EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › How about a performance slalom mid-fat - any ideas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How about a performance slalom mid-fat - any ideas - Page 3

post #61 of 71
Quote:
I
I am 146 lbs. and I ski a Metron 11B5 in a 170cm.  For what you are describing, I would think it would be perfect. 

 

You're right, Djud, but it is a trick question.  He wants a Metron but he's allergic to them.  Won't tell us why.

 

Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

 

I don't know how to say this, but...I wouldn't ski from hear to there on a Metron.  I just couldn't do it. 

post #62 of 71
Thread Starter 

There are several shops not too far from me that are selling Metrons cheap.  I can't say why I don't like Metrons and would even go so far to say that I don't mind them on other skiers.  It's like snowboarding, I never tried it but it's not something I aspire to do.

 

Some say the Metron is not good in soft.  The side cut is agressive and grippy, like the TF.  It is very carve oriented which is going to be true of any SL ski.  It is a trait that I want in the SL yet for some reason, turns me off in this type of ski.  I guess that the wider under foot in a SL is not as attractive as I pictured at first.  Or so I believe.

 

The key of course is to demo and I will see if there is something in a B% (?)....what else??

post #63 of 71


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

 

Bob,

 

My Nordi's are 170.  They do not slip easily at all - of course that's on me also.

 

The Speed Machine is a ski that I would love to own.  I'd hit trees on that ski just like I do now.

 

The one Hart that I keep thinking about is the F-17.  I could and did ski that ski in the woods and it works.  The turn is less defined so you can do short and long turns.  It skids nicely too.  I would like to own that ski without a doubt.  BTW its good in the bumps too.

 

Epic, I'd love to try the VISTs, but aren't they bindings?

 

On Radius, maybe radius is not as critical as grip or ability to release - as in intermediate ski.

 

F-17 would be sweet, but again, it might not be a good ski for the fast skiing that I do at Jiminy Peak.  I think the answer lies in SL.


 

Hi Paul--as Phil has said, Vist has a limited line of skis from the same Italian shop that builds Hart's highest performance skis (and other well-known brands as well).

 

The F-17 is Hart's competition mogul ski, but it's not like most mogul skis. It has more sidecut than many, and is really an excellent all-around ski. The F-17 is basically a softer GS ski--same shape (although you'd generally ski it a good bit shorter). I'd think 175 or 180 would probably be a good length for you. I like the 175 myself (6' 1", 165 lb.). I've skied the 167 and 157, and thought both were too short for me.

 

Still, I think you'd like the Phoenix even better than the F-17. They are very similar construction, and the same width underfoot (66mm). But the Phoenix has more sidecut, with a wider tip and tail (116-66-101 for the Phoenix, vs. 103-66-89 for the F-17). It will float a bit better in softer snow, and carve more easily on groomed and hard snow. The F-17 is a legendary bump ski, and a surprisingly good all-around ski. But the Phoenix would be my preference for what you've described. Consider the Phoenix a cross between a slalom ski and the F-17!

 

Best regards,

Bob

 

 

post #64 of 71
Thread Starter 

Bob,

 

I had a chance to ski the f-17 at Stowe, thanks to Phil.  I was amazed.  Seemed  like an older style ski on steroids, except it has side cut.  Many bump skis are noodles, not this ski.  The superior construction is very noticeable.  There is a lot of flex, yet it is a very firm ski.

 

I skied it in the woods with about 2" of powder melted to very heavy and soft - great conditions as far as I am concerned, but not powder.  The snow underneath was softened firm snow.  Challenging conditions (Whiteroom can testify).  You can control the length of  the turn like no other ski I have ever tried.  Very direct-able, likes to be steered, yet able to carve well.

 

If I could afford this ski I would be on it.  I think this ski comes very close to what I am looking for as long as I have a GS ski for the groomers.

post #65 of 71


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

 

Bob,

 

I had a chance to ski the f-17 at Stowe, thanks to Phil.  I was amazed.  Seemed  like an older style ski on steroids, except it has side cut.  Many bump skis are noodles, not this ski.  The superior construction is very noticeable.  There is a lot of flex, yet it is a very firm ski.

 


 

Yep, heck of a ski, as I said this summer, designed to be skied, not slapped around.

 

 

What surprises me was I skied it back to back with what you said you wanted in the OP.....my 170 cm SL-9, a longer, softer, wider SL ski.  Both good skis, but not very similar.

post #66 of 71

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 


 


 

Yep, heck of a ski, as I said this summer, designed to be skied, not slapped around.

 

 

What surprises me was I skied it back to back with what you said you wanted in the OP.....my 170 cm SL-9, a longer, softer, wider SL ski.  Both good skis, but not very similar.

 

those suck in woods and bumps.....I know they were my first carver I ever had.

 

every ski i have owned including my metrons and progressor and GS skis were better off trail skis than those.

post #67 of 71


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

 

 

 

those suck in woods and bumps.....I know they were my first carver I ever had.

 

every ski i have owned including my metrons and progressor and GS skis were better off trail skis than those.

I patrolled on them one day when I thought I'd be on groomed, but ended up working the freeride comp on a hill closed to save the powder.  The only way around the course was through some tight steep trees in 14" of older powder..

 

Had a ball on them,  Didn't miss my other skis a bit.  The Metrons are a bit better in that sort of stuff, but not much.

post #68 of 71

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

 

 Challenging conditions (Whiteroom can testify).

 

Actually he probably doesn't remember it, but he does have the scar to prove he was there.

post #69 of 71

I just demo'd a pair of the Head Magnums yesterday. I liked a lot of things about them. They were super-friendly at initiation, turny but not abrupt, and if you got them far enough up on edge they held well on the hard stuff. However, they were not nearly as good for the quick, off-edge smeary kinds of movements that I find I need to make in the bumps and trees as my Legend 4800s from a few years ago. (These don't appear to have a current equivalent in the Dynastar line). I have not skied the Top Fuel, but I'm guessing that the Legends are a bit softer torsionally and in the tail, and that this characteristic would make them a sensible alternative to the TFs in the trees. They are an excellent low-to-medium speed ski outside the trees too, and hold well if sharp. They do not have the annoying chatter at higher speeds with sub-elbow-dragging edge angles that was my big gripe with the Magnum - you can blend from pure skid up to pure carve without any nasty transition areas. You might still be able to pick some up on eBay. ...But you'd have to get past the fact that they don't have a slalom cut.

post #70 of 71

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post

 

I'd love to test ride those Edelwise, both.  Do you have any first hand knowledge?  Bet they are big bucks!

 

 

I demoed the swing and speed as well as the twin tips at the 2008 epic meetup. The Swing and speed ski great, very smooth flex and seem pretty versatile. I took the speeds through a few bump runs, I am a hack in bumps but they feathered turns well for me. And with the short radius they really turn on edge as well.  The tip shape really makes turn entry automatic.

 

But, they are like 500 euros and then the shipping is murder.

 

 

post #71 of 71
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes View Post

 

 

Still, I think you'd like the Phoenix even better than the F-17. They are very similar construction, and the same width underfoot (66mm). But the Phoenix has more sidecut, with a wider tip and tail (116-66-101 for the Phoenix, vs. 103-66-89 for the F-17). It will float a bit better in softer snow, and carve more easily on groomed and hard snow. The F-17 is a legendary bump ski, and a surprisingly good all-around ski. But the Phoenix would be my preference for what you've described. Consider the Phoenix a cross between a slalom ski and the F-17!

 

Best regards,

Bob

 

Had a chance to take a look at both the F-17 and the Phoenix.  The F-17 is on sale for $589.  The Phoenix is $400.  I like the idea of the Phoenix.  He has a demo he'd sell for $385. or so - in a 170.  That is tempting.

 

It's been a while since I have actually seen the F-17.  Definitely a specialty, looks like a competition GS ski in a way.

 

Mentioned Phil's name...big smile - they like Phil.

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 › How about a performance slalom mid-fat - any ideas