Author Topic: Can a Head Monster 82 float as well as a Volant Spatula?  (Read 816 times)

Barrettscv

  • Guest
Can a Head Monster 82 float as well as a Volant Spatula?
« on: September 23, 2006, 07:01:53 am »
Gary & Ron are a little shocked (and more than a little amused) that I would add a Volant Spatula to my quiver. The Volant Spatula was made for one year, only 300 pair were made, and its a very specialized powder ski with a reverse sidecut of 120-125-115mm and reverse camber.

The ironic fact is that at 220 lbs, the Spatula will give me about the same float as Gary will enjoy with his Monster 82's. How is that possible? Gary weights in at less than 160 Lbs. PhysicsMan provides the following data:

"The following is copied over (with slight modifications) from http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...=000089#000016 , in the EpicSki Academy Planning forum:

One should be very careful about extrapolating from one's own experience using normal width skis in soft snow when making ski recommendations for people of substantially different weights. Here's why:

Lets assume that there is some validity to the oft-heard claim that mid-80's skis are the best thing since sliced bread for average weight guys (say, 175 lbs) in soft snow. Then, one can estimate the width of a ski that would give the same amount of float to a skier of a different weight. Here's a table that does this:

(lbs)..(mm)
100.....49
120.....58
140.....68
160.....78
180.....87
200.....97
220....107
240....117
260....126

Thus, if you are a little slip of a 120 lb woman, you will have the exact same float on a 58 mm wide pair of skinny boards that Mr. Average Guy (at 175 lbs.) has on his 85 mm "lite-fat" skis.

Basically, on any sub-70 mm ski currently being sold (because they are all greater than 60 mm), Ms. 120 Pounder will sink in less than Mr. Average Guy on his Rex's, so its to be expected that a light weight person might not fully appreciate the need for fatties (at least from direct personal experience).

At the other end of the spectrum, at 210 lbs, I will need to be on 100 - 105 mm boards to achieve the same float as Mr. Average Guy on his sticks.

Bottom line - guys, especially big guys, have a valid point in wanting to be on wide skis in soft snow. And, to head off any comments, yes, we have all skied powder in 207 cm long, 64 mm straight sticks from the past, so fatties are not absolutely required, but sure are fun and make marginal snow much easier.

This issue has been discussed *many* times before on Epic, for example, most recently:

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...=004721#000009 (particularly, my msg posted November 10, 2003 11:34 AM in that thread)

And also, about a month ago:

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=1;t=004585 and

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...1;t=004571;p=1

HTH,

Tom / PM

[ December 11, 2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]"

The interesting part of the comparison is that when Gary, Ron & I ski Beaver Creek this year, I'll be equally equipped in powder but disabled on hardpack.

Cheers,

Michael
« Last Edit: September 25, 2006, 07:15:47 pm by Barrettscv »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739

As well, maybe.  Different, certainly. 

Actually, I don't think surface area is particularly relevant in this case.  I'm making up the percentages, but the 1/3 of the Spatula that is under you feet may be providing 2/3 of the surface area with the front and back sharing the other 1/3.  On a regular ski, the 1/3 of the ski under the feet may only have 1/3 of the surface area, the front third has half of the surface area (and whatever is left for the tail).  Not only that, but a ski with a normal camber has to sink in the snow some amount before it decambers and whereas I believe the Spatula is already reverse cambered and so would turn in powder just by tipping?

My guess is that, with equivalent surface area, the Spatula floats higher on the snow and that the regular ski with the same area would have to allow the boot to sink in more before providing the same flotation.

Anyway, it will be really interesting to hear your ski review.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Barrettscv

  • Guest

As well, maybe.? Different, certainly.?

Actually, I don't think surface area is particularly relevant in this case.? I'm making up the percentages, but the 1/3 of the Spatula that is under you feet may be providing 2/3 of the surface area with the front and back sharing the other 1/3.? On a regular ski, the 1/3 of the ski under the feet may only have 1/3 of the surface area, the front third has half of the surface area (and whatever is left for the tail).? Not only that, but a ski with a normal camber has to sink in the snow some amount before it decambers and whereas I believe the Spatula is already reverse cambered and so would turn in powder just by tipping?

My guess is that, with equivalent surface area, the Spatula floats higher on the snow and that the regular ski with the same area would have to allow the boot to sink in more before providing the same flotation.

Anyway, it will be really interesting to hear your ski review.

Hi Jim,

I agree that comparing the Spat to any ski but the Pontoon is problematic. However, the reverse sidecut of 120-125-115 makes a rectangle. The ski is almost straight-sided, unlike the shape of other modern skis which are deeply sidecut. The load on all skis is generally underfoot due to flex that allows the waist to sink in 3D conditions regardless of camber.

As you know, juggling a wide range of variables such as length, width (tip, waist & tail), camber, flex becomes very difficult an can only be accomplished by a few industry specific engineers. Even then, a little finesse and luck are required to resolve most ski design problems.

However, the original point concerning surface area is both simple & valid. A heavier skier needs a wider, more specialized ski for flotation than a lighter skier.

I skied powder last year with my 130 Lbs daughter who was on her 112-72-96mm Fischers. She had ample float, the same as another female skier I've skied powder with and who uses a Head Lightning 70. Yet very few adult male skiers would ever consider a <80mm ski to be suitable for high altitude deep powder.

The point remains, most above-average sized male skiers require a 90mm or wider ski for the kind of powder found in Utah, for example. Finding a versatile ski in this category is difficult at best.

Cheers,

Michael



« Last Edit: September 24, 2006, 07:40:43 am by Barrettscv »

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Ok Michael, I would agree with you regarding using that formula as a guidline. It really makes sense. My wife on her 72mm Heads was floating in knee high powder, (my knees,  up to her thighs) with no difficulty in the same terrain I was in on my 77's. She actually had more float on her 72's than I had on my 77's.

I'm just saying the Spatula's versatility range is not as large say as the Salomon's you're looking at.

Still, it is a very cool ski which I'm sure are spectucular performers in the deep.

It will be interesting to see if any other manufacturer finds any value in that shape technology to replicate it for their skis. I'm hoping your bringing it to BC so we can give it a ride!

It sure is going to be an eye catcher at the mountain.

Gary

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
I am a bit of a doubting Thomas with regards to the formula. OK, math was never one of my fortes but what i think gets lost here is technique and terrain. What I mean is yes, maybe mathmatically, these numbers are correct but it doesn't take into effect skiers weight distribution, skiing technique, skill level and pitch of terrain. All that said, my only question about the spatulas is where in the heck are you going to ski them? I bet they are an absolute dream in super light, deep (3') pow and that would be a blast. The 82's would be floundering for sure.

Barrettscv

  • Guest
Hey Ron,

Owning Spatula is a bit like owning a convertible in Alaska, not for everyday. However, owners that I have spoken with explain than only a thin-soft layer on the surface is required for use. The sliding ski will build a wedge of snow underneath the ski and the skier will surf on this wedge. I'm actually hoping for a warm November day in Wisconsin so I can learn to balance on this thing before arriving in BC. I'll look a little out-of-place at the bunny hill.

I also plan to use the skis above 7000 feet where thaw-freeze cycles are rare. Early morning ice on hardpack will be impossible, Ill have to use something else or walk. Skiing hardpack in transit to deep snow will be a challenge in general. In Utah & Colorado groomed slopes are often soft enough for this thin-soft layer to exist. The ski does not require bottomless powder to operate, a thin-soft layer will do it.

Keep in mind that I own seven usable adult male skis, five of these are listed below as father & son. So the the Spatula will only see duty within 48 hours of a serious dump. The Intuitive 74 will be my boot-top deep snow ski. The RX8 will probably also travel with me to BC if the snow is very hard, for example. Yes, I'll be lugging 3 ski to Colorado, a little ridicules, I know.

Two years ago when I joined Realskiers you all were a little surprised that I owned a quiver and that I liked Fischer skis, neither of those preferences seem strange anymore. I do think that 190 Lbs plus people need a 95mm or wider ski for deep snow.

A super wide ski and an all-mountain ski is about as different as a boat is from a car. A car needs a hard surface to operate and a boat needs a liquid surface to float in. My Fischer WC RC is my "Porsche Turbo", The Spatula is my "Cigarette" and by Intuitive 74 is my basic SUV. All new with bindings for less than $1000 total.

Cheers

Michael






« Last Edit: September 25, 2006, 01:03:36 pm by Barrettscv »

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
My post was bout Gary getting his 82's home. I skied on mine last season.  I have no issues with your purchase, For me, I don't to ski in the terrain they will excel in. I am hoping that you get plenty of use in BC in December!  gary and i will have to go rent to keep up with you.  Enjoy!!!

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Ok boys...I'm taking those Spitn' Spat's down the first groomed run in the am...

Michael, I think it's an absolute rip you bought them just because! I'm sure when the crud is boot high or the powder is even higher, they will be usable, fun, and cake staying on top.

Carving...uh, nope...but swiveling, sliding, wiggling, and surfiing...yep
Still, I want to roll those babies over on edge and see where they turn!

Now, Mr. Ron.....I've skied my 77's in 3 foot of powder. My 82's will be? taking me there and then some.
No problem for me following anyone into thigh high snow....If it gets to be hip high, I'll be heading for the rental shop for some 88's or B4's...some other Big Fats!
Me and Michael are taking ya deep Ronnie boy....well if we get lucky enough.

But for knee high powder, our 82's will do the dancing, ya just do the leading!

Gary

Barrettscv

  • Guest
Ok boys...I'm taking those Spitn' Spat's down the first groomed run in the am...

Carving...uh, nope...but swiveling, sliding, wiggling, and surfiing...yep
Still, I want to roll those babies over on edge and see where they turn!

Gary

Hi Gary

Well stated as usual, although tilt and turn (PMTS?) is not the formula in deep snow regardless of ski type.

While this is the most specialized ski I've ever owned, I did do my homework. For example... (from Tyrone Shoelaces http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=43271&highlight=powder+Spatula )

"IMO, I'm not a big fan of skis with a lot of traditional sidecut in powder because of the "hooky" feeling you mention above that can occur in skis with greater ammounts of sidecut.

Everyone's mileage may vary a bit, but when I'm skiing powder, I'm generally not the type to bounce the same, slow, short radius turns all the way to the bottom (think Powder 8's), but I have more fun by getting the ski up on top of the snow and maching larger GS turns (think wide, Snowboard type turns). I also like to take air on powder days, which lends itself to lots of high-speed run outs in powder fields. A ski with lots of traditional sidecut doesn't allow me to this as easily as a straighter fat ski or one with reverse camber.

Reason being that, because I enjoy big arcs & speed in powder and would rather the skis plane on top of it, rather than sink down in it, I want my powder skis to have some of the following characteristics:

-If I'm on a traditionally shaped ski (in my case, 188 Bro Models), I'm going to want something that's relatively straight (think turn radius in the 30M+ range) and I also want the ski to have at least a difference of 10 mm between the tip width and the tail width (in the case of the Bro Model this difference is 11 mm as it has a 125mm tip and 114mm tail). This tip-to-tail "taper" amount helps the tail of the ski sink in soft snow popping the tip of the ski up (pretty much the intended puropose of a swallowtail), allowing you to get a more aggressive stance on the ski w/o worry of the tip diving. On a ski with a lot more sidecut, or with tip-to-tail taper of less than 10 mm, or with a ski with tighter turn radius, the ski wants to make its natural shaped arc in the snow (the hooky feeling) which I'm generally fighting against because of my powder skiing style.

-If I'm on a "new age" powder ski (to use the term in the thread title), I'm going to be surfing on top of the snow, and all the stuff about tip-to-tail taper, turn radius, etc I mentioned above gets thrown out the window. Shane McConkey's explanation above is probably the best description of how these skis works so I'm not even going to try and one-up that, but I can say that these skis are useful in a wider array of conditions than most people think.

I spent sometime on Spatulas before I sold them on got some DP Lotus 138's last season (192 cm, flex 2, 140-138-139 published dimensions). And while these skis are amazing in powder for the reasons McConkey explained detailed above, they're also great in breakable crust, heavy mank, and virtually any off-piste condition. I've literally skied runs that went from powder up high to breakable crust toward the bottom....and while on my Lotus's, I was able to carry the same speed out of the powder into the crust without missing a beat, slowing down, backing down, or changing my skiing style. The reverse camber of the ski, allows the ski to plane on top of the snow surface which greatly levels the playing field in variable conditions.

Also, the Lotus's dimensions could easily be extended to include another sit of dimensions for the tip & tail. Although DP publishes 140-138-139...this really doesn't tell the whole story of the ski....as the tip is way less than 140 and the tail is way less than 139. Like the Armada ARG, 5 sets of numbers are best to describe it....i.e. the Lotus 138 is probably something like 120-140-138-139-125 round abouts (didn't go out and measure them). This narrower, torpedo shaped tip having the widest part of the ski just behind it works in conjunction with the reverse camber to pop that tip of the ski up on top of the snow and keep it there. It really is amazing. I've never skied powder at "groomer speeds" until I got on this ski, and it really lets you do some amazing things with natural terrain features that just wouldn't possible on traditionally shaped skis.

It's a great time to be a skier these days with all these new shapes coming out and all of this experimentation going on."

Also Read http://www.fuzeqna.com/evogear/consumer/kbdetail.asp?kbid=61 to see a copy of the Shane McConkey "Owners Handbook" for the Spats.

Cheers

Michael
« Last Edit: September 25, 2006, 04:22:30 pm by Barrettscv »

jbotti

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 400 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 961
The key will be your review Michael. We know that you can ski and that you can carve and we also know that you're not 26!! I will say again that I have heard nothing but great comments from the hot dogs at Squaw that ride the Spatulas. I like what the reviewer said about the different style of skiing powder. Big mach GS turns at speed or the Powder 8 approach. At Squaw all anyone wants to do is the former. I guess the question on the Spatulas is whether they allow one to powder 8 a run, or are they just made for speed.

I can tell you that at my age, I need to be able to powder 8 some. Hardly turning on 45 degree pitches at Squaw makes you feel old in a hurry.

Can't wait until you take these out in some serious Pow, so we can hear your thoughts. JB.


Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Yep Michael, I follow your train of thought.

Can see some serious advantage with the big fats for those high speed staying on top big turns.

My personal experience in powder at Alta, Vail, and Aspen, was all inbounds skiing with your standard selection of trees, and other skiers skiing and falling around you.
Don't get to much of a chance for the big run out GS turns with inbounds skiing. even the stuff higher up sometimes can be pretty narrow in spots.

Powder technique does require being more centered, upright and skiing your boards flat. Slight pressuring of the edges, compression and extension round off the primary tools in making yahoo turns on a knee high day.

Still I think that the Spat's can be used effectively on crud and mush snow days like I had a Loveland in April 2 years ago. Frozen crust on top with mush snow at mid mountain. Plenty of room for the Spats to run there.

With the nice variety of skis you have along with the broad selection of coverage for terrain and conditions, my only concern would be do I bring a Winnebago or a panel van!

Best Michael..can't wait to turn em loose at the Beav!
Gary

PS I'll check out those web site's and get me some "Spat Education".