EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Ski Reviews Day 2: Tigershark 12, Progressor, Afterburner, Hurricane, Magfire 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Reviews Day 2: Tigershark 12, Progressor, Afterburner, Hurricane, Magfire 12

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Ski reviews day 2

Condition: soft crud, some fresh snow up to 8" new, moderately soft groomers, lots of sun!
Skier info: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, improving (probably low level 8)

Reviews:

Volkl Tigershark 12 168cm switch: 79mm underfoot, somewhere around a 15.5m radius.

The TS12 felt much damper and smoother than the AC40. It was heavy, fairly stiff, and had a more traditional wood-core feel than the AC40. I felt stability was high on this ski, as I could push it in crud at speed without getting bounced around at all. For the relatively short length of 168cm, I was pleasantly surprised: the stability equaled the Cold Heat in 170cm. I skied it all the time in the Soft position, as the ski was stiff to start with, and the Stiff setting just made this ski a bit too stiff and unresponsive early in the turn. On soft snow, it carved nearly as well as the Progressor, although not as quick edge-to-edge, and not with as much raw power underfoot. It was more stable, however, when flat than the Progressor. It was exciting on hardpack, and in crud, easy to ski, stable, and a smooth ride. In bumps, this ski was just too stiff, and not a good choice. The feel was a little more stout than the iM78 and iM82 with regards to flex, a little more edgy than the Cold Heat, but similar in stability to all of those skis. Whereas the Cold Heat eases into the turn a bit, the Tigershark 12 was a bit more aggressive, but not too much. Overall, I really liked this ski, and would definitely consider it for a versatile frontside ride and moderate crud ski. It bested the AC40 in every condition. This is the ski that I wish the AC40 was, and Volkl did a great job with it. Expensive though.

Fischer Progressor 170cm, 70mm underfoot, 14m radius: the versatile frontside ski from Fischer this season. It comes equipped with a Flowflex plate,and is laminate construction (looks the same as the Cold Heat).

Review: this ski has that sparky feel underfoot that reminds me of fischer's race-stock skis (I used to have a WC GS and also have skied the WC SL). It is so solid, and feels a bit like a hybrid between the GS and SL. Stiffness is fairly stout, but not overpowering, and it eases into the turn very, very well. No surprises here: it feels like a racy blend of race skis with versatility thrown in. It is fairly damp, yet a bit lighter and more energetic than the typical Head Monster. It also had a bit more energy and traditional wood-core feel than the TS12, as well as being lighter and a bit more maneuverable. It was the best ski tested here when on edge, as it has a wonderful feel when tipped up: solid edge engagement, not overly aggressive, but smooth and powerful. In crud, the ski was totally passable, but lacking a bit in the float that the wider TS12 gave me. It worked well, but 70mm underfoot isn't all that wide, and I would probably ski this up to 6" of new, and go wider for more snow. In bumps, this ski was the best tested. I could change edges easily, and it didn't feel overly stiff. It was moderate in forgiveness: not for an intermediate, but not as intimidating as a race-room ski by any means. At ESA, I saw plenty of instructors on Progressors, so you can ski them fast or slow, providing you ski relatively well. It was also the quickest ski onto edge tested (no surprises here). The only thing really lacking was stability when flat: it liked to be up on edge, and in that regard, felt more like a race SL than a GS. This is a really, really nice ski for the person who wants that versatile frontside ride. I was happy on the 170cm as a carver and all-around ski, and would recommend sizing it similar to the Supershape, although for a more high-speed, GS feel, I bet 175cm would do the trick. This would be a perfect choice for a high-end skier looking for the narrower half of a 2-ski quiver, or for someone who primarily skis hard snow and needs a daily ride.

Nordica Afterburner 170cm: 82mm ski underfoot, around a 17m radius, unchanged for 2008


Review: The Afterburner has always been a very nice ski. It has a great blend of stability, dampness, and energy. The AB is a smooth, powerful ski that is a notch below the top-end Jet Fuel in stability and stiffness, but definitely not a weak ski. I am 150lbs, and the AB is right up my alley. I could ski it as hard as I wanted in crud and rough snow, and only the iM82 and Cold Heat gave me a slightly more stable ride. But, the Afterburner is a bit softer, easier to handle at slow speeds, and more forgiving. It floated well in crud, and had more of a laminate wood-core feel to it, in that it was damp, smooth, powerful, but not overly heavy or non-uniform flex-wise like some of the cap skis are. It felt very similar to the Elan Magfire 12, but a little lighter (no surprise, as they are both built by Elan and use similar wood-core milling techniques). The Mag 12 felt a little stouter than the AB, softer than the Jet Fuel. In bumps, the Afterburner was one of the better skis: the moderate flex was helpful, and it give me a bit better ride than the Fury, as well as being more grounded and a little heavier. It was a little slower edge-to-edge than the TS12 or Progressor, but very similar to the Cold Heat. In fact, the Cold Heat just felt a bit less forgiving, a bit more stable, a bit stiffer laterally, but overall very close in feel to the AB. The iM82 was lighter underfoot, a bit more stable, and a bit damper, without the measure of energy that the AB possesses. This is a great ski; not only for the expert, but for those looking to attain expert status in the near future, as well as the cruiser looking for a versatile ride.

Salomon Hurricane 172cm: 85mm underfoot, around a 16m radius, more or less the same ski as last year's Fury.

Review: this ski is very different from the current Fury. The Hurricane is lacking the metal that now exists in the Fury, and as such, skis quite a bit differently. The Hurricane is much lighter on it's feet, and can make edge changes in a hurry. The flex is very nice in bumps, and this ski has nice stability, power, and edgehold on the groomers, without being damp. It is a light ski underfoot, quite lively, but a bit smoother in transitions than the AC40, and not as abrupt edge-to-edge. In crud, I prefer the stronger Fury, as the Hurricane gets bounced around a bit too much, and lacks stability. It was probably the least stable ski tested for crud performance. It was incredibly easy to ski, and would suit a wider range of skiers than the Fury, which is more of a high-advanced and expert level ski. The Hurricane can do it all, and while it really doesn't have the stability at the top end, it isn't lacking in other departments, and if you aren't skiing really fast all day, is probably a better choice, especially if you like bumps and shorter, mid-speed turns. The Hurricane in the longer length would solve the crud stability issue while retaining ease-of-use. There are slightly better high-speed crudbusters available, but for someone looking to improve to the expert level, or for a very good skier who just doesn't ski fast all day, it is a great ride. For the really powerful, fast skier who likes a bigger, beefier crudbuster, I would recommend the Fury. A nice ski: how far Salomon has come in the past 2 years!

Elan Magfire 12 176cm, 17m radius, 82mm underfoot:

I have reviewed this previously as well, but since I am reviewing everything that I had a chance to ski, I will throw this in. It is very comparable to the Afterburner, maybe a bit more stable in curd (due to the longer length) but actually feels shorter than 176cm. It could be due to the forward mounting point (which can be moved back 1cm). The Mag 12 is a very similiar, wood core, yet enhanced with metal and Speedwave, that gives it a bit more laterally aggressive feel (similar to the Cold Heat, more laterally aggressive than the iM82 and AB). It is quick and powerful onto edge, but not overly sensitive to edge pressure. 176cm felt like what, maybe a 173cm Cold Heat would be: a bit shorter than advertised, so if you are on the border with this one, go to the larger size. The Mag 12 is a very powerful crudbuster at speed, and holds as well as any ski tested, although it has the inherent disadvantages of a wider ski (still a good carver, but slower onto edge than the Progressor) that has a bit more big-turn, GS feel to it than the turnier Fury, but not quite as damp and GS like as the iM82. In bumps, it was passable, but a little stiff. I would say it was somewhat comparable to the Cold Heat in this respect. I would summarize it as a ski comparable to the other wood core skis tested here (not the Salomon stuff, which have a different feel) with a bit more stability than the AB, but slightly more forgiving than the Cold Heat and iM82. Overall, I could happily own any of the 5 (Fury, Cold Heat, iM82, Mag 12, and Afterburner) and pleased.
post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Skier info: ... improving (probably low level 8)
Let me offer another opinion here. I'd say high level 8 or low level 9 (bumps being the question mark as I haven't seen Dawg in any real bumps because Mt Bachelor won't let us have any).
post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Let me offer another opinion here. I'd say high level 8 or low level 9.
Ditto, Scott is a very skilled skier.

Michael
post #4 of 24
Funny how different people feel about the same ski. That's why they make different skis.

Yesterday a buddy demoed the Tigershark 12 and didn't feel it much different then his Volkl T50's. Today he show's up on a pair of AC40's with the biggest smile I have seen in years. He skied the morning with us ripping up Okemos great surface and bumps. At lunch his final statement was, I'm going to buy pair of these, in fact might just buy these. We said, what do you think we've been trying to tell you, both of us on are AC4's or AC40's.
post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 
Forgot to mention:

A big Thank You to Chrome Pony of Sunriver, Oregon. They sell Volkl and Salomon, and were the source of my demos of those brands. 541-593-2728

They currently have stock in both of those brands, as well as a few pair of Marker Duke bindings.
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
Funny how different people feel about the same ski. That's why they make different skis.

Yesterday a buddy demoed the Tigershark 12 and didn't feel it much different then his Volkl T50's. Today he show's up on a pair of AC40's with the biggest smile I have seen in years. He skied the morning with us ripping up Okemos great surface and bumps. At lunch his final statement was, I'm going to buy pair of these, in fact might just buy these. We said, what do you think we've been trying to tell you, both of us on are AC4's or AC40's.
Yeah...Okemo is really a place where you can put the AC40 through it's paces. :

The reason people feel differently about the same ski is because some people can ski and some can't.
post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
Funny how different people feel about the same ski. That's why they make different skis.

Yesterday a buddy demoed the Tigershark 12 and didn't feel it much different then his Volkl T50's. Today he show's up on a pair of AC40's with the biggest smile I have seen in years. He skied the morning with us ripping up Okemos great surface and bumps. At lunch his final statement was, I'm going to buy pair of these, in fact might just buy these. We said, what do you think we've been trying to tell you, both of us on are AC4's or AC40's.
It might also have something to do with where you ski vs. where I ski. We are probably placing a much larger emphasis on soft-snow performance, and you on hard snow performance and edge grip. If I was looking for a wide, aggressive carver, I would be all over the AC40, but that really isn't what I look for in a ski that is this wide. That was my initial review 2 years ago as well: great carver, but not as versatile as I would like. Different skis for different folks: nothing wrong with that.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post

The reason people feel differently about the same ski is because some people can ski and some can't.
True, it really is a can or can't situation with no variations of skill.
post #9 of 24
Oh yea, I agree, it's interesting to read different peoples opinions on skis.

I have another friend that likes to ski fast but lacks the skills to ski fast on the proper lenght ski. He needs a longer ski and that holds him back from making short radius turns. We keep trying to tell him to take a lesson or stop rotating his upper body.

Sorry to highjack this thread.

I wish more people would take lessons and learn how easy this really is.

I'd like to say good review over all. Your thought's on the Fischer Progressor are exactly what I would expect of that ski. I haven't skied it but I do recommend it when it's approperate. I'll bet the Volkl RC Race is close to that.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
True, it really is a can or can't situation with no variations of skill.
Actually it's not. The poster I referred to was comparing the AC40 and Tiger 12. Those are top level skis and most likely they were not being used by top level drivers. The opinion of a skier without high end modern skills is irrelevant in a comparison of those skis and that is why that post made no sense.

I think a lot of Dawgs review is interesting. However, all of us ski the Tiger 12 in the hard position all the time except in deep snow. The Tiger is as close as any company has come to a 1 ski quiver that actually does perform well in all conditions.
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Actually it's not. The poster I referred to was comparing the AC40 and Tiger 12. Those are top level skis and most likely they were not being used by top level drivers. The opinion of a skier without high end modern skills is irrelevant in a comparison of those skis and that is why that post made no sense.
Just how would you know if a ski not being great is due to "user error", a bad tune, or just a ski that didn't match the skier's expectations? There are lots of less-than-glowing reviews on the AC40 around here, including from some guys that can really ski, such as Heluva, as well as friends of mine who are ex-college racers and like skis that the skier has to ski, rather than skis that turn on their own. A couple of these guys could ski circles around almost anyone on the hill, and to say that anyone that you have never even met didn't like a certain ski due to
"lack of skiing ability" is just ridiculous. There are certainly other reviews of the AC40 as a great ski, and if you are looking for a wide, but still aggressive carver, it is certainly a nice ski.

Also, if you will remember, the AC40 is aimed at the "resort" skier, who typically logs 10-20 days a year and likes a mixture of cruising and all-mountain skiing ability, in a fairly aggressive package. It doesn't take a 100 day per year skier, upper level 9, to enjoy it. In fact, that 100 day/year skier probably will want something else. Most of the people in our area who are on the AC40 are high level 7's or low level 8's, and exactly that "resort" customer. Unless you are referring to a terminal intermediate, disparaging a user or reviewer's skiing ability is a bit silly.
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
2008 Volkl AC40 Carbon [177cm]

I now know why everyone raves about this ski. At 82mm in the waist it is wide enough to get through most conditions. Compared to the race skis that I normally ski on these skis felt very light. I skied these on soft, rough groomers, and bumps. I found them to be very nimble for being a modern midfat that is really more at home in bigger turns. I was able to carve them into GS and even SL (yes SL) turns. The problem that I had with the ski was that it didn't wow me on any aspect of it's performance. My brother (who was the other skier) felt the same way. The skis really ski quite well, but they do not seem to excel at anything - except for maybe the ability to make ACTUAL slalom turns (brother's comment after he saw me doing that was, "wow I didn't know those skis could do that"). My brother really seemed to enjoy the AC40 when he skied on it but after he skied the Tigershark he was not as enthusiastic about the AC40... and those were my thoughts as well, but we will get to that. My gripe is that they did not feel 'powerful' like some have claimed, and got kicked around more easily than I was expecting... but then my two "over 70mm skis" are Machete FB's and Stockli DP's, so I might be comparing apples to oranges in the stability category.

2008 Volkl Tigershark 12 (79mm waist one) [175cm]
The only reason I tried this ski is that I was very skeptical of it's performance and especially the little gizmo that changes the flex of the ski. First I skied the ski on the ski without the gizmo engaged. Pretty much I hated it. They carved alright on the soft setting and probably would have skied bumps very well, but they weren't at home at speed. The next run I immediately flipped the switch on the tails (very easy to do btw), and it was literally like someone... well... flipped a switch. The skis stiffen up a lot. They actually felt stiff. The sidecut actually runs up the tip similr to a race ski, so the tips engage very aggressively in comparison to the AC40. After the first set of turns down the headwall on these skis (after skiing the AC40) my brothers comments were "I like these skis a lot better." I felt the same way actually. I can say that these are probably not for everyone. They are very stiff, and quite demending on their stiffer setting. If I had a choice between the AC40 and the Tigershark I would opt for the Tigershark. The 79mm waist really does not give up much to the AC40's 82mm waist in choppy conditions and you can soften them up if you have to. The Tigershark and AC40 didn't really wow me however. My brother really enjoyed the Tigershark and I think was his second favorite of the day. I liked it, but I didn't find anything that it excelled at - despite it's stiffness. It did make long and short radius turns nicely on both the stiff and soft settings though. On the soft setting the skis were left wanting for stability and edgehold. On the stiff setting they just wanted more input and actually skied fairly nicely (what you would expect from a ski of this caliber) when you got them going.
Since it has been brought up in this thread above is my review of the AC40 and Tigershark. IMO, the AC40 just doesn't live up to the hype and while the Tigershark 12 is a huge leap in the right direction, I still find it to be lacking in feel and flex compared to other options that are out there. The ski certainly caters to a specific target audience, but I don't think that I am necessarily in that group... and I have a hunch it isn't because I am lacking high-end modern skills relevant to properly skiing on modern equipment. The AC40 fills the needs of it's target audience very well. If you love AC40's - that is fine because you probably fall into that target audience - and the skis will work very well for what you will probably be doing with them... but that doesn't necessarily mean that you know something about skiing that those who dislike the ski do not...

Later

Greg
post #13 of 24
Heluva,

In your opinioni, what is the target audience for each type of ski?
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Heluva,

In your opinioni, what is the target audience for each type of ski?
What do you mean by type? Are you discerning between the Tigershark and the AC40 in target market?
post #15 of 24
Sorry, yes.

I'll rephrase: What are the target markets for the AC-40 and tigershark 12?
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
Sorry, yes.

I'll rephrase: What are the target markets for the AC-40 and tigershark 12?
In all honesty I don't know that there is really that much of a difference. Defining a difference between the two is like defining a difference between the target for the All-Star and the AC30. The are similar in shape and construction. The Tigershark has a slightly racier/beefy feel to it, possibly from the groomer bias in it's design, but I'd say that it is still targeted toward the "weekend warrior" level 8 crowd, or the teaching crowd.
post #17 of 24
Just for the sake of arguing seems to me the shops are sold out of the AC line and have tons of Tigersharks.

That's what I've noticed in the few shops I've been in.

You guy's have fun, I'm off to bed then to VT in the early AM, I'll check back in Sunday night after day 35 on skis. :
post #18 of 24
The TS12 with power switch is very hard to get. For example at Tramdock there are 3 pairs of the TS12 and 33 pairs of AC40's. There's also a $300 price difference.

Last spring I got out of a heli in the Monashees on the TS 12 in about 3 feet and they were great. An awesome powder ski. They were so much fun I never skied he AC40 or the mantra on that trip. When the fall came I realized I didn't need the AC40's and sold them. When I was using the All-Stars then I was glad to break out the AC4's but you just don't need a mid fat anymore with the Tiger. And with this waist for me it works as a good powder ski as well.

The Tiger is a great ski and it really is like having two skis in one.
post #19 of 24

Ski Length for Mid-Fats

Dawgcatching - Thanks for your great reviews of the 2007/8 mid-fat skis!

Question (to you or anyone else) about selecting length, but first some background:

:Skier Profile:
130lb, 5'5" athletic/aggessive 9+ level skier (just limited by a low # of days skiing and being over 50).
Prefer precise expert skis but find that many are not forgiving to my weight.
Ski Colorado ungroomed and off-piste; preferably fresh, deep snow where possibly, though will do packed bumps when that's the only choice (forget groomers).

My current mid-fats (Elan M666, 168cm, 76mm waist) just don't cut it. They don't do well in anything but bumps with little or no fresh snow or crud. As soon as there crud or snow gets deep they become very unstable and dive down in the snow. They also feel short (though most ski sales people want to put me in a low 160cm ski).

My powder skis are K2 AK Lauchers in 174cm which I love (though will soon replace with something wider). The length feels perfect (which is more like a 177cm in other brands), though again sales people tried to put me in a 160cm or so ski.

I want to buy an 80-85cm waist ski (like the Fischer Watea 84, Head IM82, Nordica Afterburner or Salomon Fury) for mixed condition days. However, I find the size choices confusing (and the demo shops don't normally carry these types of skis in the shorter lengths for me to try). I am concerned that the shortest lengths in these (e.g., 165cm+/-) will act like my Elans, so am thinking of going with the Nordica or Salomons in 170cm.

Given the ever-changing ski technology do you think I that a 170cm Afterburner/Fury will now be too long for me or will a 165cm+/- Watea/IM82 (or 163cm Fury) still ski too short like my 168cm Elan 666's?

Thanks!
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Actually it's not. The poster I referred to was comparing the AC40 and Tiger 12. Those are top level skis and most likely they were not being used by top level drivers. The opinion of a skier without high end modern skills is irrelevant in a comparison of those skis and that is why that post made no sense.
Rubbish... There are many skiers who just cannot get used o a feel of Volkl ski, myself included. Maybe it is because I lack modern technique, but maybe it is because I just like to tell my skis what to do and not have them decide what they want to do. Each good ski tends to have their own personality, and some people prefer certain personalities. This board tends to have a many Volkl fans (and Volkl is a great company!), but not all people worship at that altar...
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
Dawgcatching - Thanks for your great reviews of the 2007/8 mid-fat skis!

Question (to you or anyone else) about selecting length, but first some background:

:Skier Profile:
130lb, 5'5" athletic/aggessive 9+ level skier (just limited by a low # of days skiing and being over 50).
Prefer precise expert skis but find that many are not forgiving to my weight.
Ski Colorado ungroomed and off-piste; preferably fresh, deep snow where possibly, though will do packed bumps when that's the only choice (forget groomers).

My current mid-fats (Elan M666, 168cm, 76mm waist) just don't cut it. They don't do well in anything but bumps with little or no fresh snow or crud. As soon as there crud or snow gets deep they become very unstable and dive down in the snow. They also feel short (though most ski sales people want to put me in a low 160cm ski).

My powder skis are K2 AK Lauchers in 174cm which I love (though will soon replace with something wider). The length feels perfect (which is more like a 177cm in other brands), though again sales people tried to put me in a 160cm or so ski.

I want to buy an 80-85cm waist ski (like the Fischer Watea 84, Head IM82, Nordica Afterburner or Salomon Fury) for mixed condition days. However, I find the size choices confusing (and the demo shops don't normally carry these types of skis in the shorter lengths for me to try). I am concerned that the shortest lengths in these (e.g., 165cm+/-) will act like my Elans, so am thinking of going with the Nordica or Salomons in 170cm.

Given the ever-changing ski technology do you think I that a 170cm Afterburner/Fury will now be too long for me or will a 165cm+/- Watea/IM82 (or 163cm Fury) still ski too short like my 168cm Elan 666's?

Thanks!
ski-ra, welcome to EpicSki! Great first post!

If you can handle the AK just fine, the 170 Afterburner would be fine, I think.

I find this interesting, though. I ski the AB in a 170. I'm 6' and 175-180 lbs. I can bend it fairly easily, but I can also ski it at quite high speeds (40+mph) on ungroomed and choppy conditions and it holds very well.

If you ever ski Copper, let me know. Perhaps we can hook up and you can take a run or two on my ABs. PM me if you want to try that.
post #22 of 24
Here is the review (minus the technical intro) that I posted on our website last spring. Although I am a different skier than Scott, my impressions are pretty similar to his.

Quote:
Jim's review: The first question of course is does this technology work? The answer is, without a doubt, it does. I started testing the 12' 168 cm. with the switch "off" on a smooth groomed run with very firm snow. (12' is just a name and does not reflect any technical attribute) I immediately noticed that this ski is more solid and damp than any Volkl since the Superspeed. This little 168 had guts and grip that belied its short size. I have not skied anything short of a race ski that felt any more solid or grippy in a comparable size. The speed picked up and up and up and it didn't matter, the ski felt the same. I finished a couple of turns across the hill to bleed off some speed before transitioning into medium and then short radius turns. The transition was smooth but I quickly discovered that the 12 footer is better at big fast turns than shorter ones. The short turns took more input from me to get the job done. I shot back up to the top of the run and over into a short face with some built up wind packed crud. Here this ski felt like a slasher rather than a floater. It motored through some slabby junk with no deflection. I found that it was most comfortable, if I just laid in some edge angle and let it turn me through the goo. When I scooted out of the goop, I stopped to "switch on" to finish out the run on the groomers. At this point, I was wondering what was going to happen. It turns out that the difference on the groomers is noticeable but not overly dramatic. The ski definitely had even more of a gee-essy feel as I laid it as far over as my skills and nerve would allow. It took a deliberate race oriented move to finish the big turns cleanly. Shorter turns were doable again, but took even more pressure to finish. On the way back to the top for a last pass through the goo I again wondered what the run would bring. I found that the ski with the switch "on" was simply too stiff at my preferred speeds to make the crud run comfortable. It blasted the junk without a shudder, but I had to elevate the speed fairly high and apply some deliberate pressure to finish the turn. I mellowed out the speeds on the run down to the bottom and the 12 footer was smooth, quiet, and tractable. This technology is more noticeable in softer or broken snow where it takes the ski from powerful to super powerful. On the groomers it feels like it instantly adds 5 cm to the ski. At my 190 lbs. I didn't need any more length than the 168. This is a tool for very good skiers with their game pretty much in order. For a more groomer oriented skier, the 10 foot powerswitch version is quicker and more nimble.
SJ
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Here is the review (minus the technical intro) that I posted on our website last spring. Although I am a different skier than Scott, my impressions are pretty similar to his.

SJ
SJ,

I read your review on the TS at your website and was curious as to the "8" rating for the TS in the moguls. With 2 titanium sheets in the ski, do you think that this ski will be prone to bending in the mogul fields? Just wondering, given recent posts about metal laminates and skiing in the moguls.
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by reppans View Post
SJ,

I read your review on the TS at your website and was curious as to the "8" rating for the TS in the moguls. With 2 titanium sheets in the ski, do you think that this ski will be prone to bending in the mogul fields? Just wondering, given recent posts about metal laminates and skiing in the moguls.

PLEASE ignore the bargraph ratings. In his genius, our webmaster decided to make that a wiki-able feature. As a result, they are often mucked up. I would give the TS a rating of 4-5 on that scale.

SJ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Ski Reviews Day 2: Tigershark 12, Progressor, Afterburner, Hurricane, Magfire 12