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

Preview: 2023 Peak 88 and 98

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
Yes that is a beech / poplar core made from rotary cut veneers, Stöckli mainly use Hess core banks.

Hess cut the logs to the length required for the core blank, then they peel them to get the veneers, these are usually 3-4mm thick. The veneers are then glued and pressed into a bock that is as thick as the width of the core blanks and as long as the core blanks, the block is then sawn into strips that are the thickness of the core blank.

View attachment 176578

The core blanks are then put on pallets and shipped to the ski manufactures who then machine them to shape.

View attachment 176579

The core blanks above are made from beech / poplar, these are the most widly used woods, ash / poplar and okoume / poplar are also used. In order to reduce the cost some manufacturers use 2 short core blanks which they join together by means of a finger joint under the binding heel piece.
Very illustrative. Thanks.
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
“Bode's explanation of his design philosophy, he prefers to adust the turn shape, not by sidecut, but by flex, and this is where Peak's Keyhole Technology comes into play, allowing torsional flex without compromising edge control.On harder snow, the keyhole can torsionally bend into a turn nicely and the longer radius keeps the ski going where you want it to go in deeper snow.”


I don't get the underlined statement above. How does a ski torsionally bend into a turn? Seems to me like torsional bending makes a ski "unturn". Did you mean longitudinally bend into a turn and the keyhole keeps it from being too reactive? Bode seems to say the ski edges and skis from the middle back, since the tips are soft in torsional stiffness from the keyhole feature. I have a first gen Liberty Origin 96 with huge tip and tail rocker, and the ski edges from the middle only, the middle is very stiff torsionally and longitudinally. On edge it feels a lot shorter than its 187cm length. It is my favorite tree ski because it pivots so easily.
@ScottB posted this in the gear purchase thread instead of this thread by mistake and was never answered.

Peak skis use their “Keyhole technology” in an attempt to deviate the longitudinal and torsional rigidity in that areamany skis currently on the market exhibit the same phenomenon but to an even higher degree.

Skis are typically built with their core thickness ramping up from the thinner tip/tail to the thickest portion underfoot. Looking at the sidewall thickness along the ski will give a good indication of it’s flex pattern and rigidity.
Titanal is a great material in that it offers great dampening properties along with increasing torsional rigidity especially when used full width. Ski engineers and designers have used partial titanal sheets along with changing core heights to change the flex and torsional rigidity for years.

You’ll notice on partial metal sheet designs from all other manufacturers, they will cut out the middle section if they want to reduce weight but still keep torsional rigidity high and remove sections along the edges if they want to reduce torsional rigidity and make it more forgiving.

The current Volkl models with their Titanal frames are perfect examples of a flex points designed in front/behind the binding area. They use a full metal sheet underfoot that tapers down to a slit Center section, separate titanal sheets above the edges and changes in core thickness. Provides a forgiving flex point and torsional drop off in that area while still keeping rigidity up beyond that area.

If you REALLY wanted to have a hotspot/drop off in flex/rigidity in front of the binding area, you would drop the core thickness along with separating or ending the underfoot titanal sheet. Skis that have a titanal sheet for binding retention see a noticeable torsional rigidity drop off where it ends.

So @ScottB’s Origin 106 with extra poly underfoot for binding retention along with much thicker core underfoot would see a noticeable drop off in flex/rigidity in front/behind the bindings. The single underfoot titanal sheet in your CT 3.0(and 2 sheet CT 1.0) would also exhibit this phenomenon even with their thicker tip/tail core thickness that increases less underfoot compared to most skis.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
@ScottB posted this in the gear purchase thread instead of this thread by mistake and was never answered.

There's not enough accepted forum language to actually answer it in a functionally enabling way.

We'd have to talk about snow engagement in a dynamic way, between the steady state of flat to the snow and the steady state of bent with edge engaged.

Section by section, the sections coupled with both longitudinal and torsional springs.

Do notice, however, that torsion-resistance drives edge engagement from skier inputs, while the inverse, let's call it torsion-admittance, is what allows a different level of engagement of different sections of edge so that they don't break away from the snow before full edge engagement is achieved.

