K2 El Camino's vs Fours
Casey Woods
I'm trying to decide between these 2 skis and I'm wondering if there is
anybody out there who has skied on both and could comment on the
differences. I ski fast on steeps and I venture into the bumps from
time to time. I also love powder and crud. Any comments?
Casey Woods
Octavio
If you can, demo them. If you can't find the Camino in a demo forget it
and get the Four. If you ski fast you want the Four anyway. I had been
using the Dynastar Course Slalom before they broke and got the K2 Four.
You will not be disappointed.
Steve Cantrell
There is very little difference between the El Caminos and Fours.
Mostly cosmetic. This is according of a K2 rep I talked to before buying
El Caminos last season. BTW, I love my El Caminos.
Richard Cosgrove
I skiied on both the IV's and the El Camino at Squaw last year. They are
both pretty good skis. The El Camino seemed a little softer than the IV.
The IV's were a very good all around ski (powder, crud, and firm) for all
the conditions I encountered. The El Camino were good alround but I
perfer the a more stiffer agressive ski so I would say get the IV's.
Of course you should try to go demo them both before making a purchase.
Either way, I don't think you will go wrong.
Rich
Vail: buy both models!
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Casey Woods wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:31:07 -0600
> From: Casey Woods <cwo...@direct.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.skiing.alpine
> Subject: K2 El Camino's vs Fours
>
> I'm trying to decide between these 2 skis and I'm wondering if there is
> anybody out there who has skied on both and could comment on the
> differences. I ski fast on steeps and I venture into the bumps from
> time to time. I also love powder and crud. Any comments?
>
> Casey Woods
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cosgrove
Computer Specialist
Southwest Fisheries Science Center e-mail: rcos...@ucsd.edu
8604 La Jolla Shores Dr. Phone: (619) 546-7057
La Jolla, CA. 92037 FAX: (619) 546-7003
Bikewrkr
I have the El Camino's the differnece between the 4's and caminos is the
neat little dampening system on the fours. They are supposidly exactly the
same beside that.
That however is a big feature, you say you like crud and bumps then go
with the camino's I ski crud, bmps, funparks, ice, cruisers, everything I mine.
If your looking to just fly like the wind on smoothies and not feel all
the chatter then go for the 4's
later
chris
********************************************
Bike...@aol.com; can...@kes.miracosta.cc.ca.us
"If life is a waste of time, and time is a waste of life, then how about
we get wasted and have the time of our
lives??"
Jay L. Samoff
Steve Cantrell wrote:
I thought there was one major difference: the El Caminos don't have the
piezo anti-vibration system. Isn't that so?
Jay L. Samoff
bh...@lehigh.edu
In article <342483BC...@ulster.net>, "Jay L. Samoff" <j...@ulster.net> writ
es:
C'mon, snow! *<8@
Aaron Daniel
Jay L. Samoff <j...@ulster.net> wrote in article
<342483BC...@ulster.net>...
> Steve Cantrell wrote:
>
> > There is very little difference between the El Caminos and Fours.
> > Mostly cosmetic. This is according of a K2 rep I talked to before
> > buying
> > El Caminos last season. BTW, I love my El Caminos.
>
> I thought there was one major difference: the El Caminos don't have the
> piezo anti-vibration system. Isn't that so?
>
The ElCam is an Olin Radius. Which means it is a Four without the "brain",
but with the addition of PECS which add extra material above the edges to
increase edge pressure. By comparison the ElCam/Radius is more lively/less
damp than the Four.
ASMINES
You are correct the 4's have the piezo thing and the El Caminos don't. Both are
all mountain expert (stiff) skis. The 4's will ride a little smoother over ice
and hard pack at high speed. Both should be skiied about ten cm shorter than a
traditional sidecut ski.
Horvath
On 4 Oct 1997 19:41:12 GMT, asm...@aol.com (ASMINES) scribbled:
Nonsense. If you're an expert skier, you should stay at the same
length.
Horvath
I didn't come here for a Polka lesson, so stop dancing around!
For more information send an E-mail to In...@Horvath.net
Bikewrkr
>Nonsense. If you're an expert skier, you should stay at the >same length.
> Horvath
Yeah thats why all the K2 pro's run 198-and ocasional 204 instead of their trad
210-215's.
Sure.
Horvath
On 5 Oct 1997 00:17:45 GMT, bike...@aol.com (Bikewrkr) scribbled:
>>Nonsense. If you're an expert skier, you should stay at the >same length.
