or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Your opinion about slalom skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your opinion about slalom skis - Page 2

Poll Results: Your opinion about slalom skis

Poll expired: Nov 4, 2006  
  • 83% (47)
    I demoed or own SL skis and love them
  • 1% (1)
    I demoed or own SL skis and they are just OK like many modern skis
  • 1% (1)
    I demoed or own SL skis and they are horrible
  • 3% (2)
    I never had a chance to demo SL skis - demo shops usually do not have them
  • 5% (3)
    I never tried SL skis, they will not fit my skiing style, I ski off-piste, trees and bumps
  • 3% (2)
    I never tried SL skis, they are for racers, I'm not at that level yet or I do not race
56 Total Votes  
post #31 of 44
I call Flawed!

except for a pair of Volkl P40's in a 177 as my first venture in to modern ski design, My ego wouldn't let me buy anything short enough so, while technically a SL ski, they didn't ski like one for me anyway!

I now have two pair, just bought a pair of 9S's and got a pair of SL 11's earlier this summer. I have not have the opportunity too ski either yet---so I can't answer the poll!

Flawed---not enough options.

Sincerely

J
post #32 of 44
I demoed a pair if Fischer slalom boards a couple years ago. Thought they were great at what they did but only did that. In short turns they were like rollerblades on railroad tracks. They made very precise arcs and were loads of fun ... as long as you wanted to keep making those tight arcs. If you wanted to lay back for a while, they weren're rewarding any more.

If I had a quiver AND a slope-side condo so I could switch skis every few runs and not have lug multiple pairs from a car, I'd own slalom boards, or if I was racing. Since I have niether and don't race, I'll stick with more of freeride ski even if "all-mountain" is sometimes thrown around as a dirty word.
post #33 of 44

Yep, SL skis are definitely hot stuff...

...but so are GSs, Super Gs, DHs, and let's not forget fat skis for powder.

Right now, I have 3 pairs of SLs:

- 157 cm. Atomic SL11 from a few years back. These are now my all-mountain play skis (except when it gets seriously deep...then it's time for the Atomic R:EXs or Head Monster 88s). They're great for bumps, trees, gunk-holing, and because they're a SL ski, they're fine on the groomers and hard stuff. I like a shorter ski with a lot of sidecut and snappage if I'm going to be spending a day on a big mountain, such as Vail, where I'm likely to get into some tight spots.

- 165 cm. Volkl P60 SLs from a couple of years back...skied twice, they're basically new. These aren't race stock, just off-the-rack P60s. I skied them last weekend at Loveland, and they're pretty incredible. Very smooth and snaky, which is typical of the Volkls I've skied. Definitely more user friendly than the Fischers I was on last year, but still have a lot of energy, and stick like glue on the hard stuff. When we're doing free skiing drills (not training gates, just working on stuff), most of the folks on my Masters team get out the SLs, because it's easier to figure out a new move than on GSs, which require a lot of speed and real estate. That's what I think these Volkls are going to be.

- 165 cm. Atomic SL2s...this year's, and yes, they are race stock. Absolutely incredible ski. Atomic's been kind of on and off with their SL skis over the last few years, but this is easily the best Atomic and the best SL I'ved skied on...ever. I was on them last weekend, and it's like driving a Ferrari...or what I imagine that might be (closest I've come is 127 m. p. h. in my Mazda RX-7 before I blew a rotor). This is going to be the ski I save for gate training and races...
post #34 of 44
I have a pair of Race Stock Dynastar Omeglass 64s. They are great for making slalom turns in a slalom course and little else. I've also owned retail Volkl P60 SCs and they were a really fun "most of the mountain" skis. I even liked them in powder and bumps, not places I want to ski my Dynastars.
post #35 of 44
The first "short" slalom ski I bought was a used pair of Salomon 3V's (consumer slalom version,) in a 160 size. They were fun, but just OK for running gates, (recreationally!) They would not hold my 200 lb weight in icy conditions. At the start of last season I picked up a pair of Salomon SL LAB skis, (race stock.) It was like a night and day difference! The LAB skis were incredable! Fast. Stable. Carved up ice like a hot knife through butter. I was hooked. I can not imagine using anything other than a "race stock" slalom ski for it's intended purpose. I use a 180 cm Salomon GC for general cruising though.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoontasan View Post
SL skis don't come close to performing as well as a GS or SG at higher speeds. How fast are you skiing? Also, there's lots of terrain in the east where GS skis are put to good use. Stowe, Sugerbush, Cannon, Sugerloaf, and Sunday River are a few that come to mind.
You obviously have not skied on a FIS legal Race Stock Atomic or fischer SL. Do they have the ultimate top end of a GS or SuperG? no.

Can you rip GS turns at 40+ Yes!
post #37 of 44
Definitely, real SL skis rule. If the quiver allows, I would love to keep a real slalom in there. I have owned the Elan SLX stock, the Head iSL RD, the Elan SX, Blizzard Sigma Slalom, and skied the Fischer WC SL, Head Supershape, and Volkl Racetiger SL. All of these were incredibly fun, with the Supershape and Volkl softer, less demanding and less punchy than the others mentioned. The Head was pretty burly with that big VIST plate on there. The Elan SLX was lighter and snappier, with no speed limit. The SX was basically the same, although it somehow felt a little more demanding. The Fischer a bit more damp, similiar stability. The Blizzard was similiar to the Elan, light in feel and good for a lighter skier. All were very fun for a decently fit skier, but I would recommend the Supershape (or similiar "detuned" SL skis like the Head iSL Chip) to those developing carving skills and who don't want to travel 35mph all day on a pair of 165's. The real skis just get up and go so fast, and are incredibly stable for what they are. Almost like a mini GS ski, as long as you aren't running them flat.
post #38 of 44

just to elaborate.

Before anyone goes out and buys a SL to run the SG event, I want to elaborate a little bit.

A modern SL ski with say a 13-m sidecut radius will not scribe a pure arc on ice or super hard snow at any radius bigger than 13 metres. That is simple geometry. The ski will make a 20-m turn, but it will feel a little less smooth than it would with a GS or SG ski making a pure arc. It will feel more like ripping a piece of paper than slicing a piece of cheese.

However modern SL skis will be quite capable of cruizing along at 55 mph without making you feel that you are out of control, and let you make all kinds of turns at those high speeds.

Compare that to to a 200 cm SL ski from 30 years ago. I don't care how many red hearts you had on your comps, they turned into hyperactive floppy pancakes at 45 mph.

Compare a moden SL to say an old RC4 Vacuum SL of about 15? years ago. Stability is not too bad, but the stiffness required tremendous exertion to carve a SL-sized turn, or you could arc a long-radius turn without much force, but everything in between had to be scarved. Now you can easily arc any turn up to the sidecut-radius and though not pure arc, still make a pretty decent LR turn with little effort. Todays LS skis are more stable and more versatile than just a decade ago.

More stable AND easier to make all kinds of turns. That's like having more horsepower and better gas milage!
post #39 of 44
I agree with what Ghost is saying about the drastic stability improvements in SL skis. But if you have ever taken race stock sl skis into a gs course, the will hold, but you cannot ski them agressively if it is icy unless you are on your tails. At gs speeds, you cannot even use the energy of the ski or you will be shot to the moon. But you definately wont have any fun with 181 race stock gs skis at a ski area because they are no fun if you dont have hard hard snow or room to rip, so like Ghost said, Sls are definately the choice for rec skiing because they have the ability to cruise and ski agressively if you want.
post #40 of 44
I'm calling FLAWED based on the choices.

I've demoed numerous SL skis both consumer and RS...and loved them, but they don't suit the terrain I prefer.

So...there should be an option: Have tried and liked but don't want to own.
post #41 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
I'm calling FLAWED based on the choices.

I've demoed numerous SL skis both consumer and RS...and loved them, but they don't suit the terrain I prefer.

So...there should be an option: Have tried and liked but don't want to own.
You don't have a pair? I'm shocked!

btw - nice location in your profile. When are ya moving outta there?
post #42 of 44
Epic, I'm working on it. Sandy Utah could be the solution to a couple of personal 'issues'. I'm pretty sure you know which.

I have the G-Man's Head RD SL to use if I choose. Wish it was a 166 instead of 161.

Why even MAKE a 161cm SL?? It's too long for women and too short to be legal for men. Why not skip it?
post #43 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post



Compare that to to a 200 cm SL ski from 30 years ago. I don't care how many red hearts you had on your comps, they turned into hyperactive floppy pancakes at 45 mph.

Compare a moden SL to say an old RC4 Vacuum SL of about 15? years ago. Stability is not too bad, but the stiffness required tremendous exertion to carve a SL-sized turn, or you could arc a long-radius turn without much force, but everything in between had to be scarved. Now you can easily arc any turn up to the sidecut-radius and though not pure arc, still make a pretty decent LR turn with little effort. Todays LS skis are more stable and more versatile than just a decade ago.

More stable AND easier to make all kinds of turns. That's like having more horsepower and better gas milage!
Good post. Mr old school will chime in here. Ghost is right - I had over a dozen old school racing skis (late 80's thru the 90's Rossignol citizen race SL's usually 200 or 203 4sk's and a few pair of 7sk's usually in 201 and a pair of 7gk 208's) In fact I would never ski on anything but a citizen race ski. To do so was unthinkable to me. I wanted the best performance I could get.

I owned 1 pair of slalom skis that broke ghost's speed limit rule though. 205 Olin RTS. Best skis I ever had until last year...no speed limit and quick, quick quick. I had Look Z turntables on em....wow what a setup! I have some sweet memories of really ripping up a few trails with those babies!!! My Tecnica TNT's with the lime green buckles and 205 RTS with look z's. Yeah baby yeah....the 90's were ok too!!

Last years 168 Allstars and 170 RX 8's (my current hardpack east coast quiver) flat out blow all that stuff away. Toy skis with equal performance, the new stuff is just crazy!!!

Now I want some Volkl 165 racetigers...new school race ski performance must be ridiculous....

I want em real bad
post #44 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Epic, I'm working on it. Sandy Utah could be the solution to a couple of personal 'issues'. I'm pretty sure you know which.

I have the G-Man's Head RD SL to use if I choose. Wish it was a 166 instead of 161.

Why even MAKE a 161cm SL?? It's too long for women and too short to be legal for men. Why not skip it?
May not be too long for some women!

remember 155 is the minimum length for girly girls!
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 › Your opinion about slalom skis