or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Racing skis - what's the deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Racing skis - what's the deal? - Page 3

post #61 of 77
I would add it is not just radius or Flex, but the actual shape that makes a "Cheater GS" ski so much easier to ski.   Fis GS ski have in comparison very narrow tips. 
 
It is the fact that the tip is much wider on a cheater Gs than a FIS GS ski. this draws you into the turn by simply rolling it up on edge. Unlike the FIS ski which must be rolled and pressured to respond, and skied faster to be honest. 
 
I would not rule out Cheater Gs ski. My Fav is the Atomic D2 Race Gs (I think it is a Redster GS 3.0 now.)
 
But then again I am a spoiled bitch and have  Atomic D2 non-FIS Gs and a FIS D2 188 30.5 m GS 2 pair of FIS Atomic Slaloms, one with the D2 and one without! 
 
If tuned right, freesskiing you don't need more than Atomic Cheater Gs ski, unless you are really hauling balls or ski place with very long wide open runs that are empty!
 
The Cheater gives you About 90%+ of the edge hold of  a FIS ski with about 50% of the effort. If you are finding the speed limit on the proper size for you Cheater GS ....you are skiing way too fast for normal freeskiing if others are on the hill. 
 
I prefer a FIS Slalom though!
post #62 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimH View Post

How many days do have on the Progressors?  I also had a pair of the Progressor 8+ for a few years and after a 125 days or so, I found they had lost their grip on the slick stuff.  I also found sharpening the edges didn't help.  I may be time to replace them.  If you want to stay with Fischer, then another Progressor or a Superior SC or WC SC would be worth considering.  I would also consider a Head Supershape Rally.

I must have at least 100 days on them, likely way more. I like them, but I think they make me lazy. They turn completely by themselves. So my next ski will be either a cheater gs or a jr gs (I'm 5'6" and 130 lbs), length 170 or maybe 165. Most likely Fischer, as my old jr gs skis were Fischer, and I loved them.

Do you think a jr ski would be suitable, or am I too heavy?
post #63 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by annette View Post
 
Thanks for your replies. Right now I ski the Fischer progressor 8 (wasn't able to find the 9 anywhere 8 years ago). With them I feel like no matter how hard I ski, the skis won't bite the ice, and they just slip below me. I've sharpened the edges many times, but nothing works. I used to race like 10 years ago and had the Worldcup gs jr, which i had no problems with on ice. Now I'm wondering whether to get a cheater race ski, or maybe even a jr race ski (I'm not that tall, nor heavy). But maybe it's just my skiing that's bad compared to before.

I hope I'm not insulting you--but I hope you're not sharpening the base edges, but only the sides. Repeated sharpening of the base edges, even at a low bevel like 0.5, will destroy edge grip. The only time the base edges should be sharpened is after they've been ground flat. (I'm not talking about deburring.)

post #64 of 77
Annette, I looked up the Progressor 8's it is listed as an intermediate ski. Based on the fact that you raced, you are likely over skiing the ski. IMHO over skiing a ski worse because you do the right things expecting it to perform and the feed back from the ski says you are wrong. You can tone down your skiing but what's the fun in that?

Don't let size and wt dictate your selection, but skill and strength. My dear advanced/expert all the way.
post #65 of 77
The OP asked whether it's "freakish" to enjoy race skis and have a pair as your daily driver.

I agree with the others that say this is not strange if you are primarily an on-piste, carved turn skier. Particular if your talking "off-the-shelf" race skis. Of if your just fat.

I used to consider "race stock" to mean what Davey said, meaning that while a "race" ski might be a fine daily driver for on-piste, most people couldn't put enough energy into a true race stock ski to carve many turns and not be collapsing with muscle fatigue after 2-3 runs. If your in really good shape, it might not be an issue.

And really there is more to it than just race vs. non-race. You have "all mountain" skis that take a fair amount of work to get a good carve out of - the Kendo being one in my opinion, which is what I currently ski when I'm not just loafing along behind my kids - and others that are meant to do most of the work of initiating and transitioning for you. I've never skied one of those, but I'm told they exist.