>
>
> > Horvath
>
>Yeah thats why all the K2 pro's run 198-and ocasional 204 instead of their trad
> 210-215's.
>
That's because K2 fours don't come in 215's.
ThisComputer
OK, read Horvath's justification above..."They dont make K2 Fours in 215"
DUH!!! Why not??? Because they simply cannot be skied in that length, fool.
This guy must look great on a double-black.....come to think of it....this
guy prob. cannot even ski!!!!
Bikewrkr <bike...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971005162...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> I think "Horvath" doesn't exactly understand the whole theory behind
sidecuts.
> To him it's longer the better, he has been probably trying to ski 198
sidecuts
> and can't figure out why he keeps landing on his large head, even when
he is
> trying the green runs.
>
> who know's what drives people?
>
> Later
> Chris
kor
On 5 Oct 1997 14:19:11 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> wrote:
>turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
>turn. I guarantee that this Horvath person could not get down a green run
>on my 188 Volant Power Karve's...the skis would pitch him right onto his
>melon head...
Do what I did, my newsgroup reader auto-deletes any posts from him
ThisComputer
I am amazed at the absolute nonsense this Horvath guy spews out. What a
moron. The manufacturers dont even make shaped skis in traditional racing
lengths anymore. Try finding a K2 Four in 210cm...it does not exist....The
reason....the radical sidecut...if you tried it at your normal length, you
would have a near-impossible time initiating, holding, and completing the
turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
turn. I guarantee that this Horvath person could not get down a green run
on my 188 Volant Power Karve's...the skis would pitch him right onto his
melon head...
Bikewrkr <bike...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971005001...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >Nonsense. If you're an expert skier, you should stay at the >same
length.
>
>
> > Horvath
>
> Yeah thats why all the K2 pro's run 198-and ocasional 204 instead of
their trad
> 210-215's.
>
> Sure.
Bikewrkr
I think "Horvath" doesn't exactly understand the whole theory behind sidecuts.
To him it's longer the better, he has been probably trying to ski 198 sidecuts
and can't figure out why he keeps landing on his large head, even when he is
trying the green runs.
who know's what drives people?
Later
Chris
********************************************
Horvath
On 5 Oct 1997 16:27:10 GMT, bike...@aol.com (Bikewrkr) scribbled:
>I think "Horvath" doesn't exactly understand the whole theory behind sidecuts.
> To him it's longer the better, he has been probably trying to ski 198 sidecuts
> and can't figure out why he keeps landing on his large head, even when he is
> trying the green runs.
>
You should try to come up with something better. I never said that
longer is better, (unless you're using it to pick up Hooter Girls.)
Horvath
On 5 Oct 1997 14:19:11 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> scribbled:
>I am amazed at the absolute nonsense this Horvath guy spews out. What a
>moron. The manufacturers dont even make shaped skis in traditional racing
>lengths anymore. Try finding a K2 Four in 210cm...it does not exist....The
>reason....the radical sidecut...if you tried it at your normal length, you
>would have a near-impossible time initiating, holding, and completing the
>turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
>turn. I guarantee that this Horvath person could not get down a green run
>on my 188 Volant Power Karve's...the skis would pitch him right onto his
>melon head...
>
Duh! Listen newbie, you should learn to read the headers before you
open your mouth and step inside. You're posting the same stuff I just
said, and trying to say that I didn't say it.
I could take your 188's, ski any slope I wanted, shove them high up
your butt, and beat you to the lounge.
Horvath
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
For more information, send an e-mail to In...@Horvath.net
Horvath
On 5 Oct 1997 21:07:15 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> scribbled:
>OK, read Horvath's justification above..."They dont make K2 Fours in 215"
>DUH!!! Why not??? Because they simply cannot be skied in that length, fool.
> This guy must look great on a double-black.....come to think of it....this
>guy prob. cannot even ski!!!!
>
Duh! I can ski K2 fours in 215 if they made them. Even after
drinking slivowitz, which you can't even pronounce.
Hugh Grierson
>On 5 Oct 1997 14:19:11 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> scribbled:
>
>>I am amazed at the absolute nonsense this Horvath guy spews out. What a
>>moron. The manufacturers dont even make shaped skis in traditional racing
>>lengths anymore. Try finding a K2 Four in 210cm...it does not exist....The
>>reason....the radical sidecut...if you tried it at your normal length, you
>>would have a near-impossible time initiating, holding, and completing the
>>turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
>>turn.
