EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › "Lightweight" Skis = Progress?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Lightweight" Skis = Progress? - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Anyone skied the V werks Katanas in crud? Or another lightweight ski in crud?


Me.  FX84.  Too much feedback from the skis for my taste.

I'd rather something more like a Hummer in crud.  

post #62 of 74
I don't think the original FX 84 would be classified as a lightweight ski with light materials It's definitely light but prob almost heavy for a touring ski. Two sheets of metal, no carbon, graphite.
I suppose that just reinforces your point.
post #63 of 74

Hi Folks.  First time post on Epicski.  I wanted to revive this thread to see what the word on the slopes is after some time has passed.  If anything,the trend toward lighter skis seems to have continued (and accelerated?).  Just to throw some skis out there for commentary, does anybody have any experience with skis like the Atomic Vantage 90 CTI?  These are advertised as capable all mountain skis, yet they seem quite a bit lighter than skis of the past versions of skis for similar use.  These skis are about 1850 grams in medium lengths, and boast various forms of carbon fiber trickery to maintain stiffness and adequate suspension.  How do these skis feel?  Do they have a light, rigid, chattery feel?  Are they in any way smooth and damp on rough or in heavy wet snow?  Basically, does the new technology work?  If one wants a smooth, damp ski that will perform on hard pistes and in rough stuff and do OK but not great in cold, dry, light powder, is it better to go with an old-style wood core and some sheets of metal, or with a new-style light weight core, carbon layers, and so forth...?

post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
Anyone skied the V werks Katanas in crud? Or another lightweight ski in crud?

Me.  FX84.  Too much feedback from the skis for my taste.

I'd rather something more like a Hummer in crud.  

 

OK, revived thread; I'm game.  I've acquired a more recent model of the Kastle FX84.  Its two sheets of metal are thicker than the old model I described in 2015.  I don't know what else the manufacturer did with it as they updated it, but the end result is that this ski is stiffer in longitudinal flex than the model I was complaining about in this thread.  This one does just what I wanted in crud; it slices through as if the crud were not there.  I get less feedback about every lump and a happy skier.

 

In bumps, the earlier version is easier to manage.

post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Anyone skied the V werks Katanas in crud? Or another lightweight ski in crud?
Me.  FX84.  Too much feedback from the skis for my taste.
I'd rather something more like a Hummer in crud.  

OK, revived thread; I'm game.  I've acquired a more recent model of the Kastle FX84.  Its two sheets of metal are thicker than the old model I described in 2015.  I don't know what else the manufacturer did with it as they updated it, but the end result is that this ski is stiffer in longitudinal flex than the model I was complaining about in this thread.  This one does just what I wanted in crud; it slices through as if the crud were not there.  I get less feedback about every lump and a happy skier.

In bumps, the earlier version is easier to manage.

I guess you and I own the same ski, LF, and I'm of your opinion. Nothing fazes it. It's not particularly heavy, either. I like it better in crud than the new Enforcer. I haven't been on the FX 84's replacement, the FX 85, enough to say whether it's as good. The HP version has good edge grip, though -- as good as the 84, I believe.
post #66 of 74

OK, great.  So that's a ski that is about 1800 grams in a size 170, with a wood core, some glass fiber, maybe carbon fiber (?) and some titanal layers.  People seem to think it is a relatively damp and stable skis.  What about some of the lighter skis, perhaps with more carbon and less metal?  Have the ski wizards found a way to make a light ski that is still damp?

post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunoschull View Post
 

OK, great.  So that's a ski that is about 1800 grams in a size 170, with a wood core, some glass fiber, maybe carbon fiber (?) and some titanal layers.  People seem to think it is a relatively damp and stable skis.  What about some of the lighter skis, perhaps with more carbon and less metal?  Have the ski wizards found a way to make a light ski that is still damp?


Kastle has.  All their skis are known for being damp; there's a layer of something like rubber in there for this purpose.  

Others will know better than me which of their current series is intentionally the lightest in weight.

post #68 of 74

I'm a light expert skier and think that it's good for me, because the weight ratio between the ski and I will be smaller. I think it has less of an impact on heavy riders. Also, I'm having a lot of fun skiing on longer skis than I have been on since 1998. As long as the ski performs as well or better, I like it. I have been on some light skis that were terrible though. Problems with busting through crud, but others that didn't have that issue. So, I don't think that weight alone is the only factor in that area. I ride the Fischer Ranger 108 TI and love'em. Came off a streak of Volkl AC50s and a few others.

post #69 of 74

I'm still waiting for these threads to start talking about binding weight :D

post #70 of 74
The volkl carbon katana is light and damp.
post #71 of 74

Those of us who love well-damped skis are really curious to feel how good the new technology by Renoun is.   It sure looks interesting.

 

Check it out.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

Those of us who love well-damped skis are really curious to feel how good the new technology by Renoun is.   It sure looks interesting.

Check it out.


_____________________________________________________________________________



How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.



Totally. For instance, Saturday at Sunapee.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

Those of us who love well-damped skis are really curious to feel how good the new technology by Renoun is.   It sure looks interesting.

Check it out.


_____________________________________________________________________________



How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

I would not call it "damp" in the traditional sense. It's an interesting combo of relatively light with playful and stable.

I wouldn't call the Kastle FX95HP damp either. Brittle and hard feeling even though it skis well except for moguls. Certainly it is not light. I rather disliked the feel of it let alone the noise it makes. Best kept on western snow that has acoustic dampening properties.:-)

FX85 not particulary "damp" feeling but pretty solid. Very good bump ski, very controllable ski. Non hp definitely lacks some ummph when pushed, didn't try hp. However, if you need a reliable ski for somewhere you don't know, FX85 is a good choice.

Go to a touring shop and pick up an actual light ski. It's shocking how light they can be. For Kastle it's the TX line.
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

Those of us who love well-damped skis are really curious to feel how good the new technology by Renoun is.   It sure looks interesting.

Check it out.


_____________________________________________________________________________



How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

I would not call it "damp" in the traditional sense. It's an interesting combo of relatively light with playful and stable.

I wouldn't call the Kastle FX95HP damp either. Brittle and hard feeling even though it skis well except for moguls. Certainly it is not light. I rather disliked the feel of it let alone the noise it makes. Best kept on western snow that has acoustic dampening properties.:-)

FX85 not particulary "damp" feeling but pretty solid. Very good bump ski, very controllable ski. Non hp definitely lacks some ummph when pushed, didn't try hp. However, if you need a reliable ski for somewhere you don't know, FX85 is a good choice.

Go to a touring shop and pick up an actual light ski. It's shocking how light they can be. For Kastle it's the TX line.

I didn't find the non-HP great on 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 › "Lightweight" Skis = Progress?