Why is edge to edge speed important?

[markojp]

Man, I sure wish I had a dentist appointment or something.

 

[tball]

OK, how about this take...

I'm sure a bunch of you have tried similar skis that are supposed to be identical construction and only differ in width? How about back to back in the same conditions?

There are a bunch, like the Kendo and Mantra. Bonafide, Brahama, and Latigo? Others? I've been on a few, but not back to back.

I own a Steadfast and have skied the wider Vagabond from the same family in the same length. The Vagabond was a better bump (for me) than my similar width Sickle. The Vagabond was quicker edge to edge, but that's not why I own a wider ski.

I also skied older Kendos and Mantras a bunch. They were very similar. So similar I wouldn't want both in the same quiver. There's a reason we tend to buy different width skis with very different other characteristics. Those other aspects really impact edge to edge speed, as others have pointed out.

So, my answer the OP question: yes, edge to edge speed can be important in some conditions, but the width of a ski is only one of many factors that impact it.

 

[crgildart]

Man, I sure wish I had a dentist appointment or something.

@Yo Momma

 

[Josh Matta]

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..

So again I actually generally ski a pretty narrow ski on hard snow.(65 to 83mm) Mostly due to wear and tear on my body specifically my feet and for fear of future knee pain as someone who skis 140+ days a season every season.

But alignment is insurmountable there is nothing a skier can do to compensate for poor alignment. I have an eye for it ,and here is the husband and wife team of before and after alignment. At this point in time I have aligned I think about 10 skiers...... but I do not have readily accessible pictures of all of them

1 year apart, and I am certain there is difference in skill, but alignment matters, in some cases poor alignment can breed bad technique, in Diane's case she and I quote" felt impossible to acheive edge angles" her little edge was inaccessible.

me prior to my self diagnosed alignment. my left skis is so soft that I basically had to rotate my pelvis to turn right.

the easy switch canted out 4 degree left boot, 2 degree right boot. I can easily tip my skis and I could counter instead of rotating with me skis.

Skiing is hard, always blame the equipment first. If someone is serious about skiing find a boot fitter or a coach with an eye for alignment and actually change the freaking boots.

 

[Doby Man]

OK .. but there should be some rules and time limits on complaining about and blaming your equipment.

Rule #1. Unless you are skiing the best in your group, do not blame your equipment "while" skiing. Your friends that respect you will tell you: "shut up, pussy".
Rule #2. Time limit on complaining about or blaming wax or edges - One day (running concurrent for both)
Rule #3. Time limit for complaining about boot alignment (and you have a job) - One season (if you are homeless, there will be a one year extension available)
Rule #4 Time limit for complaining about ice - East Coast: 2 seconds, West Coast: All goddamn day long!!!

 

[crgildart]

me prior to my self diagnosed alignment. my left skis is so soft that I basically had to rotate my pelvis to turn right.



the easy switch canted out 4 degree left boot, 2 degree right boot. I can easily tip my skis and I could counter instead of rotating with me skis.



Skiing is hard, always blame the equipment first. If someone is serious about skiing find a boot fitter or a coach with an eye for alignment and actually change the freaking boots.

4 degrees sounds pretty major.. 2 somewhat. Correcting a genuine physical abnormality which is a legit handicap to skiing isn't over obsessing over a millimeter here or there.. That said, such an problem, uncorrected could certainly amplify the adverse impact of using a ski less than optimal for conditions.. So, they are definitely related and codependent..

 

[mister moose]

I do not agree that more work = slower. More work = more work.

To both simplify and exaggerate, hit a serve with a ping pong ball. Now hit a serve with a golf ball. Or, why do batters warm up with 2 bats? Can't they swing 2 bats the same speed as 1? I think the answer is a teeny bit.... no.

So while Josh is saying he can hit a home run swinging with 2 bats, he also is saying he's not going out with 2 bats in an important game.

Who here is swinging steel poles? ..... Anyone??? ..... Thought so.



Am I the only one that feels the 'ka-wump' when a ~100mm+ ski goes flat and then changes edges? That tells me something right there.

 

[tball]

Man, I sure wish I had a dentist appointment or something.

I know. More talk about alignment.

 

[Josh Matta]

my 113mm Patron do not go Ka-wump when I change edges. None of my skis do that......

 

[mister moose]

my 113mm Patron do not go Ka-wump when I change edges. None of my skis do that......

It's not like there's a sonic boom when you change edges.

But think about it - on a wider ski the difference from outer edge pressure/point of support noticeably goes from outer to inner, from side to side. You feel that travel. On a narrower ski the point of support feels right under your foot. Less travel.

Ka-wump.

 

[Josh Matta]

the thing is I can personally control how fast or slow my edge rise or fall. You should never "snap" edge changes no matter how wide the ski.

 

[James]

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..

Well 10mm is fairly significant unless it's. between 125 and 135.

I don't get why this topic is so difficult after all these years. Maybe read the beginning of Witherell's 1992 book.

The fact is, boots are generally awful. Some people's feet and anatomy work better than others in boots. It's likely that those who rise to the top in general have anatomies that work.

I mean just look at Mikaela. She had a start of one season where she was, for her, terrible. Essentially due to a different boot. And this with all the resources available to her that your average skier doesn't have. Now according to some, all she had to do was suck it up and get over it. Instead she switched back to the old boots.

 

[markojp]

I know. More talk about alignment.

That's the orthodontist.

 

[mister moose]

the thing is I can personally control how fast or slow my edge rise or fall. You should never "snap" edge changes no matter how wide the ski.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "snap edge changes" and why it would be bad?

 

[LiquidFeet]

....
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.
....

I have a pair if anyone wants to buy them. Scott P4s with a retro topsheet, 106 at the waist, fully cambered, quite stiff, metal and wood inside, barely used, with bindings, twin tips, TR=14 (I think; anyway, it's surprisingly short). Notice the mudflap girl on the tops. She's on the bases, too. I did not know this when I bought them, by the way.

They look like this. PM me if interested.

 

[tball]

In bumps it probably matters.

Yes. Width is not helpful in the bumps. Even more so because many wide skis have other attributes that make them bad bump skis in addition to being wide.

I enjoy skiing bumps on my 110 Sickles enough I don't avoid them. That says a lot about the skis flexibility. But unless it's really soft, I still want to be on different skis in the bumps.

I don't actually switch skis that often, though. Too much trouble. So, I'll often end up with a day like this video where I'm on the correct ski in the morning and not so much in the afternoon. This video shows a bunch of bumps the afternoon of a leftovers day on my Sickles (including a pretty rad spread eagle )

Fast Forward to bumps on fat skis at 3:55. (Adding #t=3m55s to the URL doesn't seem to be working)

The first little section of bumps is an easy low angle run. There are nice smooth troughs so the zipper line is still fun on fat skis.

The second bump run isn't as friendly. It's the last half of a mile long bump run and I'm super tired (did the long Tucker hike too) and I'm doing lots of zipper avoidance. I'm also staying far clear of the big boy bumps in the middle of the run. On narrower skis, I think I'd be skiing a more direct line in bigger bumps. I'm sure a better skier could rip through those big bumps on my fat skis. Not this lifetime for me.

For comparison, here's my typical old man bump skiing. Here I'm trying to ski a low impact zipper line on my 90mm Steadfasts:


I don't think I'd try to ski that zipper line nearly as fast, if at all, on my Sickles. Not a chance at the bottom where I speed up to avoid the traffic.