IM88, Stormrider, 8800, Volkl... - Page 3

CR talking about TCS and the way he got pounded on here by all the racer boys....how is it this cat isn't getting skinned? Been reading this thread for a few days waiting for the fast guys to chime in. Still waiting. Maybe this guy is faster than them...I dunno.

me, I ain't no racer boy(other then an occasional zip thru a nastar course)....but fast skiing?....had a cop buddy of mine bring his radar gun to obsession on sunday river bout 12 yrs back.....fastest observed speed of the day? Moi. 68 mph. My ski's? little wussy boy gaper ski's. 208 rossi 7gk's with look z's. Boots? tnt racing...the wussy ones with the lime green buckles. Typical ski groomers with the family gear. Now the cop buddy said the gun was more accurate on cars and we might have all been a tad faster and he didn't always get a reading so maybe someone actually broke 70.....but not by much. Nobody had downhill boards of course and the longest skis were one guy on salomon 1s power 8's (about 212's)but most of the group didn't hit 60 on the gun. True some of the guys had 200/205 slalom skis which held speeds down and we were all ski instructor's and a couple of race coaches. Gapers all I guess.

Now I'm just an old dude now back on the bunny hill (208 7g's would have me for breakfast at this point)but these "I ski 50 mph all day" comments or "you could hit 60" comments I see here on epic crack me up.....again TCS gets pounded but these comments slide by unchallenged....

IMHO in most cases it is bs. If over 50 mph done outside a race course it also usually gets your ticket pulled or worse.....

....this dude does 60...at pat's peak? On all mountain ski's under 205 cm? Video please?

Regarding ski length argument my first "short " ski was volkl carver ultra 191 with propulse equipes....the above mentioned group of buddies all laughed at me. Till I ski'd circles around them. I had to peel my "short skis suck" sticker off the subaru. My 178 p40's with mrr's are even better....and I expect the 2006 168 allstars waiting in the closet to be even better still..... granted I am stuck here on eastern frozen granular and have no use for mantras.....but the geometry of the 168 allstar seems to have been designed for the terrain I ski. I'll report the results.

I doubt they'll make my nose bleed like the 7gk's tho....those were just stupid....and I don't ski 60 anymore. But I did. Really. Once or twice.

and I love Deep Purple

the skis and the band......

Well its too bad Ledge had his thread seriously poached. I think Highway Star has something to offer, but his lack of respect for anyone here gets in the way of it being useful.

He confuses the common courtesy and respect here for gaper weakness. No doubt I have aged into that category. What he doesn't realize is a good number of members here also happen to be "maggots" and top expert skiers from all over the world covering backcountry ripping, racing, instructing, patrol, examiners, demo teams and even jibbing. As soon as you lose humility here in the gear forum you realize you are being reviewed by manufacturer and sales reps, store owners, boot fitter and other equipment pros.

Most of us give and take in the forums and benefit from the exchange. I don't think Highway Star can put his skiing or equipment knowledge where his mouth is.

Yeah it is. no I have no doubt this HS dude can ski too, but you're right he thinks most of us are gapers. Or he's got some hidden agenda. Folks ask good questions and the threads gets poached with name calling and sabre rattling. Been seeing it a lot lately. I don't get it. Skiing is fun. Why all the arguing? Crazy. State your case and move on. Talking about ski gear, I thought that was fun too? CR I am surprised you still chime in, it must be getting difficult. I have pretty much gone back to lurking. I respect your hanging in there and remaining so helpful on the gear threads.....still enjoy reading your comments. Hang in there.

I contributed to the poaching and I regret that. I have nothing to offer regarding head skis...my last pair was 200cm head tr16's(they were awesome btw) Just felt I had to chime in on the bs....I probably should have shut up. Sorry Ledge. Enjoy the hunt for your new gear.....

Out

Epicski promotes the use of short skis...

Yeah, like this, but I don't do it quite so well...

WC GS is sick..

justa point of reference... average speed in a gs race is 45 mph. average speed in a downhill event is 80mph. so 60 isn't out of the question.

But on a crowded east coast slope is reckless.

\
EpicSki promotes nothing of the kind. The members write their opinions based on experience, skiing intent, and individual physical characteristics and skill. What defines your needs may not be relevant to me or the person asking a question here. The point is to understand and respect that by simply listening and providing an answer relevant to the scenario at hand. How can you be so smart and so clueless at the same time?

:
LOL, indeed.

You've all spent the last few years giving each other very questionable advice on ski sizing. Everybody here is trained, or gets trained to say "go shorter"....it's like an echo. But, it's actaully too short, not by my standards, but by your own when you ski them. I've read two accounts lately where someone bought a 162 metron and later went to a 172, and someone who has a 177 724 pro and thought they should have bought the 184. You're seriously limiting yourself by trying to ski all mountain on a sub 180cm ski if you're 6' tall. If you could ski a 200-205cm back in the the day, a 175cm is not suddenly the equivalent, even with "advances" in ski construction and design.

