Snow of Tomorrow 2 2025/26 | Skiing in Circles - Part II

Back in the old days, when skis were as long as the winters and no one wore a helmet, skis were mainly built out of wood. End-of-life management would basically mean chucking your skis in the fire pit of the ski lodge and calling it a day. In the 1950s, Howard Head managed to successfully build the first metal alpine ski, consisting of steel edges, aluminum alloy sheets, plywood cores, phenolic running surfaces, top skins and sidewalls, as well as adhesives keeping all of these together in a sandwich construction. While these first models were longer than the skis used today at 205–220 cm, this new innovation served as the basis for fiberglass skis used today. In the 1960s, fiberglass skis started gaining popularity, and that’s the path we’re still on today. Today, skis and snowboards consist of a laminated sandwich construction. While the structure can vary slightly, it is mostly built up of different fiber-reinforced polymer composites, mainly glass and carbon, wrapped around a wood core, with a thermoplastic base and top layers as well as steel edges, kept together by epoxy resin. Skis and snowboards are complex composite structures that require precise manufacturing and design in terms of used materials, their combinations, structures, and functionalities. A ski or board has to not only deliver a certain performance, but also be lightweight enough to turn (or to tour up a mountain) and be durable enough to survive both the harsh winter conditions and the actual skiing itself. The materials—mainly fiberglass and epoxy/resin—used in skis, as well as the production process, contribute to the main environmental impact of a ski. Many brands have realized this and report on how they’ve reduced material use or started using recycled or natural materials in their ski production. There’s recycled plastic, steel, titanal, and glass fiber, as well as natural epoxy resin and ink, flax fibers, wooden topsheets, hemp, bioplastics, waxes, and cores. Brands mention ski bases consisting of 100% recycled materials, as well as topsheets with up to 30% recycled materials. Companies are using recycled materials in several different parts of skis, such as cores, topsheets, bases, sidewalls, edges, and titanal sheets. Many ski brands are switching to renewable energy, removing/reducing toxins from their production processes, and switching to recycled packaging. Already back in 2013, Luthe & Co. created a more environmentally friendly ski compared to a traditional ski and used a wood core combined with basalt fibers, naturally varnished wood walls, and protective coatings from natural resins, reducing the CO₂-equivalent emissions in relation to other comparably performing skis by around 30%.

snow of tomorrow

presented by

Only if we take care of our environment we will be able to leave tracks in the snow in the future.

Martin Svejkovsky

Valgrisenche

Unknown

Choosing materials

So how come we still haven’t fully closed the loop for skis, boards, and various equipment? Short answer: there are so many factors to consider. The wooden ski that Luthe & Co. made back in 2013 did reduce the CO₂ footprint of the ski, but on the other hand, plastic topsheets require pretty much no maintenance and might lead to lazy ski owners keeping their gear for longer. Wooden topsheets can be sanded and oiled to extend their lifetime but require active maintenance from ski owners. And using recycled or biomaterials doesn’t automatically mean reducing the environmental impact of a product. As Atomic found out with certain bioplastics in ski boots back in 2010: “Launch of the RENU boots and ski. A boot featuring a bioplastic cuff and shell that marked Atomic’s first product featuring lower-impact design and construction. Little did we know at the time, but this boot may have a higher impact than boots produced using our current fabrication method.” Why the bioplastic ski boot had a higher CO₂ impact than boots produced today remains unclear, but my personal guess is on more efficient production and plastic recycling methods, as well as the use of renewable energies in the production process today compared to back in 2010. This shows that many factors contribute to the sustainability of a product—it’s not as simple as just swapping one material for another.

A study comparing snowboards made out of carbon, glass, and natural flax-fiber-reinforced plastics found that the natural flax-fiber snowboard had the best results in terms of environmental performance, but carbon in terms of technical performance and glass in terms of economic performance. The authors concluded that the natural flax-fiber composite was only the best option when environmental impact was seen as very important and the cost of the snowboard as not important. So, while switching to natural materials might lead to better environmental results, they might not always offer the same technical properties as traditional materials and can be more expensive. Switching to recycled or recyclable materials still needs to result in products that last ages and don’t break after a season or two; otherwise, the environmental benefit is completely lost.

Systemic change is like a laborious climb; it can only be achieved step by step and through cooperation.

Martin Svejkovsky

Galtür

Teja, Fritz, Lea

The struggle of recycling

And when it comes to recycling or repairing snowsport equipment, it’s not that easy. How do you separate the parts of a product that’s meant to be inseparable? From a traditional ski, mainly the metal parts, such as steel edges, are easy to recycle in an efficient way. There’s a pretty efficient ski-boot recycling system run by Tecnica and a trial boot take-back program by Atomic, collecting ski boots and turning shredded and sorted secondary raw materials into new products—be it boot shells or protective mattresses for ski slopes. But for skis and boards, we’re not there yet. The Austrian WINTRUST Project, which includes brands such as Head, Atomic, Fischer, Blizzard-Tecnica, Komperdell, and Leki, aims to develop recycling systems for snowsport equipment that make sense both environmentally and economically. The interdisciplinary project, involving manufacturers, the Technical University of Leoben, as well as recycling and circular-economy partners, aims to establish a closed-loop system for winter sports equipment and is set to run for three years starting from 2024. Rossignol reports having a 77% recyclable ski, made out of 73% recycled, certified, and bio-sourced materials. The recycled parts from the Rossignol Essential ski are reused in the automotive, gardening, and construction industries and, according to Rossignol, in the future reused in certain new Rossignol products. The goal of the company is to have one third of its ski range be part of a circular-economy approach by 2028. G3 tops this with their 100% recyclable R3 skis. According to G3, the separated parts from the R3 skis are mainly recycled—the carbon and glass fibers and resin are being reused. How and by whom remains unclear. But at least all current models on the website are part of the recyclable R3 series. While creating innovative new products that can (mostly) be recycled is great, we still need environmentally and economically efficient recycling systems for all the existing traditionally manufactured gear.

Summary

All in all, skis and snowboards are a bunch of different materials glued and pressed together into a sandwich, with the goal of it all sticking together and performing in the best possible way in rough conditions. Both bigger and smaller brands, as well as other industry actors, are experimenting with and currently using alternative materials leading to more circular ski production. However, creating circular or sustainable snowsports equipment isn’t an easy, straightforward mission. The third and final article of the series will take a look at end-of-life alternatives for skis and boards, as well as future possibilities for a circular wintersport industry.

Further Sources

Walsh, J. M., & Singh, G. (2009). An eco-efficiency analysis of the snowboard manufacturing industry. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 1(4), Article 28907, 364. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2009.028907

La Rosa, A. D., Recca, G., Summerscales, J., Latteri, A., Cozzo, G., & Cicala, G. (2014). Bio- based versus traditional polymer composites. A life cycle assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 74, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.017

Duflou, J. R., Yelin, D., van Acker, K., & Dewulf, W. (2014). Comparative impact assessment for flax fibre versus conventional glass fibre reinforced composites: Are bio-based reinforcement materials the way to go? CIRP Annals, 63(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.061