From that, and the observation that we're not dealing with symmetrically or evenly loaded shapes, it follows that we may not want a constant level of torsion resistance along the length of the ski.

The keyhole thing becomes relevant when we notice that we don't necessarily want a constantly proportional torsion resistance.
We know both longitudinal flex resistance and torsional are proportional to the thickness of the core (leaving to one side the exact relationship). If we find ourselves in a design situation where we want a different proportional relationship in a different ski section, we cannot just change a single driving quantity.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
This is not keeping me up at night, or Greg either. But I look at turning simply. To make a shorter radius turn, I roll the ski to a greater edge angle. This causes the ski to bend longitudinally more and shorten the turn radius. You could also design a shorter edge radius (sidecut) into the ski, like a slalom ski. You can also down weight the ski at the same edge angle, which longitudinally flexes it more and shortens the radius. If you reduce the torsional stiffness, the turn radius gets larger for all these examples. I guess I just think the use of the word torsional rather than longitudinal is inaccurate.

Maybe I am missing something, hence the post. I can agree when Bode says with less torsional stiffness, the tip of the ski will not effect its turn shape as much if deflected or force is applied by the snow. Maybe that is all he is really saying, which I agree with. I think of Bode as a mad scientist inventor type, not really an engineer who applies engineering theory to something to understand it and make it predictable by some equation. He experiences something and tries to make it better by trial and error mostly. Another perfectly valid way to go.

From Cantunamunch

Do notice, however, that torsion-resistance drives edge engagement from skier inputs, while the inverse, let's call it torsion-admittance, is what allows a different level of engagement of different sections of edge so that they don't break away from the snow before full edge engagement is achieved.

From that, and the observation that we're not dealing with symmetrically or evenly loaded shapes, it follows that we may not want a constant level of torsion resistance along the length of the ski.

The keyhole thing becomes relevant when we notice that we don't necessarily want a constantly proportional torsion resistance.
We know both longitudinal flex resistance and torsional are proportional to the thickness of the core (leaving to one side the exact relationship). If we find ourselves in a design situation where we want a different proportional relationship in a different ski section, we cannot just change a single driving quantity.


This all makes sense, but having a hole in one area seems a lot different than changing thickness along the length, or titanal shape along the length. If Bode is changing the titanl shape along the length and adding a hole, then its really the sum of all its "parts" and the hole is more a marketing gimmick than the critical component.
 
Last edited:

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
No ski with a Paulownia wood core would ever keep me up at night as I know it’s going too light for my taste. Lol

What leaves a bad taste in people’s mouth is the constant description of their ski’s design and characteristics as different or unique when more established ski companies all have similar(but even more complex) designs in their skis.
The other companies realize it takes more than one small change to make make noticeable differences, so they are never dwelling on “one ingredient” in a recipe as they know if they do, it will start to sound gimmicky.
Going too deep into construction details does nothing but confuse most buyers, so simply describe the end result in easy to understand terms.

From pictures and construction details, you could tell they were building a ski that would be lighter and more accessible than a charger ski but more damp and stable than many mid-weight options out there.

“Peak skis, with the help of the legendary Bode Miller introduces a revolutionary line of skis that provide a high level of performance that you don’t have to be a former World Cup champ to enjoy.
Featuring lighter weight wood cores and more forgiving flex patterns on the tip and tail vs many competitor’s skis. This allows even lighter and less advanced skiers to feel confident making all types of turn shapes in any conditions while still having the needed backbone for more advanced skiers.

Build in a modern high tech factory and come with a 30 day satisfaction guarantee so there’s no worrying if they will be the right choice for your new favourite ski. “

Will let you know when I receive the commission cheque……
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
No ski with a Paulownia wood core would ever keep me up at night as I know it’s going too light for my taste. Lol

:roflmao:


The other companies realize it takes more than one small change to make make noticeable differences, so they are never dwelling on “one ingredient” in a recipe as they know if they do, it will start to sound gimmicky.

