The Launch of Denali Skis

[Wish]

Jack, the fin is not deflected or tilted or leaned. Rather the ski itself is deflects downward essentially covering some of the fin and exposing less of it on that side. So the fin will read shallower then the opposite side.

[ISP6ball]

My brain hurts!

 

I wish I was smarter.

[Razorskier1]

@AdamCord - it is possible that I'm just a horse that pushes the ski to my will, rather than any particular talent!

[The_MS]

@lkb Have them put it on my tab. Whats another 2k on an addiction you love?

[lkb]

MS, thanks for ponying up! ...come down when it arrives and take some sets on it :-)

[JohnN]

@gavski Tape will definitely work. I first noticed this on my slalom in about 2006, and everyone said that's just the way skis are. I noticed it because when I made a change it would be exaggerated on one side when the fin wasn't true. So, it bugged me, and made a difference in how the ski felt. With that ski, and each ski since then, I measure both sides and add metal tape (for heat ducts) under one side between the fin block and the top sheet to get the fin to match, or to do what I want it to do. Never really messed with changing it other than making it true so I would have predictable results when making adjustments.

[gavski]

JohnN- interesting...i might give that a go...In the FinWhispering book, there was a mention that in order to get consistent Fin Depth (FD) numbers, always use the same side of the fin, as often there are differences between each side....

Just to confirm, other than getting both sides of the fin to be equal, if i am a LFF skier and i want to shorten the FD on one side - am i making my 'on-side' turn FD shorter? In this case, it will be the left side of the fin when viewed from behind...

[gavski]

Just a thought re: the adding of tape/ washer under the fin block...

Is one side of the ski (under the area of the block) being pushed downwards, or is a shim being added under the block, therefore the fin will no longer be held perpendicular to the base of the ski...it will have been canted over slightly....??

How do we know if the fin is perpendicular to the base of the ski? If the top sheet and the base of the ski are parallel and the fin is held 'square' in the finblock, then when the block is mounted to the ski, the fin 'should' be perpendicular...in this case, wouldn't both FD numbers be the same??

[Wish]

@gavski

Yes but "it", the washer or set screw on the Denali block, will be on the the Rt as seen from behind making on-side 135 active fin area less or a shorter FD for a lefty.

 

and your first observation in second post is the correct one. Also in http://www.denaliskis.com see Articles in the menu and read the Fin Area Tuning System article. Recommend it to any skier. Good stuff.

 

 

 

 

[Adam Caldwell]

@gavski -

 

The side of the fin facing shoreline after the edge change is essentially the effective control area. This controlling area is being pressured by hydraulic forces as your body twists the ski in the water as it slides outbound into the apex and through the finish of the turn. The "higher" pressure side of the fin significantly impacts how the ski slides and rotates through the pre-turn, apex, finish of the turn, and even all the way until the next edge change.

 

If you havnt yet, please read the Fin Area tuning article to help clarify. http://www.denaliskis.com/#!Fin-Area-Tuning-System/ymts8/56ae54220cf2683289301e22

 

Also, there is more that goes into what makes a fin sit squarely in a ski. Is the fin slot perfectly aligned to the CL of the ski? Is the machining on each half of the fin clamp "perfect" at 90deg right angles? Is there any material under the fin block from the insert or a screw that is causing one side of the ski to deflect under the clamp more on one side then the other? Is the fin actually FLAT or is there a slight "bend" in it?

 

The reality is its nearly impossible for any manufacturer to ensure the fin is perfectly square to the bottom of the ski such that it will produce identical depth numbers on both sides of the ski. There are too many variables. So, if you are unaware of which side is deeper, then you have no idea if the unbalanced depth is working for you or against you. If you have ever gotten into fin tuning and just cant find symmetry in the course no matter what you try, there's a good chance there was a 10-15K offset in fin depth working against you.

 

Soon, Denaliskis.com have another article and possibly a video to dig deeper into the details of why slightly less fin area is advantageous for heel-side turn. Stay tuned.

