# A Downside to Shaped Skis?



## HDHaller (Dec 22, 2005)

Okay... a question for all of you gear heads: *Is there a downside to shaped skis?*
Why does Glen Plake still swear by straight, 200+ cm skis ala 1986? Just to be a character? Are we skiers, or is our sport, paying any sort of price for the parabolic revolution that has changed our equipment so radically over the past 20 years?

-HDH


----------



## smootharc (Dec 22, 2005)

*I held out on the old school boards for years....*

....but am since converted.  I cannot find any advantage to switching back to my long, "straight" boards.  

Shaped skis made me instantly better.  What the heck did I wait so long for ?

God bless plake....and his choices point out there is no right or wrong.  But for the average skier, why not use a nice new 4wd car instead of a 1968 wagon.....???


----------



## JimG. (Dec 22, 2005)

Shaped skis have certainly helped less skilled skiers learn those skills more quickly and efficiently. The biggest downside to shaped skis in my book is in moguls. Huge shovels just make turning quickly in bumps a real chore. That's why I use bump skis or twin tips. I don't like too much sidecut.


----------



## Rushski (Dec 22, 2005)

If you run straight and fast, short skis will chatter and swim more than longer and skinnier.  But, if you keep the carvers on edge, they are fine.  

As for Plake, he is a legend, but him keeping the long boards is just a statement he is making.  Sure he could kick ass on shorts...


----------



## Charlie Schuessler (Dec 22, 2005)

The downside of shaped skis is that they are for groomers thus are not best for bump skiing...


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 22, 2005)

i have no issues with shapers in the bumps.  clearly, if you want to zipper line, you need straights.  other wise, it is a worth while compromise rather rhan having a ski just for bumps.

i find shapely skis don't track dead straight as well, but what is the full with pointing um straight?! :lol:

unless you are zipper lining bumps or want to have an old school glen plake image (image is everything, of course), there is no reason to use straight skis.  i can't even believe we this topic still comes up.  there is a reason ski shops don't sell straight skis any more except for a few shops catoring to bumpers.


----------



## JimG. (Dec 23, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i have no issues with shapers in the bumps.  clearly, if you want to zipper line, you need straights.  other wise, it is a worth while compromise rather rhan having a ski just for bumps.



But you do agree that shaped skis are not good for zipper line skiing. I've taken many a shaped ski into bumps; they can be skiied using very rounded turns with alot of carve, but I find skiing bumps that way to be more of a chore than a pleasure.

I agree that the all terrain skier needs a more versatile ski than a bump only ski, that's why I compromised the past few years by using twin tips. Alot of folks don't like them, but for me they make great all mountain skis. They're wider than a bump ski which makes them great in POW, but they don't have the exxagerated sidecut that makes zipperlining almost impossible.


----------



## kbroderick (Dec 23, 2005)

How do you define zipper-line skiing?  Deflection-only turns as practiced by Real Mogul Skiers, or just the practice of skiing a line that is (close to) the line skied by Real Mogul Skiers?

I ask because I've found my T-Power Vipers (same shape as a 9S from the first year super-sidecut slaloms were generally available) to be quite skiable in the bumps.  I will admit to a racing background and a complete lack of ability to ski bumps as competitive bumpers do, but I can ski a decent line on them much easier than I ever could on non-sidecut slalom skis.  I will grant you that the length difference (167cm vs 188cm for slalom skis) may have quite a bit of influence.

(Note: by "decent line," I mean "a decent line when the bumps are reasonably soft, not quite as big as my Volkswagen, and not on a particularly steep pitch.")


----------



## JimG. (Dec 23, 2005)

kbroderick said:
			
		

> How do you define zipper-line skiing?  Deflection-only turns as practiced by Real Mogul Skiers, or just the practice of skiing a line that is (close to) the line skied by Real Mogul Skiers?
> 
> I ask because I've found my T-Power Vipers (same shape as a 9S from the first year super-sidecut slaloms were generally available) to be quite skiable in the bumps.  I will admit to a racing background and a complete lack of ability to ski bumps as competitive bumpers do, but I can ski a decent line on them much easier than I ever could on non-sidecut slalom skis.  I will grant you that the length difference (167cm vs 188cm for slalom skis) may have quite a bit of influence.
> 
> (Note: by "decent line," I mean "a decent line when the bumps are reasonably soft, not quite as big as my Volkswagen, and not on a particularly steep pitch.")




When I mention zipperlining, think World Cup or Olympic bump skiing.


----------



## Vano (Jan 12, 2006)

- Shaped skis aren't all that great in deep powder and soft snow.  Big fat straight boards are usually a a better choice, not that I have ever tried them.  Most powder whores prefer straightish skis like Goats and Sumo or skis that are reverse side cut and reverse camber like Spatulas and Pontoons.

- Shaped skis are dangerous in narrow, steep chutes.  The more shape, the less the edge of the ski comes in contact with the snow.  Nothing like balancing yourself in 2 inches of edge up front and 2 inches of edge in the back with the underfoot part in the air, springloaded.  Camber makes things even worse.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 12, 2006)

One big downside: tuning them.  Using a conventional vice is difficult.


----------



## teachski (Jan 12, 2006)

Only down side I can think of is that I had to learn not to keep my feet as close together, after learning for over 30 years to get them that way.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 13, 2006)

teachski said:
			
		

> Only down side I can think of is that I had to learn not to keep my feet as close together, after learning for over 30 years to get them that way.



Another reason that shaped skis are not great in bumps.


----------



## NYDrew (Jan 13, 2006)

I'm wondering, I have become fairly proficient bump skiier on shapes.  And I still ski the traditionals when I have the bug to.  I wonder how I would do in the bumps on the strait skiis....hmmmm


----------



## skibum (Jan 15, 2006)

Didja ever notice little rooster tails of snow kicking up at the rear contact point of a shaped ski when just flat tracking straight? 
Flite Snowboards used to claim in their ads for their Weapon racing line that "too much sidecut is a drag". 
Then again that was '86, Flite has gone out of business, and I'm just a knuckledragger.


----------



## Sky (Jan 16, 2006)

I skied with one of my pals earlier this week.  The guy was a fabulous skier on his stragight skies.  Very graceful.

He and I demo-ed shaped skies together a few years ago and he hated them.

So this year, we're on the same rec race league.  He bought new gear (shaped skis included).

We were working on our "form" with a Master Race (wait....Masters Racing guy *eeeeek*) and after several runs...the guy with the new gear said...Wow, I can't believe how much easier these shaped skis are to ski on.  Normally after this many runs, I'd be exhausetd."

Downside?  Erraahhh...more time on snow prematurely ages your face?


----------



## HDHaller (Jan 16, 2006)

Miscellany:

-Have shaped skis made learning easier? Have they brought more people to the sport and thereby helped the industry?

-Do you mogul skiers think, then, that the shaped ski revolution has hurt mogul skiing in any way?

-Shaped skis have obviously made carving easier.

-Shaped ski technology has created more specialty skis and boosted the expense of the sport: more expensive skis; more types of skis to buy.

HDH


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 16, 2006)

Hype.
I'm always a bit miffed when  marketeers try to pump happy sunshine up my behind.
The arrival of shaped skis had a lot of bull with it.

Sure, this was a good innovation and it helped a lot of intermediates up the skill ladder, but frankly, I really did not see what the big hoopla was all about.
If you knew how to carve on "straight" skis, shaped skis really did not make that much of a difference.

Moguls. 
I'm also of the opinion that straight skis are better in moguls. I can get get through a nice mogul field on my shaped skis but the bigger shovels do get in the way. I still ski on straight skis if I know I'll be spending most of my time in the bumps.

One real downside here: because people are on shorter skis now, moguls are getting tighter.

Too many choices.
It's actually more difficult to find a good, all mountain ski that's a really good for most conditions.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 17, 2006)

> It's actually more difficult to find a good, all mountain ski that's a really good for most conditions.


i don't know if i would say it is _more_ difficult to find a good all mountain ski.  rather, i would say the all mountain ski itself, rather than shaped skis, are the myth being marketed by the ski industry.  instead of "all mountain ski" i think the real wording should read "one ski quiver", because that is what the "all mountain ski" really is, a HUGE compromise on various aspects of performance.  

moguls are definitely the short fall of the shaped ski, that is why the pro bumpers still ski on straight skis.

hype?  shaped skis?  not a chance.  i used to race on straight skis, the change over to shaped skis was amazing and the various shapes and side cuts in production allow for some great new ideas that allow skis to do some incredible things performance wise.