Gimmicks sell in a market flooded with commodities :huh: and sometimes, now and rarely then, they can break out of accepted design envelopes.
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gimmicks sell in a market flooded with commodities :huh: and sometimes, now and rarely then, they can break out of accepted design envelopes.
The issue is that their “gimmick” already is a well established design that’s gone way beyond theirs in development years ago. Every company now just lists their “tailored partial metal sheet” spec now like the available lengths the ski comes in now.

I’d be curious if they tried to cut that hole not just through the top metal sheet but slightly into the wood core too and possibly play with the fibreglass/carbon layering too.
Now THAT would be trying something different and worthy of hyping up if you got any desired results from that.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
I was listening to Blister Gear 30 podcast on Chris Davenport joining Peak Skis. After listening, I jumped to Bode's Peak Ski podcast. This was probably the 3 or 4 listen for me. My "mentally filtered" takeaway from it is that Peak has chosen to use a large sidecut radius on their skis, so to get quick turning from them (short radius turn ability) they adjust the longitudinal and torsional stiffness of their skis in the tip and tail, while keeping both very high in the center. This tends to make the ski "feel" like it has a short effective edge while still having the "stability" or edge grip performance of a long effective edge ski. Bode seems to focus (fixate) on saying "the pressure (meaning edge grip) comes from the middle of the ski only and does not deviate with other factors". This I can wrap my engineering brain around very easily. My Liberty Origin 96 skis feel the same, way which I like, but achieve it with a somewhat different design approach than Peak's approach. Greg and Cantunamunch cover the details in their posts well. I guess I would challenge Bode on his statement that Peak skis feel different than anything else on the market. Seems a bit of a stretch, but until more reviews come out we won't know either way. Phil liked em, but didn't seem to focus on the "unique feel aspect". I would say Chris Davenport had similar feedback as Phil.

Some quotes from Phil's demo experience:
If you watched Bode's explanation of his design philosophy, he prefers to adust the turn shape, not by sidecut, but by flex, and this is where Peak's Keyhole Technology comes into play, allowing torsional flex without compromising edge control. On harder snow, the keyhole can torsionally bend into a turn nicely and the longer radius keeps the ski going where you want it to go in deeper snow. (my pet peeve is using the word torsionally here, I would reword it as "can allow torsional forgiveness with out compromising edge control)

Another Phil quote on the 88mm ski: (this sounds pretty reasonable to me)
The KeyHole™ allows the ski to flex a bit more naturally both longitudinally and torsionally to create a smoother transition into the turn. The other design aspect of the Peak that differentiates itself from the Elan is the lack of Amphibio in the design. The additional uphill inside edge control of not have Amphibio combined with the keyhole creates a great combination of control and power.

A quote from SkiOtter2 who just got his Peak skis:
Second, on first impression, the width dimensions are a bit unusual on the ones I got:
the tip area is not as wide relative to the other dimensions as we've come to expect in skis that have sideshape. The tail seems almost as wide, and neither is wide relative to the waist.
This fits controlling the turn shape through flex rather than sidecut, as the reviews here have said.

A quote from Peak Skis during a test:
I've been testing skis for 22 years. In the past decade, skis have nearly been homogenized. But Peak skis perform like nothing on the market. KeyHole Technology™ changes everything.”

— Marc Peruzzi, Magazine Ski Test Director
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Just to be clear, I am not trying to discredit Bode or say anything negative about their skis. They are clearly a new approach to blending elements of ski design and I expect them to be very good performers. I look forward to getting on a pair in the near future to see if I want to buy a pair. I will say Chris Davenport will be working on some lighter "sidecountry" designs this winter and I will look forward to those hopefully for the 2024 season. Mostly I was just confused by Bode's descriptions which seemed to have some contradictory statements. The world is never as perfect as we would like it to be.
 

ScottB

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Posts
2,166
Location
Gloucester, MA
Found this video from Phil and Tricia. Excellent session and worth a listen. At about 35-37 minutes in, Bode talks about keyhole technology for a while, and at least for me, he confirms what has been said on the most recent posts above. Interesting that he says the 104SC ski was his most outstanding ski, as opposed to the 104 ski, his superlatives might apply to both, but he specifically mentions the 104SC model.

 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Andy Mink
    Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Top