- Joined
- Aug 24, 2017
- Posts
- 361
Hi,
I recently rented some 2021/22 Augment SC skis, and it was an interesting experience, especially regarding suspension. I've seen Augment skis mentioned here, but there's not so much information, so here are some thoughts.
Th SC is presented as a high-end carving ski oriented toward longer turns. It has a 17.6 m turning radius in 176 cm length.
Link to the ski in question:
https://augment-sports.com/collections/on-piste/products/21-22-sport-carving
(My understanding is that Augment skis are offered in different flex levels. I am based in Switzerland, and this was a rental ski, so I didn't have access to those options. Also, while this is a premium ski, Augment also makes higher-level race skis, which probably don't have the same behavior that I describe below).
The short story is that I found this a natural, intuitive, powerful front-side ski. I felt comfortable right away, and I spent the morning making smooth, precise, medium and long radius turns on wide, open, groomed pistes. The carving sensations were exhilarating, on par with other high-quality skis I have tried, like the Stockli Laser SL, the Atomic Redster S9, and so on.
The deal-breaker for me was the lack of suspension. On any kind of hard, uneven surface, the skis bucked, bounced, rattled, deflected, skittered, and transmitted every shock to my body. To be clear, this was on on fresh, early morning, groomed pistes. If the surface was even slightly soft from the sun, with piles of light snow or small bumps, the skis were great. And if the surface was hard and smooth, with perfect coduroy or buffed and polished snow, they were also great. But if the surface was both hard and uneven, with bumps, tracks, small edges and drops, they were terrible. They had the too-light, too-stiff, carbon-fiber feel of some backcountry touring skis, and they absolutely did not have the silky smooth, composed, damp, feel of skis like Stocklis and others.
So, I would say that these seemed like great carving skis for for all conditions expect hard and rough pistes.
OK, on to suspension.
I know that "suspension" is a somewhat vague term but I actually think that's a good thing. Why? When we talk about ski suspension there are so many different variables: mass, stiffness profile, materials and construction, ski shape, and so on. I think all these things matter. I also think it's very hard to separate one variable from the rest with respect to how skis feel, and so I think it makes sense to gather all of these things together under one umbrella called "suspension," which allows us to easily discuss and compare skis, with the understanding that it's a complex subject. So, for what it's worth, that's my defence of the term suspension.
That said, I think it's interesting and important to try to define what contributes to ski suspension and feel. Below are some ideas.
Mass
The Augment SC, and other skis in their line, like the PC and the al-mountain skis, are on the light side for their intended purpose. I think this contributes to the lack of suspension. Here are some weights of single skis with no plate or binding:
Augment SC 176 --> 1775 grams
Stockli Laser AX 175 --> 1920 grams
Stockli Laser SL 170cm --> 1910 grams
Could a couple of hundred grams make a difference? It's hard to know for sure, but I think it plays a role.
Mass to stiffness
Maybe it's not a question of absolute weight, but the balance of weight and stiffness. I would say that the Augment skis are too light for their stiffness. I think these skis would work well for lighter skiers and slower speeds if they were softer, and I think they would work well for heavier skiers and higher speeds if they were heavier, but the combination of high stiffness and low weight didn't work for me. I think weight and stiffness need to be balanced.
Stiffness profile
The stiffness of a ski obviously plays a role in suspension, and it may be the most important factor. Imagine a perfectly rigid ski compared to a very flexible ski--they would have very different suspension. Also, how the stiffness changes over the length of a ski must be important. Again, imagine a perfectly rigid ski with a single soft flex point, compared to a ski with a gradual decrease in stiuffness as you moved from center to the tip. As above, these skis would have very different suspension.
Ski shape
Think about the differences between a narrow more-pointed tip and a wider more-broad tip, or a tip with abrupt rocker vs a tip with gradual rocker. Even if the mass and stiffness profile were the same, I think that shape would influence the suspension, because the forces would come into the ski differently. It's like the difference between hitting something head on or with a glancing blow. All else being equal, a narrow ski with an abrupt rocker would presumably transmit more forces back to the skier than a wider ski with a gradual rocker.
