Volkl AC 50 in Powder?

#1

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 6:21am

pkerr
offline

Joined: August 2005
Post Count: 9

All the reviews I have read rate this ski pretty high except in the "float" category. It's 85 under foot yet other skis of the same width or even narrower get rated higher.

Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks

#2

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 6:30am

Philpug
offline

Joined: September 2000
Location: NTS, PA
Post Count: 21,815

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkerr

All the reviews I have read rate this ski pretty high except in the "float" category. It's 85 under foot yet other skis of the same width or even narrower get rated higher.

Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks

Because it is as stiff as an i-beam. A softer ski can get up on the snow where the AC50 can be prone to tip dive. It is more of a crud buster than a powderski,

Click. Point. Chute.

#3

Rating: 1

10/21/09 at 11:53am

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

To expand a bit on Phil's (correct) response......

Float is determined primarily by width. However, how the ski turns in 3D snow is primarily reflective of flex. Hence you could have two skis with nearly equal dimensions (say....AC-50 and Watea 84) that perform dramatically differently in 3D snow. The Watea bends much more readily hence it turns easier in the deeper stuff. The AC-50 is rather short on that flex thing so it wants to push through the snow (ie...crud buster) rather than bend and turn.

Dimensions tell only part of the story in this case............Priority check!!

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

#4

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 12:52pm

Stranger
online

Joined: July 2008
Location: just beyond reason
Post Count: 610

AC 50 will blast through chop and heavier snow. These things are not butterflies they have some beef to them. They did fine for me in the untracked I found, but I enjoy skiing down in the snow, do not ski at mach speed.

Do believe that size matters on this ski because of the stiffness. I'm 6' 200 lbs and fairly fit, 8 hours a week in the gym.

Skied them in 15" with an unpacked base of the Cascades finest off piste. They may not have floated to the top in the untracked (don't know try not to look at the tips) but they did just fine . They did everything asked of them well except quick edge change. Even found some icy spots and they liked that too. They are Volkls' and suspect they would not be very tolerant of bad technique.

If they had been a little quicker, would own them now. Still may own a pair if the right deal comes along.

Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

#5

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 6:48pm

pkerr
offline

Joined: August 2005
Post Count: 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

AC 50 will blast through chop and heavier snow. These things are not butterflies they have some beef to them. They did fine for me in the untracked I found, but I enjoy skiing down in the snow, do not ski at mach speed.

Do believe that size matters on this ski because of the stiffness. I'm 6' 200 lbs and fairly fit, 8 hours a week in the gym.

Skied them in 15" with an unpacked base of the Cascades finest off piste. They may not have floated to the top in the untracked (don't know try not to look at the tips) but they did just fine . They did everything asked of them well except quick edge change. Even found some icy spots and they liked that too. They are Volkls' and suspect they would not be very tolerant of bad technique.

If they had been a little quicker, would own them now. Still may own a pair if the right deal comes along.

I'm about your dimensions (minus the fit part)
What length were you using. Being wider than my Recons (178) I was thinking of going shorter. 163?
Thanks

#6

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 7:21pm

Stranger
online

Joined: July 2008
Location: just beyond reason
Post Count: 610

Skied the 184. Not so sure how happy you would be with that ski that short.

If you are looking at this ski with an eye to loose snow you may not be too happy. Personally would not choose to ski it under 175. At our size think that you will want the surface area for floatation.

Over in the Wikis section there was an article on ski length not long ago. Suggest that you read it and see what they say.

Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

#7

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 8:06pm

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkerr

...................................... I was thinking of going shorter. 163?

Why in the world would you do that? (I mean buy it so short)

I think that you need to step back and reassess your needs. What kind of conditions do you ski regularly and where? Do you ski 3D snow very often? Do you have other skis? Are you looking for a niche filler? Are you looking for an OSQ?

The AC50 and other similar skis are very good on hard snow and relatively weak in soft snow. You say you are concerned about the AC50's "rating" in soft snow yet you seem to really want an AC50.

So..........what do you really want?

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

#8

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 8:10pm

tromano
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Logan, UT
Post Count: 1,974

The All Condition 50 Compared to other an all around ski in that width range like the PE or legend 8000 , the AC50 is 3x the cost, 2X the technology, 1/3 the performance envelope, 1/4 the fun.

I would rather be on metron in pow.

#9

Rating: 0

10/21/09 at 8:22pm

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

I would rather be on metron in pow.

.............................

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

#10

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 2:45am

spontaneousgoat
offline

Joined: March 2009
Location: home - albany, ny, school - plymouth, new hampshire, weekends -...
Post Count: 16

I have to agree. I skied the AC50's on soft New England groomers in April and they were awesome. They obliterated any bumps that I ran into. But as far as powder goes.....I'll stick with my IM88's. Crud - awesome. Powder - not so much.

#11

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 2:47am

spontaneousgoat
offline

Joined: March 2009
Location: home - albany, ny, school - plymouth, new hampshire, weekends -...
Post Count: 16

And I second going longer than 163. My Monsters are a 164 and they are just not big enough for deep snow. I am 5'8" 180 lbs, and I would look in the mid-upper 170's.

#12

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 5:18am

stevesmith7
online

Joined: February 2002
Location: Monument,CO
Post Count: 845

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkerr

I was thinking of going shorter. 163?
Thanks

I think everyone didn't realize you were looking for children's skis ???

#13

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 5:22am

snofun3
offline

Joined: June 2007
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Post Count: 1,139

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

the AC50 is 3x the cost, 2X the technology, 1/3 the performance envelope, 1/4 the fun.

Or, in other words, about twice as good as a Recon

"I'm quite certain that I don't need some pre madonna telling me how everyone's foot is different." Greggor.

"Anywhere else is a waist of time." Skier232.

#14

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 5:37am

epl
offline

Joined: January 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Post Count: 535

there's at least half a dozen skis around the same waist width that will be more fun in pow at half the price or less.

#15

Rating: 0

10/22/09 at 5:52am

Philpug
offline

Joined: September 2000
Location: NTS, PA
Post Count: 21,815

As asked.... What do you want?

Do you want a frontside >90% ski that you can take in the powder <10%? If so, the AC50 could work. If you are going to be in the powder more than 10%? Either look elsewhere or get a real powder ski to go with the AC50.

Click. Point. Chute.

#16

Rating: 0

11/12/09 at 7:26am

pkerr
offline

Joined: August 2005
Post Count: 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug

As asked.... What do you want?

Do you want a frontside >90% ski that you can take in the powder <10%? If so, the AC50 could work. If you are going to be in the powder more than 10%? Either look elsewhere or get a real powder ski to go with the AC50.

Yep.. that pretty much sums it up. Frontside >90% and the rest (hopefully) in powder.
Thanks for all the input.

#17

Rating: 0

11/12/09 at 7:36am

BushwackerinPA
offline

Joined: February 2005
Location: Stowe, Vt
Post Count: 6,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkerr

Yep.. that pretty much sums it up. Frontside >90% and the rest (hopefully) in powder.
Thanks for all the input.

and how tall/ whats your weight?

"Trading the future for the moment, one powder turn at a time"

pbfootnit.blogspot.com/ <<< the start of something good!

#18

Rating: 0

11/12/09 at 7:47am

Frederik
offline

Joined: October 2009
Post Count: 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA

and how tall/ whats your weight?

He's about 6' 200 lbs (according to his reply somewhere in the middle of this topic).

#19

Rating: 0

11/12/09 at 7:55am

falcon_o
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: West Henrietta , NY
Post Count: 290

I am 6', 227 lbs and have 177 AC50's. Philpug and SJ are on the money with their assessments. I use the AC50's primarily as a front side ski with excellent edge hold on hard pack / icy surfaces, quick edge to edge for a mid-fat, no speed limit on groomers and blasts through crud. Also works well in SOFT bumps. I would not go longer for more float so as not to sacrifice quickness. They ARE a stiff ski and do not tolerate mistakes but reward those who know how to drive.

That being said I have 184 Gotamas and 173 Icelantic Shamans as my powder boards of choice. Last February @ Aspen I spent 5 days on the Shamans and 1 days on the AC50's as deep snow all week.

Another good ski with decent hard snow performance and superior powder performance to the AC50's are the Volkl Mantra's

My 2 cents - Falcon_O aka Charlie

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkerr

Yep.. that pretty much sums it up. Frontside >90% and the rest (hopefully) in powder.
Thanks for all the input.

#20

Rating: 0

11/13/09 at 10:58pm

BZach
offline

Joined: October 2009
Post Count: 4

I'm also thinking about the Volkl AC50's. I'm in the Vancouver area and like to ski Blackcomb / Cypress / Baker and also Sun Peaks. I'm 6'0" and 220lbs. My OLD K2 Gyrators (184) are done. Good ski for many years, but time to upgrade to newer technology. I would call myself an advanced/expert skier and like to ski the black and blue runs at pretty decent speeds. I enjoy moderately sized bumps, skiing through some trees and crud, but will ski almost anything on the above listed hills. (I will also be skiing with my kids who are learning to ski so I will have to spend some time on the beginner runs...) The snow is usually pretty decent, but can be somewhat heavy at the local mountains. I'm researching skis and I'm leaning to the AC50 at a length of 177, based on the write up Volkl and others say about it. After reading some of the recent posts about the AC50 not being too good in powder, I'm hesitating. Sounds like the Mantra might be a better all round ski for the local west coast mountains. I hadn't really looked at it as it is classified as a Powder ski and I need something that will do it all and thus the AC50. If Mantra, do you go longer than AC50? i.e. 184 in my case? I see it starts out at 170 whereas AC50 starts at 163.

#21

Rating: 0

11/13/09 at 11:09pm

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

Don't worry about the Mantra being classified as a powder ski, it's not very good at that either (better than an AC 50 though). I'm 5-10 200# and my choice of length for the Mantra was 184 for the two I owned.

The Bridge is Volkls most versatile ski in the width range you are considering.

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Barking Bears Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis