-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
last great thing in ski technology
- Thread starter RootDKJ
- Start date
riverc0il
Well-known member
I can't think of much that has come and gone. Some examples from the 2000s with on going and continuing evolution might include integrated bindings and the changing conception of what really is "fat". AT saw a lot of development including the beef boot and boots with swappable soles in a push for the "one rig quiver" that could go both resort and BC. Again, these concepts continue to develop.
I really can't think of an innovation that has come and gone. Perhaps the concept of the mid-fat being the one ski quiver solution? Now it is hard to consider 80mm underfoot mid-fat any more.
I really can't think of an innovation that has come and gone. Perhaps the concept of the mid-fat being the one ski quiver solution? Now it is hard to consider 80mm underfoot mid-fat any more.
Cannonball
Well-known member
In 1995 I remember trying out the crazy new parabolic concept. But manufacturers, shops, and skiers hadn't figured out the length thing yet. So I demo'd a pair of deep side-cut 205cm skis (I think they were K2). The shape has stayed, the length has gone. So I guess "long ski" technology has come and gone.
I also think back on this day every time I hear people say things like "you HAVE to have such-and-such new technology" or "you CAN'T ski powder without....". I took those crazy long, stiff, parabolic skis down the bumped up chutes and faces at Taos without thinking twice. New technologies are fun but they never MAKE the skier.
I also think back on this day every time I hear people say things like "you HAVE to have such-and-such new technology" or "you CAN'T ski powder without....". I took those crazy long, stiff, parabolic skis down the bumped up chutes and faces at Taos without thinking twice. New technologies are fun but they never MAKE the skier.
rear entry ski boots?
Seems like the vast majority of skiers were using them in the mid - late 80s.
Seems like the vast majority of skiers were using them in the mid - late 80s.
Nick
Well-known member
:lol:
Nick
Well-known member
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. K2 did a lot of that. I remember in 1995 I had my Pro Flex 855 and a couple years later when they got bought out by K2 they were putting chips in the elastomer dampers on their bikes. I dunno how much, if any, of a difference that made. Doesn't a chip need power?
I was going to say this. K2 had the "light" on its K2 Four that was meant to help absorb vibrations. The 'Chip' in Head's Intelligence system was meant to take it to the next step by adjusting the tension in the ski and make it respond to different terrain. I've used both. The K2 system seems more gimmicky in hindsight, but the Head Chip did work but I agree that it was too expensive to really take off.
I also agree that the "system binding" approach is not taking off. At least not for the market that AZ skiers represent (all terrain skiing). I recall skepticism from folks as to being locked in to a specific binding at purchase (terrible pun I know). FWIW the last three sets of skis don't have binding systems and I prefer them. But my on piste carvers do have a system binding and it works great for that application (albeit a heavier ski).
In terms of other technology that seemed to have come and gone, I can recall when Volant tried to convince people to "ski the steel" and when Salmon marketed a ski boot that looked and felt more like a snowboard boot. Both have disappeared.
The K2 system was meant to take the energy from the ski and convert it to light to help dampen it.
The K2 worked somewhat. If you rode a K2 Four and an El Camino (Four without the chip) the El Camino was a livelier ski.
snowmonster
Well-known member
The one I can think of is technology to stiffen your ski with all these gizmos. Rossignol had the long or short arms that you could screw on while Volkl had the dial. It was supposed to make your ski a hybrid between a short-turning slalom ski and a longer turning GS ski. They came out in the mid-2000s and I don't see the newer skis adopting this technology. Too much stuff to fiddle around with and break. I guess this is a concept that went nowhere.
About 4 years ago at the dawn of the rockered age, Rossi was messing around with a combo ski that had a switch which would bow the ski up to create an early rise. If you released the switch, the ski snapped back into regular camber. I don't think that ski went past the prototype stage. I think it was one of the first ideas nixed when Quicksilver sold the company.
About 4 years ago at the dawn of the rockered age, Rossi was messing around with a combo ski that had a switch which would bow the ski up to create an early rise. If you released the switch, the ski snapped back into regular camber. I don't think that ski went past the prototype stage. I think it was one of the first ideas nixed when Quicksilver sold the company.
FWIW I also have the Volkl Power Switch and it does make a difference. I agree that having those carbon rods in the ski do make me wonder if they will snap with a hard hit. But then again these skis are for on trail performance and that is what I use them for. I tried the Volkl Grizzly and it just did not do it for me when I was at Alta in December. (Man, K2 gizmo, Head Chip, and now this...I am 3 for 3 :lol: )
Rossignol Mutix?
changing ski stiffness technology has been around a very long time actually. Marker M1SC bindings came out in the mid-90s to do the same thing. Several bindings on the market still do this.
That's right, DHS. I recall several binding systems that had that technology. Then in 2002 or so Head developed the RailFlex system and others used similar technology.
It is interesting that the thrust of the tech developments have been aimed at skis for on-trail performance rather than off-trail. Maybe this is just my anecdotal observation. The one big exception would be rocker/reverse camber.
It is interesting that the thrust of the tech developments have been aimed at skis for on-trail performance rather than off-trail. Maybe this is just my anecdotal observation. The one big exception would be rocker/reverse camber.
The Switch stuff is still current technology. Fischer has something like it in the Progressor 10 next season.
gorgonzola
Well-known member
i'm always a bit of a skeptic and wonder what and how much is useful "technology" and how much is marketing hooey to get us to go out and buy the latest and greatest... no doubt some great improvements are born from this and either way its neccesary for product development. the fischer "hole" tip seem like a good example
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Black Mountain, NH OPEN AGAIN more alive than ever
- Latest: 2planks2coasts
-
-
Progress on Deer Valley's New Sister Resort
- Latest: raisingarizona
-
-
The Wasatch Thread: Skiing and Riding in Utah- Latest: Former Sunday Rivah Rat
-
-
