or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Effort to bend skis, not heavy enough, or binding position, or ski design, or...?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Effort to bend skis, not heavy enough, or binding position, or ski design, or...?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I bought the TT80 deal from L9 last year, at 176 it was the longest length available, which from what I read is usually designed for bigger skiers. They work great for what I want them to do, carve icy scraped down groomers at local mole hill.

Recently I've demoed two atomic double deckers (GS and XT) and a volkl GS, which I gather all are their top of line consumer products, all three in mid/high 170 length. Something I've noticed is that they are easier to bend and grip. On mine it takes a deliberate effort to move forward and pressure the boots to get the same reaction, whereas on the atomic GS it's almost effortless.

So this got me thinking, maybe at 193 I'm not heavy enough to easily handle the 176 tt80? Or could it due to something else like binding mount position, or ski design (full camber vs tip rocker, softer flex), or something else? Boots are the same, and while I'm lacking in the skill department, it shouldn't be a variable here.
post #2 of 12
I have the same skis. @ 190# they carve fine. I have heard other skiers mention the same thing you have. They moved the bindings forward with good results.
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Interesting, so I'm not alone on this. Don't think I'll move the bindings since I can still bend it, just noticeably more effort compare to atomic. Wonder if the factory mounting point is different, or if the atomic just have softer flex.
post #4 of 12

A somewhat related my-2-cents:

I will now never buy a ski without having a demo binding on it where I can independently adjust heel and toe position, and/or change the mount point front or back.

 

Depending on the ski flex, our boot's upright-ness, and our skiing style, the ski's recommended line may not be ideal.  After having experienced the effects of moving a binding mount +/-1 1cm, I am a covert to having such adjustability.

 

- Andy

post #5 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARL67 View Post
 

A somewhat related my-2-cents:

I will now never buy a ski without having a demo binding on it where I can independently adjust heel and toe position, and/or change the mount point front or back.

 

 

You don't need to use a demo binding (or Marker Griffon); Tyrolia RailFlex or Vist Speedlock allow for fore/aft adjustment as well as swapping bindings between skis (mounted with appropriate rails/plates)

post #6 of 12

We have been using the Head/Tyrolia PRDs and are very pleased.  I am a Freeflex believer - it truly seems to prevent the boot+binding length from being "locked out" from the rest of the ski's flex.

post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzmtl View Post

Recently I've demoed two atomic double deckers (GS and XT) and a volkl GS, ...Something I've noticed is that they are easier to bend and grip. On mine it takes a deliberate effort to move forward and pressure the boots to get the same reaction, whereas on the atomic GS it's almost effortless.

So this got me thinking, maybe at 193 I'm not heavy enough to easily handle the 176 tt80? ...

Racing technical skis, even the WC versions, which you aren't referring to, are not what mythology makes them, I-beams. Specifically, they are designed to be incredibly stiff side to side, to resist torsion. And typically the tips and tails are very stiff, to make the ski handle ruts and rough snow smoothly at speed, as well as create a good platform in the tail for acceleration into the next turn. But in mid-ski they may actually be as flexy, or more so, than a "stiff" consumer ski. This allows them to bend deeply and quickly into the apex of a turn. Much of what we call "grip," in fact, is achieved by damping, weight (racing skis tend to be heavy by design), and torsional integrity so that the ski will remain in contact with the snow at all times. Longitudinal stiffness is more associated with stability at speed and lower edge angles. Thus, as you look toward faster events with less turns, the skis get longer and stiffer longitudinally. Sl's can be fairly easy to bend in mid-ski, GS's less so, SG's and up are real planks. 

 

Which is my typically long winded way of saying, no it's not your weight that makes you have issues with a recreational carver. In fact, the opposite is more likely; you're too heavy for a 176, need to get a longer ski. Also you may want to check you you are/aren't keeping your hips forward and pressuring the tips. But yeah, GS's  can feel like they do all the work for you, until you have to turn in predetermined space. Then the fun begins. :D 

post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Interesting thread, so apparently the factory binding center is back from the true center mark. Guess I'll try +1.5 and see what difference it makes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Which is my typically long winded way of saying, no it's not your weight that makes you have issues with a recreational carver. In fact, the opposite is more likely; you're too heavy for a 176, need to get a longer ski. Also you may want to check you you are/aren't keeping your hips forward and pressuring the tips. But yeah, GS's  can feel like they do all the work for you, until you have to turn in predetermined space. Then the fun begins. biggrin.gif  

Huh, I'm surprised to hear that. On a 15 meter sidecut ski I thought this is about as long as I'd go, never considered the possibility that I would be too heavy for it.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzmtl View Post

@.... and while I'm lacking in the skill department, it shouldn't be a variable here.

And why not?   Before you make any equipment changes, maybe you should have an instructor or other skilled skier assess your skiing.

post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jzmtl View Post

@.... and while I'm lacking in the skill department, it shouldn't be a variable here.
And why not?   Before you make any equipment changes, maybe you should have an instructor or other skilled skier assess your skiing.

Because I skied the same way on both skis, thus my skill level, good or bad but remains constant, did not cause two different skis to respond differently.

I have no intention to change equipment at the moment, not unless I win the lottery. And hopefully I will have a decent video after this weekend.
post #11 of 12

@jzmtl I don't think your too heavy.;) It's a long ski for the turn radius and preform well on hard snow. I skied them a week or so ago on soft groomers and they sucked. Ever turn they just bogged down.

post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzmtl View Post


Because I skied the same way on both skis, thus my skill level, good or bad but remains constant, did not cause two different skis to respond differently.

I have no intention to change equipment at the moment, not unless I win the lottery. And hopefully I will have a decent video after this weekend.

Different skis may respond differently to the same input, because of their different sidecuts, flex and torsional stifness.  You may get away with doing something on one, but not on the other.

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 › Effort to bend skis, not heavy enough, or binding position, or ski design, or...?