So I've started this build season with a brand new adjustable bottom mold. I'm VERY happy with it. Here is my question: What radius tip mold do you use. I did a R360 tip and I think it looks a little to flat and as ridiculous as I am... I'm thinking about doing the whole tip section over (the next one I was going to cut out was a rocker tip but that one is going to go on the back burner until i nail this one down). Granted I would keep this mold for a front side carver but i was thinking about maybe a R300 tip. Anyone care to shoot me a number or two of radius they have used and liked I'd appreciate it. No rocker just straight radius.
gozaimaas: I don't necessarily disagree with this idea, if the tip is rockered. However, if you do a slight radius and then an upturn with out rocker you tip has to be longer to get any real height out of the tip. I think this would cut down on the length of your contact edge.
The radius I have isn't bad, my only concern is if the skier has a pow day or N.E. Crud, that the ski might torpedo on them; not a result I'm looking for. Right now I'm thinking about going for the R300 and calling it a day.
I find the funny thing abut this all is I have hundreds of notes from everything I've learned along the way and I do not have my original mold dimensions written in them. To all the new builders write everything down, no mater how simple and EASY it is to remember... You'll forget. ;-)
I did my first pair with radius about 250 – 300 not easy to make tip/ tale confirming into the mold. Skis tips didn't came out that high anyway (due to my alignment mistake). imo tip up turn radius should be higher number. I didn't like tight up turn radius but this is my personal preferences.
btw picture of that tip mold in my Journal somewhere
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison
I use R 300 for both tip and tail. The tail height is very low and the length of my tails are between 60mm - 80mm. Typical length of my tips are 150mm.
so you know how I'm always preaching about taking notes to the new guys no matter how much you think you'll remember the info...
Well guess what I didn't do. I forgot to write down how much CF i put into this ski (pic from last year's build page):
My guess is 2" of 9oz CF. I've looked everywhere I can think of to see if I can find this info. My logic last year was too only change one variable at a time. For this pair i change the core profile from the pair before it. The pair before it was 2" 9oz CF (it's just a tad to soft). Usually i can pick up the CF in the light reflection of the coversheet but for some reason I can't pick it up in this pair. soooo... ether I cut this ski in half (never going to happen) or I go with my gut...
This ski is as stiff as I'd want to go so I'm thinking running a 2" 4oz Uni-CF down the middle or no CF at all to get a real baseline of the ski core.
Cranked out two pairs of skis in two days. that was a first.
here are some notes from the build for you all.
both skis are 180 132-97-120 with a 2.7-12.7-2.7 flat binding section with rabbet for edges. 4OZ 2" carbon was used top and bottom. 22oz TCF top and bottom
One ski used a traditional cover sheet. I would say it has Hard flex with a sight touch of medium flex to the ski. I like it a lot. it has my name all over it.
The other ski has a wood veneer top to it. same guts and I would say that it is a hard ski with no "touch of medium flex". Has anyone else seen the same results?
One other question for the builders: I'm thinking of making one more ski with the same dimensions but I'm going to reduce the core to 2.7-11.7-2.7 with the same flat section length. How much reduction on "hardness" do you think I'll get? I know have built the same ski with 4 different flex profiles this new core shape will make 5 skis and I should have a good spectrum. thoughts?
Hey Gang. Still building but nothing really new to post. I'm building a "women" ski now and looking for your thoughts.
Here is her dimensions: 166cm 125/82/102 I normally do a 2.7/11.7/2.7 core (flat section under the boots) and I'm thinking about doing the same with this ski.
here is my question: Would the flex of this ski stay proportional to other skis if I proportionally scale everything back? I know the dimensions of the ski are not dimensionally scaling so there has to be a factor for that but I'm looking to get "close enough". Does that make sense?
Or...
how about wording it this way. Is there a scaling factor that should be applied to a ski core if you are building a 185, 175, 165 if all the ski's dimensions stay the same? I would think the shorter the ski gets the stiffer it would become? let me know what your thoughts are. I don't believe I've seen this come up on here.
Think about a 2x4 at 16 feet you can deflect the beam very eisily with your weight at 6 feet its very hard to deflect the bea. With the same amount of weight.
So the answer is no.
MM is right, I'd thin that core out quite a bit more. thin your tip and tail out to 2.2 and maybe something like 10.5 or so under foot. Also think about lighter glass. 19oz triax instead of 22 and/or you can flip your glass, 0 deg fibers (warp) closer to the core to create a little less stiffness.
thanks MM, I like the way you think. that's usually the type of analogies i use. I was just wondering if the "20cm" would make that much of a difference. My thought is it would but just by how much.
Vin: I was almost thinking about making the core at 2.7/11.7/2.7 and seeing how the flex compares to a core that I already have. then slowly shave the core down to a shallower core profile (as you suggested) and seeing how much softer it gets. I mean its only time and money right. ;-)
