difference between telemark and alpine skis?
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
difference between telemark and alpine skis?
i don't quite understand the difference yet. is the flex suppose to be different between the two types of skis? what about the radius of curvature? or what about camber? i've heard that telemark skis are softer. why? please help me try to understand.
- Madriverglen
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: around Boston
- Contact:
Telemark skiing is very much more "two footed" than alpine, and we get less edge angle and put less power to the snow, so a softer ski with a more even flex tends to handle being "finessed" better.
They're becoming "just skis" though. Alpine skis have been getting softer as the techinque becomes more two-footed. Telemark skis have been getting stiffer as the boots and bindings become more rigid.
They're becoming "just skis" though. Alpine skis have been getting softer as the techinque becomes more two-footed. Telemark skis have been getting stiffer as the boots and bindings become more rigid.
i would say yes but some would say no. when i first started teleskiing, the shop guys (you know how reliable they are) told me to drop my ski size down by 10cm or so. but i didn't want to spend the money on new skis so i just mounted up my regular alpine skis. i learned to tele with those just fine and i don't think it's necessary to tele on smaller skis.
are you looking to tele, ILOVE2SKI? if so, definitely try it. once you tele you'll never go back.
are you looking to tele, ILOVE2SKI? if so, definitely try it. once you tele you'll never go back.
- Kam S Leang (aka Little Kam)
Yeah I really want to try it... Never before have I.kam S leang wrote:i would say yes but some would say no. when i first started teleskiing, the shop guys (you know how reliable they are) told me to drop my ski size down by 10cm or so. but i didn't want to spend the money on new skis so i just mounted up my regular alpine skis. i learned to tele with those just fine and i don't think it's necessary to tele on smaller skis.
are you looking to tele, ILOVE2SKI? if so, definitely try it. once you tele you'll never go back.
Hi skibuilders!
Great site! i have been looking for something like this for many years. Graf is good. this kicks ass!
Quite a lot of telemarkers I know have problems with skis that break right behind the heels. DB skis had a demostand at stryn in norway last summer. they had lots of alpine mounted skis (20-30 pairs) and just one pir of tele. After a few days the teleskis broke. all of the alpine pairs lasted all summer. Ofcourse this dont prove nothing, but i do believe that teleskis need stonger and definately stiffer tails than alpine skis.
Quite a lot of telemarkers I know have problems with skis that break right behind the heels. DB skis had a demostand at stryn in norway last summer. they had lots of alpine mounted skis (20-30 pairs) and just one pir of tele. After a few days the teleskis broke. all of the alpine pairs lasted all summer. Ofcourse this dont prove nothing, but i do believe that teleskis need stonger and definately stiffer tails than alpine skis.
welcome to the site endre!
wow, those db's broke behind the heels? i would expect them to break near the toe riser rather than near the heels. i've heard of a lot of breaks (on other skis) occurring right in front of the toe riser, but never that far back. strange. maybe it has something to do with the special db carbon construction.
i agree that tele skis need to be stronger. i think we put a lot more stress on our screws and need more reinforcement for our screws than alpiners do. plus our skis tend to suffer a lot more ski-to-ski damage from the closer tele stance.
wow, those db's broke behind the heels? i would expect them to break near the toe riser rather than near the heels. i've heard of a lot of breaks (on other skis) occurring right in front of the toe riser, but never that far back. strange. maybe it has something to do with the special db carbon construction.
i agree that tele skis need to be stronger. i think we put a lot more stress on our screws and need more reinforcement for our screws than alpiners do. plus our skis tend to suffer a lot more ski-to-ski damage from the closer tele stance.
- Kam S Leang (aka Little Kam)
maby we ski differently over here
You are right there is a lot of failure in front and right underneeth the toe riser. (I wish there was some sort of statistics on these things.) Maby from landing hard in deep snow.
Telebindings won't allow you to put much pressure at the front ski. So when people huck to high they tend to land om their heels. Generally I think tele mounted skis break more often than alpine mounted skis. Weither the db's break more easily I don't know, but they are full carbon, and probably there is a reason very few make full carbon skis. I tryed once:
http://www.grafsnowboards.com/yours/gal ... marthe.jpg
You are right there is a lot of failure in front and right underneeth the toe riser. (I wish there was some sort of statistics on these things.) Maby from landing hard in deep snow.
Telebindings won't allow you to put much pressure at the front ski. So when people huck to high they tend to land om their heels. Generally I think tele mounted skis break more often than alpine mounted skis. Weither the db's break more easily I don't know, but they are full carbon, and probably there is a reason very few make full carbon skis. I tryed once:
http://www.grafsnowboards.com/yours/gal ... marthe.jpg
I got this ski phenomenon Asbjørn Eggebø to test them. () And he actually broke one of them while testing the flex before putting them on (that is why they broke in such a strange place) skied them for a couple of days after that. Horrible edgegrip (bad bad torsion stiffness and a broken tail), ok in soft. I think the carbon was to dry (to much pressure). I will try again with foam core. I have heard som theory of carbon and wood having very different vibration frequencies, causing them to delaminate. Have you made skis with carbon?