Scratches on Base on New skis

take1

take1

New member
So i just got my pair of Line Sfb 2020’s and they look great, however there are a lot of fine scratches on the tip and tail of each ski. I don’t know if that is normal (as I’ve never had this before) and I’m unsure if i should just wax the ski and it’ll be fine or theres the option of exchanging the ski, which i feel like would be a stupid decision as i assume the scratches don’t have a big impact on the ski, because there are just very thin and not deep.

I have thought about getting a base grind, but Line advises against stone or sand grinding both the Tip and Tail on their Convex Skis.

I’m not sure if there are other options to fix it or if it’s best if I should just leave it like that and normally wax my skis.

966591.jpeg
 
Heyo,

I am the Design Engineer at Line. These lines are totally fine and to be expected on Outlines and Bacons.

With the Convex tech, we are not able to stone grind the tip and tails of the skis so you will see a different base structure in the main running surface and the convex sections. We feather between the running surface and tip and tail to get as smooth of a transition as possible but it is still noticeable to the careful observer like you!

To mimic the 3d shape that Eric Pollard carved from foam and reproduce that subtle organic curve, we had to change the radius and depth of the convex from the forward contact point to the tip and aft contact point to the tail. This change in curvature is different than anything else on the market so we had to develop a whole new sanding process to clean up any molding resin on the base using soft sanding drums. This is similar to the way car manufactures sand body panels. After we clean up the base, we texture the tips and tails using a lower grit sandpaper to mimic a stone-grind pattern. Obviously, it is a different process and looks a bit different but it has the same effect.

Anyways, what you are seeing is a sanding texture instead of a stone-grind texture. This is the way the skis were developed and tested so I am really confident that they will ski awesome! Slap some wax on them and get out there:)

If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out here or PM me.

Cheers,

Peter

**This post was edited on Jun 18th 2020 at 3:38:40pm
 
Oh I see, thank you that clears up a lot

14151085:LINE_Enginerd said:
Heyo,

I am the Design Engineer at Line. These lines are totally fine and to be expected on Outlines and Bacons.

With the Convex tech, we are not able to stone grind the tip and tails of the skis so you will see a different base structure in the main running surface and the convex sections. We feather between the running surface and tip and tail to get as smooth of a transition as possible but it is still noticeable to the careful observer like you!

To mimic the 3d shape that Eric Pollard carved from foam and reproduce that subtle organic curve, we had to change the radius and depth of the convex from the forward contact point to the tip and aft contact point to the tail. This change in curvature is different than anything else on the market so we had to develop a whole new sanding process to clean up any molding resin on the base using soft sanding drums. This is similar to the way car manufactures sand body panels. After we clean up the base, we texture the tips and tails using a lower grit sandpaper to mimic a stone-grind pattern. Obviously, it is a different process and looks a bit different but it has the same effect.

Anyways, what you are seeing is a sanding texture instead of a stone-grind texture. This is the way the skis were developed and tested so I am really confident that they will ski awesome! Slap some wax on them and get out there:)

If you have any other questions, feel free to reach out here or PM me.

Cheers,

Peter

**This post was edited on Jun 18th 2020 at 3:38:40pm
Click to expand...
 
14151085:LINE_Enginerd said:
Heyo,

I am the Design Engineer at Line.

**This post was edited on Jun 18th 2020 at 3:38:40pm
Click to expand...

Make a stiff park ski please and thanks

edit: I’m referring to the Wallisch pros, not the blends. Yanno, the skis that are a 10/10 on lines stiffness scale yet they’re softer than Armada Bdogs

**This post was edited on Jun 22nd 2020 at 8:52:06pm
 
14151090:LINE_Enginerd said:
What!? The Blend isn't stiff enough for you!?
Click to expand...

I mean he has a point, we obviously love line here at the shop but the success of a ski like the poacher has been pretty huge.
 
14151349:.nasty said:
I mean he has a point, we obviously love line here at the shop but the success of a ski like the poacher has been pretty huge.
Click to expand...

That is totally fair and the Blend comment was a total joke. "Line can't make a stiff ski" is something that we/I hear allot.

I think many people associate Line with soft due to the Blend's heritage.The Blend is obviously a very cool and unique ski driven by team wants/needs BUT it is not representative of all Line skis.

Funny enough, I worked on K2 Skis before becoming "The Line Guy" and designed the poacher. I am quite familiar with that ski compared to Line's offerings and can hopefully shed some light on that vs the Chronic below:

When designing skis we never set out to make a "stiff or soft" ski. We lay out the performance characteristics that we want in a ski and use shape, flex profile, bulk flex and different materials to achieve that on snow performance. We perform Designs Of Experiments (DOE's) of those variables to drive towards next rounds of prototypes with input from the team and key stakeholders. The people in the on snow test groups are ultimately responsible for choosing the final flex of the skis. They make their decisions based on how well each prototype is hitting the clearly laid out performance targets on snow.

