Race Skis - Passing of An Era?? - Page 3

This was not a serious test, but a fun indicator of how much race skis have progressed since the early 90s:
http://www.ski-mag.com/en/ski/clanak.php?id=19693

We can only call that conservative with the benefit of present-day hindsight. You're posing questions that make sense now. They didn't then.

The shape of the ski wasn't the only property that designers were tweaking BITD. Core materials were changing, edges, bottom materials, etc.....And remember that alpine skis evolved from XC skis, which were designed to move forward in line with the motion of the legs with as little resistance possible. Long and skinny made sense for alpine skis as well.

It takes a long time for a paradigm to change. In that context, an extra 0.5-2.0mm of sidecut is revolutionary, and since racing was the ultimate test of equipment for the sport then, it made sense that racers were part of the R&D loop.

Very true, however, that the sport, its equipment, and the process of designing new skis have changed radically since then.

The thing is, if you are skiing (assuming western or large eastern resort) on a day with nicely groomed cord, that means conditions on the rest of the hill are "soft" or at least not bulletproof. Even if there is not any fresh snow overnight, it is soft somewhere on the hill and that is where people with wider skis are going because they find it more fun. If it's bulletproof then yep, break out the racers or stay home.

Wow, the new skis are 8 seconds faster, that is huge

Funny thread. A few points to be made....

The major ski shaping concepts of the 1990's all came directly from snowboarding....

- Snowboards of the late 80's had plenty of sidecut, including the race boards, and that trickled into race ski prototypes, then the elan SCX.

- Width showed up in the first fat skis, Powder Plus, etc, based on a snowboard being cut in half and skied on.

- Twin tips are largely credited to canadian freestyle and the salomon 1080 for making it a viable concept. But I recall skiing some of the first LINE skiboard prototypes in '95 or '96, which had a twin and tons of sidecut. Anyway, they both pulled from snowboarding.

In the 2000 onward era, powder ski shaping has obviously been influenced by surfing and waterskis. Shane deserves full credit for making the breakthrough. I'll bet Glen Plake is kicking himself for not coming up with that, he's a big waterskier.

Anyway, with regards to race/carving skis.....they just aren't fun or easy for 95% of people. Most people don't carve turns. Really. They have more fun skidding around on fat skis.

You conviently only remember what fits your argument.
As Philpug pointed out earlier in this thread, Olin had "Albert"
back in 1984, which ski industry insiders consider the first of the modern shaped skis. This was well before the "Side Cut eXtreme"
or SCX showed up in 1993.

Olin Mark IV, which I believe came out in 1974 was a twin tip ski.

There was also the Blizzard Polo twin tip around 79. The tails of the Polo were also rounded

SkiNut
Still a bunch of carving / racing skis out there, maybe not in a lot of shops, but out there.

There are pictures of 4 of them in my post here: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=74818

Sorry, I meant to say something to the effect of "in the modern era"....or, the designs that directly resulted in the transition to shaped skis. I would count those as the SCX and K2 Four.

I just looked up this link...

http://www.skiinghistory.org/sidecut.html

Sounds like the Albert was a bit of a failed experiment, along the lines of the elan stealth.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Maybe before it's time is better.
But people in the industry saw it and skied it, so it was in their
consciousness.

Race skis or their close cousins have a solid place here in the east. Although we would like to avoid crappy conditions, the fact of the matter is, if we do that, we would ski 10-15 days per year.

Having skied midfats (84mm Nordica After Burners) side by side with a slalom race carver enlightened me. I was amazed at how well the ABs held on hard pack in the NE. Then I swapped them out with the slalom sticks. No comparison. I also skied them side-by-side with a pair of GS race carvers. Again, no comparison. Theyre amazing for their width, but can't compare for ease of use by the recreational race skis in tough conditions.

Sure, the midfats seemed pretty stable at speed, but they tend to chatter unmercifully at high speeds and high edge angles on hard snow. If you think a mid fat such as an AC50 is more stable than a true GS ski or even a high end GS race carver at speed on hardpack, you've never skied them side by side . I'm with Bob although as you can see, my "good days" are far less than what he sees in WY.

So what to do? For those of us in the east, I think a one-ski collection (I hate the word quiver) is going to leave you with lot's of compromises. An ideal collection would be a slalom carver (65-68mm waist), a midfat (78-85mm) for good days and spring glop, and a fat ski (90mm and up) for those 1 or 2 epic days here and our trips to Utah, Wyoming, or Tahoe. My collection is now Dynamic VR17 (slalom carver, 173cm), Nordica ABs in 178cm, and my newest addition, Scott Punisher in 191cm. Can't wait to try the Scotts and will report back on them (hopefully) soon. So if you see a good deal on a pair of Fischer RC4 WC SC or RC, jump on them...you'll be happy you did.

[quote=bjohansson;987517... An ideal collection would be a slalom carver (65-68mm waist), a midfat (78-85mm) for good days and spring glop, and a fat ski (90mm and up) for those 1 or 2 epic days here and our trips to Utah, Wyoming, or Tahoe....[/QUOTE]

I know some people like narrower skis, but why would you ski spring glop on anything less than 105? Preferably fatter & rockered...

Right??

that's why i just sold my '05 Stockli Laser slaloms for $500.00 Sheesh

because when we were at alpental last spring i kicked your ass on my 88MM Monsters!

I was unaware there was a contest.

What are you smokin'?

If you are a tail rider and bring a boat to tow you!

Let's revisit that observation in a few years. Stock up on your faves now

I'm curious how you'll react to reverse camber carvers?

And snowboards with massive sidecut and short nominal turn radii predated Albert by a decade. Albert, and the modern shaped skis that most of us are on now, are direct descendants of the snowboards:

"Something dramatic happened in the mid-70s: snowboards. Snowboard designers owed no loyalty to ski design. The 1975 Burton Backhill Board, a plywood plank 140cm long, with no steel edges or plastic base, sported a radical sidecut shape of 302-265-295mm, for a sidecut depth of 17mm and a radius of just 6 meters. The shape set a pattern -- a modern 155cm freeride board typically has dimensions of 302-257-302mm for a radius of 7 meters."

See http://www.skiinghistory.org/sidecut.html

Nice Going

Dude, you really ripped someone off there, way to go. Honestly, how could you sell a 2 year old SL stick w/o binding for $500? Thats just terrible.

To be clear: if you had the option of selling your old skis for $200 or $500, you'd insist on $200?

Because I ski 90% of my days in the east. We have maybe 3 days per year that you could even possibly, maybe, unlikely ski a rockered ski - and those days always seem to happen when I'm at Tahoe skiing on ice. When I say spring glop, I mean melting ice I can't see spending $500 for a used ski that I may not be able to ski for years.

With binding and plate.

they were Stocklis, immaculate and very little ski time on them. (Like 3 days)

The guy who bought them was absolutely ecstatic whne he received them! they were 2005's.

Your math ain''t too good

That would be 4 years old!

Seriously, anyone who thinks the wave of the future is rockered reverse camber skis for frontside groomers is delusional!

I suppose they'll make a FIS verison too cause all the World Cuppers wil be racng on them

As a general practice, I attempt to be of upstanding character. I have been very fortunate to participate in this sport. I would not sell 4 (or even 2) year old skis for $500. Even if they had plates & bindings & were in good shape. Proform, shop form, racer discount on 2009 Stockli's is little more than the price above.
In the past, I have given skis away to folks here. I passed on suits, pants, gloves........... My wife & I have often donated used GS/SG boards to the local race dept. So yes I would rather take $200 for a $200 ski than make a sleezy profit.
I am sure I could find any weekender @ Killington to scam my used gear to, but I worry about being satisfied as a person & not simply a thicker billfold.
Being proud of selling half decade old skis for $500, still plenty low in my book.

Read this! http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=72940

there is no way that you can get Stockli WC Laser Sl's with Comp 1400 bindings mounted on a Marker World Cup piston plate for anywhere near $500.00. and unless you are a professional in the ski businees like a coach, instructor, racer or shop employee. You should not have access to Pro-form pricing anyway which would be much more the $475.00 and you would still pay shipping. so woh are you kidding. and no these skis were not in good shape. They were absolutey like new with a fresh tune and wax!!!!

The bindings and plate are worth over 1/2 the price!

By the way! it was actually $475.00 + shipping . My wallet fatter??? Hardly. I skied on the skis 3 days and sold them for a lot less then I paid for 'em.

What the F is your problem.

On a much happier note...

I just picked up my pair of 2009 Head World Cup iSpeed's.

180cm with full-blown race sandwich construction and an 18.0m cheater GS turn radius. I'm a happy boy.

If there truly is a God, race skis will never disappear.

+1

The only thing that is sleezy is your inappropriate comments. I have sold numerous pairs of skis on Epic that have all been in absolutely immaculate condition.
If you don't like the prices. Do me a big favor, just don't buy them. For you to insinuate that I am some how sleezy for selling skis that are in amazing conditon for a fair price is insulting. Every single pair I have posted have sold, every single time!

i have had nothing but positive comments from every purchaser of every single pair of skis i have sold!

Your completely ridiculous faulty thinking is that somehow pro-form price dictates the used market place. Most skiers can and should not be able to buy gear at pro-form price.

Also faulty is your idea that the newer the ski the more desirable. (apparantly you fall for that New & Improved ski company marketing hype)

In the case of the Stockli slaloms. this was the EXACT ski the fellow was looking for!!!!

How lucky for him I could provide him with such an immaculate pair of his exact desire for a fair price

I am so happy someone is enjoying that ski rather then them sitting in my garage collecting dust!

By the way, Who appointed you the moral compass of used ski sales? Self appointed

I'm jealous!!

I hope you didn't get ripped off and pay more the $200 bucks for them