Ligety's base bevels, if true, need to be taken in context of what was happening with equipment reg's at the time. At the height of Ted's career, men's GS went from 185cm 27m radius to 195cm 35m radius. Instead of extreme edge tuning, modern FIS GS have a healthy dose of tip rocker.
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Rank the Race Skis in Order...
- Thread starter Philpug
- Start date
No, it's pretty much used on tech race skis, especially GS, not for any all mountain use I know of, except in the process of correct tuning bevels to get them at least level.
It may be that progressive base bevels are no longer used in racing much. I stand corrected if so.
But it really works well for anything hooky or grabby with a race ski. To get the ski just right, varied for each racer, ski, and situation, not some standard amount. By experience and feel, with both race techs and racers (or normal skier who tune their own skis well).
And base bevels being un-level, or having reversed progressive base bevels (steeper underfoot, more gradual at tip and tail) are very common on current race skis, and all mountain skis also, as poor tuning that can be easily corrected, either making the base bevel level or slightly progressive in a right way - underfoot flatter. This is not "extreme" - it's just good tuning.
And edge de-tuning is not needed as a result, ever - except maybe for extreme freestylers and such. Base bevel around the tips can be varied to get perfect tunes - much more efficient and effective than de-tuning. Standard tuning practice, for decades.
This quote is also an over generalization: different progressive base bevel tunes handle differently, are appropriate differently. A good one, a right one, does not result in loss of grip; and a different such tune optimally, routinely, would be used for situations that needed more grip than ones that needed less: from experience, individualized, skier to skier, ski to ski, particular race to race, conditions of the snow mattering also. I only bring this up, in terms of primary use, because you statements are so broad and over-generalized - and incorrect, near as I can tell.
Where to start?
Guess I'll just comment on the first one, skip the rest (except I pretty much agree about Head and Atomic feel):
The zero base bevel is not dangerous a bit, with a bit of familiarity. At one time, everybody skiing, beginner to elite, and definitely everybody racing,
used a zero base bevel as standard. No one then used anything different. For, what, forty to fifty years, in the case of my generation
(longer for earlier generations)? No problem. Normal and easy.
It's what you are used to: in this case, a very neat, immediate response putting a ski on edge. Not a big deal. It was always normal.
Again, no problems resulted. For generations of skiers, including myself and many others - still, if I'd want to.
(Actually, on FIS slalom skis, Ligety, and many others, used/use a zero base bevel the whole length of the ski as standard - he only used the zero to .5 progressive base bevel on GS skis. )
I can testify as a mere mortal, that I have no problem I've ever been aware of on a level zero base bevel ski:
I still have a pair of functional, very old, straight, men's FIS GS skis I once raced on a long time ago, that I take out now and then and really enjoy still, that has always had a right angle edge, flat base. Fun ski. If you tried it, you'd experience it for yourself, probably easy once you got used to it
(probably in a few runs, dunno).
Last edited:
Google Montana Radial Tune. It is a variable base bevel that many shops are putting on every ski they touch. As for racing, I think variable bevels have fallen out of favor and the preference is back to a single bevel from tip to tail.
Thanks. I did that. Sounds like a progressive base bevel on an all mountain ski,
that might also compensate for some problems with the base flattening, if any.
The Montana tech talk sounds good, but it sounded good before, when it was a mess in practice.
I'll still have to check with folks who really know and have experience over the years.
I'll just ask again my Atomic, Dynastar, Head, and other brand reps that are friends, come ski season, if there's been this change
in the last two to three years I don't know about (being an old guy), for them, their all mountain skis and/or for their racers. Maybe so. Dunno.
And I'll ask them about the current base flattening and base bevels their pros and top racers are using also.
Thanks in advance , if what you're saying turns out to be mostly so, which seems likely, to some extent anyway.
(But that still doesn't negate the dynamic, on the fly roll that base and base bevel adjustment/fine tuning can and often will play
in getting a particular ski exactly right for particular skiers/racers, ideally. Nor the useful and breakthrough roll such adjustments can make,
in fine tuning, for recreational skiers on top FIS skis.
I've often bought race skis online knowing that more likely than not, just such adjustments will often improve whatever ski I buy,
get it back to behaving pretty near perfect. Very often, such problems were probably why the ski was offered for sale in the first place.)
Last time I wanted to know, neither the Wintersteiger nor the Montana machines actually flattened a ski's base successfully,
let alone put a good base bevel on a ski. One top race tuning shop I go to showed me the separate, older machine they used to almost hand guide/flatten the base of a ski before using their huge Montana setup. That's not what those machines were actually for, I was told, in spite of their tech talk - to the ski reps also, or even to some shops doing race ski prep for clubs and such, as I said, last time I looked into this several years ago. The reps at least used to prefer starting with Montana machine places - and tunes - because that brand did better near the tip and tail
with finishing farther up the ski the base regularization and texturing it did first.
That had to be just a starting point, for almost all brand reps with their demo fleet last time I checked,
and the same was even more true for race techs. Each brand had an associate (or rep working overtime)
who put some 30 to 40 hours into actually flattening, finishing and getting level bases and base/edge bevels on their demo fleet, by hand,
before a big demo day - even after starting with a Montana machine run through. Race techs spent even longer, last I heard,
progressive grit sanding in addition to custom flattening/texturizing and endless base prep and waxing stages, to suit each top racer.