If you skied comfortably on a 203cm back in the day, a 190-195 is pretty much the equvalent in a 70mm waist ski, depending on how beefy the construction is. A 80mm-90mm waist ski in the 185-190cm range will also be equivalent, as will a 100mm+ waist ski in the 180-185 range. This is a general guideline.

So what's this mean? It means that if you put someone on a 168 volkl 6star, it's going to be pretty equivalent to a 180-185 cm straight ski. Pretty goddamn short. If you ski a mantra in a 177, it's going to be pretty similar to a 190 straight ski. A 184 is going to be like a 195cm straight ski, and the 191 is going to be like a 203....more or less, give or take a few CM.

It's fine...maybe you didn't ski a 205 back in the day, or maybe you did but they were a struggle all the time. But if you skied 203 slaloms, and were comforable on them 90% of the time, you don't have any business on a 168 cm ski. Maybe you had a pair of 190's back in the day that you used exclusively for bumps and tree skiing, and you want a midfat like that....then by all means buy a 177 mantra.. Lets just stay realistic here people.

If this is true, how do you explain that you'd be hard pressed to even find any 70mm waisted skis in these lengths? If they don't make 'em, you can't ski 'em, right? Or have manufacturers just bought into this short ski "fad"?

After the manufacturers got done selling us sidecut skis, they needed to sell us something new....short skis.

Part of the reason you don't see many 70mm waist 190-195 skis anymore is that most experts don't ski that waist width anymore as an all around ski. They ski 80-90mm waist skis in a 185-190cm length for all around....which work great.

There are still sub 70mm waist, 190cm plus skis on the market - GS race skis. Virtually all companies offer a GS ski over 190, and most WC skiers are still on GS skis in the mid to high 190's for fast courses.

Some experts ski a short ski with a 70mm waist, but that's certainly not an all around ski - it's a hard snow, short turn carver.

Ah, yes, "expert skiers" and WC racers prefer longer skis. How is it then that the FIS had to mandate minimal lenghts? Like 185 for GS? Or 165 for Sl?
Some racers may choose 190 gs skis for fast courses, but they have skills, strength that non of us have (even if you ski 100 days per year).If 190 is enough ski for Bode, 170 or 175 is enough ski for me.
most people here demo quite a bit, so they know what works for them. If i enjoy a 6 star in a 168 lenght more than a 175 length, who are you to tell me that i should be skiing a longer ski (and be rude about it at the same time)?

HS, I may be wrong, but it seems you answer people asking ski gear and length questions through the lens of your standards, objectives and abilities on skis. Anyone that doesn't measure up or who might legitimately be better off with a shorter ski is a gaper to be disrespected. All I am saying is that answering a legitimate question in the gear forum is not about you or me, and its not about some plot by EpicSki to promote short skis. There is no conspiracy, and short skies really do have a place. I use skis from 168 to 195 cm. You can't draw any conclusion from that except I like variety.

Certain skis are better skied short, others long. An individual's intent, ability and physical capability should decide the right ski, not your or my ego or preconception that everone should ski like me on the same equipment as me, and if you can't handle it you are a wuss. Your preconception that we are short ski gapers has blinded you to any respect or value for our comments and caused you to become absurd. Your comments to Bob Peters were especially uncalled for. You should wish to ski the terrain that guy goes on.

I feel terrible

Surely this thread has been hijacked...and I feel bad about contributing to the hijacking. There were real answers early on, but now it's out of control.

Let it die, or get some pie!

Peace, out!

I've been reading this board for 4+ years now, and ski undersizing is certainly rampant. For any weight and any ablity above intermediate, people are consistantly under sized if they come and ask for advice here. It has nothing to do with my I ego, but with reality.

Flawed!

EpicSki promotes the use of skis which the skier find fun, outside of any preconceived idea of what works or doesn't. Furthermore, outside of what any set of other people may think of your choice.

Makes you right, I guess. Better go tell Keelty his tests are wrong, too. I'm sure I don't have the incredible precision and skill that you have, and even though I've skied well over 50 different skis in the past 5 years of varying lengths on all kinds of terrain and conditions here in Colorado, I couldn't possibly have anything to offer anyone else here.

After all, my favorite skis are (unapologetically) 162cm Metron:b5s. And I skied a bit bigger than you last year (6', 180).