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 18, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> hype?  shaped skis?  not a chance.  i used to race on straight skis, the change over to shaped skis was amazing and the various shapes and side cuts in production allow for some great new ideas that allow skis to do some incredible things performance wise.



No hype??? Are you kidding me??
There was MEGA HYPE when this design started.

Let's be clear on definition. Hype is defined as excessive, extreme promotion, publicity of a product/idea where the reality falls short of the promise.

Phrases such as fantastic, revolutionary, incredible were and still are (see above) being freely thrown around when describing the benefits of shaped skis.
Given such sperlatives, one would expect that at the very least, maybe HALF of what was said, indeed was true.

OK, everybody's ski experience is a subjective experience, so there is no good measure of that.

However, it would be really interesting to compare racing times now and let's say 10-12 years ago (or whenever racers started to use shaped skis) in various categories (slalom, GS etc.) and see if indeed the times for the same courses have been dramatically shortened, like, let's say by half - give the mentioned superlatives. 

I don't have acces or time to dig for such records, but I'm guessing that the race course times did not improve all that much. Figure into this improvements in training methods and other idependent statistical factors and I'm willing to guess that the overall improvements due to equipment did not exceed 15%, at most. 
Prove me wrong. :idea:


----------



## kbroderick (Jan 18, 2006)

Bumpsis said:
			
		

> However, it would be really interesting to compare racing times now and let's say 10-12 years ago (or whenever racers started to use shaped skis) in various categories (slalom, GS etc.) and see if indeed the times for the same courses have been dramatically shortened, like, let's say by half - give the mentioned superlatives.
> 
> I don't have acces or time to dig for such records, but I'm guessing that the race course times did not improve all that much. Figure into this improvements in training methods and other idependent statistical factors and I'm willing to guess that the overall improvements due to equipment did not exceed 15%, at most.
> Prove me wrong. :idea:



FIS does not like change.  Therefore, FIS instituted rules to limit how much sidecut was allowable and how short skis could be:

http://www.zsv.ch/alpin/dokumente/ausruestung_fis.pdf

Also, courses are continuing to be set rounder and longer (i.e. minimum distance to travel through all gates has continued to increase), yet maximum speeds have increased (and presumably course times have decreased).  c.f.
http://www.basecampgroup.com/da/26901



			
				Daron Rahlves said:
			
		

> Biggest advancement in equipment technology:
> 
> “Skis, for sure. Skis have progressed so much in the last 10 years. You look at skis 10 years ago and you just laugh at the way they look. The way they build them—construction, side cut of it, base material—has changed a bunch and that’s what’s allowing us to turn so well and go so fast these days. Even in downhill, they’ve had to restrict us a little bit by putting bigger, sweeping turns on the courses and changing certain sections in Kitzbuuhel just because the speeds are too fast now with the equipment that we have.”


from http://www.usolympicteam.com/73_40329.htm

The differences in course set in technical events has been even more dramatic; although I don't know if you could find good measurements to prove it, gate offset increased substantially in the winter of 99-00 alone, and I think it had been increasing more slowly prior to that.

Thus, due to multivariate changes, one cannot conclude that ski shapes have not changed in a revolutionary manner in the past ten years.

I would suggest another aspect to consider:  look at how many beginners accidentally make carved or semi-carved turns today versus how many did so ten years ago.  Shaped skis encourage better skiing even amongst those who don't know any different, or perhaps particularly in those who don't know any different, as they easier to use when controlling speed with turn shape versus simply using the ski as a braking device (e.g. in a power wedge).


----------



## ssusca (Jan 24, 2006)

I think the advent of the shaped skis has made me an all around better skier.  I have been skiing for 26 years and noticed a marked improvement in my skiing ability when I got my first pair of shaped skis.  And with each new genreation of skis that come out, the dimensions are tweaked a little to make them better in all conditions and terrain.  Because shaped skis allow one to carve a better arc on a shorter length, I now ski on much shorter skis.  Now that I am skiing 168s instead of 195s, I find that I can ski the bumps much better.   The shorter length allows me to turn the skis quicker in the bumps and I don't seem to get hung up in the troughs as much.  Yes, I agree that the wide shovel can get in the way at times, but I think that the shorter length makes up for it, even in that pathetic excuse for a zipperline that I attempt to ski.


----------



## JD (Jan 25, 2006)

Totally agree about carvers or mid fats in fresh snow.  Sucky.  Super Hooky at speed.  Straighter Fatter boards are the way.  Taper is more important the side cut.  

OT:  the reverse side cut thing really intrigues me.  Currently I ski on some modified Axiomes (the old ones) with a slight reverse camber (front of the ski only) in a 165cm.  About perfect for sniggling VT maple Glades.  

Looking forward to the DB Skis being readily available.  The Tabla Rossa looked pretty awesome.

In the meantime, building a press in the bike shop next door...I have a dream about skis shaped like surf boards.  And reverse side cut split boards for my knuckle dragging friends... :beer:


----------



## HDHaller (Jan 31, 2006)

Bumpsis said:
			
		

> No hype??? Are you kidding me??
> 
> There was MEGA HYPE when this design started...
> Phrases such as fantastic, revolutionary, incredible were and still are (see above) being freely thrown around when describing the benefits of shaped skis....
> ...



Yeah, I see it the way Bumpsis sees it, probably because I spend a lot of time in the bumps. 

For bump skiers, the shaped ski revolution was a non-event, or even worse than a non-event; shaped skis actually detracted from performance in the moguls. And they came with no disclaimer (e.g. "these new skis will be great on the groomers, but will do nothing to improve your mogul skiing), so there was even this time of confusion for bumpers (Are these new skis for us or not?)

Bump skiers were ignored, because the industry didn't want to admit to any shortcomings at all in the new technology. Manufacturers simply never talked about shaped skis and moguls... they ignored the topic, left it unexplained to, and not understood by, most skiers.

-HDH


----------



## JimG. (Jan 31, 2006)

HDHaller said:
			
		

> Yeah, I see it the way Bumpsis sees it, probably because I spend a lot of time in the bumps.
> 
> For bump skiers, the shaped ski revolution was a non-event, or even worse than a non-event; shaped skis actually detracted from performance in the moguls. And they came with no disclaimer (e.g. "these new skis will be great on the groomers, but will do nothing to improve your mogul skiing), so there was even this time of confusion for bumpers (Are these new skis for us or not?)
> 
> ...



I agree with both of you...and HD, you're right that bump skiers are ignored. Completely ignored. And not just by the ski manufacturers. Want to buy some real bump skis? Better plan to buy in the late summer when new models are released or you'll get shut out. And that's if you're lucky enough to even find a source.

Snowboarders get a bad rap, but at least they are catered to with terrain parks, pipes, and terrain features set up specifically for them.

Bumpers get squat.


----------



## WICKEDBUMPER (Jan 31, 2006)

[/quote]Bumpers get squat.[/quote]

not only do we get squat, we get our old bump runs taken away and turned into parks or flattened into pancakes.  Bear at Killington is'nt even for bumpers anymore. Those "blue" trails on Bear were once "black" and bumpped.  
Hell, most resorts dont even let bumps develop. As soon as a bump starts...it gets mowed.

Its like "Thanks for that ONE designated bump trail. next time could you make it more then 10 bumps long?"  
thank god jetblue flies to Denver pretty cheap these days.


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 31, 2006)

Let's be clear here.  Only for zipperlining hard, WC style moguls and WC style downhill courses are shaped skis at a disadvantage.  So that's what - 1% of the skier population?  For most "normal" folk, which includes experts who can zipperline the small soft ones, shaped skis are just fine and perform as well as straights (and much better on everything else).

As for the comments that straight skis can carve, sure they can - at 40 mph super long radius turns by a highly skilled individual.  Not sure I want many people around me like that on a crowded weekend.

I have Metron 11's which are about as shaped as you can get. They carve railroad tracks at 10 mph in near ice conditions and blast through waist deep powder at speed with ease.  Can any straight ski come close to that?  No.  These posts should have ended 5 years ago.


----------



## JimG. (Jan 31, 2006)

goldsbar said:
			
		

> Let's be clear here.  Only for zipperlining hard, WC style moguls and WC style downhill courses are shaped skis at a disadvantage.  So that's what - 1% of the skier population?  For most "normal" folk, which includes experts who can zipperline the small soft ones, shaped skis are just fine and perform as well as straights (and much better on everything else).
> 
> These posts should have ended 5 years ago.



Zipperlining World Cup style moguls IS mogul skiing...period. Just like World Cup downhill IS downhill...period. I know there will be those who vehemently disagree, but there is no argument. For that, shaped skis do not perform as well as straight skis.

So I guess in a weird way you agree with us.


----------



## dipiro (Jan 31, 2006)

goldsbar said:
			
		

> Let's be clear here. Only for zipperlining hard, WC style moguls...  are shaped skis at a disadvantage.  So that's what - 1% of the skier population?  For most "normal" folk, which includes experts who can zipperline the small soft ones, shaped skis are just fine and perform as well as straights (and much better on everything else)....
> These posts should have ended 5 years ago.



Okay, Goldsbar. I'll take that challenge. Let's be clear.

1. All mogul skiing takes place in the zipper line; for both competitive mogul skiers and recreational mogul skiers, moving the torso straight down the hill, while the skis turn beneath, is a fundamental goal of the sport.

Other skiing pastimes that happen to take place in mogul fields, but outside of the zipper line (i.e. looping around bumps, back and forth across the hill), are best described as "mogul survival." They are not really mogul skiing. If I skied switch through a slalom course, instructors and race coaches wouldn't consider it alpine racing, would they? Same thing.

2. Shaped skis absolutely underperform in all moguls. They're too eager to hook up and carve; the tips are too wide for the narrow mogul skiing stance; and the flex patterns are not ideal.

3. About the percentage of skiers who can ski moguls and therefore benefit from a good pair of straight bump skis; this percentage would vary from mountain to mountain. Out west, the percentage would be far higher than 1%, mainly because the snow is so good and the moguls are so much more skiable. But all mountains with well-established freestyle programs, even here in the east, have a good percentage of capable bump skiers, far higher than 1%. At the mountain at which I coach, several of these good mogul skiers include 11-year-old children.

But, what of your 1% figure, even if it is accurate? The whole instructing establishment ignores real mogul technique. Manufacturers downplay the bumper's equipment needs (albeit, for understandable business reasons). And ski area managers rarely provide aspiring bumpers with beginner bump terrain. Would it be any surprise that only a few people have learned to ski moguls?

I teach "normal folk" to ski the moguls all the time. Such teaching is the central mission of my book: _Everything the Instructors Never Told You about Mogul Skiing_. "Normal folk" can learn to ski moguls, with the right instruction.

4. As for your "5 years ago" comment... this is the dismissive sort of brush-off the instructing, racing and manufacturing mainstream has been giving mogul skiers for years, while mogul skiers are, arguably, among the best skiers on the mountain.

-Dan DiPiro


----------



## HDHaller (Jan 31, 2006)

dipiro said:
			
		

> goldsbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Touche!

-HDH


----------



## Marc (Jan 31, 2006)

dipiro said:
			
		

> I teach "normal folk" to ski the moguls all the time. Such teaching is the central mission of my book: _Everything the Instructors Never Told You about Mogul Skiing_. "Normal folk" can learn to ski moguls, with the right instruction.




"Abnormal folk" can learn to ski moguls as well.  I am conclusive proof of that.

 :dunce:


----------



## JimG. (Feb 1, 2006)

HDHaller said:
			
		

> dipiro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is why Dan is an author and I'm just a moderator.


----------



## goldsbar (Feb 3, 2006)

Per your definition of bump skiing, I agree with most of this though I'll have to take your word on straighlining WC style moguls as I lack both the ability and courage (I can straightline the softer, less steep ones...).  What I'm driving at is that most skiers want something that can ski most of the mountain.  Have a nice bump run, carve some RR tracks, trees, powder, etc.  Shaped skis excel at most of these tasks and are competent in others.  The downsides I've always heard mentioned are:

Moguls - I have much less aptitude then most of you but I can still zipperline the easier ones on my shaped skis.  My guess is many of you could still zipperline the WC stuff with straights [edit - meant to say shaped] - just not as well.

