20 Questions: Jed Yeiser, Line Skis Designer

BLISTER: What skis from other companies have you skied and liked?

JED: I’ll preface this by saying that, while I’m no longer racing, I love strong, powerful and committing skis. And there are two competitors’ skis that I’ve skied over the past four years that really blew my hair back.

The first is the Rossignol Experience 98. That ski is incredibly powerful, precise, and above all, fun. It just rails, full stop. I haven’t been able to ski the new Experience 100, but frankly, I’m not sure whether I want to. I can’t imagine how it would improve on the older 98.

The other ski is the Stockli Stormrider 115. The second I got on the 115, It was obvious that it meant business. It’s not an easy ski to ski. It’s not forgiving, but it knows no such thing as a top end and will be a steadfast friend when things get hairy—provided you’re willing to drive it hard.

BLISTER: You came from a race background, but what were the first non-race skis that you owned? What stood out?

JED: My dad gave me a pair of Salomon Pocket Rockets when I was 15. I’d never skied anything like them, and I loved them. About a year after I got the skis, I was duped into selling them to an upperclassmen. After that, it was a few years until I picked up a pair of Nordica (Top Fuels? They were black and in the high-80s underfoot, I think).

They were good skis, but nothing compared to the Kastle MX 98’s I picked up my first year out of college. I still have my MX 98’s, and at this point, they’re dated, but I can’t bring it upon myself to get rid of them. They did absolutely everything from beer league races to chopped up crud with aplomb.

BLISTER: It’s really interesting that the guy who is designing every ski for Line—one of the first ski companies without roots in the racing world, and basically rejected the idea that skis needed to have a ‘racing pedigree,’ etc—came from a racing background, still races, and still loves that combination of power and precision that is the hallmark of race skis. And that same guy is helping Eric Pollard continue to develop and push a style of skiing that is the opposite of that whole alpine race world.

JED: I’m sure there are a number of people who will be very surprised to hear that an ‘ex’ racer is behind all of Line’s skis for the past few years. Honestly, I really think it rounds out our group nicely.

When we’re developing a freestyle-oriented ski, I put most (if not all) of my emphasis on feedback from athletes and Josh Malczyk (and for a time, J-Lev). Josh and J have an incredibly deep understanding of what makes the freestyle world tick, and are very good about communicating that to me.

On the flip side, I’ve been able to give a more authentic voice to the more directionally-oriented, hard-charging market when we’re developing those skis.

BLISTER: Given some of the things you’ve said above, I have to ask about the Line Influence 105 vs. the Line Supernatural 108. Sadly, I haven’t skied the 105, but based on Brett Carroll’s review of it, and based on how incredibly good the 11/12 Influence 115 was at railing turns, I wonder whether you personally prefer the old Influence 105 to the Supernatural 108, especially given your appreciation of the Experience 98, MX98, etc? And did you have any input on the Influence 105 and 115, or were those skis developed before you showed up?

JED: My time on the old Influence 105 was more limited than my time on the old 115, which was also pretty brief. Both of those skis were developed by Andy Hytjan, and he did a fantastic job with both of them.

The carving abilities of both of those skis is unquestionable, and If I had to pick a 105-ish waisted ski to rail groomers on, and just groomers, I’d probably opt for the old 105 over the new 108.

That said, the new Supernatural 108 is a massive bundle of fun on groomers – truth be told, that’s where I first tested and fell in love with the 108. The 108 is simply a far more versatile ski, and a better choice for the type(s) of snow someone skiing a ski that wide is likely to be on.

Moreover, there are a number of design changes between the 105 and 108 that make the 108 a bit more stable and confident at high speed. The first of these is that the tips and tails of the 108 are shorter than the 105’s, so you get more effective edge. Both skis have our progressive 5-cut, but the 108 has significantly less sidecut than the 105. Again, this means that the turns you make on groomers won’t be quite as snappy, but they’ll be more stable.

The tail on the 108 is slightly tapered and rockered, but once you get it on edge, you have more ski on the snow than you did on the 105. So while the 105 is undoubtedly a fantastic ski, I prefer the Supernatural 108.

BLISTER: I can vouch for how exciting the prototype Supernatural 108s were on groomers, and pretty much everywhere else I skied them (see the review). And I’m praying that I find the production 108s to be as fun and exciting as the prototypes. (I skied the production 108s in pow and soft chop, but not on clean groomers.) Brett Carroll’s 2nd Look review of the Supernatural 108 was conducted entirely on the production model, and it gives me a lot of hope since he and I came to very similar conclusions about the proto and the production versions. And the only reason I’m making a big deal out of this is because the proto 108s were that fun and surprising. So I just want to A/B them and confirm, and will be doing that shortly.

JED: I’m curious to hear what you think of the production 108’s. I put on a gentler tip/tail block, but the rocker height/specs are the same (sidecut, flex profile and flex are all the same on the production ski).

The thinking there was that the gentler tip profile would get the ski up on plane more easily, and wouldn’t plow snow at high speeds. I’ve spent a fair bit of time on the production 108’s in deep snow, and have not been able to bury the shovels when I really try to.

BLISTER: A final question about engineering and development: in your opinion, what is the most important aspect of ski design? What’s the first thing you look at?

JED: Well, frankly, everything. There’s no one thing. The beauty of skis is that every little thing relates to all of the other little things.

I always start by designing a footprint (basically a flattened ski), but the decisions I make on the footprint have lasting implications for every other design decision I make.

The sidecut radius profile and stiffness profile are intimately related. The minimum of the sidecut profile (the waist of the ski) is where I put the stiffest part of the ski, and where I want the maximum of the camber pocket to be.

Honestly, the fact that there are so many related variables is what keeps ski design so exciting for me. I’ve been designing skis (professionally) for the better part of five years, and have a pretty good handle on ‘how a ski works.’ That being said, I’m still developing a deeper understanding of how all of the variables relate to one another.

If you look at skis today versus skis five years ago, the same basic principles apply, but designers and brands are developing a much better understanding of how different geometric and mechanical characteristics work in harmony.

So there’s no one aspect that’s more important than another – everything is important.

 

BLISTER: We’ll leave it at that for now. But if you have any questions for Jed, ask them in the Comments section below and he’ll answer them.