New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What size ski? - Page 2

post #31 of 43


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

 

The competitors on the World Cup circuit are using slalom skis that are 155cm (women) or 167cm(men), give or take a couple centimeters (I'm not certain what the current FIS regs call for). They don't seem to have "outgrown" these lengths. I suspect the FIS limitations are there to prevent them from competing on skis that are  even shorter. If your skiing is going to be on eastern hardpack I would go for the shorter length. Why would you need anything longer? Not for edgehold certainly.


 

Oisin,

 

Good point.  One of the benefits of the parabolic skis is that you have more effective edge as compared to a conventional straight ski.  As such you don't need as long a ski.  However there is still a bias for skiers to move up to a longer ski - I am guilty of this as well.   However for a large majority of "reacreational skiers", the mid length ski (ski up to chin to nose) is just right.  However the Level 8-10 hotdogs will still prefer longer skis to rock and roll....

post #32 of 43
Thread Starter 

Last but not least, should the core of the ski make a difference for what I'm looking at. I know from looking at previous threads that this can be a hot topic and from what I gathered, wood is still the way to go. What I'm asking is at my level and what I'm looking to achieve, should this even be an issue. Back in the day, It was either foam, which everyone knew was cheap and the good skis were wood cored. Pretty simple.  With all the new technology put into skis today, it's a lot tougher to get past the marketing "advanced tech terms". I'd hate to work my way into a ski above my level, and then find that the advanced carbon fiber lost its "pop". Again, not looking to get into a core discussion, but should this be a non issue at my level.

 

(another reason I'm asking this is that I was also looking at the Fischer Red Heat. A little more of an all mountain than a carver but still a great reviewed, upper intermediate to advanced ski with great edge hold. Fischer's website says its core is "air carbon" or something like that. A salesman when I was looking says it's wood).

 

 

post #33 of 43

Nowadays, I do think you need to consider the overall ski, not just the core material.  Dynastar uses foam/wood laminate cores in some of the skis that are highly regarded here.  Some Fischers (including the highly regarded RX-8) have a composite core.  If the overall ski is good, the specific core material is not as much of an issue nowadays.  Besides, I have seen some of the wood used in wood-core skis, and it can range from balsa-like consistency to hardwood, so you never know how beefy the wood actually is (or whether it's filler or truly structural).  A lot of K2 skis have visible knots and other defects in the wood core!

post #34 of 43

Having skied some stiff wod core indy brands that were more just obstinate than having a tuned stiffness, I have to agree that a lot of experience goes into a truly good ski, stiffness being one factor of many. The wood core of the top major brand skis is probably tuned for properties that vary along the length, and the wood must be sellected for that, and other quality issues relating to performance from structure. Else, what explains wood core skis that have all the rebound and spring of a 2 X 6.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

Nowadays, I do think you need to consider the overall ski, not just the core material.  Dynastar uses foam/wood laminate cores in some of the skis that are highly regarded here.  Some Fischers (including the highly regarded RX-8) have a composite core.  If the overall ski is good, the specific core material is not as much of an issue nowadays.  Besides, I have seen some of the wood used in wood-core skis, and it can range from balsa-like consistency to hardwood, so you never know how beefy the wood actually is (or whether it's filler or truly structural).  A lot of K2 skis have visible knots and other defects in the wood core!


 

post #35 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

 

Having skied some stiff wod core indy brands that were more just obstinate than having a tuned stiffness, I have to agree that a lot of experience goes into a truly good ski, stiffness being one factor of many. The wood core of the top major brand skis is probably tuned for properties that vary along the length, and the wood must be sellected for that, and other quality issues relating to performance from structure. Else, what explains wood core skis that have all the rebound and spring of a 2 X 6.

 

 

Very good point -- I've also tried a couple wood core skis from smaller brands that were lacking feel and balanced flex.  2x6 is a good description.

post #36 of 43

Interesting. I wasn't sure it was just my bias. My other observation during those ski tests was: looks like a ski, has all the requisite elements, but doesn't feel or ski like a ski.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

 

 

 

Very good point -- I've also tried a couple wood core skis from smaller brands that were lacking feel and balanced flex.  2x6 is a good description.


