The new Denali is 65 inch?

[ConPexEr]

Is this a typo????? 65" length tip to tail - for all sizes 2 Widths available (initially) - Medium and Large

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

I don't have any major inside info on this ski, but I'm reasonably sure that is not a typo.

[Adam Caldwell]

It was supposed to say "Spray size: Big, Bigger, Bigger-er". Will have to go back and edit site.

 

[aupatking]

Walls of giant spray? That is the only thing that matters. Who ever asked “what size ski was that?”. I mean, really

[AdamCord]

@ConPexEr

 

 

[Horton]

@AdamCord If it makes sense to @scotchipman I am totally against it. Please design a different ski for me.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Super size me!

[Adam Caldwell]

@mjnelson - what specifically do you compare?

 

Something to consider....

A long enough 2x4 can have similar surface are as a short 2x6.

 

Just looking at raw surface area seems to be a useless metric IMO when comparing skis from one brand to another.

 

If you had a breakdown of surface area for different segments, perhaps, 0-17”, 17-25”, 25-33”, 33-41” and 41-48”, then you MIGHT have something worth comparing between brands.

 

 

[AdamCord]

@mjnelson @scotchipman do you know how Radar/Goode come up with those surface area numbers? Is that the entire running surface below the flash line, or is that a 2D representation of the profile shape?

[Than_Bogan]

I was wondering the exact same thing. I'm assuming nobody counts the top of the ski for surface area, but then that requires defining a boundary for exactly what constitutes the bottom. That wouldn't matter if the difference between sizes were say 100 sq in, but given that it's more like 10, it seems agreement on this would be key for this number to have any meaning at all. (And it still might not...)

[Horton]

@scotchipman we are nearing the point where if you bring this up again I am going to be forced to ban you.

[Wish]

How is surface area (or length for that matter) going to help anyone knowing that ALL other ski design elements from flex to bevels to rocker can make that number meaningless. Why not just relay on what the manufacture suggests? They built it, so one would assume they know their stuff.

[Horton]

@mjnelson if I ban @scotchipman I will ban you also for helping him ask dumb questions.

[The_MS]

@Horton at a minimum you need to toss some Pandas at him

[Than_Bogan]

I could pretty easily agree that surface area is a stupid measurement, but surely it's less stupid than length!?

[AdamCord]

Surface Area is only part of the picture with ski sizing.

 

For instance WHERE the area is located makes a massive difference in not only how much weight the ski will support, but how the ski will ride in the water. This in turn will have a hand in dictating planing angle, how the ski rotates, how the ski lifts, etc. A ski that is shaped like a wedge, getting progressively wider toward the tip could have a lot of area, but you will only be using a small amount of that area. That will make the ski sit deep in the water and be slow to turn and accelerate. Conversely a ski with a very wide tail will allow you to use more of the available area, but it can drive the nose too low, again making the ski slow to turn and accelerate.

 

Thus what matters with regards to area is what the Distribution looks like (aka profile shape), much more than the total area number.

 

Other huge factors that will dictate how a ski lifts are tunnel, rocker, and bevels. Tunnel alone makes a massive difference. A very narrow ski could still be very fast if it had a tunnel shape that allowed enough lift and rotation.

 

 

With the c75 we have shifted the area distribution backward, without making the tail overly wide. As a result, the boots are much further back than on other skis. This gives a short wheelbase which makes the ski want to build angle and accelerate like it's coming down a mountain, but without all the limitations a longer ski would have (difficult to initiate rotation in the preturn, difficult to slow down before the turn, difficult to keep the line tight, etc.). That makes it very difficult to pick one criteria (surface area) and compare apples to apples.

[AdamCord]

@Than_Bogan totally agree about length.

 

For Example:

Most ski sizes cover about a 30 pound range, which means a 150lb person might ride a 66, while a 180lb person might ride a 67.

 

150 to 180 lbs is a 20% increase in weight.

66 to 67 inches is a 1.5% increase in length.

 

Go Figure.

[Horton]

@mjnelson generally speaking there are no stupid questions unless you are from Utah and you bring up the same stuff that Chipman does.

[Than_Bogan]

@AdamCord Huh, that's a little mind-bending but also feels like a trick. I don't think there's a reason to believe those ratios should be similar.

 

If I were imagining that the ski's job was to support me, like a bridge, then the two things that would help the most would be thicker or a shorter span. Totally wrong analogy.

 

If I were imagining that the ski's job was to provide sufficient buoyancy, then I need to increase the volume of displaced water. Still almost entirely a wrong analogy, because the ski is planing and cannot provide enough bouyancy to hold me up if it isn't.

 

Once it is planing, I don't "need" any particular dimensions to be able to ski. Instead it becomes about something specific to slalom course success.

 

I guess my point is that it's not at all obvious what the fundamental reason(s) for ski size are. I'm sure you know MUCH more about it than almost anyone else reading this, and I would venture that even you can't describe it completely.

[AdamCord]

@Than_Bogan the more I learn about slalom skiing the deeper I’m finding the valley of despair to be

 

 

[ski6jones]

That curve is exactly the same as "Parents perceived intellegence " vs "Childs age", with the Valley of Despair spanning from about 13-23 yo.

[Than_Bogan]

Last year I climbed Mt. Stupid for the pole vault. I was a little surprised (even though I shouldn't have been) as I sprinted down the other side this year :).

[jimski]

Let's see this thing in action already

[Horton]

Dunning - Kruger is a real thing. I know I run a water ski web site.

[Cam]

Anybody else like me that feels there is a bungee cord attached to the peak of mount stupid?