Last edited:
If someone is looking for a soft snow biased ski, are they more concerned if the ski is 98mm underfoot or has a 17.8m radius?If the goal is to make the same sized turns on each length of ski, then yes, something else must be scaled to make that happen.
Which brings up another point: Why market the skis by waist width models? Why not market them by the optimal turn radius?
Then they will be disappointed when the skis marketed as 98mm are scaled to 93mm.If someone is looking for a soft snow biased ski, are they more concerned if the ski is 98mm underfoot or has a 17.8m radius?
This is where I agree with scaling.... a 93mm ski for someone 5'3" is like a 98mm ski for a full sized adult.Then they will be disappointed when the skis marketed as 98mm are scaled to 93mm.
Absolutely it does, Volkl's Tailored Tital Frame addresses a lot of that.To maintain the same characteristics wouldn't you have to play with the lateral rigidity of the ski as well? Unless you want to build an ice skate this would have to be a factor.
So, you would have to adjust:
Flex
points of stiffness (very few skis have a totally even stiffness tip to tail)
lateral rigidity
side cut
width
Turn radius
weight
and probably a dozen other things
When it is all over each length would ski differently based on the skiers weight and height.
This get complicated.
What exactly is "optimal turn radius?" It sounds like a subjective term, while the measurements are the measurements. I can take a 30m ski and with a copious deployment of edge angle make a smaller radius turn, the ski still measures/calculates at 30m.If the goal is to make the same sized turns on each length of ski, then yes, something else must be scaled to make that happen.
Which brings up another point: Why market the skis by waist width models? Why not market them by the optimal turn radius?
This get complicated.
I agree, otherwise you are limiting yourself and confusing the consumer. I think Sheeva 9, 10 and 11 is better than the Black Pearl 82, 88 and 97. Or with Head V6, V8 or V10 vs. Kore 87, 93, 99, 103... when only one of the models is that width in the latter example.Yes, it is complicated. Which is why I think it is wrong to market skis with a single identifier (width) as the most indicative of the skis character.
Counter is that the mfg is making assumptions about what the consumer knows/interprets about the ski based on an arbitrary number.I agree, otherwise you are limiting yourself and confusing the consumer. I think Sheeva 9, 10 and 11 is better thant the Black Pearl 82, 88 and 97. Or with Head V6, V8 or V10 vs. Kore 87, 93, 99, 103... when only one of the models is that width in hte latter example.
We have concluded that the metric system is an arbitrary unit of measurement in the ski industry.the ski based on an arbitrary number.
Why not just call it the Kore __ where blank is the actual waist width.I agree, otherwise you are limiting yourself and confusing the consumer. I think Sheeva 9, 10 and 11 is better thant the Black Pearl 82, 88 and 97. Or with Head V6, V8 or V10 vs. Kore 87, 93, 99, 103... when only one of the models is that width in hte latter example.
Ahhh, but it is not, it is a standardized unit of measurement. 1cm = 1cm.We have concluded that the metric system is an arbitrary unit of measurement in the ski industry.
Totally arbitrary.The academy settled on the length of 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of a great circle of Earth, measured around the poles of the meridian passing through Paris.
Wide/medium/narrow is 100% arbitrary and impossible to define.Totally arbitrary.
The French- what have they ever done for us???An arduous six-year survey led by such luminaries as Jean Delambre, Jacques-Dominique Cassini, Pierre Mechain, Adrien-Marie Legendre, and others to determine the arc of the meridian from Barcelona, Spain, to Dunkirk, France, eventually yielded a value of 39.37008 inches for the new unit to be called the metre, from Greek metron, meaning “measure.”
Totally arbitrary.