Am I way overthinking turn radius?

[cooper8168]

My first post. I can't believe it's taken me this long to find my way here. It's been a treasure trove of good info.

About Me:

52yo male, 5'9", 180lbs, pretty athletic (I've skied 45 years, ski team in HS, and I cycle about 120 miles a week). 90% of my skiing is at Tahoe, which is where I grew up (Heavenly/Kirkwood), but I take one or two trips to CO or Utah each year. I'm an Epic Pass holder since inception.

Until 2013 I always had a 2-ski quiver, the last of which was Volkl Supersport Allstars and Line 100s. When I turned 45, I discovered that my interests were mainly frontside with occasional forays off-piste, so I bought the Atomic Crimson Ti (88mm, 17m radius). I've skied the Crimson exclusively ever since and it's worked well for me, but as I get older, I find that I'm really only interested in wide-turn fast frontside carving anymore. I only go off-piste when I have to, and I have no interest in short slalom-style turns or bumps. I feel like an 88mm all-mountain rocker might be too wide for my needs and that I've shoehorned the Atomic to fit my skiing style. Hence, I'm searching for a new ski.

Largely based on what I've read here, I've "narrowed" my search down to Stockli Laser AR, Kastle MX83, Stockli Laser AX and Fischer RC One 86, in current order of preference. I'm guessing I'll settle on a length somewhere in the 168-175cm range (suggestions welcome!). I do plan to demo as much as I can, but as I tend to do, I'm getting hung up on turn radius as it relates to my needs. The turn radius of all of these is shorter than what I've gotten used to with my Atomics, but as I said before, I think I may have forced the Atomics into doing something that other skis are probably much better at doing. I also realize we're talking about a difference of only 1 or 2 meters, but will this shorter radius be an issue for me? I'm having a hard time visualizing how much of a difference various radii can make in real life. I want a fast, stable, athletic wide carving ski that gets on edge quickly, but I don't want to get whipped around like a slalom ski might do. I think I'm on the right track with my choices and that I'm probably way overthinking this. I've always known what I liked, but not exactly why I liked it.

Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this!

Chris

 

[François Pugh]

You are not overthinking the side-cut radius of your ski.
The radius of the ski should have a direct relationship to the range of sizes of the turns you are going to be making most often. It is a very important parameter when it comes to carving pure arc-2-arc turns, the most fun kind of turns to make. Less important for other types of turns, but it still matters.

If you are making GS-sized turns, you would be best served with a ski with a side-cut radius designed to make turns that size, and if you are making them at GS speeds, you would be best served by a ski designed to make that size of turn at those speeds, i.e. be stiff enough to transfer the forces required throughout the ski accompanied by the ski bending into that size of turn.

The radius comes into play on a hard surface, because when you tip and weight a ski on a hard surface it naturally tries to adopt a shape with a curved shape having an APPROXIMATE radius of the cosine of the tipping angle times the side-cut radius of the ski. The approximation starts to break down when you get up to a tipping angle of around 70 degrees, and is fuzzier on softer snow. On really soft deep snow the side-cut radius still affects the turns the ski makes by applying more pressure at tips and tails with wider tips and tails thereby bending the ski more.

You also have to incline to balance the turn forces. For example if you are making a turn with a turning force (giving you the centripetal acceleration to turn) of 1 g, you need to incline at 45 degrees.

You don't want your skis trying to make a smaller turn than you are making; that will result in the skis not being able to make the turn that has been dialed up and a less than pure arc-2-arc turn (in fact almost all high speed turns on modern skis have this problem but let's not make it worse than it has to be). A worse problem is having your short radius skis suddenly dig into the dialed up turn momentarily and cause a high speed crash.

You also don't want to have to tip the skis to incredible angles just to make a small enough turn to suit your tastes; skiing a ski with too long a side-radius for the turns you want to make will also result in you smearing those turns.

I suggest you look at the longer versions of Fischer The Curve, Fischer RC, Stockli SX, Stockli GS, or similar skis; they were designed for doing exactly what you describe doing.

If you get the urge to explore lines off piste, you still have your Lines.

 

[crgildart]

The rider turns the skis, not the other way around. Yes, r makes turns that general size the easiest to do clean, but a few feet this way or that way would really only matter to a high level racer picking the proper tool for the discipline.

 

[DanoT]

Given the tip and tail rocker of most skis today, I would not rule out a 180 cm length for an advanced 5'9" skier.

I don't over think turn radius because I don't necessarily stay in the skis established arc. Some skis regardless of stated trum radius numbers are more willing to release you from the carve than others (think rounded tail vs squared off tail, or tail rocker vs flat tail), so rather than look at numbers, I demo

 

[ski otter 2]

I've skied the Crimson Ti for years. In fact, I've owned three of them (one a casualty of an awful base grind, others still in use). That ski, to me, is still stellar, if kept base flat (by myself) and tuned well. It's very much a finesse ski, for all its stiffness and rebound. For me, it's a matter of me adjusting my skiing to fit that ski, rather than the reverse - forcing it to do what I want. And yet I'm very glad I have other, more frontside/groomer biased skis also - including longer turning, fast frontside skis I like for that.

