mogul skis

[mishka]

discussion in other thread on ski design for New England somehow got to mogul skis. I'm not a big fan of idea to have dedicated pair skis for every condition. What I think should be great.... mogul ski modified into New England all mountain ski

I want to combine MR110/100 design with classic mogul ski dimensions

dimensions110=85=100 175cm R18m with identical to MR110 tip/tale rocker, beefed-up core construction for better hard snow performance and carbon fiber reinforcement.

what I didn't know is how stiff they should be. Also is it better if tips stiffer than the tails or vice versa

design is not final ....open for suggestions

 

[Savemeasammy]

Soft tip, stiff tail. NO ROCKER! Go narrower


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[jack97]

imo, tips around 110 is too cumbersome to aim in a tight formation. Widest tips I seen is around 104 and I still think that's to wide for my taste.

Sometimes a bumper will mount the bindings more forward, it serves two purposes, gives more area at the tail and helps to stabilize the fore/aft. If you start getting in the backseat then you can push against the tail to lever yourself back to center (that's why they like a stiff tail). The other purpose for that forward mount is that it allows more weight to be loaded on the tips to initiate the turn. In addition, you can press into the tips during the absorption to slow down. This type of mount blows if you want to carve since to you have more tail to deal with and will make the tail wash out..... but most bumpers don't care about making that type of turn.

 

[deadheadskier]

I would replicate the old Rossignol B2 specs for a Bump / All Mountain ski, but make it with wood torsion box sandwich construction. The B2s were great in the bumps until the foam broke down in them.

116-78-105 16R

Lots of people loved the old Head IM78 as an all mountain ski that killed it in the bumps. Dynastar Legend 78 as well.

I'd look to skis like those for inspiration in building a bump leaning all mountain NE ski.

 

[Not Sure]

Throw in some camber, Mogul trough with a flexed ski unweights in a hurry for quiker turn

 

[mishka]

I don't want blindly replicate dimensions. Even if dimensions are replicated skis will not act the same because the build differently.
DHS what's wrong with modified MR110 idea. you like them in the bumps.
I cannot make big camber. My press is not set up for it at this time. 0 to 5 mm at best

 

[MadMadWorld]

Here come the nerds

 

[deadheadskier]

I don't know if anything is wrong with the modified MR110 idea. The MR110s were powder skis that were fairly nimble in bumps. The slimmer version might very well be great.

I just wanted to throw out one set of All Mountain ski dimensions that I owned and enjoyed in the bumps and a couple of others that people were fond of. Just suggestions of other skis that did very well what you're attempting to design. That's all.

 

[mishka]

I don't know if anything is wrong with the modified MR110 idea. The MR110s were powder skis that were fairly nimble in bumps. The slimmer version might very well be great.
.

that exactly my point. Probably, by it dimensions, MR110 unlikely candidate to perform in bumps well but they did. if we venture outside of classic bumps ski design I have MR86 which also tested by AZers and preformed well in bumps.
I don't think it necessary go far from this 2 designs to create MR-M

 

[deadheadskier]

I wish I had given the MR86 a spin last winter, so I could compare the difference to the MR110 and give feedback how I would size down from the 86. Sizing down from a 110 is a big leap, so its hard to give advice. Sammy and Jack ski modern bump skis so I'd definitely listen to them on flex over me. They also know much more about mogul skiing technique than I do.

 

[Savemeasammy]

You might want to read some of the threads on mogulskiing.net - there is more than one comparing moguls skis. Some of those guys are pretty serious and knowlegeable, and may be willing to share opinions.

FWIW, my skis are 104-64-92. I don't think that 110 is a huge stretch, but I do rub my tips together, so that will be more of an issue for yours at 110.

For use in the bumps, I definitely would want flat tails - and a more traditional squared-off shape. The tails sometimes come into play, and your upturned, round tails look as though they could easily slip out from underneath me in certain situations.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[mishka]

105-81-100 R20 flat tale 175

if use dimensions you describing all mountain part of this ski design out the window. We need to make some kind compromise between two

 

[deadheadskier]

I like the look of these best so far regarding a bump ski. Tail looks better. Still 18R?

 

[mishka]

No went with 20M this time otherwise IMO ski getting way to narrow to consider all mountain. I didn't know how much turn radius relevant because in bumps need 1m radius. 18 or 20 is not that much difference in dimensions

 

[deadheadskier]

Gotcha. Looks like a nice design for bumps for sure with a bit more versatility than a standard bump ski.

I need to get out on your MR86 to see how your narrow skis perform. I'm sure they're great. What are the dimensions on those?

 

[mishka]

120-86-110 in 175 and 17m radius no carbon in this one. First ski I made

 

[mishka]

I tweak the numbers and for now dimensions are 119-86-107 18R in 175cm they are similar to F-17WC only wider. To my surprise new design is very similar in dimensions to MR86 which 120-86-110 17R same 175cm in length. If anything new design will be MR86 for 2014/15.

Will be different in this skis compare to MR-86: core construction Maple/black Locust with black Locust sidewall, carbon fiber reinforcement will be added to improve performance

 

[MadMadWorld]

I tweak the numbers and for now dimensions are 119-86-107 18R in 175cm they are similar to F-17WC only wider. To my surprise new design is very similar in dimensions to MR86 which 120-86-110 17R same 175cm in length. If anything new design will be MR86 for 2014/15.

Will be different in this skis compare to MR-86: core construction Maple/black Locust with black Locust sidewall, carbon fiber reinforcement will be added to improve performance

What's the 2014/15 MR86/MR110 look like??? We need details and maybe a demo day.

 

[MadMadWorld]

You might want to read some of the threads on mogulskiing.net - there is more than one comparing moguls skis. Some of those guys are pretty serious and knowlegeable, and may be willing to share opinions.

FWIW, my skis are 104-64-92. I don't think that 110 is a huge stretch, but I do rub my tips together, so that will be more of an issue for yours at 110.

For use in the bumps, I definitely would want flat tails - and a more traditional squared-off shape. The tails sometimes come into play, and your upturned, round tails look as though they could easily slip out from underneath me in certain situations.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

Says the man with a blown out rotator cuff.

 

[Savemeasammy]

I tweak the numbers and for now dimensions are 119-86-107 18R in 175cm they are similar to F-17WC only wider. To my surprise new design is very similar in dimensions to MR86 which 120-86-110 17R same 175cm in length. If anything new design will be MR86 for 2014/15.

Will be different in this skis compare to MR-86: core construction Maple/black Locust with black Locust sidewall, carbon fiber reinforcement will be added to improve performance

Similar dimensions to the Hart Attack @ 118-84-107.

What is the construction of your MR-86? What is your thought process behind the material choice for the new design? Just curious. I hope to get the chance to demo these this season!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app