# Perfect New England tree ski



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

So I've been talking with Mishka about designing and building skis.  There are lots of skis out there with dedicated purpose: race, moguls, powder, etc.  And there are lots that claim to do it all: all-mountain, freeski, etc.  But what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind?  Obviously you still have to get to the trees, but just like a dedicated race or bump ski that shouldn't factor into the design at all.

What are your thoughts on: tip-waist-tail, length, profile (camber, rocker, etc), stiffness, mounting position, etc????

I have my thoughts but I'm curious to hear what everyone else says starting from scratch.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 6, 2014)

I think a lot depends on the snow.  is it 12" of fresh? or is it tracked out?


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

jimmywilson69 said:


> I think a lot depends on the snow.  is it 12" of fresh? or is it tracked out?



It's New England trees.  Targeted when fresh, but very often tracked out.


----------



## Edd (Oct 6, 2014)

No metal, sub-16 turn radius, full rocker, 110 waist...


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

Edd said:


> No metal, sub-16 turn radius, full rocker, 110 waist...



Similar to my thoughts.  2 questions though:
1) Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it?  Turns in trees tend to not really be carved. Does a short turn radius create quick hook-ups that you might want to avoid?
2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?


----------



## Tin (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> 2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?



On a full rocker you can really make the ski do whatever you want in term so of turning...so yes. I'm kind of regretting not getting another fully rockered ski. My Lines are a bitch compared to my old Volkls in tight trees.


----------



## Edd (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Similar to my thoughts.  2 questions though:
> 1) Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it?  Turns in trees tend to not really be carved. Does a short turn radius create quick hook-ups that you might want to avoid?
> 2) Does turn radius go out the window anyway when you're talking full rocker?



Full true rocker might make a short TR unnecessary, yeah.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

I think that 110 is too wide for the days when things are hard packed.  95-100 underfoot is good.  
I ski my HB's in the trees and I find them to be awesome in pretty every condition except for deep powder.  I prefer them over my Nomads. They could be a a little for the tightest trees maybe 174 instead of 178.  The early rise is the way to go. Full rocker on a ski under 180 is really squirrelly. I know my RockStars are 178 and I wish I would have gotten them in the 185's.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Oct 6, 2014)

I'd suggest short length... I don't know so much about the feel of rocker vs. camber but a shorter length ski combined with a lighter ski means you have a much lower moment of inertia for turning and its a very noticeable difference that increases maneuverability a ton.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 6, 2014)

The best ever, right here!  

http://www.ebay.com/itm/13-14-Atomic-Redster-Speed-Skis-238cm-NEW-/351059724443


----------



## Tin (Oct 6, 2014)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> I'd suggest short length... I don't know so much about the feel of rocker vs. camber but a shorter length ski combined with a lighter ski means you have a much lower moment of inertia for turning and its a very noticeable difference that increases maneuverability a ton.



A rocker shortens the ski a great deal because of the flex in it. My 179 bridges skied like a ski in the 160s.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

Light, tip/tail rocker, 90-105 waist, larger shovel.....


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

Tin said:


> A rocker shortens the ski a great deal because of the flex in it. My 179 bridges skied like a ski in the 160s.


 Just like my Rockstars.  They suck on snything groomed or worse.


----------



## Tin (Oct 6, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Just like my Rockstars.  They suck on snything groomed or worse.



Even with that width?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

Tin said:


> Even with that width?




Yup,  I wish I had listened to owner and went with the longer ones.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

Great input.

Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this:   132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski.  Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Great input.
> 
> Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this:   132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski.  Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.



If you're resort skiing, the trees get tracked out too quickly for full rocker.  I would want some level of camber underneath.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Great input.
> 
> Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this: 132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski. Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.



I would say length is about right but just tip rocker with camber. No tail rocker.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> If you're resort skiing, the trees get tracked out too quickly for full rocker.  I would want some level of camber underneath.



+1


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> *what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind?*



This is a subject I think some people here realize I'm obsessed  with.  I've been trying combinations the last few years, even  intentionally trying extremes to rule out & rule things in.    One  thing I've learned is this is a very complex, multifaceted question,  and while  I'm 100% certain I don't have it right, these are my current  feelings:

Tip rocker
Fat shovel
Substantial surface area (float matters)
Light skis (4lbs or so per ski) likely with no metal for quick turns
90mm underfoot up to ????? (I'm not sure of the upper range, but I wouldn't go below 90)
Slightly (but not dramatically) shorter than your daily driver

My unanswered questions:

1) *Turn radius? *(does is really matter? Current convention is short radius is best in tight trees)

2) *How fat do you go underfoot?* (I have no experience here, but some like very fat 110, 115 underfoot in trees, while some prefer 90mm)

3) *Tail rocker?  Yes or No?*  Some say yes for quicker turns, some say no for more snow contact & control.





Cannonball said:


> Similar to my thoughts.  2 questions though:
> *Short turn radius seems intuitively correct for tight trees, but is it? * Turns in trees tend to not really be carved.



Right now this is my #1 question.   As I said, I've spend a LOT of time researching this subject, and the current logic is definitely that, yes, short radius skis work better in tight trees.  My quandary is, this doesn't make much sense to me given you dont have the "room" to make it matter (as least that's what I would assume anyway).


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I would length is about right but just tip rocker with camber.  No tail rocker.



Depends on what level skier you are.  I don't like skis with flat tails, as I don't have the ability to drive them like I should and I find that I get locked into turns.  I would want some tail rocker to slarve turns when I need to.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> Depends on what level skier you are.  I don't like skis with flat tails, as *I don't have the ability to drive them like I should *and I find that I get locked into turns. * I would want some tail rocker to slarve turns when I need to.*



This is another part of the confusing equation IMO.  Does slarving the back of turns really mean you're not skilled?  I've seen some awesome skiers use slarving as their preferred tree skiing method.  They move through the trees like lightning, but the turns are very "tail-focused" if that makes any sense.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is another part of the confusing equation IMO.  Does slarving the back of turns really mean you're not skilled?  I've seen some awesome skiers use slarving as their preferred tree skiing method.  They move through the trees like lightning, but the turns are very "tail-focused" if that makes any sense.



From a practical sense, probably not.

