or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Old style Alpine skiis - Page 2

post #31 of 38

Here is another generally hard to please gentleman (formerly?) on this board that was pretty taken in with 5 points. 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/114565/theres-no-excuse-but-there-is-a-reason-and-new-designs-actually-change-the-way-i-ski-how-about-you

post #32 of 38
Relative to an older shaped ski, how much length would you add to it to feel equivalent? 5 cm? My older skis are 167 K2s from back when they measured different than anyone else. When I got my Hell and Backs, they were nominally longer, but actually shorter at 169. It's worked out okay, because I wanted them for tighter trees, but I suspect I should have gone "up" a bit more. This design looks like you'd want that even more. Not that I'm in the market. It's my groomer skis that are old. Will probably replace them with stiffish 88s.
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Relative to an older shaped ski, how much length would you add to it to feel equivalent? 5 cm? My older skis are 167 K2s from back when they measured different than anyone else. When I got my Hell and Backs, they were nominally longer, but actually shorter at 169. It's worked out okay, because I wanted them for tighter trees, but I suspect I should have gone "up" a bit more. This design looks like you'd want that even more. Not that I'm in the market. It's my groomer skis that are old. Will probably replace them with stiffish 88s.

 

It depends on the amount of rocker of course, but if you are skiing a camber ski at 169, I would say 180 range.

 

My wife's quiver is a set of 159 K2 Missbehaveds that were on the short side for her height/weight/ability. We got her in a 178 Rossi S7W. Zero problems transitioning to the longer ski because edge contact actually made it shorter than the K2's.  The S7's are also noticeably lighter and I assume they would be lighter compared to the Recons as well.

post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal View Post
 

when was the last time you were on an old ski?  I think you would be surprised how good some of them they really are (as soon as you remember how to ski them).  I've skied a lot of vintage gear in the last few years and there are a few skis I have gone back and skied multiple times because they are so good.  Fischer SUPERGLASS COMPETITION(late 60's),  Dynamic VR17(late 70's), Dynastar COURSE HP(early 80's), and RD HELI-DOG (late 80's?).  In my opinion these skis out perform some mid and low end modern shape skis when conditions are steep and/or hard or you want to go fast on the groomers. (see "MORE RETRO MEMORIES" thread for pics and reviews. sorry I do not know how to embed the link.)

 

Royal 

2000- had a set of Pre's 185? don't remember what model bought them in 95? Anyhow had got some super axe 3v Salomons and finished skiing the previous season on them.  Was at the canyons for the new season- the Pre's were gonna be my rock skis- made one run and the pre skis were back in the truck.  Skied those red hotrods for a number of years and still break them out now and then-168's- fast quick and a joy to turn. 

Salomon did not make that ski longer than 175 if I remember correctly.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyowindrunner View Post
 

2000- had a set of Pre's 185? don't remember what model bought them in 95? Anyhow had got some super axe 3v Salomons and finished skiing the previous season on them.  Was at the canyons for the new season- the Pre's were gonna be my rock skis- made one run and the pre skis were back in the truck.  Skied those red hotrods for a number of years and still break them out now and then-168's- fast quick and a joy to turn. 

Salomon did not make that ski longer than 175 if I remember correctly.


I don't blame you, I never liked any of the PRE ski's.  I always felt like the looked  horrible and skied worse.:duck:  I'm not familier with the above mentioned salomons but I would say any top of the line ski from any generation would be a good ski  be it straight or shape.  I guess I'm trying to say  tothe OP even early shape skis can be great skis and can be a way of transitioning into the whole shape ski world slowly and inexpensively.  or if he wants to stay with straight skis make sure they are decent skis.  just have to watch out for binding reliability  as the skis get older.  there is an other good thread about alder shape skis that can be had for good deals.  Look for the Ski Luddite Thread.

 

royal 

post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Relative to an older shaped ski, how much length would you add to it to feel equivalent? 5 cm? My older skis are 167 K2s from back when they measured different than anyone else. When I got my Hell and Backs, they were nominally longer, but actually shorter at 169. It's worked out okay, because I wanted them for tighter trees, but I suspect I should have gone "up" a bit more. This design looks like you'd want that even more. Not that I'm in the market. It's my groomer skis that are old. Will probably replace them with stiffish 88s.

It depends on the amount of rocker of course, but if you are skiing a camber ski at 169, I would say 180 range.

My wife's quiver is a set of 159 K2 Missbehaveds that were on the short side for her height/weight/ability. We got her in a 178 Rossi S7W. Zero problems transitioning to the longer ski because edge contact actually made it shorter than the K2's.  The S7's are also noticeably lighter and I assume they would be lighter compared to the Recons as well.

Personally, for what I use them for I like the weight of the Recons. They even have heavy piston bindings on them. Good and solid for fast days. Light is nice off piste, but not what I want when I want an edge to hold.
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Personally, for what I use them for I like the weight of the Recons. They even have heavy piston bindings on them. Good and solid for fast days. Light is nice off piste, but not what I want when I want an edge to hold.

Sure. I'm just pointing out that even a significantly longer ski of this type can feel more manageable.
post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by coloradokid View Post
 

Alright, I learned to ski some time ago and really cut things up when in my 20's and 30's. Now I'm an old duffer but want some new skis and don't like the fatter skis.

 

Hey coloradokid, I think you might really appreciate this video...

 

http://www.breakthroughonskis.com/Pages/_videos/video3.html

 

It came out in 1998, and has a lot of info about the differences between the "old" and "new" skis and skiing styles.

 

There's a book also...

 

http://www.breakthroughonskis.com/Pages/_books/new-skis-book.html

 

If you're not familiar with him amongst other things Lito Tejada-Flores is a well known, beloved (by many, if not all) ski instructor who bridged the eras. He knows whereof he speaks, and his videos are beautifully filmed and produced, and are chock full of many superb skiers demo'ing different techniques.

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