or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help - need new skis for old school skier. [northeast, skiing with kids]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help - need new skis for old school skier. [northeast, skiing with kids]

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 

Years, like over 15 years ago, I skied 200 slalom skis.  Usually Head SL or Fischer RC4s.  Being that those were old school and I haven't been skiing all this time, I need some new skis.  I did go once this season to take the kids (4 and 10 yo)...  With a pair of my old skis.  Back then, I skied hard... hard enough to knock the camber out of them in a season or two.  I also only ski the east coast, so there's lots of ice.. 

 

 

Now with knowing the kids love skiing, I need to get back into it and I need recommendations on what I should be looking for.    Since all the current crop of skis look like fat skis or skinny snowboards, I'm not sure how to size them.  I see the size recommendation charts on all these sites, but I keep thinking they're recommending skis that are to short.  I'm 5'7" 165 lbs..   They recommend 160-170 as the proper size, but I'm thinking I need 180-190s.  Am I way off on this?

 

Also, being east coast, I'm thinking carving skis or all mountain skis with a tight turning radius...   I'd also like these skis to be light in weight... I'm way out of shape these days; compared to a decade ago, so I'd like some light skis.

 

Based on past knowledge, K2s were light compared to Head, Fischer, Atomic and Volkl. Because of this I've been looking at K2 Charger or Bolt...   Still, being out of this so long, I really have no idea...  So what size is right and what brand/model might be good for me?   I'm nowhere near as aggressive as in the past, but based on what my family said about how I looked, I must still have some skill.  I thought I was going to die coming down some trails, but my family stated my form was of an advanced skier.

 

So what say you?

 

Thanks!!

post #2 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by crabjoe View Post
 

Years, like over 15 years ago, I skied 200 slalom skis.  Usually Head SL or Fischer RC4s.  Being that those were old school and I haven't been skiing all this time, I need some new skis.  I did go once this season to take the kids (4 and 10 yo)...  With a pair of my old skis.  Back then, I skied hard... hard enough to knock the camber out of them in a season or two.  I also only ski the east coast, so there's lots of ice.. 

 

 

Now with knowing the kids love skiing, I need to get back into it and I need recommendations on what I should be looking for.    Since all the current crop of skis look like fat skis or skinny snowboards, I'm not sure how to size them.  I see the size recommendation charts on all these sites, but I keep thinking they're recommending skis that are to short.  I'm 5'7" 165 lbs..   They recommend 160-170 as the proper size, but I'm thinking I need 180-190s.  Am I way off on this?

 

Also, being east coast, I'm thinking carving skis or all mountain skis with a tight turning radius...   I'd also like these skis to be light in weight... I'm way out of shape these days; compared to a decade ago, so I'd like some light skis.

 

Based on past knowledge, K2s were light compared to Head, Fischer, Atomic and Volkl. Because of this I've been looking at K2 Charger or Bolt...   Still, being out of this so long, I really have no idea...  So what size is right and what brand/model might be good for me?   I'm nowhere near as aggressive as in the past, but based on what my family said about how I looked, I must still have some skill.  I thought I was going to die coming down some trails, but my family stated my form was of an advanced skier.

 

So what say you?

 

Thanks!!

Welcome back to skiing. 

 

Something in the 170 range may not be far off the mark of you depending on the ski you're looking at getting. 

The K2's have a different feel depending on the ski you're thinking about getting.  Charger is going to feel calm and collected while some others may give you a bit more of an adventure. 

post #3 of 31
Did this a few years back, masters GS ski and a FIS SL ski you'll love both and it will make you feel like 18 again coming of the 200's. You'll find a lot of the new skis too soft given the old school technique.
post #4 of 31

FIFY

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Did this a few years back, masters GS (e.g. Fischer RC4 Worldcup RC Pro) ski and a Fischer RC4 Woldcup SC Pro and you'll love both and it will make you feel like 18 again coming of the 200's. You'll find a lot of the new skis too soft given the old school technique.

I suggest one step down from FIS.  A true FIS SL Ski and a gs ski would not be suitable for slow speed skiing with kids that are learning to sk.  The WC SC Pro is one step down, and easier to bend.  Also consider the Head World Cup Rebels i. SL; with an 11 m turn radius it will do ok at slo speeds., but unless you only ski on very small hills (<300') or get the cheater GS ski too this may be a bit too small.

As to length, 165 for SL skis, 185 for GS.

post #5 of 31
Off the rails already. We should start this thread over again, sanely. (TC, your comment was the one that sounded like you'd actually read the original post - both the lines and between them.)
post #6 of 31

To try and clarify things, and why this might be "off the rails" or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crabjoe View Post
 

Years, like over 15 years ago, I skied 200 slalom skis.  Usually Head SL or Fischer RC4s.  Being that those were old school and I haven't been skiing all this time, I need some new skis.  I did go once this season to take the kids (4 and 10 yo)...  With a pair of my old skis.  Back then, I skied hard... hard enough to knock the camber out of them in a season or two.  I also only ski the east coast, so there's lots of ice.. 

I will interpret this as you knew how to use a ski properly and had no trouble bending them into a turn, and enjoyed the feeling of speed and g-forces involved in a hard fast turn.  Although you have not been skiing in a long time, it will all come back fairly quickly.  I also interpret a need to ski slowly at times with your young children.  That you will mostly be skiing on groomed runs that are often icy hardpack.  (I once owned a pair of RC4 Vacuum Technique SLs- so I know the ski and what it was capable of)

 

 

Now with knowing the kids love skiing, I need to get back into it and I need recommendations on what I should be looking for.    Since all the current crop of skis look like fat skis or skinny snowboards, I'm not sure how to size them.  I see the size recommendation charts on all these sites, but I keep thinking they're recommending skis that are to short.  I'm 5'7" 165 lbs..   They recommend 160-170 as the proper size, but I'm thinking I need 180-190s.  Am I way off on this?

It used to be that you needed a long ski for stability at speed.  That is no longer the case.  I own skis from 165 to 208 cm in length, and have skied from about 148 to 225 cm, with radii from 11 to about 70 m.   From my experience I can state that 165 works very well in a sl radius and 185-190 cm works well with in a gs radius with today's  narrow carving skis.

 

 

Also, being east coast, I'm thinking carving skis or all mountain skis with a tight turning radius...   I'd also like these skis to be light in weight... I'm way out of shape these days; compared to a decade ago, so I'd like some light skis.

I whole-heartedly agree that you will get the most joy out of a carving ski. 

 

Now some might read between the lines and assume that because you want the skis to be light in weight that you are turning the skis (i.e. twisting them to a steering angle prior to tipping them) instead of using proper technique (applying pressure to the forebody of the ski bending skis and tipping them to get the snow/ice at front inside edge to turn the ski for you) to have the skis turn you, that my assumption above is incorrect and that you have over-rated your ability and really need a beginner-intermediate performance ski - one that won't have the grip to deliver a satisfying turn on hardpacked snow, one that will make sure you never get addicted to high performance skiing on hardpacked groomers (you won't get addicted to it if you never taste it).

 

 

Based on past knowledge, K2s were light compared to Head, Fischer, Atomic and Volkl. Because of this I've been looking at K2 Charger or Bolt...   Still, being out of this so long, I really have no idea...  So what size is right and what brand/model might be good for me?   I'm nowhere near as aggressive as in the past, but based on what my family said about how I looked, I must still have some skill.  I thought I was going to die coming down some trails, but my family stated my form was of an advanced skier.

 

Sounds like you really don't like speed too much, so maybe the 11 m turn radius ski is what you need.

 

So what say you?

 

Thanks!!

Besides the head, there is atomic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

snip.....

 


Edited by Ghost - 4/3/15 at 4:54am
post #7 of 31
I love pushing the SL skis to the limit, just as much as I love skiing them really slow and easy just working on turns with my kids. One of the best investments for small hills I've ever made.

Qcanoe I did read the post, and it's about skiing with the kids and also being able to enjoy oneself when you have a chance. I was in the same boat with the same conditions so...that experience here does count just a little, hence my recommendation. Remember if the OP falls in love with skiing again the kids will become hooked as well.

My skis are now about 3-4 years old so with the newer stuff Ghost could be on the money. On the SL don't step down too much, GS well maybe depending on what you want.
post #8 of 31

I'm also 5'7" and 165 lbs. I'm 66 and a Level 8 skier according to the PSIA definition. Ski mostly eastern front-side hardpack. Back in the day I skied 205cm GS skis. For the last 15 years I'd been on 180 cm 'citizen' GS skis (Atomic BetaRace 920's). This year I got a new pair of skis, Fischer Progressor 900's in 170 cm: Hybrid SL/GS character, almost race-like grip and speed capability, but much more versatile - like to go fast but don't mind going slow, very good on ice but easier to manage in broken-up snow, bumps, and even spring slush - it hit 67 degrees yesterday afternoon at the base of Loon! I could have gone down to 165 cm if I wanted to gain even more quickness at the expense of less high-speed stability, but I'm happy with the 170's. So I would consider these, as well as the similar Head Supershape Rally and the perhaps more playful Blizzard Latigo, neither of which I've tried. Hope that helps.

post #9 of 31

5'9, 165, 49 yrs old, spent most of my ski time on 203 Rossignol 3G's back in the day, doing aggressive short turns. Getting back into lately I was confused by all the different widths and configurations available. Ended up demoing some Kastle MX78's in 152, and love them. Great carving, easy to ski, and surprisingly stable. As they are full camber probably the same effective running length as a 165 K2 with rocker. Feather light too.

post #10 of 31

Here's guy who hasn't skied in "at least" 15 years. He' 5' 7" and thinks he should be on 180s - 190s for skiing New England groomers. He says he's out of shape. Yes, back in the pencil ski days he was on "slalom" skis, for what little that meant then. Everyone who wasn't on rental gear was on a "race" ski or a near relative. That's just the way it was done. His comment on his ability is:

 

Quote:
 based on what my family said about how I looked, I must still have some skill.

 

(Son, you know that by me you're a captain, and by your father you're a captain. But by a captain, you're no captain.)

 

I am not knocking the OP here. His post is obviously sincere. Based on everything we know here, he is going to be operating at a modest skill level (sorry, but after 15 years or more of no skiing, it's true), and has NO experience or training yet on modern gear. He is going to be skiing with young kids a lot. 

 

But you guys are putting him right onto a race ski because YOU like to ski race skis, because he skis groomers, and because he used the word "slalom." :nono: Why not suggest something that's a good transition ski into the new world order, that will be fun for someone who's honestly going to be skidding around on them at moderate speed on moderate terrain while trying to get his footing again? Something like an E 84 comes to mind, a Rev 80, a Latigo, something like that.

post #11 of 31
qcanoe, new race ski match the perform of the old. So what's wrong with that. Could it be that the OP was trying to be honest in his abilities and is actually as good as he says? I've let several try my race skis who are on civilian skis and to date most who try them start considering that this is what they should be skiing.

Race skis do several things, they punish you for mistakes, they reward you greatly if skied correctly and most importantly they make you grin from ear to ear at the end of the run. That's the hook. So if you don't like them, ok, but don't knock them for that reason alone.

Typo on iPhone
Edited by oldschoolskier - 4/5/15 at 12:30am
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

Here's guy who hasn't skied in "at least" 15 years. He' 5' 7" and thinks he should be on 180s - 190s for skiing New England groomers. He says he's out of shape. Yes, back in the pencil ski days he was on "slalom" skis, for what little that meant then. Everyone who wasn't on rental gear was on a "race" ski or a near relative. That's just the way it was done. His comment on his ability is:

 

 

(Son, you know that by me you're a captain, and by your father you're a captain. But by a captain, you're no captain.)

 

I am not knocking the OP here. His post is obviously sincere. Based on everything we know here, he is going to be operating at a modest skill level (sorry, but after 15 years or more of no skiing, it's true), and has NO experience or training yet on modern gear. He is going to be skiing with young kids a lot. 

 

But you guys are putting him right onto a race ski because YOU like to ski race skis, because he skis groomers, and because he used the word "slalom." :nono: Why not suggest something that's a good transition ski into the new world order, that will be fun for someone who's honestly going to be skidding around on them at moderate speed on moderate terrain while trying to get his footing again? Something like an E 84 comes to mind, a Rev 80, a Latigo, something like that.

+100

Someone returning to skiing does not need to be punished by a race ski.  In college many decades ago I skied on Head Competition Vectors and was never rewarded or punished.  My Nordica Fire Arrow 84EDT's are not race skis but they will punish me if I ski them poorly and reward me greatly when I ski them properly.  Times and skis have changed and the punishment level for improper technique has escalated quite a bit.

post #13 of 31

This is my 2nd season after 14 years away from skiing.  Not too long ago I was in the same boat as the OP.  BTW: I'm 5'9" 170lbs.

 

I did a lot of research on current skiing products over the summer before my return to skiing.  WOW.  So much had changed. 

 

I made some conclusions/decisions:

 

- Even though I was an "expert" 14 years ago, I'll effectively be starting as an intermediate again and will be sticking mostly to the groomed slopes.  So, I decided I'd need a 72-80mm forgiving intermediate ski.  I expected they'd be relegated to rock skis in a season or so.

 

- I concluded that my boots would be a longer term investment & way more important than skis.  So I decided I'd get good comfortable "performance" oriented boots.

 

- I decided to NOT scrimp on clothing, goggles, gloves, helment, etc.

 

- I planned on taking ski lessons at the start of the season.

 

- I made a pretty big list of models that looked to fit the bill.

 

I then spent the summer hunting down the gear I needed.  Got some at shops & some at a local ski swap.

 

I took my lessons & skied the intermediate skis the entire 2013/2014 season (~40 days for me).  It took me about half the season to get myself back to what I'd consider an "advanced" skier.  Occasionally demoed a few skis.  As I expected, I pretty much outgrew the intermediate skis by the end of the season. 

 

Just prior to 2014/2015 season, I got a couple sets of good performance skis and a set of GS skis (all on sale at great prices): Kastle LX92, K2 AMP Rictor 82xti, Atomic D2 GS.  Having a lot of fun on 'em.  The 82xtis have been getting the most use due to the firmer conditions that have dominated most of this season (the skis really rip & are a blast on firm/groomed).

 

 The 82xti has nice blend of energy, liveliness & dampness - yet they're real forgiving & don't demand thighs the size of redwoods.  So, In retrospect, I probably could have just got the 82xti for the 2013/2014 season instead of somewhat cheaper/easier "intermediate" skis.  But then I wouldn't have any rock skis for this crappy season...

post #14 of 31

The 11 m Head slalom and the Fischer WC SC are not race skis; The Head i. SL RD and Fischer WC SL are race skis.  Sure the SC might be a hard task master for a newbie, but it is pretty easy to ski compared to a real race ski (especially with the stock 1-3 tune), and should not be a problem for someone used to wearing out a solid ski like the old Fischers in a season or two.

 

Just say'n. 

 

Why put him on these skis instead of skis he can ski around on?  Because according to OP he used to ski Fischer RC4 SLs hard enough to wear them out in a season or two.  I owned that ski and now own the Fischer SC.  A softer gentler ski to skid around on will skid instead of delivering the turn force that the Fischer RC4 SLs were able to deliver if he trys to make the same turn he used to make. 

 

I don't see thinking you need 190s based on what you have skied and not skied as a problem; I went from 208 cm to 165 cm after demoeing what was available after finally admitting I needed a shaped ski.  I was surprised at how stable the 165 cm ski was.

 

Even if you are correct about the OP's abilities, a ski for him to skid around on is exactly what will keep him skidding around for the next 20 years: I agree with the guy in the second video I posted.  He needs to level up (but, not up to true racing ski).

post #15 of 31

A very simple yardstick to use with anyone returning to skiing from the time prior to shape skis:

 

If they haven't yet tried a shape ski- they need to try them on easy terrain and come back after that experience with their new set of questions.

 

If they have tried them and "didn't feel much difference"- they didn't modify their technique at all yet. Maybe they can, maybe they can't but it didn't come naturally so a lesson or five is in order.

 

If they say the skis 'chatter"- improper technique. Using steering movements combined with tail pushing to create edge angles.

 

If they say the ski wanders or is unstable- not getting the ski on edge or keeping it on edge.

 

if they haven't noticed that the best skiers on the hill are participating in a sport that is completely different from what they are capable of doing on their straight skis- they aren't the advanced skill level they claim... or they are blind, but that is rare for skiers.

 

If they talk about carving on their straight ski- they have absolutely NO CLUE what the concept of carving is and what it references. Anyone who claims to carve on straight skis is either talking about 60+ meter turns or is talking out of their ass, there are no, absolutely NO exceptions to this. Phil Mahre wasn't 'carving', Ingemar Stenmark wasn't 'carving'... no one posting here was carving on their old skis. Period, end of discussion. To claim otherwise is to announce your ignorance. Sorry but it is the truth and it needs to be said. 

 

Qcanoe said it better (and nicer) but since the 'advice' continues... OP, look at narrower all mountain skis that do not have excessive amounts of sidecut. Something like a Kastle MX78 in a 176 would be absolutely ideal. Heck, buying a ski that is 5 or 6 years old, when mid-fat meant high 70 to low 80mm waist and a 15 to 20m turn radius, would be a great introduction to modern skis. They will be cheap enough to upgrade in a season as experience is gained... just watch out for binding indemnification issues.

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

if they haven't noticed that the best skiers on the hill are participating in a sport that is completely different from what they are capable of doing on their straight skis- they aren't the advanced skill level they claim... or they are blind, but that is rare for skiers.

lol great advice overall but this gave me a much needed laugh on a tough Sunday morning.
post #17 of 31

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  IMHO if you ski a 45 m sidecut ski and tip it to 60 degrees while leaving two thin lines behind you, you are carving about a 22.5 m radius turn.  Tracks don't lie.  Anybody who thinks you can carve 60 m radius turns with those skis clearly doesn't know how a ski works, or doesn't know what hard snow is all about, or perhaps it is they who are projecting how they ski on how other people ski.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

Hi Bohemian--

You've gotten some good answers to your question. I'll try to explain how sidecut works, and how it relates to turn size, with a couple illustrations.

As Ghost suggests, when people speak of "the turn radius of a ski," they are usually referring to the radius of the sidecut of the ski--which may have little to do with the actual radius of your turns. If you extended the round (ish) arc of the ski's edge into a full circle, sidecut radius would be the distance from the center of that circle to its edge--the red line in this diagram:


It's common to assume that this measurement describes the size of the arc the ski "wants" to carve, but that is not at all correct. Many factors combine to determine the radius of the turn a ski carves, including softness of the snow, ski flex, edge angle on the snow, and amount and distribution of pressure on the ski--as well as sidecut radius.

What makes a ski carve a turn is not its sidecut, but the arc the ski itself bends into when you apply pressure to it. In soft snow--powder, crud, or very soft groomed conditions--sidecut actually has little to do with the ski's carving. If you place a thin wooden board with perfectly straight edges on soft snow and stand in the middle of it, it will bend into an arc.

Sidecut comes into play on firm conditions--the firmer the better. If you place a ski on a hard, smooth table top and tip it up on edge, it will only touch the table at its tip and tail, because of sidecut. If you then press on the middle of it, the ski will bend into an arc until its whole edge contacts the table, as in this animation:



The deeper the sidecut (in other words, the smaller the sidecut radius), the more the ski will bend before its edge hits the surface (assuming you press hard enough on it). In that way, a ski with a shorter sidecut radius "wants" to carve a shorter turn. But you can also cause any ski to carve a shorter turn by tipping it to a higher edge angle.

So sidecut radius is only partially related to a ski's "carving radius." The pure-carved arc a ski carves will always be shorter than its sidecut radius, roughly according to the formula Ghost described: turn radius = sidecut radius X cosine of the edge angle to the snow (thanks to Tom/PM "Physicsman" for the formula). That means that a ski tipped 60 degrees to the snow surface and pressured sufficiently on its "sweet spot" will bend into an arc one half its sidecut radius--which means a "12 meter" slalom ski tipped 60 degrees will "want" to carve a 6 meter radius turn.

Indeed, sidecut radius describes the longest turn a ski could theoretically possibly carve cleanly. And that's only theoretical, because the ski would need to be perfectly flat on the snow--so it could not actually carve at all! There is no theoretical limit on the other end--even a ski with a very long sidecut radius could carve a very short turn if you tip it far enough and apply enough pressure.

In practice, sidecut radius is only one of many factors that determine the shape of the turns you make--even when you are making "pure-carved" turns on hard snow. In soft snow, powder, and bumps, sidecut radius plays a very secondary role at best. And I agree with Garrett that "pure carved" turns are neither as common nor as important as many people think they are in many real skinig situations.

Best regards,
Bob Barnes

Whiteroom's test is a good one. 

If you find the short radius skis wobble - you are not picking a side and keeping them on edge.

If you can't quickly figure out how to ski the short radius skis, you need some lessons.

If you can carve them just fine, while other folks tell you you look good doing it  (and your tracks prove it), you're good to go.

post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by slopefossil View Post
 

This is my 2nd season after 14 years away from skiing.  Not too long ago I was in the same boat as the OP.  BTW: I'm 5'9" 170lbs.

 

I did a lot of research on current skiing products over the summer before my return to skiing.  WOW.  So much had changed. 

 

I made some conclusions/decisions:

 

- Even though I was an "expert" 14 years ago, I'll effectively be starting as an intermediate again and will be sticking mostly to the groomed slopes.  So, I decided I'd need a 72-80mm forgiving intermediate ski.  I expected they'd be relegated to rock skis in a season or so.

 

- I concluded that my boots would be a longer term investment & way more important than skis.  So I decided I'd get good comfortable "performance" oriented boots.

 

- I decided to NOT scrimp on clothing, goggles, gloves, helment, etc.

 

- I planned on taking ski lessons at the start of the season.

 

- I made a pretty big list of models that looked to fit the bill.

 

I then spent the summer hunting down the gear I needed.  Got some at shops & some at a local ski swap.

 

I took my lessons & skied the intermediate skis the entire 2013/2014 season (~40 days for me).  It took me about half the season to get myself back to what I'd consider an "advanced" skier.  Occasionally demoed a few skis.  As I expected, I pretty much outgrew the intermediate skis by the end of the season. 

 

Just prior to 2014/2015 season, I got a couple sets of good performance skis and a set of GS skis (all on sale at great prices): Kastle LX92, K2 AMP Rictor 82xti, Atomic D2 GS.  Having a lot of fun on 'em.  The 82xtis have been getting the most use due to the firmer conditions that have dominated most of this season (the skis really rip & are a blast on firm/groomed).

 

 The 82xti has nice blend of energy, liveliness & dampness - yet they're real forgiving & don't demand thighs the size of redwoods.  So, In retrospect, I probably could have just got the 82xti for the 2013/2014 season instead of somewhat cheaper/easier "intermediate" skis.  But then I wouldn't have any rock skis for this crappy season...


This is a good testimonial from someone who  did it right.  

post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 


This is a good testimonial from someone who  did it right.  

I agree with everything except buying 3 pairs of skis, I feel that is unnecessary. It is easy to let research on the internet lead you to believe you need multiple pairs of skis for all of the different types of skiing you are suddenly going to be doing... the internet is wrong. The best course of action is get one pair of skis that closely aligns with the type of skiing you will actually engage in most of the time and put the rest of the $$ toward more skiing.

post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 


This is a good testimonial from someone who  did it right.  

I agree with everything except buying 3 pairs of skis, I feel that is unnecessary. It is easy to let research on the internet lead you to believe you need multiple pairs of skis for all of the different types of skiing you are suddenly going to be doing... the internet is wrong. The best course of action is get one pair of skis that closely aligns with the type of skiing you will actually engage in most of the time and put the rest of the $$ toward more skiing.

As a skier, I agree.  As someone who sells skis, I'd like to think everyone needs a full quiver. :D

post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
 


This is a good testimonial from someone who  did it right.  

I agree with everything except buying 3 pairs of skis, I feel that is unnecessary. It is easy to let research on the internet lead you to believe you need multiple pairs of skis for all of the different types of skiing you are suddenly going to be doing... the internet is wrong. The best course of action is get one pair of skis that closely aligns with the type of skiing you will actually engage in most of the time and put the rest of the $$ toward more skiing.

 

Absolutely agreed it's unnecessary. Depending on the flexibility of your financial situation, it can be a lot of fun.

post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

Something like a Kastle MX78 in a 176 would be absolutely ideal.

That very ski is available over in the Gear Swap.
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

I agree with everything except buying 3 pairs of skis, I feel that is unnecessary. It is easy to let research on the internet lead you to believe you need multiple pairs of skis for all of the different types of skiing you are suddenly going to be doing... the internet is wrong. The best course of action is get one pair of skis that closely aligns with the type of skiing you will actually engage in most of the time and put the rest of the $$ toward more skiing.

 

I do agree, one cannot rely on the internet as a reliable resource of facts.  Believe me, I've known this all too well for many many years.

 

I'm not rich, just mostly lucky to find the skis at great prices.  I'm a (now retired) engineer, so anything I really throw myself at inevitably results in  planning & thought.  That's how I approached re-entering skiing.  I determined what gear I'd need for what/where/how I'd ski and laid out a plan - and budget - to make it happen.  It worked.  I'm not broke.  I'm happy.

 

While I did rely on googling for some info, most of my success was from actually talking with folks, demoing and bargaining (yeah, old school).  Some locally (on the hill & at shops), some at a swap, some online.  I was patient.  The intermediate skis (Salomon LX750s) were $250 (new, with Z10s demo bindings).  I got the K2 82xtis at a swap for $280 (new, flat).  The LX92s were $269 (new, flat).  The Atomic D2 GS were $300 (new, came with X16s - which I swapped for X12s).  Spent about $500 on bindings for the flat skis.  Total: about $1600.  That's not all that much more than what the LX92s alone would have cost (retail, out the door, with mounting & tuning) with good bindings, if I'd bought them in a retail shop in 2012/2013.  I got the quiver I wanted.   I feel I did pretty good budget-wise.

 

For the record, I worked my way through school in ski shops (sales and tech) & then later managed a sports/ski shop for a time.  My real career (information technology) took off in the 90s, then kids happened, relocation & I had to take a break from skiing for some years.  While I was away from skiing I still kept tabs on things when I could (hard not to because some of my family/buddies are still in the sports industry and/or still skiing).  While equipment designs have indeed changed since the 90s the basic principles really haven't changed all that much.  As I recollect, I was beginning to demo "shaped/super-sidecut" skis in the late 90s.  So I did have a taste of what was to come.

 

Prior to my previous absence from skiing, I always had a quiver of skis with different characteristics.  I was just as committed to the sport then as I am again now.  For me personally, sticking with just one ski all the time - regardless of conditions - isn't as much fun.  But that's just me & my opinion.

post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

 

... or they are blind, but that is rare for skiers...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13 View Post

lol great advice overall but this gave me a much needed laugh on a tough Sunday morning.

 

Totally off topic, so my apologies to the OP. But oddly enough, I have blind skiing come up twice this year. The first was that one of my instructors told me about doing a class or workshop on teaching and leading blind skiers, that involved skiing blindfolded all day to learn what a blind skier deals with.

 

The second time was when I saw a blind skier and guide at Vail on Headwall (groomed black run). Really interesting and pretty stunning to think about. 

post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

qcanoe, ...

Race skis do several things, they punish you for mistakes, they reward you greatly if skied correctly and most importantly they make you grin from ear to ear at the end of the run. That's the hook. So if you don't like them, ok, but don't knock them for that reason alone.

 

oldschoolskier, I guess I just assume that I've been around here long enough and opened my big donkey mouth to bray often enough that everyone is familiar with the broad outline of my skier profile. Probably a bad assumption on my part. I like race skis plenty. I own two pairs of them, which I hack around on in a beer league (where I had a perfectly respectable handicap before an injury sustained in - what? - a pre-season race camp this past December). I also use and enjoy them hugely - especially the slalom - when free-skiing on hard snow.

 

So when I come out against putting someone on race skis it's not, for Pete's sake, because I don't like race skis. It's not because I don't know what they're for. It's not because I don't know how to use them. It's not because I don't believe that you enjoy the heck out of them. It's not because I don't know that plenty of truly superb skiers who are way better than you or I will ever hope to be - including but not limited to Peters, Geib, Barnes, and others on this very board - ski them as their everyday ski, even out west.

 

No. It's because it's not about me. It's not about you, either. It's not about Bob or Chris. It's about the OP. Which is to say it's about almost every jamoke out there, no matter how often those jamokes might protest verbally about their own alleged abilities. I don't know about where you live and ski. Where I ski, all over northern New England, if you pay any critical attention at all to the skiing of 98% of the adults out there on the hill, and to what those same exact people say to you on the chairlift or in the bar (or, ahem, on EpicSki) about their own skiing and the skiing of others, you know that there is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between the way people actually make their way down the mountain on the one hand, and the place they'd have to be in to start taking enough advantage of even a recreational slalom ski to get that ear to ear grin you're talking about. You put them on one with no targeted training and they're going to be hoofing it back to Whiteroom's shop at about 3:00 on the first afternoon complaining about how "grabby" and "unstable" they are, and getting a detune job that makes me groan inwardly just to think about. So I'll ask it again: Why not give them something that will actually make them happier doing what they actually do, and probably will continue to do for the rest of their ski lives? The 2% who are going to move beyond that are going to get the right advice from an instructor or a coach or a power-skiing friend like you when the moment is right. We don't need to worry about letting them down in that moment as though they are going to be coming to us here on the internet as their only and critical source of input.

 

Call my cynical or negative or snobby if you want. My intention is not to be any of those. My intention is to report without rose-colored glasses on what I see when I look down from the chair, and to make suggestions that seem to me to line up with what I see there, understanding that these folks are out there to have fun, not to have unsolicited "education" sprung on them by their gear.

post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

qcanoe, ...

Race skis do several things, they punish you for mistakes, they reward you greatly if skied correctly and most importantly they make you grin from ear to ear at the end of the run. That's the hook. So if you don't like them, ok, but don't knock them for that reason alone.

 

oldschoolskier, I guess I just assume that I've been around here long enough and opened my big donkey mouth to bray often enough that everyone is familiar with the broad outline of my skier profile. Probably a bad assumption on my part. I like race skis plenty. I own two pairs of them, which I hack around on in a beer league (where I had a perfectly respectable handicap before an injury sustained in - what? - a pre-season race camp this past December). I also use and enjoy them hugely - especially the slalom - when free-skiing on hard snow.

 

So when I come out against putting someone on race skis it's not, for Pete's sake, because I don't like race skis. It's not because I don't know what they're for. It's not because I don't know how to use them. It's not because I don't believe that you enjoy the heck out of them. It's not because I don't know that plenty of truly superb skiers who are way better than you or I will ever hope to be - including but not limited to Peters, Geib, Barnes, and others on this very board - ski them as their everyday ski, even out west.

 

No. It's because it's not about me. It's not about you, either. It's not about Bob or Chris. It's about the OP. Which is to say it's about almost every jamoke out there, no matter how often those jamokes might protest verbally about their own alleged abilities. I don't know about where you live and ski. Where I ski, all over northern New England, if you pay any critical attention at all to the skiing of 98% of the adults out there on the hill, and to what those same exact people say to you on the chairlift or in the bar (or, ahem, on EpicSki) about their own skiing and the skiing of others, you know that there is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between the way people actually make their way down the mountain on the one hand, and the place they'd have to be in to start taking enough advantage of even a recreational slalom ski to get that ear to ear grin you're talking about. You put them on one with no targeted training and they're going to be hoofing it back to Whiteroom's shop at about 3:00 on the first afternoon complaining about how "grabby" and "unstable" they are, and getting a detune job that makes me groan inwardly just to think about. So I'll ask it again: Why not give them something that will actually make them happier doing what they actually do, and probably will continue to do for the rest of their ski lives? The 2% who are going to move beyond that are going to get the right advice from an instructor or a coach or a power-skiing friend like you when the moment is right. We don't need to worry about letting them down in that moment as though they are going to be coming to us here on the internet as their only and critical source of input.

 

Call my cynical or negative or snobby if you want. My intention is not to be any of those. My intention is to report without rose-colored glasses on what I see when I look down from the chair, and to make suggestions that seem to me to line up with what I see there, understanding that these folks are out there to have fun, not to have unsolicited "education" sprung on them by their gear.


Well that attitude explains why I got so many recommendatins for an RX4 after telling the ski salesmen I wanted a shaped ski, and was currently skiing straight super-G racing skis, "Let's just ignore what the customer says; based on statistics, most of the skiers who walk through the door can't ski worth beans, so sell 'em a forgiving beginner ski and he'll be happy."

post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 
Well that attitude explains why I got so many recommendatins for an RX4 after telling the ski salesmen I wanted a shaped ski, and was currently skiing straight super-G racing skis, "Let's just ignore what the customer says; based on statistics, most of the skiers who walk through the door can't ski worth beans, so sell 'em a forgiving beginner ski and he'll be happy."

 

That is definitely a real problem for people who do have some chops but haven't immersed themselves in a fair amount independent research, or who have but aren't prepared to push back and ask hard questions. Even though I know something about the state of ski and bike gear and technique, when I go into a strange shop I'm often faced with the tiresome task of trying to establish some kind of cred with the staff before I can begin to have a useful conversation about my needs. ("No my MTB tires are not this soft because I don't know how to use a tire gauge. They are this soft because I DO know how to use a tire gauge. And how to set them up tubeless. Which is why I am specifically looking for that special rim strip." Etc.) This is precisely because they - understandably, I would argue - make the assumptions you accuse me of making above. So, I hear you.

 

I guess I would say that in the context of this particular thread the OP gave us a bunch of explicit and implicit clues that to me, at least, did not add up to "ready to tip and rip." 

 

A little bit of high-quality well-filmed video on a smart phone would help iron out a lot of these kinds of challenges.

post #28 of 31

Just read through this thread and felt the urge to comment. Qcanoe, I can relate and agree with your approach to helping the OP. Just to offer him some direct  advice, the K2 AMP Rictor 82xti would be a very good choice, and you would ski them much shorter than your used to, 170-175 cm length would be good.

 

I went through a similar experience as slopefossil about 5 years ago and agree 100% with what he says. The only difference for me is I still own and ski my 205cm "straight" slalom race ski occasionally. I am 6'4", 245lbs and the only modern skis that don't feel short to me now are my 192 cm Blizzard FIS racestock racing skis. But my size has a lot to do with that. The edge grip and feel from a 205 ski is very noticeable and reassuring for someone my size.

 

I am surprised Whiteroom says that you can't carve a turn on old straight skis. I can 100% guarantee I can carve a turn with exactly the same technique on my 205's as I can with my modern 175cm slalom race ski. The turn will be at a bigger radius, and will probably need a little speed to do it so I can bend the ski. I also think I did not typically use the same carve technique 15 years ago, I used a lot more "pivot" in my turns, but I discovered "riding my edges" quite a while ago after taking a lesson from a good instructor and developed that type of turn as one of my options. I also would agree that I typically made short radius turns with a lot of pivot technique and I now have virtually eliminated the pivot from my normal turns on modern skis. I guess what Whiteroom is claiming is all in your definition of "carve"

post #29 of 31
For the OP skiing with kids, at his size, weight, and venue, a Head Rally, Fischer Progressor, or similar would be an excellent 'transition' ski. If he finds himself a season of two down the road wanting to do beer league, or having more personal free ski time and ripping groomers is what there is to do on his hill, then by all means bust out a modern FS SL ski... If he wants the rac'ier ski from the get go, then a shorter length of a cheater GS (18r) ski might be fine, but some cheaters aren't all that interesting.

Now if someone here were really doing the OP a favor, they'd set up their system binding carver for him to borrow for the day so he could ski the difference and make an appropriate choice. He may even demo a slightly wider ski on a soft day and find himself bopping off piste and thinking, "holy smokes! This is way easier than on my old 205's! I think my definition of fun has just expanded!" He might find an 85-88 more to his liking. Or he'll ski a Rally, figure out the changes to his skiing he needs, then say, "yup, I want an 18m cheater GS ski." In any case, starting with a demo of a well regarded carver like a Rally, MX 78, etc... Would be a great place to start. And yes, boots first, and 2-3 sessions out with an excellent coach/instructor if it's within the budget. Honestly, by his self description and using his family's rating of his skiing, I'm going to bet he'll end up on either a Rally if he goes the carvy route, or an 80'something... great deals out there on 'to be discontinued' new stock at the moment!

And Ghost, there's rarely a thread that you don't let us all know exactly what skis we should all be on. It predictable, and of course, always what you prefer. biggrin.gif
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post

I am surprised Whiteroom says that you can't carve a turn on old straight skis. I can 100% guarantee I can carve a turn with exactly the same technique on my 205's as I can with my modern 175cm slalom race ski.

I do not doubt this statement is 100% accurate at all.

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 › Help - need new skis for old school skier. [northeast, skiing with kids]