Alternate Fin Setups - Helix

[SkiJay]

Earlier this month I shared a set of numbers that some of Paul Crawford's (D3) skiers have been having a lot of success with. The setup is pretty impressive because it makes the ski turn like crazy. As time went on, however, I found the ski was too turn-happy for my personal preferences, so I went back to the factory posted numbers and liked how much more predictable the ski became. Turning wasn't quite as effortless, but the improved predictability was confidence inspiring.

 

Generally speaking, the main tradeoff with fin length is that longer fin lengths (FL) make tip engagement easier at the cost of feel/feedback, and shorter FL improves tip engagement feel/feedback at the cost of requiring more effort. I liked that returning to the stock FL gave me more feel for the tip, so out of curiosity, I kept going shorter and deeper with the fin. I wanted to see how much tip feedback I could get and still engage enough tip to get the job done without it becoming distracting. Since doing this, my average practice pass has improved four balls in two weeks!

 

To be clear, I am not saying one setup is better than the other. My message here is that we all ski differently, and there is no such thing as one setup that is perfect for everyone. When Paul gave me those numbers, he didn't say, "these are the best numbers for this ski." He said something like "Some of our skiers have been getting excellent results with these numbers. Try them an let me know what you think." Paul's numbers are a great example of a long/shallow setup, a setup that makes turning the ski effortless and one that benefits skiers who are precise and consistent with their movements.

 

On the other hand, the short/deep setup that has improved my ball count provides excellent feedback and makes it harder to over-turn when I get ham-handed with over-working the front of the ski. And go figure, the factory recommended numbers are just about right in between these two setups--right where they should be.

 

As it turns out, I'm not the only one who has reacted this way. I've now had three other skiers observe the same difficulties with the long/shallow setup, and interestingly, all of them are coming off of Nano Ones or XTs, including me. I'm speculating that Nano One skiers develop a forward biased technique because that's what makes the Nano One shine. But when I work the tip of the Helix as hard as was my habit with the Nano One without paying attention, I got tip-bite, too much smear, tail blowouts, and wheelies out of off-side balls until I settled down and adapted.

 

Before writing this piece, I wanted to vet my observations with a Helix skier that I know works the front of his ski better than most. Seth Stisher just got back to me with his setup. I didn't ask if he would mind me sharing his exact numbers, so suffice it to say that he too moved towards a shorter/deeper setup than the factory recommended numbers, and that our numbers are all within a very few thousandths of each other. (That was a relief!)

 

So I'm not saying that either long/shallow or short/deep is a better setup, just that this ski is happy at both ends of the spectrum. If you are a consistent skier and want a ski with power steering, use Paul's long/shallow option below. If you like working the front of your ski hard, try the short/deep numbers. And If you aren't sure which setup will work best for you, factory stock is an excellent middle ground.

 

All of these are for a 66" Helix:

 

Long/Shallow - power steering

FL = 6.940" (tips)

FD = 2.488"

DFT = .755 (head)

Wg = 7°

RockerBlock = R-30

Bf = 29.250"

 

Factory Stock

FL = 6.910" (tips)

FD = 2.505"

DFT = .740 (head)

Wg = 7°

RockerBlock = R-30

Bf = 29.500"

 

Short/Deep - max feedback

FL = 6.896" (tips)

FD = 2.512"

DFT = .750 (head)

Wg = 8°

RockerBlock = R-30

Bf = 29.200"

[ral]

Well, the good thing about this is that at least you did not suggest alternate rokerblocks for each...

[SkiJay]

How did you guess what I'm working on now @ral? =)

[ozski]

I started with a shorter deeper setup and I've been so happy with the way the ski has been working for me that I have not bothered to mess around with it.

[jimbrake]

Hey @SkiJay‌ - how did shorter deeper affect the onside? My favorite thing about the Helix was the onside - flawless. I agree that long shallow is not forgiving of being too aggressive w the tip on the offside. I spent two weeks on the Helix and was really impressed but stayed shallow long. Wish I would've tried shorter deeper. Bet that helped carry out too. Yes?

[SkiJay]

@jimbrake‌ I'm not surprised that you loved it. Like I said, neither setup is better than the other for all skiers. Long and shallow works for a lot of skiers, maybe even most, so if it works for you, why change it?

 

As for the on-side, it's not really hampered by by going shorter/deeper so long as DFT and fin area remain relatively unchanged. And I agree that the carry-out benefits from the keel effect of the deeper fin slowing down the edge change ever so slightly.

[kstateskier]

Thanks @SkiJay‌ for the info. I've had two rides on the Helix (66) with the factory #s and when I try and push in the turn on my 1/3 side (RFF) the Helix does not respond well. However it seems when I do nothing the ski turns amazingly well. Probably alot of it is me because of my style of skiing but I'm going to give it 4-5 more sets hopefully in better conditions than what I ski'd in yesterday before I make any adjustments. I will however try the short/deep settings before I make any decisions on this ski. Appreciate it.

 

First impressions (having never ridden a D3 before) - this ski is super stable. Complete opposite of the Razor I just came off of. Looking fwd to more sets on it!

[SkiJay]

Once again, I'm not saying that a short/deep fin setup is better than a long/shallow fin setup or visa versa; it depends on the individual skier. So how can you tell which of these setups might be best for you?

 

First of all, if your skiing is still on the steepest part of the learning curve, the ski should be set to factory specs so that you can develop sound fundamentals around a solid mainstream setup--period.

 

If you are a pretty good skier and you're skiing on a ski properly set up with factory specs, and you're just not feeling the love from your new stick, is there a pattern to your fails? If your pass often ends because you just can't get your ski to consistently turn any tighter than a school bus and you never spin out, and the tip rarely bites so hard that it slams on the brakes, you might want to try the long/shallow setup.

 

If your recurring fail is jamming too much tip into the water causing it to bite into the water hard or the tail to spin out, the short/deep setup might help. Another indication that shorter and deeper might help is when you just can't seem to turn as consistently as you could with your last ski; sometimes the tip bites, sometimes you school bus the turn, and other times it's just right. Your turns are like a box of chocolates . . . This can mean the ski's setup is making it too easy for you to engage too much tip and you are struggling with getting just the right amount. Again, this suggests you might like a shorter/deeper setup.

 

Making this determination might even be as simple as knowing what part of the ski you tend to ride. If you tend to ride central to back on your ski, try a long/shallow setup. If you know that you work most of the front of the ski while turning, short and deep will give you more feel for and control of the front of your ski.

 

Or if like me, you love playing with your ski gear cause it gives you a good excuse to not watch another installment of the Housewives of Orange County with your sweetheart, then try both setups. It will likely be pretty obvious which one you prefer.