After being out on these hard spring trails and feeling not so much darting but more of a push right to left I got to thinkin , why haven't these manufactures made the ski tilt right to left at least a few degrees . Seems they've gone that way on the rear suspension but failed to recognize the same resistance (lack of roll) on the ski . I can see it could easily be done ,basically the same as the tilt from front to aft. Anybody
Tilting ski why not
- Thread starter mrsnow
- Start date
U
UPsnowbiker
Well-known member
Seems like a reasonable thought.
The snow hawk and explorer kit used same ski setup. I actually thought they were great on hard trails. Amazing grip w the carbide and leaned very easy. With the long setback you could ride without holding on to bars. Downside was powder. Wasn't as good for carving and the ski is only 7" wide so less float
Cushioned
I believe the joint would need to be cushioned just like the for & aft on the TS ski , even a little tighter so not to fall over when stopped and to keep the joint tight. Only a few degrees would be necessary. Heck it could even serve as a break away due to impact. Maybe the manufacturers tried it already or not
I believe the joint would need to be cushioned just like the for & aft on the TS ski , even a little tighter so not to fall over when stopped and to keep the joint tight. Only a few degrees would be necessary. Heck it could even serve as a break away due to impact. Maybe the manufacturers tried it already or not
J&L Snowhawk pretty much summed it up on where it did and didn't work , the ski that it mounted to is also curved like a banana , to mimic a tire so the force would not be at the front or end of the ski like traditional skis slapping uneven terrain .
It would be pretty easy to attach to the TS ski but I think you would probably mangle the spindle or even the fork tubes on the bike kits because it would put to much force from side to side . The hawks do not clamp to the tube but to the cast housing . With the way they are mounted damaged forks is uncommon which says a lot for how much weight they have on the front ends .
I did attach the axis pivot to the first generation ski that was great for floating but that was about all it really has going for it , so it was short lived .
Never know until some one tries ?
It would be pretty easy to attach to the TS ski but I think you would probably mangle the spindle or even the fork tubes on the bike kits because it would put to much force from side to side . The hawks do not clamp to the tube but to the cast housing . With the way they are mounted damaged forks is uncommon which says a lot for how much weight they have on the front ends .
I did attach the axis pivot to the first generation ski that was great for floating but that was about all it really has going for it , so it was short lived .
Never know until some one tries ?
The snowhawk Twin axis was very good on icy and hard packed conditions Other than those conditions it was no good.
Your ski flattening out when carving and sidehilling made it so you could not hold an edge.
1 We used to crank the bushings down so hard that they would split. Before they split the off trail riding would be better but then your icy trail handleing would suffer.
2 Went to shorter bushings which alowed less degree of flex that were not cranked down as hard. Simular results as 1
3 went back to stock bushings and a manual 100% lockout so you could ride the trail with twin axis then lockout when you get to the pow. Funny thing was i always left it in the locked posistion.
Tried all systems with a few different skis but never with any of the new skis (timbersled or yeti) for someone that rides a lot of icy trails it might be a plus. You do not need a ton of flex to get the effect your looking for. Anything that is done to achieve this will raise the height of the front of machine and require some ski pressure adjustment or it will be a wasted effort.
Curious to see how it would work with a conventional snowbike ski. The snowhawk ski (and all the other skis i tried with a twin axis) had dual center keels, so when the axis would flex the ski would stay flat on the snow. With a conventional snowbike ski you have a very tall center keel, so when going into a corner the axis will flex and the ski will lean away from the corner so you would have less bite on the inside(carving) edge of your ski. More flex equals less bite on inside edge.
Hard to say if it will be an improvement or not.
Since the development of the new skis i have run first the timbersled and then the yeti and never looked back.
Your ski flattening out when carving and sidehilling made it so you could not hold an edge.
1 We used to crank the bushings down so hard that they would split. Before they split the off trail riding would be better but then your icy trail handleing would suffer.
2 Went to shorter bushings which alowed less degree of flex that were not cranked down as hard. Simular results as 1
3 went back to stock bushings and a manual 100% lockout so you could ride the trail with twin axis then lockout when you get to the pow. Funny thing was i always left it in the locked posistion.
Tried all systems with a few different skis but never with any of the new skis (timbersled or yeti) for someone that rides a lot of icy trails it might be a plus. You do not need a ton of flex to get the effect your looking for. Anything that is done to achieve this will raise the height of the front of machine and require some ski pressure adjustment or it will be a wasted effort.
Curious to see how it would work with a conventional snowbike ski. The snowhawk ski (and all the other skis i tried with a twin axis) had dual center keels, so when the axis would flex the ski would stay flat on the snow. With a conventional snowbike ski you have a very tall center keel, so when going into a corner the axis will flex and the ski will lean away from the corner so you would have less bite on the inside(carving) edge of your ski. More flex equals less bite on inside edge.
Hard to say if it will be an improvement or not.
Since the development of the new skis i have run first the timbersled and then the yeti and never looked back.
C
capulin overdrive
Well-known member
Why do we need 47 deferent skags on a ski?
One seems like a God's plenty.
One seems like a God's plenty.
That was the first hawk ski. Most of us have never ran it.
LOL ,
Did you notice the ski on the kit that Cat is using ? Kind of similar , more plastic less hardware . It might be a really good ski for certain conditions . I'd like to try it out but I think my better half might just beat me with it
C
capulin overdrive
Well-known member
LOL ,
Did you notice the ski on the kit that Cat is using ? Kind of similar , more plastic less hardware . It might be a really good ski for certain conditions . I'd like to try it out but I think my better half might just beat me with it
Yea, I think I like the shape of it, but skags look scary.
I've got the Raptor front end with CMX skis with 2 outside edge skags. They're pretty grabby on the trail. Just seems like a single center skag would be better on trail?
I feel that the tall center skag is best all around for trail and pow. It's narrow contact is like smallest bike tire ever so leans easiest and solid mount is best in pow.
Next gen needs to be a high step up and then widen out to like 14"
Think of a gall wing look.
Next gen needs to be a high step up and then widen out to like 14"
Think of a gall wing look.
So if the ski could be as wide as the track than the length of the ski could be addressed . The current bike skis all have one thing in common , the heel length of the skis from the spindle bolt back are basically the same length .
Why ?
I have never heard anyone ask that question , one thing that I forgot about that wide ski with all the hardware posted above does do is that it follows uneven terrain a little better than the standard length skis . Acting like a tire instead of a plank that at times feels like a high center that leads to fighting the weight of sudden shifting of the machine to keep from falling over or under it .
Why ?
I have never heard anyone ask that question , one thing that I forgot about that wide ski with all the hardware posted above does do is that it follows uneven terrain a little better than the standard length skis . Acting like a tire instead of a plank that at times feels like a high center that leads to fighting the weight of sudden shifting of the machine to keep from falling over or under it .
The ski set up they have has the wear bars in from the outside edges correct ?
Wonder what the outcome with a Gen III with the wear bars more to the outside would be ?
The wear bars butted up to each other on the inside would act more like a center wear bar or tracker wouldn't it ?
Similar threads