You may not be able to get a Four in 210, but they do make a mid-fat with
~15mm sidecut in a 204cm length. That's about the same sidecut depth as the
Merlin-V, a "shaped" ski, yes? And modern super-G skis come with about 12mm
of sidecut in 210-212cm lengths. That's the same depth as a K2 Two or
Merlin-II, both "shaped" skis, yes?
Vail - The 215 is dead, long live the 212.
Horvath
On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:13:02 GMT, spyr...@hotmail.com (kor)
scribbled:
>On 5 Oct 1997 14:19:11 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> wrote:
>
>
>>turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
>>turn. I guarantee that this Horvath person could not get down a green run
>>on my 188 Volant Power Karve's...the skis would pitch him right onto his
>>melon head...
>
>Do what I did, my newsgroup reader auto-deletes any posts from him
then you miss all my advice on how to pick up Hooter Girls.
S. Deem
On 5 Oct 1997, ThisComputer wrote:
> I am amazed at the absolute nonsense this Horvath guy spews out. What a
> moron.
I won't try to argue this statement. However:
> Try finding a K2 Four in 210cm...it does not exist....The
> reason....the radical sidecut...if you tried it at your normal length, you
> would have a near-impossible time initiating, holding, and completing the
> turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high speed GS
> turn.
This is an exaggeration. Horvath has a point in that the manufacturer's
recommendation to go down 10-15 cm from your normal length may not hold
for everyone. I ski two different models of shaped skis in the maximum
length, even though I'm a little shit and "should" be on much shorter
skis. I like them long for the increased stability at speed and for
greater edging on steeps and hard snow. The trade off is that you lose
some quickness from edge to edge with the longer versions. However, they
are not "impossible" or "ultra unstable", etc. In fact, they are more
stable.
The 10-15 cm rule is probable good for intermediates. Advanced skiers
should demo a couple of different lengths and decide which is best for
their style of skiing.
This Computer
Sorry about misconceptions you are having. The more radical the sidecut,
the shorter the ski must be, to have the largest edge surface contact
possible, in a turn. Sounds strange, but is true. A super GS ski needs to
maximize edge area contact with the snow, in order to carry such a huge
force. Thus, a Super GS ski does not have much of a side-cut, but has
exceptional length. This maximizes the surface area the edge puts onto the
snow in a super GS turn, at speed. IF a ski did not need to turn, then
speed is a simple matter of length...the longer the faster. Why? Again, it
is due to maximum ski surface area in contact with the snow. But, skis DO
need to turn, and the most efficient way to do this is by rolling the ski
onto its edge and "carving" your turn. A super sidecut ski puts the "sweet
spot" of the edge onto the snow with very little input from the skier.
THis is why they are called "power steering". The trade-off....less total
edge surface area in contact with the snow, due to the "parabolic" nature
of the shape of the ski. THus, you wind up with a fantastically responsive
ski, but you give up a large degree of stability at max speed in a large
turn.
Again, if super sidecuts behaved like conventional skis, the mfrs would
still build them in 215 and 218 lengths, as conventional skis are more
stable in high speed, high load-factor turns the longer the ski is. But
sidecuts are NOT conventional skis, and longer is NOT better. THe mfrs are
in agreement that a side-cut ski like the K2 Four reaches its maximum edge
contact area potential at less than 205cm. To make them longer would give
rapidly diminishing overall returns.
So, next time you watch a super-G race, watch the ski...chances are it has
a standard side-cut with a length of aroung 215cm...and watch the
technique..its all about carrying speed through the turns (and not wiping
out)
S. Deem <sd...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.971006...@homer01.u.washington.edu>...
S. Deem
On 6 Oct 1997, This Computer wrote:
> Sorry about misconceptions you are having.
Don't apologize for your misconceptions about my conceptions. Allow me to
share my wisdom with you:
> The more radical the sidecut,
> the shorter the ski must be, to have the largest edge surface contact
> possible, in a turn.
This is only true when the ski is used passively, or if it is as stiff as
a two-by-four and can't be decambered. Gets back to the issue of
intermediates vs advanced skiers. A stronger skier will be able to
maximize edge surface contact with a long, shaped ski.
> Sounds strange, but is true. A super GS ski needs to
> maximize edge area contact with the snow, in order to carry such a huge
> force. Thus, a Super GS ski does not have much of a side-cut, but has
> exceptional length. This maximizes the surface area the edge puts onto the
> snow in a super GS turn, at speed.
Huh? If edge surface contact with snow is the
important factor in "carrying" force, why aren't Super G racers using Elan
SCXs, short little things with a lot of sidecut? Mainly because they don't
need the short turning radius provided by a "shaped" ski. Super G and
downhill skis are designed more to provide tracking and
fore-aft stability, and that's where the length comes in.
> IF a ski did not need to turn, then
> speed is a simple matter of length...the longer the faster. Why? Again, it
> is due to maximum ski surface area in contact with the snow.
This nonsense generates its own thread about once a year. Many factors
play into what makes a "fast" ski, including core construction, damping,
base construction, and length, because length means stable, and stable
means fast. Suffice it to say that if maximum surface area was an
important determinant of speed, snowboarders would be setting speed skiing
records. How many snowboarders have you seen dragging their boards along
the "flats" while you cruised by on skis? Surface area is maximum on a
big, fat pair of powder planks. They don't show up very often on the
downhill circuit, do they?
> A super sidecut ski puts the "sweet
> spot" of the edge onto the snow with very little input from the skier.
> THis is why they are called "power steering". The trade-off....less total
> edge surface area in contact with the snow, due to the "parabolic" nature
> of the shape of the ski.
What's it gonna be: more surface area in contact with snow, or less.
You've proposed both so far. The correct answer is more, thus the
recommendation to ski them shorter.
THus, you wind up with a fantastically responsive
> ski, but you give up a large degree of stability at max speed in a large
> turn.
>
What do you mean by max speed? If you are talking recreational "max
speed", long, shaped skis have a great deal of stability in large turns.
At the racing level, shaped skis are used widely in World Cup GS races.
There are a bunch of shaped GS skis on the market that will take you as
fast as you want to go (assuming you are not a competitive downhiller).
Try some.
> So, next time you watch a super-G race, watch the ski...chances are it has
> a standard side-cut with a length of aroung 215cm...and watch the
> technique..its all about carrying speed through the turns (and not wiping
> out)
Maybe. I'll buy that they have "standard" sidecut, but they have more than
they did a few years ago. And downhill and Super G skis are getting
shorter, with some going less than 210.
Anyway, back to the original argument: you don't "have" to ski a shaped
ski 10-15cm shorter than your usual length, unless your usual length is
greater than 205 (that being the length of the longest shaped ski on the
market). Longer will buy you stability at speed, shorter quicker turns.
Adrenochrome
This Computer <comp...@joe.blow> tried to revive a "physics of skiing"
thread...
> Sorry about misconceptions you are having. The more radical the sidecut,
> the shorter the ski must be, to have the largest edge surface contact
Uh... sorry... If the sidecut radius remains the same, the longer ski is
still going to have the largest edge surface contact. A more correct
statement may be "The more radical the sidecut, the shorter the ski must
be, to keep the tips and tails from being snowboard width." Figure that an
10m sidecut radius ski at 200cm has to be much wider at the shovel and tail
than a 10m sidecut radius 160cm ski...
> possible, in a turn. Sounds strange, but is true. A super GS ski needs
to
> maximize edge area contact with the snow, in order to carry such a huge
> force. Thus, a Super GS ski does not have much of a side-cut, but has
> exceptional length. This maximizes the surface area the edge puts onto
the
So now you get the largest surface area (here's a clue, try "effective edge
length") by having exceptional length? I thought you just said it was from
having sidecut and being short...
> snow in a super GS turn, at speed. IF a ski did not need to turn, then
> speed is a simple matter of length...the longer the faster. Why? Again,
it
> is due to maximum ski surface area in contact with the snow. But, skis DO
Well, gee, in that case snowboards would be setting snow-speed records...
AFAIK, they ain't... Try stability...
> need to turn, and the most efficient way to do this is by rolling the ski
> onto its edge and "carving" your turn. A super sidecut ski puts the
"sweet
> spot" of the edge onto the snow with very little input from the skier.
However, if you would like to vary the radius of your turns, you'll still
need to be able to decamber the ski...
> THis is why they are called "power steering". The trade-off....less
total
> edge surface area in contact with the snow, due to the "parabolic" nature
I happen to agree with this bit, however you are contradicting your
original statement again...
The instability at speed is more due to the natural turning radius of the
ski, it's shortness, and the magnifying effect the extra sidecut has on any
boot alignment problems. When you are travelling at a fast non-racing
clip, say 60mph, or about 100kph (~28m/sec) and your skis want to make 10m
radius turns... That gives you a carved 180 degree turn in just over 1
second (now that's a stiff ski!). Care to calculate the angulation
required to keep you from flying out of that turn? How about the G-load?
That's what I'd call a little unstable.
> of the shape of the ski. THus, you wind up with a fantastically
responsive
> ski, but you give up a large degree of stability at max speed in a large
> turn.
Fantastically responsive - In my books, that means edge-edge quickness,
rebound, liveliness, fall-line performance... Descriptions which are
rarely associated with SS skis.
> Again, if super sidecuts behaved like conventional skis, the mfrs would
> still build them in 215 and 218 lengths, as conventional skis are more
> stable in high speed, high load-factor turns the longer the ski is. But
> sidecuts are NOT conventional skis, and longer is NOT better. THe mfrs
are
> in agreement that a side-cut ski like the K2 Four reaches its maximum
edge
> contact area potential at less than 205cm. To make them longer would
give
> rapidly diminishing overall returns.
To make them longer would make the tips and tails about a foot wide. This
brings about a whole other set of engineering problems, for instance
torsional rigidity and a large moment of rotation. Not to mention that
they'd look so silly even the sheep wouldn't associate with you... (Sorry,
it slipped.)
>
> So, next time you watch a super-G race, watch the ski...chances are it
has
> a standard side-cut with a length of aroung 215cm...and watch the
> technique..its all about carrying speed through the turns (and not wiping
> out)
Super-G skis are straighter?...maybe, I wouldn't know. It is my
understanding that GS skis have a lot more shape than they used to.
But wait - there's more....
> > On 5 Oct 1997, ThisComputer wrote:
> >
> > > Try finding a K2 Four in 210cm...it does not exist....The
> > > reason....the radical sidecut...if you tried it at your normal
length,
> you
> > > would have a near-impossible time initiating, holding, and completing
> the
> > > turn...plus, they would be ultra unstable when initiating a high
speed
> GS
> > > turn.
The Four has a radius of about what? 30-35 meters? in a 210, the Four
would be a rocket. Fall into the turn beautifully, and hold it incredibly
well... I think the only problem you would have would be in trying to get
out of the turn, that is, making it let go.
--
Vail-Sheep are attracted to Bogners, and so are TWIT's...
S. Deem
On 7 Oct 1997, Bruno Melli wrote:
> My theory as to why super sidecut are shorter is that for the same
> turn radius a longer ski has to have a deeper sidecut. Past a certain
> sidecut it becomes very hard to keep a ski tortionally stiff. Just
> think about it...
>
This, plus Adrenochrome's observation that very long shaped skis would by
necessity be intolerably fat, make much more sense than Supercomputer's
contradictory and confusing explanation.
ThisComputer
S. Deem <sd...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.971006...@homer01.u.washington.edu>...
>
>
> >
> > IF a ski did not need to turn, then
> > speed is a simple matter of length...the longer the faster. Why?
Again, it
> > is due to maximum ski surface area in contact with the snow.
>
> This nonsense generates its own thread about once a year. Many factors
> play into what makes a "fast" ski, including core construction, damping,
> base construction, and length, because length means stable, and stable
> means fast. Suffice it to say that if maximum surface area was an
> important determinant of speed, snowboarders would be setting speed
skiing
> records. How many snowboarders have you seen dragging their boards along
> the "flats" while you cruised by on skis? Surface area is maximum on a
> big, fat pair of powder planks. They don't show up very often on the
> downhill circuit, do they?
You forget one important factor...the trade-off between WIDTH and SPEED. A
pair of speed skates would beat everything down the slope, except for the
fact that they would sink into the snow....a ski needs length, proportional
to width to maximize speed. The formula escapes me now, but it does take
into account surface area contact with the snow. I think that simply
length times width (assuming the entire ski is in contact) will give a
rough approximation of ski surface area contact, but there is another
factor that needs to be included to determine maximum speed potential. I
believe this factor is a correlation between length and width, but am
unsure of its calculation (Dammit Jim I'm a skier, not a physicist).
Perhaps a friendly ski-rep can help us out here.
>
> THus, you wind up with a fantastically responsive
> > ski, but you give up a large degree of stability at max speed in a
large
> > turn.
> >
> What do you mean by max speed? If you are talking recreational "max
> speed", long, shaped skis have a great deal of stability in large turns.
No, I was talking about MAX speed. What the hell is "recreational" max
speed. Is that like jumbo shrimp, or some other oxymoronic phrase??
Recreational max speed--that speed required to make it to the chalet before
you wet your one-piece??
> At the racing level, shaped skis are used widely in World Cup GS races.
> There are a bunch of shaped GS skis on the market that will take you as
> fast as you want to go (assuming you are not a competitive downhiller).
> Try some.
Hmmm, dont recall ever seeing a top GS'r use a side-cut ski...however, as
EVERY ski is shaped, even a little, your statement is true by massive
inclusion. Please provide me with the name of any top ten GS'r who uses a
shaped ski (or even uses a ski less than 210cm in length) to support your
statement. Until then, I will stick with my own first-hand observations.
>
> > So, next time you watch a super-G race, watch the ski...chances are it
has
> > a standard side-cut with a length of aroung 215cm...and watch the
> > technique..its all about carrying speed through the turns (and not
wiping
> > out)
>
> Maybe. I'll buy that they have "standard" sidecut, but they have more
than
> they did a few years ago. And downhill and Super G skis are getting
> shorter, with some going less than 210.
>
HELLO, doesnt this paragraph directly contradict the preceeding paragraph??
> Anyway, back to the original argument: you don't "have" to ski a shaped
> ski 10-15cm shorter than your usual length, unless your usual length is
> greater than 205 (that being the length of the longest shaped ski on the
> market). Longer will buy you stability at speed, shorter quicker turns.
>
>
Yes, Virginia you DO have to ski shorter than usual length, unless you want
to experience fear as you try to keep from pitching head over heels on that
double-black run, and enjoy changing underwear between runs. Only true
experts should try the real shaped skis at their max length. Unless you
weigh over 250lbs, a 198 or less should provide you with a better ski
experience than your old 203's or 205's or whatever. Those shaped skis can
get very twitchy at high speed in long lengths, very grabby,,,,very
scary.......
Christopher Dye
ThisComputer (j...@not.com) wrote:
: S. Deem <sd...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
: You forget one important factor...the trade-off between WIDTH and SPEED. A
: pair of speed skates would beat everything down the slope, except for the
: fact that they would sink into the snow....a ski needs length, proportional
: to width to maximize speed. The formula escapes me now, but it does take
: into account surface area contact with the snow. I think that simply
: length times width (assuming the entire ski is in contact) will give a
: rough approximation of ski surface area contact, but there is another
: factor that needs to be included to determine maximum speed potential. I
: believe this factor is a correlation between length and width, but am
: unsure of its calculation (Dammit Jim I'm a skier, not a physicist).
: Perhaps a friendly ski-rep can help us out here.
It's probably similar to the ratio used to determine max hull
speed for a sailboat -- length at waterline times width divided
by some figure, only modified for skis.
: Hmmm, dont recall ever seeing a top GS'r use a side-cut ski...however, as
: EVERY ski is shaped, even a little, your statement is true by massive
: inclusion. Please provide me with the name of any top ten GS'r who uses a
: shaped ski (or even uses a ski less than 210cm in length) to support your
: statement. Until then, I will stick with my own first-hand observations.
I believe I've seen something about Picabo Street using a shaped
ski of some sort, but I could be entirely wrong and I'm not too
interested in doing that much research. Either way, those are
some pretty funky Rossignols she's on.
: Yes, Virginia you DO have to ski shorter than usual length, unless you want
: to experience fear as you try to keep from pitching head over heels on that
: double-black run, and enjoy changing underwear between runs. Only true
: experts should try the real shaped skis at their max length. Unless you
: weigh over 250lbs, a 198 or less should provide you with a better ski
: experience than your old 203's or 205's or whatever. Those shaped skis can
: get very twitchy at high speed in long lengths, very grabby,,,,very
: scary.......
YM Barbie, HTH. I guess since I'm not racing on my skis, I'm
happy with whatever gives me decent control and gets me from
the top of the mountain to the bottom while having a good time.
I guess it all boils down to whatever you want to do. I've
decided this whole shaped/not-shaped controversy boils down to
the same bunch of folks who decided that those newfangled
automobile contraptions would never outdo the horse and carraige.
