October 26, 2006
Six Seems a Bit Excessive
Remember the monoski? The snow skate? Exactly. It is with great reservation that Seattlest takes a peek at the SMX, a mountain bike/ski hybrid thingamajigy. It feints at combining our two favorite sports, and yet we remain skeptical--is this the Segway of snowboarding?
We're intrigued because this new toy takes its cues more from mountain bike design than from skis or snowboards--this product is being reviewed on a mountain bike site and that's a suspension fork designed by very well-known bike suspension manufacturer Marzocchi on the front of the SMX. Mountain bikers who've hopped on these are reportedly throwing slopestyle tricks on them in the first few runs, but Seattlest remains to be convinced that these will ever expand beyond that niche use. Plus, we're trying to imagine all 35 pounds of it falling directly on top of us when we eat shit.
Regardless, it's finally starting to snow, Seattle. All those El Nino predictions we've been hearing floating on the fall winds? Horsepucky, we say--we're planning on a snow-packed season this year, if only to make good on the promise we made ourself two years ago to finally learn how to snowboard after nearly 30 years on skis. Not that we're given up the skis (we'd have to burn our Utah birth certificate in that case), we just want the best of both worlds. Two edges, four edges, hell maybe we'll go for six and see if we can get our hands on one of those SMX sleds.
Photos by Endre Løvaas and Stefan Eisend on NSMB.com.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I think what snow machine designers often miss is: the point. Take this design. A bicycle is a combination of machines that translate force into momentum. There are the wheels to reduce friction, the pedals and crank arms that interface with the user's leg for good use of muscle energy, there's the chain and gears to efficiently translate this energy into forward motion.
Of course, all of this is useless when you're on a hill (no energy required from the user) on a slippery substance (no need for wheels). The only benefit I can see from this device it the shock absorber, but looking at the video nobody really uses the seat anyway. So it ends up being a heavy chunk of metal you drag around with you that only serves to limit your mobility and lighten your wallet (which must be pretty heavy if you can afford to waste this kind of money).
[ report this ]
Um...it's 47 degrees at Snoqualmie. Perhaps you meant to link to this page?
http://vail.snow.com/winter/tm.current.asp
[ report this ]
Matt, you've got some great points about bicycles. If the last time you rode one was 10 years ago. Like ski technology in the past 5-7 years, bike technology is no longer just about the things you point out. Being on a hill on a bike nowadays can require an insane amount of energy and a completely different set of rules about transference of force when the trails you're on look like this: http://photos.nsmb.com/showimage.php?i=10768&c=5
And yeah, in that case you don't use the seat on your bike really either. But you need it for the 5% of the time that you do. I'm not really defending this product as yet, but I do think there's a little more merit to some of the underlying engineering concepts than your dismissal allows for. I'd also not shell out the dough for it either...
[ report this ]
Bikes certainly have more design features than those I've listed, but I don't see any that apply to this product. Perhaps you can help me understand the merits. I'll start the list:
1. It keeps you from crossing your skis.
[ report this ]
Here's a few:
1. Four points of contact instead of two. With handlebars and pedals/pegs, you have a lot more control over where your center of mass is relative to your equipment and the ground--this comes in particularly handy if you like to leave said ground regularly.
2. The intriguing part of the design as I read it is this bit: "When you grab the bars and tip them right or left the rear of the machine tilts while the skis tilt in parallel at a similar angle". So they looked at how the above 4 points of contact borrowed from bike design could influence edging technique, and more modern skiing has leaned back towards more pressure on both uphill and downhill skis simultaneously (as opposed to old-school style that favored the downhill edge more).
3. Brakes. The jury is out on this, but you do get those added on as well, something I'm often happy to have on my bike and wish for on snow. There's not enough detail here, however, about how they'd actually work so I'm hesitant on this point.
Does that help?
[ report this ]
It does, but I'm still not convinced.
1. Sounds nice in theory, but the video shows people with their center of mass moving far less than on skis. Having handlebars fixes your hands and by extension your torso.
2. You have this same ability on skis, but aren't limited to only this range of motion. However, this is in my mind the only benefit to the system, and relates to the "not crossing your skis" comment above - it removes freedom from the user, making it easier to use. I see this device as being good for those that don't know how to ski.
3. Brakes would be nice. I didn't know they had any.