Damp vs Stable

[PowHog]

I never thought damp and stable are contradicting each other - more of the opposite. I always found overly poppy skis to be less stable (at speed) and often get tossed around more.

But what do I know....

 

[Noodler]

Ok, so this is what led me to ask this questions.
My rotation is 2015-16 Head Monster 83 and Fischer Motive 95. I use the Monsters most of the time because in the east coast where I ski... well, you know. I'm one of those people who stay out all day and I wanted something that would get me through the day while still enjoy the end of day, bumped up crazytown either hard frozen or soft heavy. I bought the Monsters because I thought damp meant stable. Although I have no complaints. I use the Motives when there's at least a couple of inches of dry snow, groomed or fresh (the unrelated problem is those days are great in the woods and I end up scrapping up the base ). I love the energy and pop the Motives gives me, it's so smooth and so satisfying to carve (maybe it was the snow contributed to that feeling), from what I've read Fischer-like. I imagine coming from that model year Monster anything feels energetic and poppy.
I've always wished the Monsters had more energy/pop from turn to turn (short turns are a chore) easier on those tires legs. I still like them, they serve their purpose well. Now thanks to the Monsters I've become a stronger skier (needed to in order to get the best out of them) and think maybe I'm ready for something new (to me).

I was curious about the Fischer Pro Mtn 86 TI that I would add to my Monsters as my daily driver. In my research "stable" and "versatile" was the overwhelming traits while being one of the lightest all-mountain skis, but nothing about dampness. How does light and stable work together? Thus my question to first define stable. I also hear the newer Monster 83 TI's have more pop relatively, without losing it's "Monsterness". Does this mean my Monster plus energy? Or could the narrower Fischers be an ice coast version of the Motives?
I'm just poking around and dreaming, but that's what led me to the Motives so ya never know.

Pro MT 86 Ti is not a damp ski. When you reduce the weight in the construction be hollowing out sections and slotting the titanal layers, this usually results in less ability to control vibration. However it is stable (well as stable as any ski with rockered tips generally can be).

 

[blikkem]

Stable ski is a ski that holds the direction you set and doesn’t want constantly change direction without input. A lot of factors determine this unfortunately. Think of mature adult vs immature youth.

Damp or Lively in my eyes are best envisioned via a Jack Russell (Lively) ready to go at moments notice and Black Lab (Damp) does whats expected but not excited constantly). Both do and react the same just one needs a little more control from the owner (skier).

Question becomes how twitchy do you want you ski (stable) and how fast to you want it to appear react (damp or lively).

One term you missed is Nervous, is the ski overly responsive to any input, Paranoid.

All of these terms have engineering equivalents that can be quantified, however when reading reviews: 1. Does the reviewer match how you ski and see things, 2. Then the terms used will greatly apply to you are looking for, 3. Are they consistent. From ski companies it comes from the marketing department so it is a little more tongue in cheek and therefore a little suspect though it does point you into the right direction.

To evaluate a reviewer, try one of the skis you have a review on, ski it, does it instill the same description and feelings you?

I'll take the Black Lab and have a bag full of Red Bull for when I need a shot of life. I'd say 70% Lab, 30% Jack but I get to play catch with both of them first.
I think there are degrees we can expect. It doesn't have to be all the way to Paranoid, but a level of responsiveness is always welcome.
1. I see some websites try to provide reviewer bios to help with this. I try to take a broader approach to get a general consensus on a couple characteristics that points me in a direction (too_many_skis) and I narrow things down from there.
2. The terms used is why I am asking for clarification here.
3. Marketing speak just tells me how they structure their different product lines (too_many_skis) and maybe what they were hoping their skis would perform.

I agree with you, nothing beats demoing.

 

[blikkem]

Pro MT 86 Ti is not a damp ski. When you reduce the weight in the construction be hollowing out sections and slotting the titanal layers, this usually results in less ability to control vibration. However it is stable (well as stable as any ski with rockered tips generally can be).

Hey @Noodler
What are your thoughts of someone going from a stiff, damp ski like old Monster 83's to the Pro Mtn 86's. What would be some of the realizations at the beginning? What would one miss or gain? Are they just apples to oranges?

