Sidewall vs cap
- Thread starter FERREZZ
- Start date
acoustikrage
Active member
uh, think about sidewall construction as building a box around the core. it's not exposing anything. all skis have sidewalls.
JohnnyOldGuy
Member
Chips and gouges don't matter unless they go to the core of the ski.
A cap ski would have delaminated after that kind of damage by the way. They are also much more difficult to repair, IE: edge replacements.
A cap ski would have delaminated after that kind of damage by the way. They are also much more difficult to repair, IE: edge replacements.
BioEnhanced
Member
all racing skis have sidewalls, so more performance skis have sidewalls. I don't think very many skis have caps (I can only think of 1080s).
CHARLES.BRONSON
Active member
Well for one, rails. Cap tends to delaminate and peel above the edge due to the direction of force on the fibreglass cap. basically it pushes up on the whole topsheet making it want to delam.
Also sandwich construction absorbs shock from both rails and just riding especially ptex sidewalls.
Also sandwich construction absorbs shock from both rails and just riding especially ptex sidewalls.
Fr2Planker
Active member
no not all skis have sidewalls
Sidewall constructions or sandwitch construction are better because you can adjust the flex in the ski more precise like makeing it soft in the nose and tail and stiffer under the boot, its also easier to make the ski more torsion stiff without the makeing the ski stiff like a rock.
Thats why almost all twins and freeride skis are built with that kind of construction.
Thats why almost all twins and freeride skis are built with that kind of construction.
dirty_dreb
Active member
um.. line invader is soft in nose and tail.. cap contruction though
Adamskinick
Active member
Each have their positives and negatives..
Anathema
Active member
i'm not getting into this again..
to keep it short,
capped skis don't hold as well while carving, they tend to wash out, they're a more sturdy design, in the long run, and a much more responsive ski.
sandwiched skis hold really well while in deep carve, they are much more durable in the short run, but over time the topsheets can easily chip allowing seepage to penetrate the core which can lead to delamination.
to keep it short,
capped skis don't hold as well while carving, they tend to wash out, they're a more sturdy design, in the long run, and a much more responsive ski.
sandwiched skis hold really well while in deep carve, they are much more durable in the short run, but over time the topsheets can easily chip allowing seepage to penetrate the core which can lead to delamination.
a cap ski gets its structure from that cap when its damages it comprimises the structure of the ski and it is hard to repair. sidewall or sandwitch construction the structure is protected by the topsheet and the sidewalls if you damage one of these the ski is still fine and the damage can be fixed easily to prevent sepage.
DarksidexXx
Member
salomons cap is not like other cosmetic caps, it is actually the structure of the ski,
They are built from the cap down vs most skis built from the core out. They then use differnt cap types and cores to make the ski do what its made to do
They are built from the cap down vs most skis built from the core out. They then use differnt cap types and cores to make the ski do what its made to do
I wouldn't say that Salomon is capped - monocoque is a construction which wraps the core of the ski.
Monocoque actually touches the edges of the ski. Whereas what truly is a cover liked to a composite sidewall.
As for the argement of being able to play with diff flex patterns in sandwich... It's actually a disadvantage for sandwich with regards to twintips.
Companies who only do sandwich cannot nail length / weight as well as the monocoque type of constructions...
Also edge to edge response is way better with a monocoque vs sandwich.
With regards to the old faithfull wood vs foam debate... Today some composite - aka wood/foam mixes are actually better then wood, lighter then wood and keeps the price of twins more reasonable...
Companies actually test composite cored race skis with racers and it's just as good as wood...
.... in other words... don't just look at the graphics of your skis... Also some skis are more expensive then other skis.... for a REASON - think about it.
Monocoque actually touches the edges of the ski. Whereas what truly is a cover liked to a composite sidewall.
As for the argement of being able to play with diff flex patterns in sandwich... It's actually a disadvantage for sandwich with regards to twintips.
Companies who only do sandwich cannot nail length / weight as well as the monocoque type of constructions...
Also edge to edge response is way better with a monocoque vs sandwich.
With regards to the old faithfull wood vs foam debate... Today some composite - aka wood/foam mixes are actually better then wood, lighter then wood and keeps the price of twins more reasonable...
Companies actually test composite cored race skis with racers and it's just as good as wood...
.... in other words... don't just look at the graphics of your skis... Also some skis are more expensive then other skis.... for a REASON - think about it.
skimasterflex
Active member
^Dude Monocoque is the epitomy of cappedness. It was the first cap in fact so you're smoking mondocock aparently.
Vertical sidewall delivers a more direct transmission of energey to the edge and helps the edge hold better as a result hence its presents in race skis. That is also the reason that it causes edges to crack on rails however.
Vertical sidewall delivers a more direct transmission of energey to the edge and helps the edge hold better as a result hence its presents in race skis. That is also the reason that it causes edges to crack on rails however.
GotamaBCshredder
Active member
what he says
In the end, you can make a good cap ski, and a good sidewall ski, or a shitty cap ski and a shitty sidewall ski.
and basically
Cap construction encases the core of the ski in fiberglass for durability and snappy response. It can also decrease weight since the added strength of the cap allows for a lighter core and fewer materials. This creates a stronger bond around the perimeter of the ski between the topsheet, fiberglass and the edge, which makes it more durable.
Sandwich construction is where the skis wood core represents the "meat" and is sandwiched between layers of fiberglass. in a sandwich ski, there's a 90-degree angle between the topsheet and the sidewall usually angles do vary. With a cap ski, the cap curves to connect the topsheet and steel edges. But when you have impacts to the side of the ski usually and abs or p-tex sidewall from something like a rail, it can be argued that a sidewall ski will stand up better.
But what it comes down to in the end is the quality of the product and construction is what makes it a good ride. This is a greater factor than the actually method of construction. When it comes down to duribilty and performance.
(And all that techno babble isn;t all from my head, i had to look up a couple key points to refresh my memory)
and basically
Cap construction encases the core of the ski in fiberglass for durability and snappy response. It can also decrease weight since the added strength of the cap allows for a lighter core and fewer materials. This creates a stronger bond around the perimeter of the ski between the topsheet, fiberglass and the edge, which makes it more durable.
Sandwich construction is where the skis wood core represents the "meat" and is sandwiched between layers of fiberglass. in a sandwich ski, there's a 90-degree angle between the topsheet and the sidewall usually angles do vary. With a cap ski, the cap curves to connect the topsheet and steel edges. But when you have impacts to the side of the ski usually and abs or p-tex sidewall from something like a rail, it can be argued that a sidewall ski will stand up better.
But what it comes down to in the end is the quality of the product and construction is what makes it a good ride. This is a greater factor than the actually method of construction. When it comes down to duribilty and performance.
(And all that techno babble isn;t all from my head, i had to look up a couple key points to refresh my memory)
SalomonCRlab
New member
Some people just don't appreciate the amount of work that goes into producing and developing skis. I personally find no difference between the two. Alot of people just like to pick on companies like salomon because they have a different kind of ski and hate admitting that their skis aren't as good, last year I was one of those people when I gave up my salomon deal and went with another company. This whole capped or sidewall debate is more a personal preference, more so on looks in my opinion. I'm sure both have their ups and downs but I don't think its right to thrash one structure over the other. Just because things are sometimes mass produced doesn't mean that now more research goes into these products.
Sharko
Active member
Word to your moms. Here's Silence and I had an actually intelligent conversation about this in another thread and here's what we seemed to agree on:
I don't think that the durability or performance is
inherent in the cap or sidewall construction. Look at it this way, if
you are going to make a ski, you have planned out its design, its
performance, its marketing, everything down to the last detail, even
its lifespan. So, if you are planning on making a ski that is high
performance and super durable, you are looking at an expensive ski
anyway, so why not go ahead and make it sidewall? plus, then you can
use that as a selling point too. Thus, most durable skis ARE going to
be sidewall, but they aren't durable BECAUSE of the sidewall. They were
going to be a high quality ski anyway, and if they had been made with a
cap they would have performed quite the same and been just as durable.
