If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ski fitting question
A simple question that I hope has a simple answer.
Father and son both want the same ski for the same conditions, same trails and races, e.g., an Atomic RSII for soft cold snow; both are 5' 7" and weigh 140 lbs; son is 25 and a strong skier in all respects while dad still has decent technique and balance but is 30 years older and doesn't have his son's strength, VO2 max, etc. Does a good ski fitter simply put dad on a slightly softer version of his son's ski? Thanks. Russ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Russ - The answer is yes, and no. The primary consideration is to
fit the ski at full-weight for optimal glide/handling characteristics. So while there may be differences between the optimal skis for both of you (I'm assuming this is you we're talking about), they're going to look pretty similar when they're loaded to 100% body weight. So where are the differences? Generally, a stronger skier will appreciate a more "active" ski. I look at camber action in two ways. One is to look at the half-weight camber height, or the difference between half and full weight camber height. The greater the difference the more "lively" the ski will feel. The other consideration is what I call the overload response of the ski. I measure that by loading the ski to 120% of body weight and measuring the camber response from 100% load. These numbers are small (generally in the range of 0.20 mm, plus or minus). You don't necessarily feel this measurement the way you feel the half/full weight camber height differential. But this measurement is a good indication of the intangible feeling of a ski "giving back" or alternatively absorbing too much energy. The idea is that, as you impulsively load a ski beyond full weight, the ski can absorb some energy. If you're able to load the ski strongly, and are technically capable and ski in a good position, the ski will return that energy in a positive way and will feel very rewarding. If you're not as strong, or ski a little back on your feet, then the ski will feel like it's fighting you. I generally aim for the middle of the road, but try to go a bit low on overload response for somebody who is focused on marathons, or who is not an agressive racer. In terms of factory flex numbers it usually breaks down to a better skier prefering a higher half-weight camber (on Atomics that's a number in the range of about 2.2 to maybe 2.8 on the sticker for a skier your size) and sometimes even a lower closing flex (or "mid-flex" in the Atomic jargon - a number in the low 60s on the sticker for skis that will fit you). But these ar basically just starting ranges for more careful measurement. Incidentally, the new World Cup skating skis (next year's model) are much more lively feeling skis than last year's RS:11. So even skis that measure the same will have very different feelings. I happen to be exactly the size you're talking about, and tested the new skis on snow this winter. You can read about it at my website if you're interested: http://www.engineeredtuning.net/NewAtomic.htm Good luck! Zach wrote: A simple question that I hope has a simple answer. Father and son both want the same ski for the same conditions, same trails and races, e.g., an Atomic RSII for soft cold snow; both are 5' 7" and weigh 140 lbs; son is 25 and a strong skier in all respects while dad still has decent technique and balance but is 30 years older and doesn't have his son's strength, VO2 max, etc. Does a good ski fitter simply put dad on a slightly softer version of his son's ski? Thanks. Russ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Zach,
Thanks for the reply - the 120% body weight measurement is very interesting. I ski the RSII (as well as a couple of Fischers and Rossis) and I look forward to trying the new Atomic, although I really just picked the Atomic brand out of the air, in the hope that anyone who replied to my question wouldn't recommend different brands of skis for the two skiers. Would you use the same fitting approach for the other big name skis as well, such as Fischer, Rossi and Madshus? I've heard some folks say that fitting a Rossi is different than fitting the others but I don't know enough about this to know just what they mean. Thanks again, Russ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The considerations are the same Russ, although the characteristics of
the different models require different strategies. It takes a little while to understand what range of values a given model of ski is designed to have - where "normal" is, and how adjustments either side of that effect the performance of the ski. I'd be confident with Atomic, Fischer and Madshus because I work with them extensively. I have less experience with Rossi because I don't sell them. But it's been my impression that with their most recent skate models they've come more in-line with what the rest of the industry is building. They're very nice skis in any case. Zach |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Zach,
Thanks once again - it's always enjoyable to read your thoughtful comments. Russ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Good question. My feeling is that it mostly comes down to a matter of
personal preference. Everybody is making skis with tremendous stability and really good speed characteristics. It certainly makes sense to taylor selections to the strength of a product line, and some lines are stronger in some areas than others. But on the whole I think just about any skiers could be made very happy on any of the major brands. Talking about skate skis now, in terms of individual tendencies, I'd say that a given Fischer (because of their very hard finish and relatively high residual camber at full weight) will tend to fit the broadest range of skiers weights. Atomic and Madshus need to be fit somewhat more precisely. Madshus tends to have the longest and "coolest" pressure distribution, which means that it's easy to pick a ski geared toward low static friction, and soft snow performance characteristics. But again, these are generalizations that shouldn't be considered "rules". Zach |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks. I've been very happy with my old (~5+ y.o.) Fischer RCS skate
skis. But my newer Atomic RC11 striding skis are terrific, I really like them a lot. So, I'm thinking of looking at Atomic RS11's for my next pair of skate skis because of my good luck with the RC11's. But, what I'll really do is look at the 6 major brands sold in my town (Karhu, Solomon, Fischer, Rossi, Atomic, Madshus), all sold by good techs, and decide based on their opinion of individual skis. I might even be able to ski on some.... Or maybe contact you 8-). Another point - "feel" - tell me what you think about this. I have two pair of classic skis, both, well fitted to me at the time I bought them: A pair of Madshus from the mid 90s, top of the line at the time and the above pair of '04/'05 Atomic RC11s. I have always liked the Madshus just fine in terms of climbing and speed. But since getting the Atomics, I think the Atomics are easier to wax for better climbing and seem MUCH more stable on the downhills, especially fast turns. Overall gliding speed is similar, but I don't do real serious wax testing - close enough is good enough for my purposes. But the subtle feel is quite different. Although I prefer to ski on the Atomics, the Madshus just seem "smoother". I dont' know how else to describe it - smooth and silky. The Atomics seem somehow noisier and just feel "rougher". This is all very subtle though and in no way detracts from my overall preference for the Atomics.. Just musing, trying to get up the energy to storage wax my family's 15 or so pair of skis! Cam |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I'd say you've pretty accurately described what I would call the
typical strengths of the Madshus and Atomic classic skis of the vintages you're talking about. People tend to describe Madshus stuff as "smooth" across the board. The RC11s are known as really good skis for stability - perhaps in part because of a fairly wide tip and quite a lot of sidecut compared to other skis in the industry. They also tend to end up a bit shorter than other brands on the classic side of things. I wouldn't be surprised if your Atomics were 9cm shorter than your Madshus. Incidentally, Madshus classic skis have become quite a lot more precise in terms of pocket shape and placement in the past several years. So it's likely that a newer Madshus would compare on more equal footing with the Atomic with regard to the ease of waxing for kick. The new Atomic skate ski is a really nice ski - it's called a WorldCup now instead of an RS:11. I would definitely put it on your list. But if you have the opportunity to test stuff through your local retailers you should definitely take advantage, especialy if your point of reference is a five year old Fischer. Sounds like you've got some really good local resources - you should have no need to contact me unless you want something very specific. Zach Camilo wrote: Thanks. I've been very happy with my old (~5+ y.o.) Fischer RCS skate skis. But my newer Atomic RC11 striding skis are terrific, I really like them a lot. So, I'm thinking of looking at Atomic RS11's for my next pair of skate skis because of my good luck with the RC11's. But, what I'll really do is look at the 6 major brands sold in my town (Karhu, Solomon, Fischer, Rossi, Atomic, Madshus), all sold by good techs, and decide based on their opinion of individual skis. I might even be able to ski on some.... Or maybe contact you 8-). Another point - "feel" - tell me what you think about this. I have two pair of classic skis, both, well fitted to me at the time I bought them: A pair of Madshus from the mid 90s, top of the line at the time and the above pair of '04/'05 Atomic RC11s. I have always liked the Madshus just fine in terms of climbing and speed. But since getting the Atomics, I think the Atomics are easier to wax for better climbing and seem MUCH more stable on the downhills, especially fast turns. Overall gliding speed is similar, but I don't do real serious wax testing - close enough is good enough for my purposes. But the subtle feel is quite different. Although I prefer to ski on the Atomics, the Madshus just seem "smoother". I dont' know how else to describe it - smooth and silky. The Atomics seem somehow noisier and just feel "rougher". This is all very subtle though and in no way detracts from my overall preference for the Atomics.. Just musing, trying to get up the energy to storage wax my family's 15 or so pair of skis! Cam |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for your comments Zach. Interesting what you said about the
length of the RC11 vs Madshus. You are correct. I'm not sure if it's 9 cm or some number less than that (the difference), but it's significant. In fact, as I was writing about the stability in my post above, I had originally written - the Atomics are more stable in spite of being shorter! But then I took that statement out thinking - that could be exactly why they feel better around corners - but I'm sure it's counterintuitive for straight on speed stability. Anyway, they're all good skis (all the ones I have), but if you ski enough you begin to notice these things. Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Zach Caldwell wrote:
Hi Russ - The answer is yes, and no. The primary consideration is to fit the ski at full-weight for optimal glide/handling characteristics. So while there may be differences between the optimal skis for both of you (I'm assuming this is you we're talking about), they're going to look pretty similar when they're loaded to 100% body weight. So where are the differences? Generally, a stronger skier will appreciate a more "active" ski. I look at camber action in two ways. One is to look at the half-weight camber height, or the difference between half and full weight camber height. The greater the difference the more "lively" the ski will feel. The other consideration is what I call the overload response of the ski. I measure that by loading the ski to 120% of body weight and measuring the camber response from 100% load. These numbers are small (generally in the range of 0.20 mm, plus or minus). You don't necessarily feel this measurement the way you feel the half/full weight camber height differential. But this measurement is a good indication of the intangible feeling of a ski "giving back" or alternatively absorbing too much energy. The idea is that, as you impulsively load a ski beyond full weight, the ski can absorb some energy. If you're able to load the ski strongly, and are technically capable and ski in a good position, the ski will return that energy in a positive way and will feel very rewarding. If you're not as strong, or ski a little back on your feet, then the ski will feel like it's fighting you. I generally aim for the middle of the road, but try to go a bit low on overload response for somebody who is focused on marathons, or who is not an agressive racer. In terms of factory flex numbers it usually breaks down to a better skier prefering a higher half-weight camber (on Atomics that's a number in the range of about 2.2 to maybe 2.8 on the sticker for a skier your size) and sometimes even a lower closing flex (or "mid-flex" in the Atomic jargon - a number in the low 60s on the sticker for skis that will fit you). But these ar basically just starting ranges for more careful measurement. Incidentally, the new World Cup skating skis (next year's model) are much more lively feeling skis than last year's RS:11. So even skis that measure the same will have very different feelings. I happen to be exactly the size you're talking about, and tested the new skis on snow this winter. You can read about it at my website if you're interested: http://www.engineeredtuning.net/NewAtomic.htm Good luck! Zach wrote: A simple question that I hope has a simple answer. Father and son both want the same ski for the same conditions, same trails and races, e.g., an Atomic RSII for soft cold snow; both are 5' 7" and weigh 140 lbs; son is 25 and a strong skier in all respects while dad still has decent technique and balance but is 30 years older and doesn't have his son's strength, VO2 max, etc. Does a good ski fitter simply put dad on a slightly softer version of his son's ski? Thanks. Russ How can one put 120% of body weight on a ski? One can jump up and come down on a ski but one cannot push down harder than their weight since they have nothing from which to push? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fitting of skis | Thomas Andry | Nordic Skiing | 26 | December 17th 05 04:14 AM |
Dumb seasonal question - any advice? | Tom | Snowboarding | 3 | March 23rd 04 07:49 PM |
Intro and question | Ken Campbell | Snowboarding | 6 | January 30th 04 06:53 PM |
GS Ski Length Question | ENORD | Alpine Skiing | 4 | August 16th 03 06:14 PM |