Either way, demo a bunch of skis and ski what you like. That's
what I do and it works for me. Well, that and actually listening
to some other people and their experiences with a variety of
equipment rather than basing my knowledge on my experience with
the Rossignol CUT 11.5 or whatever those things were.
FWIW, I bought a pair of Hart F17.9 in 190 and stuck a pair
of Marker M-51s on them for this year. I tried them out on
the crud at Blackcomb in June and they were pretty freaky.
Turning was totally different than my GS style skis. I'll
play with them some more this winter.
Steven's Pass got snow last night. Maybe we're working to
build up a base finally!
Seeya!
Chris
--
Christopher B. Dye "... TWO BLOCKS without a STARBUCKS ...
cb...@blarg.net ... and they call this CIVILIZATION?"
www.pixi.com/~cbdye - Zippy (970922)
KC7ZAM [ENTP]
S. Deem
On 8 Oct 1997, ThisComputer wrote:
> S. Deem <sd...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> Something to the effect that more surface area under ski does not mean
more speed, but perhaps the opposite...
>
> You forget one important factor...the trade-off between WIDTH and SPEED. A
> pair of speed skates would beat everything down the slope, except for the
> fact that they would sink into the snow....a ski needs length, proportional
> to width to maximize speed. The formula escapes me now...blah, blah,
> blah.
There is quite a lot escaping you. Are you suggesting that if a pair of
skates were 10 feet long, they'd cruise right down a snow slope? Or are
you suggesting that wider is better, and that wider skates/skis are
faster? Perhaps if you put the skates on sideways you could really fly;
try it and see. So now its not surface area that's important in
determining speed, its width to length ratio. Better go back to the
drawing board.
> No, I was talking about MAX speed. What the hell is "recreational" max
> speed. Is that like jumbo shrimp, or some other oxymoronic phrase??
I imagine you know exactly what I was talking about, but to make it
perfectly clear for your computerized brain: I mean as fast as you can
ski on a groomed slope without killing someone or having ski patrol pull
your pass. I am not talking about highly competitive Super
G or downhill racing, or speed skiing, or whatever. There are plenty of
shaped skis which will allow you to do this. See below:
> Hmmm, dont recall ever seeing a top GS'r use a side-cut ski...however, as
> EVERY ski is shaped, even a little, your statement is true by massive
> inclusion. Please provide me with the name of any top ten GS'r who uses a
> shaped ski (or even uses a ski less than 210cm in length) to support your
> statement. Until then, I will stick with my own first-hand observations.
Well, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there, and I'll bet someone
like Patrick Chase could help us out with this. However, for a few
examples:
1. Debra Compagnoni (GS champion 96-97) supposedly skis on Dynastar Max
0, length less than 200 cm.
2. Kjetl Aamodt (2nd GS 96-97) skis Kastle Speed Machines at about 205.
3. Andreas Schifferer (8th GS, 3rd Super G 96-97) skis Head Cyber World
Cups, length 197.
Granted, none of these skis have the sidecut of a Four or the other
"recreational" models, but they still qualify as shaped.
> > And downhill and Super G skis are getting
> > shorter, with some going less than 210.
> >
> HELLO, doesn't this paragraph directly contradict the preceeding
paragraph??
Nope. As I pointed out earlier, there are many factors which play into
what makes a ski "fast". With improvements in ski construction, there is
less need for skis to be super long to achieve stability at speed, and I
believe that its fair to say that the length of skis in the speed venues
has fallen over the last few years.
> > Anyway, back to the original argument: you don't "have" to ski a shaped
> > ski 10-15cm shorter than your usual length
> Yes, Virginia you DO have to ski shorter than usual length, unless you want
> to experience fear as you try to keep from pitching head over heels on that
> double-black run, and enjoy changing underwear between runs, blah, blah,
> blah...
You either don't read very well or don't ski very well. As I or any
number of other folks who ski super sidecuts at max length can attest to,
you are spouting a load of b.s. As I suggested before, you should go out
and demo a pair of long ss skis and find out just how "dangerous" they are
(if you can get up the nerve - the warnings you keep spewing out make such
an undertaking sound lethal).
Fernando Pereira
In article <61dk6e$r...@news.inforamp.net>, "Adrenochrome"According to the buyer's guide in "Powder", 24m for the 188cm model, max
length 198cm. Typical SS skis have nominal turning radii under 30m,
typical traditional SL skis above 40m. Nominal radii of 30-35m are used
mostly in traditional GS (eg. Sal Equipe 2S) or in mid-fat skis (eg.
Voelkl Snow Ranger, Sal X-Mountain), at least judging from the sample in
"Powder".
Horvath
On 9 Oct 1997 13:44:24 GMT, "ThisComputer" <j...@not.com> scribbled:
>
>Third, experts and advanced skiers prob. should give the radicals and
>supers a try in their "normal" length, if the mfr even makes it in their
>"normal" length. I backed down two lengths to find the best performing
>super side-cut...it performs GREAT. The longer ski was more of a
>hinderance than enhancement, at rec. ski speeds. (NOT MAX speed, the longer
>ski WAS better at dampening vibes, molding to the turn, and not skating out
>from under me, but that balls-out skiing only accounts for 20% of my day,
>so, the extra length hurt or didnt help me 80% of the time)
>
Obviously, you are not as advanced as you claim. I spend 100% of my
skiing at top speed. Anytime I'm not skiing flat-out, I'm trying to
pick up chicks. (I'm very successful at both skiing, and picking up
chicks.)
Horvath
Vail: ware ich nach Hooters
S. Deem
On 9 Oct 1997, ThisComputer wrote:
> Well, you sure told me....NOT
But later:
> Third, experts and advanced skiers prob. should give the radicals and
> supers a try in their "normal" length, if the mfr even makes it in their
> "normal" length.
Which is what I had been saying all alone, so maybe NOT NOT. But I'll try
to stay in order from now on.
> First, none of your GS skis are considered side-cut, shaped, or parabolic.
> These are standard side-cut racing skis. Just like I said.
Since the definition of super sidecut skis is somewhat nebulous, I suppose
you can shape it to make whatever point you want. And what is standard? I
would argue that lots of sidecut is now standard. Nonetheless, here are
some numbers to ponder.
1. The Dynastar Max Zero has a turn radius of 21 meters
2. The Head Cyber World Cup 26 meters
3. The Atomic Beta Race 928 28 meters
4. The Kastle SpeedMachine GS 30 meters.
This compared to a turn radius of 24 meters for the K2 Four, 26 meters for
the Merlin V, and 33-34 meters for conventional GS skis. Slalom skis run
around 40. The above skis sound suspiciously "shaped" to me, by I was
never good with numbers.
> Second, you obviously have not had the pleasure of watching intermediates
> try to get down a run
There is no pleasure in watching intermediates ski. You must be an
instructor, which explains your strange and conservative ideas.
(Point four skipped because of pointlessness)
> Thus endeth this absurd thread. Let's hope its dead, this obnoxious thread.
> Ski with your head.
This thread won't end as long as you persist in disseminating misleading
information. Judging by your previous track record, we're in for a long
haul.
Ski with your skis; they have more surface area than your head.
Anthea
S. Deem wrote:
> Since the definition of super sidecut skis is somewhat nebulous, I suppose
> you can shape it to make whatever point you want.
>
These have finally turned up in Oz (at the trade show). It's the only
decent-feeling parabolic I've been on; light, responsive, very easy to
ski, no nasty surprises. Nice graphics, too (that is, none. It's just
orange).
Bloke at the Dynastar stand said they were aimed at advanced/expert
skiiers! Yet it was the best bludge-ski I tried during the Odyssey.
ant
--
Anthea Kerrison
email: an...@geocities.com
anthea....@employment.gov.au
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/1298/
lisa & rob
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:26:17 -0700, Octavio <oct...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>If you can, demo them. If you can't find the Camino in a demo forget it
>and get the Four. If you ski fast you want the Four anyway. I had been
>using the Dynastar Course Slalom before they broke and got the K2 Four.
>You will not be disappointed.
Bull.
I have the el-camino's, and I can gaurentee that they are fast!!!!
Get the el's, They cost less, and are just as fast as the fours, if
not a little faster.
Stevo
Aaron Daniel
Forget both. Jump on the Merlin IV. Just as quick as the ElCam at low speed
and
better at (higher) speed(s) than the Magic Four.
Personal opinion only: The Magic Four is dead at low speed. The ElCam has
no top
end. The Merlin IV is as good as that shape can be without the Merlin V's
brain.
Aar-head
lisa & rob <rob...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<3466b142...@news4.bellatlantic.net>...