Author Topic: 19 to 33.5  (Read 1949 times)

dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2012, 06:07:44 pm »
Man, you guys are brilliant.  Why didn't I think of this sooner?

For a guy of my erm, limited stature, more stack height would be awesome!  Anybody know how many VIST plates you can stack on top of each other before you run into problems?  I've been curious what it's like to be a normal-height human, and this seems like just the ticket..

HighAngles

  • 1 Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 208
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2012, 08:04:51 pm »
I'm pretty sure the FIS rules are now 50mm for the combined stack height of the ski thickness and the binding stand height.  This was 55mm a few years ago.  They have also lowered the approved height of the bootboard at the heel of the shell.

I know that the FIS rules technically don't apply to us, but I ran most of my ski setups at 55mm a few years ago and I've also dropped them down to the more reasonable 50mm as of late.  This amount of stack height still is quite noticeable and definitely increases the sensitivity to tipping angles. 

When hyper-carving was still the rage in Europe (I think it may still be in some parts) Tyrolia had come out with a 23mm plate!  They came with "dragon brakes" that were extra long so that the brake arms would still contact the snow when released.  I still have two sets of those plates (brand new) because I just needed the dragon brakes for my setups that had 55mm stacks.  These plates will still mount the standard Head/Tyrolia bindings (screw locations haven't changed).  So if someone wants to test out a 23mm plate let me know - you'll just have to pay for shipping.

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2012, 01:29:18 pm »
Hey Greg.....we know lot's of responsibililty comes with that 50mm height....go feel and touch mandatory!

I've had two more solid days of skiing the MX7's with the 33.5mm height and it's been perfect for all day hard and soft snow conditions. It for sure was the RIGHT move!

G


HeluvaSkier

  • Consider me the reason you should pay attention...
  • Instructor
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Location: WNY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2012, 01:39:46 pm »
Incidentally the wider the ski the more a skier benefits from increased lift at the boot and binding. This is opposite of how people tend to mount their skis.
All-Mountain: A common descriptive term for boots or skis that are designed to perform equally poorly under a variety of conditions and over many different types of terrain.

dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2012, 06:03:18 pm »
Incidentally the wider the ski the more a skier benefits from increased lift at the boot and binding. This is opposite of how people tend to mount their skis.

Is this true in soft snow, too?  I've never played around with my setups enough to have any idea how much effect this would have.  I pretty much just throw together a combination and ski it as a unit.

HeluvaSkier

  • Consider me the reason you should pay attention...
  • Instructor
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Location: WNY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2012, 07:51:07 pm »
Is this true in soft snow, too?

Soft snow doesn't change where the edge is in relation to the edge of your boot.

Those who run flat setups one wide skis also prefer to ski with their skis flat as opposed to tipped on edge. No coincidence there.
All-Mountain: A common descriptive term for boots or skis that are designed to perform equally poorly under a variety of conditions and over many different types of terrain.

dan.boisvert

  • 100 Posts
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2012, 08:30:31 pm »
Huh...so what do you guys run on your powder skis?  Do you use plates on everything?  Any thoughts on the "feel for the snow" people talk about getting when they mount flat?

I figured the increased stack height eased tipping, but assumed that tipping in soft snow was so easy that the additional length on the lever arm wasn't necessary.  The widest ski I'm on with any regularity is 78mm, so I'm pretty clueless about this stuff..

HeluvaSkier

  • Consider me the reason you should pay attention...
  • Instructor
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Location: WNY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2012, 08:55:25 pm »
Huh...so what do you guys run on your powder skis?  Do you use plates on everything?  Any thoughts on the "feel for the snow" people talk about getting when they mount flat?

Those people mount flat because they cannot balance on a tipped ski in a 3-d surface, so being closer to the ski is more secure for them.

I run some type of [usually race] plate on all of my skis. Helps with leverage, stability at speed, and flex in some cases.
All-Mountain: A common descriptive term for boots or skis that are designed to perform equally poorly under a variety of conditions and over many different types of terrain.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2012, 08:57:21 pm »
Increased lift = increased leverage = easier tipping. Applies to all conditions.
But the opposite side of leverage is feel for the edges.  If you have twice as much lift, then a given variation in snow surface results in half as much feedback in the boot.
(and maybe that just supports Heluva's point, that you need sensitive feet)
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2012, 07:33:28 am »
I run some type of [usually race] plate on all of my skis. Helps with leverage, stability at speed, and flex in some cases.

The subject of plates is one I've been very curious about lately.  Besides the added stand height and the benefits of that, what are the some of the other benefits? You mentioned stability and flex.  Care to elaborate some more?

How about drawbacks? Do all types of plates always make a ski significantly stiffer? Maybe not desirable, depending on the ski and skier match, and the intended use of the ski.  Or do certain plates leave the flex pattern unchanged?

There are several different designs of plates -- some rigid from front to back, some with rubber flex joints, some plastic, some aluminum, some even have pistons in them, it seems.  Have you experimented with the different designs? Obviously some will influence flex more than others, and affect dampening too, presumably.

This might be fodder for a whole new thread.....lots of details to drill down through.  But interesting to me. There is some potential here to really change a ski's character, perhaps for the better, or not. 

« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 07:42:56 am by Svend »

Liam

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 200 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 399
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2012, 07:43:34 am »
Those people mount flat because they cannot balance on a tipped ski in a 3-d surface, so being closer to the ski is more secure for them.

And that is good reason to flat mount off-piste oriented skis: easier balance and greater security in 3D conditions, who wouldn't want that?  Why do you have to make it a put down?   I disagree that it's purely about what people can and can't do, but rather what people want to do.  Frankly, striving for big angles off-piste is a niche pursuit, we shouldn't be surprised or haughty about the corresponding niche use of risers on offpiste skis.

I will say, I drastically prefer a more powerful/ heavier binding on wider skis (I recently switched from a fairly wide but light Marker Griffon, to a heavier Look Pivot 14, and it delivers more stable power to the edge of the skis for sure). 


HeluvaSkier

  • Consider me the reason you should pay attention...
  • Instructor
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Location: WNY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2012, 09:17:07 am »
The subject of plates is one I've been very curious about lately.  Besides the added stand height and the benefits of that, what are the some of the other benefits? You mentioned stability and flex.  Care to elaborate some more?

How about drawbacks? Do all types of plates always make a ski significantly stiffer? Maybe not desirable, depending on the ski and skier match, and the intended use of the ski.  Or do certain plates leave the flex pattern unchanged?

There are several different designs of plates -- some rigid from front to back, some with rubber flex joints, some plastic, some aluminum, some even have pistons in them, it seems.  Have you experimented with the different designs? Obviously some will influence flex more than others, and affect dampening too, presumably.

This might be fodder for a whole new thread.....lots of details to drill down through.  But interesting to me. There is some potential here to really change a ski's character, perhaps for the better, or not.

That's a lot of questions! Might be better to start a new thread for a detailed answer. The short answer is they come in all shapes and sizes these days. Depending on how you want to affect the ski, you can find a plate, or a setup for a plate that will do what you want it to.
All-Mountain: A common descriptive term for boots or skis that are designed to perform equally poorly under a variety of conditions and over many different types of terrain.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2012, 09:38:58 am »
Done! New topic started.....   http://www.realskiers.smfnew.com/index.php/topic,2056.0.html

Looking forward to some good discussion on this.


HeluvaSkier

  • Consider me the reason you should pay attention...
  • Instructor
  • 100 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 156
  • Location: WNY
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2012, 10:02:02 am »
And that is good reason to flat mount off-piste oriented skis: easier balance and greater security in 3D conditions, who wouldn't want that?  Why do you have to make it a put down?   I disagree that it's purely about what people can and can't do, but rather what people want to do.  Frankly, striving for big angles off-piste is a niche pursuit, we shouldn't be surprised or haughty about the corresponding niche use of risers on offpiste skis.

Liam, it isn't a put down. It is using physics and observation of skiing style to determine why a skier would prefer a particular setup. It is not easier to balance on the ski mounted with a lower stack height; it is easier to stand flat on it. It is actually more challenging to balance on that ski when it is tipped on edge. So who wouldn't want that? Answer: A skier who is putting their skis on edge as the primary method of turning. The shorter setup offers the feeling of stability when the skis are flat to the snow. The skier who typically prefers a flat/low-stack setup, is not putting their skis on edge as the primary method of turning.

The "snow feel" difference is negligible - especially for those with good snow feel. The edge feel difference is extreme. This discussion has nothing to do with striving for big angles off-piste, and everything to do with using the skis to turn skier instead of using the skier to turn the skis. When it comes to lacking ski use, it is rarely a question of desire to use the skis, but rather a question of ability to use them. A common theme among the best skiers is their ability to extract performance out of their skis. A taller setup makes it easier to use your skis to turn. A flatter setup makes it easier to not use your skis to turn. That is physics.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 10:51:19 am by HeluvaSkier »
All-Mountain: A common descriptive term for boots or skis that are designed to perform equally poorly under a variety of conditions and over many different types of terrain.

Liam

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 200 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 399
Re: 19 to 33.5
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2012, 10:22:16 am »
Greg,

Now, that is a more thoughtful explanation.  Certainly better than your first explanation saying people don't use risers on flat skis because 'they CANNOT BALANCE on a tipped ski in 3D conditions', which is a gross generalization and a put down.  And that's what I was responding to.  I'm sorry, but I take a more positivist look at it, people set up equipment that works with what they WANT to do, not because it obviates what they Can't do.  It's a choice and a preference, not a handicap.

Also, you can't tip a ski to initiate a turn in soft snow without riser plates???   Just like on hard snow, of course you can tip to turn without an elevated binding.  And the added benefit of a lower center of gravity while playing on shifting, irregular surfaces is a benefit even an expert skier can appreciate.