A quick pictorial comparison of my Goats vs. a Dynastar LTd

[Ron]

OK, yes, they are very different skis, but here's a lesson in why you have to know your ski construction and design

volkl Gotama, 183, directional twin tip. 133-105-128 No metal, wood core, sandwich construction
Dynastar LTD, 172, conventional design. 121-72-102 Capped construction.

Here is a picture of the LTD next to and on top of the goats, notice the length difference
Notice that even though a 133mm wide ski seems wide, its not really that much wider than the LTD


I am now showing the actaul running lenght of the Goat. I place both on a hard surface. I use a piece of paper to mark the part of the ski where the tail makes contact with the floor. This becomes the base point of length measurement.



Next, i measure the points where both tips make contact with the floor. I measure and subtract the difference.



Notice that the actual difference is only about an inch or about 2-3mm, meaning the 183 Goat is actually like skiing a 175!

[Philpug]

Is that a Stanley tape measure?

[jbotti]

IMO this is the case against twin tips. You get the the fore aft stability of a ski that is 175cm long (as that is all that is touching the snow and aiding your fore aft balance) but when you make a turn you have to move all 183cm of each ski. If you are carving and all you are doing is tipping the ski on edge it's no big deal, but if you actually have to turn the ski (on a tighter radius that the ski can be carved, whether brushed carved or especially by using active rotary) you have to turn the entirity of the ski including the parts that are not on the snow (and this can be a lot of work). IMO there is only one benefit of length which is increased stability at speed.

I have owned a few pairs of twin tips and I still own 2 pairs of twin tip powder skis, and I continue to believe that this is the major design fault. For me, if am going to have to expend the energy to turn a long ski, then I wnat the increased stability in fore aft balance from the length.

[Ron]

huh? No one buys goats as a carving ski. Carving is fine for days when there is no fresh or soft. I don't agree they are less stable by far with 105 underfoot in soft snow. I don't know how you are skiing a wide ski in soft snow but it's effortless if done correctly. I ski the Shamans 160-110-130 in real powder and I have never skied so effortlessly and made such easy turns on a dime. Also, please note the goat is not a full twin-tip its a directional twin.

[jbotti]

I think you missed my point. I said it is easier to carve a long ski by tipping than to turn it by using brushing, rotary or force. Agan twin tips give one less fore aft stability than the same length ski in a non twin tip design (I don't believe that this is an opinion but rather a statement of fact). All I was saying is that one gets the stability of a shorter ski, but in tight spots one still has to move all 183CM of the ski.

Now before you get all huffy and start insulting my skiing, realize that I was just talking about a design issue that I perceive with twin tips, and I never once said anything negative about your skis or your skiing. I hope that you love them and I wish you the best.

[Ron]

John, please don't post here if you are looking to bait arguments, No one has criticized you or your skiing,I love to ski the whole mountain, this ski is for soft snow and powder.  I love to rip on my LTD's when there is nothing fresh. I am merely pointing out you are comparing two very diiferent types of skis for two very different types of skiing and missing the components of stability given the conditions or intended use. The intended use and function of the ski has to be considered. I believe you have missed the fact that the stability in soft snow and powder is also provided by a wide board underfoot, the flex pattern, torsional stability, not just length; and very importantly placement of binding;  Stability and ease is also a function of the ski design including tip and tail In this case, the longer turned up tip effectively aids in breaking crud, helping with float and with uneven pitched or chopped terrain. The tail is used as the ski does not always stay on top of soft snow, so it does make contact at times but also allows a clean release allowing the skier to make easier turns at varied radius' using any technique for any turn size ot shape.  Turning those added 3 inches in total is not noticeable. Don't confuse lthe total ength of ski with height of ski. The 183 may be 6' but is actually about 5' 10" tall. I am 6' 170, the ski is perfect length. Another example is the 173 directional twin Shaman where the total surface area of the ski makes it very stable in powder and crud and super quick in the trees. It can be lacking in fore/aft stability at speed for 6' footers (Ben would argue this) but for the intended use, it's a blast.

[jim-ratliff]

Moderating a bit!!! ? ?

OK, both of you are pretty darn good skiers, so we'll talk skis and not skiers. ?We had that conversation on another forum.
Ron, you missed ?a subtlety here, he is saying when you HAVE to turn them, when you can't turn by tipping.

jbotti, welcome, haven't heard from you in a while.
 ?
1. So, jbotti, what you are saying is that the mass of the ski is greater (due to it's weight and length) and therefore has more inertia when actively turning the skis?? ?On the two pair that you have, can you notice this difference in inertia? ?Would that depend on the ski itself, a lighter ski would have less inertia?
2. ?I heard somewhere that one of the advantages of twin tips was that the turned up tail helped in the release on difficult terrain. ?I can't ski that terrain, so just repeating what I've heard. ?Think that's true?
3. What is the reason for twin tips? ?Ron, I don't even know what makes something a directional twin tip?? ?clue me in.? Edited.? Realized that he is comparing to park twintips with even more turn up to support skiing switch.
4. Seems that, in powder, the twin tip would still have most of the bottom of the ski in contact with the snow? And when in powder, you then get the stability of the full length of the ski and not just the 175cm?

So is it valid to say that the twin tip is somewhat like a reverse camber ski (I know, a stretch) that provides more snow contact in powder and less contact surface on firm snow. ?Are there advantages to twin tips, because they seem pretty common in powder skis? ?What are the ski designers trying to accomplish with twin tips??

I will say that I have had a couple of pair of skis (not at all talking powder skis here) that were flat all the way to the tail and others that had just a smidge of upturn at the back, and I preferred the latter.  However, that's certainly no indication that this was the only factor that caused me to like them, but they overall felt easier to turn (and they were much easier in the snowplow).

[jim-ratliff]

Ron:

OK, I have a big problem with you telling John not to post here.? I don't think there is any reason to bring that to this forum.? I didn't see anything in his post that I felt was baiting, and he wasn't commenting on your skiing, he was just voicing his design assessment of twin tips in general (including his own two pair) ? ?

I don't see why it has to escalate to either of you seeing it as criticism of skiing or taking it personally.

As we know there is plenty of ungracious behavior on the other two forums, I would really like for it not to spill over here.

Jim

[midwif]

Yes, I hope that JBotti feels welcome here.
 There are many posters who have a wide array of knowledge from different perspectives. The more we can listen and learn (though I must admit guys, my eyes GLAZE when you all go off into dim/radius/construct land) the better for all.

[jbotti]

I have thick skin and I feel welcome as I always have.

Jim to respond to some of your thoughts:

This issue with twin tip design has bothered me on some level for a few years (which is not to say that twin tips are bad, or that Goats are bad skis).? Yes the turned up tail does help people release. Having said this, it does little for me as I have wortked hard to flex agressively and truly release the skis in every turn. If one does this, or attempts to do it all the time, the ability to more easily smear a turn with a turned up tail disappears. Tiwn tips were really designed so that people can land jumps switch. IMO unless you are taking big air and landing backwards (which BTW many people are doing regiularly, but not me!!) much of the advantage of twin tips is lost.

As for how much of the ski is actaully in play and in contact with snow in deep powder, that is a good point and I'm not sure what the answer is. In soft fluufy powder I notice the issue I am talknig about a lot less. It is more at Squaw where the snow is heavy and the picth si steep that the actual riding length of skis is noticeable on fore aft balance, and having to muscle turns in tight spots requires reall effort even if the twin tip "skis short".

I skied most of last season in Montana. The powder was very light, most of where I was skiing was very steep, 35-45%, and it was pretty bumped up underneath )usually with not enough new fresh snow to hide the bumps). I traded floataion for manueverability (usually choosing to ski my IM 78's over an array of wide big mountain powder skis). And for me they were easier and better.

Of course there are lot of differnt ways to ski a mountain, and I am not saying that mine is the right and it is crerainly not the only way.

[jim-ratliff]

Phil:

Chip in some history and background here.  Where/why did twin tip powder skis originate and what is the primary design objective of having the turned up tail??

[Ron]

Ron:

OK, I have a big problem with you telling John not to post here.? I don't think there is any reason to bring that to this forum.? I didn't see anything in his post that I felt was baiting, and he wasn't commenting on your skiing, he was just voicing his design assessment of twin tips in general (including his own two pair) ? ?

I don't see why it has to escalate to either of you seeing it as criticism of skiing or taking it personally.

As we know there is plenty of ungracious behavior on the other two forums, I would really like for it not to spill over here.

I'm done here for a while but I want to very clear, I NEVER SAID HE COULD NOT POST! AND I ALSO HAVE ABIG PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTS, I DID NOT SEE HIM AS BEING CRITICAL OF MY SKIING JUST AS I AM NOT CRITICAL OF HIS SKIING. I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM SKI.> SEE YA IN DECEMBER!

Jim

[jim-ratliff]

Ron:  I am truly saddened to hear you say that.

[midwif]

Hey Jim
You better watch those new  babies of yours in december. Ron is likely to "mark his territory" when you're not looking!
You know the kind of people he's been hanging out with!

[Gary]

jBotti, I want to respond to your first post then move on to the others if I may.
In my humble opinion, fore/aft stability increases with width and length...certainly standing still on a big board in deep snow one can sense this....moving ones center mass fore and aft takes does more time to get skis to respond and certainly slower edge to edge, and without a doubt, larger turning radius....but more board seems to me stable GIVEN A VARIETY OF FACTORS.

But you yourself have twins and powder skis and may or may not have a favorite..but I believe that ski length is relative to weight and height for the majority of recreational skiers. We are talking about the use for the terrain and conditions? for the skiers specific needs.

I personally will take my 165 Head SS into powder up to boot high and just love them....I weigh 155lbs and they work beyond just fine for me. I also have fatter skis for snow above the boot. Why...it just plain makes all day skiing in over the boot snow much more relaxing....the skis are less twitchy using tipping and all mountain skills. I don't have to be as vilgilent with the amount of pressure applied to the edges and how much angles I create with my body.

I had a great experience with Helli skiing at Whistler where I was on my Head IM 82's and we had 4000 vertical runs...2 to make. I made the first run on my skis and asked the guide if I could try his Rossi B4's in a 195 length....big boards for me for sure. These skis didn't require more energy to turn just more patience. Again a specific purpose ski in my mind and I used every skill I've learned with the combined forces of both Harold and Clendenin.

Whether all of your ski length is touches the snow or not, if you have the skills to turn it in it's natural radius or turns less than that, if that ski spikes up your fun factor, it's all good in my book.

To me it's about the riders skills, weight and what the rider is looking to get out of the ski.

Finding the right ski that a skier can arc, one where the center mass is right on for ease of fore/aft balance are just as important as determining what ski you want to ride for the days conditions.


Gary