EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Have frontside carvers reached the end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have frontside carvers reached the end? - Page 2

post #31 of 51

+1 on the Fischer Race SC.

post #32 of 51

Just to be clear, there are 2 of those now right? the WC SC and the Superrace SC

 

Fischer sure does make a lot of similar skis...

 

and what's with the C-Line?

post #33 of 51

It's not that front-side carvers are going the way of the dodo bird, it's just that 75-88mm-waisted skis are more useful (and fun) for all skiers, East or West, for resort skiing.

 

In my mind front-side carvers are important tools for teaching skiers to carve their turns, and new skiers to the sport who gravitate to 90+ mm boards soon after learning miss this important element of skiing....and end up swiveling and back seat skiing. And I don't think carving turns on snow will ever become obsolete.

 

 

 

 

 

post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

The marketing guys have realized that people want to look like (or think) that they spend all their time skiing off-piste in Utah (or Alaska).  Which is why that's the hot thing right now all over the place, even when it doesn't make a lot of sense for the conditions that most people ski in most of the time.


This suggests the possibility of a great new product - a kind of clip on cover for your short, skinny carving skis which makes them look like great long wide powder-bashing skis. Then you could swan around the base area carrying your big 'powder skis', gathering respect from all and sundry, and then just before you get on the lift you unclip the covers and stash them in a locker.

post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post

It's not that front-side carvers are going the way of the dodo bird, it's just that 75-88mm-waisted skis are more useful (and fun) for all skiers, East or West, for resort skiing.

 

In my mind front-side carvers are important tools for teaching skiers to carve their turns, and new skiers to the sport who gravitate to 90+ mm boards soon after learning miss this important element of skiing....and end up swiveling and back seat skiing. And I don't think carving turns on snow will ever become obsolete.

 

 

 

 

 



I don't agree with this comepletely. They are more versitile for mixed conditions but since I don't always have mixed conditions I still prefer a 65-72mm ski for firmer snow. YMMV

post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris719 View Post

Just to be clear, there are 2 of those now right? the WC SC and the Superrace SC

 

 

Right. The Fischer race lineup always has the most confusing set of model names imaginable. The "Superrace" moniker is very recent, but they've had a ski in that spot in the lineup for years. In the past it was always called the Race SC. I think Ghost muddied the waters by bringing up the WC SC, which I'm guessing would be too similar to the OP's Elan slalom boards. What I heard the OP say was that he wanted a supercarver that was more forgiving. I think they still make the Supershape Magnum (not the Titan), that would probably also serve. It's even more forgiving than the Race SC, still plenty narrow and still with a tight radius, although not quite as crisp as the Fischer, based on my demo from a couple years ago.

post #37 of 51



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevesmith7 View Post

Let me rephrase the question.  I didn't mean to ask is there still a point to skinny skis. Of course there is. What I meant was compared to the rapid changes we're seeing in wide powder specific skis has the rate of engineering improvement in a narrow frontside carver slowed to the point of making 3-5 year old models nearly the equal of current offerings?


I would not mind buying a new carver that was 3 to 5 years old. The biggest change I have seen is in the grip offered by some of the slightly wider models.

post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post

It's not that front-side carvers are going the way of the dodo bird, it's just that 75-88mm-waisted skis are more useful (and fun) for all skiers, East or West, for resort skiing.

 

In my mind front-side carvers are important tools for teaching skiers to carve their turns, and new skiers to the sport who gravitate to 90+ mm boards soon after learning miss this important element of skiing....and end up swiveling and back seat skiing. And I don't think carving turns on snow will ever become obsolete.

 

 

 

 

 



Depends on the conditions. In the NE 8 times out 10 I would prefer to have a 68mm waisted ski strapped to my boots.

post #39 of 51

How much easier are the new 85-90 waist skis to turn vs. the old Voalnt FB which I believe has a 94 waist. I got a pair of the FB's years ago and took them out a season or so ago on groomers and sure they turn, but by comparison they sure felt awful"trucky" compared to the race carver type ski I usually ski .

 

Has design and development in recent years for the "mid fats" made a ski like the FB ski pretty lousy by comparison to the new models.

 

I have to think so , because of all the excellent reviews I have been reading here on these newer skis. Sounds like I'm missing something.

post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post

Has design and development in recent years for the "mid fats" made a ski like the FB ski pretty lousy by comparison to the new models.

 

I have to think so , because of all the excellent reviews I have been reading here on these newer skis. Sounds like I'm missing something.



I think so too. There are newer midfats that are impressive carvers.

post #41 of 51

If frontside carvers have reached the end I need to protect the next 6 seasons and buy some on the cheap at the end of the season - if I can find them.  I guess they'll always make race skis but for me a 72mm "frontside carver" is just slightly more versatile, i.e. in bumps, mixed crud and ice, all the wonderful stuff VT and Western MA will throw at me.  (Wonderful not meant sarcastically) 

 

Can't stand skiing ice/hardpack on anything over 80 or so.

 

Hopefully the Eastern shops will come back to their senses and start stocking more sub-80 waisted skis one day again.  Most skiers here buy whatever these shops push, and could probably do better on thinner carvers given the conditions they're skiing.  After all, when it really storms, it's only the hardcores out there, and they all have multiski quivers anyway.  The average Eastern skier on 90 mm boards skis 90+% of their days on icy hardpack!  They can't or won't get out there for the big days once or twice a year.  Go figure.

 

(I know you can carve a perfectly good turn on 90mm skis, but why not use the best tool for the conditions you see 90+% of the time?)

post #42 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post



Quote:

 

 

 

 

 



I don't agree with this comepletely. They are more versitile for mixed conditions but since I don't always have mixed conditions I still prefer a 65-72mm ski for firmer snow. YMMV

If the runs you ski stay hard and smooth all day long, I would agree with you... Personally I've never seen a day where mixed conds didn't exist at some time, but YMMV.
 

post #43 of 51
Originally Posted by nfp158 View PostQuote:
If the runs you ski stay hard and smooth all day long, I would agree with you... Personally I've never seen a day where mixed conds didn't exist at some time, but YMMV.

 

 

If that's true, it's probably because you haven't spent time at an east coast hill that doesn't get huge amounts of skier traffic, on a cold day, after it's been coated in man-made snow then subjected to a couple of thaw/rain/hard freeze cycles. This is beyond common where I ski - it's pretty much the norm. ( Not this week, though!  :) )  The only thing "mixed" about these conditions is whether you're skiing on very hard snow, boilerplate, or actual water ice. If you can see your footprint, you're in a soft spot. These are the conditions carvers are made for, and which wider skis don't handle as well. Spend a season here in New England, then tell me you don't agree.


 

post #44 of 51

Have frontside carvers reached the end?

 

Not when the weather report looks like this: 

 

 The snow will melt during the day, and it will freeze at night.  The next morning it will be like skiing on water-injected snow.  We don't need no stinking fat skis for water-injected snow.

 

post #45 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Originally Posted by nfp158 View PostQuote:
If the runs you ski stay hard and smooth all day long, I would agree with you... Personally I've never seen a day where mixed conds didn't exist at some time, but YMMV.

 

 

If that's true, it's probably because you haven't spent time at an east coast hill that doesn't get huge amounts of skier traffic, on a cold day, after it's been coated in man-made snow then subjected to a couple of thaw/rain/hard freeze cycles. This is beyond common where I ski - it's pretty much the norm. ( Not this week, though!  :) )  The only thing "mixed" about these conditions is whether you're skiing on very hard snow, boilerplate, or actual water ice. If you can see your footprint, you're in a soft spot. These are the conditions carvers are made for, and which wider skis don't handle as well. Spend a season here in New England, then tell me you don't agree.


 


I dunno about that.  Grew up skiing in NE, have 15 days in NH so far this year, and from my experience the conditions are hardpack/groomed packed powder in the morning and loose powder in the afternoon.  I have no problem holding an edge in the morning (even on ice) with 82mm skis, and find the width pretty valuable for late day crud. 

 

Those conditions sound like the 2 times I've gone to Blue Knob in PA or a below average day at wachusett.

 

Just my $.02 though, no offense meant.

post #46 of 51

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

Have frontside carvers reached the end?

 

Not when the weather report looks like this: 

 The snow will melt during the day, and it will freeze at night.  The next morning it will be like skiing on water-injected snow.  We don't need no stinking fat skis for water-injected snow.

 

That report looks like perfect spring conditions to me. Warm sunny days followed by freezing nights. Yeah, so it's a bit firm in the morning, but once the sun comes out you are good. This is nothing like the conditions I am talking about. I am talking about 48 hours of drizzly low pressure with round-the-clock temps in the 40s, followed by a week of high pressure with highs in the teens or 20s and lows in the single numbers or below. That is a very common weather pattern where I live.

post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post

How much easier are the new 85-90 waist skis to turn vs. the old Voalnt FB which I believe has a 94 waist. I got a pair of the FB's years ago and took them out a season or so ago on groomers and sure they turn, but by comparison they sure felt awful"trucky" compared to the race carver type ski I usually ski .

 

Has design and development in recent years for the "mid fats" made a ski like the FB ski pretty lousy by comparison to the new models.

 

I have to think so , because of all the excellent reviews I have been reading here on these newer skis. Sounds like I'm missing something.



I've got a set of FBs too.  Not really a valid comparison in my mind because the FB was a "truck".  Volants were a different breed altogether even back when they came out.  My daily driver is now the Scott Crusade (92mm underfoot) and that's anything but a truck yet still capable of trucking through all kinds of mank and yet can carve one hell of a quick turn.

post #48 of 51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

I dunno about that.  Grew up skiing in NE, have 15 days in NH so far this year, and from my experience the conditions are hardpack/groomed packed powder in the morning and loose powder in the afternoon.  I have no problem holding an edge in the morning (even on ice) with 82mm skis, and find the width pretty valuable for late day crud.


I definitely recognize the conditions you are describing. Beyond (I think) made a very good observation in another thread that these are exactly the conditions that the "wide carver" (e.g., Volkl AC 50) was made to address. These are the conditions you get at a place like Loon or Sunday River, that is very aggressive with grooming and snowmaking, and dumps lots and lots of skier onto the hill via high-speed lifts. And no one argues (at least I don't), that you "can't" hold an edge on one of these skis. I even agree that the width helps with the late day "snow cones" that pile up in this situation. The only argument is that a narrower ski makes really hard snow more fun, not that it's the only way to go. I own both, so I am not invested in one vs. the other; I just like the narrower ski better on the harder days.

 

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

Those conditions sound like the 2 times I've gone to Blue Knob in PA or a below average day at wachusett.

 

Exactly! I do a lot of my skiing at more retro places that have slower lifts and less aggressive snowmaking and grooming. E.g., Shawnee Peak, Mt. Abram. At these areas, the surface just stays like a(n unbreakable) egg shell all day long.

post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundturns View Post

How much easier are the new 85-90 waist skis to turn vs. the old Voalnt FB which I believe has a 94 waist. I got a pair of the FB's years ago and took them out a season or so ago on groomers and sure they turn, but by comparison they sure felt awful"trucky" compared to the race carver type ski I usually ski .

 

Has design and development in recent years for the "mid fats" made a ski like the FB ski pretty lousy by comparison to the new models.

 

I have to think so , because of all the excellent reviews I have been reading here on these newer skis. Sounds like I'm missing something.

It's not the width; it's the turn radius.  I have a pair of 68 mm wide  Volant Machete Gs that don't turn nearly as well as my WC SCs, but man do they ever work better in a foot and a half of tracked out wet snow.
 

post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

I dunno about that.  Grew up skiing in NE, have 15 days in NH so far this year, and from my experience the conditions are hardpack/groomed packed powder in the morning and loose powder in the afternoon.  I have no problem holding an edge in the morning (even on ice) with 82mm skis, and find the width pretty valuable for late day crud.


I definitely recognize the conditions you are describing. Beyond (I think) made a very good observation in another thread that these are exactly the conditions that the "wide carver" (e.g., Volkl AC 50) was made to address. These are the conditions you get at a place like Loon or Sunday River, that is very aggressive with grooming and snowmaking, and dumps lots and lots of skier onto the hill via high-speed lifts. And no one argues (at least I don't), that you "can't" hold an edge on one of these skis. I even agree that the width helps with the late day "snow cones" that pile up in this situation. The only argument is that a narrower ski makes really hard snow more fun, not that it's the only way to go. I own both, so I am not invested in one vs. the other; I just like the narrower ski better on the harder days.

 

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

Those conditions sound like the 2 times I've gone to Blue Knob in PA or a below average day at wachusett.

 

Exactly! I do a lot of my skiing at more retro places that have slower lifts and less aggressive snowmaking and grooming. E.g., Shawnee Peak, Mt. Abram. At these areas, the surface just stays like a(n unbreakable) egg shell all day long.



Can't disagree on any of those points.  If I were skiing those kind of conditions all day I would certainly go with a narrower ski as you describe.  In the end, a bad day skiing is better than a good day doing pretty much anything else, regardless of equipment (boot troubles excluded).

post #51 of 51


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

I dunno about that.  Grew up skiing in NE, have 15 days in NH so far this year, and from my experience the conditions are hardpack/groomed packed powder in the morning and loose powder in the afternoon.  I have no problem holding an edge in the morning (even on ice) with 82mm skis, and find the width pretty valuable for late day crud.


I definitely recognize the conditions you are describing. Beyond (I think) made a very good observation in another thread that these are exactly the conditions that the "wide carver" (e.g., Volkl AC 50) was made to address. These are the conditions you get at a place like Loon or Sunday River, that is very aggressive with grooming and snowmaking, and dumps lots and lots of skier onto the hill via high-speed lifts. And no one argues (at least I don't), that you "can't" hold an edge on one of these skis. I even agree that the width helps with the late day "snow cones" that pile up in this situation. The only argument is that a narrower ski makes really hard snow more fun, not that it's the only way to go. I own both, so I am not invested in one vs. the other; I just like the narrower ski better on the harder days.

 

Originally Posted by Indus View Post

 

Those conditions sound like the 2 times I've gone to Blue Knob in PA or a below average day at wachusett.

 

Exactly! I do a lot of my skiing at more retro places that have slower lifts and less aggressive snowmaking and grooming. E.g., Shawnee Peak, Mt. Abram. At these areas, the surface just stays like a(n unbreakable) egg shell all day long.

Sounds like you need X-country skis, <<60mm waists...WDIknow
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Have frontside carvers reached the end?