New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are skis so heavy? - Page 4

post #91 of 134
3/5/12 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

GrizzledVeteran, who says my light skis don't work on the snow?

I have no clue what you're talking about here. I didn't say anything about YOUR skis working anywhere. I was talking about the idea that "throwing skis around" is turning. I don't care how heavy or light your skis are. You are the one keening and whinging about the ski weight. Not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

My point is that all types of turns are useful. A jump turn hockey stop can sometimes save me. Maybe it isn't pretty turn but if it gets me to cool parts of the hill, I will use it.

Throw 'em this way, throw 'em that way. Just throw 'em.

Maybe the reason you think they're heavy is because you throw them, rather than knowing how to use them efficiently?

Just an idea. Just something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

I was bragging about the 10 minute walk. What could be better than being that close to Squaw?

Eric

Your bragging may impress people who have to fly 6 hours across the country to ski, but it isn't impressing me one bit. My walk is under 10 minutes. Under by about 9 minutes.
Reply
post #92 of 134
3/5/12 at 11:05pm
Thread Starter 

I do enjoy stirring the pot!

 

Bumps are my favorite - light skinny skis may offer a big advantage in bumps.

 

Didn't Bode win more on his lighter skis than the heavy skis he is fielding now? OK there are way too many variables to credit ski weight but certainly he was able to ski well on a lighter ski. My point was that the at times the best racing skis were also quite light. The physics can work for a light performance ski.

 

Unconventional turn styles (like a jump turn) may not be pretty and should not be the primary technique but they can be quite useful. Especially if you get in a bit of trouble. Having a ski that only carves is a severely limiting ski - and no fun if it makes you fall more.

 

Do I get GNAR points if I claim that my house is way better than yours?

 

Eric

Reply
post #93 of 134
3/5/12 at 11:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

I do enjoy stirring the pot!

 

Bumps are my favorite - light skinny skis may offer a big advantage in bumps.

 

Didn't Bode win more on his lighter skis than the heavy skis he is fielding now? OK there are way too many variables to credit ski weight but certainly he was able to ski well on a lighter ski. My point was that the at times the best racing skis were also quite light. The physics can work for a light performance ski.

 

Unconventional turn styles (like a jump turn) may not be pretty and should not be the primary technique but they can be quite useful. Especially if you get in a bit of trouble. Having a ski that only carves is a severely limiting ski - and no fun if it makes you fall more.

 

Do I get GNAR points if I claim that my house is way better than yours?

 

Eric

Every time you mention anything about ski design and function you show you ignorance. And though maybe you have decent knowledge about irrelevant ski's and technique's, you are obviously clueless about where skiing is at in 2012.
 

 

Reply
post #94 of 134
3/6/12 at 10:45am
Thread Starter 

I hope skiing in 2012 is still about having fun getting down the hill.

 

I am clueless as to why skis are so heavy. That's why I posed the question. The only really valid reason put forth here is a cost issue. I will grudgingly agree on that score. And note that the lightest skis are really expensive - too expensive to be on the retail demo options. So I haven't gotten to demo anything superlight.

 

Some of the skis that I tried had a light "feel" despite a heavy physical weight. Somebody in 2012 still sells that style.

 

I have never seen aftermarket lead to add to a ski. So weight by itself is not useful enough that anyone would pay extra for it.

 

Burn me as a heretic for questioning unfounded but long accepted "truths". I'll stand by my qualifications to ask these questions. My skiing skills are good enough to follow The Dad down Alpine's GNAR in challenging snow. My ability to feel and assess equipment is refined enough to have been a ski tester for Waterski magazine twice. My education (BSME Stanford) gives me a reasonable technical understanding of the dynamics of skis and skiing. And my experience in designing and building waterskis that have won local, regional, national and world medals demonstrates a solid grasp of materials and processes.

 

Plus I know how to use an apostrophe.

 

Eric

Reply
post #95 of 134
3/6/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:

Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

 

Bumps are my favorite - light skinny skis may offer a big advantage in bumps. Only if they're soft light skinny skis. Skiing something light and stiff in firm bumps is a recipe for limping the next day. But those same soft light skinny skis will fold up at speed on the hardpack above the bumps. 

 

Didn't Bode win more on his lighter skis than the heavy skis he is fielding now? OK there are way too many variables to credit ski weight but certainly he was able to ski well on a lighter ski. My point was that the at times the best racing skis were also quite light. The physics can work for a light performance ski. The logic here is hilarious: Bode won more when his skis were light. Oh, OK, maybe not the cause. (Could it be he was younger?) Racing skis were quite light back in the day (As I asked several posts ago, do you have comparative numbers here? What's "quite light?" Have you ever been on an old racing ski, even the retail version?)  

 

Now I note that ski manufacturers have some engineers too, y'know, and they seem to be passably bright, and they aren't all agitating for much lighter skis. Skis below say 4000 gms for a 100 mm tend to end up filling a niche, largely defined by AT missions. So we've had a bunch of light skis available for a while. Goode, DPS, Voile, for instance. Kastle is coming out next year with some <3500 gm touring skis. Dynastar is making some very light "mountain" versions of the Chams. So why aren't these companies all running out of room to stash their cash? And more to the point, why aren't average skiers who mainly ski groomers or near sidebounds all falling in love with these? Too pricey you say? The Chams won't be all that expensive. Voile never was. Goode's aren't as expensive as a number of other brands. Hmmm. Could it be that the physics doesn't work? Oh, I know, none of these folks actually understand materials like you do. Sorry I forgot. 

 

Unconventional turn styles (like a jump turn) may not be pretty and should not be the primary technique but they can be quite useful. Especially if you get in a bit of trouble. Having a ski that only carves is a severely limiting ski - and no fun if it makes you fall more. Curious what a ski that "only carves" would be. I can slide the tail of a WC GS, although it may not enjoy  it. And ever tried javelin turns on racing skis? Doing controlled slides and pivots? On one ski? J's do that stuff in training. In terms of recreational skis, all but two I can think of - Praxis Powder and Spatula - can carve, smear, pivot, pretty much do anything the pilot tells them to. If the pilot knows how.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

I hope skiing in 2012 is still about having fun getting down the hill. Oddly, many of us actually can try to ski well and have fun at the same time. It's like rubbing your stomach and waving at the same try. Try it.

 

I am clueless as to why skis are so heavy. That's why I posed the question. Many here have answered it, in various ways. If you remain clueless, it's because your mind is closed to data that doesn't agree with your premises. The only really valid reason put forth here is a cost issue. Again, a repeated declaration is not a explanation. if the other explanations are invalid, then show why. Otherwise, your entire argument gets a fail. I will grudgingly agree on that score. And note that the lightest skis are really expensive - too expensive to be on the retail demo options. So I haven't gotten to demo anything superlight. So I guess this is a tangent to set up a premise that since lighter is more expensive, it must be better. Or that's why few use super light skis, because they're too $$$. Brilliant, no way to falsify.   

 

Some of the skis that I tried had a light "feel" despite a heavy physical weight. Somebody in 2012 still sells that style. Uh, do you believe that the reason that some heavy skis "feel" light is the same reason that light skis feel light? 

 

I have never seen aftermarket lead to add to a ski. So weight by itself is not useful enough that anyone would pay extra for it. I'm struggling with the economics here. Why would any one pay extra for something already provided by the manufacturer? Goode, on the other hand, keeps adding weights here and there, and as he does, his skis get better reviews. Go read up on Voile, and how the biggest rap they have is that their skis get unstable in rough or stiff snow. (Oddly like Goode's rap, and - gasp - Voile didn't use carbon until recently.) But hey, I know, it's a left wing conspiracy to keep god-fearing carbon patriots from their constitutional right to jounce around on light skis. 

 

Burn me as a heretic for questioning unfounded but long accepted "truths". Aren't you brave. Next we'll get the PC bit. I'll stand by my qualifications to ask these questions. My skiing skills are good enough to follow The Dad down Alpine's GNAR in challenging snow. Ever watched a class of intermediate 6-8 year olds doing back diamonds? Post a video if you're gonna go on about your skiing. Or have The Dad offer an assessment. My ability to feel and assess equipment is refined enough to have been a ski tester for Waterski magazine twice. And have you ever, anywhere, shown that the skill sets are transferable? Let alone the technology? I hate to break this to you, but saying that snow can be modeled as a fluid (itself a controversial claim) isn't enough. Snow has this tendency to transition toward solid. Maybe stiff crud is like hitting branches while you waterski. That part of waterski design? And pack sends back forces directed against it much more efficiently than water. If you want to pursue this analogy, then all sports equipment that uses carbon, right down to hockey sticks, running shoes, and ping pong paddles, should all be understandable in terms of waterskis. My education (BSME Stanford) gives me a reasonable technical understanding of the dynamics of skis and skiing. Then why don't you actually demonstrate it? Instead of making pronouncements and sticking to them no matter what, jump in like PhysicsMan used to. Don't be shy. There are a bunch of engineers and natural science types here. Some have read stuff like The Physics of Skiing. So show us that lighter is better. And my experience in designing and building waterskis that have won local, regional, national and world medals demonstrates a solid grasp of materials and processes. I'm sure you build super waterskis. But your refusal to grasp many fundamentals about how skis work suggests that water is your happy place, not snow.



 

Reply
post #96 of 134
3/6/12 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

I hope skiing in 2012 is still about having fun getting down the hill.

 

I am clueless as to why skis are so heavy. That's why I posed the question. The only really valid reason put forth here is a cost issue. I will grudgingly agree on that score. And note that the lightest skis are really expensive - too expensive to be on the retail demo options. So I haven't gotten to demo anything superlight.

 

Some of the skis that I tried had a light "feel" despite a heavy physical weight. Somebody in 2012 still sells that style.

 

I have never seen aftermarket lead to add to a ski. So weight by itself is not useful enough that anyone would pay extra for it.

 

Burn me as a heretic for questioning unfounded but long accepted "truths". I'll stand by my qualifications to ask these questions. My skiing skills are good enough to follow The Dad down Alpine's GNAR in challenging snow. My ability to feel and assess equipment is refined enough to have been a ski tester for Waterski magazine twice. My education (BSME Stanford) gives me a reasonable technical understanding of the dynamics of skis and skiing. And my experience in designing and building waterskis that have won local, regional, national and world medals demonstrates a solid grasp of materials and processes.

 

Plus I know how to use an apostrophe.

 

Eric


Weight is always an issue if you're skinning and touring. Huge leaps in weight savings have been made over the past several years in boot/ski/binding systems. There's always a compromise of performance up (climbing) and performance down (skiing) to be made depending on the speed you prefer for both of the aforementioned. IHMO, over many years of skiing, skis that weight more are more stable if you prefer skiing fast and when snow conditions start to get rotten. If you're alpining at a ski area, you're going to deal with a lot of crud off piste. Weight, within reason, works; F=MA. Again, if you don't ski fast, you'll only feel the weight, not the benefit of MA, and that's all good. I guess I'm a little baffled by your passion on the subject as there are many touring skis/boots/bindings that are already on the market. It just sounds you haven't skied any other than the Goode's that you already own. Again, why not use a dynafit binding/boot system and skis from Trab, G3, and others that are specifically designed to be light weight? If you want to build a better lighter mousetrap, there's a market. It just isn't where your looking.

Reply
post #97 of 134
3/7/12 at 12:10am
Thread Starter 
Every ski I have demoed recently has been quite heavy. Not only heavier than my ultralight Goodes but heavier than skis have been historically. That is my "problem". I feel that I am entitled to an opinion and a preference. I also have a legitimate question.
Has anyone here skied two ski models of the same ski where the only difference is the weight? If the heavier ski better? My experience with waterskis is that the lighter ski is always better. My snow ski experience is so far the same.
F=MA simply favors a light ski. Turning a light ski takes less force (to accelerate the ski into a turn). Turning is the major focus of my skiing. Perhaps if raw speed is critical the equation applies differently.
I am not sure what generates so much hostility but a technical discussion would be more fun than a personal attack. Thanks to those who have given recommendations for skis I might like.
Eric
Reply
post #98 of 134
3/7/12 at 3:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

Every ski I have demoed recently has been quite heavy. Not only heavier than my ultralight Goodes but heavier than skis have been historically. That is my "problem". I feel that I am entitled to an opinion and a preference. I also have a legitimate question.
Has anyone here skied two ski models of the same ski where the only difference is the weight? If the heavier ski better? My experience with waterskis is that the lighter ski is always better. My snow ski experience is so far the same.
F=MA simply favors a light ski. Turning a light ski takes less force (to accelerate the ski into a turn). Turning is the major focus of my skiing. Perhaps if raw speed is critical the equation applies differently.
I am not sure what generates so much hostility but a technical discussion would be more fun than a personal attack. Thanks to those who have given recommendations for skis I might like.
Eric


Hypothetically speaking, if this were possible:

Skis made of the best material with the best strength to weight ratio, the heavier skis would be stronger.  Why would you need stronger skis?  Answer: to transmit more force, F=MA.  More force will accelerate YOU more, and allow you to turn tighter at the same speed or make the same turn at a higher speed, which for some of us is more fun.

 

Also internal strength of the ski to resist vibration,  If you're skiing on water or soft snow, or at reasonable speeds (like most people and like most skis were designed for), not so much of an issue, if you are skiing at DH speeds on a hard surface, it is a big issue. 

 

 

 

 

Reply
post #99 of 134
3/7/12 at 5:43am

Interesting though. Water skis have a very different section than snow skis. Water skis are always planing, snow skis not always by any means. Ee, I'd love to see a video of you skiing. I'm sure how you ski is a huge influence on what you prefer. And no need to be defensive about having a different point of view. I say that if you really feel passionate about it and have the skills, then by all means, why not make some skis to explore your ideas? 30 years ago, no one was thinking of fat skis, or anything with much side cut. Rocker? Nope, but water skis had rocker years ago. Just curious, but say you were water skiing in 3 ft. waves, or doing something crazy like doing open water long distance crossings (swells, waves, etc...), would you still prefer a lighter ski? 

Reply
post #100 of 134
3/7/12 at 5:54am

Haven't read the entire discussion (someone really took it off the rails up there talking about tennis racquets) -- but have you skied many women's skis? Very often the women's version of a particular ski is basically the same as the men's except a little lighter and less stiff. My Volkl Auras are really light, plus I put light bindings on them. Not sure if they are much different weight-wise now, but probably not.  

Reply
post #101 of 134
3/7/12 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

Every ski I have demoed recently has been quite heavy. Not only heavier than my ultralight Goodes but heavier than skis have been historically. That is my "problem". I feel that I am entitled to an opinion and a preference. I also have a legitimate question.
Eric


Have you skied the dynafit system, yes or no? If it's no, then you're either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant. 

Reply
post #102 of 134
3/7/12 at 8:39am


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

Every ski I have demoed recently has been quite heavy. Not only heavier than my ultralight Goodes but heavier than skis have been historically. That is my "problem". I feel that I am entitled to an opinion and a preference. I also have a legitimate question.
Has anyone here skied two ski models of the same ski where the only difference is the weight? If the heavier ski better? My experience with waterskis is that the lighter ski is always better. My snow ski experience is so far the same.
F=MA simply favors a light ski. Turning a light ski takes less force (to accelerate the ski into a turn). Turning is the major focus of my skiing. Perhaps if raw speed is critical the equation applies differently.
I am not sure what generates so much hostility but a technical discussion would be more fun than a personal attack. Thanks to those who have given recommendations for skis I might like.
Eric

Honestly everything you point out is really counter to what the industry subscribes to. You talk a lot about forcing a turns, and throwing ski's around. Maybe your technique is just bad.


 

 

Reply
post #103 of 134
3/7/12 at 1:08pm
Thread Starter 
Binding weights are critical. That is my personal same ski, different weight experience. Most of the skis I own have reasonably light bindings. No Dynafits have made it to the local ski shops for me to try. Note that I demoed Goodes before I bought them from Squaw Valley Sports.
I skied K2 t nines and enjoyed them. But the BurninLuvs were one of the heaviest skis I have purchased. And only fun on groomers.
F=MA the acceleration is what I enjoy. Less mass gives more acceleration given the force my strength and skill can generate.
Eric
Reply
post #104 of 134
3/7/12 at 1:26pm


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post
Less mass gives more acceleration given the force my strength and skill can generate.
Eric


I'm guessing that's because you're not letting gravity do the work and your skills need some upgrading because you're using too much F. You're most likely skiing in 'slow' mode whipping skis across the fall line, making 'Z' turns, instead of 'go' mode, patiently guiding and steering a good 'C' shape. Take a lesson. Don't take it personally. We all need them. Honestly, you're question is good, but your effort is lacking. There are a lot of opportunities to demo in your area, but you've missed them and are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

Why not give 'The Backcountry Store'  in Truckee a call and see if they can help you out with demoing some Dynafit gear? You can do the web search for their contact info on your own.

 

 

Reply
post #105 of 134
3/7/12 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


 


You're most likely skiing in 'slow' mode whipping skis across the fall line, making 'Z' turns, instead of 'go' mode, patiently guiding and steering a good 'C' shape. 

 

 


No. I skied with him at Alpine last week ... I really didn't pay that much attention to how he skied, but he's a very good skier, no z turns. We were in a good bit of snow and off piste, he just kept skipping through the meadow like a rabbit. I can see why he likes light skis, he's very light on his feet. Sorry, had I known, I'd have paid better attention. :-)

 

(And, yes, K2 is a bad example of light skis, lol, the women's line is full of tanks. Or at least used to be.) 

 

Reply
post #106 of 134
3/7/12 at 1:44pm

That's good to hear! Apologies to Ee, but still, you need to give the dynafit's a try. They're not really made for area skiing, but if you're small and light, you can make them work.

Reply
post #107 of 134
3/7/12 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

Every ski I have demoed recently has been quite heavy. Not only heavier than my ultralight Goodes but heavier than skis have been historically. This (underlined) is false on its face. The following thread was started 5 years ago. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/76416-The-Official-Ski-Weight-Thread.There is no evidence, if you match apples and apples (metal skis to metal skis, non-metal to non-metal) that for that period, skis have gotten heavier. The Cochise in 185, for instance, is significantly lighter than the Dynastar XXL. Both have two sheets of Titanal. The wood and carbon 4FRNT EHP 193 is the same weight in 2007 and 2012. I could go on, but you do some work. Before that, I can only supply personal weights, but for instance my 2009 Rossignol WC SL's are approximately the same weight as this year's. My 2005 Mantras were about the same weight as this year's. My ancient Rossi 7S's are about 400 gm more than my Rossi 9S OS's from the early 2000's. And a number of posters here have noted the number of really light skis out there. Not just AT's, the 87 mm Blizzard Bushwacker is over 300 g lighter than the old 87 mm Blizzard Cronus.
So why do you keep repeating empirical falsehoods? If you just "feel" that skis have gotten heavier, then state it as an opinion, not an historical fact. That is my "problem". I feel that I am entitled to an opinion and a preference. I also have a legitimate question. It isn't legitimate if it's based on a falsehood. Try this: "I feel like skis are heavier. Do you?" Or, "Are they?"
F=MA simply favors a light ski. Turning a light ski takes less force (to accelerate the ski into a turn). Turning is the major focus of my skiing. Perhaps if raw speed is critical the equation applies differently. It's not simple, actually. There's a lot more to ski performance than F=MA. How do you consider what happens to the ski when it encounters forces coming off the snow? Hitting a pile of crud, for instance, or rebound from the same forces you're applying downward. Newton, recall, also produced equations for inertia and equal and opposite reactions. These may have less relevance to water skis, cannot say, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant to snow skis. 
I am not sure what generates so much hostility but a technical discussion would be more fun than a personal attack. I have a sense that what generates the "hostility" (at least my own frustration, can't speak for others), is that you're not actually participating in a "technical discussion." You're repeating, over and over, your enjoyment of light skis. You do not respond to posts that challenge your assumptions, apparently because to do so is hostile. Saying that you're an engineer and know a lot about water skis does not address these challenges. It's actually a form of logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. Thus, I don't regard your own responses as in any way advancing an honest discussion, so I doubt that your original question was meant to be a question at all. Rather, like many questions, it was a statement that you wanted validated. You "know" that skis are heavier than ever, and you wanted us to chime in, be supportive, and suggest light skis. That'd be "fun."
 
In any case, I'm pretty sure you won't respond to this post either, since it's so obviously, ah, hostile, so carry on with the waterski analogies...rolleyes.gif


 

Reply
post #108 of 134
3/7/12 at 8:27pm
Thread Starter 
OK, Beyond I'll bite. But you are wrong about me. I post purely for entertainment not to push any agenda.
I might be a bit defensive here. Ecimortal says I am counter to the industry direction here. It feels that way despite my "ignorance".
Historically I started skiing on my mother's all wood skis circa the 40's. That's my baseline, not 5 years ago. Most, but not all of my skis are lighter than that. The demos I! have tried recently have been heavier. Not lying, just a different perspective.
The F=MA was a flippant response to another F=MA comment. Ski feel is an art that defies physics based predictions.
Sorry if I frustrate you. When we meet we can click into each other's skis and make a few turns to feel where we are each coming from.
But I must say "light skis rock!"
Eric
Reply
post #109 of 134
3/8/12 at 3:54am

If going by "feel", often a ski will feel "heavy" at low speeds, but too light at high speeds.

Reply
post #110 of 134
3/8/12 at 6:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

OK, Beyond I'll bite. But you are wrong about me. I post purely for entertainment not to push any agenda.
I might be a bit defensive here. Ecimortal says I am counter to the industry direction here. It feels that way despite my "ignorance".
Historically I started skiing on my mother's all wood skis circa the 40's. That's my baseline, not 5 years ago. Most, but not all of my skis are lighter than that. The demos I! have tried recently have been heavier. Not lying, just a different perspective.
The F=MA was a flippant response to another F=MA comment. Ski feel is an art that defies physics based predictions.
Sorry if I frustrate you. When we meet we can click into each other's skis and make a few turns to feel where we are each coming from.
But I must say "light skis rock!"
Eric


I appreciate the unwrapping. And like most of what goes on at Epic yeah, suspect that we'd do well skiing instead of posting. Believe you about the 40's skis, although it's surprising given how long those wood planks were. What we need is Rossi Smash to weigh some of his old stuff, see if there are trends. I recall that when Rossi introduced synthetic cores in the, hmmm, 60's? they were considered weirdly light for serious skiing. But don't know what they actually weighed, compared to moderns. Suspect that if some individual ski brands are heavier just in the last few years, and it's focused on frontside skis, it might be global shifts from Gallic to Teutonic paradigms about what skis are supposed to feel like, eg, Salomons becoming mini-Atomics, Rossis giving up on foam. OTOH, it's a well kept secret that some Elans are strangely light, as in sidebounds light, for all the metal they have. And even beefy brands have been getting lighter; Blizzard and Stockli come to mind.

 

Two other possibilities: 1) It's not the skis, it's the bindings. We salivate over a 200 g loss of ski weight, but don't think twice about slapping on some all steel 18 DIN binders that sure as hell weigh 200 g more than the 12 DIN version, and 500 g more than the cable bindings we grew up with. Or if we're on our parent's skis, bear traps. 2) Rocker allows makers to add stiffness, and stiffness usually means more fiberglass. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

If going by "feel", often a ski will feel "heavy" at low speeds, but too light at high speeds.


^^^^ This. Or heavy in the parking lot but light on the mountain. Kastles are fairly heavy but ski light. Volkls are lighter than Kastles but ski heavy. (IMO biggrin.gif)

 

Reply
post #111 of 134
3/9/12 at 12:24am

Well--if you want to drop $1200 there are DPS Pure carbon skis.

BTW what kind of Solly bindings did you break?  The lightweight Z12 Ti's are notorious for breaking heel plates, which can be replaced for $25 (or free--I think the warranty is 5 years.) They can be hard to come by-last year late season I found one in the Tahoe area and had to wait until fall to get a second. It is a light binding though--my Mantras, which are mounted flat, are quite a bit lighter than my Recons.   

Reply
post #112 of 134
3/9/12 at 8:27am
Thread Starter 
Oldgoat is right about the TIs. They broke and just the broken heel got replaced. But Goodes can have issues with binding retention. A good while later the heel pulled out. "Hey watch this" seems to hurry those failures along. Now I have a "frankenbinding" with another manufacturer's heel (Fisher-Price judging by the flashy color) and I was able to milk a few more days out of the old skis.
What shops near Squaw demo DPS? It has been a tough season for them. Do they want to send the good stuff out on the rocks?
Eric
Reply
post #113 of 134
3/9/12 at 8:50am

Start Haus on 10990 Donner Pass Road in Truckee, CA demos and sells DPS skis.

Reply
post #114 of 134
3/10/12 at 7:00am
Thread Starter 
Thanks. I have shopped there but haven't demoed from them. Great shop but not walking distance. Hopefully I can get back up to check them out while there is still snow. Heatwave in Socal today. Waterskiing!
Eric
Reply
post #115 of 134
3/18/12 at 9:17pm
Thread Starter 

Interesting ski testing today. Got a couple of turns on the Salamon Shoguns my son was demoing. Not enough for a significant evaluation but I did get a first impression: reasonable ski. Liveley but not unstable. Still had a little bit of that "heavy" feel and some actual ski weight to deal with. Wasn't excited enough about them to adjust my skis' bindings so my son could switch with me.

 

A buddy who was with us offered me his personal skis for a couple of laps. Praxis Backcountries. The skis felt quite interesting - in the lift line! I could skate and play around easily - almost like the skis were forcing me to play. Riding the lift up, my tired knees did not complain - these skis were not too physically heavy (the light AT Markers didn't hurt). Riding down Red Dog through cut up powder and soft moguls, these skis were fantastic! Quick turning, stable but easily thrown about when a save was needed. We hiked for a bit of untracked - and found it! The Praxis skis were great in the untracked trees! Of all the skis I've tried in the last couple of years, I liked these the best! Hmmm, they were also the lightest.

 

My faith in the ski industry is restored! There are some light performance skis still available! The guy at Squaw Valley Bootfitters has some Armadas he claims are light that he wants me to try. If I get in to StartHaus I'll try the DPSs. And Goode is still around. There is hope for me!

 

Plus there is snow in Tahoe! The roads are all closed though - but I'm walking distance to the lifts.

 

Eric

Reply
post #116 of 134
3/18/12 at 10:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Strongly agree about heavier skis out west, short little skis making tiny little bumps, would add that sidecut has a lot to do with this. But Mantras are, surprisingly, one of the lightest skis of that width made. 1930 g at 177, better surface area to weight ratio than Watea 94 or 101. Which is why some many folks still use them for AT...

 


Mantras make a pretty good AT setup, a nice compromise between "up" and "down" ability.  Concerning heavy skis,  the weight only matters if you are not leading with the tips and constantly trying to force turns.  Relax, use smooth technique and that nice, stable, heavy ski will come right around. The weight will just disappear underneath you. This is the Zen mantra (no pun intended) of heavy skis.

 

 

Reply
post #117 of 134
3/19/12 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingycaptain View Post


Mantras make a pretty good AT setup, a nice compromise between "up" and "down" ability.  Concerning heavy skis,  the weight only matters if you are not leading with the tips and constantly trying to force turns.  Relax, use smooth technique and that nice, stable, heavy ski will come right around. The weight will just disappear underneath you. This is the Zen mantra (no pun intended) of heavy skis.

 

 


With the OP's repeated statements of "throw them around", it doesn't sound like smooth technique is something he is familiar with.

 

Reply
post #118 of 134
3/19/12 at 4:10pm

Here's my .02 (this, after skimming through four pages of posts in about 5 minutes of speed reading):

 

I have to agree that the bindings make a huge difference in weight. However, since the OP was talking about ski weight that's what I'll focus on.  Besides, I don't know s*%t about bindings.

 

I'm pretty light, about 5-10 and 140 lbs.   I love my K2 Outlaws because they are heavy, they are damp and stable, no chatter on hardpack, they crush the crud, but because they are soft they can go through deep stuff pretty well for a 92mm wide ski.  They hold an edge and absolutely rail the arcing turns. They like to go fast, that's one area where the weight is a big, stable advantage.  

 

I also picked a pair of Stokli Spirit SC, about the same weight, but a totally different, 65mm wide carving ski. It skis very "light", it's quick and responsive and rocks the bumps (though not what they're made for).

 

So here's an over-simplified equation:

 

Heavy ski + light skier = firm contact with the snow. 

 

I also want a pair of lighter skis. Ergo, light ski + light skier = quicker turns, better in moguls.  Maybe better flotation in deep snow, given similar dimensions and running surface. 

 

Light skis are good, and so are heavy skis.  Different day, different conditions.

 

I question the OP's claim (a few pages back) that most skis (other than Goode) are heavy.  I demoed a bunch of skis in the past month or two  For example the Fischer Watea 98 (and the 2013 version, Big Stix 98) is very light, very quick, awesome in the moguls.  The Salomon Shogun also was a nice weight, not super light but definitely not burly.

  

Reply
post #119 of 134
3/19/12 at 9:23pm
Thread Starter 

Buck from Olympic Bootworks in Squaw Valley twisted my arm into trying some Armada TSTs 174. Sweet! A nice light feel on (and in) the snow. Quick turning but reasonably stable. Very forgiving when I got a little in the backseat. Most of today's snow was light powder covering soft bumps (does it get better than that?!). In the rare times I found firm snow, the skis were a bit chattery but they held reasonably well. In the untracked and crud they were excellent. While not as light as my Goodes or the Praxis Backcountrys they were not heavy. I was able to throw them around as needed and even rip off a weeniecopter. For a major factory ski, these rocked!

 

For those who questioned my selection of skis to review, perhaps you were right. There are reasonably light skis being offered (even if it took a while for me to find them). My wallet might get lighter as a result?

 

Regarding my style (or lack therof), sometimes I do ski smoothly. But when that obstacle jumps out in my way, the skis will get thrown around as needed to avoid a situation that I am not comfortable with. A true weakness of my skiing shows up in my inability to ski super fast. I do lots of turns to keep my speed down. Speed doesn't excite me, it terrifies me. Turns excite me - which is why I like bumps and figure eights in the powder. And light skis.

 

Eric

 

Reply
post #120 of 134
3/22/12 at 8:44pm

eleeski, you sure wasted a lot of time here.  That's OK, but Beyond and others have exercised the patience of Solomon to repeat their corrections of your statements.  Had you begun at TGR, you would have read "SEARCH FUNCTION JONG" and been directed to builders who explain their skis' properties.  You are a bump and slalom skier who doesn't go very fast, so light skis are great for you.  Since you don't do big air, you can use tech bindings and boots that will reduce the weight from FIFTY percent of your gear to under 25%.  The alpine ski industry generates many billions in revenue each year, so you should have bothered to learn the mechanics of its gear before you complained about weights.  You can try some 2lb., 45mm wide nordic racing skis like I used to ski on blue runs, or 3lb nordic touring skis.  Then the demands for very high compressive, tensile, and torsional strength, as well as impact survivability, in alpine skis will become clear.  Any extra mass added to alpine skis, with the rarest exceptions, is put into increasing damping or greater spring rates without sacrificing breaking strength.  This is a moral and existential imperative that ambitious skiers learn very early.  And look, the difference between one of your Goodes and the lightest *nordic racing* skis (~1600g vs. 980g) is under 2 pounds per ski! 

 

So once again, try some park/bump skis, try more short-radius slalom skis, and try some backcountry skis with lighter boots and bindings.  Look at Binding Freedom plates and inserts to switch bindings around.  I'm glad you are enjoying your latest demos; perhaps the cause is that you are learning to work the skis with less wasted motion.  And sometime try skiing fast, but within your ability, to instantly feel the knee-saving comfort of beefy boards. 

 

Best of luck.

 


Edited by whippersnapper - 3/22/12 at 8:54pm
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion