Will Other Manufacturers Follow Denali On Sizing

[Stevie Boy]

I really like the concept that Denali use, one length ski but different width,s, if you are vertically challenge and not a giant surely it,s got to be better, how can somebody five foot six and a little heavy, work with a 68 or 69 inch ski, going way back you brought a ski by offering it up to your height, I am 182 on a 67 which was fine until, I got old and started skiing at 32mph, the two wider skis on the market I do not like, the best ski for me was the 66 inch sixam 2.

I might have to start skiing 34mph again, the window for error at 32 mph is very small.

Ideally I would love to see a 65 or 66 for the 175llb to 190llb skier

[Than_Bogan]

I must admit I am super-curious if 10 years from now we'll have have forgotten that Denali did this in 2019 -- or if we'll have forgotten that there used be any other way!

 

Sticking on my Nostradamus hat, my kinda bold guess is that the idea of varying only width is going to become standard. In terms of ski performance, it just makes sense. Think back to the ideas behind the Nano One -- just one turn radius. But that didn't quite work because you need more or less support under your feet depending on weight and speed. Varying only width is the best of both worlds.

 

In addition, the right way to scale the ski may be much more clear in this scenario, as the critically-important outer edges of the ski can literally be identical across all sizes. You basically just change the far-less-critical middle.

 

Indeed, I'm not sure Denali has yet taken this as far as they should. I think XL and 2XL sizes may turn out to make a lot of sense for slower speeds. And I think the truly small among us may want a much thinner ski. I'm finding the small is a great fit at 170 lbs / 34 mph, so I can easily imagine a 145 pounder skiing at 36 mph needing more like an XXS.

 

Time will tell! Let's try to remember to look back at this in a few years!

[BraceMaker]

@Than_Bogan so if you keep the edges the same, and the radius the same and the bevels the same and the rocker line the same.... but the ski gets wider. The tunnel clearly must change. How does the tunnel get adjusted? Or is it just flat in the spacer?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Than_Bogan I’ll take that bet. The challenge will be if either of us remembers in 10 years.

 

I think both length and width need to change, but instead of a simple length vs weight/speed chart, it will include height and ability level. In other words, while optimum width may be related to weight, the optimum length may be related more to height.

 

But again length and width are only 2 of dozens of design attributes that make a ski work......or not.

 

[ALPJr]

Sounds like a good subject for @luzz on the podcast. Would be interesting to here from the ski design minds.

[ski6jones]

I don't think height can be ignored as a factor. I'm tall and have never felt comfortable on a 67" at any weight, always a 68".

[Than_Bogan]

@Bruce_Butterfield Absolutely valid points, and given that it's been "the other way" for all of history, I think I might need better than 1:1 odds to actually bet on "my" side! :) But I do have a hunch and it would be super-fun if anyone can somehow remember and one of us can send the other a dollar!

[Than_Bogan]

@BraceMaker The tunnel absolutely must change, and there is no clear "correct" way to do it. I am merely hypothesizing that a ski is far less sensitive to the details of the middle of the tunnel than it is to the edges.

[Than_Bogan]

@ski6jones I am not a ski designer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Based on those "qualifications" I claim that it's impossible to tell the difference between the torque supporting you front to back supplied by a wider ski vs. a longer ski. Ultimately, torque is torque.

 

The said, there is "of course" no short/wide ski that will exactly simulate a given long/narrow ski, because the relative torques supplied around different axes are different between those two skis.

 

My guess about the future is actually mostly based on the improved design cycle and an increased confidence that the "XS" will actually be a great ski even if the R&D people mostly rode the L. In other words, I think intentionally limiting the design space has benefits that outweigh said limitations.

 

No one will be completely shocked if I am wrong...

[Weappa]

In the future, we may print our skis to our weight, height, age, and ability.

[DangerBoy]

Huh. On another Denali related thread I said it will be interesting to see if any of the other ski companies uses Denali's one length/many widths sizing philosophy on at least some new ski models and I got a rolling panda for pondering the liklihood of scenarios that seemed far-fetched to some. Admittedly, I wondered out loud if some other things might also come to pass one day so maybe it was those wonderings and not the one related to the question asked in this thread that garnered me the rare and coveted rolling panda. ;)

 

My non-expert/non-industry insider guess is that at least some of the ski companies will at least look at the idea and maybe even one or two might go as far as developing some prototypes following that design philosophy to test out. If any companies do actually put out some models using that sizing philosophy, my guess is that it will be just one or two models at first. Time and results will then tell if the idea takes over and becomes the way all slalom ski models are made or if it's only applied to certain models or not used at all by anyone other than Denali.

[ski6jones]

@Than_Bogan I like the HIE reference but not sure about the length thing. The skiers height changes the distance of CM and application of load via rope from the ski. Due to that distance being longer for a tall skier the forces that can be applied to the ski have the potential to be larger. Same goes for skier movements. Due to the longer lever arm I think a slightly longer ski gives a wider margin for imperfect position. If we were always perfectly positioned over our feet then I might agree with ski length and width being interchangeable to some extent.