From a technical sense, I think so.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

I forgot. I think you should use those Shiros that you got for cheap last year. 195cms?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

Slarving is a ridiculous term for ECers. Your either riding on wayyyyy too big of a ski or you are a gaper. Most likely both


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Slarving is a ridiculous term for ECers. Your either riding on wayyyyy too big of a ski or you are a gaper. Most likely both



I'm not disputing that, but I'm having fun regardless.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> *Slarving is a ridiculous term for ECers. Your either riding on wayyyyy too big of a ski or you are a gaper.* Most likely both



Not understanding what you mean by this.  Slarving certainly isn't solely a wide open big mountain bowl tactic.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

I think the Gaper insult is hilarious.  Like I'm supposed to recoil in horror if it's insinuated that I'm a wannabe weekend warrior?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> *I think the Gaper insult is hilarious.  Like I'm supposed to recoil in horror* if it's insinuated that I'm a wannabe weekend warrior?



I just don't even understand the use of "gaper" in this case.  I actually WORKED on slarving in the trees last winter by trying to practice it to get _better_.  AFAIK, the term was invented (or at least popularized) by McKonkey, and he claims it's a useful method in tight trees, so.........


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 6, 2014)

Wow.  I mean really.  Wow.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Wow.  I mean really.  Wow.



Surprised nobody jumped on your rec?

Maybe if they had better graphics.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

Take it easy folks I am just kidding 99% of the time. But seriously slarving is for folks that are riding on skis with very big waists


----------



## Edd (Oct 6, 2014)

I agree about no flat tail. That has a place on a carver but I have them on my K2 Hardsides (98 underfoot) and it's my biggest pet peeve with them.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 6, 2014)

Gonna check out(the gaper hand-flex) wider sticks again Friday..


----------



## Savemeasammy (Oct 6, 2014)

Skiing in the trees requires more creativity than most anywhere else on the hill.  For that reason, I want flat tails.  I find they are easier to turn unexpectedly - you can literally sit back and lift the tips off the snow and still feel a measure of control.  It's also nice to be able to land on your tails if you need to.  I also like the edge-to-edge quickness of my skinny skis...  I wouldn't argue against a little bit of tip rocker, but it's not a must.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> If you're resort skiing, the trees get tracked out too quickly for full rocker.  I would want some level of camber underneath.


That was what I was thinking at first too.. Just get a mogul ski.  I think the intention of the OP is something more like a powder ski for short radius turns.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 6, 2014)

Agree bobbutts....
...sliding and slashing has its place in many tree situations here in the NE....


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

Nice.  More great input!   

I have/had a few skis that work well in the trees: 
K2 PEs 179cm @ 118/85/109mm, 
Dynastar Big Trouble 176cm @ 124/92/114mm

Love 'em both.  But if I could improve on them I'd:
1) Make them "bigger" for more float, but without adding length.  So I'd like to bump the waist to ~100.  
2) Even though they are both quick turners, I'd like to make them even quicker but not really more "carvey".  Hence some degree of rocker.  But I'm not sure how much, and the input you guys have being throwing in is good.

This is all pretty similar to what BenedictGomez was saying in his original reply.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Nice. More great input!
> 
> I have/had a few skis that work well in the trees:
> K2 PEs 179cm @ 118/85/109mm,
> ...




Are you designing yourself a pair of MR skis?  I m going to try them this year and maybe get a pair along with my complimentary bottle of vodka.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Are you designing yourself a pair of MR skis?  I m going to try them this year and maybe get a pair along with my complimentary bottle of vodka.



That's the plan.


----------



## dlague (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Great input.
> 
> Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this:   132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski.  Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.



I think some camber is necessary for two reasons 1) trees eventually will get tracked out or better yet scraped off 2) I do not know of too many resorts where tree skiing is available to the base.  We have a set of fully rockered skis and they get squirrelly on groomers heading back to the lift.



.......


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

^ yes, but as I said in my original post, I want to ignore #2. 

Several of you have mentioned fresh vs scraped off. In very tight trees in what specific ways does camber help when it gets scraped off?  Or conversely, in what specific ways does rocker hurt in those conditions?


----------



## drjeff (Oct 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> ^ yes, but as I said in my original post, I want to ignore #2.
> 
> Several of you have mentioned fresh vs scraped off. In very tight trees in what specific ways does camber help when it gets scraped off?  Or conversely, in what specific ways does rocker hurt in those conditions?



Simply put, it's much "easier" to get a cambered ski to "hook up" into a turn on firmer snow than a rockered ski, especially in medium and shorter radius turns. Add in some 100+mm waist width to that rockered ski and you can quickly find yourself feeling "defensive" when on firmer snow with crowds around when short(er) quicker turns/stops may be needed


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 6, 2014)

What a paradox.  If you slarve in the east you are a gaper, but I've never heard the term before ergo that makes me a gaper too. If I also employ this method of skiing I've never heard of then that would make me a gaper^2


----------



## Brad J (Oct 6, 2014)

Never herd the term "Slarve" before but sounds no more than controlled skidding, its a turn that I use in tight situations, screwed up moguls , Icy spots, linked Slarve turn on real icy trails, I agree with no Flat tail,But My fx94's with a rounder tail seam's like a good all around choice. Having never skied a full rockered ski, not sure how I would like them. So my east coast preference is 176 ish 84-94 waist .rocker tip cambered ski


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> What a paradox.  If you slarve in the east you are a gaper, but I've never heard the term before ergo that makes me a gaper too. If I also employ this method of skiing I've never heard of then that would make me a gaper^2



False. If you have never used the term to describe your skiing then you are safe


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Simply put, it's much "easier" to get a cambered ski to "hook up" into a turn on firmer snow than a rockered ski, especially in medium and shorter radius turns. And in some 100+mm waist width to that rockered ski and you can quickly find yourself feeling "defensive" when on firmer snow with crowds around when short(er) quicker turns/stops may be needed



True story. Nice description


----------



## snoseek (Oct 6, 2014)

MR 110, subtract 10 mm from waist and make it a 178. I bet it would be perfect.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> False. If you have never used the term to describe your skiing then you are safe



Dammit!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> Dammit!



Everyone gets one free pass just don't do it again.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 6, 2014)

snoseek said:


> MR 110, subtract 10 mm from waist and make it a 178. I bet it would be perfect.



that's basically what Mishka and I have been talking about. With maybe some subtle tweaks. Wanted to bat it around here for a bit first to confirm the right track.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 6, 2014)

Having skied the MR110, I agree with snoseeks thoughts.  I liked the 110 a lot but felt I am a bit too much of a girlyman to tame it in eastern trees.


----------



## mishka (Oct 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld    is only one who took MR110 to the trees at J last season...... don't remember complaining lol 


  pulmonary design 







weight should be under 4 pounds each. Since most skis weight in  kilograms somewhere between 1700 to 1900 g If more carbon fiber  maybe   even lighter 


as a references point MR110 and MR100 side-by-side


----------



## mishka (Oct 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Having skied the MR110, I agree with snoseeks thoughts.  I liked the 110 a lot but felt I am a bit too much of a girlyman to tame it in eastern trees.



MR110 was not intended as a eastern tree ski .... At least not by me. Hopefully this season I'll take him out West.  
As a eastern skis I build MR100 which is actually, as mentioned, MR110 minus 10mm expecting this skis will be my daily driver for the season


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 7, 2014)

mishka said:


> MadMadWorld    is only one who took MR110 to the trees at J last season...... don't remember complaining lol
> 
> 
> pulmonary design
> ...



The ski was pretty awesome for the trees in those conditions. It really bulldozes through heavy snow and spring slush. As an all season ski it would take a little time to get used to as I am normally on a very soft ski. But for that day it was perfect.


----------



## WWF-VT (Oct 7, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> So I've been talking with Mishka about designing and building skis. There are lots of skis out there with dedicated purpose: race, moguls, powder, etc. And there are lots that claim to do it all: all-mountain, freeski, etc. But what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind? Obviously you still have to get to the trees, but just like a dedicated race or bump ski that shouldn't factor into the design at all.
> 
> What are your thoughts on: tip-waist-tail, length, profile (camber, rocker, etc), stiffness, mounting position, etc????
> 
> I have my thoughts but I'm curious to hear what everyone else says starting from scratch.



Just find out what this ski this guy uses for trees.....


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Oct 7, 2014)

Is that Highway Star??


----------



## mishka (Oct 7, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> The ski was pretty awesome for the trees in those conditions. It really *bulldozes through heavy snow *and spring slush. As an all season ski it would take a little time to get used to as I am normally on a very soft ski. But for that day it was perfect.



thank you I never thought to describe  that way.

Going back to OP design....
 I think sidecut radius at 14 m  it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 *105* 122 with turning radius of 
17 m  as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 7, 2014)

mishka said:


> thank you I never thought to describe  that way.
> 
> Going back to OP design....
> I think sidecut radius at 14 m  it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 *105* 122 with turning radius of
> 17 m  as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm



I like it. My K2s are around that but my radius is 19 because of the rocker and how soft it is. I think the better turn radius is worth the trade off of a softer ski. 17 is perfect.....14 would be a heavy/stiff ski that would probably be a pain in the ass in the trees. Just my .02


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 7, 2014)

mishka said:


> Going back to OP design....
> I think sidecut radius at 14 m  it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 *105* 122 with turning radius of
> 17 m  as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm





MadMadWorld said:


> I like it. My K2s are around that but my radius is 19 because of the rocker and how soft it is. I think the better turn radius is worth the trade off of a softer ski. 17 is perfect.....14 would be a heavy/stiff ski that would probably be a pain in the ass in the trees. Just my .02



I'm OK with those dimensions Mishka.  But I'm still trying to understand some of the calculations and discussion.

1) Sidecut radius.  Your calcs on 132-100-122 show a 14m radius.    Line Blends are the same 132-100-122 178cm with Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise (similar to yours).  But they claim a 21m radius.  I'm sure there's a good reason, can you explain the difference to me?

2) MMW what do you mean by heavy/stiff ski?  We are talking about very subtle dimension changes that shouldn't change the actual weight much.  And the materials/construction wouldn't change so neither should stiffness.  In this designs I don't understand how turn radius relates to heavy/stiff unless you mean it in some other way?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 7, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I'm OK with those dimensions Mishka.  But I'm still trying to understand some of the calculations and discussion.
> 
> 1) Sidecut radius.  Your calcs on 132-100-122 show a 14m radius.    Line Blends are the same 132-100-122 178cm with Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise (similar to yours).  But they claim a 21m radius.  I'm sure there's a good reason, can you explain the difference to me?
> 
> 2) MMW what do you mean by heavy/stiff ski?  We are talking about very subtle dimension changes that shouldn't change the actual weight much.  And the materials/construction wouldn't change so neither should stiffness.  In this designs I don't understand how turn radius relates to heavy/stiff unless you mean it in some other way?



I don't claim to be an expert except when I stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

I believe there are other factors than just dimensions of tip/tail/shovel. I think it lies in edge contact. Rockered skis will naturally have a different turn radius I believe


----------



## prophet0426 (Oct 7, 2014)

Line Sir Francis Bacons====Done and Perfect :razz: LOL

I actually think rocker will be a disadvantage in the trees, my thought is to have some camber with a twin tip early rise tip and tail. I feel that with a full rocker you would be limited in turning ability especially when things get tracked out. I think having a relatively soft ski would be a plus as well, something that you could yes smear a turning with quickly to dump speed. Large early rise shovel in the front, with a narrow early rise tail in the rear.  I think 100 under foot would be a solid ski, skiing my Bacons at 115 under foot can get a little overwhelming at times when things get tight, hard to quickly pivot them around.  We'll see about this year with the High Society Free Rides. They are an early rise twin tip dimensions of 136/104/126 with a 23.7 turn radius, poplar core, and 4 pounds aside.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 7, 2014)

^ yeah your SFBs are nearly identical to my HTs and it's definitely too much ski for me in the trees. 

Also starting to agree on the rocker. Now thinking some camber underfoot is a good idea. With rocker/rise in tip and tail.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2014)

Sounds like my Vagabonds.  Can't wait to try them.


----------



## mishka (Oct 7, 2014)

mine is different design so-called five points where tip/tale starts in a different location.and radius calculated from those points of references
Here more traditional, similar to what you  referring looks with same numbers


----------



## mishka (Oct 7, 2014)

here both designs side-by-side with same overall dimensions


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 7, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> ^ yeah your SFBs are nearly identical to my HTs and it's definitely too much ski for me in the trees.
> 
> Also starting to agree on the rocker. Now thinking some camber underfoot is a good idea. With rocker/rise in tip and tail.



I have some decent camber in my Kung Fujas. Because of that they are really playful. Sometimes it feels like I am literally bouncing out of turns. In the trees they are light and maneuverable.


----------



## mishka (Oct 7, 2014)

prophet0426 said:


> . They are an early rise twin tip dimensions of 136/104/126 with a 23.7 turn radius, poplar core, and 4 pounds aside.



imo poplar only core at 4 pounds each bit on  heavy side


----------



## mishka (Oct 7, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I have some decent camber in my Kung Fujas. Because of that they are really playful. Sometimes it feels like I am literally bouncing out of turns. In the trees they are light and maneuverable.


iirc MR110 MMW tried much stiffer skis

Cannanball. Don't over think it, I been that road before ....designing skis from scratch  nerve-rackinguke: . 
stays the course... Slightly change the design you tryed and liked


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 8, 2014)

mishka said:


> Cannanball. Don't over think it, I been that road before ....designing skis from scratch  nerve-rackinguke: .
> stays the course... Slightly change the design you tryed and liked



Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process.  And I can't wait to get out there on skis that I had a hand in building locally!!

BTW: I already have the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 8, 2014)

mishka said:


> Cannanball. Don't over think it, I been that road before ....designing skis from scratch  nerve-rackinguke: .
> stays the course... Slightly change the design you tryed and liked



Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process. And I can't wait to get out there on something that I had a hand in building locally!!

BTW, I already own the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.


----------



## WzGy44 (Oct 8, 2014)

Edd said:


> No metal, sub-16 turn radius, full rocker, 110 waist...



You, good sir, know what you're talking about.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 8, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process. And I can't wait to get out there on something that I had a hand in building locally!!
> 
> BTW, I already own the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.



Funny guy until you boot stomp the runout.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 8, 2014)

^ if I remember correctly, the last runout I was on with you, I rode out fine and you came out limping with a helmet full of snow.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 8, 2014)

prophet0426 said:


> I actually think rocker will be a disadvantage in the trees, my thought is to have some camber with a twin tip early rise tip and tail. I feel that with a full rocker you would be limited in turning ability especially when things get tracked out.



Some of these responces make me smile. Rocker and early rise are the same thing. Different companies use different terms to make it sound like they have a "special" ski.

My personal design for a tree ski is a 
98-100mm waisted ski with a 16-17m radius. 
178 length, rockered about 18" from front tip, no rocker on tail. 
A v notch on the tail to clip a skin to securely.
Camber
Single layer of metal, but only under the binding.
"Air tip" like rossi is doing on a lot fo their skis now to reduce swing weight.
Flat mount.
Minimum graphics to show off the wood core.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 8, 2014)

Double post


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 8, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Some of these responces make me smile. Rocker and early rise are the same thing. Different companies use different terms to make it sound like they have a "special" ski.



They do get used interchangeably which makes it difficult. I like the language prophet0426 used because it makes it clearer. "Rocker" should be saved for when talking about "full rocker" since that's more intuitive and what it actually means (a rocking chair with camber in the middle would really suck).   "Early rise" is a much better description for what both you and prophet are talking about.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 8, 2014)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Some of these responces make me smile. Rocker and early rise are the same thing. Different companies use different terms to make it sound like they have a "special" ski.



They do get used interchangeably which makes it difficult. I like the language prophet0426 used because it makes it clearer. "Rocker" should be saved for when talking about "full rocker" since that's more intuitive and what it actually means (a rocking chair with camber in the middle would really suck).   "Early rise" is a much better description foro,' what both you and prophet are talking about.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 8, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  *It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   *Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process.  And I can't wait to get out there on skis that I had a hand in building locally!!
> 
> BTW: I already have the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.



Yup. Skier and what they're use to. Plake would be rocking the trees on 210's


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 8, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just  find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe  that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  *It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   *Guys  were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the  day. But it's fun talking through the design process.  And I can't wait  to get out there on skis that I had a hand in building locally!!
> 
> BTW: I already have the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long,  255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and  you stand sideways on it.



Yup. Skier and what they're use to. Plake would be rocking the trees on 210's


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 8, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process. And I can't wait to get out there on something that I had a hand in building locally!!
> 
> *BTW, I already own the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.*


Ding Ding Ding!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 8, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> ^ if I remember correctly, the last runout I was on with you, I rode out fine and you came out limping with a helmet full of snow.



I forgot about that.....dammit. Well played sir


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 8, 2014)

prophet0426 said:


> Line Sir Francis Bacons====Done and Perfect :razz: LOL
> 
> I actually think rocker will be a disadvantage in the trees, my thought is to have some camber with a twin tip early rise tip and tail. I feel that with a full rocker you would be limited in turning ability especially when things get tracked out. I think having a relatively soft ski would be a plus as well, something that you could yes smear a turning with quickly to dump speed. Large early rise shovel in the front, with a narrow early rise tail in the rear.  I think 100 under foot would be a solid ski, *skiing my Bacons at 115 under foot can get a little overwhelming at times when things get tight, hard to quickly pivot them around*.



That's funny, because I've heard others claim the SFB are fantastic eastern tree skis.   



mishka said:


> thank you I never thought to describe  that way.
> 
> Going back to OP design....
> I think sidecut* radius at 14 m  it's little aggressive for intended purpose.* *IMO dimensions should be 132 105 122 with turning radius of
> 17 m*  as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm



What is your logic here?   

The "radius debate" when discussing eastern tree skis is my biggest confusion, because the currently accepted logic is that a small turn radius is better/best in tight trees.   That said, I do not for the life of me understand this, because I wouldnt think you'd have the real estate for this to even matter.  So.........where am I going wrong with my thinking?


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 8, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's funny, because I've heard others claim the SFB are fantastic eastern tree skis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's not like you're going to be carving in the trees. That said - Radius comes into play not just for pure carving. There is always self-steering that happens when skis are skidded. In a skid, with the ski on any edge angle (not completely flat), as the snow builds up under the shovel, the shovel bites and creates more edge angle, and as the skiers weight de-cambers the ski, the front of the ski is flexed and angled more than the mid-section and tail, a torque is created and the ski self steers. The shorter the radius the ski is designed to turn in, the quicker the turn even in a skidded turn, via self steering. So, when you are flying through the trees and whip around one and need to execute a very quick turn to save your bacon because there is another tree right there you didn't see, put your skis on edge fast and jamb the shovel into a skid and let the ski self steer. The shorter the radius the quicker they will react.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

I've been sort of lurking on this thread as it's been of interest to me since I just purchased in July what would essentially be my tree skis. That is the Dynastar Lengends 172 length and a 132-94-118 sidecut with an "early rise" rocker tip and sort of a semi twin tail. Also these skis have two layers of titanal which I've noticed folks here a against any metal layers.

 I haven't been able to offer any further insight until now...



BenedictGomez said:


> The "radius debate" when discussing eastern tree skis is my biggest confusion, because the currently accepted logic is that a small turn radius is better/best in tight trees.   That said, I do not for the life of me understand this, because I wouldnt think you'd have the real estate for this to even matter.  So.........where am I going wrong with my thinking?



If you carve for even an instant it can make a difference. What many don't realize is that originally slalom racing was mimicking tree skiing. So slalom skis have nearly always been a shorter ski with more flex to allow a shorter radius turn as opposed to GS or especially a DH ski. The tighter the gates or trees the shorter the radius turn desired.

Another point that I think some folks here are confused on is the use of "camber". Camber does not refer to side cut but the spring load of a ski. (Think of a single leaf of a leaf spring.) Too much camber and you'd never be able to carve and would the ski would tend to burrow or submarine in deep snow. Too much rocker would also be a problem with carving in packed snow because there'd be no ski contact on the tip or tail. That's not to say that a cambered ski can't have a soft flex to allow either a short radius turn or an early rise. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 9, 2014)

Abubob said:


> What many don't realize is that originally *slalom racing was mimicking tree skiing.* *So slalom skis have nearly always been a shorter ski with more flex to allow a shorter radius turn as opposed to GS or especially a DH ski.* The tighter the gates or trees the shorter the radius turn desired.



The length thing doesn't surprise me at all.  In fact, I imagine a slalom ski would be fantastic in tracked out (been a while since it's snowed) woods.  There's no doubt going somewhat shorter than the daily driver is beneficial in the woods, and comments to the contrary are either born out of macho bravado _("it's not the tools dude, it's the pilot. I take my 215cm downhill skis into tight trees in 20 inches of fresh powder and KILL it!)_ or an ignorance of physics.  But how much shorter?  I don't know.  You can obviously go too short, and then you lose stability, which is a very bad thing while skiing immoveable, hard objects like trees and rocks.  


But the sidecut on slalom skis is typically in the 60s, and that's the primary reason for their short turn radius, and that's not good for skiing in the woods as they'll submarine constantly.  So IMO I'm still looking for answers to the why a short turn radius question.  In other words, if we want the 90cm to 110cm underfoot for off-piste trees, AND a short turn radius, then dont we need a pretty fat shovel and likely a fat tail?  And all that added material from the larger surface area adds weight, which is another challenge since we want lighter skis for snappy turns.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> But the sidecut on slalom skis is typically in the 60s, and that's the primary reason for their short turn radius, and that's not good for skiing in the woods as they'll submarine constantly.  So IMO *I'm still looking for answers to the why a short turn radius question.*  In other words, if we want the 90cm to 110cm underfoot for off-piste trees, AND a short turn radius, then dont we need a pretty fat shovel and likely a fat tail?  And all that added material from the larger surface area adds weight, which is another challenge since we want lighter skis for snappy turns.



I gave you the answer above. Get The Physics Of Skiing and read it of you don't believe me. Or get one of Ron LeMaters books. 
Or Google the Physics of Skiing. 

As far as light, wide, and low teens side-cut, they are all the rage now. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. Look at Dynastar  cham HM series.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I gave you the answer above. Get The Physics Of Skiing and read it of you don't believe me. Or get one of Ron LeMaters books.
> Or Google the Physics of Skiing.
> 
> As far as light, wide, and low teens side-cut, they are all the rage now. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. Look at Dynastar  cham HM series.



That book (Physics of Skiing) was published in 2002 so I would think not much is mentioned about rocker. Might it mention "reverse camber"?


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Another point that I think some folks here are confused on is the use of "camber". Camber does not refer to side cut but the spring load of a ski. (Think of a single leaf of a leaf spring.) Too much camber and you'd never be able to carve and would the ski would tend to burrow or submarine in deep snow. Too much rocker would also be a problem with carving in packed snow because there'd be no ski contact on the tip or tail. That's not to say that a cambered ski can't have a soft flex to allow either a short radius turn or an early rise. Any thoughts on this?



I doubt if anyone on this board is confusing camber with side-cut, that's pretty basic. The only reason you would worry about too much camber is if you were skiing down hill on XC skis. The discussion of camber for XC skis, and XC-downhill and that classification of backcountry skis, has little or nothing to do with single camber alpine skis that the peps of this board know and love. 

All single camber alpine skis ( that would be all alpine skis until the recent designs of some skis - full rocker and no camber - clown shoes ) are designed to be de-cambered by the opposite forces working against the ski from the snow and human input. The more you de-camber the tighter the turn radius. Softer skis can make it easier to de-camber, but typically suffer at torsional stiffness desired for speed - but not needed for trees. The flex pattern and stiffness are all part of the design, so yeah they make they soft and even with early tip rise.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

Abubob said:


> That book (Physics of Skiing) was published in 2002 so I would think not much is mentioned about rocker. Might it mention "reverse camber"?



Be careful with the term "rocker", not all skis with rocker are clown shoes. Rocker can mean any and everything to ski manufacture and they use it. Most skis with rocker still have single camber.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> But the sidecut on slalom skis is typically in the 60s, and that's the primary reason for their short turn radius, and that's not good for skiing in the woods as they'll submarine constantly.  So IMO I'm still looking for answers to the why a short turn radius question.  In other words, if we want the 90cm to 110cm underfoot for off-piste trees, AND a short turn radius, then dont we need a pretty fat shovel and likely a fat tail?  And all that added material from the larger surface area adds weight, which is another challenge since we want lighter skis for snappy turns.



