or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Need new Skis - five answers included! [patroller in Ontario]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need new Skis - five answers included! [patroller in Ontario]

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 

Hello! 

 

I saw the thread about the 5 questions, so I have added my answers below:

 

  1. Where in the world are you skiing? - 

    1. Ontario Canada (Chicopee Ski Resort, Blue Mountain, Hockley Valley)

  2. What kinds of terrain do you prefer (groomed runs, moguls, race course, park'n'pipe, trees, steeps, backcountry/sidecountry)

    1. Groomed, powder, trees
  3. How many days a year do you ski?

    1. About 50-60
  4. How advanced are you as a skier?

    1. Expert - 31 years
  5. What's your height and weight? 

    1. 5'11", 220 LBS

 

I am joining the Canadian Ski Patrol this season and my Volant Machete Truth (165) which I LOVE, are getting pretty banged up.  I am a complete newbie to buying skis, the Volant's were purchsed when I was in college because they were shiny and cheap, and all my skis before that were purchased by my parents.  I am a very good skier, I have just never paid attention to my gear.

 

I have older Tyrolia SX bindings that I would like to reuse if possible. Cost is a factor and I would like a one-ski solution.

 

Thanks!

 

~Andrew

post #2 of 52
I thought Patrollers get Pro pricing on skis and stuff.

You don't want to be those old out of date skis and bindings.

Lot's of great stuff out there. We all have are favorite brand. I like Volkl's. I'd point you towards the Kendo at least in 177cm. Good all round ski and light weigh

Do you need boots too ? I'm guessing yes.
post #3 of 52
Thread Starter 

Hello,

 

I do get pro pricing on K2, Kastle, Head/Tyrolia, Elan, RAMP and Surface.

 

I don't need boots, I got some new Dalbello's last season, so I am set there.  

 

I was incorrect with the bindings, they are Tyrolia SL 110 - http://www.levelninesports.com/Tyrolia-Sl-110-Abs-Ski-Bindings

 

They are on the 2014 Indemnification list, so wouldn't they still be useable?

 

If I can stick with a pro pricing brand, that would be good from a price perspective.

 

You would suggest going all the way to a 177? I used to ski on 188's and hated them, ever since I got the Volant's I love the 165.  Can you elaborate on why you'd suggest 177?

 

Thank you so much for your reply!

 

~Andrew

post #4 of 52

Toronto Ski show coming up!

 

Consider either a good new old stock or possible used ski (if you know what you are buying).  Also consider an SL type ski in 165.   Chicopee and Hockley are fun on that type of ski.

 

Blue a little more in a GLOLAM  (SL/GS radius mix) ski unless of course you like lots of turns.

post #5 of 52

To put things in context for a moment, generally speaking 165cm is WAY short for a 220lb guy as a one-ski-quiver all-mountain board. It is true, as oldschool points out, that 165 might be the right size for you on a slalom specialty ski, but only on a ski like that. At most ski areas in North America, such a ski would not be a great choice as a one-ski quiver for most skiers. Certainly I would not want to patrol on an edgy wasp-waisted ski like that, which doesn't really want to do much besides hook up and yank you into the next turn.

 

I have never skied in Ontario, and I suppose that maybe the hills are all so tiny and groomed to death that a SL ski would make an okay all-mountain ski. But you mention trees. And maybe you will ski at bigger mountains on occasion? For reference, I am 5' 7" 135lbs. A good length for an east-coast general use ski for me is 170cm, give or take 5cm. I would expect you to be on something in the high 170s at minimum (again, unless it is a dedicated slalom ski). The fact that long ago you had one ski in the 180+ range which you didn't like doesn't prove anything, given how much ski design has changed since then, and given how good your skills are going to get doing all that patrolling. :)

post #6 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

To put things in context for a moment, generally speaking 165cm is WAY short for a 220lb guy as a one-ski-quiver all-mountain board. It is true, as oldschool points out, that 165 might be the right size for you on a slalom specialty ski, but only on a ski like that. At most ski areas in North America, such a ski would not be a great choice as a one-ski quiver for most skiers. Certainly I would not want to patrol on an edgy wasp-waisted ski like that, which doesn't really want to do much besides hook up and yank you into the next turn.