 

[Noodler]

Hey @Noodler
What are your thoughts of someone going from a stiff, damp ski like old Monster 83's to the Pro Mtn 86's. What would be some of the realizations at the beginning? What would one miss or gain? Are they just apples to oranges?

This truly is apples to oranges. Might be better help if we understand what it is you're searching for in your "nirvana" ski. I also prefer my skis to be more on the "damp and stable" side, but there's no substitute for great ski geometry that makes a ski perform so well on snow. I'm willing to give up some feel for a great skiing ski.

 

[blikkem]

This truly is apples to oranges. Might be better help if we understand what it is you're searching for in your "nirvana" ski. I also prefer my skis to be more on the "damp and stable" side, but there's no substitute for great ski geometry that makes a ski perform so well on snow. I'm willing to give up some feel for a great skiing ski.

I like damp and stable too, it keeps me out there longer. I wish my older model Monster 83s has more energy coming out of turns and better at short turns without losing much dampness. They are great at what they do, I maybe looking for something that doesn't stray too far from it but adds some life.
The other option is not to try to replace the Monsters but add to it. In this scenario I'd use the Monsters on really extreme days (ice, low tide, slush or busy days when I know everything will be all torn up by lunch time but I still insist to stay out til 3:30) while sharing the duty with something I could use on average days (Pro Mtn 86? conditions are good, not too busy and most of the day will be consistent) and the Motives for the extra nice days. That's a lot of thinking.
That is why I am exploring the idea of the Pro Mtn's. Why? Because I like how the Motives feel, and hoping they might have a little Monster in them while retaining some of the DNA from the Motives. Maybe I'm asking for too much so the other alternative is just to add it to the collection.

 

[tomahawkins]

I never thought damp and stable are contradicting each other - more of the opposite. I always found overly poppy skis to be less stable (at speed) and often get tossed around more.

But what do I know....

If poppy means more travel, then it would certainly affect stability. Imagine being locked in a high speed 20 meter radius turn then hitting a bump that causes the ski to bend up into a 10 meter radius. That's a pretty abrupt control disturbance, especially since it is one axis (longitudinal, riding over bumps) feeding into another (lateral, now I am turning much tighter than I want to be).

But I'm not sure damping plays into this. I may be wrong, but I feel the ski industry has largely solved the damping problem. I ski somewhat fast and have been on ~15 pairs of skis in the last couple of years and none have presented edge hold problems for me due to vibrations. A lot of reviewers talk about finding a ski's speed limit, but I question if all are really able to do so -- though I have no doubt a few certainly can.

About ten years ago I got on a pair of old rentals. Whenever I would throw the skis sideways it would induce a resonance that would lose all edge control and was quite literally painful to stand on. I haven't experienced anything near this level since.

 

[Noodler]

I like damp and stable too, it keeps me out there longer. I wish my older model Monster 83s has more energy coming out of turns and better at short turns without losing much dampness. They are great at what they do, I maybe looking for something that doesn't stray too far from it but adds some life.
The other option is not to try to replace the Monsters but add to it. In this scenario I'd use the Monsters on really extreme days (ice, low tide, slush or busy days when I know everything will be all torn up by lunch time but I still insist to stay out til 3:30) while sharing the duty with something I could use on average days (Pro Mtn 86? conditions are good, not too busy and most of the day will be consistent) and the Motives for the extra nice days. That's a lot of thinking.
That is why I am exploring the idea of the Pro Mtn's. Why? Because I like how the Motives feel, and hoping they might have a little Monster in them while retaining some of the DNA from the Motives. Maybe I'm asking for too much so the other alternative is just to add it to the collection.

It's a classic case where skiers need to understand the difference and the separation between the characteristics of damp vs. stable. Some skis have both, some only one or the other. The Pro MT 86 Ti is a ski that is not especially damp, but it is quite stable for a ski with a good amount of tip rocker. Fischer keeps the ski fairly stiff through the tip section and I prefer this design choice when the tip has rocker. As I mentioned in my previous post, there's something to be said for skis that have fantastic geometry which yields great on-snow performance. I haven't had a lot of time on the M83 (I do own the M88), but I have had multiple days on the Pro MT 86. As I've posted elsewhere, I really believe that Fischer's ski design makes up for the lack of a more refined feel to the ride. It is more poppy and reactive, but that comes with good energy and responsiveness. I love how it smoothly tightens the radius with increasing edge angle. This happens because of the tip design, not via bending the ski more in the middle. Unfortunately I never rode the Motives as these were around during my skiing hiatus, so I cannot compare.