Material and construction
I think that materials and construction make a difference, independent of mass or stiffness profile. I've posted this video before elsewhere, but note the difference between different material samples with the same weight and stiffness:
https://countervailproducts.com/countervail-technology
One can dive deep down the rabbit hole into damping, isolation, frequencies, sheer forces, and so forth (and I'm happy to go there!) but I think it's obvious that materials and construction make a difference. All those layers of rubber, cork, flax, special carbon layups, the glues and resins used to bond everything together, the compaction and integrity of the whole construction, make a big difference.
Back to specific skis
I think the problem with the Augment SC is that the core construction is not dense enough for the intended purpose, and they are built with too much carbon fiber and not enough fiberglass in the layup. I say this after several long conversations with Mike Macabe, the owner/builder at Folsom skis. I own several pairs of Folsom skis, and, across the board, they have the best suspension of any skis I have tried, and that includes Stocklis. Folsom skis are custom. Because I prioritize good suspension, they are built with a dense core made from maple, poplar, and bamboo, and a 90/10 fiberglass/carbon layup (estimated ratio). They are not overall very heavy--my all mountains skis, one at 88 and the other at 108, are both just about 2000 grams per ski, which is middle-of the road. But the wood and fiberglass make a difference. Folsom can make skis with lighter wood and a full carbon lay up, and you can save 200-300 grams, but the feel is just not the same. I quizzed Mike, and asked him about the feel of skis made from a lighter wood with more fiberglass vs a heavier wood with more carbon, and he basically said that once the carbon goes into the layup, you can't "take away the feel" of the carbon.
So, for me, to make a ski with good suspension, I think you need a dense wood core, an appropriate stiffness and shape, more fiberglass than carbon, and a highly-compressed and uniform layup.
Let the discussion begin....
I recently rented some 2021/22 Augment SC skis, and it was an interesting experience, especially regarding suspension. I've seen Augment skis mentioned here, but there's not so much information, so here are some thoughts.
Th SC is presented as a high-end carving ski oriented toward longer turns. It has a 17.6 m turning radius in 176 cm length.
Link to the ski in question:
https://augment-sports.com/collections/on-piste/products/21-22-sport-carving
(My understanding is that Augment skis are offered in different flex levels. I am based in Switzerland, and this was a rental ski, so I didn't have access to those options. Also, while this is a premium ski, Augment also makes higher-level race skis, which probably don't have the same behavior that I describe below).
The short story is that I found this a natural, intuitive, powerful front-side ski. I felt comfortable right away, and I spent the morning making smooth, precise, medium and long radius turns on wide, open, groomed pistes. The carving sensations were exhilarating, on par with other high-quality skis I have tried, like the Stockli Laser SL, the Atomic Redster S9, and so on.
The deal-breaker for me was the lack of suspension. On any kind of hard, uneven surface, the skis bucked, bounced, rattled, deflected, skittered, and transmitted every shock to my body. To be clear, this was on on fresh, early morning, groomed pistes. If the surface was even slightly soft from the sun, with piles of light snow or small bumps, the skis were great. And if the surface was hard and smooth, with perfect coduroy or buffed and polished snow, they were also great. But if the surface was both hard and uneven, with bumps, tracks, small edges and drops, they were terrible. They had the too-light, too-stiff, carbon-fiber feel of some backcountry touring skis, and they absolutely did not have the silky smooth, composed, damp, feel of skis like Stocklis and others.
So, I would say that these seemed like great carving skis for for all conditions expect hard and rough pistes.
OK, on to suspension.
I know that "suspension" is a somewhat vague term but I actually think that's a good thing. Why? When we talk about ski suspension there are so many different variables: mass, stiffness profile, materials and construction, ski shape, and so on. I think all these things matter. I also think it's very hard to separate one variable from the rest with respect to how skis feel, and so I think it makes sense to gather all of these things together under one umbrella called "suspension," which allows us to easily discuss and compare skis, with the understanding that it's a complex subject. So, for what it's worth, that's my defence of the term suspension.
That said, I think it's interesting and important to try to define what contributes to ski suspension and feel. Below are some ideas.
Mass
The Augment SC, and other skis in their line, like the PC and the al-mountain skis, are on the light side for their intended purpose. I think this contributes to the lack of suspension. Here are some weights of single skis with no plate or binding:
Augment SC 176 --> 1775 grams
Stockli Laser AX 175 --> 1920 grams
Stockli Laser SL 170cm --> 1910 grams
Could a couple of hundred grams make a difference? It's hard to know for sure, but I think it plays a role.
Mass to stiffness
Maybe it's not a question of absolute weight, but the balance of weight and stiffness. I would say that the Augment skis are too light for their stiffness. I think these skis would work well for lighter skiers and slower speeds if they were softer, and I think they would work well for heavier skiers and higher speeds if they were heavier, but the combination of high stiffness and low weight didn't work for me. I think weight and stiffness need to be balanced.
Stiffness profile
The stiffness of a ski obviously plays a role in suspension, and it may be the most important factor. Imagine a perfectly rigid ski compared to a very flexible ski--they would have very different suspension. Also, how the stiffness changes over the length of a ski must be important. Again, imagine a perfectly rigid ski with a single soft flex point, compared to a ski with a gradual decrease in stiuffness as you moved from center to the tip. As above, these skis would have very different suspension.
Ski shape
Think about the differences between a narrow more-pointed tip and a wider more-broad tip, or a tip with abrupt rocker vs a tip with gradual rocker. Even if the mass and stiffness profile were the same, I think that shape would influence the suspension, because the forces would come into the ski differently. It's like the difference between hitting something head on or with a glancing blow. All else being equal, a narrow ski with an abrupt rocker would presumably transmit more forces back to the skier than a wider ski with a gradual rocker.
Material and construction
I think that materials and construction make a difference, independent of mass or stiffness profile. I've posted this video before elsewhere, but note the difference between different material samples with the same weight and stiffness:
https://countervailproducts.com/countervail-technology
One can dive deep down the rabbit hole into damping, isolation, frequencies, sheer forces, and so forth (and I'm happy to go there!) but I think it's obvious that materials and construction make a difference. All those layers of rubber, cork, flax, special carbon layups, the glues and resins used to bond everything together, the compaction and integrity of the whole construction, make a big difference.
Back to specific skis
I think the problem with the Augment SC is that the core construction is not dense enough for the intended purpose, and they are built with too much carbon fiber and not enough fiberglass in the layup. I say this after several long conversations with Mike Macabe, the owner/builder at Folsom skis. I own several pairs of Folsom skis, and, across the board, they have the best suspension of any skis I have tried, and that includes Stocklis. Folsom skis are custom. Because I prioritize good suspension, they are built with a dense core made from maple, poplar, and bamboo, and a 90/10 fiberglass/carbon layup (estimated ratio). They are not overall very heavy--my all mountains skis, one at 88 and the other at 108, are both just about 2000 grams per ski, which is middle-of the road. But the wood and fiberglass make a difference. Folsom can make skis with lighter wood and a full carbon lay up, and you can save 200-300 grams, but the feel is just not the same. I quizzed Mike, and asked him about the feel of skis made from a lighter wood with more fiberglass vs a heavier wood with more carbon, and he basically said that once the carbon goes into the layup, you can't "take away the feel" of the carbon.
So, for me, to make a ski with good suspension, I think you need a dense wood core, an appropriate stiffness and shape, more fiberglass than carbon, and a highly-compressed and uniform layup.
Let the discussion begin....