Skis w/ metal vs. skis w/o metal

[Philpug]

Don't read endless numbers and materials. It still comes down to how a ski feels to you on the snow. A ski is more than the sum of it's ingredients and dimensions it is a connection to the snow.

 

[François Pugh]

Nope. At the typical thickness used, the Titanal sheet is quite limp. There are a number of ski manufacturing videos that show just how "noodly" it is when they're placing the sheet into the sandwich. @DanoT has this right.

CIVL XO1:
When a beam bends under load, the fibers on the outside of the bend are being stretched and the fibers on the inside of the beam are being compressed. It is the fibers' resistance to compression and tension that gives the beam it's stiffness. That's why we have I beams. That's why they put the metal where it is in the sandwich. The metal layer in the bottom of the ski is resisting being stretched as the ski bends. By resisting it makes the ski stiffer, provided of course the ski is not delaminated and is acting as a unit.

 

[AmyPJ]

For ME as the perpetual intermediate hack, a ski with sheets of titanal has a level of smoothness that skis with no titanal, or titanal just under the binding, which I have found feel sometimes like...3 different skis in one. The tip has a feel, under foot has a different feel, and the tails have a different feel. I believe that my relatively light weight has an effect on the overall feel, too, and that a ski that feels more "planted" works better for ME because I don't have the extra weight that keeps ME planted and not skipping around feeling every bump and undulation.

This really came to light to me two (??) years ago while testing skis at Snowbasin. @Tricia urged me to try a few skis (K2 in particular) first in the Ca version, then the ti version. I was a little intimidated by the ti versions, but found that I preferred the ti versions, by quite a bit. They just felt smoother and more planted on the snow.

My current daily driver, the Nordica Santa Ana 88, last year had two sheets of ti, vs. this year with one. I am finding that while I still love this ski, I preferred the version with two sheets of ti as it was smoother in heavy crud and chop, which continues to be my nemesis. At 51, I want my skis to take up some of that energy and I've personally found ti helps to do that.

 

[Noodler]

CIVL XO1:
When a beam bends under load, the fibers on the outside of the bend are being stretched and the fibers on the inside of the beam are being compressed. It is the fibers' resistance to compression and tension that gives the beam it's stiffness. That's why we have I beams. That's why they put the metal where it is in the sandwich. The metal layer in the bottom of the ski is resisting being stretched as the ski bends. By resisting it makes the ski stiffer, provided of course the ski is not delaminated and is acting as a unit.

Absolutely true, but... just because a ski has top and bottom layers does NOT imply that it must be stiff. That's the point of the discussion in this thread.

 

[Noodler]

For ME as the perpetual intermediate hack, a ski with sheets of titanal has a level of smoothness that skis with no titanal, or titanal just under the binding, which I have found feel sometimes like...3 different skis in one. The tip has a feel, under foot has a different feel, and the tails have a different feel. I believe that my relatively light weight has an effect on the overall feel, too, and that a ski that feels more "planted" works better for ME because I don't have the extra weight that keeps ME planted and not skipping around feeling every bump and undulation.

This really came to light to me two (??) years ago while testing skis at Snowbasin. @Tricia urged me to try a few skis (K2 in particular) first in the Ca version, then the ti version. I was a little intimidated by the ti versions, but found that I preferred the ti versions, by quite a bit. They just felt smoother and more planted on the snow.

My current daily driver, the Nordica Santa Ana 88, last year had two sheets of ti, vs. this year with one. I am finding that while I still love this ski, I preferred the version with two sheets of ti as it was smoother in heavy crud and chop, which continues to be my nemesis. At 51, I want my skis to take up some of that energy and I've personally found ti helps to do that.

You simply have not yet tested any skis without metal that are incredibly damp and smooth. They do exist. It just so happens that most manufacturers use metal layers in their skis that are generally more damp and smooth feeling, but metal layers are not a requirement to create a ski with those characteristics. Skis that immediately come to mind that I have owned are the Hart Pulse and the Scott Crusade.

 

[Noodler]

Don't read endless numbers and materials. It still comes down to how a ski feels to you on the snow. A ski is more than the sum of it's ingredients and dimensions it is a connection to the snow.

Take some time and read through the Sooth ski site. They agree with you, but they also point out that what you're "feeling" is backed by the science of the ski. I have pointed out that they should add a measurement for the vibration damping properties. Their numbers do make it possible to narrow your search for a new ski that has similar physical characteristics to a ski you already know you like. Subjective reviews from reviewers of unknown skill levels do not. That requires a leap of faith for most readers. I'm not stating that reviews are worthless, but they certainly could be improved with more compare/contrast information and specific details on the reviewers themselves. Luckily I've skied with quite a few reviewers on this site, so I know whose reviews that I can relate to.

 

[Tricia]

For ME as the perpetual intermediate hack, a ski with sheets of titanal has a level of smoothness that skis with no titanal, or titanal just under the binding, which I have found feel sometimes like...3 different skis in one. The tip has a feel, under foot has a different feel, and the tails have a different feel. I believe that my relatively light weight has an effect on the overall feel, too, and that a ski that feels more "planted" works better for ME because I don't have the extra weight that keeps ME planted and not skipping around feeling every bump and undulation.

This really came to light to me two (??) years ago while testing skis at Snowbasin. @Tricia urged me to try a few skis (K2 in particular) first in the Ca version, then the ti version. I was a little intimidated by the ti versions, but found that I preferred the ti versions, by quite a bit. They just felt smoother and more planted on the snow.

My current daily driver, the Nordica Santa Ana 88, last year had two sheets of ti, vs. this year with one. I am finding that while I still love this ski, I preferred the version with two sheets of ti as it was smoother in heavy crud and chop, which continues to be my nemesis. At 51, I want my skis to take up some of that energy and I've personally found ti helps to do that.

This is also the reason that the customer who likes the Santa Ana 93 and the customer who likes the KORE 93 are two different people with very different tastes.
KORE's model is "light done right"
Santa Ana's model is, smooth and confidence inspiring.

 

[cantunamunch]

Take some time and read through the Sooth ski site. They agree with you, but they also point out that what you're "feeling" is backed by the science of the ski. I have pointed out that they should add a measurement for the vibration damping properties.

100% with you so far.

Their numbers do make it possible to narrow your search for a new ski that has similar physical characteristics to a ski you already know you like.

Yes. Similar physical characteristics. BUT - and this is what most of the data oriented do not give enough credit to - the physical characteristics do not correlate to guaranteed 'like' and there's plenty of 'do not like' skis that overlap into the same set of characteristics.

As I posted up thread, that's really easy to see in the Friflyt data - there are plenty of meh 'Why do I bother'? skis, and plenty of freak show ('someone actually thought this was a good idea'?) skis in amongst the actually likable ones.

Guaranteeing 'like' purely from published physical characteristics requires either ski designer-level analysis expertise or extremely experienced ski tester- level intuition.

Don't get me wrong - I actually like the analysis more than I like skiing. But I am not going to risk the miniscule amount of fun I get from skiing by relying on analysis.

By analogy, I am also not going to insist dating websites put Strava profiles next to their listings.

 

[Noodler]

100% with you so far.



Yes. Similar physical characteristics. BUT - and this is what most of the data oriented do not give enough credit to - the physical characteristics do not correlate to guaranteed 'like' and there's plenty of 'do not like' skis that overlap into the same set of characteristics.

As I posted up thread, that's really easy to see in the Friflyt data - there are plenty of meh 'Why do I bother'? skis, and plenty of freak show ('someone actually thought this was a good idea'?) skis in amongst the actually likable ones.

Guaranteeing 'like' purely from published physical characteristics requires either ski designer-level analysis expertise or extremely experienced ski tester- level intuition.

Don't get me wrong - I actually like the analysis more than I like skiing. But I am not going to risk the miniscule amount of fun I get from skiing by relying on analysis.

By analogy, I am also not going to insist dating websites put Strava profiles next to their listings.

Give me an example of two skis from the Sooth ski data that are similar in the Sooth ski measurements, but are wildly different. I could care less about the Friflyt data in the context of this discussion.

What you and Phil seem to be implying is that there are characteristics to skis that are just absolutely impossible to measure scientifically and therefore it's worthless to measure them at all. I refuse to believe that, as the scientist in me understands that although you may not be measuring it yet, eventually all the important aspects can and will be assessed through real science and not just a subjective impression.

 

[cantunamunch]

What you and Phil seem to be implying is that there are characteristics to skis that are just absolutely impossible to measure scientifically and therefore it's worthless to measure them at all.

No. That's the wrong end of the stick.


I am perfectly convinced we can measure anything we're interested in. But then what?

At some point someone or something will have to do the mapping to 'fun' and 'like' because the desired end point is completely subjective.

 

[James]

Skis that immediately come to mind that I have owned are the Hart Pulse and the Scott Crusade.

Interesting on the Pulse. Skied that a little, would’ve said it had metal in it.

I tried the Crusade at Big Sky. Man, that was a twitchy sob. Me no likey. But, I think it had too much shape that caused that, not so much the construction. I think I described it as a light weight boxer on crystal meth. As I recall, it had an interesting boat hull tip.
It might have then that trip, can’t remember, that the favorite ski tested was the Stockli VXL with a VIST plate. Now that setup was heavy metal. We used to argue over who skied that. Just blew through junk. I actually used to go looking for crappy snow.

I really should try the Kore. Someone I ski with tried a Kore 3 times in a big half year demo fest to find his first non race ski. Ended up with the Bonafide. Just felt the Kore was blah.

 

[AmyPJ]

This is also the reason that the customer who likes the Santa Ana 93 and the customer who likes the KORE 93 are two different people with very different tastes.
KORE's model is "light done right"
Santa Ana's model is, smooth and confidence inspiring.

Ohhhh, the Kore was a close second for me when I skied it and the Santa Ana back-to-back. The hero snow that day made everything pretty stinkin' fun. The SA made me giggle.

 

[Noodler]

Interesting on the Pulse. Skied that a little, would’ve said it had metal in it.

I tried the Crusade at Big Sky. Man, that was a twitchy sob. Me no likey. But, I think it had too much shape that caused that, not so much the construction. I think I described it as a light weight boxer on crystal meth. As I recall, it had an interesting boat hull tip.
It might have then that trip, can’t remember, that the favorite ski tested was the Stöckli VXL with a VIST plate. Now that setup was heavy metal. We used to argue over who skied that. Just blew through junk. I actually used to go looking for crappy snow.

I really should try the Kore. Someone I ski with tried a Kore 3 times in a big half year demo fest to find his first non race ski. Ended up with the Bonafide. Just felt the Kore was blah.

The Kore series skis are surprisingly damp for such a light skis.

 

[Philpug]

What you and Phil seem to be implying is that there are characteristics to skis that are just absolutely impossible to measure scientifically and therefore it's worthless to measure them at all.

You are putting words in my mouth. What I wrote was basically what Smoot said, just reversing it when they have on their page "Don't read endless reviews". Numbers are just the start any not the end. I hve said this over and over and I stan by it. you can take four skis that have similar numbers in tip, waist and tail and even flex that will ski four dramatically different ways. The was a time when flexes mattered and could be compared and that was when all skis were shaped identical and there was no rocker in the tip and tail, three and five point sidecuts, eliptical and 3D radiuses and other variables. If looking at numbers make you happy, great but I have skied soft skis that skied amazing at speed and stiff skis that sucked. Numbers do not tell me how a ski will ski.

Boots are even more obtuse. People whine and complain that a published 98mm might be 97 or doesn't fit as polished well it is how and where that shell is measured and more so how the liner is contructed. Don't even get me started on flexes.

The only piece of gear that can be quantifiably measured is bindings for is return to center speed, elasticity and delta.

 

[François Pugh]

But the numbers DO matter. The flex distribution matters; the exact side-cut shape matters; the rocker profile matters; the construction matters (for more than flex); the mass matters; the mass centralization matters. It all matters.

Sure the folks in sales would like us to ignore the numbers and just buy the hype of the season, but as an engineer, I'm not buying that.

Just because rocker shape and side-cut shape matter does not mean flex does not matter; it matters even more and it is even more critical that it is appropriate for the rest of the ski design and its intended use (and how you plan to other-wise abuse it).

 

[oldschoolskier]

CIVL XO1:
When a beam bends under load, the fibers on the outside of the bend are being stretched and the fibers on the inside of the beam are being compressed. It is the fibers' resistance to compression and tension that gives the beam it's stiffness. That's why we have I beams. That's why they put the metal where it is in the sandwich. The metal layer in the bottom of the ski is resisting being stretched as the ski bends. By resisting it makes the ski stiffer, provided of course the ski is not delaminated and is acting as a unit.

Rats, you beat me to it.

 

[SoothSkier]

Large debate out here... I have one important thing to mention: in my opinion, what differentiates the most a ski from another is the torsional stiffness distribution. When you choose a ski, you usually know (at least people on this forum) what size/sidecut/approximate weight you want. Then comes the stiffness. There is bending stiffness and torsional stiffness. I'm assuming everyone gets the difference, but I'll still bring an important precision: BENDING will depend on essentially 2 things, namely the skiers weight and his cruising speed. If a ski is too stiff, the skier will simply go faster to get the ski to bend. The tricky part is the TORSIONAL stiffness. On this, the skier's technical ability is important as it will leverage a lot his tolerance to torsional stiffness. To me, this is where data makes all the difference: you can determine a specific "comfort" zone for any given skier, that is unique to that skier. It's kind of like a flavor appreciation, difficult to debate.

As for the question with or without metal... Metal = weight and layering (vibration absorption). You should read the article by Dwyer Cole Haney, a former BD designer about this. It explains very well what titanal is. Titanal is a cheap alloy which has isotropic properties. Means the properties are the same in all directions, unlike fiber. You want to add weight to a ski and add layer where vibrations can dissipate without screwing up your intended bending and torsional pattern? Add titanal, it's cheap and effective. One of our colleagues made a statement very true: skiing is the only industry that markets the use of carbon as something cheaper (or lower level) than aluminum (titanal is mostly aluminium)! I find that statement very true!

 

[DB Cooper]

You are putting words in my mouth. What I wrote was basically what Smoot said, just reversing it when they have on their page "Don't read endless reviews". Numbers are just the start any not the end. I hve said this over and over and I stan by it. you can take four skis that have similar numbers in tip, waist and tail and even flex that will ski four dramatically different ways. The was a time when flexes mattered and could be compared and that was when all skis were shaped identical and there was no rocker in the tip and tail, three and five point sidecuts, eliptical and 3D radiuses and other variables. If looking at numbers make you happy, great but I have skied soft skis that skied amazing at speed and stiff skis that sucked. Numbers do not tell me how a ski will ski.

Boots are even more obtuse. People whine and complain that a published 98mm might be 97 or doesn't fit as polished well it is how and where that shell is measured and more so how the liner is contructed. Don't even get me started on flexes.

The only piece of gear that can be quantifiably measured is bindings for is return to center speed, elasticity and delta.

As the progenitor of this thread, I apologize in getting this discussion going!

FWIW, in my quest to find the ski I was looking for I demoed the Atris, QST 106, and M-Free 108. I settled on the Atris, a ski with no metal, which, for me, checked all my boxes. Ski was damp enough, holds an edge surprisingly well, and was stable enough for me. As Phil said, skis are more than just numbers on a page and I was also reminded of what Ski Essentials said on their review: for most people (me) the Atris is just a really fun powder ski. And that’s all it is!

Thanks to the community, though. It is interesting hearing everyone’s thoughts but at the end of the day it came down to what I liked and what worked for me. And it came just in time - Utah is getting HAMMERED right now so I plan on enjoying my “really fun powder ski”!

 

[anders_nor]

where did you end up mounting the atris? I have a new unmounted one sitting here, having a hell of a time deciding on binders, and mount points...

 

[LewyM]

The only piece of gear that can be quantifiably measured is bindings for is return to center speed, elasticity and delta.

at least numbers still tell the general story for poles.