 

post #37 of 43

I have also noticed oddities with the sidecut (which could have been related to the binding mount point I suppose, another place where indy skis can be a bit iffy).  Some of these skis have a half-baked feel to me.  The indy skis are usually based heavily on personal ski tastes of the founder(s), so it could just be that they are going for a different feel than what I look for in a ski, or their design maturity is low.  I don't always agree with some of their concepts either.

 

A good example is the dual-radius sidecut on some of the 4FRNT skis (which admittedly, has grown into an established company at this point).  If you look at a ski like the Fischer Progressor 9+, it is an example of a well executed dual-radius sidecut, and it's clear to me that Fischer nailed the design/implementation, etc.  It really works well on that ski and is smooth.  In contrast, the 4FRNTs go through a modal switch when I ski them -- starting the turn on one radius, then suddenly snapping to a different radius as I settle into the turn with my weight.  I never got to the point where I liked the feel or saw a benefit to it.  I've seen 4FRNT's videos discussing the purpose of that design, but it really looks like hazy hand-waving to me.  They picture the dual sidecuts focusing on different parts of a ski day, or different parts of a run, but I notice the two personalities on every turn.

post #38 of 43

Just curious - when people say chin- or head-height, do they mean with or without ski boots on?

post #39 of 43
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by powhopper View Post

 

Just curious - when people say chin- or head-height, do they mean with or without ski boots on?

 

I've always seen and when I was checking, it was always in street shoes. Anyone else?

 

About the core, I guess I had Salomons in the back of my mind. Not sure if its just hearsay, but I've always heard that they'd lose their "pop" after a season or two. Salomon would say that it was all in their cap, so they could use lightweight materiasl in their core. As I mentioned earlier, one of the skis recommended to me before I joined this forum was the X Wing 10. If I'm not mstaken, it has a foam (isocell ?) core and a layer of titanium. Is that to keep it stiff and and light? 

post #40 of 43

Chin in bare feet, top of head in ski boots .  It's an approximation.  The Chin level is for never-evers (imnsho).

post #41 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

A good example is the dual-radius sidecut on some of the 4FRNT skis (which admittedly, has grown into an established company at this point).  If you look at a ski like the Fischer Progressor 9+, it is an example of a well executed dual-radius sidecut, and it's clear to me that Fischer nailed the design/implementation, etc.  It really works well on that ski and is smooth.  In contrast, the 4FRNTs go through a modal switch when I ski them -- starting the turn on one radius, then suddenly snapping to a different radius as I settle into the turn with my weight.  I never got to the point where I liked the feel or saw a benefit to it.  I've seen 4FRNT's videos discussing the purpose of that design, but it really looks like hazy hand-waving to me.  They picture the dual sidecuts focusing on different parts of a ski day, or different parts of a run, but I notice the two personalities on every turn.

Really useful comment to me, explains what I noticed on the MSP's too. The abruptness could be fun, but more often disconcerting. 

post #42 of 43

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

 

Really useful comment to me, explains what I noticed on the MSP's too. The abruptness could be fun, but more often disconcerting. 

 

 

You know, I probably could have gotten used to it (every other aspect of the ski was great), but skis earn their way into my quiver by having predictable behavior that fits in and has a place with the rest of the quiver.  I like being able to pick the right ski for the conditions and not having to change my style or expectations too much -- the ski is chosen to adapt me and my skills to the terrain/conditions of the day.  In contrast, the MSP was forcing me to alter and adapt my technique for no good reason that I could discern.  It was a distraction, and got between me and the skiing rather than being beneficial.

post #43 of 43
Thread Starter 

Hey, guys (and girls).

 

first off, thanks to all of you for your informative info. I'm going to be getting a pair of fischer RC4 Race SC's in either 160 or 165 (probably 160 since they're going to be used as more or less a one trick pony; carving on eastern hardpack).

 

Second, how good are short race slalom skis for someone at my level (see stats on first page) or for that matter, anyone who is at a low level but who really wants to learn? I see a lot of mid 2000's (05/06, 06/07) race skis, usually 155's (Salomon 10 3 (2)v Labs and Volkl Racetiger sl's, to name a few) going for very little money.  I know in longer lengths they can be real work and not much fun (but can they be a good learning tool)

 

Third, now that summer I approaching, kind of miss the more hardcore ski gear talk.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion