EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help with pruning my quiver(!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help with pruning my quiver(!)

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Okay, so my quiver currently looks like this:

Salomon Equipe 10 SC @ 155cm (66mm waist, 11m radius)
K2 Public Enemy @ 174cm (85mm waist, 17m radius)
Atomic LT:11m @ 170cm, still needs bindings (66mm waist, 17m radius)

The Equipe 10 SC's are pretty narrow (66mm) and are slalom cheaters. They're quick edge-to-edge, seem to grab ice fairly well at factory stock edge bevels, and might do even better at a more-common 1-base/2-side bevels. They aren't very relaxing as 1) they're really predisposed to short slalom turns, and 2) their short effective edges don't endow them with a very high speed limit. They're more stable than I expected them to be, though, probably because of their titanium content.

I originally bought the PE's to cover park and soft-snow duties, but I found that they were actually a lot of fun on hardpack. I mounted them 1 cm back from ball-of-foot ("+4.5"), and they ended up skiing like wide GS skis, maybe with a longish tail. I thought they'd be sloppy skis, but they can carve surprisingly deep and stay stable much more than their metal-free construction had led me to originally suspect. I'm beginning to suspect that they can do just about anything with some degree of competence, aside from firing off continuous quick slalom turns. Fortunately, my Equipe 10 SC's cover that gap quite well.

The question is: what about my Atomic LT:11m, my GS cheaters? I've been waiting forever to find a good deal on Neox bindings, but so far the skis sit bare, staring at me and giving me guilt trips about how I haven't tried to complete them and get them in on the fun. But... my PE's can pull GS turns pretty well (in-fact, it has a comparable sidecut), and seem to have a pretty high speed limit already.

Do any of you think I'd miss much if I found the LT:11m another good home and trimmed my quiver down to just the two pairs, the Equipe 10 SC and the Public Enemy? Is a dedicated GS race ski going to offer me a significantly different experience that I currently don't have access to? Note that I don't do any racing, but where I ski can be icy a good bit of the time.
post #2 of 12
i think you've pretty much answered your own questions- they other skis seem to have you covered in all the areas you like to ski and you haven't missed skiing the Atomics - that's why you feel guilty about them standing there!

i just went down from a four ski quiver to a two ski and i'm glad i did.We all seem to build up too many skis and then not use them as we ski just our favorites.
post #3 of 12
I would consider something different than the Atomics as your all-mountain race carver.

Some of the following are stable at GS race speeds while offering some soft snow versatility;

Head Supershape Magnum
Head iXRC 1200 SW
Fischer Progressor
Fischer RX9
Dynastar Contact 11
Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3
Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3 Power

These will carve like your Salomon while offering far greater all-mountain and higher speed capacity than either the PE or SC.

Cheers,

Michael
post #4 of 12
Considering you haven't skied the Atomics yet, you won't miss them. They will give you a different experience than the PE's if you ever mount them up though.
post #5 of 12
What are you crazy? The correct number of skis in a quiver is Q=(n+1), where n= the number of skis you have now. Recalculate after each new ski.
post #6 of 12

Neox bindings

If you end up deciding to keep the Atomics, you might want to check out this place http://www.skiersoutlet.com/index.ph...shop&Itemid=32
for bindings. I'm not sure if those prices are any less than what you've been finding, but they seem like good prices to me (especially the Neox 310s).
post #7 of 12
It's hard to miss what you've never had. What's missing from your two ski quiver is high-speed stability at speeds you don't ski at and ice grip in longer radius turns.

155 is pretty short! Never the less, those SCs have a bigger range than most skis between where they feel unstable and where they actually become useless.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the replies.

Regarding the short Equipes: I'm only 5'8" (173cm) and 155lbs, so the 155cm slalom cheaters aren't too overwhelmed and work fine at their intended slalom speeds. In retrospect, the 160cm length would have endowed them with more all-around versatility, though.

Regarding the all-mountain Race Carvers: I had some problems with my prior set of skis, a pair of all-mountain race carvers. I didn't know it then, but the issue wasn't really the ski, but rather the excessive ramp angle (for me) of the integrated Marker bindings. The problems this single issue generated was misinterpreted into two grievances: 1) I felt that these skis took too much effort to turn and 2) they were unstable at-speed and threw me around on uneven snow. These two grievances led me to conclude (erroneously) that A) these problems were due to the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none nature of anything tagged "all-mountain" and B) I decided that carving performance was the of realm of dedicated race carvers. I thought that I would need a race ski that was easier to turn (a shorter slalom ski) and another that was stable at-speed (a longer GS ski).

(Now it's plainly obvious that the excessive ramp angle had me in the backseat, which of course was responsible for the instability issue. The excessive ramp angle also forced me to get WAY out in front just to engage the tongues of my boots to get a carve, which was very tiring as it was way beyond neutral for me.)

So I binged on the narrow race carvers you see here. It was about that time I discovered the ramp angle issue, and discovered that I could ski like I never ever did before on the Salomon's flat-ish bindings. (This ramp angle issue was confirmed when I added home-fab Lexan lifter plates under the toes of the Look bindings on my K2 PE's, my latest pair this season).

So this is why I have the narrow non-all-mountain race carvers that I have. In retrospect I'd probably have just gone with a single pair of mid-radius all-mountain race carvers with some metal content at around 162cm or so, much like the Speedmachine Mach 3 Power, but definitely w/o the Markers!

I think the overall response has convinced me to hold onto the LT:11m. I do suspect, however, that they will be more of a "treat" ski rather than "bread and butter", as some of you have suggested. I just have to make sure I make an active effort to shift usage of the PE's toward soft-snow duty, which was the original intention prior to finding out that they carved pretty well too.
post #9 of 12
You can definitely get rid of the LT:11s and not miss them. While my PEs don't hold on ice anywhere near as well as my GS skis do, they're a lot more fun to ski on when the conditions are anything less than bulletproof- and the LT:11, at 170 cm, really isn't enough ski to bomb down icy hills at stupid speeds while creating high edge angles.
post #10 of 12
PE really are that good I would say get rid the atomic Lt-11 and get another K2 product.....175 or 180 Volkl GS racing(not race stock) skis. dont go half assed with some cross ski you have the PE that will ski everything better than most skis out there but sheer ice and hardpack. Get the full on race stock and dont look back.
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
You can definitely get rid of the LT:11s and not miss them. While my PEs don't hold on ice anywhere near as well as my GS skis do, they're a lot more fun to ski on when the conditions are anything less than bulletproof- and the LT:11, at 170 cm, really isn't enough ski to bomb down icy hills at stupid speeds while creating high edge angles.
Takecontrol618, do note that I'm only 155lbs. With that in mind, does your judgment about the 170cm LT:11m still apply? Their flex pattern seems very different relative to the PEs. Hand-flexing them seems to show the LT:11m to be fairly even-flexing, while the PEs are very stiff in the center and flexy at the tips. The ~0.75mm of titanium tip-to-tail and magnesium tubes inside suggest a very damp ski. And they seem to have 10-13cm more effective edge. Are you saying they simply won't be rigid enough longitudinally and torsionally for "icy hills at stupid speeds"? (Yes, "stupid speeds" sounds intriguing enough to maintain a 3-pair quiver.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
PE really are that good I would say get rid the atomic Lt-11 and get another K2 product.....175 or 180 Volkl GS racing(not race stock) skis. dont go half assed with some cross ski you have the PE that will ski everything better than most skis out there but sheer ice and hardpack. Get the full on race stock and dont look back.
BushwackerinPA, I thought the LT:11m were Atomic (non-race stock) GS race skis. The SX series were the Atomic skiercross skis. I don't currently have a cross/all-mountain ski in my quiver at all, or am I mistaken? Or are you simply suggesting another K2 torsion-box product?
post #12 of 12
The LT and ST are really Atomic's softer equivalent of the Fischer RX8 and RX9. You can get race stock versions of them intended for juniors and women, but its a very different skis than the retail version. Being that you're a lightweight, it does make me reconsider what you need in a ski, but still- the Atomic is going to feel very much like a skinnier PE. When I skied the ST:11, it didnt take me much speed at all to get the tips to fold up on themselves. From that experience, and from hand flexing the LTs, the two skis are pretty similar in flex and I'd assume would feel fairly similar on the snow. If you really have the urge to own a GS ski, go all-out and get a 175 race stock from one of the softer manufacturers like Rossi or Volkl.

Plus, if you keep the Atomic, you have to ski on Atomic bindings. No thanks.
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 with pruning my quiver(!)