# Foam vs. Wood



## awf170 (Oct 21, 2005)

???


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 21, 2005)

I think wood is superior by far. IMO it is a stronger core and just feels stronger when you ski. Foam core skis also break easier.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 21, 2005)

wood all the way.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 21, 2005)

In the words of Cosmo Kramer, "It's the wood that makes it good."  :lol: :beer:


----------



## bigbog (Oct 22, 2005)

*........*

yes, I like the stuff that used to grow....  8)


----------



## JimG. (Oct 24, 2005)

To put it another way, foam sucks.


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 24, 2005)

dont both have their place for certian applications? AT setups might be best served by a foam core ski as they are lighter (usually). 

I also have been doing MUCH research on this subject and find that some opioions shared by those on this board seem to differ from the ski community in general in regards to skis like the Salomon 1080 line. these skis get RAVE reviews by ANYONE that skis them, and I have really not found too many bad things said about them at all, espeically have yet to really find defiinitve proof that they have a shorter life span then a wood core ski. I'd think if the life of the ski was that short by now the ski community wouldve caught on and started "bad mouthing" the maker..

Just my thoughts would love to hear more..Thanks.

M


----------



## tree_skier (Oct 24, 2005)

I have made the mistake of buying foam in the past, in fact the worst ski i've bought in the last 35 years was the rossi 4s ( the teal green ones) after about 10 days the biggest noodle you could imagine and they got rave reviews from alot of sources.

Besides nobody ever made a snowboard or ski named the foamy but burton made a snowboard called the WOODY :beer:  :beer:


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 24, 2005)

tree_skier said:
			
		

> I have made the mistake of buying foam in the past, in fact the worst ski i've bought in the last 35 years was the rossi 4s ( the teal green ones) after about 10 days the biggest noodle you could imagine and they got rave reviews from alot of sources.



Again, this is why I ask...this was a VERY POPULAR ski in its day...I mean I can remember those were like every other pair int he lift line...

I only ask becasue I am on the fence with Foam v. Wood...I have skied only wood for 25 years.....thinking of buying foam and you people are scaring me... the popularity of the foam core skis it crazy and i know from posters on other boards that some LOVE foam...some atomic, some sallie...

M


----------



## tree_skier (Oct 24, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> tree_skier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It just points out that alot of people are more into image then performance.  The first 2 years of the 4s it was the hottest ski on the market because of the color.  Ski it hard for a few days and it was cooked.  The first couple of days it was a great ski but by the third week of the season it was god awful.

If you ski 5 days a year buy a foam ski if you ski 20+ wood is the only way to go.


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 24, 2005)

tree_skier said:
			
		

> It just points out that alot of people are more into image then performance.



I cant believe that is still the case today....again ive only been readin rave reviews about some/most of the foam cores out there, and if the last time you skied foam were the 4's i'm sure its come quite a ways...again I am a wood core skier, but am thinking of making a switch, so trying to gather all information....

These "personal" level type reviews I am recieving arent coming from 5 day a year skiers, most are actully coming from people who are using them mostly for AT..

Im just soo cornfused.... :blink: 


M


----------



## billski (Oct 24, 2005)

*resilient*

Wood has resiliency and much longer longevity than foam.  Foam is super responsive at first, but poops out after a few dozen days.  My one and only pair of foamies started changing response after only about 20 days of skiing.  I suppose if money is no object, just buy a new pair every 6 months, you're all set


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 24, 2005)

wood core as an AT ski is not an issue.  if you are a rando racer or extreme light weight setup, then a light weight ski may be in order.  but any AT skier looking for ski performance should not be put off by a slightly heavier ski.  binding and boot weight are more important issues, but you need the ski to perform on the downhill.


----------



## billski (Oct 25, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> wood core as an AT ski is not an issue.  if you are a rando racer or extreme light weight setup, then a light weight ski may be in order.  but any AT skier looking for ski performance should not be put off by a slightly heavier ski.  binding and boot weight are more important issues, but you need the ski to perform on the downhill.



The skis I have today are the shortest, yet heaviest skis I have ever owned.  The only time weight is an issue is lugging them back to the car.  The rest of the time they are flat on the snow, where they belong.  I don't notice the weight difference at all when skiing.  In fact, I call them my "snow magnets", the way they just stay flat, but continue to accellerate.


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 25, 2005)

billski said:
			
		

> riverc0il said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Foam or wood core?

M


----------



## billski (Oct 25, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> billski said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wood.  Arf Arf.  :beer:


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 25, 2005)

billski said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DRAT i need one of you to be on the side im leaning towards....GRRRRRR 

M


----------



## billski (Oct 25, 2005)

*not*



			
				SkiDog said:
			
		

> billski said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Statistics sez....
TWO does NOT constitute a trend or pattern....
not enuf data to make a good decision..
p.s., didn't someone say DEMO??? :wink:


----------



## GrizzlyFD (Oct 25, 2005)

Three words...foam is CHEAP.

This is why it is used.  Foam is typically a polymeric species (the same material that makes up a ski base, water bottles, etc...)  that is held together by the cohesiveness of the individual molecules.  This cohesiveness breaks down very quickly when put under flexing stress.  Conversely, wood fibers are very tightly held together and have an excellent cohesiveness.  

One of the bigest concerns over wood-core skis is the unstable quality of the wood used for the skis.  If you have ever been to the building materials at home depot, you can see the incredible variation in quality of the wood.  Foam is supposed to provide a uniform material that will always perform the same.  Some manufacturers have addressed this concern with their wood-core skis.

Volkl has its own "forest" of poplar trees so that the material they use is always very consistent and high quality.  That is one of the reason why volkl is $$, but last a long time.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 25, 2005)

regarding the money issue, there are a lot of foam skis that are quite expensive when compared to their wood counterparts.

that said, what happened to all you rossi folks?  we had a "what ski do you use" thread not to long ago and rossi had a lot of committed users.  wonder where they all went?  :lol:

the wood vs. foam issue will become less and less meaningful as more and more ski companies are using hybrid core components mixing in metal elements and so on.  i still love a solid wood core to build around though.
:beer:


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 25, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> the wood vs. foam issue will become less and less meaningful as more and more ski companies are using hybrid core components mixing in metal elements and so on.  i still love a solid wood core to build around though.
> :beer:



 I don't know about other ski companies, but I know there is no plan to switch from wood core at Nordica.


----------



## bill9009 (Oct 25, 2005)

My new Fischers are using this combo;

The chassis or core is produced with a combination of carbon fiber, titanium and premium wood, giving each ski ideal characteristics for the plethora of snow conditions they will master. Carbon fiber and titanium are torsionally rigid, yet lightweight; and wood stringers down the center axis of the ski give it the perfect desired longitudinal flex. Each AMC model features a unique mold and chassis material blend


http://www.fischerski.com/upload/pi...logy_big_b51409fecb41469a555088cab13ce071.img

I guess we'll see how it works in a week or so!!!


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 25, 2005)

bill9009 said:
			
		

> I guess we'll see how it works in a week or so!!!



Fischer makes great skis, you'll be fine as long as they're right for your style, terrain preferances and skill level.


----------



## bill9009 (Oct 25, 2005)

I hope so, I dropped close to a grand on them!


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 25, 2005)




----------



## SkiDog (Oct 26, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> regarding the money issue, there are a lot of foam skis that are quite expensive when compared to their wood counterparts.
> 
> that said, what happened to all you rossi folks?  we had a "what ski do you use" thread not to long ago and rossi had a lot of committed users.  wonder where they all went?  :lol:
> 
> ...



I skied Rossi Vipers for years....one pair...many bumps...many hits...many (about 4 20+days seasons) and I still have them kicking around..I think they were 201cm's..Never felt them lose any "pop"....like I have continuously maintained....I must not have the "feel"...or maybe I just dont care..??

M


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 26, 2005)

Just so all of you know..I am thinking of the foam core only because I liked the demo salomons I rode last 2 seasons, and I have a buddy that works at a ski shop...I get roughly 50% of retail...so I think i'll be picking up a pair of Guns or Foils for arouns $250...even if they don't last all that long it'll be ok...freerides too...no doubt..

M


----------



## billski (Oct 26, 2005)

*go for it*



			
				SkiDog said:
			
		

> Just so all of you know..I am thinking of the foam core only because I liked the demo salomons I rode last 2 seasons, and I have a buddy that works at a ski shop...I get roughly 50% of retail...so I think i'll be picking up a pair of Guns or Foils for arouns $250...even if they don't last all that long it'll be ok...freerides too...no doubt..
> 
> M



If YOU like them and they keep you grinnin', GO FOR IT!  The whole point here is to have FUN!


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 26, 2005)

*Re: go for it*



			
				billski said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you got it...besides im going to win the lottery so moeny wont be an issue...YEAH RIGHT... 

M


----------



## RossiSkier (Nov 2, 2005)

Honestly I'm not sure.  My skis are wood core.  The high end Rossi's, B3 and B2 are foam core.  The B1 is wood core.  So the only thing that proves is that the foam core skis are more expensive.


----------



## NYDrew (Nov 15, 2005)

I've broken 3 foam core skis in 1.5 years, even with all the titanium bells and whistles.  Yet in the 8 years prior to that I never broke a wood core ski (well, damaged one, but still skiiable)

Of course I'm not including smashing the things into trees rocks and etc.  just to be clear, Im just talking about camber related damage.

You should have seen the 2005 atomic C11 after 1 month of mogul runs.  You could have mistaken it for Lo mein.


----------



## Vano (Nov 22, 2005)

2 years ago in South America, I did a risky thing by going out of bounds in an area that had thin snow cover.  I was flying down at top speed (as fast as my legs could handle) and hit a large rock hiding an inche under the fresh snow.  My right ski stayed at the place of impact, while i flew 50 feet.  The skis were K2 Seth Pistols - heavy wood core.

The gash in the ski was over a foot long, along the ski edge and was deep enough to see the core of the skis (all base mateiral was gone). The ski shop filled it in with P-tex and 15 minute later i was back at it.  That was 30+ ski days ago and the skis are still going strong.

Wood core all the way!

People have been telling me though that Atomic makes skis with carbon that are as durable... is this true?


----------



## RossiSkier (Nov 25, 2005)

Vano said:
			
		

> People have been telling me though that Atomic makes skis with carbon that are as durable... is this true?



Atomic is using nanotechnology to make materials that they claim to be up to 50 times stronger and lighter than ordinary steel.  According to their latest billing, "They've injected nanoscopic silicon oxide crystals into the tiny voides between carbon fibers...result is a super light ski that provides twice the stability and 22% more power in it's return flex.

Here's a write-up on the Atomic site:

http://winter.atomicski.com/technology.php


----------



## RossiSkier (Nov 25, 2005)

I have been reading up on the foam vs. wood debate, and have spoken to some knowledgable persons in regards to this debate.

There is a big difference in the two types of foam cores:

1) Injected foam cores - material is squirted through the tail to fill a hollow ski, and are basically unreliable and inferior to wood core skis.

2) Milled foam cores - Cured foam blanks are precisely cut to shape and then laid up in the ski the way wood cores are. They can be just as good as, and in some ways better (damper, more predictable) than, wood.

So injected foam cores are garbage skis.  Milled foam cores are in some of the most expensive and best performing skis in the market.


----------



## skibum1321 (Nov 29, 2005)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> Atomic is using nontechnology to make materials that they claim to be up to 50 times stronger and lighter than ordinary steel.


Do you mean nanotechnology?


----------



## SkiDog (Nov 29, 2005)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> I have been reading up on the foam vs. wood debate, and have spoken to some knowledgable persons in regards to this debate.
> 
> There is a big difference in the two types of foam cores:
> 
> ...



Anyone know whos makes what? Atomic, salamon? Do they Mill or Inject?

thanks.

M


----------



## RossiSkier (Nov 30, 2005)

skibum1321 said:
			
		

> RossiSkier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah, i meant nano.  type too fast sometimes.


----------



## RossiSkier (Nov 30, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Anyone know whos makes what? Atomic, salamon? Do they Mill or Inject?
> 
> thanks.
> 
> M



I would think that you have to break it down ski by ski.  For Rossi, there's milled foam cores in B4, B3, and B2.  But they make a ton of garbage rental skis that I suspect they would blow the foam into.
Ski manufacturers don't always provide the insight to the core of their skis in their descriptions.


----------



## RossiSkier (Dec 1, 2005)

> Many factors come into play in the overall construction of a ski; its wood core is only part of the performance equation. Wood usually costs more, which adds to the perception that it's a superior material. And foam is usually used in low-end skis. That's not just because it's cheaper (it is), but because it's also more consistent and yields a more forgiving ski appropriate for beginners and intermediates. Wood-core skis must be assembled by hand, whereas foam can be cheaply injected.
> 
> But at the high end, there are companies, including Rossi and Atomic, who make damn good skis using sophisticated foams, which are milled (at considerable expense) into core shapes and then laid by hand into the ski mold. The consistency and dampness of dense foam lends itself well to racing and high-speed arcing.
> 
> Wood tends to be a little livelier, snappier and certainly a shade more durable than foam.


Milled Foam Core Ski users: Atomic - Bode Miller, Daron Rahlves, Hermann Maier, Aksel Lund, et. al.


----------



## Phildozer (Dec 1, 2005)

I've been skiing a pair of Atomic 9.18s for four years and they're fantastic. 

I was skiing at www.valinouet.qc.ca two years ago and after a long day got lazy and went head-first into a huge rock.  Fortunately for me, it was loaded with the deep powder that the area is known for so I wasn't hurt.  Double fortunately, the ski was fine too, which shocked the dickens out of me.

The "foam sucks" mantra is old and outdated.


----------



## freestyle-skibum (Dec 7, 2005)

Wood all the way, foam brakes down to easy ad that would ruin a good day of skiing, also the wood is more sturdy and when ur braking through crud snow, there isnt as much give as a foam core would give


----------



## RossiSkier (Dec 8, 2005)

freestyle-skibum said:
			
		

> Wood all the way, foam brakes down to easy ad that would ruin a good day of skiing, also the wood is more sturdy and when ur braking through crud snow, there isnt as much give as a foam core would give



So your wood core skis are more sturdy thru crud than a pair of Atomic Metron B5's or Rossi B2's,both with a milled foam core?    :lol: 

Maybe you're thinking of the injected foam cores in of an old pair of rental skis.


----------



## JimG. (Dec 8, 2005)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> freestyle-skibum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've tried the Atomics and the B2's with the milled foam cores...they just don't stack up to a good wood core ski. I especially didn't like any of the Atomics and I thought it was funny that the rep I demoed from was touting the idea that the synthetic material they use is "just like wood".  

 :idea: Well, then I'll just stick to wood because those skis didn't ski like a wood core ski. :idea: 

Just my opinion.


----------



## RossiSkier (Dec 8, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> RossiSkier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jim, I'd love a 2006 B1 with the new midfat waste.  They're wood core.  I'm drooling for a pair. And I could get a pair for 18.5 cans of baby formula.


----------



## JimG. (Dec 8, 2005)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> Jim, I'd love a 2006 B1 with the new midfat waste.  They're wood core.  I'm drooling for a pair. And I could get a pair for 18.5 cans of baby formula.



Ah yes, I remember the days when purchases were tabulated in terms of number of cans of formula. It's amazing how expensive it is!

I'm going to demo those B1's this weekend at Hunter, if I can get my hands on a pair. They'll probably be beating people off of them with sticks-they're getting alot of press.


----------



## RossiSkier (Dec 8, 2005)

It was so smart of Rossi to make the B1 an all mountain midfat.  Maybe next year.


----------



## Chris_skis (Dec 8, 2005)

I've heard this type of argument on skis or boots for a long time.

Shaped or straits,
Soft or hard,
3 buckles or 4 buckles.

I think that you get what you pay for.

A $200 pair of skis will suck no matter it is made of wood or foam.


----------



## RossiSkier (Dec 9, 2005)

Chris_skis said:
			
		

> I've heard this type of argument on skis or boots for a long time.
> 
> Shaped or straits,
> Soft or hard,
> ...



Good 6th post dude! ha ha. . 2 bucks - the ski sucks


----------



## skidmarks (Dec 30, 2005)

Core is a non issue. It's only part of the design and most Companies use both. Go play on your wood Tennis Racket and golf clubs.


----------



## RossiSkier (Jan 3, 2006)

skidmarks said:
			
		

> Core is a non issue. It's only part of the design and most Companies use both. Go play on your wood Tennis Racket and golf clubs.



Huh?


----------



## madskier6 (Jan 4, 2006)

> Core is a non issue. It's only part of the design and most Companies use both.



You can't be serious.  If core is a non-issue then what in your opinion makes all the various skis ski and feel differently on the mountain and in various conditions?  While design and construction methods are also important, core is very important. I think the ski manufacturers and a lot of the gear experts would strongly disagree with this point of view.



> Go play on your wood Tennis Racket and golf clubs.



Are you suggesting that the use of wood cores are as outdated as wooden tennis rackets and wooden golf clubs?  Volkl, Dynastar and K2 (along with many other ski manufacturers) would strongly disagree with you (as would the skiers that love the wood core skis that they make).

Please explain what you mean by your post on the wood vs. foam core issue.


----------



## Marc (Jan 5, 2006)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> Vano said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a neat concept and all, but it really isn't nanotechnology.  That's all marketing hype.  They even claim right on their website:

"Nanotechnology, the science of manipulating materials at the molecular level — about one 80,000th the diameter of a human hair."

They're not manipulating anything at the molecular level.  They found some chemical process to achieve this desire affect, that's all.  They're not injecting anything at the molecular level.  Could you imagine how long that would take to make a sheet of material big enough to make a ski core?  It's rediculous.

True nanotechnology is what they said, actually manipulating molecules and atoms.  Like making molecular gears and motors and such.  Like when IBM first did this:







Atomic claiming this as nanotechnology is like claiming high carbon steel is nanotechnology because the carbon atoms find their way into interstitial spaces in the iron atoms.  Just dumb marketing hype.  The ski industry is plagued by it.


----------



## RossiSkier (Jan 9, 2006)

Wow Marc.  Good post. Those LIARS at Atomic.  Well I would still LOVE a pair of B5's.


----------



## Marc (Jan 10, 2006)

RossiSkier said:
			
		

> Wow Marc.  Good post. Those LIARS at Atomic.  Well I would still LOVE a pair of B5's.



Heh, yes, a poor marketing department is no reason to judge the quality of their skis, only the quality of their management.

Like I said, near every major ski manufacturer uses some sort of meaningless hype to draw in the "gotta have it" crowd.

They don't market towards the "gotta ski it" crowd, because that type of consumer is going to select the ski based on its merits and not its advertisements.  That's why I like hanging around here, and having these threads.


----------

