Perfect New England tree ski

dlague · Oct 6, 2014

Cannonball said:
Great input.

Here's what I had in mind and a lot of what you've said confirms this: 132-100-122 in a 176-178cm ski. Still unsure about full rocker vs rocker in tip&tail with some camber underfoot.

I think some camber is necessary for two reasons 1) trees eventually will get tracked out or better yet scraped off 2) I do not know of too many resorts where tree skiing is available to the base. We have a set of fully rockered skis and they get squirrelly on groomers heading back to the lift.

.......

Cannonball · Oct 6, 2014

^ yes, but as I said in my original post, I want to ignore #2.

Several of you have mentioned fresh vs scraped off. In very tight trees in what specific ways does camber help when it gets scraped off? Or conversely, in what specific ways does rocker hurt in those conditions?

drjeff · Oct 6, 2014

Cannonball said:
^ yes, but as I said in my original post, I want to ignore #2.

Several of you have mentioned fresh vs scraped off. In very tight trees in what specific ways does camber help when it gets scraped off? Or conversely, in what specific ways does rocker hurt in those conditions?

Simply put, it's much "easier" to get a cambered ski to "hook up" into a turn on firmer snow than a rockered ski, especially in medium and shorter radius turns. Add in some 100+mm waist width to that rockered ski and you can quickly find yourself feeling "defensive" when on firmer snow with crowds around when short(er) quicker turns/stops may be needed

deadheadskier · Oct 6, 2014

What a paradox. If you slarve in the east you are a gaper, but I've never heard the term before ergo that makes me a gaper too. If I also employ this method of skiing I've never heard of then that would make me a gaper^2

Brad J · Oct 6, 2014

Never herd the term "Slarve" before but sounds no more than controlled skidding, its a turn that I use in tight situations, screwed up moguls , Icy spots, linked Slarve turn on real icy trails, I agree with no Flat tail,But My fx94's with a rounder tail seam's like a good all around choice. Having never skied a full rockered ski, not sure how I would like them. So my east coast preference is 176 ish 84-94 waist .rocker tip cambered ski

MadMadWorld · Oct 6, 2014

deadheadskier said:
What a paradox. If you slarve in the east you are a gaper, but I've never heard the term before ergo that makes me a gaper too. If I also employ this method of skiing I've never heard of then that would make me a gaper^2

False. If you have never used the term to describe your skiing then you are safe

MadMadWorld · Oct 6, 2014

drjeff said:
Simply put, it's much "easier" to get a cambered ski to "hook up" into a turn on firmer snow than a rockered ski, especially in medium and shorter radius turns. And in some 100+mm waist width to that rockered ski and you can quickly find yourself feeling "defensive" when on firmer snow with crowds around when short(er) quicker turns/stops may be needed

True story. Nice description

snoseek · Oct 6, 2014

MR 110, subtract 10 mm from waist and make it a 178. I bet it would be perfect.

St. Bear · Oct 6, 2014

MadMadWorld said:
False. If you have never used the term to describe your skiing then you are safe

Dammit!

MadMadWorld · Oct 6, 2014

St. Bear said:
Dammit!

Everyone gets one free pass just don't do it again.

Cannonball · Oct 6, 2014

snoseek said:
MR 110, subtract 10 mm from waist and make it a 178. I bet it would be perfect.

that's basically what Mishka and I have been talking about. With maybe some subtle tweaks. Wanted to bat it around here for a bit first to confirm the right track.

deadheadskier · Oct 6, 2014

Having skied the MR110, I agree with snoseeks thoughts. I liked the 110 a lot but felt I am a bit too much of a girlyman to tame it in eastern trees.

mishka · Oct 6, 2014

MadMadWorld is only one who took MR110 to the trees at J last season...... don't remember complaining lol

pulmonary design

weight should be under 4 pounds each. Since most skis weight in kilograms somewhere between 1700 to 1900 g If more carbon fiber maybe even lighter

as a references point MR110 and MR100 side-by-side

mishka · Oct 6, 2014

deadheadskier said:
Having skied the MR110, I agree with snoseeks thoughts. I liked the 110 a lot but felt I am a bit too much of a girlyman to tame it in eastern trees.

MR110 was not intended as a eastern tree ski .... At least not by me. Hopefully this season I'll take him out West.
As a eastern skis I build MR100 which is actually, as mentioned, MR110 minus 10mm expecting this skis will be my daily driver for the season

MadMadWorld · Oct 7, 2014

mishka said:
MadMadWorld is only one who took MR110 to the trees at J last season...... don't remember complaining lol

pulmonary design

weight should be under 4 pounds each. Since most skis weight in kilograms somewhere between 1700 to 1900 g If more carbon fiber maybe even lighter

as a references point MR110 and MR100 side-by-side

The ski was pretty awesome for the trees in those conditions. It really bulldozes through heavy snow and spring slush. As an all season ski it would take a little time to get used to as I am normally on a very soft ski. But for that day it was perfect.

WWF-VT · Oct 7, 2014

Cannonball said:
So I've been talking with Mishka about designing and building skis. There are lots of skis out there with dedicated purpose: race, moguls, powder, etc. And there are lots that claim to do it all: all-mountain, freeski, etc. But what would make the perfect dedicated New England tree ski? Something designed specifically and only with tight trees in mind? Obviously you still have to get to the trees, but just like a dedicated race or bump ski that shouldn't factor into the design at all.

What are your thoughts on: tip-waist-tail, length, profile (camber, rocker, etc), stiffness, mounting position, etc????

I have my thoughts but I'm curious to hear what everyone else says starting from scratch.

Just find out what this ski this guy uses for trees.....

jimmywilson69 · Oct 7, 2014

Is that Highway Star??

mishka · Oct 7, 2014

MadMadWorld said:
The ski was pretty awesome for the trees in those conditions. It really bulldozes through heavy snow and spring slush. As an all season ski it would take a little time to get used to as I am normally on a very soft ski. But for that day it was perfect.

thank you I never thought to describe that way.

Going back to OP design....
I think sidecut radius at 14 m it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 105 122 with turning radius of
17 m as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm

MadMadWorld · Oct 7, 2014

mishka said:
thank you I never thought to describe that way.

Going back to OP design....
I think sidecut radius at 14 m it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 105 122 with turning radius of
17 m as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm

I like it. My K2s are around that but my radius is 19 because of the rocker and how soft it is. I think the better turn radius is worth the trade off of a softer ski. 17 is perfect.....14 would be a heavy/stiff ski that would probably be a pain in the ass in the trees. Just my .02

Cannonball · Oct 7, 2014

mishka said:
Going back to OP design....
I think sidecut radius at 14 m it's little aggressive for intended purpose. IMO dimensions should be 132 105 122 with turning radius of
17 m as a comparison MR100 130 100 115 R 18m 178cm

MadMadWorld said:
I like it. My K2s are around that but my radius is 19 because of the rocker and how soft it is. I think the better turn radius is worth the trade off of a softer ski. 17 is perfect.....14 would be a heavy/stiff ski that would probably be a pain in the ass in the trees. Just my .02

I'm OK with those dimensions Mishka. But I'm still trying to understand some of the calculations and discussion.

1) Sidecut radius. Your calcs on 132-100-122 show a 14m radius. Line Blends are the same 132-100-122 178cm with Tip Early Rise-Camber-Tail Early Rise (similar to yours). But they claim a 21m radius. I'm sure there's a good reason, can you explain the difference to me?

2) MMW what do you mean by heavy/stiff ski? We are talking about very subtle dimension changes that shouldn't change the actual weight much. And the materials/construction wouldn't change so neither should stiffness. In this designs I don't understand how turn radius relates to heavy/stiff unless you mean it in some other way?

Perfect New England tree ski

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Moderator

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Similar threads