 

[Goose]

Interesting thread and reads here. A bit of a mind bender for sure.
Considering all things read here I would still think to question,.....wouldnt being more damp generally lend itself to also being more stable?
I mean if damp results in being better connected then isnt that also leading to being more stable?
Can ski be "not" damp at all but also be very stable?
Can an unstable ski still be very damp?
are they totally exclusive of each other?

 

[James]

went and pinged the skis I have. It's interesting, the vibration that I feel in my hand while holding the ski between the bindings was like a slow wooden guitar string slight wobble. So the Monsters I have wobble/vibration the least with a big dead spot right where the affective edge starts (right after the rise) all the way to about 7 inches above the binding. Even outside that dead spot, there was very minimal wobble/vibration. I also have a pair of Fischer Motives 95, they vibrated more with a smaller dead spot that also resided around the beginning of the affective edge (after the rise). Also an older ski I have. interesting test. I'm sure you've developed a baseline and use that to judge the pings you do on skis you've never fondled.

That’s a good thing to do. How are you pinging it? Usually on lift rides up, I tap the tips together and feel the vibration response. You can tell a lot about a ski doing this. I also sometimes do it in the store by dropping the tail on the floor from a short hight of an inch or two. But that can depend a lot on the floor.

The Volkl M5 Mantra sounds like two pieces of 1/4 inch steel. It’s not super damp, but damp enough I guess. Sort of not a factor. It’s no Stockli.

Pro MT 86 Ti is not a damp ski. When you reduce the weight in the construction be hollowing out sections and slotting the titanal layers, this usually results in less ability to control vibration. However it is stable (well as stable as any ski with rockered tips generally can be).

Is the 86 RC One Gt similar? I’ve seen it in the store. A big carbon tip has me thinking it’s a twitchy nightmare to ski when encountering disturbances. I could see how the gently curving tip might reduce that.

 

[Noodler]

Is the 86 RC One Gt similar? I’ve seen it in the store. A big carbon tip has me thinking it’s a twitchy nightmare to ski when encountering disturbances. I could see how the gently curving tip might reduce that.

The ski geometry looks to be very similar. I would have to ride them back-to-back to be certain, but my impression of the 86 GT was very reminiscent when I got on my pair of 86 Ti. If anything, the 86 GT is the damper more glued-to-the-snow ride vs. the 86 Ti which is a bit more lively/poppy and a tad more loose on the snow. The carbon tips on both shouldn't cause you any worry. These are engineered well and don't leave the skis subject to getting bounced around due to deflection, etc. I think you're right about how the tip shape and rocker profile mitigate a bit of what you might expect from a carbon tip.

 

[cantunamunch]

Can ski be "not" damp at all but also be very stable?

Yes. 'Light' construction wide-GS builds are often like this, particularly with significant structural carbon fiber.

Can an unstable ski still be very damp?

Yes. Freestyle and mogul skis are intentionally built like this. Among directional skis, the old Kicker POTUS was outstandingly damp but would deflect like crazy. All-fiberglass construction (read: cheap) beginner-intermediate skis are often like this.

 

[James]

There should be a category that’s related to damp and stable but is different. Not sure what to call it, so I’ll call it “Excessive PITA” skis or conditions that bring that out. Though I guess it’s feet and not one’s butt.

This is sure to poke a hornet’s nest, but it seems to me that most skis over say 90mm, outside of being surrounded by soft snow, or a smooth groomer, just have way too much surface reaction. What this does it constantly send impacts up through your feet.

It’s also why some ski a narrow waisted ski in a spring sea of corn slush. Like a slalom ski. Intuitively this makes no sense, but I’ve found myself trading in the long 95mm ski for a short 60 something ski. Are there drawbacks? Yeah, a lot, like a feeling you might bite it at any moment zipping along. But you can go spend a half hour on a Bosu ball or ski and train while moving. Or snow building up so much on the outside leg that you’re left in a royal christie pose. Or in moguls a face plant if you try to go sideways at the wrong moment.