Here's the interesting thing, Highway Star: I have provided personal and on-forum assistance to well over a dozen people who ended up buying skis at least partially on my specific advice as to model and size. Interestingly, without exception, they are all delighted with their purchases, skiing better than they ever have before, and experiencing breakthroughs of personal enjoyment virtually every day they ski. I don't care if I'm right or not, but if that's the outcome, I'll take it every single day.

...and I'll keep giving the same kind of advice I have done since joining EpicSki.

If acting superior gives you your jollies, who am I to stop you? As for me, I'd rather just ski and provide whatever I can to help other people smile.

That's the perfect ending to this thread (thanks Steve), but unfortunately I doubt it will be the last we hear from HS. I even gave him the link to the TGR forum, yet he continues to "poor" his "wisdom" upon us.

FWIW to the original poster - I'm 180lbs and ski Stormrider XLs at 174. Love 'em. Never felt that they were too short but I've not skied them in more than 18" of fresh. Perhaps you would be happier with 184 or 194 as others have posted but I'd suggest that you demo 174 too.

I'd say that this IS the perfect ski for 50/50 hard groomers and powder.

J

Highway Star,
There is a part of me that agrees with you although for a different reason: when I see skiers 6'2" - 6'3" plus, 230lbs+, perhaps sporting even a little belly, on 160some cm skis, to me they look truly ridiculous.

Actually, sometimes I have the suspicion they stole those skis from some kids..: and would like to report them to the local ski patrol.

On the other hand, my experience shows that "short" works, at least in certain conditions. Not everyone wants to come down a slope at 60 mph or jump off cliffs. As a matter of fact, the Ski Patrol should, when they catch someone that reckless, not take away his ticket or pass, but saw a good 20cm off his or her skis. That would serve the culprit well.

Why would you really want to use long skis? Most people ski just for the fun of skiing not to join the WC circuit and/or the rank of extreme skiers. Most of us could not, anyway.

In one occasion, it is definitely an advantage to have short skis: when you take the PSIA. Imagine trying to perform bumps on Rossi Bandit B4 or doing wedge hops or other devilish maneuvers with WC compliant GS skis :
You would have to be an ace of a skier to do that.

There is also another problem I see with longer skis, if you are among the few using "long" skis. In the Midwest, and I am sure out East as well, bumps get worked a lot and if they are worked by lots of skiers with short skis, they are going to be really hard for those with long skis who do not fit in the throughs.
It happened to me with my 184cm skis. I decided to stay away from short skis mostly because I look really funny with a pair of 170cm or shorter skis. They might work, but my eyes want their share too. I do not want anyone to think that I just stole some kid's skis while he or she was perhaps having lunch with his or her daddy and mummy. No cool for me, but I am not the fashion police.

topic? topic? anyone around here?

Can we get some individual feedback on these skis as I am now looking at three of them on recomendation of friends and a couple of guys on here.

hi absinthe

two weeks ago I demoed the stormrider in 174. we skied on a groomed slope with a few powder on it. I was surprised how funny this ski was. Hi did what I want and was easy to turn. He felt quite stable and came close to the stronger but narrower Laser SL.

vilu

how funny.

we don't refer to you as King Coprolite for NO reason.

wow. you are the arbiter of all that is good and true, aren't you?

fatso.

what about 155 lbs "experts"?

apparently RadRab sees the "new clothes" of Emperor Highway Star are nothing but a birthday suit of human skin.

Good connection, Gonzostrike.
And since I had to look it up, here's a timesaver.

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Coprolite.html

"experts"? Always tough to pick skis for "experts" like yourself.....I don't quite know what they'll be able to handle out there on the hill. I would say that your best bet is to go with a skiing magizine editor's choice ski, and carefully follow the manufacturer's recomendations on length. Also, make sure to get a 12 din binding, and have it set on "level III".

I was wondering what you like most, and least, about both skis. I was considering both the 8800 and the 724 Pro. Thanks.

HS has a point about carving racing skis <70mm waist on true conditions you encounter outside of a race course, without massive stack height. Most of the groomed/'hardpack' conditions I ski around here (Banff/LL/BC) there are lots of little piles of snow/mini bumps etc. I demoed Elan retail GS skis last season and found that in these conditions, when you are cranking the ski around at any angle, you do experience boot out. In these more variable 'hardpack' conditions, you can do better with a wider ski than a race ski. Of course on true hardpack/ice conditions like a course, the race ski will be the fastest/most powerful, but personally I don't think race skis are effective all mountain carvers with GS technique. About the short/long ski thing, everyone should just demo the length recommended, and then demo longer, see what you like, if you ski in open terrain with soft snow, you may like a ski 10cm longer than you thought you would, if you ski mostly hardpack/groomed conditions there isn't the same advantage. I have seen people recommended too short on here when people ask for an all-conditions western resort ski.

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner!