New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Heavy Skis Rip - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

E, I hear what you're saying about water skis, and I have to note, water skiers are way fussy about conditions of the surface, way too fussy. maybe they ought to look at water ski design and get out on something beside glass (groomer equivalent).

 

Water skiers also carve by planing.  

 

Which leaves the open question - are water skier moves essentially what snow skiers call /pivoting/ moves?  

 

Notice that this would completely explain E's preferences - and ours - and his claim of making snow moves that other skilled snow skiers don't or can't.

 

(We already know that pivoting moves are made easier by light weight skis).

post #32 of 58

A tow in board for Jaws is ballasted with lead shot until it will barely float.

When the speeds get high and the bumps big.....mass helps stability.

If stability isn't your issue...go light.

post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post

A tow in board for Jaws is ballasted with lead shot until it will barely float.

When the speeds get high and the bumps big.....mass helps stability.

 

 

Undisputed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post


If stability isn't your issue...go light.

 

Why?   If your inputs as a skier are tipping and pressure inputs instead of pivoting inputs, and if that's how you like it, then I really don't understand the argument for going light.

post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

Undisputed.


Why?   If your inputs as a skier are tipping and pressure inputs instead of pivoting inputs, and if that's how you like it, then I really don't understand the argument for going light.

Ya i'd only specifically "go light" if i were looking for a full blown jib ski, or i was getting older.

But going light can be loads of fun. My line blends are awefully soft, and light, and as such they give out above 40. BUT (big but here)As is, they are my go to ski for going slow while practicing new tricks. Nothing beats the forgiveness. Probably good for teaching as well.
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

Undisputed.

 

 

Why?   If your inputs as a skier are tipping and pressure inputs instead of pivoting inputs, and if that's how you like it, then I really don't understand the argument for going light.

Obviously you don't schlep around you wife's and grandkids' stuff.

post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSafe View Post


Ya i'd only specifically "go light" if i were looking for a full blown jib ski, or i was getting older.

But going light can be loads of fun. My line blends are awefully soft, and light, and as such they give out above 40. BUT (big but here)As is, they are my go to ski for going slow while practicing new tricks. Nothing beats the forgiveness. Probably good for teaching as well.

I use a 178 Line Blend with a Hammerhead as a tele set-up.  It's a decent one ski quiver for JH.  Never skied them alpine.  I also might like a bit more beef for that.  I don't find the Blends to be super soft or unstable for tele on any JH terrain.  Some have lifted my tele set-up and think they are heavy.  I don't find them to be on the light end.

post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post

I use a 178 Line Blend with a Hammerhead as a tele set-up.  It's a decent one ski quiver for JH.  Never skied them alpine.  I also might like a bit more beef for that.  I don't find the Blends to be super soft or unstable for tele on any JH terrain.  Some have lifted my tele set-up and think they are heavy.  I don't find them to be on the light end.

Your probably right. And thanks for giving me some confidence to use my blends at Jackson. There my only skis under 190cm and 105mm so thats probably why i think there so light lol. But i swear, for alpine atleast, i can charge harder on groms with my fat skis. And i just figured it was the blends flex pattern, since 100 underfoot should carve better than 113 or 117, right? Thats why i posted the thread on jackson hole drivers, i barely have any experience with 98-105mm, i just know i liked the E98 alot better than the blend and really want something right in the middle.
post #38 of 58

If you are muscling your skis around you're going to be more impacted by the weight of a ski.  Rather, how about developing your skills so that you're working with the ski design rather than against it?  Once you get to that point in your skiing development, you'll then be able to take advantage of beefier skis without feeling any drawbacks.

 

Personally I can't deal with light flippy skis.  They're just not confidence inspiring to me.  When I demoed some of the original Goode carbon skis I thought I was going to die before I made it to bottom of the hill.

 

BTW - I turn a lot - I mean a whole ton.  I am not a straight lining kind of guy by any stretch of the imagination.  I want my skis to feel absolutely glued to the mountain in all kinds of conditions.

post #39 of 58
While straightlining with flimsy skis can be sketchy, high speed turns in crud on flimsy skis can be season ending.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Personally I can't deal with light flippy skis.

 

Now that's ironic.  wink.gif

post #41 of 58

When I ski, I turn a lot. Bumps require lots of ski movement. Avoiding trees in powder or making eights from my wife's short radius turns require lots of ski movement and acceleration. Dodging the masses on the Mountain run groomer (human slalom) requires lots of ski movement. Tricks throw the skis around a lot (my day isn't right until I throw a helicopter). Saving an off balance situation requires quick ski movement. Everything else is just getting to the fun stuff. My skis move a lot!

 

The developing skiers I drag around the mountain need to follow my whippety turns. When they make a mistake, a quick and significant correction is needed - or they fall. And the fall aftermath is much easier with a light ski.

 

Jaws surfboards, straightline skis and wrecking balls, while they move fast, do not move dynamically and their weight is not a disadvantage. Anything that turns or accelerates gets an advantage from being light.

 

I'm old. My skills aren't perfect (but I am the best skier on the mountain!). I'd rather turn than just ski blistering fast. Eights are cooler to me than elevens. Bumps rock. Groomers suck - even more if they flatten the bumps. Tenths of a second aren't worthy of stressing over. Keeping skiing as I age is important. Light equipment helps all my goals.

 

As an engineer, light does not equal flimsy. As an athlete, taking advantage of quality equipment is not a fault. I'm bummed by all the love of the ski tanks I see. Magazine covers don't show turning. Intermediates would rather go fast than turn (to avoid crashing into me). And heavy equipment does stress my body.

 

Turns rock! Light skis rock!

 

Eric

post #42 of 58
I have been typing and deleteing and retyping, for the past half hour trying to figure out what to say this guy above me. Im going to refrain from being a jerk, and simply say, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE EF YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

Engineer my rear end! Your applying gravity and other physical concepts to downhill skiing as you do to a horizontal formula one car. Skiing works with gravity, not against it. Your mistaking agility for mass applied acceleration. Stick to water skiing man. And please, as you are an intermediate skier, do not act like your way is the best way.... Dont forum-boast either. You wouldnt think that way if you were an strong skier, or an athlete like you say.. Id love to see you do a 360, or helicopter as you call it.

Strong skiers can eliminate the negative effects of weight, and work with the benefits of weight to make them a much stronger skier.
Edited by SkiSafe - 3/4/13 at 2:51am
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

When I ski, I turn a lot. Bumps require lots of ski movement. Avoiding trees in powder or making eights from my wife's short radius turns require lots of ski movement and acceleration. Dodging the masses on the Mountain run groomer (human slalom) requires lots of ski movement. Tricks throw the skis around a lot (my day isn't right until I throw a helicopter). Saving an off balance situation requires quick ski movement. Everything else is just getting to the fun stuff. My skis move a lot!

 

The developing skiers I drag around the mountain need to follow my whippety turns. When they make a mistake, a quick and significant correction is needed - or they fall. And the fall aftermath is much easier with a light ski.

The only places light skis excel is moguls at a good clip, where faster foot speed helps (ordinary mogul skiing is easier with a flexible, not necessarily light, ski) and tricks in the park where a polar moment of inertia comes into play (if you can't ski do tricks wink.gif).  Heavy skis with a short turn radius (e.g. Atomic SL) have no problem making turns, and are the equal of any light ski in the human slalom department.

post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSafe View Post

Dont forum-boast either.

 

No offense, but you may not be the best person to give this advice.

post #45 of 58
Thread Starter 

I have been skiing really heavy skis for about 10 years, Explosiv's, Stockli's, B-Squads, Legend Pro Riders. I'm old and have put my knees through a lot in almost 60 years of skiing. But the heavy, solid skis have not, apparently, caused any problems with wear and tear or injury. It could be the opposite. The skis carry the heavy work, I'm guiding and riding along.

post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post

Obviously you don't schlep around you wife's and grandkids' stuff.

