Foam vs. Wood

[NYDrew]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Vano

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RossiSkier

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]

Originally Posted by RossiSkier

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.

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

thanks.

M

[RossiSkier]

Originally Posted by skibum1321

Do you mean nanotechnology?

yeah, i meant nano. type too fast sometimes.

[RossiSkier]

Originally Posted by SkiDog

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]

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]

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.