New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ski Luddite Thread - Page 23

post #661 of 723

Hey just wanted to let you guys know of a sweet new site called SidelineSwap which is a platform to buy, sell and trade ski equipment I have sold a ton and it has been awesome. Take a look!

https://sidelineswap.com/gear/skiing/?recent=

post #662 of 723
Thread Starter 
 
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

Leg position at turn start >> differences in mount position.    Very interesting observation.    And I mean that in a "ya know a lot of things we fix with hardware should be corrected by improved training and fitness" way.

 

Certainly nothing wrong with shooting to find some kind of ideal equipment setup, but human beings are very adaptable, both physically and mentally. When they want to be.   ;-)

 

I find it fascinating to get on a variety of different skis, and try to feel/figure out what it takes to make them do what I want them to. Easier (for me) to experiment when I can amass and choose from a wide range that I picked up for $100 or less - sometimes a LOT less!

 

Earlier in the season I spent a couple days on some 186cm 2005 Head im85's. Frankly they felt kinda planky/sluggish, but I just did all the usual stuff I do when skiing - some one-footed drills, short turns, groomers, some bumps, what off-piste there was available. They're skis, they worked, and I adjusted to them. But after that I switched to some 178cm 2006 Dynastar Legend 8800's, and man, did they feel like the snappiest carving skis ever! It felt to me like it helped my skiing to wrestle with the im85's. If nothing else switching from ski to different ski to different ski could sensitize someone to the feel of what a particular ski can and will do with various inputs.

 
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

I might just play with that all season, I'm in that sort of mood. 

 

Play (variety, experimentation) is good. I was watching an old Warren Miller movie, and it had a segment with Penelope Street where she ripped around on downhill skis  in pow and bumps, then did some incredible ballet stuff, then romped around on tele skis. She said even though initially she was somewhat dismissive she made her way to tele because (paraphrase) "once you're an expert at something where's the fun?".

 

Quick shot of her here at 2:43...

 

 

post #663 of 723


 

Just for kicks thrift store find: 1997 Head Cyber Spaces in 160cm.    She likes them so much I will replace the bindings.

Extremely damp, quite soft to the hand flex.     The skis had a lot of camber when we found them, and the bases were pristine, but I had to cut away an absolutely incredible amount of sidewall to get her a 2 degree side edge.   Weirdly, the sidewalls are soft, almost Rubbermaid dustpan soft.    So either the original owner never had these ground - or someone whaled away on these with a super old school 90degree compact file holder and got frustrated when they couldn't get effective edge.



You may remember these from any number of carving instructional videos - I know Martin Heckelman used them; I'll have to check Lito and that H guy.

post #664 of 723
Thread Starter 

I bought a pair of used Mantra's off CL last summer for $20, and as I was leaving the seller asked me if I wanted these for free...

 

Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, z1.1.0. ||B2

 

Guessing they are similar vintage to your Head's? 170's, skis and bindings are almost showroom condition.

 

Haven't skied em, but may for a few runs sometime.

post #665 of 723

Olin was putting out some good skis in that era. The Outer Limits was a fat (for the day) ski. I have a pair of Sierras (?, I'll check, fuzzy memory)

post #666 of 723

I seem to remember something called a 'Selkirk'?

post #667 of 723

Yes, I think those, too. 

post #668 of 723
post #669 of 723

My CUTs are 130s. We used them at Wildcat, NH in the late 20th century in a direct to parallel program. I'd free ski them on occasion and they were quite, er, lively.

post #670 of 723

Hehe, ^those are 188 CUT 11.5s - the opposite of lively really.      Easily the only CUT I ever liked. 

post #671 of 723

My touring setup (the B4 Squads) for the moment. I don't tour much and don't need these skis for the resort so I'm pretty happy with the Fritschis on them.

 

I paid about $60 for the Squads with Rossi Axial bindings. I've had the Fritschis since the last century.

 

It's amazing how stuff continues to work after it has been superceded by 'the next best thing'. ;-)

 

The other skis are for the museum.

post #672 of 723

Is that the 170-something chick-Squad?   I think I have a pair of those somewheres.

post #673 of 723

No. They are the 184 Dude Squad. Heavy metal, man.

post #674 of 723
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

Hehe, ^those are 188 CUT 11.5s - the opposite of lively really.      Easily the only CUT I ever liked. 

 

Well, since they were "ten centimeters wider at the waist than most midfats" of that era I can see why!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post
 

Heavy metal, man.

 

Natch!   ;-)

post #675 of 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc-ski View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

Hehe, ^those are 188 CUT 11.5s - the opposite of lively really.      Easily the only CUT I ever liked. 

 

Well, since they were "ten centimeters wider at the waist than most midfats" of that era I can see why!

 

 

LOL

post #676 of 723
Thread Starter 

I was traveling last November and saw these at a ski shop...

 

 

They had failed to sell at a swap, shop was giving them away for free. The reason they didn't sell is they were somebody's touring skis, and had been badly beaten up and mounted several times. So naturally I had to give them a home.   ;-)

 

Tops (aside from multiple mount holes) and edges were in decent shape. Bottoms had lots of gouges filled with p-tex and one core shot repaired, but overall seemed like they could be serviceable for a soft snow ski. I gave the bases a good cleaning and hand (block) sanding, tuned the side edges, and filled all the old mount holes with JB Weld. Was able to find what seemed like a reasonable place to mount some Railflex plates, yielding this...

 

 

Which wasn't too far off from this...

 

 

Which are a pair of skis some Maggot had and apparently liked a lot.

 

Here's the thing - I took em out for one run end of day a while back, and they were (for me) totally uncooperative. I just could not get them to respond to tipping or steering, had to really muscle/hop em around to turn, and I'm used to skiing longer skis with relatively large TR's. It was ... bad. Was happy just to stay upright until I got down and got em back in the car!

 

Took a closer look at home recently and amongst other things they appear to have a pretty severe base edge angle, in the 3-4 degree range. They also (by design) have some pretty hefty camber...

 

 

I'm wondering if there's enough base material left to do one if it might be worth getting a grind at a shop and having them reset the base edge to a more reasonable 1 degree angle.

 

Regarding the Railflex plates I mounted, I was able to position them so their center hole, (which lines up with boot midsole mark when boot's clicked in), is 25mm behind CRS. When I put the bindings on I actually used the rearmost plate hole, so that put boot midsole 40mm behind CRS - that's as far toward the tail as I can get the bindings.

 

Thoughts/comments? ( Other than snarky " you get what you pay for" and so forth? ;-)

post #677 of 723

In the 'camber' shot are the little dark pips screws/holes?

 

3-4 degrees base angle would be manageable on a soft ski in soft snow;  I am wondering if you might have a perfect storm of  stiff ski, lots of camber, and bad base bevel. 

 

The reason I ask about the screw holes is that if your heel is on top of or behind the center of camber you can't get away with the old trick of intentional backseating.

post #678 of 723
Thread Starter 

Yea, they were insert screws for some kind of "DynaDuke Mounting Plates". Not a Dynafit guy, not hip to that.

 

The heel of my boot with plates/bindings as mounted is indeed behind the center of camber. The center of my boot heel is about 6" behind CRS.

 

Maybe it is a bad combo as is - the ski is stiff, and the pronounced camber strikes me as a little weird, but I guess folks really used to rave about this model.

 

Come this far, can't help but wonder what it might ski like with a grind and new base bevel. Think I'll check into it.

post #679 of 723
When you do get them flattened, do me a favor and get a single run in in the forward binding position.

Sacrifice for science eh.
post #680 of 723

I owned PM Gear Bro 164,  and my pal had a couple sets of Lhasas

He still has his SuperBro's 195cm which he says are still "totally awesome" and happened to be made by Blossom Skis in Italy ( so rumour has it )

Hence the build & ride quality of the SuperBro is superb and many are still out there being skied.

 

No offence to PM Gear, but if they had production issues, they still readily sold off the production "weird-ones" and cosmetic-blemished skis.

So there are a lot of "not-perfect" skis out there, some with different amounts of camber, different flexes, etc.

TGR forums was full of PM Gear chat about 2-6 years ago, and lots are still being skied by TGR folk

You may want to post over there if you have any PM Gear questions as someone there will surely know.

 

~ Andy


Edited by ARL67 - 1/19/17 at 3:18pm
post #681 of 723
Thread Starter 

Thx, Andy. TGR is a good idea. I did search and scan some posts there at one point, but didn't try reaching out with a thread or direct to any members.

 

I did actually try to communicate with PM Gear,  just to get some info on these Bro's I picked up, but never heard back from them.

 

>> do me a favor and get a single run in in the forward binding position.

 

Another good idea, (hopefully) couldn't hurt.   ;-)

 

Think I'll take another crack at the bases and edges by hand, then try the full range of fore-aft afforded by the Railflex setup. If no joy anywhere there then maybe to a shop for a grind.
 

post #682 of 723
Thread Starter 

I found something in an eBay listing for somebody trying to sell 188 Bro's last year...

 

 

The Railflex plate I mounted has its center hole at about 1010mm, and rear hole at 1025mm. Not sure where the eBay poster got that from, but if accurate it would appear I am mounted somewhat forward of the recommended line.

 

Then again the skis I picked up have a lot more than "3mm camber underfoot". More like 8mm on one, 10mm on the other.


EDIT: A helpful Maggot pointed me to some useful stuff, including this...

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/41366-Bro-s-mount-position


Edited by jc-ski - 1/15/17 at 5:53pm
post #683 of 723
Thread Starter 

Ah, demo bindings. Since the toe and heel can be adjusted separately I was able to move the entire binding back another 15mm to get my boot mid-sole on the suggested line.

 

 

Skied nice, but they're ... different. More experimentation is needed.   ;-)

post #684 of 723

Different - meaning not like your other skis?

post #685 of 723
Thread Starter 

Well, yea, there's always that. I've kinda gotten grooved to some '09 Katana's, and they're tanks, but oddly enough very responsive in their own way.  The Bro's feel a lot lighter, but they don't engage as snappily, (base edge?), and are a little weird in bumps, (pronounced camber?).

 

Just need more time on the Bro's in different conditions. Figure out what they're all about, how to drive em the right way. Maybe grind and tune at some point, but just fun to play with them as is for now.

post #686 of 723
Trying giving them a grind.

Bros were all the rage for a bit for a small but vocal group. Lots of people thought they were cool. Some were way too stiff and turned people into tail pushers.
Now those Super Bros... Different kettle of fish.
post #687 of 723
Thread Starter 

The Bro's are really just a little side trip project, and so far the investment has been limited to my time. But I will definitely keep a fresh grind in mind as I play with them going forward - thx for the feedback. Something I'm curious about...

 

I guess a lot of people used these as BC skis with Dynafit setups. Regardless, they had to be primarily intended as an off-piste ski, so what was the thinking behind the design?

 

Light Weight     Thumbs Up

99mm Waist     Thumbs Up

Longer TR        Thumbs Up

Partial Twin Tip  Thumbs Up

 

Why the really stiff flex and a lot of camber? What was that combo (along with the other stuff above) intended to provide the skier?


Edited by jc-ski - 1/20/17 at 5:10pm
post #688 of 723
Thread Starter 

On another front, was always kinda curious about these...

 

 

180CM Atomic SX:11's. 2004 model, I think. Scored on CL for $15, came with a separate pair of Race 614 bindings which appear solid. Unlike the bindings currently on the skis...

 

 

In any event I have other compatible bindings I can mount if need be.   ;-)

 

A couple base scratches that might require some PTex, otherwise the edges and tops are in good shape, lifter plate seems solid.

post #689 of 723

Remember that the 614 has been recalled. The heel cup breaks without warning both putting them on and while skiing. Not to say don't use them, but...

post #690 of 723
Thread Starter 

Actually the 614 wasn't part of that big recall several years ago...

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/78205/atomic-issues-massive-binding-recall-1-25-million-binders-24-models-over-5-years

 

Although I have read many people bitching about the fragility of Race 614's. There wasn't a separate recall that I'm aware of.

 

Alternately I have some Xentrix bindings that have Atomic-replaced heels, (from the recall above), and also some 1018's if need be.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion