or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

wide turny skis? - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

They look like a fun ski, but I don't think any local shops carry them.

A slalom radius is 10-13m. If you put that much shape on a soft snow ski it would be a hot mess. I thought the op said less than 14m, which is my fault.

Bull!!!

 

:bs:

post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
 

It's Ullrs Chariot. Have you skied this model? I have for 2 years in the PNW. It's damn quick for it's width and ski wet deep snow just fine. At 200# and 40 yrs of skiing I have some experience but by no means pretend to be an expert.

:D:beercheer:

post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana View Post

@Naybreak, please elaborate. Do you mean centering the binding 3 cm forward? (-3cm?)

These skis have a recommended mount near center rather than say a typical -7cm. So at -3cm from center you are at +4...but all that means is the ski is designed at recommended mount to be more center skied.

It struck me that you might find this more comfortable since the ski design may better reward your adaptations.

Blister has a good review of both the Rocker2 108 and Soul Rider where you can get a great description of this design concept in terms of terrain performance.

Hope that helps.
post #34 of 46

Skilogic also has the Front Burner (only 84 mm wide) if you like camber at 14 m, and the Rock Star (117 mm) at 14 m if you like rocker.

post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

These skis have a recommended mount near center rather than say a typical -7cm. So at -3cm from center you are at +4...but all that means is the ski is designed at recommended mount to be more center skied.

It struck me that you might find this more comfortable since the ski design may better reward your adaptations.

Blister has a good review of both the Rocker2 108 and Soul Rider where you can get a great description of this design concept in terms of terrain performance.

Hope that helps.
How do they do in powder though? I havent skied a center mounted ski in powder yet, but a twin snowboard in powder was hard to handle sometimes. That could be a drawback.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

They look like a fun ski, but I don't think any local shops carry them.

A slalom radius is 10-13m. If you put that much shape on a soft snow ski it would be a hot mess. I thought the op said less than 14m, which is my fault.

DON'T GET YOU PANTIES IN A BUNCH!

 

i am well aware of the radius of the Chariot! 15m  And ALL OF MY SKIS!!!   13M 15M 12.5 , WTF difference is 2M gonna make. None in Pow! 

 

Smaller sidecut skis, ski powder just fine.... at least on my feet AND APPARANTLY
SLIDERS

 

The sidecut radius has almost no bearing on skiing powder. 

 

In is about average ski width , waist width and Flex....Sidecut radius is not an important consideration in 3d snow. 

post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
 

 

 

The sidecut radius has almost no bearing on skiing powder. 

 

In is about average ski width , waist width and Flex....Sidecut radius is not an important consideration in 3d snow. 

Read this:

http://www.evo.com/what-is-so-special-about-the-volant-spatula-powder-ski-how-do-i-ski-the-spatulas.aspx

 

*Sigh*

Sidecut very much does affect how a ski skis in powder, and usually for the worst. When you get into long, 110+mm underfoot skis, a change in 1m in sidecut makes a fairly large difference in how a ski works in powder because the tips and tails become much larger than the waist, and it makes the ski hooky due to the trampoline effect described above. There is a reason modern powder skis all have tip rocker/early and very little sidecut near the tips. For all the talk you do about how sidecut doesn't matter in powder, modern ski design does not agree with you.

You can ski a cambered ski with lots of shape in powder, but the performance is subpar compared to more modern designs.  That's why I suggested that the OP not worry about sidecut so much and that he he should look at an early rise/rockered ski that doesn't force him to rely on traditional carving technique all the time for optimal performance. 

 

 

post #38 of 46

Well, we should really be trying to help the OP, rather than sniping about whether sidecut works in powder, but I have to say that I have NEVER demoed a ski and said "boy, I wish that ski had LESS sidecut".  But maybe that's just me.

 

OP, while the SkiLogics sound great, you may have difficulty in finding demos.  If you are stuck on the super-short radius -- and you should know what you need more than anybody -- find a good Head demo center.

 

However, I want to mention that in spite of not quite meeting your radius desires, the Nordica Patron is the best ski I've ever been on for both carving and smearing.  It will do about any style that suits you, without a lot of work.

post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

How do they do in powder though? I havent skied a center mounted ski in powder yet, but a twin snowboard in powder was hard to handle sometimes. That could be a drawback.

Well, if we are talking a mid-90's width that has to be taken for what it is, but shape is at least generally favorable. Maintaining fore/aft balance on a ski that wants to ski from the center is more of an issue in chop than powder, but there is no question that the ability to ski upright driving from the center is there.

Here's the profile of the Rocker2 92, mounted at the all mountain line at -2cm.



It is easy to see the mount to the camber profile in terms of the position to ski center, and long low splay leaves not a ton of camber to manage, with the center section responsive to straight downward pressure rather than being driven forward where there won't feel like all that much ski out front. That could be a mess for the OP, but it might also be a bit of nirvana for a skier who would benefit from starting more forward needing to maintain a centered position.

This excerpt comes from the Blister Gear review of the Rocker2 108.
Quote:
The 108 has a fairly long tip and tail rocker profile, with slight camber underfoot. (See rocker pics on page 3.) Combine all of the above attributes with a “modern,” forward mount location, and you get a ski with the following characteristics.

(Before going further, I need to underscore that this is an initial review. There will be much more to say about this ski once the North American winter hits.)

First off, the ski turns effortlessly at slow to medium speeds. Many of my warm-up runs each day were accessed from the Caris or Vulcano lifts on the front side of Las Leñas. Vulcano 1 was one of my favorite laps to start each day because it offered a moderately steep, consistent, long, and wide groomed run, with some fun little opportunities for air stashed here and there. Whether it was perfectly flat corduroy or pushed-around corn, the 108 could execute short-, medium-, and long-radius turns at slow to moderate speeds extremely easily.

Turn shape could be adjusted very simply by varying the amount the tails were allowed to slide through each turn. The 108 also felt comfortable opening up arcs and laying down railroad tracks so long as speeds were kept in check. This leads me to my first “criticism” of the ski, but first I must also add that the ski provided excellent energy rebound from turn to turn.

As I mentioned, the Rocker2 108 has a fairly significant amount of tip taper and a recommended mounting position that is only -3cm from center. This leads to a sensation that you are (1) riding a shorter ski than you actually are and (2) placed really far forward on the effective edge / sidecut.

What this translates to, on- or off-piste, is some insecurity when you start cookin’ down the mountain, especially when the snow is firm or punchy. I’m not necessarily calling these characteristics a bad thing, but maybe a trade off for the easy-to-ski nature, and smeary, soft snow characteristics. As always, it depends on what you’re looking for.

The emphasis is mine, and that's what I think would be worth evaluating, especially if a more centered mount enables a traditional length ski and not attempting to ski fat due to skiing short. Maybe the new Rocker2 100 is worth a look?

Edit: here's some more from Blister, second reviewer:
Quote:
Stance

I’ve found that the Rocker2 108 responds best to a balanced, light, and more centered position, which, by the way, is exactly the way Jason skis. (Seriously, the guy is the smoothest, most balanced person on skis that I know or have probably ever seen. He once spent a whole season skiing Taos only on a pair of Hellbents, with no poles. That’s not easy to do, especially if you’re driving your skis like you’re on a Super-G course.)

I, on the other hand, basically learned to ski on a race team, and don’t assume such an upright stance. Until recent seasons, I’ve generally preferred stiff skis with flat tails that I can really lean on and charge. If you try to do this on the 108, you’re pretty well guaranteed to overpower the ski and wash the tail out. Maintain a more upright, light position, and you’ll be able to use the effective edge of the ski to its fullest through stable, fun, smeared turns.
Quote:
Powder Performance

Christmas Day brought 9-10” of super light snow to Taos, and I was eager to get the 108s in some real powder.

One thing I wasn’t sure about with this ski was if the more-forward mount point and a less than stiff shovel (which also doesn’t have much splay in the rocker profile) would cause tip dive. In my experience so far, it hasn’t.