 

I have never skied in Ontario, and I suppose that maybe the hills are all so tiny and groomed to death that a SL ski would make an okay all-mountain ski. But you mention trees. And maybe you will ski at bigger mountains on occasion? For reference, I am 5' 7" 135lbs. A good length for an east-coast general use ski for me is 170cm, give or take 5cm. I would expect you to be on something in the high 170s at minimum (again, unless it is a dedicated slalom ski). The fact that long ago you had one ski in the 180+ range which you didn't like doesn't prove anything, given how much ski design has changed since then, and given how good your skills are going to get doing all that patrolling. :)

 

Hi qcanoe!  Thank you for the elaboration.  The vast majority of my skiing is small local hills (my home hill has a 200ft. vertical) but Blue Mountain, where I will be occasionally has an 800ft. vert.  I would also like to take the same ski out to the Rockies etc...So yes, I need a ski that can do it all reasonably well, and if I need a longer ski, so be it :)

 

Would the length of my current skis have anything to do with excessive leg fatigue?  My legs, albeit quite strong, get tired very quickly when I am skiing with a decent amount of speed etc...

 

So, with the new terms for skis, All Mountain, FreeRide, All Country, Racing etc...am I looking for an All  Mountain ski in the 175ish range?

post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckpatroller View Post
 

am I looking for an All  Mountain ski in the 175ish range?

Yes for Ontario but probably too short for your trips West but you can always rent for the occasional trip especially if there is fresh. Sending you a PM.  

post #8 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castle Dave View Post
 

Yes for Ontario but probably too short for your trips West but you can always rent for the occasional trip especially if there is fresh. Sending you a PM.  

Thanks for the info Dave. I look forward to your PM.  I guess things have changed since the early 2000's when my Volant's were released.  Back then, shorter was the way to go. What has change to bring the focus back to longer skis?  If I go with high 170's they will be almost at the top of my head.  I always thought your chin was the measurement.  At least that's what I use with my kids.

 

Thanks again for all the info!

 

~Andrew

post #9 of 52

Hi Andrew!

I'm about your weight and height and ski also in north east so...

My first suggestion is the Blizzard magnum ti 8.5 in 181 or even better for an expert, the Blizzard M-Power 8.5 fs in 181! Same ski but the M-Power has the Full Suspension system so the ski behave even better in crud or on icy slopes at high speed. Even better meaning that the Magnum is already a very good ski for all conditions and the edge grip is perfect for east coasters... The magnum can still be bought in some stores and on the web and for the M-Power, I know a shop near my place where they still have one...

If you want something more forgiving and still performing, The Blizzard Brahma in 181 would also be very interesting...

The M-Power comes with integrated bindings and the other 2 come flat...

 

Also, I would buy new bindings...

 

Mark Andrew

post #10 of 52
IMO your short ski's are not as easy to ski as you once thought. You are over powering them.

I have found http://www.skiessentials.com/ recently and have bought my 119mm waist skis from them and my new Marmont jacket. They are out of Stowe VT. See if they have something left over that you may like.

I'm 5'11" 195lbs. Until Feb2011, I was on a 170cm ski since about 2001. My Kendo's, are 177cm and are great at Okemo. WIth the newer tips and rocker you can go longer.

If you catch them right. My new in the wrapper 119mm waist ski was $250 or $270 shipped, it is a 20011/2012 ski. I bought it last March.
post #11 of 52

First, check out ASOGEAR on Ebay. They're essentially Corbett's online liquidation seller (based in Oakville).  Great deals, keep an eye open there.  Also check LevelNineSports in the US for great deals on last year's stock.

 

Second, check out the Toronto Snow Show in a few weeks, they'll have used and clearance skis that are still great to suit a tight budget.

 

Third, despite your 220lbs, a 165 ski will be fine for what you need PROVIDED it's fairly stiff and strong, not a lolli-gagger of an intermediate ski.  You don't need a long ski for Chicopee or Hockley at all, and even Blue isn't big enough to really open up something longer.

 

Lastly, "trees" don't really factor into the equation.  The only trees will be the ones at the edge of the run, and if they're doable, then it's about 30' worth and then back on the trail.  Moguls? Absolutely.  Ice?  Definitely.  Powder?  6" of fresh twice a year, maybe.  Trees?  Ain't gonna happen.  I went hunting for trees at Blue and even there I came up mostly empty.  So, what you need is a dedicated carver.  There is no "all mountain" in Ontario. Sorry but it's true.  Especially as a patrol.  You want an ice pick that's stable to get you (and a sled) down 200' - 700' vertical.  A slalom ski or dedicated carver will do the trick quite nicely.  Around here, Head and Atomic are popular.  Brand doesn't really doesn't matter as long as it's not too soft.  Whatever you can find for a good price.  You could go with a longer GS-style ski, say around that 177/178cm length or so, provided the width is less than 80mm to handle the ice.  It'll get you up to speed at Blue, provide stability at your weight, but won't be quite as nimble.  As for Hockey or Chicopee, those will be 3 turns and done unless you get a slalom-ish ski.   Forget anything "all mountain"....doesn't exist here bud.

 

 

EDIT:  OldSchoolSkier: LOL, I just read your response.  It appears we're of the same mindset.  Wasn't copying you! LOL.

post #12 of 52

Gunnerbob, made the same point I did, he just explained the reasons and justly so!

 

I have a SL FIS rated and love it for playing on the two smaller hills and working on skills drills.  Nice from slow to fast, easy to hard.

 

When I want speed or want to work I'm on a full blown 2010/11 GS ski,  I've run them at Hockley and Blue, but they have to be worked and have a bit of speed to perform (well within the limits of the hills if you like to work them).   GS skis are my Fav's (but them again I've always skied GS skis so there is a bit of bias). Bumps are not a strength of the GS's.

 

As a compromise a 175ish GS cheater (about as 17-18m radius) or the Dynastar Speedcross listed elsewhere on this site might be a ski worth looking at. http://www.epicski.com/t/124259/dynastar-speed-cross-178cm

 

For Ontario I run a 0.5/4 as most of my skiing is at Blue, Hockley or Glenn Eden and for the ice we have its great.

 

Taller and little lighter (6'0", 175lbs) and nearer the higher end of ability. 

 

For your Western ski trip, take the GS Cheater and rent something for the rest,  you'll be better served.

post #13 of 52

Hey CanuckPatroller,

 

I'm also located in Waterloo.

I have a very nice set of Kastle MX78 178cm with Kastle K15 demo-binding & KTI plate.

There is nothing but excellent reviews on the MX78.

If they might be of interest feel free to PM me or email me direct at:  ANDY@LAMMERGROUP.COM

 

- Andy

post #14 of 52

165 would be great at Chicopee, 180 would be better at blue.

If you want to save money.  Spend 20 USD and get a membership at realskiers.com, read their reviews for skis from years gone buy, and then buy a bargain left-over new in plastic from years gone by.  Lot's of great skis for sale that are just a little out of fashion, but still very serviceable, you just need to know if that cheap ski is any good.  Much more affordable than pro deals we ski patrollers can get (they are good deals, but a good deal on a Porsche is still more expensive than a Camaro). 

post #15 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckpatroller View Post
 

 

Hi qcanoe!  Thank you for the elaboration.  The vast majority of my skiing is small local hills (my home hill has a 200ft. vertical) but Blue Mountain, where I will be occasionally has an 800ft. vert.  I would also like to take the same ski out to the Rockies etc...So yes, I need a ski that can do it all reasonably well, and if I need a longer ski, so be it :)

 

Would the length of my current skis have anything to do with excessive leg fatigue?  My legs, albeit quite strong, get tired very quickly when I am skiing with a decent amount of speed etc...

 

So, with the new terms for skis, All Mountain, FreeRide, All Country, Racing etc...am I looking for an All  Mountain ski in the 175ish range?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnerbob View Post
 

First, check out ASOGEAR on Ebay. They're essentially Corbett's online liquidation seller (based in Oakville).  Great deals, keep an eye open there.  Also check LevelNineSports in the US for great deals on last year's stock.

 

Second, check out the Toronto Snow Show in a few weeks, they'll have used and clearance skis that are still great to suit a tight budget.

 

Third, despite your 220lbs, a 165 ski will be fine for what you need PROVIDED it's fairly stiff and strong, not a lolli-gagger of an intermediate ski.  You don't need a long ski for Chicopee or Hockley at all, and even Blue isn't big enough to really open up something longer.

 

Lastly, "trees" don't really factor into the equation.  The only trees will be the ones at the edge of the run, and if they're doable, then it's about 30' worth and then back on the trail.  Moguls? Absolutely.  Ice?  Definitely.  Powder?  6" of fresh twice a year, maybe.  Trees?  Ain't gonna happen.  I went hunting for trees at Blue and even there I came up mostly empty.  So, what you need is a dedicated carver.  There is no "all mountain" in Ontario. Sorry but it's true.  Especially as a patrol.  You want an ice pick that's stable to get you (and a sled) down 200' - 700' vertical.  A slalom ski or dedicated carver will do the trick quite nicely.  Around here, Head and Atomic are popular.  Brand doesn't really doesn't matter as long as it's not too soft.  Whatever you can find for a good price.  You could go with a longer GS-style ski, say around that 177/178cm length or so, provided the width is less than 80mm to handle the ice.  It'll get you up to speed at Blue, provide stability at your weight, but won't be quite as nimble.  As for Hockey or Chicopee, those will be 3 turns and done unless you get a slalom-ish ski.   Forget anything "all mountain"....doesn't exist here bud.

 

 

EDIT:  OldSchoolSkier: LOL, I just read your response.  It appears we're of the same mindset.  Wasn't copying you! LOL.

You have a nice point but he wants a ski that he could use on bigger mountains too...

BTW. there is now  a couple of skis larger than 80 mm that can do the job very nicely  on icy slopes...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post
 

Gunnerbob, made the same point I did, he just explained the reasons and justly so!

 

I have a SL FIS rated and love it for playing on the two smaller hills and working on skills drills.  Nice from slow to fast, easy to hard.

 

When I want speed or want to work I'm on a full blown 2010/11 GS ski,  I've run them at Hockley and Blue, but they have to be worked and have a bit of speed to perform (well within the limits of the hills if you like to work them).   GS skis are my Fav's (but them again I've always skied GS skis so there is a bit of bias). Bumps are not a strength of the GS's.

 

As a compromise a 175ish GS cheater (about as 17-18m radius) or the Dynastar Speedcross listed elsewhere on this site might be a ski worth looking at. http://www.epicski.com/t/124259/dynastar-speed-cross-178cm

 

For Ontario I run a 0.5/4 as most of my skiing is at Blue, Hockley or Glenn Eden and for the ice we have its great.

 

Taller and little lighter (6'0", 175lbs) and nearer the higher end of ability. 

 

For your Western ski trip, take the GS Cheater and rent something for the rest,  you'll be better served.

Your right! The speed cross would be more than ok for what he has to do in Ontario! :D

post #16 of 52
Thread Starter 

Hi everyone,

 

Thank you for all the information! I apologize for not replying sooner, but life gets in the way :-)

 

I think I have narrowed it down to 4 skis...unless I am still completely out to lunch:

 

Kastle MX series - http://www.kaestle-ski.com/en/products/mx/mx78-6782/

 

K2 Bolt or Charger - http://k2skis.com/skis/mens?ski-series=all-mountain,precision-piste

 

Elan Amphibio - http://www.elanskis.com/ce/all-mountain-amphibio.html  (Not entirely sure what model yet)

 

Head REV 85/90 - http://www.head.com/ski/products/skis/allride/?region=eu

 

Thoughts? Concerns?

 

~Andrew

post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckpatroller View Post

 

 

Kastle MX series -mx78 would serve you nicely for what you want to do; maybe borderline for trees and bumps but still ok at 220 pounds

 

K2 Bolt or Charger - never liked the k2 skis...personal taste I guess...

 

Elan Amphibio -  I used to have the 88 xti and it carved very nicely, even on icy conditions, so 88 or 82 XTI and 14 fusion... Would suggest the 82 XTI

 

Head REV 85/90 - Had a pair because the base and edges are rock solid but never really liked the feel of the ski... feels unidimensionnal for me: maybe it was because I had a 177 cm for my 210 pounds?

 

 

For stability, edge hold and smoothness: kastle

For more pop at the end of the turn and still great edge hold and stability: Elan 

post #18 of 52

I patrol at a small hill that's a lot like Chicpoee except  a little steeper and icier.   I'm usually on my Fischer WC SCs.  I also ski Chicopee when I visit Guelph, and ski Blue, Mt.St.Louis/Moonstone and Horseshoe.   From your list the kastle MX78 is the best for you.  Don't forget to get it on CSP pro deals.  Also look for a used Volkl AC 30 from 2010 and up; you might find one on consignment in select sports if you are lucky.  You could find something else there to check against reviews from realskiers.com.

post #19 of 52
Thread Starter 

Hi Everyone,

 

I have finally been able to get out to some stores to start looking at gear.  The store I was in yesterday does Head,  Rossignol and Salomon.  Does anyone have comments/feedback on the Salomon XDrive line, or the Rossignol Pursuit line?

 

The gentleman I spoke with, across all three lines, recommended the Head i.Supershape Rally for my needs, in 170.

 

Thanks!

 

~Andrew

post #20 of 52

Can't argue with the recommendation of the Head Rally.  Versatile hard snow oriented carver.  Just note its on the narrow side for any kind of powder which you listed in your first post, especially at your weight.   

post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckpatroller View Post

Hi Everyone,

I have finally been able to get out to some stores to start looking at gear.  The store I was in yesterday does Head,  Rossignol and Salomon.  Does anyone have comments/feedback on the Salomon XDrive line, or the Rossignol Pursuit line?

The gentleman I spoke with, across all three lines, recommended the Head i.Supershape Rally for my needs, in 170.

Thanks!

~Andrew

At 210, you need the 177.
post #22 of 52

I think the ski recommendations are humming along nicely, and I won't get in the way of those. However, I will make a comment on your choice to transfer your bindings. I'll just say that its probably not a very good idea to do so. Sure, they're still on the indemnity list this year. But they won't be on there much longer. Also keep in mind that the average skier skis fewer than 20 days a year, so the estimated longevity of ski equipment is based upon that. You sound like you are skiing many more days than that, and probably skiing much harder than your average Joe. If you haven't been skiing that hard before, you will be on patrol. 

 

A few years ago, I did the same thing, I got new skis, and swapped some old bindings onto them. I thought why not, the bindings still worked fine, and I'd save myself a bit of money. Not too long after that, I noticed that I was pre-releasing at times, even with my DINs set above the chart recommendation for my height weight and ability. The springs were losing their tension, and losing it fast. Then the entire heel piece on one of the bindings started to break apart. It actually happened a couple years ago at a Gathering, so there were other Bears who saw it. I was lucky it didn't completely fail, as we were in the backcountry on the previous run. I ended up having to get new bindings in the end, and now there's an extra set of holes drilled into those skis, because I tried to save some money by reusing bindings. 

 

IMHO, an inexpensive pair of new bindings will serve you better than an old pair of really nice bindings. 

post #23 of 52

+1 for a SL race ski, 165cm.  Nice and stout for your weight at that length (which is "full size").  The Head i.SL RD is really fun and more versatile than you would think.

 

You can ski them in the Rockies on non-powder days.  If you are going and there is a lot of snow forecast, you could pick up a real powder ski (used or really discounted) that would pretty much suck at your home mountain, and sell it when you get home.  Your cost/use would be pretty low that way.

post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utagonian View Post
 

+1 for a SL race ski, 165cm.  Nice and stout for your weight at that length (which is "full size").  The Head i.SL RD is really fun and more versatile than you would think.

 

You can ski them in the Rockies on non-powder days.  If you are going and there is a lot of snow forecast, you could pick up a real powder ski (used or really discounted) that would pretty much suck at your home mountain, and sell it when you get home.  Your cost/use would be pretty low that way.

Uh yeah, but he states that even at home, he likes trees. A SL in eastern trees for someone weighing 220 will be about as much fun as a Ferrari for a ski car. 

 

OP: The Blizzard and Kendo suggestions made sense. The Rally at your weight does not, unless you were kidding about said trees, cuz you'll end up ploughing every downed branch, hidden rock, and root snarl that lives underneath the soft snow you'll sink into.  

post #25 of 52

I'm female, 5'5, and ski a 172 (with rocker) as my daily driver in Colorado. I can't imagine a 170 being enough for you.

post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

 

For Ontario I run a 0.5/4 as most of my skiing is at Blue, Hockley or Glenn Eden and for the ice we have its great.

 

Taller and little lighter (6'0", 175lbs) and nearer the higher end of ability. 

 

For your Western ski trip, take the GS Cheater and rent something for the rest,  you'll be better served.

 

0.5/4 is the best advice here..  doesn't matter what ski you get it has to be SHARP, just so long as your not getting too stiff of boards you'll be ok.

 

I've been off skis for a while, but had the chance to ski out east (sugarloaf) and got bit by the bug again.  Got some new to me boards (K2 AMP Rictor 82Ti) in a 167? length.. great skis, maybe a bit wide underfoot, but i'm loving them.. except the first time out hit some ice and my skis just went out from under me mid carve...  dunno what they are from the factory, but changing it to 0.5/4 was the best thing I could ever do..

 

Again skiing Blue, Boler, Brimacome, Devils Elbow..

 

And for people who don't know southern ontario skiing.  We have massive variable freeze-thaw cycles that turn our slopes into ice-rinks.. and we're talking about verticals of 300' on the average hill and our "mountain" is 700'.  We actually go out east for what we would consider great skiing, hell we drive to western NY for good skiing. Real western skiing, we can't handle.. not enough ice..

 

If it doesn't resemble what you find in the bottom of your rye and coke, or McDonalds soft drink cup.. i can't ski it..  We practice gravity assisted speed skating more then skiing here i think.

post #27 of 52

Wow, interesting thread; it reveals a lot about where folks are coming from as much as what OP is looking for.  I have not skied Ontario hills you reference, but if yours/others descriptions are accurate, I'd suggest you think long and hard about how and what you are going to compromise.  To my mind, the ideal ski for the terrain/conditions at home is a 170-175 narrow carver.  That would be Rally, Head iSl Rd, maybe the Dynastar Speed Cross.  If you really want to, can, find trees (in 200-400' of vert??), or you want to take the skis out west, then you want a wider (80-85) ski, like the Head Magnum referenced or Blizzard Brahma.  But each involved compromises: Narrow, short carver will not fit trees or soft stuff/crud as well as wider ski, but wider, more forgiving ski will not cut the ice consistently like you want at home.  

From what I read, home conditions are so specialized that you have to decide if you want a ski optimized for those or a ski that will travel but not be perfect at home.  

Of skis mentioned, I'd venture that the Kastle 78 might be the best compromise on the spectrum....but you don't want to get them too short or you'll lose the versatility.  For someone 220 lbs., I gotta think the 178 would be the smallest right size in that ski.  It would carve on hardpack but still be long enough to be OK out west or at bigger hills.  For context, if you were buying them for hardpack and all mountain duty at a bigger mountain, you'd definitely want the 186.

post #28 of 52
Thread Starter 

Alright...I really do appreciate everyone's advice and suggestions! I never thought I'd be soooooo confused.  

 

I hit another shop today that also sells Volkl.  Evo.com has this Volkl on sale (even with shipping to Canada it's about $300 cheaper than I can get it here)

 

https://www.evo.com/outlet/ski-packages/volkl-rtm-80-skis-ipt-wide-ride-120-bindings-2013.aspx

 

The guy at the store said the RTM 80,81, and 84 would be great skis.

 

Thoughts?

 

As for trees, I have come to learn that my definition of trees is NOT the same as most people, so lets assume no trees.  When I go to Sugarloaf, I will attempt part of Brackett Basin for maybe an hour.  Otherwise, I don't do trees.  I apologize for the confusion!

 

Lastly, I will be getting new bindings, it seems most new skis at the level I am looking at all come as a "system" so rest assured there.

 

One other thing, the two posts above mention 0.5/4, what does that mean?

 

Thank you again to everyone!

 

~Andrew

post #29 of 52
Quote:
One other thing, the two posts above mention 0.5/4, what does that mean?

 

0.5 degrees base angle,

4 degrees side angle.. it's how the steel edges are sharpened.. makes a world of difference.  With how much ice we have to deal with here when you put your ski on edge it's nice to know it will hold.

post #30 of 52

Andrew,

 

That is a description of the base angle (first number) and the side angle (second number). Even though I mentioned it initially, I'm going to suggest since you have do ask don't go that aggressive.

 

0.5 base leaves very little room for error when skiing as it makes for a very quick responsive ski and can make the ski feel very twitchy.   Base angle is the detune of the past to get a ski skiing correctly for a skier.  The 4 side angle makes for a ski that can bit very hard once it is engaged.  This combination can create a ski can be very difficult to ski for the un-initiated. 

 

Most skis are usually set at 1/2 or 1/3 (including race skis for some racers).  The difference between that and the 0.5/4 really comes down to how good your ability is and do you like a ski that very responsive and aggressive.  Downside is if you make a mistake the ski will punish you immediately. 

 

 

Personally a 1/3 is a good starting point for most skiers, then 1/3.5 then 1/4 as you will lose very little edge life, to go from 1/4 to 1/3 will dramatically cut your edge life.  Try and tweak if needed is the best route.  Once you are happy, stop and don't do further.

 

Going to 0.5 base will also reduce your edge life a bit so be sure that you want this before you do it (mostly racers ski the race skis with this base angle). 

 

If you start going towards a ski that is more of a front side ski the more aggressive cut may not always compliment the ski as the ski may not have the torsional properties to match the performance such an aggressive cut will provide.

 

As a ski patroller you will likely be wanting a ski that has a little forgiveness for ease of day in day out skiing under all conditions.  A 0.5/4 won't let you ski as relaxed as you may want under some conditions.

 

G

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 › Need new Skis - five answers included! [patroller in Ontario]