Powder - the old to hooky argument.  I haven't found this after spending a week in Utah powder (usually a foot or two - not chest/face shot type of days) on very short very shaped skis (Metron 11's 162).  I could see this applying to big mountain why turn style of skiing.

Speed - a valid criticism if you're talking about real, vision blurring speed (i.e. not what most recreational skiers consider fast).  At lower speeds, a little bit of edge will solve any problems.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 3, 2006)

goldsbar said:
			
		

> Per your definition of bump skiing, I agree with most of this though I'll have to take your word on straighlining WC style moguls as I lack both the ability and courage (I can straightline the softer, less steep ones...).
> 
> I have much less aptitude then most of you but I can still zipperline the easier ones on my shaped skis.  My guess is many of you could still zipperline the WC stuff with straights [edit - meant to say shaped] - just not as well.



If you like to zipperline intermediate bumps, you could do the same on the steeper lines. If you can ski intermediate terrain in the zipper, you do have the ability. And the courage.

At my age, there are days when I'm happier on lower angle bumps myself. Sometimes it's just how I feel that day. Sometimes I want to work on something in my form and just don't want to deal with ice. Sometimes the bumps get so ragged and cross cut they're no fun. And some days I just love the steep icy bumps, but I just don't ski as fast as I used to.

It has nothing to do with courage, and it's OK. Skiing is supposed to be fun.


----------



## mtnamaverick (Feb 15, 2006)

I just did a google search and found this site. I was wondering what the general concensus was about shaped skis vs straight. I have read this forum and joined.  Thanks, I got some good info from everyone. 
I personally have demo'ed and skied the shaped skis to see what the hub bud was all about. I have been skiing for a little over 40 years and have been on straight skis (and I also have snowboarded).  After trying the shaped skis I cant see what the whole thing is about. I prefer and use my 205 K2 TNC's. I also have a pair of Atomic (yellow) 203's for ice and crud.  When it comes to cruising on some straight parts of the hill I find myself coasting faster than those with shaped skis. If you learned on straight skis and have them down to your science then I suggest you stay there. You can ski shaped skis and actually I think you will not notice any difference. This is just my 2 cents worth from a west coast Big Mountain, Montana skier.  I do however agree that the learning curve is faster for the beginner to start on shaped skis, they are much more foregiving and easier to manuever.

Cowboy


----------



## JimG. (Feb 15, 2006)

Welcome aboard maverick.

Lucky you to live in Montana this winter. You guys are having an epic season so far.

I've seen some pics from Big Sky from a boarder named Hamdog on another site. WOW!


----------



## goldsbar (Feb 15, 2006)

mtnamaverick - you need to change your technique to get the most out of shaped skis.  In fact, many shaped skis are not very good at doing the skidded turns you're probably doing on your straights (unless you're some ex worldcup type of guy).  Cruising on the flats - yes, straights should be faster.  Want to rail some high-g turns on groomers or even some off-piste conditions?  That's a different story.

JimG - thanks for the mogul encouragement.  I just bought Dipiro's (sp?) book so I'll see how it goes.


----------



## JimG. (Feb 15, 2006)

goldsbar said:
			
		

> JimG - thanks for the mogul encouragement.  I just bought Dipiro's (sp?) book so I'll see how it goes.



Another who has chosen wisely.


----------



## Angus (Feb 15, 2006)

i was riding up a lift with an instructor 2 years ago talking about how I had rediscovered skiing that season. I was talking in wonder about how my last pair of skis had been 203/205 cm whereas that season I had purchased 173s having resisted the guidance of the shop the buy 168s. My general assessment was that shaped skis were "easier" to turn and manage. The instructor suggested that I would need to change my technique moderately to really enjoy all the benefits of the new shape skis - gave me a couple pointers and we parted company. last weekend, I realized that my technique has changed and I'm now really getting alot more from the skis.


----------



## mtnamaverick (Feb 24, 2006)

thanks for the feedback.... I am still going to give some shaped skis a try... being 6ft 6in I think some one recommended some 180-186 Rossinolds


----------



## JD (Feb 25, 2006)

The Dynastar Nobis in a 188 is a sick ski for a big, big Mtn. skier.  MMMMM, Nobis.


----------