This is why you DO occasionally see a super performing, super durable
cap ski like the Prophet. If the sidewall was inherently more durable,
then you wouldn't see the occasional fall-apart sidewall like the
Liberties from a couple years ago and the first couple generations of
AR5's.
Silence pointed out that when it comes to park skis this is a moot point, it really matters very little. Even if you get a sidewall ski, banking on the fact that proportionally more of them are high quality, you're still going to break it by abusing it on rails and jumps. This is especially true for softer park skis because constant flexing breaks things. Think about what happens when you really bend a flexible ski: you have several sheets of material laying on top of each other, and when you bend the whole complex, the top layers have to bend more sharply than the bottom layers. This pushes those layers up and makes them slide against the bottom layers. Do and experiment: fold a sheet of paper in half a few times. Then, fold it again, when you fold it, the inner layers of the fold are squeezed up and out. This is what is happening to the top layers of your ski when you flex it, they are being pushed away from the bottom layers: DELAM. So, you can pretty much see how park skis are going to delam over time no matter what method you use to hold them together.
Just to back it all up a little more, according to the K2 website 2 years ago, Pep insisted that his pro model be really cheap. Why? Because he knows that a flexible park ski is going to break no matter how you build it, and if you are going to have to buy a new one in a year or so you don't want to pay a lot. So, caps make sense here because they are a cheaper method. But the ski doesn't break BECAUSE of the cap. If the ski was made with sidewalls, it would break just as fast, but it would be more expensive to replace.
So... everyone cool then?
I don't think that the durability or performance is
inherent in the cap or sidewall construction. Look at it this way, if
you are going to make a ski, you have planned out its design, its
performance, its marketing, everything down to the last detail, even
its lifespan. So, if you are planning on making a ski that is high
performance and super durable, you are looking at an expensive ski
anyway, so why not go ahead and make it sidewall? plus, then you can
use that as a selling point too. Thus, most durable skis ARE going to
be sidewall, but they aren't durable BECAUSE of the sidewall. They were
going to be a high quality ski anyway, and if they had been made with a
cap they would have performed quite the same and been just as durable.
This is why you DO occasionally see a super performing, super durable
cap ski like the Prophet. If the sidewall was inherently more durable,
then you wouldn't see the occasional fall-apart sidewall like the
Liberties from a couple years ago and the first couple generations of
AR5's.
Silence pointed out that when it comes to park skis this is a moot point, it really matters very little. Even if you get a sidewall ski, banking on the fact that proportionally more of them are high quality, you're still going to break it by abusing it on rails and jumps. This is especially true for softer park skis because constant flexing breaks things. Think about what happens when you really bend a flexible ski: you have several sheets of material laying on top of each other, and when you bend the whole complex, the top layers have to bend more sharply than the bottom layers. This pushes those layers up and makes them slide against the bottom layers. Do and experiment: fold a sheet of paper in half a few times. Then, fold it again, when you fold it, the inner layers of the fold are squeezed up and out. This is what is happening to the top layers of your ski when you flex it, they are being pushed away from the bottom layers: DELAM. So, you can pretty much see how park skis are going to delam over time no matter what method you use to hold them together.
Just to back it all up a little more, according to the K2 website 2 years ago, Pep insisted that his pro model be really cheap. Why? Because he knows that a flexible park ski is going to break no matter how you build it, and if you are going to have to buy a new one in a year or so you don't want to pay a lot. So, caps make sense here because they are a cheaper method. But the ski doesn't break BECAUSE of the cap. If the ski was made with sidewalls, it would break just as fast, but it would be more expensive to replace.
So... everyone cool then?