Grind development is an ongoing process; we’re always trying new ideas and looking for improved performance. While the development work is steady, progress comes in fits and starts. The last time we had a real breakthrough in structure development was 2011, when we found success with S2-1X, S1-0X, L2-0, and other grinds built on those concepts. The 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons we put lots of new ideas on the snow, but didn’t see a lot of breakthrough success, and no major additions to the grind menu. But this past season we got onto some ideas that have really pushed the level forward.
Out of all our testing, the two structures that we did add to the menu in the last few years are the LS0B and the 258B – two grinds made with the relatively new Tazzari “green stone”. We first tested an early version of this stone at the 2010 Olympics, and started working with it consistently in the 2011-12 season. At the time it was being referred to as the “blue stone” – hence the “B” in the grind names – but Tazzari changed the designation last year.
The green stone has much finer abrasive grains than the normal stone, and produces incredibly “smooth” structures. The grinds look amazing, but we quickly realized that most of our standard structures simply wouldn’t work if we tried to reproduce them on the green stone. Most of our grinds – especially the compound, multi-layered ones – depend on a certain amount of “noise” to work well. Too much clarity makes them too sharp, and they just run very slow. However, we did quickly find some single-pass structures from our existing menu that perform extremely well from the green stone.
During the middle of the 2013 season we finally happened upon some dedicated green-stone structures that had the right look at feel. After playing with the concept for a little while, we put some test grinds on the snow at the start of the ’13-’14 season.
TG1-1 and TG1-2 are both compound green-stone structures and they utilize the same patterns, but applied at different depths and pressures. In fact, we’ve tested at least half a dozen different variations of this concept, and generally always grouped them into TG1-1 (colder) and TG1-2. In combination these structures have generated some really positive results and feedback.
Erik Mundahl ran the first tests of the new grind concept up at Hatcher Pass outside of Anchorage in October, and his response was positive enough to warrant putting the grind on some skis bound for Europe.
Both Noah Hoffman and Kris Freeman had good luck with the grinds during Period One in Europe. Noah’s skate ski with TG1-2 became his go-to ski for the season, and was what he used in both of the skate pursuit races where he was the “winner of the day”.
Overall positive response from some NorAm racers in West Yellowstone prompted us to put more of the grind series out into the world.
At US Nationals the TG1 series grinds really showed up well on the mass start skate day, when Sylvan and Kris both had excellent race skis, and Paddy Caldwell ran away with the junior race. In the junior girls race both Katherine Ogden and Hailey Swirbul (first and second) were on the grind as well.
Paddy Caldwell made good use good use of a TG1-2 at World Juniors in the pursuit where he was 10th on a wet fine-snow day. In pictures the sticker says TG1-1, but we reground those skis right before the trip with a TG1-2, and didn’t put a new sticker on them.
Over the course of the season we got consistently positive feedback from specific areas including the Aspen valley, the Hayward area, Sun Valley area and others.
We also had some ambivalent feedback on the grind from teams and individuals who felt that it was pretty limited. For instance, the skis that Sylvan used in the 30K at Nationals hadn’t been good until that day, and Miles Havlick used a pair of our Demo classic skis with a TG1-1 frequently, but never raced on his TG1-2 skis. And there were other circumstances where the feedback was less than positive. In general negative feedback is more valuable that positive feedback because it helps to define the limitations of a structure. But in this case the sum total of the negative feedback didn’t provide a coherent picture. On balance the positives outweighed the negatives, and our own testing reinforced the positive side of the question. After a season of feedback, we’re happy with what we’ve got.
The downside of the circumstance is that those TG series grinds are by far the most difficult structures to reproduce that we’ve ever made, and they take about twice as long to make, start to finish, as our normal structures. All of this makes their economic viability questionable, and we’re left with a question about whether we charge more for those grinds, or charge more for all grinds to help cover the added time and expense, or just don’t offer them. We haven’t made up our minds on that score, but we’ll let you know when we do!
The TG grind series gave rise to the development of some additional structures utilizing the normal stone. We have had a very limited number of X1-00, X2-0, X3-1 and X4-2 grinds on the snow that draw on some of the concepts from the TG series, but are made using the normal stone. Each of these structures has had moments of brilliance, but there’s a lot of testing left to do before we determine whether they “make it” into regular production.
We also had some interesting results from some one-off structures that we designed for specific purposes. One grind designed specifically for packing wet snow (fine crystals with a lot of moisture) was quite good on a couple of pairs of skis picked specifically for those conditions. One of them got raced by Caitlin Gregg in the sprint in Toblach (although I had brought it along for the Olympics for Brian or Noah to use).
In another circumstance, a grind that I made specifically for Sochi got raced in Sochi by Noah in the pursuit. How does a guy who’s never been to Sochi make a grind for Sochi? It was based on feedback from several different ski companies and service technicians on what structures had worked in Sochi during the pre-Olympics in 2013. It was a bit of an examination of common denominators in terms of frequency, pattern, and texture. These experiences don’t represent scientific development or significant results, but it’s fun when we’re able to take what we know (or have heard) and turn it into structure that works when and where it’s intended to work.
Additional Notes
S2-1X versus 258B as a red-range solution
We continue to have really good feedback from S2-1X as a broad-range structure solution for moderate to warm conditions throughout the mountain west. It is a favorite in the Aspen Valley, and a number of Nor-Am teams continue to use it extensively at Western Super Tour venues. In the Northwest, Midwest, East and most of Europe, we see better results from the 258B in that range.
L2-0S
In 2011-12 the L2-0S was a big advantage in many races throughout the season. The past two winters have been characterized by better and more consistent snowfall, and the old-snow and manmade snow characteristics of the L2-0S haven’t been as useful. We’re looking for some of our new test series of X grinds to help add versatility to the L2-0S. For instance, the X2-0 may be a viable alternative to both L2-0S and S2-1X. But we’ve got a lot more testing to do before we’re ready to say that. For now the L2-0S remains our standard to beat in violet conditions.
Hand Structure
We often get questions about whether it is better to have the right grind, or to have a really fine grind and then use hand-structure to get the ski just right. The answer is unequivocally both. Hand structure is almost always a part of the equation in high-level service. In domestic racing we sometimes skip it when we feel that the benefit is likely to be minimal. However, there are times when the benefit is every bit as big as nailing the wax, and it is our intent to develop grinds that can be used successfully with hand structure. We have occasionally gotten feedback that our grinds got slower with hand-structure; while there are sometimes incompatible grind/structure combinations, my guess is that the equation in these cases was more complicated that simply having a grind that slows down with hand structure. In general, for racing use, we use appropriate hand-structures on all of our grinds (specific recommendations are the subject for an entire article).