Nice man'splain.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Skis w/ metal vs. skis w/o metal
- Thread starter DB Cooper
- Start date
Nice man'splain.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Posts
- 316
Just a datapoint but metal != stiffness.
My daily driver is a JSkis Masterblaster, which is not sidewall to sidewall titanal but does extend tip to tail in the middle of the ski. It’s pretty damp (compared to most 100ish GS radius type skis) but not stiff.
Now I’m a heavy guy, and I’ve found that at least at my weight there is a speed limit on these, but the metal does do a few things relative to other skis with similar geometry that may even be stiffer (Kore for instance)
1) I get better edgehold on hardpack...whether this is from torsional stiffness or the damping gluing me to the snow more, I can’t say.
2) I get more stability when GSing over “half moguls” or chop
The price I pay is weight of the ski. Previous metal skis I had were less poppy unless you REALLY loaded them with angulation but this Masterblaster is more ready to play.
For the way I ski, where I ski, when I ski it makes sense for me. I have a set of Rustler 11s for fresh which are similar construction and similar benefit (the Masterblasters convinced me to look at things this way).
The ski also has significant rocker, and I have a set of unrockered skis without metal (Ullr’s Chariot TT) that are very glued to the snow and stable at speed despite an aggressive sidecut) that I use for rock skis and spring snow.
So I have to wonder if the metal layer neutralizes the flappiness of the rocker to an extent.
My daily driver is a JSkis Masterblaster, which is not sidewall to sidewall titanal but does extend tip to tail in the middle of the ski. It’s pretty damp (compared to most 100ish GS radius type skis) but not stiff.
Now I’m a heavy guy, and I’ve found that at least at my weight there is a speed limit on these, but the metal does do a few things relative to other skis with similar geometry that may even be stiffer (Kore for instance)
1) I get better edgehold on hardpack...whether this is from torsional stiffness or the damping gluing me to the snow more, I can’t say.
2) I get more stability when GSing over “half moguls” or chop
The price I pay is weight of the ski. Previous metal skis I had were less poppy unless you REALLY loaded them with angulation but this Masterblaster is more ready to play.
For the way I ski, where I ski, when I ski it makes sense for me. I have a set of Rustler 11s for fresh which are similar construction and similar benefit (the Masterblasters convinced me to look at things this way).
The ski also has significant rocker, and I have a set of unrockered skis without metal (Ullr’s Chariot TT) that are very glued to the snow and stable at speed despite an aggressive sidecut) that I use for rock skis and spring snow.
So I have to wonder if the metal layer neutralizes the flappiness of the rocker to an extent.
Does NOT equal stiffness but it can used to stiffen.
It can but not because of stiffness but it will quiet it.
Reminder: One of the beefiest and burliest skis, the K2 VO Slalom not only didn't have metal in the ski, it didn't have wood either. It was a torsion box foam core.
So I was on enforcer 93s last season. This season I’m on an Enforcer 94, Rustler 10, Rustler 11, and 2021 Ripstick 88. I’ve ridden dual metal, single metal and no metal. I’m an advanced, powerful skier. The 88 does get tossed around a bit but holds an edge as well as the enforcer and I just smile when I’m on that ski.
If I was going to rate how much fun I have had on my skis this season highest to lowest, I’d say Ripstick 88, Rustler 10, Rustler 11, Enforcer 94.
I’m looking forward to Elan kicking out the Ripstick Black 96 (possibly 106 too) in stumpy sizes this summer (only 180 and 188 available now). Good chance that could be my end game ski for a couple seasons.
Might snag a Maverick 95ti for crud days too. Of course they will all be hidden in a corner of the basement from my wife.
If I was going to rate how much fun I have had on my skis this season highest to lowest, I’d say Ripstick 88, Rustler 10, Rustler 11, Enforcer 94.
I’m looking forward to Elan kicking out the Ripstick Black 96 (possibly 106 too) in stumpy sizes this summer (only 180 and 188 available now). Good chance that could be my end game ski for a couple seasons.
Might snag a Maverick 95ti for crud days too. Of course they will all be hidden in a corner of the basement from my wife.
No need for apologies, it was a good place to put any number of things that needed to be said.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,847
I don’t know that’s true. Carbon centric skis are expensive.
What might be true is many skis that use carbon are crap frankly. I think it’s a very difficult material to use well.
Plenty of skis with carbon I find unsavory and horrible in their twitchy tip reaction and the flex can just be odd.
Titanal is apparently, somewhat difficult to bond. Lots of indy skis didn’t touch it for that reason.
Shaman, the defunct Finnish mogul ski co. had an interesting use of kevlar. Don’t know what they did with it, but the skis had a nice feel when doing their thing. I wish they had made an all mountain ski, their mogul ski was most definitely not.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,847
Except people are way more adamant about pole length than anything else in ski equipment. They’ll listen to you about any other piece of equipment, but when it comes to pole length everyone has a copy of the original stone tablet handed down to Moses. It’s unreal.at least numbers still tell the general story for poles.
Might possibly exist from birth. It’s a rare event when a young child allows an adjustment of their adjustable poles.
I own skis with metal, skis without, and carbon skis. All are fun and wonderful in the conditions they are designed for. I’d say my Laser AX is the ski with metal that is extremely versatile and fun in most conditions...I’d say really, all eastern conditions. I own 2 carbon skis - a 2020 Ripstick 88 in a 179 (purchased for $250 and a DPS Alchemist Wailer 99. Both of these skis have some degree of damping - in fact, their smoothness was a surprise at first. Neither are ‘charge at Mach schnell through crud‘ skis, but I don’t ski that way, anyway. I appreciate the lightness of both of them - that can make a difference on a long ski day. And their edge hold is very, very good.
But the metal Stockli is also more playful than some might think.
I hear so much ski chatter in the lift line and some of it is amusing in its oversimplification. (“I ski Nordicas because I’m a hard charger”. “Skinny skis aren’t stable enough for me” etc). Many people think my AX’s are “race skis.” Um, no.
I smile on my Ripsticks, as well. They are just FUN.
and a DPS Alchemist Wailer 99. Both of these skis have some degree of damping - in fact, their smoothness was a surprise at first. Neither are ‘charge at Mach schnell through crud‘ skis, but I don’t ski that way, anyway. I appreciate the lightness of both of them - that can make a difference on a long ski day. And their edge hold is very, very good.But the metal Stockli is also more playful than some might think.
I hear so much ski chatter in the lift line and some of it is amusing in its oversimplification. (“I ski Nordicas because I’m a hard charger”. “Skinny skis aren’t stable enough for me” etc). Many people think my AX’s are “race skis.” Um, no.
I think the new Ripstick 88 (2021...the one that is blue and red) has a stiffer tip and replaces the Black. I think they did that change for all the widths.So I was on enforcer 93s last season. This season I’m on an Enforcer 94, Rustler 10, Rustler 11, and 2021 Ripstick 88. I’ve ridden dual metal, single metal and no metal. I’m an advanced, powerful skier. The 88 does get tossed around a bit but holds an edge as well as the enforcer and I just smile when I’m on that ski.
If I was going to rate how much fun I have had on my skis this season highest to lowest, I’d say Ripstick 88, Rustler 10, Rustler 11, Enforcer 94.
I’m looking forward to Elan kicking out the Ripstick Black 96 (possibly 106 too) in stumpy sizes this summer (only 180 and 188 available now). Good chance that could be my end game ski for a couple seasons.
Might snag a Maverick 95ti for crud days too. Of course they will all be hidden in a corner of the basement from my wife.
I smile on my Ripsticks, as well. They are just FUN.
Yup. They are just a fun ski. Same changes across the line. Bit stiffer, better edge hold and less chatter than previous year. Tip shape has better float.
Based on talks with a few shops who’ve demoed (eagerly awaiting @Philpug impressions) the 2022 RS Black line is more damp like metal, torsionally and longitudinally stiffer (esp underfoot), tad heavier, even better edge hold yet still Ripstick fun. Bring on stumpy sizes!
Last edited:
I get exactly the opposite over here. When I show up on the mountain in my SR95s I am referred to as "that freeride guy" and am asked sarcastic questions if I by chance expect a heavy snowfall in this bluebird day.
Skis over 90 mm are super rare on our lift lines,I'd even say over 80.
95 and wider seem to be only acceptable for those "crazy weirdo kids who are friends with...
...the snowboarders" and who are not viewed as real skiers.Or for foreigners. Who, as everybody knows, are crazy oddballs who know nothing about skiing, so they are free to do whatever they want. Bless their hearts.
P.S. This is what REAL men and women ski:
Last edited:
The bonding thing is kind of an urban legend when it comes to smaller companies. What it boils down to is cost and minimum purchase quantities, and the one company that makes the product. I know 2 smaller companies who are using metal actually went in together to buy their titanal.
15 year old Blizzard Cross with IQ bindings?
And onesies yes. Old school. And such guys ski like million times better than any posh kid on fatties could possibly dream of.
And they wear leather on their faces. Leather, not skin.
And have 120 plus days of skiing in a 4,5 months long season (at most).
I would very much like to be like them when I get older.
On the topic of metal, the typical 2 metal layer sandwich is base, metal, core, metal, with a few other layers mixed in. Has anyone tried using metal as the base material? I can envision a whole host of problems with this, but also some potential benefits.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,847
Some years ago there was a guy on epic looking for the right adhesive to bond titanium sheet to the ski base. He’d picked up some scrap at the Boeing surplus yard, and wanted to use it for sand skiing on the dunes.
My pair of ancient Head honeycomb core skis have aluminum bases. Skied them once. Sketchy edgehold, kinda slow when the snow sticks to them...but skiable!
And, more recently than the Heads above:
I was watching a special on Roald Amundsen's time exploring the Northwest Passage and there was a thing in it about spitting water onto runners to create successive coats of ice and polishing them in with lichen or seal fur or something.
Yes, I've tried it on sled runners and no, I've never gotten anything to stick to the metal. Maybe not cold enough? Or maybe dubious bit of TV bro science?
I wonder which dunes? The geek in me thought about Great Sand Dunes Nat’l Monument -quartz sand - which has a hardness of 7, versus White Sands National Monument which is gypsum, which is much softer at 2. I’d rather ski the gypsum.
Easier on the bases. Less rash when you fall, too.
Last edited:
Huh. I wonder what the perceived advantages would be over UHMW Polymer. The actual paper is behind a paywall. Gone would be the fun color-impregnated bases on some skis. Maybe we could have cool anodized metal bases.