EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why do we need multiple skis (vs. 20+ years ago)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do we need multiple skis (vs. 20+ years ago)? - Page 2

post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

wow!  Looks like my post is "missing"........   I will attempt to repost.  it was a picture of an old man in a rocking chair saying quivers are for liberal pussies.    but, we have always had quivers. I actually own 4 pairs. powder, mid, touring and hard snow.  that's it. I will be adding a mid 80's ski for next season. yeah, its like why do you get 5 different screwdrivers when you buy a set?  you can use one for almost any size screw but they work better when you use the right tool.  

 


My response to your post also disappeared.  What's going on?mad.gif

 

post #32 of 39

Need has nothing to do with it.  Want has everything to do with it.  It's fun to buy new toys.

post #33 of 39

I am sincerely hoping my post wasn't pulled due to the word pussies. if it was, this is sad.  I used  free press clip art so it can't be copyright issue. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post


My response to your post also disappeared.  What's going on?mad.gif

 



 

post #34 of 39

DesignIdeas          http://youtu.be/t3GnWTy8Ebg

post #35 of 39

You don't use a philips screw driver when you need a hammer. Likewise, sometimes I like to use a chainsaw instead of a hacksaw when cutting up wood. You can say the same about all sorts of tools. So why would you ski 18" of powder on a 200CM GS race ski? Why would you ski groomers on a 190 cm, 120 mm wide reverse camber ski, when there are tools for that. Some will argue that a 100mm+ wide ski will ski groomers just fine, as a guy blows by him arcing railroad tracks on a 165cm, 68mm wide slalom ski. But to each his own. Technology and design have vastly improved over the past 20 years, and the skis of today are far superior to those mfg 20 years ago.

post #36 of 39

 

Quote:
That's pretty much it: the shaped skis brought carving to lower speeds and more people, but aggravated the need to make skiing the deep wet stuff easier for the less-skilled.  I''m not buying skis could not be made torsionally rigid 25 years ago.

 

You could, but they'd also be incredibly stiff lengthwise.  With better materials and more sophisticated construction techniques, you can make skis that are torsionally stiff but stiff have reasonable flex.  (You probably could have done some of these things 25 years ago, but they would have been ridiculously expensive.)  There are still a lot of tradeoffs, but skis today are better in more conditions than ever.

 

But a lot of the extreme fragmentation these days is marketing, and as someone put it, "aspirational" skis.  Almost nobody 'needs' (in any meaningful sense) an extremely specialized deep snow/powder ski, nor a full-on FIS race ski.  Most of the people on 'race stock' skis running NASTAR would benefit more from coaching than equipment upgrades.

 

I saw a guy at Wachusett this season (1000' vert, an hour from Boston, mostly man-made snow) on Coombas.  That's not a rational decision.

post #37 of 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

You could, but they'd also be incredibly stiff lengthwise.  With better materials and more sophisticated construction techniques, you can make skis that are torsionally stiff but stiff have reasonable flex.  (You probably could have done some of these things 25 years ago, but they would have been ridiculously expensive.)  There are still a lot of tradeoffs, but skis today are better in more conditions than ever.


 

I saw a guy at Wachusett this season (1000' vert, an hour from Boston, mostly man-made snow) on Coombas.  That's not a rational decision.


Nobody wanted to make skis like that anyway. Skis were skis and that's the shape they were. It took several years for the shapes to really come into their own and make the market.

 

Coombas at Wachusett eh?

hey, it let's you straight line the deep pow to get back on the lift.

 

post #38 of 39

I love this question and I have to admit I am getting to be an old fart and have been skiing almost all my life. My answer is 20 years ago people did have quivers, but most did not, and there weren't as many ski options back then. I have been an expert skier most of my life and I skied every possible place and condition on slalom racing skis. They were simply the best performing skis you could buy and if you could handle them reasonably long (205 cm) were a pretty good all around ski. Twenty years ago I always wanted a second pair of powder skis, but since I lived in New England, I lived without them. I never liked GS style skis, and there wasn't much else to consider. We New England skiers all have "rock" skis, not sure if that counts as a quiver.

 

Now, my god, the choices are almost endless. The industry is devoted to developing the next "hot" thing so it can hype it and convince you it will turn you into the next olympic medalist. I am an engineer and I do agree that skis have gotten much better these days (I bought a pair of Spalding skis a long time ago, actually two pairs (I guess I did have a quiver) because they were only $25 brand new. The first pair started to delaminate on the 3rd run and I couldn't finish out the day (a chunk of the ski flew off and almost hit another skier and I figured I was a danger on the slopes). The second pair made it through the first day and survived the season with lots of epoxy repair work. And skis have also gotten very specialized and are great at specific conditions and horrible at others. Hence, you want multiple skis to have the "ideal" ski for the conditions.

 

Everybody is different, but you really have to research and dig to find a ski today that is a "generalist" or good at most conditions. I guess they call those "1 ski quiver" skis and they never seem as appealing as that "awsome" mega wide ski that rocks in the powder.

 

As an old fart and and expert skier, I still compare a new potential ski purchase to my 205 slalom racing skis, which I still have and use (they have become my rock skis). I haven't found too many modern skis I like as well, but I am just getting into the new ski search after ignoring the market for 10 years. I have found lots of skis that are much better than my slaloms in certain conditions, but few that are as good across the board.

 

I bought a pair of Ullr's Chariots this year and I have to say they ski a lot like my slalom racing skis, only better. I am really happy with my choice. I can't believe a 101mm wide ski feels so good, but they do, and they are supposedly the ultimate "one ski quiver" ski. So now I need a skinny racing ski and a really wide soft powder ski and I'll be............................ seriously in need of therapy!!

post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post

 

I bought a pair of Ullr's Chariots this year and I have to say they ski a lot like my slalom racing skis, only better. I am really happy with my choice. I can't believe a 101mm wide ski feels so good, but they do, and they are supposedly the ultimate "one ski quiver" ski. So now I need a skinny racing ski and a really wide soft powder ski and I'll be............................ seriously in need of therapy!!


I can help you with that.  I am a therapist.  And after a half dozen sessions I would be able to add to my one quiver and get a nice wide powder ski, or a skinny carving ski.  Them I would be seriously needing therapy and find a therapist and the cycle thus continues.

 

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 › Why do we need multiple skis (vs. 20+ years ago)?