i`ve been thinking a lot for the past few weeks. i had the opportunity to ride the evil twins, my latest pair and the first with rocker, in real powder conditions.
and they just were waaaaay to sick. of course there are some minor weak points in their construction, but all in all i`m really convinced that rockered skis are the next big thing. and of course i began planning a new pair with some improvements.
i`ve got the shape now, the design of the camber, i just have to modify my mold and then i can start with the 4th pair. so later more about this, as soon as i have some pics.
because: i need your help first!
i`ve looked in some videos of me riding. and i had to realise that i look somehow dorky: i have a really ugly "knock knees" riding position. my knees nearly touch each other.
this just happens when skiing, without skis i walk "normal" - maybe with a little duckstance.
so i thought about mounting the bindings on this pair with duckstance. this is, what i heard, also a more natural position than the "normal, straight" stance.
i think we`ve discussed the duckstance-topic already on this forum, but anyway: what do you think about it? and how would you mount the bindings? the boot center in the centre of the ski and the binging angled around it... or how?
second point is: i`ve got a fritschi freeride, so first i thought i`d use it for the next pair...but duckstance in walking mode would be absolutely impossible.
cockayne
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
cockayne
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
Hey plywood,
You wrote:
I ski on T2's which don't have a boot cant adjustment, so I started experimenting with with wedges between the binding and the ski. The improvement in comfort and performance was pretty dramatic right away. I initially thought the problem was in the boot design so I began to look at other boot options. But as I tried on different boots and stood with boot soles flat on the floor, I noted that I was knock-kneed (knees actually touched when boots were spaced about six inches apart) in every boot that I tested. Yet, when I removed the boots and stood on the floor in stocking feet, my knees were about 4 to 6 inches apart with knees well aligned, knees over toes.
I finally realized that my problem was founded in the fact that I have really high foot arches. When I strapped my foot into a plastic boot and latched the buckles up tight, I was effectively collapsing my arch, causing the inside of my foot to cave in, thereby causing my knees to cave in. My solution was to build some custom foot-beds for my boots that had adequate arch support. It solved my problem completely. I still look a bit dorky when I ski, but not because my knees are bangin' into each other.
For the last year or so, I have been thinking that I was going to have to give up running secondary to ongoing/increasing medial knee pain that would even keep me awake at night. However, from virtually the moment that I put the new custom foot beds in my running shoes, I haven't had a single twinge of knee pain and I'm on my way to breaking my all time personal best running records this summer.
I just thought if you also had high arches, my story might be of help.
G-man
You wrote:
Last ski season, I said the same exact thing about myself after watching some video. Additionally, for some time I'd noted that my knees would almost touch while skinning up a mountain and that when I'd spread my knees apart so that my knees we over my toes, I'd be skiing skinning on my outer edges of the skis. I'd also noticed some medial knee pain that had been increasing with skiing and running over the past 2 or 3 years.i`ve looked in some videos of me riding. and i had to realise that i look somehow dorky: i have a really ugly "knock knees" riding position. my knees nearly touch each other.
this just happens when skiing, without skis i walk "normal"
I ski on T2's which don't have a boot cant adjustment, so I started experimenting with with wedges between the binding and the ski. The improvement in comfort and performance was pretty dramatic right away. I initially thought the problem was in the boot design so I began to look at other boot options. But as I tried on different boots and stood with boot soles flat on the floor, I noted that I was knock-kneed (knees actually touched when boots were spaced about six inches apart) in every boot that I tested. Yet, when I removed the boots and stood on the floor in stocking feet, my knees were about 4 to 6 inches apart with knees well aligned, knees over toes.
I finally realized that my problem was founded in the fact that I have really high foot arches. When I strapped my foot into a plastic boot and latched the buckles up tight, I was effectively collapsing my arch, causing the inside of my foot to cave in, thereby causing my knees to cave in. My solution was to build some custom foot-beds for my boots that had adequate arch support. It solved my problem completely. I still look a bit dorky when I ski, but not because my knees are bangin' into each other.
For the last year or so, I have been thinking that I was going to have to give up running secondary to ongoing/increasing medial knee pain that would even keep me awake at night. However, from virtually the moment that I put the new custom foot beds in my running shoes, I haven't had a single twinge of knee pain and I'm on my way to breaking my all time personal best running records this summer.
I just thought if you also had high arches, my story might be of help.
G-man
Plywood,
I have attached the link to the thread discussing certain claims made about the "duck footed" or "duck foot" stance.
viewtopic.php?p=5430&highlight=#5430
G-man brings up some good points. I am now going to get a quality set of arch supports. (I should have had them long ago).
I have to say though I am looking forward to someone mounting their skis “duck foot”. I have not found someone who has mounted them that way yet. (other than hendryxskis) I just tried getting up and walking around the office slightly “duck footed” and seemed to have more power and balance with the “duck” stance. I by no means have any bio mechanical expertise but it looks like this stance may be worth a try.
Ben
I have attached the link to the thread discussing certain claims made about the "duck footed" or "duck foot" stance.
viewtopic.php?p=5430&highlight=#5430
G-man brings up some good points. I am now going to get a quality set of arch supports. (I should have had them long ago).
I have to say though I am looking forward to someone mounting their skis “duck foot”. I have not found someone who has mounted them that way yet. (other than hendryxskis) I just tried getting up and walking around the office slightly “duck footed” and seemed to have more power and balance with the “duck” stance. I by no means have any bio mechanical expertise but it looks like this stance may be worth a try.
Ben
That was one of my more spectacular Da Dunt, Da Dunts� Aaron McGovern �Focused
thanks for the replies. i`ll definately have to think about what you mentioned g-man. so to sum it up, the foot-beds solved your problem completely? and do you think a skiboot with adjustable canting would help even more? some sort of footbed-canting-killercombination 
i`m still thinking about duckstance. and i haven`t built an opinion for myself... on TGR-forum there were also some discussions about duckstance in the past. summary:
some say that duckstance brings your skiing onto a higher level because it`s more natural and because of the more natural stance you can apply more power.
others say they didn`t like it.
but really a lot of people wrote that with duckstance you have to change you skiing technique. distribue the weight more 50/50 on each ski, something like that.
and some people also wrote that your feet are just in duckstance when standing up, and that as soon as you bend your knees the feet turn parallel.
my personal conclusion up to now:
i can not ski. not in a traditional skiracer-skiing style, all the weight on one ski in turns and all this stuff. i ski in a what i call surfstyle - best compared to snowboarding technique: shoulders initiate turns, putting weight into the turns by simply leaning in and...letting the skis glide in pow. difficult to describe. regarding this duckstance could work for me if you really do have to put 50/50 on each ski.
but i plan to do some testings - don`t know how, but i will. if it is true that the feet turn parallel when bending the knees i have to overthink duckstance because i don`t want to bring my knees into situations with unnatural loads.
and now, last thing:
line skis are kicking it once again! they just updated their freestyle backcountry models: ep pro model, sir francis bacon and the elizabeths. some nice videos of eric pollard explaining how these babies work.
watch this:
http://www.lineskis.com/#/skis/freestyl ... try/ep_pro
this is exactely what i thought/built on my third pair, the evil twins. EXACTELY! approximately the same amount and lenght of rocker/early rise, same tip and tail height/radius, nearly the same sidecut, i have sidecut tapering too...sadly there are no dimensions, but i hope they`ll update this soon.
so all in all: if eric pollard built the same ski as i, it means that he has to be right!
i`m still thinking about duckstance. and i haven`t built an opinion for myself... on TGR-forum there were also some discussions about duckstance in the past. summary:
some say that duckstance brings your skiing onto a higher level because it`s more natural and because of the more natural stance you can apply more power.
others say they didn`t like it.
but really a lot of people wrote that with duckstance you have to change you skiing technique. distribue the weight more 50/50 on each ski, something like that.
and some people also wrote that your feet are just in duckstance when standing up, and that as soon as you bend your knees the feet turn parallel.
my personal conclusion up to now:
i can not ski. not in a traditional skiracer-skiing style, all the weight on one ski in turns and all this stuff. i ski in a what i call surfstyle - best compared to snowboarding technique: shoulders initiate turns, putting weight into the turns by simply leaning in and...letting the skis glide in pow. difficult to describe. regarding this duckstance could work for me if you really do have to put 50/50 on each ski.
but i plan to do some testings - don`t know how, but i will. if it is true that the feet turn parallel when bending the knees i have to overthink duckstance because i don`t want to bring my knees into situations with unnatural loads.
and now, last thing:
line skis are kicking it once again! they just updated their freestyle backcountry models: ep pro model, sir francis bacon and the elizabeths. some nice videos of eric pollard explaining how these babies work.
watch this:
http://www.lineskis.com/#/skis/freestyl ... try/ep_pro
this is exactely what i thought/built on my third pair, the evil twins. EXACTELY! approximately the same amount and lenght of rocker/early rise, same tip and tail height/radius, nearly the same sidecut, i have sidecut tapering too...sadly there are no dimensions, but i hope they`ll update this soon.
so all in all: if eric pollard built the same ski as i, it means that he has to be right!
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
-
Holymountain
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:44 am
- Location: France
first of all: thanks for the dimensions! so it looks like, once again, pollard and i are on the same thing. "cockayne" is going to have nearly the same dimensions as the EP pro. i`d love to get hands on this ski!
from my personal experience with rocker i can tell you that the hellbents have way too much of it. ok, actually it depends on what you`re going to use them for - there is never too much rocker for powder but the lenght of the rockered tip/tail is really huge. so a lot of swinging weight that causes vidrations. no problem in pow, as i said, but definately a problem when skiing some harder stuff. and the hellbents felt pretty soft, so this would result in even more vibrations.
they`re great for pow, as i guess...but they won`t feel that confortable on slopes.
i wouldn`t sign that. well, sadly i have never seen a line ski, but had a close look at some hellbents when i was in NZ. of course the grafic looks killer, and also the normal sidecut with the rocker is a good approach. BUT:Holymountain wrote: Personnaly I prefers the K2 Hellbent design, but the EP Pro looks good.
from my personal experience with rocker i can tell you that the hellbents have way too much of it. ok, actually it depends on what you`re going to use them for - there is never too much rocker for powder
but the lenght of the rockered tip/tail is really huge. so a lot of swinging weight that causes vidrations. no problem in pow, as i said, but definately a problem when skiing some harder stuff. and the hellbents felt pretty soft, so this would result in even more vibrations.they`re great for pow, as i guess...but they won`t feel that confortable on slopes.
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
there are huge things going on!
the past 2 weeks i locked some oompa-loompas in my basement and gave them the order to cut wood for my cores. and so they did.
no, seriously: sadly my oompaloompa suplier run out of stock so i had to do it by myself.
i got some ash plants, 30mm thick. first of all i had to figure out how to get the best cores out of these planks - 30mm thickness are a really stupid dimension: 30mm-strips are a little too wide for a core, but on the other hand 30mm are not wide enough to cut it in half and plann everything to get some nice cores (ok, maybe it would work...but it would definately be narrow!)
so... what to do?! if i was a big company in the ski industry, i would have invented the double-force-power-core which goes something like this: just take two cores per ski instead of one. this should level out the disparity between the wide 30mm stripes a little better. at the same time i`d get thinner cores which hopefully will result in better bending abilities during layup etc.
but, as good as it sounded...there is a big rub in it: it means twice the work. BLAST!
so i said to myself: let`s go the whole hog...and cut wood for about 3 1/2 pairs. (i have to get more wood next week to fill my stock up to 4 pairs ) and this was the beginning of 17h of cutting wood (i damaged one circular saw - it couldn`t keep up with me) and 12h of planning.... to be continued.
my planer: clamped to the table
the result: about 80 laths
no, seriously: sadly my oompaloompa suplier run out of stock so i had to do it by myself.
i got some ash plants, 30mm thick. first of all i had to figure out how to get the best cores out of these planks - 30mm thickness are a really stupid dimension: 30mm-strips are a little too wide for a core, but on the other hand 30mm are not wide enough to cut it in half and plann everything to get some nice cores (ok, maybe it would work...but it would definately be narrow!)
so... what to do?! if i was a big company in the ski industry, i would have invented the double-force-power-core which goes something like this: just take two cores per ski instead of one. this should level out the disparity between the wide 30mm stripes a little better. at the same time i`d get thinner cores which hopefully will result in better bending abilities during layup etc.
but, as good as it sounded...there is a big rub in it: it means twice the work. BLAST!
so i said to myself: let`s go the whole hog...and cut wood for about 3 1/2 pairs. (i have to get more wood next week to fill my stock up to 4 pairs
) and this was the beginning of 17h of cutting wood (i damaged one circular saw - it couldn`t keep up with me) and 12h of planning.... to be continued.my planer: clamped to the table
the result: about 80 laths
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
today is a very very bad day.
first of all i damaged my construction for glueing the woodcores. the wood i wanted to press was a little too tough, so i applied too much pressure and it ripped out some screws. luckily this is repairable.
then i wanted to start with profiling some cores. so i set up everything and started with planning with the router. suddenly there was a bang and the router flew across the whole garage. don`t ask me what happened, i don`t know. luckily i didn`t stand in it`s trajectory, i won`t imagine what had happened. and that was the only good thing this morning. an by the way the flying bit destroyed my brand new router supply tray that i built 2 days ago.
so i made a last attempt and tried to plan the cores with a handplaner - just to recognize that the planning blade was broken.
so all in all i`m really pissed of how things went. damaged a lot of tools and a lot of work. but i`m still alive.
first of all i damaged my construction for glueing the woodcores. the wood i wanted to press was a little too tough, so i applied too much pressure and it ripped out some screws. luckily this is repairable.
then i wanted to start with profiling some cores. so i set up everything and started with planning with the router. suddenly there was a bang and the router flew across the whole garage. don`t ask me what happened, i don`t know. luckily i didn`t stand in it`s trajectory, i won`t imagine what had happened. and that was the only good thing this morning. an by the way the flying bit destroyed my brand new router supply tray that i built 2 days ago.
so i made a last attempt and tried to plan the cores with a handplaner - just to recognize that the planning blade was broken.
so all in all i`m really pissed of how things went. damaged a lot of tools and a lot of work. but i`m still alive.
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
-
RudolphTheSkiingReindeer
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:41 pm
That completely sucks!
...But you are still alive, which is more than a lot of people can say. (Er... wouldn't be able to say.)
I hope this next pair works out for you.
This totally goes in the design section, and I apologize for hijacking your thread, but oh well.
Anyway... when you were helping me before on my design, you were tossing around a few ideas for making the rockered part stiffer to reduce chatter on hard pack. Did you ever figure it out?
My idea is to use an extra layer of fiberglass that would start near or at the tip, go on to the bent part, and taper down to nothing a few inches away from where the binding starts.
Would that work?
-Camen
...But you are still alive, which is more than a lot of people can say. (Er... wouldn't be able to say.)
I hope this next pair works out for you.
This totally goes in the design section, and I apologize for hijacking your thread, but oh well.
Anyway... when you were helping me before on my design, you were tossing around a few ideas for making the rockered part stiffer to reduce chatter on hard pack. Did you ever figure it out?
My idea is to use an extra layer of fiberglass that would start near or at the tip, go on to the bent part, and taper down to nothing a few inches away from where the binding starts.
Would that work?
-Camen
hijacker!
sadly i screwed my digicam... so i`m not able to post any pictures. there are times when nothing can amaze me any more. i think i`ve some sort of bad karma...the digicam is not the only thing that doesn`t work anymore: i dded up my mobilephone too. pretty destructive period at the moment.
ANYWAY!
i had several ideas in my mind to stiffen the rocker/reduce vibration/create a better ski:
divide the core in two: an upper and a lower core (as völkl is using on some of their new skis). the use of different types of wood for the upper and the lower one could reduce the vibrations.
or putting rubber between the cores in tip and tail....
with this method it would also still be possible to glue the cores together with some pretension.
but in the end it would have gotten pretty labour intensive - twice the work to be correct.