 

Hehe.   I have been called 'camel' to my face for how much I regularly carry.

post #47 of 58

With respect to Davluri's original post, my claims attempt to illustrate that the high weight of his skis may not be responsible for the feel he likes. There are many factors influencing ski performance, weight is just one. I've ridden many heavy skis that feel great and many light skis that were awful. My personal favorites are the high performing light skis. I must admit that heavy skis have never injured me but they do tire my knees out more quickly.

 

Ghost, you forgot about the advantages of carrying a light ski in the backcountry. I am guilty of enjoying all the advantages of light skis you describe. Also, my old Atomic racing skis were quite light (once I got rid of the awful bindings). Clearly Atomic knows how to design great skis - I just hope threads like this don't encourage them to ignore weight in future designs.

 

SkiSafe, WTF? I can throw a 360, so can my kids and about half the skiers at Squaw. I've skied with Davluri on some of his secret spots (my light skis worked well enough then) so I have some snow skiing skills. And I will stand by my claims of being an athlete and engineer (I am the current top ranked age division trick skier in the world on waterskis of my own design and construction). Just because you may prefer different skis does not make me and my preferences wrong. I do these forums for entertainment, not to boast. Of course in the land of GNAR, I'm the best skier on the mountain!

 

Eric

post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post I do these forums for entertainment, not to boast. Of course in the land of GNAR, I'm the best skier on the San Diego mountain!

 

Eric

Fixed haha.. Boasting best skier in The Bull City mountain here, but I doubt that's actually true hahaha..

post #49 of 58

The new Volkl Katana V-Werks is an interesting ski for this discussion.  Same dimensions as the regular Katana but significantly lighter with all of the carbon fiber in the construction, supposedly without sacrificing much flex.  I'd love to try both back to back.

post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post


SkiSafe, WTF? I can throw a 360, so can my kids and about half the skiers at Squaw. I've skied with Davluri on some of his secret spots (my light skis worked well enough then) so I have some snow skiing skills. And I will stand by my claims of being an athlete and engineer (I am the current top ranked age division trick skier in the world on waterskis of my own design and construction). Just because you may prefer different skis does not make me and my preferences wrong. I do these forums for entertainment, not to boast. Of course in the land of GNAR, I'm the best skier on the mountain!

Eric

Ya im sorry for saying untrue thing. I was just mad you had had a different opinion about something so universal within the advanced ski community. people like what they like tho...
Its just i love big burly bombdrop skis...and cant stand flimsy floatboats.
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

No offense, but you may not be the best person to give this advice.

Agreed...my bad
post #52 of 58

SkiSafe, sorry if I was harsh on you. I learned snow skiing in the era of Hexcels  and K2 threes for all around skis and Durafibers for pure racing. These top performing skis were very light. The universal truth then was that lighter was better.

Advances in ski design have changed things. Burly bombdrop skis are now capable of turning - sort of. Ski styles have changed from a turning focus to a speed focus. The universal truth is now favoring a heavy ski (along with a flat earth and that it was created in 4004 bc). I was mean to you because I strenuously object to accepting this universal deception.

Good skis can be heavy or light. I don't know whether it is easier to design a good heavy ski or a good light ski. For the sake of my knees on the lift and my shoulders when playing camel, I hope they consider the lightweight option.

 

JayT, just swapping in a bunch of carbon could really change characteristics. Carbon is very strong and stiff in tension. It is significantly weaker in compression. A ski might feel very different in carbon. CAP molding, blends of fibers and fiber orientation, different cores or more exotic materials (boron?) may be needed to `preserve a good feel while dropping weight. It's not always that easy. Still the Katana vs V-Werks would be an interesting experiment. I'd love to join you when you try that.

 

Eric

post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

JayT, just swapping in a bunch of carbon could really change characteristics. Carbon is very strong and stiff in tension. It is significantly weaker in compression. A ski might feel very different in carbon. CAP molding, blends of fibers and fiber orientation, different cores or more exotic materials (boron?) may be needed to `preserve a good feel while dropping weight. It's not always that easy. Still the Katana vs V-Werks would be an interesting experiment. I'd love to join you when you try that.

 

I agree - I'm a bit skeptical about how it might perform in crud (will it get deflected compared to the regular Katana that can bust right through?).  But I like the theoretical idea of a lighter ski of that size.  It was nice meeting you that morning at Squaw - maybe I'll see you up in Tahoe again soon.

post #54 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post

SkiSafe, sorry if I was harsh on you. I learned snow skiing in the era of Hexcels  and K2 threes for all around skis and Durafibers for pure racing. These top performing skis were very light. The universal truth then was that lighter was better.

Advances in ski design have changed things. Burly bombdrop skis are now capable of turning - sort of. Ski styles have changed from a turning focus to a speed focus. The universal truth is now favoring a heavy ski (along with a flat earth and that it was created in 4004 bc). I was mean to you because I strenuously object to accepting this universal deception.

Good skis can be heavy or light. I don't know whether it is easier to design a good heavy ski or a good light ski. For the sake of my knees on the lift and my shoulders when playing camel, I hope they consider the lightweight option.

 

JayT, just swapping in a bunch of carbon could really change characteristics. Carbon is very strong and stiff in tension. It is significantly weaker in compression. A ski might feel very different in carbon. CAP molding, blends of fibers and fiber orientation, different cores or more exotic materials (boron?) may be needed to `preserve a good feel while dropping weight. It's not always that easy. Still the Katana vs V-Werks would be an interesting experiment. I'd love to join you when you try that.

 

Eric

Couple things.

The Hexel never worked, never skied well, never caught on with skiers, and even cold snow stuck to it because it had a metal temperature issue. Now that was a problem. I don't recall any interest in light skis at the performance level then, as race skis were pretty much the standard, and they, as said, are not light. Recently there was a faceoff between the light skis Atomic was making with the Beta models, and the heavy skis that Volkl was making, the G series, G31 for example. Although it's fun to dance around on skis, I have no trust in such skis when the going gets rough.

 

I have spoken to people about the difference between the Cham and the High Mountain, which may parallel the difference betweeen the two Katanas. Some folks thought the High Mountain in the 97 was poor but in the 107 it was great.

 

I think the wider skis, 110 and up, have to employ a construction to save weight, or they can become just way too heavy for anyone except Hugo.

post #55 of 58

Volkl's VWerks series makes a great case for light skis, from a company known for Sensor wood cores, metal sheets and Double torsion box and even Double grip (4 boxes) skis.

Most of the Volkl products are focused on being lighter with better ease of turning, and not sacrificing edge grip and performance.
 

post #56 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttawaBootFiter View Post

Volkl's VWerks series makes a great case for light skis, from a company known for Sensor wood cores, metal sheets and Double torsion box and even Double grip (4 boxes) skis.

Most of the Volkl products are focused on being lighter with better ease of turning, and not sacrificing edge grip and performance.
 


I don't think that's what is happening with the V-Werks Katana. I think that ski is focused on touring, note the hole in the tip for skins. It parallels Dynastar's Cham vs. High Mountain series, again focused on hiking efficiently on the up, skiing with few compromises on the down. 

 

Volkl will continue to make heavy skis as well. With a different mission. So I would take issue with the statement that "...most Volkl products are focused on being lighter."

post #57 of 58

How about most New Volkl products are focused on being lighter and easier to turn... UVO series, Code S etc.
 

post #58 of 58
Thread Starter 

 Vibration reduction is not necessarily a light design element (UVO) and race ski construction with rocker (Code S) is not ever light.  '...Easier to turn...' is your marketing hook that you just made up now.  So, how about you're just wrong?  and please quote your source if you're posting information about Volkl. What a lousy example of a company with an emphasis on light skis. Rossignol is working on lighter swing weight in combination with vibration reduction.  

 

This idea is not that light skis suck, but that there are positives to heavy skis' performance.  

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