Making some untracked turns down Zagava and Powderhorn Bowl at slow and moderate speeds, I assumed the same more-centered, light stance that I found the ski responds to best. At no point did I feel like I needed to get in the back seat to help the shovels track through the powder. Now, the snow that morning was very light, so much of the time the tips of the 108s stayed totally submerged—they were not planing on top of the snow much at all—which was also the case with the Armada TST that same morning. (The TST has much more splay in its tip rocker). Still, the skis did very well and provided a totally sufficient amount of float for the conditions.

Edited by NayBreak - 2/5/15 at 9:32pm
post #40 of 46

The 95-107 Stormriders in the 170-something lengths have very deep sidecuts, I think around 16 and change. Rossi Soul 7 is also very deep at that length, and the 5-point front sidecut makes initiating turns silly easy. Ramp and Zag might be worth looking at.

 

Another approach would be to change your style of skiing; seems to me that you could smear turns fairly nicely with a full rockered ski, not have to worry about much tip pressure to turn, and a big enough tip rocker would keep it up out of hook-land. Volkl makes several of these, also many of the indies. Check out Moment and Praxis, for example. 

post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by clink83 View Post

A short turn radius in a wide ski has kind of gone out of fashion because they don't work well all all for powder skiing.
A ski with tip and tail rocker might work for the problems you describe, since you can slide them around a little bit easier.
You can find some 15-18m powder skis, but >14m probably is going to be hard to find.

 

The OP is looking for <14m not >14m

post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana View Post

Thank you everyone for your thoughtful suggestions. The problem with equalizing leg length by putting a lift in the shorter leg is that it does not correct the mechanics. I tried it once and even walking was painful with every step impact. Cycling and elliptical however is no problem. Trying to undo 55 years of deformity and skeletal compensation only adds stresses. However, skiing and walking are different so maybe I'll try it. Other things I have not tried are elevating both heels (changing ramp angle?),or moving bindings forward. Time for new boots soon so maybe I'll find a boot fitter in Breckinridge. The skilogics and the icelantics look interesting but I have to find a place to demo them. Nobody on the east coast carries them(why would they??)
Just a thought but how much shorter is your leg from the other? If it's not a huge difference you might be able to have a boot fitter put on a lifter on your boot sole and grind it down to spec.
Edited by clink83 - 2/6/15 at 6:53am
post #43 of 46
Thread Starter 
thank you again. yes clink i will find a bootfitter and play with that. The reason I pulled 14 m out of the air was arbitrary. I know that I can ski the mx83 (18 m but its radius is elliptical giving it variability) and the latigo (18 m) even better (it's narrower). So I reasoned that a wider ski (slower to turn and wider surface area for the same length requiring more energy to bend) should have a shorter turn radius to give it the same 'manageability' with more float. I meant 14-16 m. I realize that <14m is almost impossible in a wide ski but I guess I should have said <16M radius. Although radius may be irrelevant since I am not really going to carve in powder given my tendency to fall back and avoid the electric shock in the back. I'll prob be sliding more than anything. That picture by slider shows the back seat I am prone to occupying, esp over a bump.

I read that the nordica hell and back is not forgiving of a back seat driver because of its stiff tail. I would have thought that a stiff wide tail would be just what a back seat driver could benefit from? In any event, Significant rocker would help and that's why I think I did not like the fx94. It's a 'good technique' ski that rewards being forward, and punishes being back. The dynaster powerdrive 89 was a lot more tolerant of my lack of good technique. But it needs the fresh to enjoy its powder playfulness. I imagine the cham is even more fun in the pow but it's softer so I think it may be rattled more by the crud. Anyone know where I can demo an Ullr in Breck? Kind of poetic since they even have Ullr's Festival.
post #44 of 46
@ bwana. Let me make a ph call. I'll see if we can get you a demo with Logik. They are working w/ adaptive skiers to make specific skis.
post #45 of 46

SkiLogik is hq'd in Breckenridge, so surely you can find something there!

post #46 of 46

Line Sick Day 95 and 110 are slightly >16m in 172 cm length.

Line SFB is 15 m in 172.

 

http://lineskis.com/compare/skis#products=sick-day-110|sick-day-95|sir-francis-bacon

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