To me, the type of turns you say you want to make - again, -"wide turn fast frontside carving" - would be longer turning than the skis you mention: that is, the two lengths you give in the skis you mention, even at your height and weight, seems like.

I could go into how your mentioned skis compare to what you have, and what you want to do, but maybe this is enough to say, for now.

I have to ask: what length are your Crimsons (apologies if it's there and I just couldn't find it)?

 

[graham418]

I think any of the skis you've shortlisted will make you happy. As others have said, maybe think about sizing up a touch, in the 175 - 180 range. That would be more suitable for fast wide turns

 

[Noodler]

My first post. I can't believe it's taken me this long to find my way here. It's been a treasure trove of good info.

About Me:

52yo male, 5'9", 180lbs, pretty athletic (I've skied 45 years, ski team in HS, and I cycle about 120 miles a week). 90% of my skiing is at Tahoe, which is where I grew up (Heavenly/Kirkwood), but I take one or two trips to CO or Utah each year. I'm an Epic Pass holder since inception.

Until 2013 I always had a 2-ski quiver, the last of which was Völkl Supersport Allstars and Line 100s. When I turned 45, I discovered that my interests were mainly frontside with occasional forays off-piste, so I bought the Atomic Crimson Ti (88mm, 17m radius). I've skied the Crimson exclusively ever since and it's worked well for me, but as I get older, I find that I'm really only interested in wide-turn fast frontside carving anymore. I only go off-piste when I have to, and I have no interest in short slalom-style turns or bumps. I feel like an 88mm all-mountain rocker might be too wide for my needs and that I've shoehorned the Atomic to fit my skiing style. Hence, I'm searching for a new ski.

Largely based on what I've read here, I've "narrowed" my search down to Stöckli Laser AR, Kästle MX83, Stöckli Laser AX and Fischer RC One 86, in current order of preference. I'm guessing I'll settle on a length somewhere in the 168-175cm range (suggestions welcome!). I do plan to demo as much as I can, but as I tend to do, I'm getting hung up on turn radius as it relates to my needs. The turn radius of all of these is shorter than what I've gotten used to with my Atomics, but as I said before, I think I may have forced the Atomics into doing something that other skis are probably much better at doing. I also realize we're talking about a difference of only 1 or 2 meters, but will this shorter radius be an issue for me? I'm having a hard time visualizing how much of a difference various radii can make in real life. I want a fast, stable, athletic wide carving ski that gets on edge quickly, but I don't want to get whipped around like a slalom ski might do. I think I'm on the right track with my choices and that I'm probably way overthinking this. I've always known what I liked, but not exactly why I liked it.

Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this!

Chris

I think your short list is excellent (that probably won't surprise the forum regulars), but you should consider going on the longer side in your length choices. If you totally want to give up the off-piste potential, then I like the list Mr. Pugh offered also

 

[cooper8168]

I have to ask: what length are your Crimsons (apologies if it's there and I just couldn't find it)?

I agree - they've been fabulous. Mine are 171's.

 

[Tricia]

Reading the responses here I have to say... Depends
I've been on skis that have a suggested TR
Some of the TR depnds on the length the skier chooses, the weight and height of the skier, the skill of the skier and the flex of the ski.

I've been on skis that demand expert input with a suggested TR that is spot on
I've been on skis that have a suggested TR but are nimble enough to yield to the recreational skier
I've been on skis that made me scratch my head

Are you overthinking it? Probably not, but it depends on you and the ski you are choosing.

 

[Noodler]

Reading the responses here I have to say... Depends
I've been on skis that have a suggested TR
Some of the TR depnds on the length the skier chooses, the weight and height of the skier, the skill of the skier and the flex of the ski.

I've been on skis that demand expert input with a suggested TR that is spot on
I've been on skis that have a suggested TR but are nimble enough to yield to the recreational skier
I've been on skis that made me scratch my head

Are you overthinking it? Probably not, but it depends on you and the ski you are choosing.

This is a good point and goes back to the fact that a published sidecut is only part of the story for any ski. You can't really read into a sidecut alone and fully understand what the ski is capable of and how it will ski in 2D vs. 3D conditions. I've also found that some published sidecuts sometimes feel like pure marketing on the part of the manufacturer.

 

[mdf]

I've also found that some published sidecuts sometimes feel like pure marketing on the part of the manufacturer.

A more charitable way of looking at it is that published specs are a proxy that indicates the intent of the designer.

 

[François Pugh]

If you were to plot the side edge of any particular ski on X-Y coordinates using metre as your unit of length and see what circle best matched up with that edge, say using least squares error regression, you would find that one circle fits best of all the possible circles you could try. The radius of that circle is the side-cut radius of that ski.

It's not just marketing smoke and mirrors. It is a thing. A thing that matters.

If you were just to take the front half of the ski, from the mid-boot mounting point forward and fit a circle you would most likely find a smaller circle fits than if you take the part of the ski behind the mid-point. Skis have taper. Who knew? Now-a-days the marketing people are hyping dual radius side-cuts; it's nothing new, just being brought to light.

 

[ski otter 2]

A lot of variables besides radius effect the overall ski behavior, so demoing is often best. In general, though, a good way to slow down easily (with lots of turns) is to go for only skis with r 17 and under, mostly. An "old guy" method, for me.

I agree - they've been fabulous. Mine are 171's.

To me, the lengths you picked were probably, mostly, too short for what you want now, seems like. High one hundred seventies for most good skis would be a minimum probably, depending on the ski.

So that you can see my bias, I have been skiing the Crimson 178s (5'10"/150 lbs.), and wish I had the next length up also (184-187 or so?) for the more specialized use you describe, instead of versatility, the sort of longer turns on groomers and such that you probably want. Fast. Stable. I've demoed that longer Crimson length, and it's a versatile charger, for me (and probably would be for you too, with your race background, though maybe not a first choice now.)

That said, of the skis you mentioned, maybe the Kastle MX83 is the most like the Crimson, and with fast long turns you are wanting to do also, seems like, except not as playful, more locked into the carve a bit, not as quick to alternately carve/slarve/stivot/pivot as you may choose (like the Crimsons). It's a more serious, precise carver though. Might work at high 170s length or longer (though not for me on the type of long turns fast you're probably wanting). Demo, if possible.

Myself, for fast longer turns, I'd rather be on, say, a 183 AX; a well-tuned, base-flattened longer Crimson sometimes; or a full blown frontside carver, such as @François Pugh suggested.

Of the other skis you mentioned, have not tried the AR in longer versions. The 175 does medium and short turns better, to me - very precise and dialed in.

The Fischer GT 86/175 is a very solid, quick turner, very stable and grounded for so quick. Medium turns best, maybe. Not so naturally a fast long turner.

Something similar for the AX 175 and under, mostly. Very, very quick - big fast rebound - again, medium and shorter turns its forte. Does fast well.

 

[DanoT]

Now-a-days the marketing people are hyping dual radius side-cuts; it's nothing new, just being brought to light.

No industry is better at reinventing itself than the Ski Industry. Throw is some pizazz with some cool graphics and away you.

 

[Andy Mink]

I have found it's easy to make a short radius ski turn longer than make a long radius ski turn shorter. You just don't have to get over on the edge so far. However, as @François Pugh mentioned, there are drawbacks when you toss higher speeds into the equation. I've skied on all the skis in your list at least a little bit and I personally would take the Kastle over the others. For my slower speeds, it just seemed the best fit.

 

[mdf]

The radius of that circle is the side-cut radius of that ski.
It's not just marketing smoke and mirrors.

I think you missed the point. The least-squares-fit circle and the number printed on the ski (or the website) have only a loose correlation.

 

[François Pugh]

I think you missed the point. The least-squares-fit circle and the number printed on the ski (or the website) have only a loose correlation.

That is quite possible, especially on a recreational only ski.

I can see how printing R>35 m or R>50 m on a FIS racing ski that had a radius of 27 m might not be a good idea for the manufacturers, but we are not talking about a FIS racing ski yet (maybe on page 4?).

 

[Rod9301]

180 pounds?

You should be on 184cm skis

 

[Magi]

My first post. I can't believe it's taken me this long to find my way here. It's been a treasure trove of good info.

About Me:

52yo male, 5'9", 180lbs, pretty athletic (I've skied 45 years, ski team in HS, and I cycle about 120 miles a week). 90% of my skiing is at Tahoe, which is where I grew up (Heavenly/Kirkwood), but I take one or two trips to CO or Utah each year. I'm an Epic Pass holder since inception.

Until 2013 I always had a 2-ski quiver, the last of which was Völkl Supersport Allstars and Line 100s. When I turned 45, I discovered that my interests were mainly frontside with occasional forays off-piste, so I bought the Atomic Crimson Ti (88mm, 17m radius). I've skied the Crimson exclusively ever since and it's worked well for me, but as I get older, I find that I'm really only interested in wide-turn fast frontside carving anymore. I only go off-piste when I have to, and I have no interest in short slalom-style turns or bumps. I feel like an 88mm all-mountain rocker might be too wide for my needs and that I've shoehorned the Atomic to fit my skiing style. Hence, I'm searching for a new ski.

Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this!

Chris

Sounds like you're making (and like making) GS turns. Have you considered an actual GS ski?

 

[markojp]

Sounds like you're making (and like making) GS turns. Have you considered an actual GS ski?

Thinking the same... 180 rossi hero master et al... non-FIS 'cheater' GS. Of the skis listed, probably the Stockli AR, which is like a wider cheater and absolutely excellent ski.