Feed back on my 333 ski design

J

jsnow

Member
Okay a couple of days ago I made a post made a ski I would like to make, then some one in the thread posted about 333 skis. Looks legit, and made me really think about my ski. So I changed it around a bit.

Some feedback on this design would be appreciated.

Also I'm not sure if these numbers add up.

Either 188 or 192

tip - mid - tail - 146/118/138

chamber - 4mm

rocker - tip - tail - 40cm/35cm

full twin

symmetric flex - stiff underfoot, med soft tip and tail.

and a running length around 115cm.

mounting pretty close to center.

 
mostly powder west coast and east. some groomer. also want it to be able to ollie, nollie, and butter. pillow lines, trees and cliffs.
 
they sound super sick

i would get 333 skis but knowing me i would mess up and have like 110 under foot in the east coast parks
 
Don't forget to have the rockered part of the tips tapered a bit for much better pow performance. Also with that added in don't make the tips and tails that big, since they are then moved in that would be way to much sidecut.
 
These are my 333 east coast rippers for reference

They have too much sidecut and are mounted too far back for what you want

1246845009Picture_1.png


Alternately I'll sell you my 08/09 Surface LL2 179 mounted -1 with px12 for 28.5, 325mm boots

used them for 4 days, tried to like them, but I think they are mounted too far forward for my mostly all mountain riding...

$400 + UPS Ground from Worcester, MA 01605

12484101240724090023.jpg

12484101240724090023.jpg


12484101680724090023a.jpg

 
Ok since you bumped it and i'm bored i'll give some feedback. Firstly I think for 50% East Coast that is a big big ski but that said you didn't post how big you were.
That said I had a look at the design and have the following points.-118 is a lot underfoot. You can ski powder plenty well on 105-110 and yes a centimeter makes a fairly big difference in terms of edge to edge performance. - 146 is really big in the tips but that could work in your favor since you want to be able to ski groomers. A big difference between tip and midsole gives you lots of sidecut. - Symmetric flex on a ski that is fairly far from symmetrical in terms of shape? - No early taper?- Basically for 50/50 I think you have a ski that is too extreme.All that said i'll make a suggestion based on my experiences of EP Pro, Hellbent, Elizabeths, Obsethed, Reno Rocker. Some camber underfoot is ok 4mm sounds good. Rocker should probably be symmetrical since you are making a jibby ski. Early taper gives you the chance to have sidecut for those groomers but still not drag too much.I would look more at something like:Length: 188cm Tip/Mid/Tail: 137-110-135 with Early taper giving you a short radiusRadius: In the ballpark of 16-20mRocker: 50/40Mount: -1Flex: More pow performance: Mid-Stiff underfoot, Mid-Soft in the tip/tail More groomer performance: Stiff underfoot - Mid in the tip/tailBut no ski can do it all perfectly and no rockered ski will ever rail on ice. Hope that helped.
 
These wont be my only ski either, they will be for foot plus days on the east. I'm moving out west next season so next year they will be my every day ski then. But for now I will just be using them for the rare days of deep snow on the east, and a few trips out to Utah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top