The Chronic is Line's answer to "stiffer" all mountain twins like the Poacher, arv96, etc. It is a similar width and target market.

Obviously I am a bit biased here but, I believe that both The Poacher and the Chronic have close to (if not) best in class all-mountain performance while maintaining all of the needs of true park skiers. They are very different skis in allot of ways but more similar than allot of people realize when it comes to bulk flex (3 point bend from the forward contact point to the aft contact point). We intentionally targeted performance attributes of the Chronic to make it the best possible all-mountain freestyle ski. This helped us address allot of skiers need who ski their park ski all over the mountain and it helped us separate it from the TWall (which is our dedicated park ski). The Chronic is one of the quickest and snappiest twins on the ground (turning) or in the air. Its a bundle of fun!

Believe it or not, the Chronic's bulk flex is very close to the Poacher's. The Chronic has a slightly peakier flex profile meaning the the tips and tails are softer compared to the Poacher. This soft tip and tail help the ski enter turns at lower and moderate speeds AND it makes it easier to butter. This soft tip and tail is what most people will feel when they "Joe-Bob-Gnarly flex" the ski in a shop. In my opinion, the chronic does not ski like a soft ski. I am 6'1" and ski the 185cm. To me it feels like a sports car with monster truck wheels. If you ride bikes, I would compare it to a jibby 29er. It is quick but stable and powerful, It is more than enough ski for me to be a hack on large jumps without wheeling out or wanting more support.

The moral of the story here is that we believe in our team of testers to choose the right products when it comes to flex where it matters... On snow. If you are seeing success with the poacher, I would hope that the Chronic is also crushing it! Both of those skis are quite different but they go after very similar skiers.

Cheers!

Peter
 
14151498:LINE_Enginerd said:
That is totally fair and the Blend comment was a total joke. "Line can't make a stiff ski" is something that we/I hear allot.

I think many people associate Line with soft due to the Blend's heritage.The Blend is obviously a very cool and unique ski driven by team wants/needs BUT it is not representative of all Line skis.

Funny enough, I worked on K2 Skis before becoming "The Line Guy" and designed the poacher. I am quite familiar with that ski compared to Line's offerings and can hopefully shed some light on that vs the Chronic below:

When designing skis we never set out to make a "stiff or soft" ski. We lay out the performance characteristics that we want in a ski and use shape, flex profile, bulk flex and different materials to achieve that on snow performance. We perform Designs Of Experiments (DOE's) of those variables to drive towards next rounds of prototypes with input from the team and key stakeholders. The people in the on snow test groups are ultimately responsible for choosing the final flex of the skis. They make their decisions based on how well each prototype is hitting the clearly laid out performance targets on snow.

The Chronic is Line's answer to "stiffer" all mountain twins like the Poacher, arv96, etc. It is a similar width and target market.

Obviously I am a bit biased here but, I believe that both The Poacher and the Chronic have close to (if not) best in class all-mountain performance while maintaining all of the needs of true park skiers. They are very different skis in allot of ways but more similar than allot of people realize when it comes to bulk flex (3 point bend from the forward contact point to the aft contact point). We intentionally targeted performance attributes of the Chronic to make it the best possible all-mountain freestyle ski. This helped us address allot of skiers need who ski their park ski all over the mountain and it helped us separate it from the TWall (which is our dedicated park ski). The Chronic is one of the quickest and snappiest twins on the ground (turning) or in the air. Its a bundle of fun!

Believe it or not, the Chronic's bulk flex is very close to the Poacher's. The Chronic has a slightly peakier flex profile meaning the the tips and tails are softer compared to the Poacher. This soft tip and tail help the ski enter turns at lower and moderate speeds AND it makes it easier to butter. This soft tip and tail is what most people will feel when they "Joe-Bob-Gnarly flex" the ski in a shop. In my opinion, the chronic does not ski like a soft ski. I am 6'1" and ski the 185cm. To me it feels like a sports car with monster truck wheels. If you ride bikes, I would compare it to a jibby 29er. It is quick but stable and powerful, It is more than enough ski for me to be a hack on large jumps without wheeling out or wanting more support.

The moral of the story here is that we believe in our team of testers to choose the right products when it comes to flex where it matters... On snow. If you are seeing success with the poacher, I would hope that the Chronic is also crushing it! Both of those skis are quite different but they go after very similar skiers.

Cheers!

Peter
Click to expand...

One of the most comprehensive ski comparisons I've read. Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top