Are New Skis Better or Just Different?

[BraceMaker]

How far behind would his skiing be behind a 2020 SN with zero off given no transition time.

[Horton]

@Dysco No.

 

With Kjellandrer's gear from 1988, ZO and the modern boats would likely knock a number of balls off his score. The bindings he used were fine. Maybe not as safe or comfortable as the current stuff but fine. Being able to adjust his fin would help.

 

The ski shape he was on but the materials a ski is made out of is what has changed the most since then. Any ski with made from fiberglass with a PU is light years behind the current stuff.

[Dysco]

@Horton So with a new boat he wouldn't get 41, but with the fin adjustments he might. New bindings don't help performance.

 

This is interesting for sure.

 

The improvements in the wake since 88 can't make up the difference if ZO? Would that mean for amateurs in the course that they might be wasting a colossal amount of money in buying newer boats. Put the money in the skis?

 

Thanks for the input.

[MichaelGoodman]

I think of all the above parameters binding have added the smallest changes I saw skiers

run 41 off on wileys years ago and some are still putting up big scores with them unfortunately I am not one of them.

[Terry Winter]

@BraceMaker My every day ski...

[MDB1056]

Resurrecting this old thread as the timing is good to revisit this again. A lot of good posts earlier. With all the recent discussions on performance and skier positioning and actions as the majority driver of performance, again it seems a good time to resurrect this topic. 

The premise is that (IMO) there is really nothing new that is not already a known variable is ski design, so the result is that new skis are simply variations of already known factors. Some of the old posts confirm this such as @Horton comments on the Connelly lineage (F1, Prophecy, GT, etc.)  being essentially the same basic shape yet all perform differently with, and noting the key drivers being flex patterns, bevels, etc. which again are all common elements of ski design. Once the world moved to pvc core & carbon wraps etc. that field was also leveled and all have been building featherweight skis now for years. So again for true design, what is left to discover? Yes there are maybe tweaks in formulas as again using @Horton's example of Connelly GT vs GTR vs DV8 build (tail aside), but these are also tweaks of known components.  In reading the old thread I believe @adamhcaldwell noted that he felt there was still a lot of design to be discovered,.......... yet in a recent post somewhere here on BOS I saw @AdamCord note they felt they had pretty much already learned and understood all there was to understand about ski design as a result of the Denali achievements to date, yet were still optimistic of new ski designs including their own. This to me sounds a lot like we're going to make changes to what we already know. 

I want to be clear , the intent here is not to be critical of the ski industry, rather to simply have a bit of a reality reality check, since as noted in original posts skis don't advance because of moving parts or higher speed processors etc., as they are only a static object that is driven by the rider based on the skiers movements.  So as stated in originals, as all the manufacturers products now run into 41-43, has the playing field again not been leveled as there is no sole manufacturer with far better performance etc.?  Even considering Denali with all skis being 65 and width and other variables being the mix based on skier size, again are those variables not already known components such as flex, rocker etc.?      

So short of new chip controlled fins that self adjust based on speed and pressure sensors, or something else as wacky changing the game, from my chair we've somewhat peaked as far as ski design and performance. The proof being that more skiers are running into 41-43 today than ever before, plus the question of if it's even possible that anyone will ever complete a 43 pass, short of a Kareem clone taking up slalom.  Maybe a fair comparison question is what's left to design in a rope? A handle? It's not a matter of new, the focus is on quality and to a large degree personal preference.   

I say hats off to the ski companies for their exceptional work to deliver the performance levels we have today, with again the honest question of if it's realistically possible for a static item like a slalom ski to evolve much further. I'd hate to be in a room that says every year, we have to design a new one, and it has to be better.        

   I like many here am blessed to have good equipment that is far more capable than I am so my focus is not on gear but rather on my own performance capabilities as without question this is the sole area needed for performance improvement. 

Heading down to the dock shortly......................

               

Edited April 27, 2023 by MDB1056

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@MDB1056 if I understand your post correctly, you are effectively restating the old quote  "everything that can be invented has been invented." attributed to Charles H. Duell, the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899

IMO, there is still much to be learned about ski design.  While I do agree that majority of skiers would be better served focusing on technique and improving their athletic ability, there is alot to be gained from improving skis.  I won't believe that "ski design has peaked" until you can take an athletic 20 year old who has never skied, put him on the newest ski and he runs 41 in a matter of weeks.

Another analogy would be comparing a model T Ford to a modern F1 car.  Yes, most of the design aspects are common, i.e. 4 wheels, a piston driven engine, driver's seat, a steering wheel and gearbox, but there is lightyears of difference in the understanding and refinement of those basic designs.

[MDB1056]

4 hours ago, Bruce_Butterfield said:

Another analogy would be comparing a model T Ford to a modern F1 car.  Yes, most of the design aspects are common, i.e. 4 wheels, a piston driven engine, driver's seat, a steering wheel and gearbox, but there is lightyears of difference in the understanding and refinement of those basic designs.

@Bruce_Butterfield the difference in your comparison to cars is that they have thousands of moving parts and separate systems ,each of which  evolve on their own. Suspension, computer controlled fuel injection, computer controlled timing, etc etc. There are entire companies that only make camshafts, or pistons, heads, valves, springs, etc. A ski is as noted, a single static item with a fin . There are no assembled components and systems to each independently evolve over time.  So the comparison of a ski to cars evolving doesn’t really fit IMO. Comparing a ski ski to a baseball bat, tennis racquet, hockey stick, or golf club / driver might be closer . We’re at the stage of diminishing returns, where significant additional efforts and investments may only yield very small percentage gains in performance, and only in a very narrow spectrum (38-41).  From my chair the focus has clearly shifted and rightfully so to skier ability and performance as the main driver of progress. I expect we will always continue to see high quality skis produced and again this is not to be critical of the industry but only to say that big gains in ski design are less likely forward. On the performance end of auto racing we do see the same in that performance is also peaking or at least reaching its tolerances as to where the cars can still stay in the track. F1, NASCAR, etc . 

Edited April 28, 2023 by MDB1056

[lpskier]

Andy introduced the torsion box with the T1. That was pretty innovative and it wasn’t that long ago. 

[Horton]

@MDB1056

First of all a slalom ski is a preposterously complicated piece of sporting equipment. It may not look like it but a lot is going on. Look at the silhouette of your ski and then the rocker, then the blend from the tunnel to the bevel, the radius and shape of the tunnel, and so on. There are no straight lines only complex 3-dimensional curves. Ski design is more art than science. 

Is every new ski better than it's predecessor? No. Is the perfect ski design obtainable? No. Do those last few percentage points of possible improvement always matter? No. It depends on what level of skier you are and how serious you are.   

FYI I was pretty happy with my 2009 GMC Sierra until I upgraded to a 2019 Tahoe. The old truck did the job. A 196 is a good enough boat. 

 

[MDB1056]

@Horton - I don’t disagree that there is a lot to the design. Only stating that there are no new unknown factors or measures that are part of the design. All the angles, bevels, radius, flex, rocker , concave, etc etc are all known. New designs are tweaks of these known items 

[MDB1056]

"Compared to the LP1, the LP2 has a thinner sidewall profile, refined flex pattern as well as modified fin allowing for a different wing position."

More mod's of existing known items  

 

[Horton]

Ok @MDB1056 I am sorry maybe I missed your original point.  I thought you were saying that new skis were not really any better and are not worth the effort.

If were were chemists you would say we have found all 118 elements, all we can do is mix them in different ways. Nothing new to talk about.

Is this an argument for the sake of argument?

[BraceMaker]

@MDB1056 to your point yes all the parameters are relatively similar, but step back and look at other sports gear I think there is more variety in waterskis as anything else probably more. Show me how alpine race skis from Atomic, Head, Alpina, Volkl, Dynastar, Fischer and so on are different from one another.  Heck those skis you drag into your ski shop and they cut the bevels and what not cut after manufacture to have whatever angles you want and sharpness you want so even if Atomic came up with a new profile for their ski your tuner can change it.

Tennis rackets? Sq surface, stringing, weight all specified not much variety to be had.

But waterski being small and then clearly the cost of cutting a new mold being high and the number of units sold again being low that's just problematic.  And then the cheap ways of tuning skis like filing edges or building up the material those all change other aspects like stiffness/torsional rigidity etc.  

So all told I think these small tweaks are quite impressive particularly when its not like you can make a new ski and tell the athlete to ride it down a mountain for hours how many passes can you reasonably expect someone to put on your experimental ski?

 

 

[MDB1056]

3 hours ago, Horton said:

If were were chemists you would say we have found all 118 elements, all we can do is mix them in different ways. Nothing new to talk about.

hardly comparable..........

[Horton]

@MDB1056 Seriously, I think I have lost your real point. We have invested this much time debating and I don't get it. What is your bottom line? 

[skibrain]

I’ll close the loop on the ‘72 Maverick comparison. We had a ‘73 4 dr Maverick for a season.  302 V8, 3-speed manual on column.  On paper it showed some promise, but it was a shitty car. 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Is that Scot Chipman again?

[MDB1056]

@Horton et.al., Folks are making this way to hard. This has never been to at all be critical of the ski industry. Quite the contrary it crystallizes that design development is more difficult than ever. Point here was to simply recognize or acknowledge the obvious, which is that all of the components, measurements, factors, etc. of physical ski design are already known and identified, hence new designs are by default revisions to the list of known factors. 

Comparisons to any form of complex machinery, electronics, or chemistry is completely inaccurate as a ski has no operating system nor chemical reactions that take place. The skier is the operating system. 

All that said, this is again just acknowledgement of what we already know. A reality check, that new skis are refinements to the already known components/ factors/ measures are of a slalom ski. Find a review which doesn't identify the improvements as changes to already known items such as rocker, flex, bevels, concave, changes to forebody, tail, etc, etc, etc. 

 The playing field has become quite level and based on performance there is no distinct sustainable advantage  - with more and more skiers running deep into 41 or completing 41, on a variety of manufacturers products. This is a tremendous compliment to the high quality product standards that exist across the board in this industry among all the top manufacturers. The products are already performing at extremely high levels. 

In summary - ski design is based on what we already know and consists of making refinements for incremental gains. There are no unknown components or factors.  As noted earlier, kudos to Connelly for the Versatail for ingenuity, but even tail (tail shape) was a known factor. They just made it plug & play.              

Onward.............................

[Horton]

Ok so skis are getting better

[Drago]

🤪

[rogerw]

As a bog standard, in my senior days now as,  an 18.25m skier, I love all the ads for the new skis showing all the new improvements they can do for you, the testing that goes on and Mr Hortons' testing videos are always very interesting and thorough.  I find fascinating the adjusting of the wing and all the other little adjustments you can do - I even got the book on it. I may even get fired up to get something a bit more advanced as I manage my decline in the sport.

Then I see a video of a skier running the course - 52 kph- on a trick ski. The penny re-drops.

 

[Horton]

trick slalom at 52k / 32mph? I am sure someone can do it but holy crap that's a terrible idea. Yes, you can use the completely wrong piece of equipment to do an activity. I've seen people run the course run wrong foot forward. I have run the course on jump skis. I have run the mini course on a trick ski with my toe in the toe strap. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Downunder]

Do skis wear out?  We have these carbon fibre beasts that flex and bend through a slalom course, get hit by sun and water and then get punished through the course again. 

Radar talks about it PMI core that flexes back into shape quicker than any other core, but I wonder if the more we use these skis the slower they become? 

Maybe its not the slight changes to shape, but the renewing of the core and carbon fibre that makes a new ski feel so much more responsive and better?  

Any thoughts? 

[BraceMaker]

@Downunder skis of course wear out.  The carbon fiber is glued together with epoxy resin and that resin holds the bits together depending on materials, heat, UV exposure etc. they all have a certain properly of how many cycles they last under a certain load but assuming the load applied and the conditions they are subjected to stay within a certain zone of typical use then I think you can make an assumption that most all skis will very gradually wear out and become softer with cycles but what will really wear a ski out would be outside of bounds amount of heat, physical damage, or excessive spikes in forces.

 

In regards to cores since all the cores start out as flat sheets of material I would encourage you to think of the core as a component of a sandwich like if it were an I-Beam the top and bottom sheets are connected by the core and that separates the material and makes the ski a composite structure where they act as one being bonded into a ski.

Don't think of the core as a ski shaped piece of material like if you could take the cores out and were able to ski on them they'd both just be floppy flat foam planks.  Its the property of the materials when glued up to the outer skin and laminate that makes it a shape and gives it the properties but how that core reacts is as part of the sandwich.   Consider the few "hollow" skis which have no core they still have a shape and properties.