But the PITA effect of wide skis is so bad that frankly the narrow ski is more relaxing.
Possibly I need more training, slushier boots, or a lobotomy to get around the PITA effect.

 

[surfacehoar]

What about a ski that's reverse camber and reverse sidecut?

I ski a Hoji, it's stable on edge and damp busting through crud but is a nightmare running flat on an icy cattrack. Very little return as well.

 

[cantunamunch]

This is sure to poke a hornet’s nest, but it seems to me that most skis over say 90mm, outside of being surrounded by soft snow, or a smooth groomer, just have way too much surface reaction. What this does it constantly send impacts up through your feet.

I wasn't going to name Head Kore 93 or Rossi Black Ops but, now that you made me

There should be a category that’s related to damp and stable but is different. Not sure what to call it, so I’ll call it “Excessive PITA” skis or conditions that bring that out.

Are you talking about the "Fire Arrow EDT EVO" ski category? Or about terrain that calls for skis like that? Not sure how to parse that paragraph.

I ski a Hoji, it's stable on edge and damp busting through crud but is a nightmare running flat on an icy cattrack. Very little return as well.

What about it? Damp, stiff ski with no suspension travel. My Zag H112s are just like that - and perfect for Mammoth in May.

 

[James]

Are you talking about the "Fire Arrow EDT EVO" ski category? Or about terrain that calls for skis like that? Not sure how to parse that paragraph.

No, I loved that ski save the square tip.
It’s just the reaction from wide skis on the surface. The 84mm FA edt evo doesn’t fit that. Maybe you’re talking big surface changes like an oncoming mogul that engages the carbon surface plate and stiffens the ski?

 

[cantunamunch]

No, I loved that ski save the square tip.
It’s just the reaction from wide skis on the surface. The 84mm FA edt evo doesn’t fit that. Maybe you’re talking big surface changes like an oncoming mogul that engages the carbon surface plate and stiffens the ski?

I was simply asking for clarification on your first paragraph. I know you loved that ski - I was using it as a reference for a specific crap snow and speed envelope that would require a ski like that.

 

[blikkem]

That’s a good thing to do. How are you pinging it? Usually on lift rides up, I tap the tips together and feel the vibration response. You can tell a lot about a ski doing this. I also sometimes do it in the store by dropping the tail on the floor from a short hight of an inch or two. But that can depend a lot on the floor.

The Völkl M5 Mantra sounds like two pieces of 1/4 inch steel. It’s not super damp, but damp enough I guess. Sort of not a factor. It’s no Stöckli.

Is the 86 RC One Gt similar? I’ve seen it in the store. A big carbon tip has me thinking it’s a twitchy nightmare to ski when encountering disturbances. I could see how the gently curving tip might reduce that.

Hi @James
I hold the ski straight up resting on the floor, holding it between the bindings. I use my knuckle and knock the base like I'm knocking on a door. It's not a sharp vibration more like a wavy one. Really interesting that the vibration to my hand is not uniform, the deadspot (dampest spot) is when I ping the area starting with the end of the rise, where the effective edge starts and starts vibrating again closer to the bindings.
I'll try the drop sometime. Next time I'm in a ski shop, I have a new way to fondle their inventory!

 

[James]

I'll try the drop sometime. Next time I'm in a ski shop, I have a new way to fondle their inventory!

Try the chairlift one. It’s a good way to calibrate your feet. Takes something to swing the skis in and hit the tips. Sometimes I do front then rear to see if I can do it. Unless one is,( an idiot?) way over aggressive, this tapping doesn’t hurt the skis. Edges that one doesn’t ski on, like the curved up tip, should be rounded or very dulled for safety anyway.

Some people apparently smack their skis together on the chair very hard to remove snow. This often causes damage and is just dumb imo.

 

[Ryan Perham]

Ok, what about this? Two skis that take the same effort to bend into a turn. One really slingshots back. The other takes it sweet time rebounding. Does damping affect that? …or is it merely a function of geometry and camber?