or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help me understand something (ski width & sidecut)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help me understand something (ski width & sidecut)

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Right now Im riding a pair of Dynastar Contact 11's which I believe are something like 122-72-102.

Im looking to pick up a pair of Volkl Snow Rangers which are
105-79-98.

Now, Ive heard much praise over how well the Rangers do in powder, but the skis I have now are wider.

So I guess my question is, what makes the Ranger a good powder ski, and am I going to benefit from adding a pair to my quiver?
post #2 of 12
Your skis may be wider at the tip and tail, but the rangers are wider in the mid-section.  The difference in the mid-section width is also much greater than the difference in the tail section. I'm guessing the rangers have a greater surface area (it's hard to tell).

Neither ski is very wide by today's standards.
post #3 of 12
Ski length also plays a big part in flotation. What are the lengths of these puppies?

The Snow Rangers are a classic. You can never have too many skis. And the two pair you are talking about don't have much overlap in functionality.

MR
post #4 of 12
I agree with what's been said so far but if you are looking for a powder board I think we would all suggest you go wider.
post #5 of 12
By the standards of it's day, the SR was good in powder. By today's standards, it would be mediocre at best. There are better choices.

SJ
post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 
My Contacts are 178. The Rangers are 200.

Im getting the Rangers at a very good price...too good to pass up really.

Id ride them on powder days, but Im just trying to understand how a couple of  cm's make such a big difference in performance...
post #7 of 12
In this specific case, the length will make much more difference in overall flotation. 22 cm in length is almost 10 inches more ski.

A few cm in the waist makes a big difference in how easily you can push the middle of the ski into the snow. You are looking for flotation overall, but additionally, you don't want to have to be babying the ski to keep it from plunging deep at the waist which will cause you to slow down and/or porpoise through the snow.

Others are saying that the SR was good in its day but doesn't compare to todays skis. I won't argue that today's fat skis are immensely wider and you can get them from reverse camber to standard camber, a 20 m radius side cut to reverse side cut. And they might be 'better' skis. The SR will let you get around the resort on hard pack while you pursue the pow. Don't let the age of the ski fool you. It is a competent powder ski which will make you happy.

I am all for building the quiver on the cheap. That often means 'older' skis that are 'out of fashion'. They work well, they are affordable and will get compliments in the lift line.

If the SR are under, say, $100.00 with bindings in good condition, how can you go wrong? When you see a 'modern' pair of powder skis you like, you'll still be able to afford them and you'll have a spare pair of skis for when you ski with your buddy that doesn't have powder skis.

I get all sorts of comments on my Atomic Powder Plus (130/110/120) 165cm early 1990s skis, but they get the job done and I'm smiling as big as anyone else.

MR
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Ok, I understand now, thanks for the explanation!

And I know because of their age, they're not the best/widest ski out there, but for the price, its pretty much a no brainer. Even if they werent a good ski, at the very least Id have a pair to use on those thin cover days, or in the woods...something that I wouldnt mind if I did a little damage to.

I think Im gonna be adding a pair of Snow Rangers to my quiver.
post #9 of 12
Good decision. I know you'll love them. Let us know once you get on them. I first saw them in Italy on the feet of Rory Strunk, founder of RSN. They were might impressive back then.

I would have gotten a pair at a rummage sale a few weeks ago for about $15.00 with bindings, but opted to get the K2 Big Kahunas for $15.00 instead.

MR
post #10 of 12
I am sure they will be acceptable in powder. Almost any ski is fun in POW. A fatter ski makes pow easier and gives you more line options in many situations, and lets you ski pow more like you would on a groomer. I would question the utility of a 200cm east coast pow ski since most east coast pow is found in the trees. Just my $.02.
Edited by tromano - 9/4/09 at 7:45pm
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post

I would have gotten a pair at a rummage sale a few weeks ago for about $15.00 with bindings, but opted to get the K2 Big Kahunas for $15.00 instead.

For this ski, these are prices in the "too good to pass up" range.  More than that probably isn't.

(MR, are the Bigs the ones with the blue with white stripe? Always one of my favorite graphics, and seems worth $15 for that alone.)
post #12 of 12
TD, no white stripe. They are blue at the tip, a grey and black motif under foot and blue and black in the tail. Great condition, with bindings. I'm looking forward to riding them.

Almost any ski that isn't fairly new gets viewed with an eye to the collection. I participate over in the More Retro Memories thread  and have been pretty active this summer collecting stuff.  I suspect the Kahunas will end up as a regular in the active quiver which includes Rossi B2s, Elan Quad Ones. They should be great on what I deal with in Breck and Loveland.

MR
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 › Help me understand something (ski width & sidecut)