EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone else impressed with how versatile "All-mountain" skis have become?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone else impressed with how versatile "All-mountain" skis have become? - Page 3

post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac View Post

 just go buy some Kastles, they are about as vanilla as it gets, although I think the sutble graphics on them now are quite classy.

 

I'd love some Kastles, but there is no way to justify the prices..  I raced on Kastles back when they were priced like other skis, and won a race series in Colorado on a pair I picked up for $129 in a summer sale.  My all time favorite graphic was a pair of 205 cm Dynamic VR-27's with a big orange sticker "$29.95".

 

I covered it in plastic to preserve it.  Loved having them in the liftline at Aspen.

 

Maybe I'll get the Heads and put some duct tape on them.

post #62 of 68

I've seen people spray a brand new pair of skis. Obviously they didn't care what they looked like, I think they did it to discourage people from stealing them. Not something that I would do. But you said you couldn't justify the price. There are a lot of people out there that would agree with you, and there are others that own them that think they are well worth it. So what does justify the price to some people and not others. Sounds like a good topic for another thread. 

post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Going back to the original remark by Mac,  bikes must have real value, hence the high resale.  Resale is crap for skis, so what does that tell you?

Bikes can be visually inspected and ridden before purchase, and the frame doesn't 'wear' simply from riding, at least to the extent that hidden stresses or wear are unlikely. Skis can largely only be cosmetically assessed before purchase.

The resale value of skis is downward adjusted for shorter lifespan and greater risk, plus complete lack of replaceable wear components. The resale value of bikes is upward adjusted due to the inverse being true. Neither is a statement about value.
post #64 of 68

In either sport people pay far too much for the newest gear.  Good used skis and bikes are available at a fraction of new prices.  A good skier or cyclist will still be good on gear a few years old.  Every now and then, there are rapid developments, but those times are not hard to spot.

 

I find used gear on ebay is usually less worn out than advertised. People just won't admit how little it was used.

 

I will say, I much prefer my 30 year old road  bikes to my 30 year old skis.  MTB's are different, evolving fast.  Boots that old are fine, but from   1967-73 they became obsolete every single year.

 

Skis didn't advance much from 1973 until sidecuts changed  twenty years later.  Improvements in modern skis will level off soon. 


Edited by newfydog - 11/17/12 at 11:20pm
post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

Going back to the original remark by Mac,  bikes must have real value, hence the high resale.  Resale is crap for skis, so what does that tell you?

That you don't hit a lot of rocks with your bike? Or that bike technology doesn't evolve at the same rate as skis? Wait, is it that you don't have to grind the bases and edges of bikes so that they perform well?
post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

That doesn't look all that fun to sail. Were we talking about sailing or racing?  Requiring a crew of 20 might be a pain. That is why the Laser is so popular; you can sail it anywhere, anytime, and don't need too coordinate with a crew to train, yet aren't stuck on a lumbering Sunfish!

OR.... a nice daysailer which can easily be single handed especially with an autopilot.  Nothing is more relaxing than setting a tack on the autopilot, turning on the music, and grabbing a nice cold beverage and kicking back!  Just sayin....

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

What you say is true, but rocker also has an applied use for good skiers.  I mean, the original point was to help keep your tips up in deeper snow and for that it is very effective whether you're skiing well or not.

 

Yes.

 

This thread is about all-mountain skis. The skis we are talking about here, if they are actually "All Mountain" skis, will have a series of design compromises to broaden the envelope of snow conditions they will perform in.

 

Saying "rockered tips are bad on an all mountain ski becuase they make the ski worse in hard snow" is kind of missing the point. Of course a full camber profile would probably serve a hard-snow ski better.  But, a well designed rocker profile will increase soft-snow float and responsiveness MUCH more than it will hurt turn initiation on hard snow, which is my so many all mountain designs have some sort of rocker tip/tail.

 

My normal daily ski has been a camber underfoot, rocker tip and tail ski for 3 years now.  It took less than a day to get used to how to lay down railroad tracks on the rockered ski (and hard snow performance was FAR better on the rockered ski than the 78 waist hard-snow ski they replaced).  With any skis that don't have a clown shoe rocker profile, the only difference is that the tip doesn't engage until the edge angle has come up a slight bit more. In terms of hard-snow performance, in my eyes its an easy tradeoff.

post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post

So I had 09 K2 Apache Recons (78 all mountain) and got some new K2 Shockwaves with the exact same specs but a little tip and tail "rocker."  Will I hate them?  This thread is giving me fears. 

 

It is basically the same ski. I'd be surprised they didn't seem to be very familiar to you.

 

At the same time, in my opinion, the Recon (and to that extend the shockwave, as it is a VERY similar ski) are an example of an obselete design and how far all mountain skis have come in just a few years.

 

Recons were amazingly popular circa 2006. I had a pair, and it seemed like 1 in 4 people skiing had them.  At the time, they basically set the standard as to what an all-mountain ski was.

 

But now, compared to all the better stuff on the market, I view it as a ski that really doesn't do anything well. There are tons of skis that in my eyes offer bettetr hard snow AND soft snow performance.

 

My everyday ski is a 189 CM Kung Fujas, and yes, they ski hard snow better than my recons did.

 

If I was looking for a ski in the general class as the recons, I would by the Volkl Kendo.

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 › Anyone else impressed with how versatile "All-mountain" skis have become?