Ski Builders Forum

I'm thinking about making my own skis,

I want to make some powder skis. I'm a big guy 240 6'4". What demensions do you all suggest?

I see so many different things out there. What's the most legit rocker as well? ROCKERED? Reverse camber.

I've been looking at this years salamon powder skis. And i THINK A ROCKER MAKES more sense than a reverse camber.

thoughts?

dps 138

Wannabebuilder wrote:dps 138

second!

shape it like a dps lotus 138, or an armada jj or arg (if i`m right with the model name...you know what i mean, the rockered models of armada) or salomon rocker aren`t bad either.
just do a continuously rising tip and you`ll be fine flat underfoot.

I've seen this before, I didn't realize there was so much buzz around it. Seems like what I'm looking for. I was thinking about a pontoon shape with a rocker tip.

But this looks pretty interesting.

If anyone else has suggestions that differ I'm open I'm still building my press so I have some time to work on design.

A longer, slightly narrower Volkl Kuro

A lot of what makes the perfect powder ski, or any ski for that matter, depends on what you like. Size isn't the only criteria. For example reverse sidecut and lots of rocker might be what you want if you like a really surfy feel. If you like a more traditional charger you might want a ski with less rocker like the Black Diamond Megawatt. The Megawatt has a long tip and is pretty much flat underfoot. It give you lots of float but still acts like a traditional ski. I like stiff tails for strong turn exits. Rockered tails haven't given me the snap that I like. I haven't skis the dps but if they are as stiff as they claim they look like a fun ski. From my experience working with carbon it really improves a skis playfulness. You also should consider where you are going to ride these. If they are for resort skiing you might want something with a little sidecut and some camber or at least a flat section underfoot so you don't look like a drunk on a bar stool while you are riding out a cat track. No matter what you choose if you make them fat and stiff they will probably think they are great.

I'd have to agree with a lot of what was said above. The DP Lotus 138 is a great design for sure. I skied all last season on a pair of Praxis Pow Skis in a 195 and had a blast (I only skied my other pair of skis a few times, even when it wasn't a powder day).

You need to think about what you really want in a powder ski and also what kind of powder you are gonna be skiing.

Are you going to have to ski groomers back to the lift? Some people really hate the reverse sidecut skis like the Praxis or Lotus for this. I personally didn't think this was a problem, but to each his own.

As said before, do you want the surfy, on top of the snow feeling or do you prefer the charging, in the snow, powerhouse of a ski? The reverse sidecut/reverse camber skis are great for that surfy feeling, but may loose some of the control at the top end when you really want to point the skis. My Praxis never felt too squirelly, but I'm only 5'9" 175lbs. A straighter ski with a little tip rocker would probably be better suited for big fast turns in powder.

Do you ski a lot of trees or wide open pow fields? Reverse/Reverse skis are great for trees and tight billy-goat lines, easily some of the quickest pivoting ski. My 195's never felt long even in tight trees. They are great in wide open spaces too, but my previous pow ski (Igneous FFF) was much more stable when hauling in wide open conditions.

With all that said, there are tons of new options for powder skis these days. All combinations of sidecut, reverse sidecut, camber, flat camber, rocker seem to keep popping up. The best shape is hard to say, it's very personal. I personally am a huge fan of the reverse sidecut and reverse camber skis like the Praxis and DP Lotus, but other don't really like that.

My brother and I just finished our first pair of skis. They are 191.5 cm, around 130mm in the waist with no sidecut. They have a small section of rocker in the tips and and flat camber throughout the rest of the ski. We hoped to accomplish the slarveability of our Praxis with the stability of a normal ski when going fast. We haven't skied them yet, but hopefully we are headed in the right direction.

The one thing that I can say for sure is that rockered and reverse camber skis ski much much shorter than their length suggests. I'm skiing my powder skis about 10cm than my normal everyday skis and they have never come close to feeling too big. I did have one exceptionally deep day where they felt a bit small, but not by much. At your size, you could easily ski a full reverse camber ski around 195-200cm without too much trouble.

The Teton Gravity forums have a lot of experience with the new fat ski designs, so maybe search around over there and see what people like and what they dislike. Be sure to search around before asking a question, they can sometimes be less than accommodating if they feel your question has already be talked about.

Sorry for the long winded response, powder skis get me excited...

how did your skis
work out?

I'm going to have to hunt down a ski report maybe.

Here's to deep powder and long runs. cheers

voodoo wrote:how did your skis
work out?

I'm going to have to hunt down a ski report maybe.

Here's to deep powder and long runs. cheers

Voodoo,

Sorry, I never saw your post. My brother pointed it out to me today. I did ski on that particular pair of skis for about 2 days. They were a bust to say the least.

We did a really bad job profiling the cores and they came out about as stiff as a 2x6 and heavy as hell. I skied them on one powder day, but switched to my Praxis after a few runs they were that bad. Terrible float for a ski with a 130 mm waist. Now they lean against the wall in our shop... at least they are pretty.

We have built four other pairs of skis since then and finally have the profiling down a bit better. Three new ski designs in the works for this winter. Now to just find some time to build.

Hopefully you found the perfect powder ski design to fit your style. I think my brother and I have come pretty close with our new ski design. We are really interested in the "5-dimension" or early taper skis. Gonna give it a shot with our next run of skis. We'll try and get some info/pics up once we get a pair built.

how insane would a 200 mm wide, 160ish long, flat, slowrise single tip, no sidecut, big swallotail ski be? would that be too wide to even think about? people on here have made 180mm wides, but would 200 take the fun out?

200 mm wide could be interesting... I would mostly be worried about breaking my knees from the side strain. They will be difficult to get up on edge, and you would need to think about the transverse structure of the ski a little, but they could definitely be fun.

And, they would certainly be the biggest skis on the mountain.

I don't think 200mm would work from a practical standpoint. I've played around with a few extra wide ideas. At 150mm riding the short bit of firmish (getting your edge in 10mm or so) from the lift to the pow field becomes difficult.

Many years ago I mounted a pair of kids snowboards with ski bindings, they sucked unless it was very steep and very soft.

I also tried full size adult snowboards with ski bindings, probably not much wider than you are thinking of building - couldn't get bindings to stay on them. The torque was just too great. The bindings would release as soon as you edged, this was solved by turning them up till they din't release (approx 14 on a din 12 binding). The bindings then ripped out, they were epoxied in so made quite a mess. The final attempt was T bolting from underneath, this just left big holes in the boards after a few hundred meters of riding!

You don't have to go extra wide to get float - try a soft long rise tip.