EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Another Volkl "Tech Geek" Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Volkl "Tech Geek" Question

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
... plus yet another length question.

First, following up on a recent thread, I had assumed the Allstar was "replacing" the 6 Star and essentially evolved from it -- basically just 2mm wider. Having read some of the reviews in the ski mags [and I realize what a visceral reaction many on this site have against those reviews], it seems the Allstar is more akin to the Superspeed -- a long turn burner, not as lively in short turns as the 6 had been. Is this rght? Is the construction of the Allstar closer to the 6 or the Superspeed?

Second, LENGTH QUESTION

I am 6'2", 195 lbs, advanced skier. I demoed the 6 Star last year at 175, it was great, too turny if anything. I want to buy the Allstar this year, and I'm torn b/w the 182 and 175. I'm sure 175 would be appropriate, but it just "sounds" too short. I'm drawn to the 182 for some reason. Thoughts?
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heels
I'm sure 175 would be appropriate, but it just "sounds" too short. I'm drawn to the 182 for some reason. Thoughts?
Yes, go small. I expect to many of us here, 182 now "sounds" way too long. It's about adjusting expectations.
post #3 of 20
The 182 is a huge ski!! The Allstar is a brand new ski with a different constrction than both the superspeed and the 6 star.
post #4 of 20
I haven't skied it yet, but I also thought that the Allstar was very similar to the 6 star. The turning radius' are virtually the same.... I don't think 182 is too long at all. If you like the feel of a GS ski, I wouldn't go any shorter than the 182. If you want the feel of a SL carver, get it in a 161 or 168.
I had a 182 5-star a couple of years ago and I thought it was great.
post #5 of 20
I demoed the Allstar last year, own the Superspeeds, have demoed and did not like the 6-Star. I thought the Allstar was pretty slalomy, very different from my Superspeeds. I am buying a pair (168), and the will take the place of my P60 SCs (165).
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heels
I had assumed the Allstar was "replacing" the 6 Star and essentially evolved from it -- basically just 2mm wider. Having read some of the reviews in the ski mags... it seems the Allstar is more akin to the Superspeed -- a long turn burner, not as lively in short turns as the 6 had been. Is this rght? Is the construction of the Allstar closer to the 6 or the Superspeed?
Other than a 70mm waist, the Allstar has nothing in common with a Superspeed. The Allstar is indeed a slightly-more-forgiving evolution of the 6 Star.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.P. Racer
I haven't skied it yet, but I also thought that the Allstar was very similar to the 6 star. The turning radius' are virtually the same.... I don't think 182 is too long at all. If you like the feel of a GS ski, I wouldn't go any shorter than the 182. If you want the feel of a SL carver, get it in a 161 or 168.
I had a 182 5-star a couple of years ago and I thought it was great.
I completely disagree with this post. The 6 star was a beast in 182. So is the Allstar. The 5 star is a completely different animal. IMO, the Allstar should not even be made in 182. If you get the 182, then you, and UPRacer, will probably be the only two people on the mountain with it. The ski is meant to be skied short. Even for level 8+ skiers, the 182 is only appropriate for those who weigh 240lbs+. Speak to a Volkl rep. in NH. He/she will set you straight!
post #8 of 20
go w/ the 175 you'll have more fun
post #9 of 20
I found the Six Star very skiable, for a larger aggressive skier in a 168. Stability was very good and turn shape was easily varied between SK and GS radius. The 175 was much more difficult to handle at low speeds and did not like shorter radius turns compared to the 168, it was also more difficult to manuver in moguls. I never even considered longer lengths. The softer flex of Allstar may make turn initiation easier, but it will still be a ski optimized at shorter lengths. We will certainly learn more as hrstrat and others start posting reviews. Based on your experience on the 6 star at 175, that sounds like the right length for this ski, but if you get the chance to demo the Allstar, that would be even better.

Once again, thanks to Squaretail for nipping the next rumor in the bud.
post #10 of 20
175




Nothing more to add to the discussion.
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Gadget
175




Nothing more to add to the discussion.
I agree.

HB
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heels
... plus yet another length question.

I am 6'2", 195 lbs, advanced skier. I demoed the 6 Star last year at 175, it was great, too turny if anything. I want to buy the Allstar this year, and I'm torn b/w the 182 and 175. I'm sure 175 would be appropriate, but it just "sounds" too short. I'm drawn to the 182 for some reason. Thoughts?
You're a big dude...why would you want to ski a 175 (as your primary ski?). If you felt the 6 star or whatever was too turny, why not pick a ski with less sidecut?
post #13 of 20
HS, just curious.

Which lengths of the Allstar have you skied?

Oh BTW, for some unknown reason, I AGREE with your recommendation of getting a ski with less sidecut (or a longer turning radius) if the 6Star seemed "turny".

Who would have guessed HS and HB agreeing?:

HB
post #14 of 20
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the excellent responses.

I guess what I mean by the 6 Star being a bit too "turny" is that with its ferocious edge grip you really have to have the edges locked in at all times. It seemed you can't just schuss straight down the fall line b/c the shovel is always looking to engage. It seemed -- to me at least -- the ski always want to be in a turn or transitioning from one turn to another, like a slalom.

While this is not necessarily a positive trait, I found it a worthy trade off b/c the edge hold was truly exhilirating. No matter how much you laid the ski over or drove it into the hill, the grip would not falter a hair. The ski would also pop from edge to edge as fast as you could drive it. In top of all that, it was incredibly supple at slow speeds. (I obviously liked it).

I guess, part of me misses some of the characteristics of the old, 200cm + "straight" skis. It was fun sometimes, when the slopes were open and conditions suited it, to get in a tuck and bomb straight down the fall line. You cant do that in the same way with most modern skis.

You guys miss anything "old school"?
post #15 of 20
yea, I miss the days when snowboarders didn't sideslip the powder right off the slope because they engaged a run too difficult for them.
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heels
You guys miss anything "old school"?
No, I live in the old school. There are plenty of skis out there longer than 175cm. You don't need to buy into the hype and freeski a bastardized slalom carver if you don't want to, there are plenty of longer skis out there, you just need to look. Try something in a ~80mm waist, with a 18m to 22m sidecut, ~185 cm length, with a medium flex. Much more versitile.
post #17 of 20
Different "old school" for different folks.
Me... 208 GS
post #18 of 20

Bump

Bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarkinBanks
HS, just curious.

Which lengths of the Allstar have you skied?
HB
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by John J
Different "old school" for different folks.
Me... 208 GS
John, you got the last two letters backwards . Of course maybe you went to school before I did .
post #20 of 20
Ghost, yes that school has been abandoned.
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 › Another Volkl "Tech Geek" Question