or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Life Expectancy? - Page 3

post #61 of 79
I think his experience is that the skis are not flat enough. It's never been an issue for me.
post #62 of 79

Depends on the skis - 50 - 100 days for trash, 400+ for something quality - almost forever for certain skis.

 

I know of some early Volkl Explosives which are still skied occasionally with 800+ days on them!

 

One of the early pairs of prototypes my friends and I made nearly 8 years ago broke this winter, they had at least 500 days on them, maybe more than 600 days. We hadn't used any sidewalls and were using rather light weight glass when we built them - we originally hoped for 30 days from that pair. Since then things have progressed a little.

 

I have an instructor who will be having her third straight season (110 days per season) on the same pair of planks this winter - at the end of the last season she compared them with a pair of the same model with 5 days on them, no discernible difference, no need for a new pair! When I measured the flex I couldn't find any real difference either.

 

On the other hand I have cut up many a foam core cap ski to try and make furniture out of them only to find them a mess on the inside and the bases look almost unskied !

post #63 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by idris View Post

Depends on the skis - 50 - 100 days for trash, 400+ for something quality - almost forever for certain skis.

 

I know of some early Volkl Explosives which are still skied occasionally with 800+ days on them!

 

One of the early pairs of prototypes my friends and I made nearly 8 years ago broke this winter, they had at least 500 days on them, maybe more than 600 days. We hadn't used any sidewalls and were using rather light weight glass when we built them - we originally hoped for 30 days from that pair. Since then things have progressed a little.

 

I have an instructor who will be having her third straight season (110 days per season) on the same pair of planks this winter - at the end of the last season she compared them with a pair of the same model with 5 days on them, no discernible difference, no need for a new pair! When I measured the flex I couldn't find any real difference either.

 

On the other hand I have cut up many a foam core cap ski to try and make furniture out of them only to find them a mess on the inside and the bases look almost unskied !

That is pretty amazing, but I bet I could run down those "quality" skis in about 30 days. biggrin.gif

post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

That is pretty amazing, but I bet I could run down those "quality" skis in about 30 days. biggrin.gif

 

You might, but I'd say you'd be hard pushed, Full wood core, 2 layers of 22oz triax glass (or 18oz Flax depending on model) 1.8mm base (industry standard around 0.9) and 2.5mm edges (industry standard about 1.8mm) they are built to take a fair bit of abuse ;)

post #65 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by idris View Post

 

You might, but I'd say you'd be hard pushed, Full wood core, 2 layers of 22oz triax glass (or 18oz Flax depending on model) 1.8mm base (industry standard around 0.9) and 2.5mm edges (industry standard about 1.8mm) they are built to take a fair bit of abuse ;)

I was just messin' with ya.

 

If you take good care of gear it can last a lifetime no doubt. 

post #66 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by east or bust View Post

I was just messin' with ya.

 

If you take good care of gear it can last a lifetime no doubt. 

 ;)

post #67 of 79

As someone that keeps skis for several seasons, I like the idea to build and market skis with icon14.gif thicker edges and p-tex.  But, I bet it will still blend tongue.gif

 

post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Wait......you buy ski's without a base structure?

 

 

Many manufacturers' off the shelf tune may well be that.

post #69 of 79

For what it is worth, I have 2 pairs of foam core Atomics with god knows how many days on them that still have tons of pop.

 

Pair 1 is a set of 2003 Atomic Sugar Daddies. I bought them beat to hell in 2008 as my first fat ski- they had several coreshots, and obviously had seen some very hard use.  This was back in the day where a 99 waist seemed really fat and I figured I would only use the skis a few times a year. Hah! I personally put about 100 days on them. I would guess that they have 300+ if not more.

 

Pair 2 is a set of 2002 Atomic Beta Carve 9.22s. Picked up as rock skis at the beginning of the season, and they still have a ton of camber and felt pretty damned good for a $20 pair of decade old skis. They definitely have seen a fair bit of use, but are in a lot better shape.

 

Both sets ski with more pop than a lot of brand new skis I try.

 

On the flipside, I had a set of Apache Recons (wood, metal core) (that I sold when I picked up the rock ski Atomics- for a lot more than I paid for the Atomics) That were dead, dead, dead, with a lot less use on them. They were decambered and total noodles compared to another set of newer Recons a family member had. They had a lot less days than either Atomics.

 

Foam core skis have a bad rap, but given my experience, I won't rule them out- at least the Atomics.

post #70 of 79

But I don't think I'd be surprised to find a ski with 75 days had lost of bit of its out of the box character.

post #71 of 79
I'm a K2 fan and I'll tell you that many of the people on this board consider NEW K2s to be dead, dead, dead. I call it damp and like it. I'd expect Atomics to be more lively just because of the fact that they are Atomics. One person's lively is another's chattery; dead for you is damp for me.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I'm a K2 fan and I'll tell you that many of the people on this board consider NEW K2s to be dead, dead, dead. I call it damp and like it. I'd expect Atomics to be more lively just because of the fact that they are Atomics. One person's lively is another's chattery; dead for you is damp for me.

 

FWIW,  lively atomics don't go damp when they're used up, they're still as lively as ever.     The pop in the main body of the ski doesn't go away.    

 

What does go away is the ability to pull cleanly into a turn with the lightest of tip pressure and the ability to hold the end of the turn.   It simply does not matter how much you sharpen them - the used up ski behaves like someone put 15cm of tip rocker and 10 cm of tail rocker in it. 

 

 

If anyone local to me has a 305 boot they can try my 250-day pair back to back with my 10-day pair, identically tuned. 

 

EDIT FOR ROSSI SMASH:  2000 hours vs. 80 hours as I count 'days'


Edited by cantunamunch - 8/21/13 at 8:15am
post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I'm a K2 fan and I'll tell you that many of the people on this board consider NEW K2s to be dead, dead, dead. I call it damp and like it. I'd expect Atomics to be more lively just because of the fact that they are Atomics. One person's lively is another's chattery; dead for you is damp for me.

I was comparing K2 Recons that felt absolutely dead and terrible to same year K2 Recons that had less use. My dead Recons have half the camber and took much less effort to decamber.

 

Its not that I was beating on the skis either- When those skis were my primary ski, I was still in recovery from a devastating knee injury, and they did not see moguls, they saw 95% groomed runs and the occasional powder day. I was far harder on the Sugar Daddies.

 

I'm not really indicting K2 here, I'm just pointing out that foam core skis are the whipping boy for skis that lose their pop and don't last long term, and my experience, specific to Atomic, has been different.

 

Come to think of it, I also have a set of Dynamic VR7's, 2002 vintage. Another Atomic made, foam core, "Beta" design ski.  They still seem to have like-new pop (they probably also have less days than the other skis above, maybe 50-75 at most). 

 

3 skis is nothing more than an anecdote, but it is enough to make me not automatically rule out a foam core ski.

 

If you had asked me whether a wood/metal ski (I think the Recons are pine) or a foam core ski would last longer, before my current experience, I would probably have told you as a blanket statement that the wood would hold up better, but the Recons stand as one of the few skis that I managed to ski to the point where I would not take them out anymore. The Recons last got use in the 2011-2012 debacle of a season, and I dumped them in favor of skiing a set of Volkl Supersports with a broken edge underfoot, they were so bad.

post #74 of 79

Yeah, I think this happened to my beloved Blizzard Crushes. I first noticed it at the Tahoe Gathering, they were freshly tuned but omg I couldn't grip the hardpack for anything. Luckily it was snowing (aka puking) that day, and every day thereafter, and I never had to worry about it again. Back at home, it never snowed again that season, so I spent the rest of the season on skinnies. Fast forward to this past season, and those Crushes were absolutely terrifying on our manmade snow. I had never remembered them being like that, but I didn't think they should be that shot already. They were still fun in soft snow, but I ended up buying another pair of 98 skis (Bonafides) because I was panicking, basically. 

 

Anyway, those Crushes were stolen last spring, and I bought a lightly used pair to replace them  ... and, oh yeah! They hold an edge fine. Confirming that they my old ones were done for. (Serves those thieves right.)  I had about 100 days on them, maybe 85 or so before they started getting scary. 

 

But here is my question: those were my traveling skis. They have been in a few airplanes, and right before the Tahoe gathering, they had just gotten back from Austria. We have a hard Sporttube, as well as a soft case; I can't remember which they traveled in to Europe, but I know I used the soft case to go to Tahoe. I found the performance difference to be most noticeable between Austria and Tahoe, so I'm wondering if maybe they had gotten beat up a little in transit. Is this possible? Or is it the decambering during actual skiing that does it? Or both? There was no noticeable trauma on the outside.

post #75 of 79

I have 185 days on my Recons, they are fine.  However, the jury is out on my Outlaws (145 days).  Going to get a full tune with new bevel set in the fall and see if it helps, otherwise they are done.  Neither had a huge amount of camber to begin with, I remember that much.  Neither pair as ever been shipped, they are stored indoors in a dry area.  

post #76 of 79

I have a pair of Recons I use for groomer days, which means they've gotten a lot of use the last few years and are still doing fine after 4 seasons. Couldn't say how many days on the skis but I get 40-60 days/ season.  My red Mantras were shot after 2 seasons. Other people's red Mantras have lasted a lot longer.  I suspect there's more variation between pairs of the same model than we realize. 

post #77 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


Totally untrue here. For one thing, the lifts don't open until 9:30. Then they might still be blasting some areas until 11. Even assuming the entire town was there, the highest number of people in one day ever was like 7200 people. There's 3000 acres. Let's assume 75% of then can ski well enough to go in the trees and they all are instantly transported to the top. Still not happening. Reality is, you can still find untracked sections DAYS later here.

I am sure this is true for most areas that have size, but lower national "visibility". True, you don't find a whole run top to bottom untracked for more than a half hour. But you'll be able to identify which set of tracks is yours for most of the way down for hours.

So are you in the Northeast, the Wasatch or Tahoe?  My comment was pointed at the places most people ski.  We all dream about living near some remote powder haven but the reality is, most of us are lemmings.

post #78 of 79
Quote:
The reality is, no matter where you are, if you're depending on lifts, it's going to be gone by 10am regardless if you're in Tahoe, the Wasatch, or Vermont.

I just said not true here. I interpreted your "regardless" not as limiting your earlier wording, but as presenting an example. Fully agree that many are lemmings. Fine with me.
post #79 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjohansson View Post

So are you in the Northeast, the Wasatch or Tahoe?  My comment was pointed at the places most people ski.  We all dream about living near some remote powder haven but the reality is, most of us are lemmings.


 

Interesting how so many people that refer to all day powder as unattainable unless you live in the middle of nowhere see nothing ironic about queuing up for their Epic Pass or local equivalent.

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