Waist width is part of a skis dimensions. They do not make up the radius however.

I have 3 pairs of skis, with waists ranging from 71-107mm and the radius don't change a ton.

Fischer Rc4 - 71mm - 17m radius
Volkl Kendo - 89mm - 22m
Rossi Soul 7 - 107mm - 17m

So there is a 36mm diffence between the Rossi and Fischer, but only a 1m difference for the radius, and the fat ski is smaller at that.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

This should explain everything:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 9, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> *I gave you the answer* above.



You're referring to skidding.  Maybe I'm wrong, but conceptually, it seems to me that the relationship with the geometric math involved in turn radius is broken when we talk about skidding rather than carving.



Scruffy said:


> As far as light, wide, and low teens side-cut, they are all the rage now. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. *Look at Dynastar  cham HM series*.



I hadn't heard of the "HM"'s, I'll take a look.  I looked at the regular Chams in 107 underfoot and eliminated them on weight, but a lighter version would be interesting I guess. Big shovels, early rise, and flat tails all seem like good tree attributes.



Abubob said:


> *That book (Physics of Skiing) was published in 2002 so I would think not much is mentioned about rocker.* Might it mention "reverse camber"?



Parobolic skis in general were really still in their infancy in 2002.  If you look at what was considered "revolutionary" from that perspective in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2014, the changes have come remarkably fast.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 9, 2014)

Parabolic....that's a word I haven't heard in awhile


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're referring to skidding.  Maybe I'm wrong, but conceptually, it seems to me that the relationship with the geometric math involved in turn radius is broken when we talk about skidding rather than carving.



Yes you are wrong. That is why I stated my response "even with skidding .... "  Learn something about the physics of self-steering with respect to the physics of skiing - even while skidding . 




BenedictGomez said:


> I hadn't heard of the "HM"'s, I'll take a look.  I looked at the regular Chams in 107 underfoot and eliminated them on weight, but a lighter version would be interesting I guess. Big shovels, early rise, and flat tails all seem like good tree attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> Parobolic skis in general were really still in their infancy in 2002.  If you look at what was considered "revolutionary" from that perspective in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2014, the changes have come remarkably fast.



No, you're off by a decade! Elan SCX came out in 1993, that was about the only "Parabolic ski" made. Very soon after those skis, ski manufacturers realized that having a tip and tail the same dimensions was not a good thing. Ski tails started getting narrower and narrower, relative to tip width even since.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Be careful with the term "rocker", not all skis with rocker are clown shoes. Rocker can mean any and everything to ski manufacture and they use it. Most skis with rocker still have single camber.



Full rocker ski are just that. Cannonball showed me a pair of Volkl skis with full camber. (what models were those Cannonball?) I was amazed that the rise started only a few inches from the toe. The Legends I just picked up show a rise maybe five or six inches from the tip. I just see very little use for a full rocker ski in the east.

I tested K2 Rictors a few years back and found the "early rise" rocker on those skis really did well on groomed snow. I got no use in trees as I was at Okemo but they seemed to handle moguls really nicely. I tried short as well as longer carved turns and they were very responsive. Leads me to the belief that an early rise is the way to go in the trees - at least that I get to ski (by the time I get to most places its pretty well tracked). 

By contrast the Dynastar Cham 87s I tried, which have more of an early rise I think than the K2's were awfully floppy on groomed snow and had no hold on uneven surfaces. But they skied pretty well in the trees although they weren't very responsive ... and as long as I didn't have to back up I was okay.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're referring to skidding.  Maybe I'm wrong, but conceptually, it seems to me that the relationship with the geometric math involved in turn radius is broken when we talk about skidding rather than carving.



To be clear here, we are talking about skidded turns here, which is the turns you'd use mostly in trees, not simply skidding sideways.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Full rocker ski are just that. Cannonball showed me a pair of Volkl skis with full camber. (what models were those Cannonball?) I was amazed that the rise started only a few inches from the toe. The Legends I just picked up show a rise maybe five or six inches from the tip. I just see very little use for a full rocker ski in the east.
> 
> .



Again, "rocker" has become an industry buzzword, so buyer beware.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 9, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Yes you are wrong. That is why I stated my response "even with skidding .... "*  Learn something about the physics of self-steering with respect to the physics of skiing - even while skidding .
> *



Yeah, that doesn't help me.  I'm thinking about the turn radius mathematically, and it refers to arc.  Once we break that relationship of arc, as we 100% factually are with skidding, I don't understand why radius as a metric, matters.

So you can say......


Scruffy said:


> *The shorter the radius the ski is designed to turn in, the quicker the turn even in a skidded turn, via self steering*.



And maybe it winds up being completely true, but I don't see how it can be specifically due to the math involved in calculating radius.     FWIW, I also have no idea what "self-steering" means either.  Maybe I'll make it a point to demo something with a 14 radius immediately followed by a 24 radius and try them in the trees to see.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

I can't believe this is still available online. An article by Shane McConkey on the Volant Spatula.

http://www.evo.com/what-is-so-speci...ula-powder-ski-how-do-i-ski-the-spatulas.aspx



> Now as I sit here and write this its October 2002 and Volant is making the first batch of the greatest powder skis ever.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 9, 2014)

Holy crap you people over think this stuff.  

I don't think one can design a "perfect" NE tree ski.  Everyone has a different preference for what they like.  

Personally, the best ski I've tried in the trees in the east was a Volkl Gotama from a couple of years ago.  Whatever model year they had out during Nemo.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're referring to skidding.  Maybe I'm wrong, but conceptually, it seems to me that the relationship with the geometric math involved in turn radius is broken when we talk about skidding rather than carving.





Scruffy said:


> Yes you are wrong. That is why I stated my response "even with skidding .... "  Learn something about the physics of self-steering with respect to the physics of skiing - even while skidding.



I prefer the term "buttering".


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Holy crap you people over think this stuff.



Slow day at work.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 9, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Holy crap you people over think this stuff.



This is probably the most factually accurate comment in the thread.



Abubob said:


> I prefer the term "buttering".



I've heard of "buttering the turn", but I have no idea what it means.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, that doesn't help me.  I'm thinking about the turn radius mathematically, and it refers to arc.  *Once we break that relationship of arc, as we 100% factually are with skidding*, I don't understand why radius as a metric, matters.



Not true. Yes, with a skidded turn you've broken a clean arc; however in a skidded turn, the skis are still bending and arcing. Once you bend a ski, anyway you get there, the math comes into play. Again, I'm not talking about a hockey stop here. I'm talking about a skidded turn, which is what your goto turn would be in tight NE trees.  BTW, pure carves, even in world cup racing always have a little skid in them.   



BenedictGomez said:


> So you can say......
> 
> 
> And maybe it winds up being completely true, but I don't see how it can be specifically due to the math involved in calculating radius.     FWIW,* I also have no idea what "self-steering" means either.*  Maybe I'll make it a point to demo something with a 14 radius immediately followed by a 24 radius and try them in the trees to see.



I thought, from previous posts you've made on this forum, that you were a seeker of knowledge. Oh I get it, it's not political enough for you to bother looking up :-D

Here, I spoon feed ya  http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-skiing.html

It's not the only information out there, but it will get you started. There is a section in the middle on skidded turns.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 9, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Holy crap you people over think this stuff.
> 
> .








BenedictGomez said:


> This is probably the most factually accurate comment in the thread.



Oh come-on, you can go on ad nauseam about some political injustice or the other. This is skiing man, that's what we're here to talk about.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 9, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Full rocker ski are just that. Cannonball showed me a pair of Volkl skis with full camber. (what models were those Cannonball?) I was amazed that the rise started only a few inches from the toe. The Legends I just picked up show a rise maybe five or six inches from the tip. I just see very little use for a full rocker ski in the east.



Volkl Shiro.



Scruffy said:


> Again, "rocker" has become an industry buzzword, so buyer beware.



I agree.  But in this case it is as advertised.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 9, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've heard of "buttering the turn", but I have no idea what it means.



Think of spreading or smearing butter on toast or bread.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 9, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Parabolic....that's a word I haven't heard in awhile



That and "shaped" and "super sidecut".


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 9, 2014)

In my experience tree & glade skiing always involves bumps or moguls.  Whether there's a foot of fresh on top or ice or bare ground in between, bumps and frequently rocks and stumps must be dealt with.  To that end, a good tree ski for me is one that's generally soft flexing and easy to skid the tails around, mid-fat width (90-100 ish?), with nicely dulled edges, lightweight bindings with low-stand height, and perhaps most importantly the skis are already beat up well enough that I feel too bad about new damage when I decide not to adjust my line for rocks.
Bottom line I guess ski design is not really a factor for me w.r.t. tree skiing.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 9, 2014)

While you guys are measuring your.....skis. I'll beating all yo asses to the pow pow


----------



## dlague (Oct 9, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Good advice.  Honestly I'm really not.  I just find the discussion interesting.  The reality is that I don't believe that any of these things make a whole lot of difference.  It boils down to the skier much more than the skis.   Guys were skiing Dodge's Drop on wooden skis with leather boots back in the day. But it's fun talking through the design process.  And I can't wait to get out there on skis that I had a hand in building locally!!
> 
> BTW: I already have the perfect New England Tree ski:  It's 163cm long, 255mm underfoot, dual camber profile, sidecut radius of 7.9 m.....and you stand sideways on it.



Ha good one!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## dlague (Oct 9, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Volkl Shiro.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But in this case it is as advertised.



We have a pair of Volkl Chopstick that are full rocker that I use maybe 3 times per season - otherwise they are squirrelly!  Stickly for powder days.



Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## Tin (Oct 9, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> While you guys are measuring your.....skis. I'll beating all yo asses to the pow pow




I just pictured your geeky ass saying this with an 80s colored ski suit and headband.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 9, 2014)

Never underestimate the power of the fart bag


----------



## mishka (Oct 11, 2014)

IMO  turn radius cannot be taken out of context to determine ski performance for different conditions. TR part of ski design and will work together with other dimensions and ski construction. 

Here is a good example. I attached two ski designs. One classic mogul skis. Second "slightly modified" SAME general design parameters into all Mountain ski.

sorry dimensions hard to see.
  mogul skis  92-65-82 in 150cm  modified dimensions132-105-122 in 180cm


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 11, 2014)

You make mogul skis?

Start pumping out some in the 175 range on this website and you'd be able to quit your day job.  :lol:


----------



## Savemeasammy (Oct 11, 2014)

Mogul skis in 150?  Huh?  DHS is right, shoot for 175. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mishka (Oct 11, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> You make mogul skis?
> 
> Start pumping out some in the 175 range on this website and you'd be able to quit your day job.  :lol:



 well... I can make mogul skis. so far didn't find needs or interest in those


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 11, 2014)

You must be new here.  :lol:


----------



## mishka (Oct 11, 2014)

I've been around here for little bit.

To put jokes aside I can certainly make moguls dedicated skis or mogul/all mountain skis in one.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> IMO * turn radius cannot be taken out of context to determine ski performance *for different conditions. TR part of ski design and will work together with other dimensions and ski construction.
> 
> *Here is a good example. *I attached two ski designs. One classic mogul skis. Second "slightly modified" SAME general design parameters into all Mountain ski.
> 
> ...



With your above example:

Tip = 43.5% bigger

Waist = 61.5% bigger

Tail = 48.8% bigger

Perhaps I'm thinking about this too literally, but if exporting a "mogul ski" into the trees and increasing surface area is the goal, why are the above dimensions as such?

For instance, if I just took the mogul ski and made all dimensions 50% larger, which would greatly increase float, I'd get:* 138-98-123*.


----------



## mishka (Oct 12, 2014)

numbers in my example is not percentage it 40 mm wider in all three dimension maintaining a running length and turn radius  the same.
+40mm was done simply for example while maintaining major dimensions  and creating absolutely different skis
If you have specific numbers in mind let me have it and I'll post drawings for the skis.
So far skis I designed and built exceed all expectations. in this thread I'm trying to help  cannonball  to design his next  skis

maybe I build  in the future plus 30 version


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> So far skis I designed and built exceed all expectations. in this thread I'm trying to help  cannonball  to design he's next pair skis



Exactly!  and Exactly!  (and thanks!)

I should point out that I've been working on this design with Mishka for the past few weeks.  It turns out that I'm not going to be able to do this build this fall.  I'm just way to over-committed to other things.  Hopefully next year.  So maybe that leaves some free time for Mishka???  I'd highly recommend working with him for a rare opportunity to be hands-on in your own design/build.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> well... I can make mogul skis. so far didn't find needs or interest in those



shirley you must be joking..... 

I thought Hart asking for over $1K MSRP was nuts but the A-10 makes the F17 look like a bargain basement deal.

bomber A-10


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 12, 2014)

pricey stuff.  never heard of Bomber before.


----------



## mishka (Oct 12, 2014)

jack97 said:


> shirley you must be joking.....
> 
> I thought Hart asking for over $1K MSRP was nuts but the A-10 makes the F17 look like a bargain basement deal.
> 
> bomber A-10



 of course I know about F17. But *I have no need for mogul dedicated skis yet* and except for this thread nobody even asked if I can make them. However based on MR110 performance in moguls last season I have no doubts of great performance MR-M skis....somebody have to want of one of those.
DHS bom through moguls on MR110  like they are moguls skis IIRC :wink:


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> of course I know about F17. But *I have no need for mogul dedicated skis yet* and except for this thread nobody even asked if I can make them. However based on MR110 performance in moguls last season I have no doubts of great performance MR-M skis....somebody have to want of one of those.
> DHS bom through moguls on MR110  like they are moguls skis IIRC :wink:



I took your MR110's through the bumps on Paulie's....I didn't even notice the bumps were there!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 12, 2014)

After skiing some bumps with the 110 I looked back and saw corduroy


----------



## mishka (Oct 12, 2014)

with review like this8)8)  who need moguls dedicated skis.  Can't wait to get out on my new MR100


----------



## jack97 (Oct 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> of course I know about F17. But *I have no need for mogul dedicated skis yet* and except for this thread nobody even asked if I can make them. However based on MR110 performance in moguls last season I have no doubts of great performance MR-M skis....somebody have to want of one of those.
> DHS bom through moguls on MR110  like they are moguls skis IIRC :wink:



"high end" mogul ski are going for $1k plus. If you can play in this market as well....then as DHS said you can quit your day job. Maybe you can hire some of us as your pool boy.


----------



## mishka (Oct 12, 2014)

jack97 said:


> "high end" mogul ski are going for $1k plus. If you can play in this market as well....then as DHS said you can quit your day job. Maybe you can hire some of us as your pool boy.



I have no intention to play in any markets or compete with  production skis or make any models to offer.
 what I make one-of-a-kind one pair skis at a time within specification I designed or in case of this thread CB chooses. this where I strings who wants my skis will find me


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 12, 2014)

Mishka
What are your thouhts on Camber for Mogul skis?
My all time favorite skis were Rosi freestyle 160cm they were a bit small could have used 170's, A little side cut but relatively narrow with a lot of camber. In my experience they were like coiled springs and would almost turn themselves especially in tight bumps. I beat the hell out of them and had to re mount the bindings with helicoils. 
I would love to have a modern day set. But these days all the talk is about rocker.


----------



## mishka (Oct 12, 2014)

I can only speak for my own skis they have a minimum camber 0 to 5 mm at best.   Wonder if you skis have metal in them?
so if my MR110 work nicely in the bumps than big camber is not necessary. I use no metal instead a lot of carbon fiber that in itself reduce weight and create strong rebound.sorry couldn't be more helpful.
btw MR110 and new MR100 have  a decent amount of rocker in them

here more story on my skis
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php/129256-My-new-skis


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 12, 2014)

Rossi 4M were my favorite bump skis.  

But, that thought could just be nostalgia.  I've never skied a modern bump ski.  I had the 4Ms and 7Ms back in the day and Salomon Force9 3S.   The Salomons were pretty fantastic, but had zero durability.  After 20 days the foam cores were shot on those skis.  They were one of if not the first "cap design" skis with foam core as opposed to traditional wood torsion box traditional construction.  I also delaminated the tips on a couple of pairs, but they were cool with the warranty.


----------



## Brad J (Oct 13, 2014)

Rossi 4s were my favorite bump ski ,softer in the tip area and stiffer in the tails ,very quick, skied 204cm , I still see some very good bump skiers with salmon straight skies. I am not sure what design will give the same feel in bumps as the old straight ski did, but would love to test some wider mogul only skis, The best modern ski I have tried in bumps was a Kastle BMX88. They were really fun in bumps. I find modern shaped ski to hooky when applying tip pressure to control speed in bumps.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 13, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> My all time favorite skis were Rosi freestyle 160cm they were a bit small could have used 170's, A little side cut but relatively narrow with a lot of camber. In my experience they were like coiled springs and would almost turn themselves especially in tight bumps. I beat the hell out of them and had to re mount the bindings with helicoils.
> I would love to have a modern day set. But these days all the talk is about rocker.



These were all foam core. No wonder you beat the crap out of them. While foam core skis are light and lively they do not live very long.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 13, 2014)

jack97 said:


> shirley you must be joking.....
> 
> I thought Hart asking for over $1K MSRP was nuts but the A-10 makes the F17 look like a bargain basement deal.
> 
> bomber A-10



According to the website, their customs skis begin at $7,500 and can exceed six figures with inlays of precious metals like rose gold.  Mishka needs to get in on something like this!!


----------



## mishka (Oct 15, 2014)

okay you talk me into it lol 
  I'll make mogul skis . Maybe not  moguls dedicated skis to start with.
 For now I'm thinking slightly modified classic mogul skis design into Eastern all mountain skis. Look at it like street legal race car. 
Once I put my thoughts together I'll start a new thread


----------



## Savemeasammy (Oct 15, 2014)

mishka said:


> okay you talk me into it lol
> I'll make mogul skis . Maybe not  moguls dedicated skis to start with.
> For now I'm thinking slightly modified classic mogul skis design into Eastern all mountain skis. Look at it like street legal race car.
> Once I put my thoughts together I'll start a new thread



You will find no shortage of skiers willing to demo these skis for you!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------

