EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do all mountain skis require compromise????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do all mountain skis require compromise???? - Page 3

post #61 of 80
Right, but if I enjoy steep technical terrain on what I like to ski (which tends to be what I have, because I'm not always thinking my skis are what limit me) and don't have any interest in getting onto something rockered, decambered or early-rise'd, why should someone hold that against me?

The whingers who are trying to "beat" me in this thread, can you answer something for me? When you drive down the street, do you stop every person who's in an older vehicle, and berate him/her for "not progressing the sport" of driving by owning the latest and greatest of Europe's or the USA's "crossover" SUV/sportswagons? When you're on a MTB ride, do you stop every singlespeeder and lecture him on not "progressing the sport" by refusing to ride full-suspension carbon everything bikes that cost $10,000? When you see someone reading a paper book instead of a Kindle, do you lambaste her for not "progressing the sport" of reading?
post #62 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Right, but if I enjoy steep technical terrain on what I like to ski (which tends to be what I have, because I'm not always thinking my skis are what limit me) and don't have any interest in getting onto something rockered, decambered or early-rise'd, why should someone hold that against me?
The whingers who are trying to "beat" me in this thread, can you answer something for me? When you drive down the street, do you stop every person who's in an older vehicle, and berate him/her for "not progressing the sport" of driving by owning the latest and greatest of Europe's or the USA's "crossover" SUV/sportswagons? When you're on a MTB ride, do you stop every singlespeeder and lecture him on not "progressing the sport" by refusing to ride full-suspension carbon everything bikes that cost $10,000? When you see someone reading a paper book instead of a Kindle, do you lambaste her for not "progressing the sport" of reading?


 

 

I never complained about what you were skiing on. 

 

I think new skis have progressed the sport in certain areas. steep technical terrain with lots of hard pack is probably not one of them 

 

post #63 of 80

SJ has done it again, bunch of folks all riled up taking offense to another simple question.  Ok, really not so simple, but IMO, very relavent.

Just returned from 3 days at Jackson Hole - typical spring conditions, chasing corn between ice and slush.  Super fun in the sun.  Back to the question:  Do all-mountain skis require compromise?   My question back is:  What is an all-mountain ski?  It is a loaded question, it definitely means different things to different skiers.  

 

My buddy, the longtime JH local and ski sales rep, rips all over JH on a pair of 170cm Slalom race skis.  He is as good technically as any skier that I have been around,  and skis on either his Slalom skis or a pair of "fat" GS skis (around 80mm at the waist).  He grouses about how American skiers don't know how to ski, and don't want to learn, so that the industry has to make these "detuned" fat, rockered skis.  No matter what kind of "game changer" ski that I am skiing, I can barely keep him in sight, as does damn near anyone else I know.  Is he compromising?  No, works for him.

 

FWIW, I like a mid-fat/low-fat ski (80-90mm) with slight early- rise, or full camber and a flat tail with laminate, metal, sidewall construction.  Are they great at everything?  No, but work for me in most conditions. 

 

I saw several younger folks, making great turns on fatter, rockered skis.  Both on groomed/firm terrain and off-piste.  My first reaction was, "Why the hell are they skiing these frontside conditions on those floppy rockered fatties?"  Then after some reflection, I thought,  "Well, why the hell not?  Look at the grins on their faces."   Guess those work for them.  They probably don't think that they are compromising.

 

I have sold some skis with new tech to a few older, longtime, skiers, who have told me that the new skis took "20 years off of their skiing" and reinvigorated their interest in the sport.   GREAT!   I have also sold some new tech skis to similarly experienced, customers that shrugged their shoulders and said "I don't get it, I like my old 1999 vintage blah, blah, blah, better".  Not so great, at least for me. 

 

See a lot of folks on fat skis, skinny skis, and in-between skis, that flounder around.   Not sure that the new technology is helping or not.  But, for the most part I think that they are having fun.

 

Lots of rambling here.  But, my conclusion is....  All skis are a compromise of some sort.  The "right fit" depends mostly on who you are and what your skill set and goals are.  Not a very satisfying answer, but probably the right one.   

 

Plus, it's fun to see folks on this forum get riled up.

 

 

 

post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

 

Rossignol replaces Avenger 82Ti with Pursuit HP:

 

Here is a case where rocker has been added to a "technical" ski and IMO it has not improved it for it's intended purpose. In order to understand this last, you have to remember what the 82Ti was made for. This was a wide carver much like say a Volkl AC50 or Nordica Jet Fuel. These were wider waisted system skis with strong torsional builds and very good firm snow performance given their width. Rossi chose to add rocker to the Pursuit HP in order to make a technical ski "easier and more forgiving". It did that, but it also robbed the ski of some of it's personality. The Pursuit skis well enough but it no longer hooks up out at the tip and the energy at turn release is less noticeable. IMO, this ski is now neither fish nor fowl as it is not as good as say an Experience 83 or 88 in bumps or mixed snow and is not dramatically better at hard groomers. This is a case where the rocker changed the ski but diluted the premise of this model group.

 


 

 

 

That's just sadnonono2.gif.

 

What is an all-mountain ski?

An all-mountain ski is the skiing equivalent of an all-season tire.

 

 

 


 

 

post #65 of 80

GV- Who said that you have to slarve on a rockered ski?  

 

Again, a good skier is a good skier no matter what ski is on his/her feet. 

 

This discussion reminds me of the era when shaped skis were introduced...Lots of good skier grousing that "I can turn on my 210's just fine, why do I need shaped skis". duck.gif

post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

GV- Who said that you have to slarve on a rockered ski?  

 

Again, a good skier is a good skier no matter what ski is on his/her feet. 

 

This discussion reminds me of the era when shaped skis were introduced...Lots of good skier grousing that "I can turn on my 210's just fine, why do I need shaped skis". duck.gif

 

You are absolutely correct;  you don't have to slarve on a rockered ski, and in deep snow it handles just fine.  However, on hardpack, some folks prefer to be connected to the snow all the way from start to finish and from tip to tail, especially when pushing the limits, and having your ski tip up in the air may help with gradual engagement on turn initiation, but it doesn't do the "always locked down" thing so well.


BTW, I still say my antique 208 cm skis make better "locked in", clean-carved, high speed large radius turns than the modern "shaped" skis.  For small radius turns, and slow turns, the shaped skis are better. 

 

 

 

 

post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

That's just sadnonono2.gif.

 

What is an all-mountain ski?

An all-mountain ski is the skiing equivalent of an all-season tire.

 

 

 


 

 


A good driver can drive an all season tire better than a crappy driver with DOT race tires or Slicks AND do it in more conditions. 

 

post #68 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post



It's nice that you would take one for the team like that.



It was a far far better thing than I have ever done before..............................biggrin.gif

 

SJ

post #69 of 80


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

 

You are absolutely correct;  you don't have to slarve on a rockered ski, and in deep snow it handles just fine.  However, on hardpack, some folks prefer to be connected to the snow all the way from start to finish and from tip to tail, especially when pushing the limits, and having your ski tip up in the air may help with gradual engagement on turn initiation, but it doesn't do the "always locked down" thing so well.

Correct, and I prefer that too.  The trouble is that I cannot justify owning a dedicated hardback ski, so I gradually ended up with a rockered quiver (so I chose my compromises).  Although this winter may have changed how I feel about hardback skisbiggrin.gif.  
 

 

post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Post


My buddy, the longtime JH local and ski sales rep, rips all over JH on a pair of 170cm Slalom race skis.  He is as good technically as any skier that I have been around,  and skis on either his Slalom skis or a pair of "fat" GS skis (around 80mm at the waist).  He grouses about how American skiers don't know how to ski, and don't want to learn, so that the industry has to make these "detuned" fat, rockered skis.  No matter what kind of "game changer" ski that I am skiing, I can barely keep him in sight, as does damn near anyone else I know.  Is he compromising?  No, works for him.

 


Yup, it comes down to the Pilot!   and in most cases for 80%+  of ski time that quiver is all that is required.....  popcorn.gif

 

post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Right, but if I enjoy steep technical terrain on what I like to ski (which tends to be what I have, because I'm not always thinking my skis are what limit me) and don't have any interest in getting onto something rockered, decambered or early-rise'd, why should someone hold that against me?

The whingers who are trying to "beat" me in this thread, can you answer something for me? When you drive down the street, do you stop every person who's in an older vehicle, and berate him/her for "not progressing the sport" of driving by owning the latest and greatest of Europe's or the USA's "crossover" SUV/sportswagons? When you're on a MTB ride, do you stop every singlespeeder and lecture him on not "progressing the sport" by refusing to ride full-suspension carbon everything bikes that cost $10,000? When you see someone reading a paper book instead of a Kindle, do you lambaste her for not "progressing the sport" of reading?


Most of this is corollary bu irrelevant to this thread.  I'll say you and I have much in common and my skis have not been updated in too long.  I did however get to try out the latest 2012 and 2013 rockered skis, and I can see where they could make my life easier than what I'm skiing now.  I could ski deep powder on Volkl 6-Stars back in the day, but I wouldn't choose that tool today.  My Mantras, Sugar Daddys and Nitrous still do what they did when I got them, but incremental improvements have made them irrelevant.  Newer gear really does make a difference.  I'm the ultimate Luddite, and have not yet updated the gear.  However, this is a pretty good time of year to consider doing it.

 

Some of the new gear is better.  Some is not so much depending on your intent.  Eventually you will find a tool that works better than what you have, if you give it a chance.

 

FWIW, my cars and bicycles resemble the state of my ski gear.  Nice try, but it remains a choice to eventually progress or be "that guy". biggrin.gif

 

Phil....you've come a long way baby!

 

c12e043f_Phil+Hunter+1990.jpg

post #72 of 80

Luckily, when shaped skis first started showing up, I was encouraged by an Olympic skier to try a pair because "they are just so dang much fun for freeskiing".  So I did, and was hooked.  No compromise there.

 

So when new shapes and rocker started showing up, I assumed it would be the same, but so far, and with a fair amount of demoing and one ownership experience, not so much.  I felt compromise in the wrong way in most cases.

 

I don't object at all to making the sport easier, but my experience with a lot of the new stuff is that in addition to inarguably making things easier, they also dilute the excitement and "zing" of the sport.  I just like the more traditional feel.  This year at Jackson, on two separate occasions, I shelved my Steadfasts for my Fire Arrow Pro 80s and had MUCH more fun in great new snow.  Yes, the Steadfasts were more forgiving, but the Fire Arrows had so much more of a vibrant personality.  Upon returning home, I had the same experience on a bigger day except that I shelved the Steadfasts and switched to my Enforcers.  Oh, the joy!

 

So I sold the Steadfasts, and bought a pair of placeholder Nomad Savages (what a charging ski-- wants to go FAST, and the mini-tip rocker seems fine).  Based on what I've read from SJ and Phil, I can already see a pair of FireArrow 84s on the horizon, and maybe even some 2014 Enforcers -- though I'm not sure how they will improve the existing Enforcer.

 

But I get the new stuff.  You can absolutely blaze on it, and when I was younger, it was all about the speed.  Now, for me at least, it is more about the feel of the turn and the g-forces, so I'll stick with generally more traditional shapes.  Thank goodness there is plenty to choose from in both camps.

 

Great thread!

post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post

I think new skis have progressed the sport in certain areas. steep technical terrain with lots of hard pack is probably not one of them 

Did I say I ski a hill where it's mostly hardpack? Where's that coming from? Are you trying to get me to revert to my teenage years in the Poconos?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolhand View Post

My buddy, the longtime JH local and ski sales rep, rips all over JH on a pair of 170cm Slalom race skis.  He is as good technically as any skier that I have been around,  and skis on either his Slalom skis or a pair of "fat" GS skis (around 80mm at the waist).  He grouses about how American skiers don't know how to ski, and don't want to learn, so that the industry has to make these "detuned" fat, rockered skis

I'm sure a lot of the Maggots (the young pups who think posting on the InterWebToobz is reality, rather than skiing being reality) would try to lecture him on making the sport go backward with his ski choice. I hope he never skis with some of the Holy Water Sprinklers in this thread!

But seriously -- if only he would give Magic Funshape 2000 another chance, it could be the Love of a Lifetime!rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

Eventually you will find a tool that works better than what you have, if you give it a chance

I don't need a better tool. The tool needs a better craftsman/artisan using it. This always has been the truth. But humans, like their winged friends the corvids, are attracted to shiny things, and they have complex symbolic exchanges with each other surrounding the possession and display of those shiny things. This, I am afraid, is what drives "the industry" in North America. Not better skills, but a shinier shiny.

308
Say, GV, have you seen that Magic Funshape 2000 yet?
post #74 of 80
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

 

Phil....you've come a long way baby!

 

c12e043f_Phil+Hunter+1990.jpg


Is that Flexon Phil!!!???!!!! Roffe FTW!

post #75 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post


 

So I sold the Steadfasts, and bought a pair of placeholder Nomad Savages (what a charging ski-- wants to go FAST, and the mini-tip rocker seems fine).  Based on what I've read from SJ and Phil, I can already see a pair of FireArrow 84s on the horizon, and maybe even some 2014 Enforcers -- though I'm not sure how they will improve the existing Enforcer.

 

But I get the new stuff.  You can absolutely blaze on it, and when I was younger, it was all about the speed.  Now, for me at least, it is more about the feel of the turn and the g-forces, so I'll stick with generally more traditional shapes.  Thank goodness there is plenty to choose from in both camps.

 

Great thread!

 

In fact, the 2014 may not improve on the 2013 depending on tastes. The 2013 will still be the ski we know and love. The 2014 will be wider and will have more tip rocker and a little tail rise as well. It could also change a lot in the next year or so. Don't know much more at this point and heck, it may not even be called "Enforcer".............probably some variation on the "theme from hell"

 

SJ
 

 

post #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post

So I sold the Steadfasts, and bought a pair of placeholder Nomad Savages (what a charging ski-- wants to go FAST, and the mini-tip rocker seems fine).  Based on what I've read from SJ and Phil, I can already see a pair of FireArrow 84s on the horizon, and maybe even some 2014 Enforcers -- though I'm not sure how they will improve the existing Enforcer.

 

But I get the new stuff.  You can absolutely blaze on it, and when I was younger, it was all about the speed.  Now, for me at least, it is more about the feel of the turn and the g-forces, so I'll stick with generally more traditional shapes.  Thank goodness there is plenty to choose from in both camps.

 

Great thread!

 

In fact, the 2014 may not improve on the 2013 depending on tastes. The 2013 will still be the ski we know and love. The 2014 will be wider and will have more tip rocker and a little tail rise as well. It could also change a lot in the next year or so. Don't know much more at this point and heck, it may not even be called "Enforcer".............probably some variation on the "theme from hell"

 

SJ


That 2014 'Enforcer' sounds like a burlier 2013 Head Rev 105... Is the western daily driver about to jump 7ish mils?  The Rev certainly felt like it could do the deed, what a ski. icon14.gif

 

post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

In fact, the 2014 may not improve on the 2013 depending on tastes. The 2013 will still be the ski we know and love. The 2014 will be wider and will have more tip rocker and a little tail rise as well. It could also change a lot in the next year or so. Don't know much more at this point and heck, it may not even be called "Enforcer".............probably some variation on the "theme from hell"

 

SJ
 

 



enforcer-evil-attacker-misterss-from-hell(single).jpg

post #78 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin View Post


That 2014 'Enforcer' sounds like a burlier 2013 Head Rev 105... Is the western daily driver about to jump 7ish mils?  The Rev certainly felt like it could do the deed, what a ski. icon14.gif

 



I liked the 105 and the 90 a lot and I thought that at least one other Head ski (iSpeed Magnum)  was a standout. Enough so that I'm working on a deal with Head which we currently only carry in Race Skis. I really don't NEED another brand especially following this year but they've been good to work with and are earnest about a program sooooooooooo.............it may happen.

 

On the 7 mil jump.....?......maybe. I sorta classify the 102-108 range a little differently than the 90-99'ers. I think of them as "big mountain" skis which of course is just an overgrown AM ski but I do think it's for a rather different skier. Still.....FTMP......it's not really that much about the width alone, it's also about the other stuff they're doing. As we get over 100, the manufacturers and product managers just think differently about this stuff. These imaginary lines in the snow exist all over the product ranges but I guess they (we......ummm.....I) hafta differentiate somewhere or t'other. Right now, most of the 102-108 stuff has more soft snow tech thrown at it than the next range down and I've skied a bunch of skis in this range that I'd like to own myself. Last year, I couldn't really say that as the stars were aligned and shining on the 98'ers.

 

SJ

post #79 of 80

Hmmm, this thread certainly diverged from what I thought the discussion was going to be about.  Seems that any thread these days is an excuse to start a rocker war. rolleyes.gif

 

So anyhow, would anyone like to discuss the actual design "compromises" and not get into an argument about how your idea of an all-mountain ski is different from my idea of an all-mountain ski?  I have long felt that a design that strives to build a great hard pack ski first, but then adds features (like rocker) to increase the versatility in 3D conditions WITHOUT killing the ski's performance when it's only 2D.  I'm really enjoying the mustache camber designs as long as they get the sidecut profile and tip/tail taper profiles correct (so they don't kill the groomer performance).

 

My general observation over the past few seasons is that the compromises are indeed getting smaller.  Manufacturers, through succeeding generations of testing, are really coming up with some great designs.  The new skis are providing more versatility than ever while giving up less at the extreme ends of the snow conditions spectrum.

 

BTW - every time I see posters really getting on their high horse about an opinion I always wish I could see some video of their skiing.  It's very hard for me to put any validity into strong soapbox stances if I don't know their skiing.  Luckily over the years I've skied with more and more of the bear regulars so that's becoming less of an issue.

post #80 of 80
 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

I liked the 105 and the 90 a lot and I thought that at least one other Head ski (iSpeed Magnum)  was a standout. Enough so that I'm working on a deal with Head which we currently only carry in Race Skis. I really don't NEED another brand especially following this year but they've been good to work with and are earnest about a program sooooooooooo.............it may happen.

 


SJ - I love this move and it really strengthens my belief that the Start Haus is definitely one of the best shops in the country.  You guys clearly aren't just going through the motions during your testing and are really serious about making the best gear available to your customers.  I have to say though that I am surprised, after our conversation on the chair I didn't come away with much faith that you would actually carry the Rev line due to them not "selling themselves" through marketing and popularity.

 

P.S. I had such a discouraging conversation with the owner of my local small shop last week.  The whole time I just thought to myself that although the guy has been in business for over 30 years he just doesn't get that he's missing a critical opportunity to fill in gaps where the big chains don't have some of the better equipment covered.  He's a guy that's just going through the motions each buying season and brings in the same old run-of-the-mill crap that he ends up having to discount at the end of the season just to get rid of it.

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 › Do all mountain skis require compromise????