People who have early taper and skis with alot of early rise (like JJs)

razors-chaz

razors-chaz

Active member
I'm currently designing a pair of pow skis which I hope to build in the near future but i dont have access to a pair of early taper and 120-130ish wide skis with alot of early rise to take these dimensions off.If you could post: make & model of ski, length of ski, distance between the contact points & height of tip & tail from ground.

I would be most grateful. to measure the distance between the contact points, put the skis together and measure between the points where the skis come in contact together. the tip height can be measured in a similar way put the skis together and measure the distance between the tips and tails and divide it by 2. if you could post the sizes in cm that would be good. I cant offer you much for your help but karma and I will post pictures once ive finished my design and once ive built them. they're going to similar to this years armada JJs but wider and with a longer turn radius.Thanks for your help.This is not a place for you to suggest what i should be doing with the design of my skis ive already decided but just need some dimensions.
 
Read the post on Blister about the development of Praxis's Woostest. Super early taper (ie. widest point just in front of the binding's toepiece) is the way to go for all-out powder performance while still having some sidecut underfoot to control things in variable snow. Some benefits of reverse sidecut without actually having reverse sidecut.
 
I had a read. It seems you just end up with a reverse camber plank though, which is what im trying to avoid. I realise a traditional sidecut is only going to be a reduction in float but i would like to build a ski which will not only float in pow well, but be able to be usable when things get technical. Its why im not going for a full rocker/flat camber as i feel the progession in design of pow & big mountain skis have just led to skis that can only be slashed down a face and not solid turns as it just doesnt have the turn radius and sidecut to be confident in proper turns. So i'm building a ski which in essence will be like the ON3P oars but without the roughcut shape of an oar. Plus its a bit of a technical exercise as well as to be building a ski for me to use as ski design is what i would eventually like to go into.
 
Sounds like you didn't really understand it then. The shape of the nose has everything to do with how it rides in deeper snow.
 
Having spent most of my lunch hour and some more work time, reading through all of the stuff on this and not just glossing over the first thing i found (which was the end part of the story and didnt tell me much about the wootest, which is what i did first) I now entirely understand everything wrong with most skis on the current market sold as "powder skis". Ski makers are far too worried about profits than actually giving the best ski for the job. they're worried about the average punter (who yes will spend the most money on getting skis) who will look at a ski with reverse/no sidecut and be scared as all they have ever known is the race influenced skis they have rode on. The JJ is a perfect example of this, and i see what they are saying that just for the minor improvement of stability of the ski on hardpack they are wasting what could be an amazing powder ski by having such a large sidecut. I am now enlightened in the ways of real pow skis.

I now intend to build the pow skis for proper pow riders (without going into total water-ski territory). I'm not going to go full reverse sidecut or no sidecut due what was said about the inerrant difficulties when getting to or from those pow stashes to the chair on hardpack. they are going to have a little sidecut (i.e large turn radius) to give it a mathematical turning radius as i want to be able to ride them back to the lift after ripping the shit out of a line without looking like a total gaper, when i try and turn on the hardpack, plus have the ability to turn if i find a little spot of ice or whatever. its more of a ski for pow days in resort/side country.but could be mounted up with touring bindings if so chosen. With regard to camber im going to give them a bunch more rocker than i first had but still have about a cm of camber for the 40% of ski under foot for the same reasons as sidecut.

it still doesn't take away from the fact i need people to post the heights of your tip and tails from your pow skis to get an idea of what a regular amount of shovel is.
 
Haha none it was more of that ive not had mich experience of proper pow skis, i knew of the different ways of doing them but had never seen a comprehensive weigh up of the options. A ski with no sidecut technically has an infinite turn radius, i meant mathematical turn radius in the sense of it not being infinite but not a particularly pronounced sidecut. I'm also looking into other sidecut shapes but most seem to be huge sidecuts made for carving.
 
Lol Scott.

If you need a hand with any drawing in AutoCAD or how to work in AutoCAD, hit me up ( or check out the tutorial in the ski design thread:

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/651776/ ) and you can download AutoCAD free from here:

http://students.autodesk.com/?nd=download_center You just have to make up some BS about schooling to get a download. It just watermarks the edges of a drawing which for personal use, shouldn't be a big deal. The drawing will retain the watermark if moved to another program just as a heads up!

Good luck man, waiting on my welding man for my press so I've been sitting at home drawing skis and I've finally made a baseline pow ski up for myself. Maybe I'll be able to incorporate some findings from this thread :S :D
 
Thanks, but im good. Im fairly used to working with autodesk inventor having used it a bunch for a school course i did and i'm a student so got it without having to make anything up. I've done a couple of different ideas which im probably not going to pursue but i can mock up 3d models pretty quick now and from that i can get plans and most of the details i need.
 
i ride reverse-reverse skis but im not measuring anything. quit worrying so much. they are just pieces of wood you slide on snow with. pick which skis look coolest and are in your price range and go with them. people are able to rip on every ski out there.
 
I know there are plenty of threads on which ski to buy, this isnt one of them. I am building skis and want to know what a reasonable amount of shovel is on a pow specific ski.
 
thanks for the heads up, its not really what im looking for, but the spec & weight section was useful. From DPS, the spoon is alot like the ski i'm wanting to build. I can see the market for a do everything ski, (people dont want to have to spend lots of money on multiple skis) but if all you want to do is get the most enjoyment out of riding park and shredding pow, (you can get close but) its just not really possible on 1 ski. Which is why im not looking to build a "versatile" ski. you dont get up at 6am to get first chair, or 5am to hit the trails on your sled, on a pow day to rip groomers/park, a pronounced sidecut is just cutting out float for a bit of stability on hardpack. So im building a ski for pow & pretty much only pow. (see long piece of typing a post or so up by me for details)
 
this may not be the place but reading this sparked something in my brain about side cuts. salomon snowboards (yes i said snowboards) has a side cut, or atleast they did not sure if they still do, where it is not an arc or radial curve. Instead it is 3 straight lines. on the snowboard it goes in from the contact point to the binding mounting area. from there it goes straight across to the other binding mounting area. and then of course it goes out to the other contact point on the tail. same thing on both edges. i know it sounds completely absurd and counter intuitive to everything youve ever known or heard about edges and edges but i swear on my life this snowboard held an edge better than any other board ive ever ridden. i dont know how to explain it but it worked. but like i said, not sure if this is the place or if youll find it relevant but its something to consider. sometimes the thing you think is the worst idea actualy turns out to be pretty good.
 
data...a pair in my garage is 126-132-105-120-114 (@185) with 110ish cm between contact points with a little camber and 20ish mm of rocker... have fun with the build
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top