But maybe all this has changed quickly also, including with the six figure machines. Dunno.
(I'd still like to get me one of the portable power base flatteners many of the race techs use, at least up to last year,
but the cheapest that are any good were too expensive for me to justify - last time I checked.)
that might also compensate for some problems with the base flattening, if any.
The Montana tech talk sounds good, but it sounded good before, when it was a mess in practice.
I'll still have to check with folks who really know and have experience over the years.
I'll just ask again my Atomic, Dynastar, Head, and other brand reps that are friends, come ski season, if there's been this change
in the last two to three years I don't know about (being an old guy), for them, their all mountain skis and/or for their racers. Maybe so. Dunno.
And I'll ask them about the current base flattening and base bevels their pros and top racers are using also.
Thanks in advance , if what you're saying turns out to be mostly so, which seems likely, to some extent anyway.
(But that still doesn't negate the dynamic, on the fly roll that base and base bevel adjustment/fine tuning can and often will play
in getting a particular ski exactly right for particular skiers/racers, ideally. Nor the useful and breakthrough roll such adjustments can make,
in fine tuning, for recreational skiers on top FIS skis.
I've often bought race skis online knowing that more likely than not, just such adjustments will often improve whatever ski I buy,
get it back to behaving pretty near perfect. Very often, such problems were probably why the ski was offered for sale in the first place.)
Last time I wanted to know, neither the Wintersteiger nor the Montana machines actually flattened a ski's base successfully,
let alone put a good base bevel on a ski. One top race tuning shop I go to showed me the separate, older machine they used to almost hand guide/flatten the base of a ski before using their huge Montana setup. That's not what those machines were actually for, I was told, in spite of their tech talk - to the ski reps also, or even to some shops doing race ski prep for clubs and such, as I said, last time I looked into this several years ago. The reps at least used to prefer starting with Montana machine places - and tunes - because that brand did better near the tip and tail
with finishing farther up the ski the base regularization and texturing it did first.
That had to be just a starting point, for almost all brand reps with their demo fleet last time I checked,
and the same was even more true for race techs. Each brand had an associate (or rep working overtime)
who put some 30 to 40 hours into actually flattening, finishing and getting level bases and base/edge bevels on their demo fleet, by hand,
before a big demo day - even after starting with a Montana machine run through. Race techs spent even longer, last I heard,
progressive grit sanding in addition to custom flattening/texturizing and endless base prep and waxing stages, to suit each top racer.
But maybe all this has changed quickly also, including with the six figure machines. Dunno.
(I'd still like to get me one of the portable power base flatteners many of the race techs use, at least up to last year,
but the cheapest that are any good were too expensive for me to justify - last time I checked.)
Last edited:
A couple of my buddies tune their race skis to 0 underfoot. Pretty sure they are trading base angle to make up for aging hip flexibility. I have the chance to make a few laps on skis tuned this way. They will trip you up even in lift lines unless you keep them on edge.
Maybe at first, dunno. Since it's you, Guy in Shorts, I'm trying to wrap my head around that.
But is that what Ted Ligety was up to? Or why his ski base bevels were flatter for SL than for GS, along with many other top racers? -
"aging hip flexibility?" (Gad, it sure is a long way to ski season still, sure seems like!)
I have a lot of old guy problems, but that's not why I like a flatter base bevel for a race ski, often.
It just ups my game, actually - and the performance -
near as I can tell.
(Maybe one has to make less effort with one's hips if the immediacy is that much improved, dunno.)
At any rate, what I experience is more immediacy of response, like having a stiffer race boot. Quicker edge to edge, with less effort.
And, lo, many racers use a stiffer boot for SL than they do for GS, even greater immediacy of response.
(One is quicker and more active in response, not aging in one's hips, near as I can tell, with both changes - stiffer boot, flatter base bevel.)
And you get used to it: I was never conscious of an extra caution with edge in lift lines, or elsewhere. More than fifty years.
Is a bike with narrower tires harder to keep in balance? Not consciously - at least not once one is used to it, seems like.
So you must be kidding, right?
But is that what Ted Ligety was up to? Or why his ski base bevels were flatter for SL than for GS, along with many other top racers? -
"aging hip flexibility?"
(Gad, it sure is a long way to ski season still, sure seems like!)I have a lot of old guy problems, but that's not why I like a flatter base bevel for a race ski, often.
It just ups my game, actually - and the performance -
near as I can tell.
(Maybe one has to make less effort with one's hips if the immediacy is that much improved, dunno.)
At any rate, what I experience is more immediacy of response, like having a stiffer race boot. Quicker edge to edge, with less effort.
And, lo, many racers use a stiffer boot for SL than they do for GS, even greater immediacy of response.
(One is quicker and more active in response, not aging in one's hips, near as I can tell, with both changes - stiffer boot, flatter base bevel.)
And you get used to it: I was never conscious of an extra caution with edge in lift lines, or elsewhere. More than fifty years.
Is a bike with narrower tires harder to keep in balance? Not consciously - at least not once one is used to it, seems like.
So you must be kidding, right?
