Ski Builders Forum

It seems like there could be issues with screw retention? I'm just a n00b but I thought I'd throw it out there because I haven't seen it in here.

http://www.utahoutside.com/2011/02/volk ... kis-at-or/

http://volkl.com/ski/skiis/models/amaruq%20eco

Skitrab are gonna be pissed about the core...and the topsheet.

don't think they have a reason to. This is not new, It has been done since the early 90s by several companies.

Yep, but they had made it plain that they were using this approach to reduce the weight of their skis. Weight reduction is one of their main features and now they have someone parking a van across their driveway.

Seems like Volk's been trolling the forum....... like the all wood ski Amaruq Eco ski. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who built an all wood ski.

IMO I don't think cutting channels in the core is a good idea, especially if it runs the length of the core. That seems like a real bad idea. My guess is that they only do it in the tip and maybe the tail sections and not the binding area.
If it were me I'd just use a lighter wood instead of cutting channels. Channels seem like it would weaken the core too much, especially if you hit a rock or come down hard.

Why not vertically laminate 1/8in cork into the core instead of the channels?Oh, that's next year ski

My thought was how do they keep the base flat with that kind of core? They probably have the channels facing down to keep them from
Filing with epoxy but it seems like you'd get a wavy base like that.

What about making channels facing up and filling them with expandable foam insulation? Hybrid wood/foam core and the foam
Keeps they epoxy from Filling everything up?

So do this in the tip and tail like des said but solid under the binding for screw retention......

Would the heat or the epoxy eat that type of foam?

@SD exactly what I was thinking when I read the 'all wood' claim. Although I don't think they're actually 'all wood' as your skis were? I think by claiming core and topsheet they are saying, 'all wood'? Didn't yours skip on fiberglass? Can't find the exact post right now, maybe it's the beers?

@Vinman I think you're right with the channels down they're keeping from filling them with anything. It seems to me that if you're trying to keep the weight down you could figure out the wavy base vs. filling with something other than air and having the channels facing up? To me (and once again as a disclaimer read: n00b) it seems like there wouldn't be a lot of 'deflection' or 'squishing' between the channels with them facing down. At least not enough to not be ground out? Because the normal part of the core would take the pressure from the press and the channel would just be hanging out and the core/fiberglass curing in the 'gap'? Maybe a lot of non sense by me...

This seems like it would ruin the skis torsionally...

TahoePowder wrote:@SD exactly what I was thinking when I read the 'all wood' claim. Although I don't think they're actually 'all wood' as your skis were? I think by claiming core and topsheet they are saying, 'all wood'? Didn't yours skip on fiberglass? Can't find the exact post right now, maybe it's the beers?

@Vinman I think you're right with the channels down they're keeping from filling them with anything. It seems to me that if you're trying to keep the weight down you could figure out the wavy base vs. filling with something other than air and having the channels facing up? To me (and once again as a disclaimer read: n00b) it seems like there wouldn't be a lot of 'deflection' or 'squishing' between the channels with them facing down. At least not enough to not be ground out? Because the normal part of the core would take the pressure from the press and the channel would just be hanging out and the core/fiberglass curing in the 'gap'? Maybe a lot of non sense by me...

I used no FG.

skidesmond wrote:Seems like Volk's been trolling the forum....... like the all wood ski Amaruq Eco ski. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who built an all wood ski.

IMO I don't think cutting channels in the core is a good idea, especially if it runs the length of the core. That seems like a real bad idea. My guess is that they only do it in the tip and maybe the tail sections and not the binding area.
If it were me I'd just use a lighter wood instead of cutting channels. Channels seem like it would weaken the core too much, especially if you hit a rock or come down hard.

Why not vertically laminate 1/8in cork into the core instead of the channels?Oh, that's next year ski

Mervin used to do this. They called it rib core. I don't think they do it anymore. The Channels actually strengthen the core, if I remember correctly. Something to do with the added strength of a vertical piece. What always bothered me about it was that some of them filled with epoxy. It looks like volkl is doing better at controlling the amount of epoxy getting in to the channels.

How would you fix a bad gouge that goes through the base? You'd have to fill the hole w/ epoxy (or something) so the p-tex patch holds and it would probably would never stay.

Hey gang,

I call marketing hype on the Air Core. Yes, that cross-section sample looks nice and clean, but it's just a demo section for shows and photos. It likely isn't even cut from an actual ski. I'd like to see what the air channels look like after cutting an actual ski in half. Also, consider that, at thinner sections of the ski profile, there isn't enough core thickness to accommodate the air channels. So, the channels may run 20 to 24 inches at the center of the ski for only a couple of ounces in weight savings, not counting the increase in resultant weight increase from the epoxy that ends up partially filling the channels.

The article in the link touts the Nunataq (138/107/123... no length listed) as a Volkl 'feather weight' at a mere 3 lb. 15 oz. I just weighed my latest firm flexing 140/110/130 (170 length) ski, including tip and tail protectors and full inserts, at 3lb. 13 oz.... and I wasn't even trying to build a light ski.

G-man

would the air cores make mounting a binding tricky? I would think that bindings would be more prone to ripping out.

13+lbs must be per pair...no? Still sounds heavy though.

13+lbs must be per pair...no? Still sounds heavy though.

Just a typo on my part. Should have been 3lb. 15oz. instead of 13 lbs. I fixed in my post above. Thanks for catching it.

G-man