Jump to content

Denali Update


Recommended Posts

  • Baller

Ballers! 

Just a quick update!  We are still deep in the process of evolving a new design for 2023/2024, I do have a just a few remaining skis left on the rack and with just 7 graphic sheets left to build with.   

If you have any ski buddies looking for a killer deal before the next design is released, this is it!  Our workshop is very small (under 1000sqft!) and I need to free up the space ASAP! 

Use code 2022 c85 Closeout at checkout - denaliskis.com for 60% off a ski order!

The c85 has been HUGELY successful not only for the intense short-line skiers at 34 and 36mph, but we have also seen tremendous success for both men and women at speeds as low as 28mph and long line.  In addition, we have seen many 200+ 28-38off tournament skiers dropping to 32mph for the first time LOVE the extra width and support provided the c85s bigger & stiffer platform underfoot.  

Feel free to PM me with any questions and more info.

Thanks!

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@adamhcaldwelldo you have an XXL or XXXL? 

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Unfortunately @horton the C85 stops at XL size.  

However, I can say that the development on the new Denali c-buoyslayer9000^2 is all happening on what theoretically would be an XXL size.  And the XXXL is definitely next on the list.   

My biggest fear for 2023 is offending someone when suggesting a size (XX or XXXL size).  That being said, I'm currently entertaining some new sizing nomenclature....(Plus now that HO has adopted the terminology, its not as cool anymore😂.)

Any creative ideas will be considered....but currently entertaining the following

Ski Size Nomenclature
Traditional  Denali  2023+ Denali
71 XXL Terra
70 XXL Giga
69 XL Mega
68 Large  Kilo
67 Medium Milli
66 Small Micro
65 X-Small Nano
64 XXS Pico
Edited by adamhcaldwell
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@adamhcaldwellwhy wouldn't you just reset all the nomenclature with the C10,000 so guys that normally ride a 67 still ride a medium even if it is 8 in' wide? ( rename current XXXL to L or whatever)

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@lpskier but there is some benefit to using terminology that more immediately "means something" to the average skier. So even though a "Denali 68" is still 65 inches, when someone see's "Denali 68", they would know (at least roughly) what size/weight that corresponds to in other manufacturers. Though then certainly the danger of confusion regarding the actually length comes back into play lol. What about:

6.4
6.5
6.6
etc? - so the medium would be size 6.7, large would be size 6.8, etc.

Kinda weird, sure, but trying to think outside the box for ways to express the unique "Denali sizes" that are more easily relatable to traditional sizes, while still being clear it's not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@SlalomSteve I get what you’re saying but, I really think that this sizing is fine, when you consider that they provide a size chart on their website. Maybe they just include the L=68 on the chart? I just think someone ordering a 68 receives a 65, then thinks they got the wrong ski shipped to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

seriously guys the old length paradigm is just marketing. if you called a ski "the 14" and said that guys weighing between 175 and 195 ride "the 14" and then I ride "the 14".

most key companies called it a 67" but length is really irrelevant.

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

FYI this is a 39@36 pass from this fall riding a C95 prototype that would be equivalent to an XXL size c85. It is WIDE. There is secret sauce in there that is letting us run a much wider ski and get the benefits that come with that without the negatives.

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CjJnDeYg7Ml/?igshid=YWJhMjlhZTc=

Edited by AdamCord
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@thager I finally figured it out. You are Chipman!

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Believe it or not,  the size is irrelevant in terms of width and length and surface area.   The industry has trained people that a 170lber should ride a 66” ski.  Whatever that means.   I think it is a limiting belief for both ski designers AND skiers.

What is relevant when it comes to sizing skis is the performance characteristics built into the ski.  The things you cant necessarily see with the naked eye.

For example, its possible to build a 66” ski with a terrible flex and torsion pattern with imbalanced surface area, lift distribution and induced drag characteristics and it could feel like riding at 70” and wont turn or drop in at the ball. OR, it can build it where it fees like a 60” ski that sinks, barely gets any width and folds you in half from being too soft, too stuck and too slow for opposite reasons.

Sure, traditionally with the norm of carbon copy skis and designs, a lot of skis are extremely similar.  And because of that we are custom to think that a 66/67” is the middle of the road and appropriate size.  In reality, all that matters is a skier is riding what will produce the most buoys for them at their given level and speed/ability, and physical composition.

I’ve come to find that skier height is almost as big of a factor in sizing as weight. For example, I have a 210lb 5’6” guy on a medium at 34, and a then another 190lber at 6’3 on an XL - Same skill level, but vastly different builds.   So then you must also consider body composition and where someone's COM lands and how they utilize it when they ski.

At the end of the day, what matters is we have a way to convey differences in range of products offered and how that will align that with your overall performance and ability riding it.

So far I like @AdamCordCords recommendation of calling the XXXL the "Krispy Kreme"... 

Edited by adamhcaldwell
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Chipman reading the above post from his bunker

    3q0436qxkybs.gif

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

California Ski Ranch ☆ Connelly ☆ Denali ☆ Eden Lake ☆ Goode ☆ HO Syndicate MasterCraft ☆ Masterline ☆ 

Pentalogo ☆ Performance Ski and Surf ☆ Reflex ☆ Radar ☆ Rodics OffCourse ☆ S Lines ☆ Stokes 

About Horton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Well I was wondering when this would happen. But knowing the Denali history it will be a better design. The C-85 has been the smoothest, fastest, best turning and easiest ski I've ever owned. I let four skiers demo ride my C-85, 2 were beginners and 2 were 32 off skiers. They all came away very impressed how user friendly it was. One my students was so impressed with it he showed up one day with his own used C-85 he bought off Ski-it-again. His skiing has improved dramatically in part because of its neutral/user friendly feel. So as long as the Two Adams keep designing and building them, I will be buying and skiing on them. My student Will, with his small and my large C-85.

IMG_2052.jpg

  • Like 6

Ernie Schlager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I’ve always been hesitant because I was afraid it’d be too small. Even though I was assured at 6’5” and 235ish lately that the XL C85 would be big enough. I’d sure like to try one of those XXXL if that’s what you decide to call it. I have a couple of neoprene products with that size designation so I’m not scared. 😜

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...