Interesting re hip flexibility - I can see that... they'd be less forgiving tho and gnarly... Don't have much of an issue with SL skis at 0, that's more of an ymmv thing - the issue is with speed skis and GS get close to this for mortals. If you sharpen the tip well and it grabs unwillingly at 100 kph, you're going to be staring some trees in the face or get very friendly with the course workers while they extricate you from the fence
. They usually bring coffee while you wait, so that's not entirely bad, but 0.75 with dull tips is more typical or 0.5 with detuned tips for more advanced racers etc.On old straight skis, well, since the tip has no shape... this is much less of an issue. Certain incantations are known to help them carve arcs, more than bevels...
Last edited:
I have played with base and side angles quite a bit, as a race coach. I am in agreement with @ski otter 2 that 0 base is not that extreme. It is noticeably quicker to grab than 1.0 deg., but not so extreme you have to be superman to ski it. I use a Salomon X-Drive 88 ski I own with .25base/ 4.0 side bevel. It becomes a very responsive (SL ski like) all mtn ski with exceptional edge grip. Now, can I be sloppy when cruising at high speeds, NO, I have to stay on top of it at all times. On hard pack or boiler plate I actually prefer it like that. Its too much bevel for a relaxing cruising ski, but I have others to do that.
Kind of interesting side bar, I haven't stone ground the X-Drive for a while now, and its bevels have worn and I decided to turn the ski from a carving monster, to a more pivotable ski. First attempt I detuned the tips and tails. That sucked and the ski didn't carve well, but boy did it pivot easy. Next I sharpened the tips and left the tails detuned. It carved again, but the tails lost grip way to early, too much pivot still. I sharpened the tails again and it was back to a great carving ski, but I couldn't pivot it. I finally increased the base bevel on the tail (1/2 the radial tune ski otter 2 is talking about) and left the tips alone. Success. It carves great and pivots well now. It can use it in tight trees now and don't have to carve my way through them.
The most extreme ski I have ever been on was a FIS GS race ski, 2.0 base bevel and 7.0 side bevel. You practically did have to be superman to ski it. It had to have some roll on edge to hook up, but when it did, look out. It was the definition of edge locked carving. Without the 2.0 base, it would probably not have released a carve. As it was, I had to be more precise and careful than any other ski I have ever been on. Not my cup of tea, which is saying something.
I have concluded from experience, that a ski with "a normal range" tune will not hook up immediately. It will need something like 3-5 deg of tilt onto its edges before it grips hard snow. With a zero base bevel, lets say its 3 deg of tilt. With a .25 base its 4 deg, with .5 base its 5 deg, with 1.0 base its 7 deg, with 2.0 base its 12 deg. Most skiers are comfortable with a 1.0 base or about 7 deg of ski roll before the edges bite. I like a little less, some will like a little more. Its all about the precision and control you have as a skier (along with your boots too). Its personal preference. I will also add from personal experience and math theory, the lower the base bevel angle, (assuming constant side bevel) the sharper the edge point is digging into the snow. ( the include edge angle is less). Small changes make a significant difference on boiler plate surfaces.
I fully believe altering your base bevel angle along the length of a ski can improve certain issues with a ski, if done properly. My example above, or increasing the bevel at your tip if your ski is too hooky for your tastes. I have a SL ski that gets nervous at the tip at very high speeds and I bet I could cure that with increasing the bevel a bit up near the tip. I would probably loose a little quickness of the tip hookup which I would not like, but there might be a reasonable compromise that I would like better than the performance I get now with a constant base bevel. I run 0.5/4.0 on that ski. I call it my Ferrari ski.
Kind of interesting side bar, I haven't stone ground the X-Drive for a while now, and its bevels have worn and I decided to turn the ski from a carving monster, to a more pivotable ski. First attempt I detuned the tips and tails. That sucked and the ski didn't carve well, but boy did it pivot easy. Next I sharpened the tips and left the tails detuned. It carved again, but the tails lost grip way to early, too much pivot still. I sharpened the tails again and it was back to a great carving ski, but I couldn't pivot it. I finally increased the base bevel on the tail (1/2 the radial tune ski otter 2 is talking about) and left the tips alone. Success. It carves great and pivots well now. It can use it in tight trees now and don't have to carve my way through them.
The most extreme ski I have ever been on was a FIS GS race ski, 2.0 base bevel and 7.0 side bevel. You practically did have to be superman to ski it. It had to have some roll on edge to hook up, but when it did, look out. It was the definition of edge locked carving. Without the 2.0 base, it would probably not have released a carve. As it was, I had to be more precise and careful than any other ski I have ever been on. Not my cup of tea, which is saying something.
I have concluded from experience, that a ski with "a normal range" tune will not hook up immediately. It will need something like 3-5 deg of tilt onto its edges before it grips hard snow. With a zero base bevel, lets say its 3 deg of tilt. With a .25 base its 4 deg, with .5 base its 5 deg, with 1.0 base its 7 deg, with 2.0 base its 12 deg. Most skiers are comfortable with a 1.0 base or about 7 deg of ski roll before the edges bite. I like a little less, some will like a little more. Its all about the precision and control you have as a skier (along with your boots too). Its personal preference. I will also add from personal experience and math theory, the lower the base bevel angle, (assuming constant side bevel) the sharper the edge point is digging into the snow. ( the include edge angle is less). Small changes make a significant difference on boiler plate surfaces.
I fully believe altering your base bevel angle along the length of a ski can improve certain issues with a ski, if done properly. My example above, or increasing the bevel at your tip if your ski is too hooky for your tastes. I have a SL ski that gets nervous at the tip at very high speeds and I bet I could cure that with increasing the bevel a bit up near the tip. I would probably loose a little quickness of the tip hookup which I would not like, but there might be a reasonable compromise that I would like better than the performance I get now with a constant base bevel. I run 0.5/4.0 on that ski. I call it my Ferrari ski.
Last edited:
.25/4 on an 88 ? not sure I would do that to an 88? the 88 has plenty of lateral flex compared to a stiff 65 so I don't see much point in making it so grabby at the edge when it will bend and give way when pushed around - depends how and where you ski it, I guess.
Variable base or side bevels are fairly normal for above rec level - that's what I mean by detuning tips/tails when going very aggressive underfoot. You can vary either or rub the ski against a fence post when the snow is mean and you left your stones at home etc. I do have only one ski where I had to go backwards, i.e. 3/.5 underfoot and 4/0 tip, but that's an unpleasant black head of a unicorn.
Variable base or side bevels are fairly normal for above rec level - that's what I mean by detuning tips/tails when going very aggressive underfoot. You can vary either or rub the ski against a fence post when the snow is mean and you left your stones at home etc
. I do have only one ski where I had to go backwards, i.e. 3/.5 underfoot and 4/0 tip, but that's an unpleasant black head of a unicorn.
.25/4 on an 88 ? not sure I would do that to an 88? the 88 has plenty of lateral flex compared to a stiff 65 so I don't see much point in making it so grabby at the edge when it will bend and give way when pushed around - depends how and where you ski it, I guess.
Variable base or side bevels are fairly normal for above rec level - that's what I mean by detuning tips/tails when going very aggressive underfoot. You can vary either or rub the ski against a fence post when the snow is mean and you left your stones at home etc
I doubt you have skied a "no longer made" Salomon X-Drive 88. Its the stiffest ski I own and its as torsionally stiff as any FIS race ski. This ski is a bull dozer in all respects. It never sold well because it was too stiff. Longitudinally, its got an even stiff flex, so the middle of the ski gives some compliance and keeps it from being a 2X4. I have a Brahma 88 as well, and I agree I would not, and do not tune it .25/4, I use a .5/3.0 on all my skis, with some exceptions. Its just what I like, not for everyone.
At 240 lbs, most skis will not hold an edge for me unless I have them rolled to very high angles. The X-Drive was one ski that didn't need really high angles for me to stand on it in a carve with all my ability and force.
Detuning tips/tails can have different meanings. Usually I assume it means dulling them, not changing the base bevel. I would describe a radial tune as being sharp tip to tail, no detuning, and a increased base bevel at the tips and tail. Its all vocabulary and I am not saying I am right, just we have different meanings. Rubbing against a fence post (dulling) will give different results than increasing the base bevel a .25 or so. Either can eliminate hooky tip behavior.
I think I skied an X-drive but I don't remember for sure. Damp big and burly is all I remember, may have been a different model. I see it has all-terrain rocker, which mutes the point... that's the yet other way to "dull" a tip. Agree, detune may not be the best choice of words.
One of my favorite skis of all-time is the Salomon Sentinel, the original stupid stiff metal-sandwiched Salomon all-mountain slayer, I still have one pair in good working order with Rossi WC speed plates and bindings. I would never go below 1 on that. I think I have a 2/1 on it currently and it's a GS ski on steroids that can carve a very short radius at speed while riding over anything in your path, including other skiers. There is no way I would make it sharper. There's what they call "GS skis" for going any faster than that... and I wouldn't take it off-road under 4 feet of snow, because it's a unicorn. It excels at one thing and off-roading ain't it, although it would surely be competent... but I have much better off-roaders. Although if you just want to ski packed powder like it's a race course, it's the perfect tool for the job!
Here it is in action... old packed snow like this requires a burly ski at speed.
oh... and here's carving the thing on groomed (not hard groomed, mind you) black suit.
Funny - this review has one disadvantage listed for the Sentinel: unforgiving! Can vouch for that, on hard snow. Getting it much grabbier for the speeds and 3D terrain it excels at sounds unreal for me. But maybe I have a stone deficiency... or I'm getting older. What do I know... just waiting for the snow to start enjoying it again.
As usual with all things, ymmv is the word.
cheers.
One of my favorite skis of all-time is the Salomon Sentinel, the original stupid stiff metal-sandwiched Salomon all-mountain slayer, I still have one pair in good working order with Rossi WC speed plates and bindings. I would never go below 1 on that. I think I have a 2/1 on it currently and it's a GS ski on steroids that can carve a very short radius at speed while riding over anything in your path, including other skiers
. There is no way I would make it sharper. There's what they call "GS skis" for going any faster than that... and I wouldn't take it off-road under 4 feet of snow, because it's a unicorn. It excels at one thing and off-roading ain't it, although it would surely be competent... but I have much better off-roaders. Although if you just want to ski packed powder like it's a race course, it's the perfect tool for the job!Here it is in action... old packed snow like this requires a burly ski at speed.
oh... and here's carving the thing on groomed (not hard groomed, mind you) black suit.
Funny - this review has one disadvantage listed for the Sentinel: unforgiving! Can vouch for that, on hard snow. Getting it much grabbier for the speeds and 3D terrain it excels at sounds unreal for me. But maybe I have a stone deficiency... or I'm getting older. What do I know... just waiting for the snow to start enjoying it again.
As usual with all things, ymmv is the word.
cheers.
Last edited:
For racing, I have always heard ”sharp from tip to tail” from professional techs and coaches and gone with that. FIS race skis started having some rise for quite some years ago, but it was perhaps not marketed so many are unaware of the fact; perhaps it was more common to dull before that? IDK. Variable edges might be ok outside a race course, for logistics. Must be a bitch to keep up with already at a U14 level with all pairs during season, unless you have a montana in your garage or pay a a serviceman to do the work.
I think I skied an X-drive but I don't remember for sure. Damp big and burly is all I remember, may have been a different model. I see it has all-terrain rocker, which mutes the point... that's the yet other way to "dull" a tip. Agree, detune may not be the best choice of words.
One of my favorite skis of all-time is the Salomon Sentinel, the original stupid stiff metal-sandwiched Salomon all-mountain slayer, I still have one pair in good working order with Rossi WC speed plates and bindings. I would never go below 1 on that. I think I have a 2/1 on it currently and it's a GS ski on steroids that can carve a very short radius at speed while riding over anything in your path, including other skiers
Here it is in action... old packed snow like this requires a burly ski at speed.
oh... and here's carving the thing on groomed (not hard groomed, mind you) black suit.
Funny - this review has one disadvantage listed for the Sentinel: unforgiving! Can vouch for that, on hard snow. Getting it much grabbier for the speeds and 3D terrain it excels at sounds unreal for me. But maybe I have a stone deficiency... or I'm getting older. What do I know... just waiting for the snow to start enjoying it again.
As usual with all things, ymmv is the word.
cheers.
I have owned and skied a few different Sollies including xDrive 88:s. They are very much like the Sentinels. Need force to work properly, but can skid too if you want. Not the greatest in softer snow, due to their stiffnes. With an aging body I stepped ”down” to the Bold for AM :s this season which are a little flexier. For what it’s worth 88/1ish is what I put on mine.
Sharp from tip to tail, only slight base bevel mods when needed, not initially.
(If it's hooky, base bevel slight mod at the tip and tail is the easiest dial in remedy.)
Setting it initially with a Montana (or Wintersteiger), a progressive base bevel is easy to maintain: many of the techs I've known maintain it by hand.
(Many even set it by hand. Horrors!) (But the ones I've known are not at the top level, more for bunches of local racers, young and old.)
This is something that is very easy - fall off a log easy - with a little experience;
not much, but just a bit, for a few years. A soft, progressive stroke or two with a 1200 or preferably a 1500 diamond grit stone after de-burring
(and remembering where you've just done the de-burring).
Very slight and a few soft strokes, with very fine stone, is noticeable, and more controllable and predictable than most things with ski tuning,
once you have the experience of a few dozen skis or a few years, and have done the experimental practice on recreational skis
or non-essential race skis, to know what you're doing. Honest.
(Many of the techs I've known who I gained confidence from about this have done thousands of skis over years, not hundreds.)
(If I can do it, with few even slight mistakes after a dozen or so practice experiments erring on the side of less rather than more, many can.
But you have to be able to feel your skis well, to notice the slight differences to learn from.
Then you can generalize to skis for other skiers/racers.)
(To be really good at this, it's like fixing or modifying guitars: if you can't remember how the guitar sounded before you made the changes,
you can't learn which changes help the sound, and which actually hurt it or leave it the same - except from other people.
And many luthiers can't do this.)
Last edited:
I'm late to the party here, so I apologize, but there's too much conjecture and glaring misinformation that I can't help but chime in.
'Radial Tuning' is a trademarked term used by Montana in conjunction with their HTT (High Tech Tuning) trademarked term to describe the base edge finish their machinery imparts. I won't argue that the idea of variable base bevel and 'Radial Tuning' are used interchangeably by the layperson (as is HTT by the way), there is a significant qualifier missing in doing so - Radial Tuning or HTT or the combo of the two (HTT is actually the variable angle portion, Radial Tuning speaks to the pressure/rpm used to dictate more or less material removal and therefore a more or less aggressive feeling edge), is continuously variable which is to say that, because the variation is based on the width of the ski, the base bevel is constantly changing as the ski narrows from the tip to waist and then in reverse as the ski widens from waist to tail.
For some conjecture of my own, your lack of grip was likely not associated with HTT or Radial Tuning, but rather the generally poor finish and lack of sharpness of a belted side edge, especially in hard snow conditions.
I would also respectfully disagree that tip rocker or early rise or flat camber in the tip has made variable base bevel obsolete. Regardless of where the contact point is, a higher base bevel at that point versus underfoot helps make the initiation of a carved turn more consistent and predictable. I describe this as user-friendliness and that concept is almost generically well-received by the end user.
Additionally, I'll close with a blanket statement about base bevel, variable or not. It is, in my opinion, the most subjective aspect associated with how your skis perform as well as one of the biggest contributors to said performance. To speak about it with certainties requires either significant time spent testing different possibilities with a broad audience, a disclaimer that what works for one person or even a group of people isn't necessarily directly translatable to anyone else, or some combination of both. Sure, there are some good, data-driven starting points for skiers of various abilities, desired feel, and equipment choice, but with something that has such a big impact, absolutes are nearly impossible.
Maintaining a variable base bevel that has been set by a machine is a) impossible to do correctly/precisely with a Montana HTT/Radial tune. No hand or hand tool is capable of making the subtle changes, in the direction required, that a continuously variable base bevel comes with and b) totally unnecessary - base bevel maintenance should simply be the removal of the burr with a fine ceramic stone that side edge sharpening leaves.
Changing the bevel (increasing) is possible by hand, and can even be done in a relatively precise manner by hand. Decreasing base bevel is impossible without a stone grinder. Someone using a tool that is capable of any real material removal on the base edge regularly then they are also inadvertently increasing the base bevel beyond what was imparted when the ski was initially base beveled (regardless of variability or tools/machines used).
Variable base bevel is actually relatively new to tech events, having been a staple in speed events for a long, long time. World Cup speed skis are deliberately tuned (after much timed testing with an individual athlete to address the subjective nature of base bevel) to travel down the fall line as much as possible. They want the skis to be loose, not tight and to promote travel down the hill (fast) rather than across the hill (slow). Today, especially in slalom, variable bevel allows for a blend of grip on ultra hard snow and ice with predictability and control at entry and exit. Again, with the subjective nature of base bevel, there are starting points for testing, but no blanket approach to this.No, it's pretty much used on tech race skis, especially GS, not for any all mountain use I know of, except in the process of correct tuning bevels to get them at least level.
It may be that progressive base bevels are no longer used in racing much. I stand corrected if so.
But it really works well for anything hooky or grabby with a race ski. To get the ski just right, varied for each racer, ski, and situation, not some standard amount. By experience and feel, with both race techs and racers (or normal skier who tune their own skis well).
And base bevels being un-level, or having reversed progressive base bevels (steeper underfoot, more gradual at tip and tail) are very common on current race skis, and all mountain skis also, as poor tuning that can be easily corrected, either making the base bevel level or slightly progressive in a right way - underfoot flatter. This is not "extreme" - it's just good tuning.
And edge de-tuning is not needed as a result, ever - except maybe for extreme freestylers and such. Base bevel around the tips can be varied to get perfect tunes - much more efficient and effective than de-tuning. Standard tuning practice, for decades.
This quote is also an over generalization: different progressive base bevel tunes handle differently, are appropriate differently. A good one, a right one, does not result in loss of grip; and a different such tune optimally, routinely, would be used for situations that needed more grip than ones that needed less: from experience, individualized, skier to skier, ski to ski, particular race to race, conditions of the snow mattering also. I only bring this up, in terms of primary use, because you statements are so broad and over-generalized - and incorrect, near as I can tell.
Where to start?
Guess I'll just comment on the first one, skip the rest (except I pretty much agree about Head and Atomic feel):
The zero base bevel is not dangerous a bit, with a bit of familiarity. At one time, everybody skiing, beginner to elite, and definitely everybody racing,
used a zero base bevel as standard. No one then used anything different. For, what, forty to fifty years, in the case of my generation
(longer for earlier generations)? No problem. Normal and easy.
It's what you are used to: in this case, a very neat, immediate response putting a ski on edge. Not a big deal. It was always normal.
Again, no problems resulted. For generations of skiers, including myself and many others - still, if I'd want to.
(Actually, on FIS slalom skis, Ligety, and many others, used/use a zero base bevel the whole length of the ski as standard - he only used the zero to .5 progressive base bevel on GS skis. )
I can testify as a mere mortal, that I have no problem I've ever been aware of on a level zero base bevel ski:
I still have a pair of functional, very old, straight, men's FIS GS skis I once raced on a long time ago, that I take out now and then and really enjoy still, that has always had a right angle edge, flat base. Fun ski. If you tried it, you'd experience it for yourself, probably easy once you got used to it
(probably in a few runs, dunno).
When it comes to zero degree base bevel - I could not wholeheartedly disagree more with your statement that it's not dangerous. There is simply no data behind that statement and an overwhelming amount of data (not anecdotal evidence) to suggest that this isn't the case. For forty or fifty years drivers did without airbags, power steering, power brakes, etc... but that doesn't mean that today's drivers don't have a tremendously different experience. It also doesn't mean that a newly licensed 17 year old could just jump in a car from the 60's and adapt without considerably more effort and potential danger. You're also ignoring the shift in things like fitness and athleticism (or lack thereof) that impact the risk associated with injury, the same way that things like planning ahead and reaction time would play into the safety of the driver in my hypothetical.
I'd also add that if you were 'maintaining' base bevel as you mentioned in another post on this thread, that you were likely never, ever skiing on a truly flat ski with zero base bevel, which is a big concern when it comes to leaning on personal experience as the basis for statements like zero degree base bevel isn't dangerous.
I was thinking more about this - especially the zero bevel piece - and wanted to add to my response.No, it's pretty much used on tech race skis, especially GS, not for any all mountain use I know of, except in the process of correct tuning bevels to get them at least level.
It may be that progressive base bevels are no longer used in racing much. I stand corrected if so.
But it really works well for anything hooky or grabby with a race ski. To get the ski just right, varied for each racer, ski, and situation, not some standard amount. By experience and feel, with both race techs and racers (or normal skier who tune their own skis well).
And base bevels being un-level, or having reversed progressive base bevels (steeper underfoot, more gradual at tip and tail) are very common on current race skis, and all mountain skis also, as poor tuning that can be easily corrected, either making the base bevel level or slightly progressive in a right way - underfoot flatter. This is not "extreme" - it's just good tuning.
And edge de-tuning is not needed as a result, ever - except maybe for extreme freestylers and such. Base bevel around the tips can be varied to get perfect tunes - much more efficient and effective than de-tuning. Standard tuning practice, for decades.
This quote is also an over generalization: different progressive base bevel tunes handle differently, are appropriate differently. A good one, a right one, does not result in loss of grip; and a different such tune optimally, routinely, would be used for situations that needed more grip than ones that needed less: from experience, individualized, skier to skier, ski to ski, particular race to race, conditions of the snow mattering also. I only bring this up, in terms of primary use, because you statements are so broad and over-generalized - and incorrect, near as I can tell.
Where to start?
Guess I'll just comment on the first one, skip the rest (except I pretty much agree about Head and Atomic feel):
The zero base bevel is not dangerous a bit, with a bit of familiarity. At one time, everybody skiing, beginner to elite, and definitely everybody racing,
used a zero base bevel as standard. No one then used anything different. For, what, forty to fifty years, in the case of my generation
(longer for earlier generations)? No problem. Normal and easy.
It's what you are used to: in this case, a very neat, immediate response putting a ski on edge. Not a big deal. It was always normal.
Again, no problems resulted. For generations of skiers, including myself and many others - still, if I'd want to.
(Actually, on FIS slalom skis, Ligety, and many others, used/use a zero base bevel the whole length of the ski as standard - he only used the zero to .5 progressive base bevel on GS skis. )
I can testify as a mere mortal, that I have no problem I've ever been aware of on a level zero base bevel ski:
I still have a pair of functional, very old, straight, men's FIS GS skis I once raced on a long time ago, that I take out now and then and really enjoy still, that has always had a right angle edge, flat base. Fun ski. If you tried it, you'd experience it for yourself, probably easy once you got used to it
(probably in a few runs, dunno).
I suggested that your experience with 'zero' bevel skis in the days of straight skis was perhaps skewed by the idea that the skis weren't really flat and the mention of 40-50 years raises an interesting question, which is what tools were being used to consistently flatten the skis in those days?
With that in mind, and knowing enough about tuning techniques of the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's, I would offer that I'm increasingly sure that the skis you were thinking were flat were nowhere near that.
Additionally, there are still so many shops that insist on using belt machines for ski tuning, which comes with a whole host of issues that come back to the same place which is skis that are both not flat and not imparted with accurate or precise base bevels. There are also plenty of shops who don't rely on a belt that don't take the time to truly flatten skis... I don't think most people really understand what it takes to get a ski flat and to a place with zero degrees of base bevel, and the number of shop employees who understand it, are allowed the time to do it, etc... isn't much larger a number.
Additionally, to take my automotive analogy a step further, for years and years all tires were biased ply whereas today everyone drives on radial tires and the performance, safety, consistency, and reliability of vehicles driven today blows anything else out of the water. Zero degree base bevel is equivalent here to old, dated technology... it isn't without it's merit in some very specific applications (and again, remember, it's subjective) but generally speaking, the skiing public is in a far better place with modern geometry that is consistent and precisely applied.
There is a lot to digest and address here, so I'll do my best.Thanks. I did that. Sounds like a progressive base bevel on an all mountain ski,
that might also compensate for some problems with the base flattening, if any.
The Montana tech talk sounds good, but it sounded good before, when it was a mess in practice.
I'll still have to check with folks who really know and have experience over the years.
I'll just ask again my Atomic, Dynastar, Head, and other brand reps that are friends, come ski season, if there's been this change
in the last two to three years I don't know about (being an old guy), for them, their all mountain skis and/or for their racers. Maybe so. Dunno.
And I'll ask them about the current base flattening and base bevels their pros and top racers are using also.
Thanks in advance , if what you're saying turns out to be mostly so, which seems likely, to some extent anyway.
(But that still doesn't negate the dynamic, on the fly roll that base and base bevel adjustment/fine tuning can and often will play
in getting a particular ski exactly right for particular skiers/racers, ideally. Nor the useful and breakthrough roll such adjustments can make,
in fine tuning, for recreational skiers on top FIS skis.
I've often bought race skis online knowing that more likely than not, just such adjustments will often improve whatever ski I buy,
get it back to behaving pretty near perfect. Very often, such problems were probably why the ski was offered for sale in the first place.)
Last time I wanted to know, neither the Wintersteiger nor the Montana machines actually flattened a ski's base successfully,
let alone put a good base bevel on a ski. One top race tuning shop I go to showed me the separate, older machine they used to almost hand guide/flatten the base of a ski before using their huge Montana setup. That's not what those machines were actually for, I was told, in spite of their tech talk - to the ski reps also, or even to some shops doing race ski prep for clubs and such, as I said, last time I looked into this several years ago. The reps at least used to prefer starting with Montana machine places - and tunes - because that brand did better near the tip and tail
with finishing farther up the ski the base regularization and texturing it did first.
That had to be just a starting point, for almost all brand reps with their demo fleet last time I checked,
and the same was even more true for race techs. Each brand had an associate (or rep working overtime)
who put some 30 to 40 hours into actually flattening, finishing and getting level bases and base/edge bevels on their demo fleet, by hand,
before a big demo day - even after starting with a Montana machine run through. Race techs spent even longer, last I heard,
progressive grit sanding in addition to custom flattening/texturizing and endless base prep and waxing stages, to suit each top racer.
But maybe all this has changed quickly also, including with the six figure machines. Dunno.
(I'd still like to get me one of the portable power base flatteners many of the race techs use, at least up to last year,
but the cheapest that are any good were too expensive for me to justify - last time I checked.)
Variable base bevel, continuous or not, on consumer skis in various categories is absolutely now a real thing. Several companies have invested in finishing machines for their 'assembly lines' that are capable of imparting these variable bevels. While every manufacturer has some mix of machinery that you might find at your local ski shop (Wintersteiger, Montana, Reichmann, or Svecom), the meat and potatoes of manufacturing ski finishing is done on a different brand - Fill.
I'm not sure how to say this politely, or gently, but if you are leaning on sales reps or brand ambassadors from the various manufacturers for your information about what is happening with their top racers, you're getting diluted information at absolute best. These are a group of incredibly hard-working, talented individuals who all do varying degrees of a great job in their lane... true racing service is not that lane and at the highest levels, there is a strong proclivity to holding the cards close to your vest. You wouldn't expect your local Toyota salesperson to know on Monday how much camber the factory Formula 1 team used on their cars Sunday... the same holds true for racing.
As for your commentary about Wintersteiger or Montana machines not being able to flatten skis, I would suggest that your information and what you're getting from the 'top race tuning shop' but their experience would suggest an issue with the operator not the machinery. Anyone who hasn't been able to achieve a flat base, including zero'd edges, from any stone grinding machine since roughly the mid-1980's was lacking education, desire, or time. Precise bevels from a machine came later, but today, operator challenge is the only variable that can explain flatness issues or lack of precise bevels on properly maintained and calibrated machines.
Lastly, I'm curious as to what power base flatteners are being used by World Cup techs - do you have some links you could post?
Wow, your math and scientific method here leave a lot to be desired... there is no adjustment here for ski width, which has to be part of the discussion even without your mention of a ski that's 88 underfoot. I'd also offer that in a dynamic activity, like skiing, 3 to 5 degrees of tilt is almost nothing, hence the accepted belief that a true zero degree base bevel is incredibly hooky. It seems like you're assigning random values of degrees of tilt to make a point, but there is no correlation in your scenario between the proposed angle and the tilt required... you're moving on a linear scale with no data-based starting point. You also aren't accounting for varied snow conditions which will absolutely be a variable that needs to be controlled for in order to draw a straight line between base bevel angle and tilt angle required to start the edge bite. Additionally, if you are aiming for more edge grip without modifying the quickness of the ski, modifying side edge angle is definitely the easier way to achieve a positive result - just look at the range of available side edge bevels... we see tools ranging from .2 on the base to 1.5, that's a spectrum of 1.3 degrees total. For side edge, it's easy to find 1, 2, 3, and 4 degree tools, with options existing for 5 and even 7, though the latter is more commonly used to 'backfile' sidewall material and keep it out of the way so that lower angle tools can precisely impart their desired angle, all while minimizing the reduction of strength-giving material against the edge. Just the sheer difference in spectrum size here would suggest there is a more effective way to alter edge grip.
I completely agree with the opening sentence to your last paragraph that altering base bevel can improve certain issues, I'd expand that to say that altering base bevel can significantly change the behavior of the ski and there is almost always a compromise as you mention. But, even measured against the clock, a DNF from lack of consistent, controllable behavior from a ski is often far outweighed by something slightly more forgiving and user-friendly.
Sponsor
Staff online
-
Dave PetersenGraphic Designer/Social Media Manager -
dbostedoAsst. Gathermeister
Members online
- Even_Stevens
- GB_Ski
- Mothertucker
- tball
- Plai
- bisikaufmann
- deadheadskier
- charlier
- precisionchiro
- scrubadub
- BLiP
- Dave Petersen
- Jwrags
- GCRUMP
- BeiJiHu
- nnowak
- dovski
- doc
- dbostedo
- Pukesno
- ski otter 2
- tomahawkins
- ScottB
- Brian Finch
- NE1
- NoBadSnow
- zircon
- Hot.Tamale
- davjr96
- Joe Strummer
- nay
- skiki
- Matt Merritt
- Wade
- jdwalk
- DocGKR
- wooglin
- Spoorosew
- Bogdanbtd
- JibingDownhill
- TomPietrowski
- getitover
- GregK
- Jms990
- Irinost
- Bogdanbbh
- bbinder
- KimJongTr1ll
- FreddieG
- Prosper