• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
1) yes, there are junior race skis
2) Edgewidth. These are on the thinner side...remember, these ARE race skis...with the inherent function to go fast. There is no asterisk in the FIS standings for edge widths. If you are willing to give up speed, there are other options out there.
Nice on 1)
Too bad on 2)
Yeah, they're also expensive skis.
Meaning race skis in general. Augment is in the ball park. Still, it's $1k with a plate. Racers need 2.
I get it in gs I suppose, as 65mm is the max width. So, thinner edge means wider internal ski. (Not sure it really matters.)

Slalom is a 63mm minimum width rule, so a wider edge doesn't penalize. There's also no radius spec or tip width, fis "shoulder", spec. So, there's no downside in slalom. Other than "speed", which is only really a factor with very few mistakes plus very high level skiing.

If one is a <40 point slalom skier it may matter a lot. Probably not to around <20 points. Sharpness usually matters more, and sharpening decreases edge life obviously.
So... It's an expensive sport. They're new, it would be one way to distinguish themselves. But, same thing as most.

However, the non fis sl has the same edge width?

Augment offers 10 flexes. How about 5 flexes and 2 edge widths?
I doubt there's that many edge material widths available. I get the sense manufacturers of race skis even grind down the one they pick.

Maybe @Augment Skis NA eould consider? ogsmile
 

ski otter 2

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
2,920
Location
Front Range, Colorado
Hi, @James. Thanks for your detailed thinking about race edge thickness. For us recreational folk, it would be nice. But it sort of reminds me of "a voice crying in the Wilderness," so to speak. Brave.

What I've heard over the years, mostly, is thinking around ways to make small gains in extra speed, by racers and coaches, who would sacrifice durability for speed in a heartbeat, if they had hopes it would matter.

I guess maybe it takes a higher pay grade than mine (and lots more experience) to decide when race skis get thinner or thicker edges.

In my ignorance, I've been around racers who routinely "shaved" the width of their edges at times for competition, on the adage, "base is faster than metal." (At least their tech and/or coach seemed to recommend this.) If the skis didn't come with thin edges, many folk were apparently thinning the edges themselves.

And there were others, that I didn't always hear from explicitly on their thin edges, but that seemed to suggest that they had early "used up" thin edges, with not enough left for the next sharpening, and were thus on to the next pair of skis.

Lastly, I've seen and heard common place - radical, to me, race edge setting techniques that obviously work, but that probably get down to thin edges quickly also, often. Some examples:
1. using progressively finer metal files regularly, instead of just initially followed by diamond files, etc. for maintenance;
2. tuning first to 4, then back to 3 (or 5, then back to 4) to set an edge bevel, and doing this repeatedly over the life of the ski, as needed for race optimizing;
3. using high edge bevels like 5 to as high as 7, especially in slalom on man-made, hosed ice - especially at the highest levels of competition.

I've heard that a ski sharpened to 6 or 7 edge bevel is good for one or two runs of racing - one event or qualifying practice session, optimally - then tossed out for good. (I'd like to try to save the 6s, but the 7s - no way, even I can see.) At one national qualifying event close by a few years back, a large, semi-sized construction dumpster was provided just to dump the skis. (Sheesh.)
 

Augment Skis

Getting on the lift
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Posts
83
Location
Park City, Utah
Nice on 1)
Too bad on 2)
Yeah, they're also expensive skis.
Meaning race skis in general. Augment is in the ball park. Still, it's $1k with a plate. Racers need 2.
I get it in gs I suppose, as 65mm is the max width. So, thinner edge means wider internal ski. (Not sure it really matters.)

Slalom is a 63mm minimum width rule, so a wider edge doesn't penalize. There's also no radius spec or tip width, fis "shoulder", spec. So, there's no downside in slalom. Other than "speed", which is only really a factor with very few mistakes plus very high level skiing.

If one is a <40 point slalom skier it may matter a lot. Probably not to around <20 points. Sharpness usually matters more, and sharpening decreases edge life obviously.
So... It's an expensive sport. They're new, it would be one way to distinguish themselves. But, same thing as most.

However, the non fis sl has the same edge width?

Augment offers 10 flexes. How about 5 flexes and 2 edge widths?
I doubt there's that many edge material widths available. I get the sense manufacturers of race skis even grind down the one they pick.

Maybe @Augment Skis NA eould consider? ogsmile

James, we definitely understand your concern on the edges. Skis are expensive and one wants them to last. Most of the reason that our skis are more expensive is that they are hand made and part of the ethos of the company was to make skis using only the best materials. What does that mean for you? It means that you have the ability to order skis that are effectively race stock, every single time. What's more, you can get that 165 FIS ski in a flex that's easier to flex or meets your style or terrain better than any other ski available on the market. It's custom race skis for you.

That said. We'll be in the factory next week and we'll ask them about making the Master Pro with a thicker edge for longevity. I can assure you that having two options of edges won't fly but the beer league skis may benefit from this change.
 

Augment Skis

Getting on the lift
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Posts
83
Location
Park City, Utah
Very interested in the sport carver. Looking at a few other similar skis that have a TR of 15 to 16 at the low 170s length, like the Stockli WRT ST, Blizzard Firebird WRC, Atomic X9, etc. Curious about waist width, couldn’t find it on the website.

Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help set up a demo day next winter at Mt Snow, I’m part of the staff there.

Gozgoogle, we'd welcome the opportunity to demo at Mt. Snow next season. Let's start to coordinate that. We're still in the hunt for a Northeast Ski Rep so if we can land a good Rep, we'll ask them to make a point to get to Mt. Snow.

Regarding the carving skis, the waist width is in the name. The Sport Carve 68 is 68 under foot and there is a new ski, the Sport Carve 70. The SC 70 is targeted at the intermediate to advanced level skier and is available in shorter lengths, 148/156/164/172cm versus the SC 68 which is 162/170/176cm. Sidecut on the 68 is 115/68/101 for the 170cm.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
I wish I would have gotten on the Augments. They looked amazing on the rack and on the hill under several PugSkiers killing it down the hill. The smiles said a lot.
 

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
7,847
Location
Colorado
I took a couple runs on these at ABasin on Sunday. They probably are not the best bump skis for me, but my top-to-bottom groomer run was WOW.

I don't really have anything to add to what everyone else said, so I'll talk about graphics. I love them. Understated, unique, and, well, I'll just say it. I don't like the bright tech-y race-inspired graphics that skinny skis wear. Part of the reason I bought those Liberty V82s is that I love the graphics so much. For me, a carver is a necessary evil, so I don't really want to spend money on one in the first place-- and if I don't like looking at them, then I definitely won't. Anyway, I would spend money on the Augment. /superficial.
 

Augment Skis

Getting on the lift
Manufacturer
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Posts
83
Location
Park City, Utah
I took a couple runs on these at ABasin on Sunday. They probably are not the best bump skis for me, but my top-to-bottom groomer run was WOW.

I don't really have anything to add to what everyone else said, so I'll talk about graphics. I love them. Understated, unique, and, well, I'll just say it. I don't like the bright tech-y race-inspired graphics that skinny skis wear. Part of the reason I bought those Liberty V82s is that I love the graphics so much. For me, a carver is a necessary evil, so I don't really want to spend money on one in the first place-- and if I don't like looking at them, then I definitely won't. Anyway, I would spend money on the Augment. /superficial.

SBrown, that makes sense on the bumps. Those skis that were sent with PugSki are on the firmer side from what we're recommending now. For most skiers, we think give or take an 8 flex (1 is the stiffest, 10 the softest) would be more ideal. Those skis would have been either a 4 or 6. The new 88 or 99 in an 8 flex should be a fun ski we believe. We're at the factory next week and hope to be able to bring back with us some of the 88s in softer flexes for continued testing/demos.
 

Masters racer

In the parking lot (formerly "At the base lodge")
Skier
Joined
Feb 28, 2022
Posts
2
Location
Seattle
Expensive? Well, these are in the $1,200 range, so not much different than a comparable Stöckli, Renoun or Kästle and a build level on par, or dare I say better.

I would really be intrigued to ski a 1, 5 and 10 flex back to back to back. I am interested in what they perceive "flimsy" to be. To quote Indigo Montoya, "You keep using that word [flimsy], I don't think it means what you think it means".
I would love to have a ski like this in about a 183 CM. What I really want is a sidecut that is about 22m for big GS turns and I cannot find a ski brand that has anything more than an 18m radius
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top