or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SL skis

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 

I am 5'4" and weigh 145 lbs (sans boots and clothes smile.gif). What SL ski length I should go for? I have a pair of Atomic Metron B5 in 152 cm and really like them. But another encounter with rocks or a few more tunes and they will be kaput. I have never been on SL skis and have been told that they are like the B5 on steroids. All tips and suggestions will be much appreciated. TIA

post #2 of 43

It's been a long time since I tried a Metron B5, or maybe it was a B9, and at the time I think it was a women's ski sold under a different name that was supposed to be the same as the Metron, so I could be way off.  But if I am correct, the change would be more like a B5 on PCP with some  cocaine thrown in than a B5 on Steroids.

 

Personally I like Fischer, but if you like the feel of your Atomics, you may like the feel of Atomics SL skis better.  Performance wise from experience, I could be very happy with Fishers, Atomics, Modern Rossis, and by reputation, Stockli, Kästle, and a few others; they are all that good. 

 

Given your weight, you might be better off with Völkls, or Stoklis, or with a ski that is one step down from the SL. (eg Fischer WC, Völkl Racetigers (not stock), etc.).

 

You might like to read this.

 

http://skicanadamag.com/2012/09/18/gear/slalom-test-2013

post #3 of 43
155cm
post #4 of 43

       I would try the Fischer WC SC[ non wc sl ] or similar model from a different brand, I'm a Fischer hill rep so I equate suggestions to our line. This is the first year I've had a pair of them and if I wasn't such a GS junkie they'd be my favorite pair of skis. I liked the WC SL fine but these  are  better outside the course[I feel], you can vary the turn shape easier and I feel make med radius turns easier. I bought mine in a 170cm[ my normal sl length is 165cm] to use for coaching when we are running sl and gs the same day so I only have to bring 1 pair of skis. I like them just as well as my WC SL in the course also. I'm at a smaller mid west hill so I might prefer the wc sl if I raced out west,but for where I'm at and what I use them for[everything] the WC SC is great.
 

post #5 of 43
Thread Starter 

Asogear in Canada currently has Atomic 2012 D2 SL Womens in 158 cm and Dynastar 2011 Speed Omeglass WC in 155 cm available. Does anyone has experience with either or both of these skis? TIA.

 

I have bought all my skis based on the input from this forum (without being able to demo any of them) and I like them all. I am a little worried getting in over my head this time since I keep hearing how SL skis are a beast and you must be able to dominate them. On the other hand, I always have a blast with my Dynastar Contact 4x4 which are supposed to be somewhat demanding. I'm looking for something snappy, quick with a lot of rebound. It's OK if the skis beat me up at first, as long as I can learn and subsequently drive them the way they are to be driven.

post #6 of 43

I own the 4x4s and a pair of Head slaloms (not Atomic though) and did look at the D2 SL model but got a great deal on the Heads at Asogear actually last year.  If you enjoy the 4x4s then you should have no problems with the D2 SL.  A ton of people (and I mean a TON of them) in Ontario use the Atomics.  Ontario is home of the Eastern private clubs which focus almost exclusively on racing/carving, and I see they are extremely popular around here.  I think you'd be happy with them.

post #7 of 43

I have Fischer RC4 WC SC in 165 cm with a 13 m radius.  They are forgiving.  They are easy to ski, and they perform quite well.  I weigh 150 lbs, and have weighed as much as 180 lbs, always liked these skis.  These skis are not demanding at all, especially with the factory 1 degree base bevel.  I can remember when I first got these skis (my first "shaped" skis), skiing a black run at Blue Mounting Collingwood and thinking that they were so forgiving I could be reading the Sunday morning paper while skiing them.  These aren't Beastly; they only push back when you load them up, but they do have lot's of push back when you ask for it.

post #8 of 43

It sounds like you are trying to find a ski that will support your development of a more dynamic, arcing technique. My view is that you should get a real slalom ski in an appropriate length which I think should be 165cm - you are certainly big enough to get what you need out of such a ski. I really don't know what people mean when they say a ski of this type is "forgiving". I suppose one could skid them around just like one could any other ski and be happy. But, if it's what you want to work on, they'll encourage tipping them on edge and arcing them by locking in solid and allowing you to be confident that the structure of the ski will support the loads that generates.

post #9 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

It sounds like you are trying to find a ski that will support your development of a more dynamic, arcing technique. My view is that you should get a real slalom ski in an appropriate length which I think should be 165cm - you are certainly big enough to get what you need out of such a ski. I really don't know what people mean when they say a ski of this type is "forgiving". I suppose one could skid them around just like one could any other ski and be happy. But, if it's what you want to work on, they'll encourage tipping them on edge and arcing them by locking in solid and allowing you to be confident that the structure of the ski will support the loads that generates.

You are absolutely right about my intention. :You don't think 165 cm SL will be too much ski for me? I almost pulled the trigger on the 150 cm Racetigers. I'm glad I didn't

post #10 of 43

I don't agree that you should be on a 165 SL ski.  I'm 5' 7-8" 150 pounds and I demoed an 155cm Elan SL Waveflex Fusion a few weeks ago and it was perfect.

post #11 of 43

I tend to agree with MtCyclist- I have tried a Head World Cup iSL in a 160 cm length several times this season and really enjoyed making short turns on it.  I am 6' 3" 190 and the skis I own vary from 172 to 191.  The 160s looked short, but skied great for short to medium turns.  I am looking to get an SL ski of my own and might go 165 (or even 170 as more of a free ski and Nastar type course), but at your size, you don't have to go that long. 

post #12 of 43
I demoed a pair of Atomic redster sl in 167 the other day, quite like the grip/responsiveness etc, but the 11 meter sidecut takes some getting used to (I'm used to 15-ish meter sidecut). Very agile at lower speed, but carving at higher speed it wants to go to a smaller circle than the edge can hold (then again it may due to me not being very good).
Edited by jzmtl - 3/17/13 at 1:18am
post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckT View Post

Asogear in Canada currently has Atomic 2012 D2 SL Womens in 158 cm and Dynastar 2011 Speed Omeglass WC in 155 cm available. Does anyone has experience with either or both of these skis? TIA.

 

I have bought all my skis based on the input from this forum (without being able to demo any of them) and I like them all. I am a little worried getting in over my head this time since I keep hearing how SL skis are a beast and you must be able to dominate them. On the other hand, I always have a blast with my Dynastar Contact 4x4 which are supposed to be somewhat demanding. I'm looking for something snappy, quick with a lot of rebound. It's OK if the skis beat me up at first, as long as I can learn and subsequently drive them the way they are to be driven.

I still have both of these skis. They are awesome. There is a little difference though. The Atomics are a little damper, feel a bit softer due to the D2but actually aren't . The Dynastars are a bit more snappy, excellent rebound. They are a little more demanding if you ski them really hard. It is up to you. Atomics overall feel like more versatile all around, but this is mainly due to their dampness, otherwise dimensionally they are both the same: 12.5 and 13 M radius  @ 165 cm.

 From my experience factory tune on both is not great. Better on the Atomics but still not enough. If you want to experience the best of SL skis you have to have them tuned by a pro. I am sending them to Mike De Santis from SKI MD and the results are simply awesome. 

Good luck.

Regards

Andy

post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

It sounds like you are trying to find a ski that will support your development of a more dynamic, arcing technique. My view is that you should get a real slalom ski in an appropriate length which I think should be 165cm - you are certainly big enough to get what you need out of such a ski. I really don't know what people mean when they say a ski of this type is "forgiving". I suppose one could skid them around just like one could any other ski and be happy. But, if it's what you want to work on, they'll encourage tipping them on edge and arcing them by locking in solid and allowing you to be confident that the structure of the ski will support the loads that generates.


       By forgiving its meant that the non wc SL's bend into a arc easier,less force. Nothing wrong with a WC SL they are just a bit "boardy" at slower speeds and you might find yourself horsing them around until up to speed.

post #15 of 43

As another WC SC owner, I can tell you that they're "real" enough.  They're also versatile and good enough at bumps and up to medium radius turns.

post #16 of 43

Any feedback on these skis?  How stiff are they,ect? Thanks.

Elan SLC WaveFlex Plate Race Skis

post #17 of 43

Chuck, at your size the 158 atomic should work well.  It is an excellent ski.  Don't listen to some of the nonsense spewed hereabout a race stock slalom being "too much". .  In reality the race stock is a whole lot better than the non race stock (11m) slaloms. Remember though that they will always give you a workout.  The D2 is a good ski, Andy summed it up pretty well.  Top 3 slalom skis at the moment based on skiing a lot of them are Rossi/ dynastar, atomic and blizzard/ Nordica.  The Fischer sl is a good ski but feels a little deader 

post #18 of 43

160 Volkl Racertiger Speed Wall SL

post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPL View Post


       By forgiving its meant that the non wc SL's bend into a arc easier,less force. Nothing wrong with a WC SL they are just a bit "boardy" at slower speeds and you might find yourself horsing them around until up to speed.

 

My 2 cents.
I have (and love) a pair of 11-12 Atomic FIS SL in 165 (the ones without the deck).  At 165lbs I considered getting the women's size 158's or non-fis but am happy with mine.  I demoed the 158's and I probably would have been happy with those too.  It I were Chuck's size I would want the women's size.  Note that Atomic tests each pair and marks the flex results on the tails, you might try to find softer ones. With regards to "forgiving"...

  • They are really fun a low speeds, skiing green runs or cat tracks with the family is a hoot.  Not planky at all IMHO, more like smooth banked turns on a roller coaster.
  • They allow a variety of turn shapes but don't really like running flat.  At speeds/turn shapes that put you at 40+MPH you have to really concentrate and stay aggressive and still use finesse, it is easy to "over-turn" at these speeds.
  • If you are lazy with your inside edge the inside ski can feel excited and nervous.
  • At higher speeds, if you load them up, the rebound is REALLY aggressive.  You need to pay attention when the speed picks up and respect the ski.
  • If by "forgiving" you mean "relaxing", they are not about relaxing, they are about turning.  You'll be breathing hard when you get to the chair.
  • With a little practice you can get the tails to release and have fun in moguls.
  • I skied a day on them that started hard-pack and ended with 6-8" of low density snow and they were really fun in the new snow.  I made 2-3x as many powder turns as my friends on the same runs, like getting an extra powder day in.

 

They skied pretty well out of the wrapper but I had Podium give them a good tune and they are .7/3 now and ski a little bit better.  Nothing I've tried holds the shinny boiler plate like these do.  You can put down RR tracks in it.  I'm really glad to have Atomic bindings that allow me to adjust my stance.  A cm one way or another really change the skis.  I like them 3cm forward on ice and 1-2cm forward for everything else. 

post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

Chuck, at your size the 158 atomic should work well.  It is an excellent ski.  Don't listen to some of the nonsense spewed hereabout a race stock slalom being "too much". .  In reality the race stock is a whole lot better than the non race stock (11m) slaloms. Remember though that they will always give you a workout.  The D2 is a good ski, Andy summed it up pretty well.  Top 3 slalom skis at the moment based on skiing a lot of them are Rossi/ dynastar, atomic and blizzard/ Nordica.  The Fischer sl is a good ski but feels a little deader 

Why do you think the race stock is better?  I realize that some might find the 11 m too turny, but the consumer Heads I skied recently are 12.5.  I have never skied race stock, but liked both non race stock SLs I have skied- 165 Atomic 12 pb in 2008 and 160 Head iSL twice recently.  I skied mostly groomers with both, but ran a few gates and caught some piled up powder on groomers with the Heads.  I loved the ability to carve short turns and had the feeling that I would like them both in bumps as well.  I thought the Heads held really well on a firm groomer, but not as well when it was frozen gravel (kinda like marbles).

 

What would you go with assuming you wanted to ski groomers, gates (possibly some masters racing, Town of Vail SL which has a "Pro" slalom with GS gates with an open SL set, and tighter Nastar courses) and bumps?  I am 6' 3" 190 lbs.

post #21 of 43

Chuck,  If you look through the threads ScotsSkier likely has skied more current race skis than most (and likely sold more too wink.gif in great condition).  He manages to get access and review from some very good racers (besides competing in the Masters).  I'd go with his observations any day.

 

All said,  I love my FIS skis both GS and SL to the extend that I broke down and got a set of Dynastar Omniglass SL's to replace a set of Doberman SLRs (an older set).  On the GS I ski slightly shorter and don't notice a difference, on the SL I'm on a 165 (at ScotsSkiers recommendation) and have no complaints.

 

BTW I considered the Atomics from ASOGEAR and almost bought the 165's before they sold (I was hoping the price would come down).

 

 

 

.

post #22 of 43
Thread Starter 

I'd like to thank everyone for the input. Based on Andy's description of the Atomic and the Dynastar (and the $100 price difference), I clicked BUY last night on the Dynastar and feel less anxious today after reading Scotskier's post.

post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post

Why do you think the race stock is better?  I realize that some might find the 11 m too turny, but the consumer Heads I skied recently are 12.5.  I have never skied race stock, but liked both non race stock SLs I have skied- 165 Atomic 12 pb in 2008 and 160 Head iSL twice recently.  I skied mostly groomers with both, but ran a few gates and caught some piled up powder on groomers with the Heads.  I loved the ability to carve short turns and had the feeling that I would like them both in bumps as well.  I thought the Heads held really well on a firm groomer, but not as well when it was frozen gravel (kinda like marbles).

 

What would you go with assuming you wanted to ski groomers, gates (possibly some masters racing, Town of Vail SL which has a "Pro" slalom with GS gates with an open SL set, and tighter Nastar courses) and bumps?  I am 6' 3" 190 lbs.

MEfree30

 

Because the race stock is just a more complete ski than the consumer version.  Normally a 12.5-13m radius as well which actually makes it more versatile and teh higher speed limit.  And of course the pop and the energy that comes from a real slalom race ski.  Just be prepared to stay on top of it.  If you look around you will see that almost without exception every race coach is on a race stock slalom - That is for a reason, they are perfect for setting up, carrying gates etc as well as having edge grip and performance.    For your requirement and at your weight/height I would definitely go for the 165 race stock for that purpose (for slalom).  I would not recommend going a Masters GS on a slalom ski though!

post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

MEfree30

 

Because the race stock is just a more complete ski than the consumer version.  Normally a 12.5-13m radius as well which actually makes it more versatile and teh higher speed limit.  And of course the pop and the energy that comes from a real slalom race ski.  Just be prepared to stay on top of it.  If you look around you will see that almost without exception every race coach is on a race stock slalom - That is for a reason, they are perfect for setting up, carrying gates etc as well as having edge grip and performance.    For your requirement and at your weight/height I would definitely go for the 165 race stock for that purpose (for slalom).  I would not recommend going a Masters GS on a slalom ski though!

Thanks.  Yes, if I do a real masters GS, then I definitely need a good GS ski- I did a Town of Vail GS this year I was intimidated by the course, partly because I was not on the right ski.

 

As far as pop/energy goes, on occasion, I more than I was expecting on the 160 Head iSLs- not enough to cause me to fall, but enough while free skiing that I had to bail out/back off on my next turn.  the owner of the Heads, a Summit bear who has done some masters racing, thought the 160s were better for the course while a 170 consumer SL makes a better free ski.  His thinking was that the consumer models are more versatile than the race stock (but did say he preferred the 12.5 on his consumer Heads from 2012 compared to the r 11 consumer models out there now.

 

My 343 bsl makes it tough for me to get on a lot of skis, so input from experienced guys like you is really appreciated. 

post #25 of 43

What forgiving means in terms of my experience with the Fischer WC SC 13m radius:

If you get yourself out of sorts, say 'cause you got launched on an unnoticed bump and land with your skis slightly askew (but still flat), or caught an edge because you were daydreaming due to hypothermia at the end of a long day, and you recover by lifting your ski/skis and putting them back down, again maybe not quite lined up in the proper direction, you will not be slammed hard into the snow by catching an edge hard; the ski will just slide along until you tip it.  It does not mean that if you tip the ski at speed and tell it to turn hard left, the ski will do anything other than turn hard left.  It will hold the line.

post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

MEfree30

 

Because the race stock is just a more complete ski than the consumer version.  Normally a 12.5-13m radius as well which actually makes it more versatile and the higher speed limit.  And of course the pop and the energy that comes from a real slalom race ski.  Just be prepared to stay on top of it.  If you look around you will see that almost without exception every race coach is on a race stock slalom - That is for a reason, they are perfect for setting up, carrying gates etc as well as having edge grip and performance.    For your requirement and at your weight/height I would definitely go for the 165 race stock for that purpose (for slalom).  I would not recommend going a Masters GS on a slalom ski though!

I'll second that.

 

Last week I had the opportunity to ski my SL and GS skis back to back.  Clocked 50+ on the GS and then 45 on the SL and just to be sure ran the GS again and clocked 50+ again.  Same run same conditions.  (Empty hill before anyone comments).

 

Impressions, SL ski was maxed out in terms of handling (mind you this was an older used SL ski), but I think I wouldn't push it much further for risk of surprises,  The SL ski felt squirrelly.  The GS ski still had plenty left and was only limited by the user (and this was a short women's length for a 6' 170lbs guy) rock solid and stable.  I could definitely see the full length even doing better as SS has mentioned in other posts.

 

Race Stock ski also encourages you to ski properly (if you are already good).  Bad habits will bite quickly you as the responsiveness is there for the correct inputbiggrin.gif and also the wrong inputeek.gif.


post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post


343 bsl . 

 

Wow.  Sorry.   Wow.

post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post

Thanks.  Yes, if I do a real masters GS, then I definitely need a good GS ski- I did a Town of Vail GS this year I was intimidated by the course, partly because I was not on the right ski.

 

As far as pop/energy goes, on occasion, I more than I was expecting on the 160 Head iSLs- not enough to cause me to fall, but enough while free skiing that I had to bail out/back off on my next turn.  the owner of the Heads, a Summit bear who has done some masters racing, thought the 160s were better for the course while a 170 consumer SL makes a better free ski.  His thinking was that the consumer models are more versatile than the race stock (but did say he preferred the 12.5 on his consumer Heads from 2012 compared to the r 11 consumer models out there now.

 

My 343 bsl makes it tough for me to get on a lot of skis, so input from experienced guys like you is really appreciated. 

Hmm, pretty much limits your choices then.  Most of the pre drilled plates max out at 330.  Can't remember what the atomic one goes to, it has an extra set of heel holes but suspect not to that.  You are looking primarily at the head and the Fischer which have the same undrilledplate, or the pre 2011 blizzard or Nordica  with the vist plate (also a very good ski but I prefer the 2011 on with the marker plate )

post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

MEfree30

 

Because the race stock is just a more complete ski than the consumer version.  Normally a 12.5-13m radius as well which actually makes it more versatile and teh higher speed limit.  And of course the pop and the energy that comes from a real slalom race ski.  Just be prepared to stay on top of it.  If you look around you will see that almost without exception every race coach is on a race stock slalom - That is for a reason, they are perfect for setting up, carrying gates etc as well as having edge grip and performance.    For your requirement and at your weight/height I would definitely go for the 165 race stock for that purpose (for slalom).  I would not recommend going a Masters GS on a slalom ski though!

To ScotsSkier's point on race coaches on race stock slalom skis -

 

what he mentioned above and each and every race clinic I've been to and most notably race coaches clinics, the coaches are all on race stock SL skis.  Along with being a versatile ski, coaches like them for doing drills and demos. It's easier.

 

Compare to most here, I'm still fairly new to all this but last year and this year most of my training, coaching and race crew work was done on race stock SL skis (Volkl SL 165 fm - I'm 5'7" 155#).  This year I did spend quite a bit of time on my new Élan Amphibio 14 in 160 cm but that is because I was doing more all mountain coaching (train to race program for kids) and skiing bumps a lot.

 

the Amphibio (to me) is a close match to a race stock SL ski with early rise on the outside edge.  The Amphibio is more versatile than the race stock SL but keep in mind as something becomes more of a generalist, it comes at a cost.  I'd rather have the amphibios in the bumps, but the Volkls on steeper or granite ice.  Both work in both conditions, but in my head, they each seem to out perform in the noted areas.

post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post

Hmm, pretty much limits your choices then.  Most of the pre drilled plates max out at 330.  Can't remember what the atomic one goes to, it has an extra set of heel holes but suspect not to that.  You are looking primarily at the head and the Fischer which have the same undrilledplate, or the pre 2011 blizzard or Nordica  with the vist plate (also a very good ski but I prefer the 2011 on with the marker plate )

So do I have more of a choice if I go with consumer SL skis?

 

Another question about my big feet- When it comes to DIN setting, I chart at a lower DIN than an identical skier with a smaller foot.  I assume that the theory behind this is that the bigger foot is spreading the torque out over a bigger area.  Does anyone have an opinion on how this might relate to the flex ski I should be on?  Assuming I have my weight spread out equally across my foot, then I am putting less pressure per inch than a comparable skier with a smaller foot.

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