New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A tale of two skis

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Overnight new year's eve and all morning new-year's day, Mother Nature dumped over 1/2 a foot of very wet snow on us. I drove to the local speed bump through the storm for first tracks. I thought it would be nice to use my 165 cm WC SCs in snow for a change. My daughter accompanied me with her Porsches.

While not as tricky as really deep snow, I felt I had to be careful. The ski would want to hook up and give me more of a turn than the snow could hold, and once or twice I found I had more "steering angle" than desired. Still it felt good to be skiing without seeing the skis for a change.

Later the snow got a little variable, with patches of fresh and patches of tracked out snow and big piles of heavy snow hear and there. My daughter's only fall came when she unexpectedly came upon one big pile of crud. Turning in this inconsistent stuff was even trickier, with sections of tracked out mixed piles of loose. I had to react quickly as a tip might catch on some snow and bend more than expected, or a sudden slow down ensue upon hitting a patch of wet snow after gliding through some tracked out snow.

At about 11:20, we stopped for lunch and my daughter who was soaked to the bone (down coat not water proof) was cold. I drove her home, had lunch and picked up my 190 cm Vollant Machete Gs.

What a difference a ski makes. These skis completely erased the patches of crud. I could crank them over and the 190 cm of base was enough to hold the turn. It was easy-peasy. The skis just went where I told them to regardless of what manner of bumps, slush, snow, whatever was in their path. It was almost as easy as setting them on Auto Pilot. And Bonus, they went a lot faster through the deep snow than the 165s had earlier.

The funny thing is I would not have known what I was missing had I not skied the Machetes. Really beginning to wonder about some fatties now.

EDIT: Wow! I can correct the Length typo!  I think the total snow for the storm was over a foot.
Edited by Ghost - 4/26/10 at 7:03pm
post #2 of 15
Wow almost 6600 post and your just figuring this out. You wouldn't be a PSIA certified instructor would you.

If you think the Volant's were good, wait until you get on a good ski.

I had a great day on my Volkl AC4's yesterday in the 8-10" that fell in about 5 hours. I left my Salomon Gun's home. Haven't taken the Volkl P60SL's out yet this season.

In some cases, fatter is better.
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post

In some cases, fatter is better.
If it keeps you off the bottom its allways better.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
Too late to fix the typo; the Volants are 190 cm, and with a listed sidecut of 104-68-90 (I'm too lazy to go measure 'em), not really wider than the SCs. The interesting thing is, contrary to popular superstition, the ski that is 25 cm longer was much easier to ski.
post #5 of 15
I think that has something to do with the type snow you were skiing in. The lenght helps them to float a bit more.

You need to try some new midfat's I'm sure like most of us, you'd enjoy them. When you decide the midfat's are nice, then move up to something in the 90mm + waist for powder day's.

There's more to life then SL skis.
post #6 of 15
Ghost, this is the reason you have a quiver
Though I have a few shortish pair of skis, I've always tended to ski with something a tad longer than recommended, and for the most part I prefer it that way.
As long as you're making dive bomber noises when you make your way down the hill........its all good!
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Ghost, this is the reason you have a quiver
Though I have a few shortish pair of skis, I've always tended to ski with something a tad longer than recommended, and for the most part I prefer it that way.
As long as you're making dive bomber noises when you make your way down the hill........its all good!
I'm with you Trekchick. I have the SCs for short turns on hardpack and ice, The McGs for deep snow (that means 6" or more in Ontario and my SGs for flat out speed thrills. Now if I could only convince my wife I need some GS racing skis for making McG -type turns on the ice.....
post #8 of 15
two adages that never go out of style:

Long Skis Truck, Short Skis Suck

and

Once You Go Fat, You'll Never Go Back!




Try an incremental move up to something in the 78mm range or the 85ish range first. Those'll blow your mind (I went from skiing 63mm to 85 and it was insane!).

It also depends on the ski, too. My 180cm No Ka Oi's ride like my 198 Rossi 7S's, perhaps just a bit stiffer.

Like TC said, it's all about a quiver!
post #9 of 15
Every time I go fatter, my smile gets bigger. I'm now skiing 111mm underfoot. I wouldn't want them on east coast hard pack, but they're the shizzle out here. And this is coming from someone who grew up skiing Stowe ice and rocks in the mid 70s.
post #10 of 15
i experienced something similar the other day. I usually ski on a metron b5 162 cm (76 waist). I demoed the k2explorer at 184 cm. (84 waist?) I couldnt believe how much easier it wwas to ski with a big ski. Why did we go short these past few years?
post #11 of 15
I've gone from 66mm / 198 cm (GS skis) to 78mm / 178 cm (all mountain) and feel pretty comfortable with the new setting.
It took some turns to get used to it though it's not been that impossible thing I was fearing
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
Too late to fix the typo; the Volants are 190 cm, and with a listed sidecut of 104-68-90 (I'm too lazy to go measure 'em), not really wider than the SCs. The interesting thing is, contrary to popular superstition, the ski that is 25 cm longer was much easier to ski.
In variable snow/powder it's all about surface area. The more surface area you have, the easier to float on top.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
I've gone from 66mm / 198 cm (GS skis) to 78mm / 178 cm (all mountain) and feel pretty comfortable with the new setting.
It took some turns to get used to it though it's not been that impossible thing I was fearing
My mistake, the 66 is in fact a 63mm...
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana View Post
i experienced something similar the other day. I usually ski on a metron b5 162 cm (76 waist). I demoed the k2explorer at 184 cm. (84 waist?) I couldnt believe how much easier it wwas to ski with a big ski. Why did we go short these past few years?
It used to be the better the skier you were, the longer the ski, then it went shorter (the pendulum swung too far IMHO), now it is the wider you go. It is now up to the skier to find the balance of length and width. You CAN find a wide ski that still is nimble and fun. What I say to open customers minds up to wider skis is...

"Think about a SUV of 10-15 years ago, it was a pickup truck chassis with a station wagon body on top. Now think about a BMW X5, it is an SUV that will run with most sports cars"

That usually helps.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I thought it would be nice to use my 165 cm WC SCs in snow for a change. ......snip drove her home, had lunch and picked up my 19 cm Vollant Machete Gs.

.........The funny thing is I would not have known what I was missing had I not skied the Machetes. Really beginning to wonder about some fatties now.
these skis are completely different from one another in flex pattern. the SC has a different flex from a combi (machete) or GS , SC being softer in the mid section and stiffer at the tip and tail. this is for slalom racing on ice (or in the de-tuned slalom rec ski, groomers) the softer center to facilitate shifting weight forward and back for varying the turn and stepping on the gas, the stiff tip to grap quickly into the turn, the stiff tail to rebound, accelerate out of it. In crud, it's a tip and tail overload, way too much action and re-action. All Mountain or GS skis would reverse the pattern, being stiffer in the middle for a larger sweet spot at speed or in crud, and softer tip and tail for speed and stability, in variable terraine and or snow conditions. I see the kids on race day working over to the course through sierra crud on their race skis and totally kickin' it. Only 'cause they're amazing skiers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion