New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Grizzly - Page 2

post #31 of 40

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I still don't get the wide carver category. 



It's similar to other niche skis, like the narrow powder ski.

post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

A ski doens't need new technology perfrom on hardpack and ice conditions. Most sandwich construction skis work very well on those conditions and that has been around for a loooong time. I still don't get the wide carver category. 


While the first part is true to a point, the new technologies do offer something. After all, one doesn't need rockered skis to ski powder either, nevertheless that's what some people currently want. IAC, in most cases, it comes down to attempts at matching the ice pick grip of a race ski with a more damp ride and at least to some extent mitigating the stiffness and critical feel. In some cases, this is pretty successful.

 

As far as the "Giant Carver" category goes....keep in mind, that's not what the industry calls 'em. That's a term that I coined a few years back when these wider skis with all the technology started showing up. These were skis that didn't make a lot of sense to me either and I wasn't really sure how to position them for the consumer. The term GC actually resonates pretty well for the rank and file skier.

 

As far as all that goes, I think it's important to face the facts about how and where the vast majority of skiers ski. When you ride the lift at most resorts on most days, you'll see most skiers zooming the groomers or at most, dabbling around the edges of the runs. Even when there is "powder" available, many of those skiers really are not all that commited to going out into the bowls, the steeps or the trees to get it. For that skier the GC category is a good call as they are perfectly happy with what they are doing.

 

SJ

post #33 of 40

I agree, technology does cost $. I had my Volkyl P50RC's from like 98,99 til 08 when I bought the AC40's (used Ebay 350 delivered). The 40's are in a 184, they are HEAVY but they will blast through most anything (crud,chowder,slop) at Mach 8 as long as you stand on it and drive it. It is challenging in tighter trees but it floats well. I'll probably wait another  couple years before "upgrading" to a new(er) used ski but it'll probably be a Volkl. (BTW it's been 16 years, not 20 (my bad) on Volkl's but I have had various K2's, Atomics and Salomans with the Volkls.)

post #34 of 40

I'm not saying it needs NEW technology, but to perform on a high level on hardpack, a ski should have sidewalls or some other sort of edge grip technology, sandwich construction, and something to keep the ski stiff (such as Titanium), assuming the ski has a large radius.  You can't possibly think that a ski without those things will ski as well on harpack/ice. 

post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post

I'm not saying it needs NEW technology, but to perform on a high level on hardpack, a ski should have sidewalls or some other sort of edge grip technology, sandwich construction, and something to keep the ski stiff (such as Titanium), assuming the ski has a large radius.  You can't possibly think that a ski without those things will ski as well on harpack/ice. 


Those things such as sidewalls, Titanium laminates (BTW......generally not real Ti.) etc. are basic stuff. Any company can build that "technology" as it's relatively cheap, easy to make, and not hard to engineer. I don't think that is what Tim was referring to. I think he was talking about the beyond the basics additional technology that are present in some skis such as the Grizzly under discussion here.

 

For the most part, the newer technologies are notsooomuch about edge grip (remember that's fairly easy to get) Rather, the newer tecnologies are about something else. In the case of the Grizzly, it's about the adjustable flex. In the case of the Nordica X-balance it's about pressure distribution. In the case of the new Blizzi G/M-Power it's about pressure distribution but also active and passive dampening as well.

 

The challenge that the engineers and marketers face is delivering enough edge grip without having so much that the ski is overbearing. The dampening and pressure distribution technologies are an attempt to make the skis comfortable to ski on while still leaving enough "performance" to satisfy the masses. These factors are much more important for ski models that will see fairly significant groomer/firm snow usage than they are for the more polyvalent (read wider) skis. To a greater or lesser extent, the newer technolgies do this pretty well.

 

A pime example of effective usage of technology is the new Blizzi G/M power skis. For the niche they intended to hit, the technology is dazzling in it's effectiveness. OTH, the adjustable flex thing (Grizzly, Rossi Mutix) has left me rather puzzled at times.

 

SJ

post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

A ski doens't need new technology perfrom on hardpack and ice conditions. Most sandwich construction skis work very well on those conditions and that has been around for a loooong time. I still don't get the wide carver category. 


 

No kidding.  I was reading some Canadian Ski magazine up in Kimberley last year.  They had an interview with some dude high up the Rossignol chain of command.  He was talking about how their racers and race skis don't use all the same gizmos on them they market to the public.  They use a basic stiff wood core, titanal, basic sandwich ski, and focus on flex patterns and shape.  Nothing high tech about them.  I'm pretty sure Rossignols race skis know how to carve too!

post #37 of 40

If they don't cost more, than why don't ski companies put sidewalls (and those other things for that matter) on their lower end skis too?  I'm not saying Ti, but basic carving technology.  

post #38 of 40

Sidewalls do cost more don't they?  Then a cap construction?  I'm sure all the materials chosen are selected to meet a specific price and marketing point.

post #39 of 40

Great point.  But on a powder day, why would you even use a ski like the Grizzly?  It's a ski for the day after the storm.

 

post #40 of 40

This goes way back.

 

In the late '70s and early  '80s when the Mahre brothers were essentially the U.S. men's ski team, they skied K2.  The 610-810 were all wrapped foam core skis for consumers.  However, it was a not so well-guarded secret that Steve's 810 GS skis were a wood core, metal topped sandwich ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion