or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for my first parabolic skis [for MI]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for my first parabolic skis [for MI] - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Thread Starter 

So let's start to discuss length.

Assuming I pursued FA84 EDTs... what lengths should I be looking at?

What's too long?

What's too short?

post #32 of 46

For typical Michigan skiing, anything from 74mm to 84mm under foot and all-mountain to to recreational carver works good for general all around use.  Full camber, flat or a tip rocker is fine.  There is nothing wrong with going a bit wider, but we typically don't have conditions that warrant it.  That said, this season has been atypical, I've spend a ton of time on my Mantra's playing in trees and knee deep powder in December and January.  Now I'm mostly on Cheater GS skis as the lake effect snow has slowed way down.

 

Just demo a few skis and see what ones you like.  Hell, even a rental ski from the past couple years is an entirely different animal from a top of the line ski from 10-15 years ago.  

post #33 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
 

My understanding is that all K2 skis are now rockered.  You need rocker to ski groomers in Michigan about like you need a dumptruck to pick up ten pound bag of sand at the hardware store.  Yeah, it'll work, but it's not the optimal approach.

 

That said, I found some of the skis in the earthquke/aftershock series a reasonable choice, especially the Richtor.

 

A few years K2 was bought by Jardin, which also owns Volkl, and from what I understand some of Volkl engineering has made its way into K2 skis.  Which is to say that recent vintage K2s will likely have little in common with your previous boards other than the logo, so there's not much reason to settle on K2.

Not to start fights among posters, but here Walt says I don't need rocker, and two others have suggested FA84 EDTs, which are (I think I read) rocker/camber.

Does this make sense?

post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by raycyrx View Post

So let's start to discuss length.
Assuming I pursued FA84 EDTs... what lengths should I be looking at?
What's too long?
What's too short?
Edit:Fa 84's are not rockered at least not last seasons. It's a very expensive ski that you could find a very good deal on.
Hehe interesting ski to pick. It's an advanced ski that people seem to have probs with but a great ski. In that you should not go below 174. I've skied on the 168 a bunch and I think you loose a versatility.
Btw, you should be able to find a good deal on a lightly used pair from last year.
It's prob not the most versatile of skis but it's a good one.
I prob would pick narrower for Indiana and your 1st shape ski.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by raycyrx View Post
 

Not to start fights among posters, but here Walt says I don't need rocker, and two others have suggested FA84 EDTs, which are (I think I read) rocker/camber.

Does this make sense?

 

I was one who said tip rocker is ok, but I agree with Walt.  It is unnecessary for typical Michigan skiing.  What I was saying and I think others may be saying is it won't necessarily hurt you.

 

A fair number of the all mountain skis you'll come across will have some rocker.

post #36 of 46

Yeah, a bit of tip rocker (aka early rise) won't hurt, but it  shortens the effective length of the ski on firm snow. 

 

I actually have a pair of skis with tip rocker (Dynastar Legend Sultans) that I bring out in soft snow conditions, but most days I stick with my narrow waisted cheater GS skis.

 

OTOH, full rocker on hardpack and you've got two feet of tip and tail flopping around uselessly not in contact with the snow.  I see people using that around here sometimes, and they might as well be on snowblades.

 

 

Returning to the query posted by the thread starter, I'm not really sure what to recommend. You probably have old school technique, so we ski very differently and what I'm going to like in a ski you might not.  That said, a couple of hunches:

 

  • You don't need a ridiculously wide pair of boards or full rocker.  Look for something in the 70-85mm waist region with conventional camber or tip rocker.
  • A race-oriented ski with loads of edge grip and a short turning radius will be such a departure from your previous experience that you will likely hate the things.
  • Everybody is skiing shorter than they used to.  I can't fathom needing anything more than 175cm to ski Michigan groomers, and you should probably go shorter than that.
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Edit:Fa 84's are not rockered at least not last seasons. It's a very expensive ski that you could find a very good deal on.

According to Nordica's website the FA84 EDT has "Frontside Camrock with Rapid Race Profile."  The description shows 90% full race camber which means the early rise is 10%.  For reference the early rise on the Steadfast is 25% so it is pretty minimal on the FA.  As long as you can handle it, it is pretty versatile ski.  I've skied it in 168cm for a few runs at Snow Basin last year and then nearly two full days on the 176cm at Bridger Bowl for the Gathering.  I felt a bit more stability on the 176 but if I was buying it I would buy the 168 just because the 176 was a bit more work than I cared to expend.  For the OP, definitely the 176.

post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

Yeah, a bit of tip rocker (aka early rise) won't hurt, but it  shortens the effective length of the ski on firm snow. 

I actually have a pair of skis with tip rocker (Dynastar Legend Sultans) that I bring out in soft snow conditions, but most days I stick with my narrow waisted cheater GS skis.

OTOH, full rocker on hardpack and you've got two feet of tip and tail flopping around uselessly not in contact with the snow.  I see people using that around here sometimes, and they might as well be on snowblades.


Returning to the query posted by the thread starter, I'm not really sure what to recommend. You probably have old school technique, so we ski very differently and what I'm going to like in a ski you might not.  That said, a couple of hunches:
  • You don't need a ridiculously wide pair of boards or full rocker.  Look for something in the 70-85mm waist region with conventional camber or tip rocker.
  • A race-oriented ski with loads of edge grip and a short turning radius will be such a departure from your previous experience that you will likely hate the things.
  • Everybody is skiing shorter than they used to.  I can't fathom needing anything more than 175cm to ski Michigan groomers, and you should probably go shorter than that.

With the poster being over 200 lbs, there is no way I'd suggest going shorter than 175cm, especially with a tip rocker.
post #39 of 46

I must have missed the part about 200lbs, but for firm groomers I'd still say 175cm is plenty.  My regular ski partner is over 6' tall and weighs more than 200lbs and his hard snow skis are 163cm slalom race skis. No problems there, although he does get out the Mantras whenever the snow is on the soft side.

post #40 of 46
Thread Starter 
So have any of you skied the Merlin VIs? What are your thoughts of that ski? I'm mostly happy with them, but too long and wrong type for bumps. I just don't know that I'll be bumping much anymore.
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
 

I must have missed the part about 200lbs, but for firm groomers I'd still say 175cm is plenty.  My regular ski partner is over 6' tall and weighs more than 200lbs and his hard snow skis are 163cm slalom race skis. No problems there, although he does get out the Mantras whenever the snow is on the soft side.

Slalom skis are a blast for blues and blacks that should be blue, but they are floaty and kind of unstable at higher speeds.  You can totally control them, but it requires feathering or slipping around to drop speed low enough to really carve them, and carve they will on the bullet proof stuff.  I love playing around on my SL's, but I wouldn't want them for a one ski quiver.

 

raycerx, Merlin's a pretty old school.  I'd be looking for something a little newer.

post #42 of 46
Thread Starter 
Understood, trail. Pretty much the point of this whole thread.

I was skiing a couple of weeks ago and a fellow lift rider admired my vintage K2's, and commented that modern skis would improve my skiing dramatically... So it got me to thinking about it. So now, I'm simply hunting for a frame of reference.

I was supposed to ski this weekend but that has been cancelled and I don't know if I'll be able to get out again this season. I've always been a 1 ski quiver person, but haven't ruled out keeping the Merlin's for a speed ski. Again, the thread is to help me get started with some frames of reference since I've been out of the market for so long.

So, has anyone skied the Merlin's?
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailtrimmer View Post
 

Slalom skis are a blast for blues and blacks that should be blue, but they are floaty and kind of unstable at higher speeds. 

 

Ok, I follow what you are saying, but where do you go in Michigan to achieve these higher speeds and find blacks that shouldn't be blue?  Boho, perhaps, but we're talking groomers.

post #44 of 46

Same age as you and did the switch a couple of years ago.  Yes its worth it.

 

Now you are in for a bit of a learning curve as the timing of the what you do has changed along with some other minor details.  It took me about 16hrs of solid ski time to determine what these were over about 4 or 5 days of skiing.  My best suggestion what ever you do take a quick lesson with and instructor that know what those differences are and can fast track you into understanding them.

 

Remember its the same yet different.  Having the old background and learning the new will definitely make you a better skier all around on both style of skis.

 

Enjoy and good luck.

post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by raycyrx View Post

Understood, trail. Pretty much the point of this whole thread.

I was skiing a couple of weeks ago and a fellow lift rider admired my vintage K2's, and commented that modern skis would improve my skiing dramatically... So it got me to thinking about it. So now, I'm simply hunting for a frame of reference.

I was supposed to ski this weekend but that has been cancelled and I don't know if I'll be able to get out again this season. I've always been a 1 ski quiver person, but haven't ruled out keeping the Merlin's for a speed ski. Again, the thread is to help me get started with some frames of reference since I've been out of the market for so long.

So, has anyone skied the Merlin's?

Merlin VI was a great ski. Someone around here said it was their favorite. Still, we're talking like 98/99 or 99/00. Forget the one ski thing for now, just keep it and move on. What length is it?

 

A ski that's shorter with some flex.
 

Quote:

 

According to Nordica's website the FA84 EDT has "Frontside Camrock with Rapid Race Profile."  The description shows 90% full race camber which means the early rise is 10%.  For reference the early rise on the Steadfast is 25% so it is pretty minimal on the FA.  As long as you can handle it, it is pretty versatile ski.

 

 I've skied it in 168cm for a few runs at Snow Basin last year and then nearly two full days on the 176cm at Bridger Bowl for the Gathering.  I felt a bit more stability on the 176 but if I was buying it I would buy the 168 just because the 176 was a bit more work than I cared to expend.  For the OP, definitely the 176.

 

- mtcyclist

 

Hmmm, not sure if that's true of last years. Don't think so. I can't look at it now.

Phil doesn't mention it:

 

Product:

Length Tested: 168, 176

Dimensions/Turn Radius:  128-84-112 18M@176cm

Camber: Traditional

Binding: Suggested (0* ramp angle...GOOD)

Mount point: Suggested

http://www.epicski.com/products/2013-nordica-fire-arrow-edt-84/reviews/2635

post #46 of 46

 

Tog is right about the SL skis, past about 40-45mph they get squirrelly and let you know you are on a wild ride, but right up to that point they are a blast.  GS skis are rock solid well beyond that point and likely stable enough at speed you really should hit for the most part..  So on an SL ski if you mistakenly open up on steeper run you can be surprised as it does switch quickly.

 

Tog also points out that the cheater ski (had someone once refer to them as Glolams and they do offer the best of both worlds unless you are really looking for the World Class performance,  I have GS FIS skis (got a deal) but from what I've seen unless I'm pushing that upper limit regularly I could have skied on the Cheaters and not noticed the difference.  On the 176 or maybe a bit longer and even with that radius you'll easily handle well into the 50's or beyond if you dare (and have the location to do it in a safe manner).

 

For what I ski regularly the GS is my got to ski, which is South Ontario over skied ice.

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 › Looking for my first parabolic skis [for MI]