Pictures of 2010 of AC30 & AC50

Völkl AC 50

Données techniques Programme : All-mountain Taille (en cm) : 163-170-177-184 Côtes (en mm) : 128-85-112 Rayon : 18m (en taille 177cm) Prix indicatif : 799€ avec fixations IPT WR 12 D

Völkl AC 50 2010

 

Völkl AC 30

Données techniques Programme : All-mountain Taille (en cm) : 156-163-170-177-184 Côtes (en mm) : 124-80-107 Rayon : 18.4m (en taille 177cm) Prix indicatif : 719€ avec fixations IPT WR 12 D

Völkl AC 30 2010

Interesting that the turning radius of the AC 30 is now longer than that of the AC 50.  The 30's turning radius went from 16.7 m in '09 to 18.4 m in '10.  It's gonna be a different ski.

It is a different ski and a very nice ski at that! 

You've tested it!?  How does it hold/turn on that hardpacked stuff that we in the East optimistically call "snow"?

 

 

EDIT:  BTW, I'm not knocking East Coast snow.  I love it -- that's mostly what I ski.  Just wonder if the AC 30 has "gone West", so to speak.   

Edited by Jimski - 4/23/2009 at 03:05 pm GMT

yeah so the 2010 AC30 is wider now.  Went from 76 to 80 under foot so I am glad I bought this year as I don't need the extra width.  But I do like that graphic better.  Although I still think the original graphic on the '08 AC30 Titanium was the best.  Very hard to find that ski new or used now.  I actually got a better deal on the new '09 AC30 from Backcountry than any used price that I could find on a '08 Used ski in 170.  Oh well.

 

Thanks for sharing the info.

 

Yep, skied it and expecting it to be one of our best sellers (again) next year. A very nice ski with the typical tenacious grip that you would expect from a Volkl. It is a nice hard driving ski even more so now that they added the wideride Griffon from the AC50. 

 

I think you might have your specs or lengths mixed up -- in the 177cm length, the current (08/09) AC30 also has an 18.4m radius.  Despite a change in tip/waist/tail dimensions, the radius is the same.

 

The shorter 170cm length AC30 is the one with a 16.7m radius (both years).  Also unchanged.

 

The new AC30 is almost the old AC40 (125-82-110).  The AC40 is one of my favorites.  Should be bit more stable in crud than the current AC 30s.

Yep,  you're right -- I messed up -- the 16.7 for the 2009 model was for the 170 length. 

 

Philpug -- How stiff is the new AC 30?  One of the criticisms of the AC 50 (which the AC 30 appears to be getting closer to) is that it is quite stiff -- maybe too much so for skiers in my weight class.

This is retarded, Volkl has major overlap now with two of their top selling skis...

 

Tigershark 12ft

124-79-108

 

New AC30

124-80-107

 

I have the 07/08 AC30 Titanium. I don't really like the new graphics, but once you get going, it doesn't really matter. It's only when you're in the lift that you look at your skis. It looks like the '10 AC30 is more closer to the 07/08 AC40 Carbon in terms of dimensions.
 

 

Still fairly stiff. Try the Blizzard 8.1, a bit more compliant w/o loosing the performance that you would be looking for with the AC30. 

Thanks, the Blizzard 8.1 is on my short list -- it might have been your suggestion a while back that put it there.  I'm looking forward to some fun demo-ing next season.

I don't expect an answer from this one, but...

 

Could you compare the AC30 to a Rossi CX80?

Could they make the company logo a little bigger?  I can still see the skis.

 

Hey, Volkl needs to play off brand recognition -- it's probably 90% of what sells their skis in this category!  The ACs are screaming "I'm a Volk mid-fat, buy me dammit!"

Rise to the Top -- For some reason I am unable to quote your message, but it does seem odd to offer two skis at nearly equivalent dimensions.  I know there are ski brands, K2 for example, where they take one ski at an intermediate level, beef it up, and then offer it at the expert level (I may be thinking of the Apache and Recon, but don't quote me on this, because my memory is hazier than usual).  Another example: Nordica Nitrous at intermediate level and Top Fuel at expert level.  But that's not what's going on here -- Volkl is not marketing Tigersharks as on the same vector but a higher level than the Unlimiteds.

 

I wonder if there is some other structural difference that makes these fill different niches?  For the current ('08-'09) model year, Volkl's website says that the 76-waist AC-30 is a 50/50 ski, but the 79-waist Tigershark is primarily for groomed slopes and someone who only occasionally skis off piste (see Geoff Curtis video for the Tigershark 12 w/out power switch).  This seems counter-intuitive to my (non-expert) mind.  Is there some difference other than width that makes the Tigershark class more groomer-oriented than the Unlimited class?

 

Philpug, any insights?  Others?

    

 

 

I don't understand this either, I guess both will sell on name alone.

Well, the TS is really a frontside carver with minor 50/50 aspirations, and it is a fairly technical ski in terms of the way it wants to be driven.  The AC30 is a true 50/50 ski and definitely more forgiving (for Volkl).  I imagine the flex, torsional stiffness, construction, lamination, metal layers, etc... are what set the skis apart.

I have a pair of the '08 AC30's that I bought recently from a online skiing company. I have not skied, let alone really look at, these type of skiis in over 7 years. I had back problems in the past but things are better now so I am going to give them a try this winter. Anyways, they sent them to me missing one the the plastic inserts that go where the binding is. This may be a really stupid question but are those inserts needed? If so, aside from Volkl, where else could I get them? Any help is appreciated! Thanks, Bill.

You might want to contact the "on line dealer" that you bought them from, I am sure their customer service is top notch. 

The 12 ft is gone.  Tigershark is now the 10 ft and the 11 ft.  http://www.voelkl.com/index.cfm/EN/98/574

11ft is 75 underfoot.

I demo-ed AC50 last season and found it very nice.  I just went to ski shop and saw two AC50s - 2009 and 2010.  They looked the same to me except their graphics.

However, I found their weights might be different too.  The 2010 model seemed to be slightly lighter than that of the 2009 one.  Not sure about this, so I am writing to ask you guys the experts in this forum.  Has anyone found this difference?  Also, heavier is better or lighter better?