so a few days ago i came up with a pretty brilliant idea (well, at least brilliant in my opinion ). and this is how i`m going to do it on my skis:
just take a normal core, the common mixture of woods, everything as usual. but then i profiled my cores 2mm thinner than usual. i`m going to space these 2mm up with some veneer. this has several advantages:
first of all you have a combination of a vertical and a horizontal core - and i think this creates a torsional stiffer ski. furthermore by putting the veneer on top of the vertical core you get a stronger surface - the screws of the bindings get a better hold in the core, the risk of binding pullouts will be smaller. you also have more possabilities in terms of combining several types of wood - i`m using a relatively light and soft wood for the vertical core and a stiff wood as veneer.
and the biggest advantage: the thinner the vertical core gets, the more influence the veneer has on the core. which means: softer middle section and advancing strenght to tip and tail, compared to a traditional core. and i think this is what we really need, stiffer tip and tails.
and i also modified the coreprofile a little. i think with rockered skis there is no need to build soft skis. so i`m trying a really really stiff setup. my core will be 13mm thick in the end, underfoot. in tip and tail 3mm.
furthermore i used a linear profile as basis and modified it to a parabolic one. i have some sort of platform in the middle and flat spots in the areas where the rocker starts. but in the end they are nearly invisible
i think this special core profile could help a lot and reduce the vibrations.... but i still have to try things out. hopefully i can illustrate these explanations with some pics soon
sadly i screwed my digicam... so i`m not able to post any pictures. there are times when nothing can amaze me any more. i think i`ve some sort of bad karma...the digicam is not the only thing that doesn`t work anymore: i dded up my mobilephone too. pretty destructive period at the moment.
ANYWAY!
i had several ideas in my mind to stiffen the rocker/reduce vibration/create a better ski:
divide the core in two: an upper and a lower core (as völkl is using on some of their new skis). the use of different types of wood for the upper and the lower one could reduce the vibrations.
or putting rubber between the cores in tip and tail....
with this method it would also still be possible to glue the cores together with some pretension.
but in the end it would have gotten pretty labour intensive - twice the work to be correct.
so a few days ago i came up with a pretty brilliant idea (well, at least brilliant in my opinion
). and this is how i`m going to do it on my skis:just take a normal core, the common mixture of woods, everything as usual. but then i profiled my cores 2mm thinner than usual. i`m going to space these 2mm up with some veneer. this has several advantages:
first of all you have a combination of a vertical and a horizontal core - and i think this creates a torsional stiffer ski. furthermore by putting the veneer on top of the vertical core you get a stronger surface - the screws of the bindings get a better hold in the core, the risk of binding pullouts will be smaller. you also have more possabilities in terms of combining several types of wood - i`m using a relatively light and soft wood for the vertical core and a stiff wood as veneer.
and the biggest advantage: the thinner the vertical core gets, the more influence the veneer has on the core. which means: softer middle section and advancing strenght to tip and tail, compared to a traditional core. and i think this is what we really need, stiffer tip and tails.
and i also modified the coreprofile a little. i think with rockered skis there is no need to build soft skis. so i`m trying a really really stiff setup. my core will be 13mm thick in the end, underfoot. in tip and tail 3mm.
furthermore i used a linear profile as basis and modified it to a parabolic one. i have some sort of platform in the middle and flat spots in the areas where the rocker starts. but in the end they are nearly invisible
i think this special core profile could help a lot and reduce the vibrations.... but i still have to try things out. hopefully i can illustrate these explanations with some pics soon
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
-
RudolphTheSkiingReindeer
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:41 pm
Digicam and phone too?!?
Wow. Maybe its mercury retrograde (haha... hippy-ish parents, sorry)
In any case... I cant wait to see how it turns out. I think I'm only a few days away from laying up my first pair. One core blank is glued and ready for profiling. WOOT! I'm sooo excited.
Good luck!
-Camen
Wow. Maybe its mercury retrograde (haha... hippy-ish parents, sorry
)In any case... I cant wait to see how it turns out. I think I'm only a few days away from laying up my first pair. One core blank is glued and ready for profiling. WOOT! I'm sooo excited.
Good luck!
-Camen
time to share some pictures!
first of all i built myself a...well...thing? to press some pretty damn good looking woodcores. as i don`t have access to a big bandsaw i figured out it would be the easiest to glue some 15mm thick stripes of wood together. also the easiest because i`m using some 30mm thick wood laths or whatever you want to call them. so i can rip these laths into stripes and cut them in half - et voilà, there are some 15mm thick wooden stripes. so i constructed my pressing thing wide enough to fit 2 woodcores - about 35cm. as you can see on this pic:
there are some metal profiles to clamp the wood down - i can screw them on nine points over the whole width of the press. they get fixed by a nut/insert on the baseplate of the press. to get the stripes pressed i constructed quite a lot of angles on both sides to fit some M6 screws. with these screws i can apply quite a lot of sideway pressure to get a tight fight. because there are so many of them it creates enough pressure to force the stripes into shape
was a bunch of work to cut these angles and trill them, but it was worth it. even if i already managed to pull out two of them...maybe the next time i should use longer screws to mount them on the baseplate...and maybe i shouldn`t use an MDF baseplate, something more solid would be preferable. but as long as it works...there is always something to improve
and now let`s move on to my press modification. last time i used some hard foam for the rocker inserts. this time i built something to last. i made a frame out of chipboard, not very accurate, and applied some templates out of 1mm plywood on each side of the block. these plywood templates were as accurat as possible and acted as "guides" or "rails" for the following: to get a maximum of accuracy i made some sort of filler. i collected some MDF- sawdust and mixed it with epoxy. you get a pretty sweet filler by doing so. it requires a bit of experience with it to get the right relation of sawdust and epoxy to create a solid, but still sticky mixture. it`s somewhere between baking a cake and playing with dogshit.
anyway, i applied this filler between the plywood rails and onto the chipboard frame. then i coated it with a plastig. afterwards i took a rolling pin and pressed the filler into shape - and because the roller gets guided by the plywood rails you get a smooth, nice, even and almost perfect surface. well, a little grinding was still required afterwards, but this kind of filler is really easy machineable. so the grinding was done quite quickly. below the picture of the finished rocker-insert for my mold with the rails on each side:
and here`s the whole mold. i applied a 4mm thick sheet in the middle to level everything out a little and to get a thicker transition from the rockered insert to the cambered underfoot part.
i just pressed the first two skis with the new core profile (on the new core profiling rails, yeeehaw) and they came out pretty well. except of that i misplaced the topsheet on one ski a little, so it shifted about 1cm. which is kind of bad when the topsheet is actually 150mm wide and the ski is 153 - BLAST!
more pictures and a description of the layup wil follow soon. there are huge storys to be told
first of all i built myself a...well...thing? to press some pretty damn good looking woodcores. as i don`t have access to a big bandsaw i figured out it would be the easiest to glue some 15mm thick stripes of wood together. also the easiest because i`m using some 30mm thick wood laths or whatever you want to call them. so i can rip these laths into stripes and cut them in half - et voilà, there are some 15mm thick wooden stripes. so i constructed my pressing thing wide enough to fit 2 woodcores - about 35cm. as you can see on this pic:
there are some metal profiles to clamp the wood down - i can screw them on nine points over the whole width of the press. they get fixed by a nut/insert on the baseplate of the press. to get the stripes pressed i constructed quite a lot of angles on both sides to fit some M6 screws. with these screws i can apply quite a lot of sideway pressure to get a tight fight. because there are so many of them it creates enough pressure to force the stripes into shape
was a bunch of work to cut these angles and trill them, but it was worth it. even if i already managed to pull out two of them...maybe the next time i should use longer screws to mount them on the baseplate...and maybe i shouldn`t use an MDF baseplate, something more solid would be preferable. but as long as it works...there is always something to improve
and now let`s move on to my press modification. last time i used some hard foam for the rocker inserts. this time i built something to last. i made a frame out of chipboard, not very accurate, and applied some templates out of 1mm plywood on each side of the block. these plywood templates were as accurat as possible and acted as "guides" or "rails" for the following: to get a maximum of accuracy i made some sort of filler. i collected some MDF- sawdust and mixed it with epoxy. you get a pretty sweet filler by doing so. it requires a bit of experience with it to get the right relation of sawdust and epoxy to create a solid, but still sticky mixture. it`s somewhere between baking a cake and playing with dogshit.
anyway, i applied this filler between the plywood rails and onto the chipboard frame. then i coated it with a plastig. afterwards i took a rolling pin and pressed the filler into shape - and because the roller gets guided by the plywood rails you get a smooth, nice, even and almost perfect surface. well, a little grinding was still required afterwards, but this kind of filler is really easy machineable. so the grinding was done quite quickly. below the picture of the finished rocker-insert for my mold with the rails on each side:
and here`s the whole mold. i applied a 4mm thick sheet in the middle to level everything out a little and to get a thicker transition from the rockered insert to the cambered underfoot part.
i just pressed the first two skis with the new core profile (on the new core profiling rails, yeeehaw) and they came out pretty well. except of that i misplaced the topsheet on one ski a little, so it shifted about 1cm. which is kind of bad when the topsheet is actually 150mm wide and the ski is 153 - BLAST!
more pictures and a description of the layup wil follow soon. there are huge storys to be told
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
managed to get some pics - poor quality, but... anyway.
182 in lenght, 152-132-142. i couldn`t mount the brakes, i still have to bend them to fit the massive waist...and bending these bastards means pain multiplied with 10.
and here a picture of the modified camber. again poor quailty - but this time it`s an advantage for me, covers my secret construction
well, i excpected them to be lighter. the fir cores were really really light, but now in the end they weight 2280g per ski. not bad...average... so i`m a little disappointed concerning the weight of them. mounted with the freerides they sum up to 3270g per ski.
and here compared to the evil twins. the evil twins nearly look narrow besides the cockaynes...
well, now i have to think about how i`m going to build the cores for the next few pairs. fir seems to work and is cheap. on the other hand i still have a lot of ash laying around. i also experienced some problems with the sidewalls: as i routed them the router bit ripped out some little grains, so fir is not really ideal for this use. i`ll have to find a way to fix this issue.
182 in lenght, 152-132-142. i couldn`t mount the brakes, i still have to bend them to fit the massive waist...and bending these bastards means pain multiplied with 10.
and here a picture of the modified camber. again poor quailty - but this time it`s an advantage for me, covers my secret construction
well, i excpected them to be lighter. the fir cores were really really light, but now in the end they weight 2280g per ski. not bad...average... so i`m a little disappointed concerning the weight of them. mounted with the freerides they sum up to 3270g per ski.
and here compared to the evil twins. the evil twins nearly look narrow besides the cockaynes...
well, now i have to think about how i`m going to build the cores for the next few pairs. fir seems to work and is cheap. on the other hand i still have a lot of ash laying around. i also experienced some problems with the sidewalls: as i routed them the router bit ripped out some little grains, so fir is not really ideal for this use. i`ll have to find a way to fix this issue.
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
finally done and ready for a ride - which is good cause it has been snowing for about a week and the resorts open in 3 days. YEEEHAW!
anyway, while i watched a video streaming of a lecture for university i got kind of bored and started with the grafics for the skis. just take white abs topsheet, a black marker and some clear varnish at the end.
as you can easily see: i managed to grab a better cam
oh and by the way - did anyone of you try to bend skibrakes? in comparison to brakebending edgebending is for kindergartenkids! i clamped the end of the brakes somewhere in an old skateboardtruck, stood on the board to hold it still and pulled with a really long pipe wrench, about 30cm long shaft - and it really needed all the strenght i had go get them bent, little by little. i could hardly believe it...
anyway, while i watched a video streaming of a lecture for university i got kind of bored and started with the grafics for the skis. just take white abs topsheet, a black marker and some clear varnish at the end.
as you can easily see: i managed to grab a better cam
oh and by the way - did anyone of you try to bend skibrakes? in comparison to brakebending edgebending is for kindergartenkids! i clamped the end of the brakes somewhere in an old skateboardtruck, stood on the board to hold it still and pulled with a really long pipe wrench, about 30cm long shaft - and it really needed all the strenght i had go get them bent, little by little. i could hardly believe it...
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
-
shralpster
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:43 am
I bent brakes for a pair of fatties a few years back and yes, I had one hell of a time. It's definitely all about getting a very strong clamp and a long pipe for leverage. Before I had them bent right, I lost a ski in a backcountry bowl and it shot about a half mile across the bottom and back up the far side. Brakes are good.