Printable View
Damn, those 113 in carbon and glass both = Japan killers for touring and resort.
Will probably get the carbon for touring to prevent quiver overlap.
But damn.
Kinda wish I still rode kirkwood/mammoth on the regular for that glass ride. Or, the southern alps of NZ.
Solid move, Marshal.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Hey!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
There is naught nor ought there presumed to be any greater fanboy of the exalted og bamboo side walled FPS lotus 120 than I.
So how EHP esque will the fl113 be? I’m so jealous of your minty 186 EHPs Marshal!
Flat camber, with decent, though not extreme rockers, moderate tapering of tips and tails. Damp and stiff. I don't think you're gonna pretzel them. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
Go buy some of Marshalls tool rolls.. Just got two and they look pretty trick!
So...I think I see what you did there. But given that the XXL's have two sheets of titanal how will these (the 113) be different? I'm assuming they will be (flex and torsional rigidity?), but in what way? And the extra 4mm at the waist? (I'm asking about differences aside from weight, which I don't generally care about.)Quote:
Originally Posted by arild
Heavy nerdery warning, Dexter:
(Marshal answered the flex/feel question a lot smoother, so I deleted my answer)
Ugly mockup warning!
The sidecut radius of the XXL 194s was 41m, that of the FL 113 194s will be 45.3m. The sidecut length of the XXLs should be about 171-172cm (a mag actually measured them for me), while the FL 113s will be about 10cm shorter, at 162cm. The 113mm waist width is to make them float better, along with the rocker profile (next paragraph). We both did some taper adjustment testing on our own skis, with 8 hour time differences, and found out we wanted some, but not a lot, of tip taper. Same with the tail. The tapers, combined with the rockers, are simply to make them release into slarves a bit easier, dump speed and make them more maneouverable in general.
So, XXLs (mocked up, but pretty close, I think) in red, 113s in green:
Attachment 408551
Camber/rocker profile comparison (the XXL actually did have that super abrupt tip shape, almost 10cm high if my recollection serves me right):
Attachment 408552
While the XXLs were fast, damp beasts, the tips served more as plows than any sort of floating mechanism. A subtle, not super deep rocker, both tip and tail, along with the wider waist, will allow the 113s to simply plane faster, float better, and therefore be faster. Again, not an engineer, but this isn't rocket science (is it??).
Hope that answers some of your questions, but as always, happy to discuss further!
I think the XXL tip was close to 13 cm. Just here to bow down to the awesomeness of this project.
And add that I just ordered a snowboard.
Hi All!
Posting here a bit more context and info. Hoping to answer most of the questions posted in the past week or two, but if I inadvertently miss one of yours, please do repost!
As background, I had a number of folks want to leave their deposit in place for the new offerings. Because the designs for the FL113 and FR132 were already prepared, I spoolled them up last week to ensure that these deposits were connected to a SKU to properly account for them. Because this is a crowdfunded project at present, it is super important for me to keep close accounting on every penny of deposit, since the manufacturing window for these skis is not locked quite yet.
With respect to the 132, and having skied many many many reverse reverse skis, I really wanted to make what I felt is the ultimate representation of this genre. Firstly, because of how quick and easy these things are to pivot and turn, I have always felt that many offerings were just too short, so I settled on 190cm and 200cm as my ideal lengths. For me, that means 190 for touring and 200 for heli/cat/inbound. I also feel like many of the 135-140mm wide versions were wide to the point of creating leverage against your body, the 125ish sizes were just too skinny, and the 130-132mm skis were perfect in waist width. As such, I landed on the 132mm wide footprint as my ideal width. Finally, I really believe that a small amount of flat spot really helps the R/R skis with stability, maneuvering runouts and sidestepping, as well as skinning. Just enough edge to control the drift, yet a fully rockered ski for maximum surf. You can see my designed taper, rocker, and flat spot dimensions on the infogrid on the 132's product page. The ratios and taper angles fore and aft on the ski are carefully chosen to slice cleanly into windskin and zipper crust for that frictionless feel. Please let me know if you have any questions.
It was super fun to collab with Arlid on the 113. He has done a great job explaining the shaping thought on the ski. I would like to share a bit more about the materials and flex pattern that will go into the C113 and FL113. To be certain, while the same shape, they will have a different feeling. The FL113 is designed to be regarded in the same breathe as the last-gen best-ever directional comp skis that ranged from 112-115mm wide. Stiff forebody to flatten chopped snow, stable tail, and a very damp and smooth ride. They will approach metal ski weight (though still save about 150g overall) and torsional rigidity (though drift turns a touch smoother), and retain enough energy to feel responsive and lively for a skilled and strong pilot (but not beat you up if you are on the right sized ski).
In contrast, the C113 flex pattern will compliment the build to be a bit more soft-snow biased, meaning the that the end of the tip will be a touch softer that the FL113, to give it a slightly surfier ride quality. The C113 will sku towards skiing untracked snow conditions with speed, where the FL113 is designed for chop and chunder. If you ski a place like Powder Mountain, for example, the C113 will still be a great inbounds ski. For me, in the cottonwoods, the C113 is my dream everyday touring ski.
Please note that the 113 and 132 skis are both designed around a -11.5 mount. There is a whole other class of freeride skis with a more modern mount point that I also am known to love (ie designed around a -6 mount), and those will be coming as it is possible. Finally, I hope to add raceroom skis in 194/187 @ ~105mm in addition to a 194cm R99 and 191 R87... and I think that is what you are looking for @dexter.
Finally, because I will not be able to lock production on the 113 and 132 until late spring / early summer, and as such, cannot accurately forecast delivery until then (other than late 2022 or 2023), my strong preference is to avoid deposits right now, and rather you to just PM me if you would like to get in line and put your name on a pair. Then I can make a draft order for you, so that early numbers all come together, and we can worry about deposits once I am able to lock forecast and estimate delivery.
Thank you all! Hoping this is helpful and please keep asking questions as they come up.
Cheers,
Marshal
The new topsheets are rad! I especially like the C113.
If I don't find the powder ski I loaned the mountain come spring time, I may want a pair.
“There is a whole other class of freeride skis with a more modern mount point that I also am known to love (ie designed around a -6 mount), and those will be coming as it is possible.”
Very cool. Looking forward to what you come up with for a more playful modern mount point twin.
105 underfoot @187 with slight camber, tip rocker with some tip and tail taper in a race room build, yes please!
cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by ASP
!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
yes sir
You would like a Salomon Stance 102.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit
http://replygif.net/i/979.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
Just looked up that ski. Looks killer on paper! Nice mid 20’s TR, two sheets of metal, stiff, oh my! Surprised it hasn’t been talked about on the tgr’z. Seems like a ski that would be highly sought after here. 182 or 190 length. Going to have to try to find a 190 in my area as a 182 is to short.Quote:
Originally Posted by One (+) Sentence
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...d.php?t=337574Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
:fm:
https://c.tenor.com/cuVGmfmZk04AAAAM/mock-blah.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
My searchfu is lacking….
Fl113 looks sick. But I’ve spent so much time on hoji designed skis that the mount point seems really far back. Would it ski ok +3/4?
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
This is pretty theoretical at the moment, but yeah. That would put you at 89.5-90.5cm from the tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by altacoup
With the pretty long sidecut, zero camber and tail rocker, I'd think that'd make the ski feel a lot looser, depending on your driver style, you may either just get quicker initiation as a shin driver vs a pretty similar experience (to a standard mount) if you're more of a centered skier.
Did that make sense?
Edit: that'd put the BCL right on the sidecut center,btw.
Marshal maybe you could talk a bit about mount point in relation to sidecut and stuff like that?
For example the WNDR skis all have a mount point + 1cm from the waist(which I am assuming is sidecut center) and they ski great like that. Other skis are a bit back, some on the sidecut. What’s the magic here?
From personal experience and theory, it´ll translate mainly into an understeer/oversteer analogy in relation to your balance point. There´s no magic, but personal preference and intended ski feel. The more you ski with shin pressure, the further back you want to be in relation to sidecut center and front/rear engagement points (sidecut/rocker point/taper point dependent).Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_pretzel
I absolutely love that the advent of Heritage Lab and inevitable tech Qs pulled you out of your hiatus, Si!
For those who don't know, SiSt is proven brilliant at ski design, and taught me the essentials of ski design and tech drawing about 10-12 years ago.
Sent fra min LYA-L29 via Tapatalk
Mount Points!
So, first up, cheers SiSt, totally agree with your points. Well said. I'd love to elaborate a bit as well.
Firstly, we measure midpoint relative to the overall length because it is an easy to find number, but really how we want to THINK about midpoints is the relation of your foot to the center of the flex pattern and center of the effective edge. I use center of chord length as it is measurable on a real ski. It makes the most sense to build the flex pattern around the center of the sidecut anyway, so for the purposes here, I will not differentiate.
The second thing to consider is the amount of taper the tips and tails have and specifically the ratio of tip to tail taper, since this very much effects where the center of sidecut gets placed relative to the overall length of the ski. So, if there is more tail taper, the center of the sidecut moves forward relative to the overall length. If there is less tail taper, the center of sidecut moves back. As an example, the EHP and Ren both have quite a bit of tail taper, so the mount ends up being pretty far forward on the overall length of the ski. An RC112 had essentially zero tail taper compared to a lot of tip taper.
From there, we want to think about offsets. You have the offset of the center of sidecut from the overall length, and the offset behind the center of the edge to the mount point (unless you are on a truly symmetrical park ski). In the EHP, the tip and tail taper are almost the same, so there is essentially no offset between center of the effective edge's chord length and overall length of the ski. Directional skis are generally designed to around 4cm of offset for the center of the effective edge. Then you have the offset to the mount point. I uploaded an example screenshot below to show these various offsets.
For an average 27.5 boot, the center of the ball of foot is ~7.5cm ahead of the midsole of the boot. So a "normal" mount would put the the line 7.5cm behind the center of the sidecut. Old school tip drivers in super forward lean race boots generally go about -1cm from this. New school more modern skiers with less cuff angle in their boots and a more upright stance would go forward of this (but should not go more forward that the center of the sidecut). Folks with smaller feet should also go more forward to account. Everything else being equal, a 25.5 boot could be mounted +1 from a 27.5 and a 29.5 could be -1 to maintain BoF at the same place on the sidecut.
As such, to answer your questions Altacoup, knowing your boot size and preferred mounts on skis that I know well, I would recommend a -8.5cm mount position vs overall length on an FL113, as that will give you a 5cm offset behind the effective edge, which, I believe is where you ski the EHP/Ren. For reference, I ski my EHP and Rens at -8.5 (putting the ball of my foot 1cm behind the center of sidecut) and will ski my FL113 at -12.5 (also -1cm BoF to center of sidecut), as there is 4cm extra offset from the overall length due to less tail taper length.