To follow up with the automotive analogy, I think that people who like an "easy" ski are the kind of folks who can't wait for driver-less cars so they can just sit back and text their pals. On the other hand, you wouldn't drive a Ferrari on an off-road course, and taking a "race" ski into a mogul field is a formula for disaster (have seen a race ski literally crack in half in the bumps because the ski was just too stiff and wouldn't give enough). Well tunes race skis are almost like ice-skates because they will hold a fast line on the "Canadian hardpack" better than anything you can imagine. On the other hand, a race ski that hasn't been tuned in a few seasons will still carve up most groomers passably well. But the flip side is also true - if you keep your non-race edges tuned up, you'll have a passable amount of hold on the ice, but with a bit more chatter.
post #66 of 77

Any major changes in race ski construction since the 90s? I know sidecuts have changed massively, but wonder how that has impacted the construction.

 

I ask because one of my all-time favourite skis was a pair of race-stock Atomic 835 RS-Gs back in the 1990s. A teammate's brother worked for Atomic in the race dept in Austria and got me the skis. I can't remember what flex they had, but they were supposedly leftover skis from one of Atomic's WC racers (Christian Mayer, maybe? Can't remember.)

 

Now, I was no Christian Mayer, yet I found them to be the smoothest, most supple, forgiving and downright pleasant ski ever. Crazy stiff torsionally, and held an edge like magic, but very smooth and forgiving. Just a fantastic ski for running an easy Masters GS or free skiing, or carving razor arcs on the ice.

 

Anyway, I was chatting with a coach one day and he asked me about my skis. Told him my story and how surprised I was that they were so easygoing. His response was that nobody likes skiing on brutally stiff boards - even WC racers. The important thing is to make the ski torsionally stiff, and you do that by making it with lots of metal. The problem is that metal likes to bend and stay bent, so for a production ski you need to add lots of wood, or else the company will go bankrupt from all the warranty replacements. And if you add enough wood to keep them from bending too much, then you've got the stereotypical "2x4s". But if your only goal is to make the best skiing ski possible, then it's possible to have your cake and eat it too - the race department is small enough in the big picture that when a racer bends the ski and it stays bent, you can just hand him a new one.

 

So then he asks me how long I've had my RS-Gs. I say "Just from the start of this season," and he says "Bet you ten bucks they're bent." And when I took them off, retracted the brakes and put them base-to-base, sure enough the tail of one of them was torqued out a cm or so. Probably got in the back seat just once and that was it.

 

Moral of the story was that the conventional wisdom is backwards - it's the production "race" skis that are stiff and unforgiving, while the actual "race-stock" skis are the opposite.

post #67 of 77
Giving it some more thought, it's obvious my little story has nothing to do with today.

Back then, the 210cm GS race ski in the shop rack at least bore a passing resemblance to its race-stock brother. Today, there isn't even such a thing as a consumer version 195 35m race ski - who would want it?

Sorry for the nostalgia. I'll go to bed now. smile.gif
post #68 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha407 View Post
 

 

So then he asks me how long I've had my RS-Gs. I say "Just from the start of this season," and he says "Bet you ten bucks they're bent." And when I took them off, retracted the brakes and put them base-to-base, sure enough the tail of one of them was torqued out a cm or so. Probably got in the back seat just once and that was it.

 

Moral of the story was that the conventional wisdom is backwards - it's the production "race" skis that are stiff and unforgiving, while the actual "race-stock" skis are the opposite.

 

Oh I have some skis to check.  I find it also ironic that most people that work in the ski industry if they run race skis replace them after a season...  Maybe the fact that they bend is part of the reason why, I never really thought of this.

 

On the flip side I have skied FIS GS skis a lot as all mountain skis and the issues I ran into where marginal compared to running them in a course.  Yes they are unforgiving in powder and bumps but I mostly avoid those.  When I lived close to Snowbird I was on a semi cheater and it was much more forgiving.  I ran that down everything, groomed slopes, bumps and powder.  If all you ever do ski down hard pack a FIS GS ski will be tons of fun, stable, and fast.  You can vary your radius from GS to SGS and not have issues at all.  So in a sense I could see it used that way and understand why someone would want to use a ski that way.  

 

The idea that they get torqued and don't retract could be the nail in the coffin though.  The other thing I often find is that the laminate is not as industrial as a non race ski.  If you look at my skis they look like hell after one season on the top sheet.  This would almost never happen with a cap construction. A sandwich construction just seems so easy to chip up.  If you cross up your skis even once it can cut some gnarly pieces of that top sheet very quickly.  I have also heard that some race skis are notorious for delamination.  This makes me wonder about skis with a Half-Cap construction instead for a daily ski.  Has anyone skied those and had some good success? 

post #69 of 77
^^ They do chip, but you can lessen it. (Kastle MX skis are notorious chippers.) You have to bevel the top sheet/sidewall juncture. Like 45 degrees and then round. It also takes constant up keep. You can use a pansar file then a course file and sandpaper. Or you can get a say 2 inch diameter sanding drum to chuck into a drill. Decent hardware store should have. Start with that.

I've cut my hand just carrying skis to the car. Didn't even feel it till i saw blood. Had to have the guy near me in the lot unzip my jacket pocket so i didn't get blood all over it. The laminate chip can be very sharp.

Atomics tend to have a cap now. You could try those.
post #70 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

^^ They do chip, but you can lessen it. (Kastle MX skis are notorious chippers.) You have to bevel the top sheet/sidewall juncture. Like 45 degrees and then round. It also takes constant up keep. You can use a pansar file then a course file and sandpaper. Or you can get a say 2 inch diameter sanding drum to chuck into a drill. Decent hardware store should have. Start with that.

I've cut my hand just carrying skis to the car. Didn't even feel it till i saw blood. Had to have the guy near me in the lot unzip my jacket pocket so i didn't get blood all over it. The laminate chip can be very sharp.

Atomics tend to have a cap now. You could try those.

 

I have never heard of doing this.  Do you have some reference a video or such?  Does that change the torsional stiffness at all?  I would love to do this with my masters skis.  I don't know why my feet end up that close together they just do.  I have been working on it but till then I still chip my skis up.  I will have to read through some threads also found this one on a quick search; http://www.epicski.com/t/108894/volks-kendo-top-sheet-is-chipping-off

post #71 of 77
Well this vid from Start haus shows one pass with a pansar. He focuses more on sidewall. I do way more because I chip a lot. You're not taking that much off to decrease torsional stiffness, but they'll be a fair amount of shavings, dust, debris. You also seemingly constantly need to touch it up. A file in like the 13 teeth/cm range - roughish, is good for cleaning it up and making the metal top sheet underneath shine. It's good to smooth things out with 220-320 sand paper. Feels better when carrying.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UPPP158_Wpg
post #72 of 77
The top sheet filing approach I learned you only panzer a few inches around the tip, and deliberately round it off so there's nothing to catch an edge on. I thought this was not just to keep from chipping, but so that if you do have contact at the tips it's less likely to result in a situation where the skis get locked up.

The stuff about true race stock becoming bent makes sense with the way things are now... still I hadn't heard that until now. They want to reduce as much weight as possible. Edges are thinner in elite competition skis (used to be they were thicker that stock skis because racers were the ones tuning every day.) Now if you're elite racer, presumably sponsored, you get enough pairs to get through the season.) Whatever stiffener is being used in a core, it adds weight. But I wonder how they manage to still keep the snap in the ski? Selective placement of the stiffening material or "one-and-done" component that break down with each flex...
post #73 of 77
You can do whatever you want with the top edge of the ski. Filing and rounding just a few inches or all the way to the binding. It's just work.
As for race skis bending now versus What, the 70's -90's? Most likely just due to metal in the ski. Lot's of race skis back then had no metal afaik. It's always been an issue. I don't see any great drive to make race skis light.
post #74 of 77

Beveling top edges and polishing the sidewall to reduce drag are standard stuff for race tuners.

Early Kastles were very easy to chip the topsheet but they are a bit better now.

Still easy to chip but it doesn't affect the ski at all.

post #75 of 77
Oops wrong thread!
post #76 of 77

Demoed these today and all I can say is wowza

 

Atomic REDSTER XTI

 

Really fun ski.  I like it better than the Dynastar Omeglass Speed Fluid X I thought I loved.  

 

164 was my sweet spot for size....................

post #77 of 77

These came home over the weekend

 

12821602_10153511785993014_8672963228215130198_n.jpg?oh=09d1f5f2d54a5dae5b4513cb69e4edb4&oe=57518C87

 

These will be my first skis out when I'm out skiing the WROD come next November and will be my main hard snow/ice ski.  

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 › Racing skis - what's the deal?