“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.