 

[AdamCord]

@gavski If you were to put tape under the fin block that ran the entire length of the block, the fin would most likely no longer be perpendicular. What we had the Denali test skiers doing is only adding a washer in the middle of the fin block to slightly deflect the ski downward on one side. The deflection only happens in the middle of the fin block, so the fin stays perpendicular to the ski. As a LFF skier you would put the washer on the right side, looking from the top of the ski.

 

@JohnN you were smart to make that observation and correct for it!

 

Most skis will have a difference from side to side, and it's a 50/50 chance on whether it will help or hurt you. Many times when someone tries two skis that are the same (brand, size, flex, etc.), but they can feel a difference, it's actually this variance in side to side fin depth that is the cause. By actively adjusting it and using it to your advantage any ski will be better and will have a more forgiving tuning window.

[gavski]

Thanks for the clarification Adam - i read your article alongside the fin whispering book - great stuff....although this confused me a little from an earlier post by you:

 

@AdamCord wrote: I was running several clean 39s in Orlando (65deg water, 70 air) on my ski just before Christmas with fin ~25/1000 deeper on the right side of the fin (a LFF setup). So the numbers for depth were Deep-side=2.455, Shallow-side = 2.430.

 

seems to be opposite, unless i am viewing it from the wrong direction - should be the tail?...

[AdamCord]

@gavski, @adamhcaldwell looks to have misspoken. The fin should be deeper on the left side (from the skier's perspective) for a left foot forward skier.

[gavski]

understood....Thanks for the clarification...I have just measured my fin...RHS = 2.475, LHS = 2.481...so it is in the correct sense for LFF, but maybe not big enough to make a difference??

[Adam Caldwell]

Yep. I made a typo. Submitted to @Horton for correction.

[eleeski]

So can I use bondo to build up one side instead? In the middle of the fin or at the end?

 

And how does the flexibility of the fin affect this adjustment?

 

You have given me some fun things to experiment with! Thanks,

 

Eric

[AdamCord]

@eleeski you can make some pretty big changes with bondo, which I know you're not afraid of doing. You can add bondo just in the middle or over the whole length of the fin, depending on what you want it to do. If we are talking bondo and asymmetrical tuning that's a LOT you can do.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking about the flexibility of the fin?

[gavski]

Okay, this is what i have managed to set up with the addition of a washer: RHS:2.460, LHS:2.481.

I will test it out with Boris this sunday - hopefully he won't abuse me too much..

[Fehlindra]

@gavski picture pls

 

[eleeski]

@AdamCord @Horton is the guru of flexi fins. But he won't talk. I'm using a very flexible fin and get some of the benefits you describe. But I'm a long way from even my cutting edge. Snag one of Horton's softer old fins and do some testing for us.

 

Your project is so cool. Already you have changed the game.

 

Eric

[AdamCord]

@gavski what was your measured depth before? Also which side would you say is your better turn and why? I'm just asking to try and help you dial it in a bit.

 

@eleeski I've got a whole stack of carbon fins that I got from Horton years ago. I've tested them quite a bit and I've also played with different thicknesses and types of aluminum, as well as stainless steel, which is extremely stiff. The functional difference with fin stiffness is that a softer fin will act like a deeper fin the more it's pressured because it's flexed downward by the force of the water, whereas a stiffer fin will maintain it's shape. What that means is that the softer fin will create more drag and make the ski slower, while the stiffer fin will let the ski rotate more freely and make the ski faster.

 

The nice thing about a soft fin is that it will pull the tail deeper when there is a lot of pressure, so it is more forgiving. What you have then is a trade-off. The softer fin will make the ski slower and harder to rotate, but it will be more stable and predictable. The stiff fin will make the ski ride higher, rotate more freely, and be faster, but you will feel less tip height stability and be more likely to blow the tail.

 

Because of this people will find softer fins to be more helpful on their toeside turns than their heelside turns. We want the tail to rotate more freely on the heelside, but not as much on the toeside. The aluminum fins used by most companies today are a good blend of speed/stability in my opinion, which is why the whole industry has converged on them. Some people could benefit from a softer carbon fin if they are riding a bigger/faster ski and they need the added stability, but they would need to run different fin settings than the aluminum fin guys. Also @Horton would have to put them back into production...

[Horton]

Four things i will never do again:

 

1) work for a Fortune 10 corporation

2) jump

3) drink cheap tequila

4) manufacturer carbon fiber fins

[Than_Bogan]

Feelin' psyched I never did any of those! Well, assuming you mean actually land a jump.

[mmosley899]

LoL, I could never put up with the BS to work for a Fortune 500 company, I love to jump, but seldom do any more, too much pain; I hate cheap tequila, but I have tried every shape and thickness of aluminum fin, and some stainless fins, no carbon fiber though...

[mwetskier]

@AdamCord -i believe years ago steve schnitzer made a fin that had glass on one side and carbon fiber on the other to create a different flex on each side. an easy way to kind of accomplish the same thing with an aluminum fin is to remove material from one side of the fin slot while making sure the opposite fin face sits firmly against its side of the slot. the ' loose ' side will be bowing from the top surface of the ski while the ' tight ' side will be bowing from the bottom surface of the ski. So more overall flex on the loose side.

[Horton]

@mwetskier the early composite fins that Steve made planted the seed for my CarbonFins years later. I do not think he actually had a different flex on the each side as much as he had a fin that was slightly curved in one direction. Unbalanced layup = warped laminate

[mwetskier]

@Horton -i'm looking at a copy of mr. schnitzers ' slalom ski set up and fin tuning guide ' that he sells on his site and on page 32 he shows a photo of the carbon and glass fin with a description below it. in the body of the article he talks about using different lay ups on each side to produce different flexes on each side of the fin and he predicts there will be lff and rff specific fins in the future.

 

 

Carbon on one side of the fin and fiberglass on the other. My old ULTRA MINI CUT BACK, circa late 1980’s

 

 

[Horton]

@mwetskier i believe that is what the text says but i am unsure if it technically plausible.

 

@AdamCord am i off base?

[tap]

Fun idea, but no. That's not really how that works. All you are doing in this case is moving the axis of bending towards the carbon side of the fin (instead of in the center as it would be for homogeneous materials like aluminum). It would still be just as stiff (for the most part) in either direction. And good luck getting it flat to start with (can be done but would be a big pain in the a..).

[mwetskier]

horizontally segmented on one side with no gaps between segments would easily make it more flexible toward one side than the other. they make camping tables that roll up into a cylinder based on such engineering.

[Horton]

@mwetskier i would give you a panda but this thread is far enough off topic

[gavski]

@AdamCord. Original FD numbers - RHS:2.475, LHS:2.481. I am on a '14 Radar Vapor running settings from @Horton..on a good day, i can get 2/3rds down 38@36 - problem is i have never been able to get the damn ski to feel balanced on both sides..every turn feels different..

i am due a new ski and i have been skiing alot recently with boris - he did mention the Denali to me, but the jury is out on a new ride...MC, Denali, Vapor, T3...have not tried any as yet..in the meantime, i am happy to experiment with settings etc...

[AdamCord]

@gavski you shouldn't feel much of a difference, if any, on your 2-4 side. The 1-3 side should rotate better. Let us know how it goes!

[Than_Bogan]

@gavski Although I have little doubt that all of those skis are awesome, the tie-breaker for me would be the rest of the package. Incredible support, deep knowledge of skis, a whole coaching philosophy tied to the ski design, and -- maybe most interesting of all -- this is just the beginning. I really like the idea of attaching myself to the fastest moving train!

 

Hard to say how important any of that is to you, but at my particular stage all of those are very valuable to me.

[gavski]

@Than_Bogan - great advice...i totally hear where you are coming from...

[AdamCord]

We've been getting asked a lot about our Demo/Return policy so I thought I'd just post it here.

 

The skis are custom made for each skier but if you are unhappy with the ski let us know within the first 30 days of skiing on it and we will build you a new ski that we think will suit you better, or if you want you can return the ski. We will refund your money minus shipping costs and a $100 fee (to cover transaction and handling costs) if you choose to return it. We want to make sure our customers are happy so the nice thing about keeping quantities limited is that we can work directly with you to get you on a ski that is working as well as possible.

 

There's an FAQ on our website with some other commonly asked questions.

 

Let me know if there are any questions about this or anything else!

[mwetskier]

@Horton -you can still pm me the panda. i'll store with my other ones in the same place where i keep all my valuable trophies and the thread won't suffer for it.

[Horton]

@AdamCord that demo policy is so smart. Skiers need to try skis before they commit. Too bad it is all just a hoax.

[gavski]

@AdamCord: tried out the 'different' set up yesterday at Boris' lake.... The air was 45F, water 62F and the wind was blowing its tits off....my 1-3-5 'felt' pretty good, but the conditions were making it a real challenge...it was Boris' reaction that was really telling...Apparently my 1-3-5 side was awesome...a little reduction in FD was req on my 2-4 side as it now felt a bit too deep..2nd set - much more balanced both sides...

Bumped into Austin - so got my first glimpse of his Beast - and by that, i mean his Denali....he has a great sales pitch....

[Adam Caldwell]

@gavski - Boris's lake feels to me like the ski rides a little deeper in the turn. I had to run about 5K shorter and shallower there then I do at other places in FL to free up the ski.

 

The important question is, was there anything about fin-area change that negatively impacted performance?

 

[MattP]

@AdamCord @adamhcaldwell

I would love to hear what amateur skiers at 36 are saying about the ski. Do y'all have anyone riding the ski in the 22-38off range @ 36?

[ozski]

@MattP I put a young guy on it from our lake and he ran 4@-38 first set coming off his HO and he loved the ski. (mid flex) He's a light weight and his comments were all about how well the ski turned for him both sides. At that stage that was the equal of his best practice score for the season, not bad first set.

[tap]

@MattP I'm a M2 guy. Full disclosure, I'm pretty good friends with these guys so I'm sure my opinion is a bit biased. But... results don't lie. I spent most of last spring/summer just trying to get consistent at -28@36mph, and fighting to get midway through -32@36mph on a really good day. I jumped in with some of the early trials and have gotten to play with a few different progressions of the ski along the way. Last tournament in the Fall I broke through -32 and got around 2 ball at -35@36. It's a different kind of ski, no question. The faster you go the happier it is. The settings make a difference. I wondered into no-mans-land for a bit with the fin and paid the price. But, with a few revisions based on some conversations with the Adam's we got it back into the realm of awesomeness.

[Than_Bogan]

I have a question about the new stud plate, and this seems like as good a place as any for it:

 

Are there any issues with the studs sticking up from the ski? I've never seen the plate (the Betas have inserts), but my first thought is that perhaps I should be concerned about tagging myself with one during a massive wipe-out?

[Horton]

@Than_Bogan I have a Denali (prototype) stud plate as well a few as others. I guess the studs could a hazard but it seems extremely unlikely. I would say your fin box is far more dangerous.

 

I am assuming that acorn nuts will be used.

[skialex]

@Than_Bogan l was using Reflex Bonds for many years and have put Bond plates to several skis, concept is the same as the Denali's stud plate. You do not want the studs sticking out of the nuts, they might cut you. So in some cases I used to cut off the excess metal or if it wasn't that much used two washers.

Also if you use self locking nuts you do not have to tighten them firmly on the ski which aid to the ski's natural flex along with the dual lock or tape adhesive of the stud plate.

[AdamCord]

@Than_Bogan great question. The Denali stud plates come with nuts that have a protective rubber cap on them like these:

 

 

[gavski]

Are the bolts that protrude up from the plate a standard length? Can they be changed? I only ask as i have built up a wedge underneath my reflex boot plate in order to cant my supershell to match my lower leg - it's a 1.5deg correction...As a consequence, the RHS is thicker by an 'extra' 5-5mm underneath the G10 plate. As a result, i have to use longer screws on that side...

[AdamCord]

@gavski we can do different stud lengths and configurations. The skis are custom made for each customer and we offer custom plates as well (at no extra charge). We have some customers who use OB4 and Fogman boots so we are making custom plates for those guys.

 

Also some people use the Mikro-just so they need longer studs in one or two locations. On the standard plate, the forward-most studs are longer to allow for the Mikro-just.

[gavski]

@AdamCord - thanks for the info..Great emphasis has been made about the fact that these skis are 'custom' made for the individual - are these specific qualities built in or more general behaviour traits? in other words, can others ski on my ski?