, weight, rocker, and flex of my wider skis, and not necessarily the width.
 
Last edited:

DavidSkis

Thinking snow
Skier
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Posts
118
Location
Toronto
Curious how wide do you guys think those skis are I am using here........

Honestly edge to edge quickness doesnt really get affect by how wide a ski is. The skills matter much more and being quicker is misnomer. I usually think that more patient and round my turns are whether at the speed in the video, or faster free skiing speed I need to patiently wait to tip down the hill, being slow and patient at the top make me appear quicker than I actually am.

I think torsional stiffness, and edge sharpness matters a ton more than how wide or narrow a ski is for edge grip.

I agree that torsional stiffness and sharpness are critical for good edge grip.

I would say that in bumps, you benefit from "auto edging". The bump is curved, so with less tipping motion from the skier, the ski's on an effective edge and turning. I've skied with a few folks who have better performance in bumps than groomers. The root cause: the bump creates an effective edge angle for them, which they don't get on groomers.

How about taking the fat ski to a firm groomer and measuring the reaction time to get it on edge? For that matter, how many FIS-ranked skiers, where ice performance matters, are on fat skis?

I keep to a <72mm waist here in the east - my last fat ski experience was a Salomon twenty-twelve, which worked great on Whistler groomers (snow created a platform for the ski) but was painful back home. Part (or much) of this was due to the softness of the ski.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
again I am not trying to say run fat skis in a race course...I am not even saying they are better on hard snow...they are not.

What I am saying it doesnt matter as much as people think.

You salomon are just about the worst wider skis for hard snow around they had the edge grip of floppy noodle. Forming an opinion on just that experince actually shows ignorance of just how good of edge grip some wider skis have. There is still no reason to ski on wider ski unless have some sort of 3d snow, but my middle quiver skis all are pretty good on hard snow.

I also like how east means skinny ski lol. I am certain your mountain gets next to no snow, then yeah why would have a wider ski.

I am guessing we should all be using race ski in this video since we were in the east.


I bet you d love you under 72 mm skis on this run in the east.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BC.

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
I agree some wider skis work suprisingly well on hardpack or even ice. Note that I don't say as well as a slalom ski, just much better than some would think.

This question has made me wonder about something, though. I've never been on a real GS ski, but it is my understanding that they are wider than slalom skis. I guess it is perpetuated by rules mandating dimensions, but those arose from common practice that must have come from somewhere. Is it just to provide more material to get enough stiffness in a longer length? To avoid boot out? Just tradition?
 

DavidSkis

Thinking snow
Skier
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Posts
118
Location
Toronto
Right; Josh, here are my points:
  • Bumps automatically lead to some amount of edging (not sure if you agreed or disagreed as your reply left that out)
  • fatter skis take more time and more effort to get on edge; it's a matter of physics and biomechanics; if this weren't the case, we'd see racers on fat skis (which you appear to agree with, but not extensively)
  • the twenty-twelve is a fat ski that didn't perform well in Ontario, in part due to being too soft - I am not sure how me recognizing it was soft makes me ignorant of wide ski tech.

Regarding showing videos of deep snow at Stowe... not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China? :huh: I think everyone agrees that it snows at least sometimes in the east. We very rarely get those conditions in Ontario. If anything, it sort of demonstrates that you deal with less ice and therefore don't need the narrow skis?

I have yet to see JF Beaulieu or any of the eastern level 4s I know on wide skis (though I'm sure it happens from time to time; we just have so few powder days, and it gets tracked out so quickly!).
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
^^^ IMO, the Mosely dryland is the most mis-understood vid. Again, IMO, its about negative resistance (using own body weight) training and proprioception. Skipping over from shoulder to shoulder (or sometimes near peak) of the bumps is a very efficient way to descend down the run.




These types of turns were typical done during Mosely's era but are no longer in vogue since Dale Begg Smith blew away the field during his Torrino 06 run.

:thumb:

CR, why would you be making 'semi-hop' turns for any other reason than 'they feel cool'? I can't think of much that would be more exhausting and day shortening for anyone but the most athletically fit skiers, and even they'd ask the same question. When Johnny is skiing (and Josh, and t-ball, and....) , his skis are ON the snow... sliding, slipping, gliding, pivoting, tipping. Anyhow...

It's how I was coached to ski bumps so it's my "go to" tool when things get tight. I agree, for recreational skiing it is too physical. I try only hit that groove for short chunks and pop out and double around for longer sections to conserve energy. I still feel the need to be able to "go there" whenever I feel the need and lighter, narrower skis are a better device for everything energy and conservation related in the bumps IMHO... that is just the most glaring example of where wider and heavier skis would be the biggest handicap.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,123
DO you ever see JF skiing a foot of fresh snow in woods on sketchy thin cover?

You realize Stowe, SMuggs, and Jay average more snow per year than all of colorado except Wolf Creek, and Steamboat. We also get much more moisture content in our snow...... so maybe coloradoans should be using narrow skis than that of northern vermont. :crash:
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Well it's been an enjoyable discussion on wide skis in bumps. Particularly interesting to me as I spent a lot of today's skiing doing my best to teach myself how to ski bumps slowly and in control on a pair of Elan Rip sticks (and the rest of the day ripping at a more apropriate speed for these skis), after spending the two previous ski days on Völkl 100-8 and Blizard Bonifide.

I agree with Josh. The video with a foot of snow line is much more fun on something much wider. Softer bumps are (at least at my limited skill level) both more fun and easier with softer wider skis.

But, back to the op topic, where edge to edge speed makes a narrow waisted ski more of a pleasure to ski is on a hard surface. And there it makes a big difference.
 

mister moose

Instigator
Skier
Joined
May 30, 2017
Posts
659
Location
Killington
Answer me this -

Why do ice skates have a single blade under the center of the foot?
What one thing do wider skis get you?
Are the two related, or unrelated?

I see this as a two parter. Edge to edge speed weighted, and edge to edge speed unweighted, or maybe more accurately less weighted.

Edge to edge speed unweighted is equal fat vs narrow. It just doesn't matter. Inclination produces edge angle. Inclinate fast, edge fast.

Edge to edge weighted is entirely a different matter. If the ski is weighted, a fat ski will lift you up as the edge angle increases. (To a point) Lifting up against a force requires work. More work, slower result.

Plus on a fat ski the torque lever is outside the edge of the foot. Immaterial in rigid steel lever arms, but the boot cuff/soft calf tissue/knee ligaments are far from steel. Torque matters. And when the boot cuff flexes laterally, the soft calf tissue compresses, and the knee ligaments stretch, we have to inclinate that much farther on a fat ski to achieve the same tipped edge angle on the snow. As soon as your knees flex from straight your adductor muscles have to work harder to keep the knee cap from moving outwards while on the edge, and this effort increases more on a fatter ski. Fatter skis take more work to edge, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.

We ski fatter skis because we like what the fatter ski delivers on softer snow. Not because it edges the best. We then choose the best compromise for our terrain and skiing style.
 

Chris Geib

cgeib
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
260
Location
Dillon, CO
Thanks. I follow and agree with some of what you have described. Some I do not.

For instance:
I do not agree that more work = slower. More work = more work.

Maybe in your given lifting scenario: ...same work on wider ski = slower, or more work required on wider ski to = same rate

Maybe but I'm not convinced work & rate are tied as you suggest unless maybe you are saying it is given we are at our maximum possible effort on narrow skis to transition from edge to edge and then we add an increase in resistance due to wider skis that slows down our transition. I don’t feel such an insurmountable resistance? Do you? So if there is in fact some increased effort required, so what, you have it available and the same rate can be maintained. No?

Also, seems the application of the "lifting scenario" is suspect to apply where this "slowness" is experienced - in transition while we are moving across the skis from edge to edge (and maybe there are other transition scenarios to consider...). Isn't the lifting issue more of a concern when weighted in the turn while managing (standing against) turn forces that are trying to flatten the ski while you are trying to torque_it/lever_it up on edge as you describe?

Unless there is some arbitrary work/force/effort limit imposed I guess I miss how they become slower transitioning from edge to edge, as wider skis are not inherently slower edge to edge.

Happy New Year!
 

QueueCT

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Posts
268
Location
Southwest CT
Imagine two skis, one a 300mm waist and the second a 62mm waist. Assume incompressible snow--that is, the vertex of your angle is always formed by the edge of the ski not somewhere along the base. In that case, to form the same angles the center of the wider ski has to travel a greater distance than the center of the narrower ski. Thus, it is slower to move the ski from angle -a to angle +a.

The original question was about speed, not force, torque or ripped ligaments. Yes, it's slower. But, aside from biomechanics, does it matter if it's a touch slower if you're not racing? In other words is it measurably different in noncompetitive situations? That is a matter of preference and opinion.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
Unless there is some arbitrary work/force/effort limit imposed I guess I miss how they become slower transitioning from edge to edge, as wider skis are not inherently slower edge to edge.

Happy New Year!

Regardless of all other dimensions.. The wider the base on an object is in proportion to the other dimensions.. (boot and skier in this case), the more difficult it is to turn over and topple. It takes longer to tip something wider than it does to tip something with a narrow base.
 
Thread Starter
TS
R

Rod9301

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Posts
2,443
Ok, so the question was, is important the speed of edge to edge transition, not is it slower.
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
If you carve the top of the turn, a slower edge to edge will add to the transition length.

So it seems that this is important in short turns only

From the recreational context, maybe skiing medium turns in a corridor that requires lightning fast inititiaon of the next turn, else one goes into the dense brush, or into rocks? But, even then, "needing" to do it seems completely discretionary through the choice of turn size in the given terrain.
 

LiquidFeet

instructor
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,697
Location
New England
Lightening fast edge change on hard snow, on skis which were made to grip that kind of snow and which were made to allow that kind of edge change, yields a very exciting sensory experience. So, for the recreational skier seeking off-the-planet sensations, the speed of edge change offers something "important."
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
Ok, so the question was, is important the speed of edge to edge transition, not is it slower.
At a basic recreational level, because the reason it is slower is because it is a more difficult operation and therefore more demanding, harder, requires more physical effort ultimately draining resources from everyone's ski day that could be better applied elsewhere when using the ski suited better for the conditions..

At a higher level, because those fractions of a second matter in race time or properly executing the best bump line. Getting late in the bumps costs you points in competition.. It costs you pain when just trying to have fun..
 

Doby Man

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Posts
406
Location
Mostly New England
While it may be true that a 100 mm ski will require a few more degrees of rotation to reach the same tipping angle of a 65mm ski, that only equates to about an inch or two more of lateral “knee wag” in a retracted turn. This is a movement for experts that is primarily funded by the ankle, ski rebound and ground force reaction and very little muscular effort. For me, that doesn’t slow my tipping very much at all. However, to create those quick tipping forces, it is the accumulative elements of flex, torsion, rebound, side cut and, least influential, width, that make a ski quick in general that is what really makes the difference in actual edge to edge speed. If you are thinking about strict tipping geometry, based on width alone, between a 70 mm ski and a 90mm ski, you are wasting your time.

It is very typical that the wider the ski is, the softer the shovel will be (both flex balance and torsion) and the less turny the side cut will be. This means the ski is less responsive in turn initiation than an SL ski in a way that relates to overall quickness. For me, it is these two attributes that typically accompanies ski width that makes the actual difference in making a ski slower from edge to edge.

Ultimately, which ever ski I am on, quickness comes from technique and making the ski work for the skier rather than the skier working for the ski. The difference is weather you are using your ankles to tip the ski under you and whether you are using angulation for crossunder mechanics rather than using inclination for crossover mechanics. In a large radius crossover turn, there is time and space to use crossover inclination where width has little or no influence but, if we are looking for quickness, we are not inclining, we are angulating our legs under the CoM.

If they made a 100 mm ski with a stiff shovel and deep side cut, it would “get over” quicker for me than a skinny noodle 65mm ski with a soft shovel and shallow sidecut - for someone who knows how to get the ski to do the work. Ultimately, if I had to guess, the speed edge to edge is 90% skier technique/ability and 10% ski, the lion’s share of which comes from sidecut, torsion, flex balance and rebound leaving very little of that influence to actual width. Also, actual ski width alone only effects degrees of rotation required and has absolutely no influence, by itself, on edge grip. I have no idea where those comments are derived. That is the reverse of my above comments regarding separate but complementary factors such that a narrow ski is going to be made with a stiffer shovel and deeper sidecut that increases the overall quickness of a ski far more than the narrowness of the waist.

People that are honing into the width, are only looking at the face value of elements which, by themselves, often makes very little difference at all. I think they are locking on to the mathematical geometric proof it brings with it rather than the actual influence it has in technical performance. It is like saying a yacht tips faster mainly because of the width of the hull which is really only a small part of all the attributes that tip a yacht faster such as the keel, rudder, masts, sails, crew speed and all the power these produce from the wind and water.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
It is like saying a yacht tips faster mainly because of the width of the hull which is really only a small part of all the attributes that tip a yacht faster such as the keel, rudder, masts, sails, crew speed and all the power these produce from the wind and water.

Which is why I was careful to premise with all other things being equal.. All other things above being equal the narrower hull will tip faster than the wider hull with all the other variables being the same other than hull width.. All other things being equal a deeper keep will tip slower than a shallower keel.. etc..

That said, I do agree that it is 90% Indian and 10% arrow for most circumstances here. I won't hesitate to go in to steep icy bumps on skis more than 80mm underfoot. I just won't enjoy them as much.. In the end, it DOES matter to people at the highest level looking for whatever advantage they can find and whatever disadvantage they can avoid to be on a narrower waist ski in tight turning, quick edge to edge focused competitions.. SL and bumps..
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,328
Location
The Bull City
So, while we're at it. Why is it that folks can discount a 10mm difference underfoot as being no big deal and skier ability is sooo much more important than that kind of equipment variance ,,i...e.. It doesn't matter as much as people make it out to be... But when we're talking about boot alignment, canting, etc.. that one or two tiny millimeters here or there matters HUGELY!

Same goes for one or two degree different side edge bevel....

I suspect it all revolves around us justifying and defending the possibly sub optimal choices and decisions we have made..
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

Top