or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › At what point is a ski concidered to be "BEAT"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

At what point is a ski concidered to be "BEAT"

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
I've been on my Top Fuels for 4 or 5 years now, not really sure.  I pound em and I ski em in the bumps.  I have picked up some other new skis so that I can say I have a quiver, but the Top Fuels still shine.  They are an amazing ski.

The ski is softer than it was in the beginning, based on my recollection.  In a way the softer flex is pleasant maybe due to the fact that I am not skiing as aggressively as I did when I first picked them up.  The bend that goes with this softer flex has come in handy when tightening the turn radius and skiing a bit more slowly.  I think that it's better in soft snow but not necessarily crud.

So is the ski "beat" or has it just moved into its golden years?  Have you ever experienced something like this before?

Meanwhile, what to replace them with:  Top Fuel, one of the Blizzard skis that are similar (which one)?  It needs to be affordable.  This is an East Coast ski that needs to do it all.  It also needs to rip when I get my game back.
post #2 of 7
I have asked the same question, tied to what makes a durable construction.

If the edges still do it for you, I go with the golden years concept, and adust what you use it for. I have some old Explosivs that no longer have camber, are about 50% softer overall, and the edges are gone. So it is now a good soft snow rock ski, It's relaxing to have a ski you can use that you don't care about in the rocks. We love our rock skis for the freedom they afford in periods of sketch coverage.

The Blizzards line of all mountain skis, I don't own now, comes in a good range of waist widths with the flex characteristics fairly consistent. Pick your width and gol A buddy of mine calls his Blizzards his Mantra busters. Go online, if you feel morally solid with that, for cheap legend pros or stocklis of earlier year models. Those brands have models a couple years back really inexpensive, 399 to 499. At retail, there are no good cheap skis, new that is. And if you ski your skis till they die, buy new.
post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 
I have found the Top Fuel in the $699 range w bindings of course.  Stocklis are always a consideration and Whiteroom is a great info and gear resource for that and a bunch of other good choices.

But my Top Fuel is still a blast to ski.  To ski well though, you need a high performance ski.
post #4 of 7
based on what I see in general, not Nordicas specifically, 699 isn't a great price, decent buy not great, you can find stuff in that range all over. do you really need the bindings for your next skis? If you buy a flat ski and use your bindings you can get a better ski for less.
post #5 of 7
I'm not sure that there is a 'better' 78mm ski than the TF for its intended target. Among the benefits of the HR lineup was the X-balance plate system. This was (and is) among the best systems available because unlike some, it actually does allow the ski to flex more evenly. Many systems do not do that. A flat ski will generally be lighter and perhaps a bit snappier but will also lack the smoothness of the TF. Among the benefits of the HR series that nobody talks about are the "shoulders" that run the majority of the skis length. These are secondary cores and they provide a high level of dampening (at some cost in higher weight) Be aware that the newer generation of HR system skis are all somewhat softer in beam flex than the originals. This is not a bad thing as they have not lost their grip or power. If anything, they are a little more nimble than in the past b/c they are easier to flex. You can tell a newer gen. ski from the older ones by the shape of the shoulders. On the newer skis, the shoulders are a little more squared off while on the older ones, they were more rounded and lower profile.

That's a long winded way of saying that if the TF comfortably fit a niche for you, I'm not sure that there is anything better available in that niche today.

Oh...............among the Blizzis, the closest would be the Mag 8.1. It is plenty grippy and powerful, more energetic, but not as damp.

SJ
post #6 of 7
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

based on what I see in general, not Nordicas specifically, 699 isn't a great price, decent buy not great, you can find stuff in that range all over. do you really need the bindings for your next skis? If you buy a flat ski and use your bindings you can get a better ski for less.
That's right, Phil mentioned the flat mount Top Fuel, if I remember correctly.  He raved about the flat mount.  That helps
post #7 of 7
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

That's a long winded way of saying that if the TF comfortably fit a niche for you, I'm not sure that there is anything better available in that niche today.

Oh...............among the Blizzis, the closest would be the Mag 8.1. It is plenty grippy and powerful, more energetic, but not as damp.

SJ


 


That's reassuring since it really has been a fantastic ski for my size and type of skiing.  Just got back from a few runs on them and I skied like crap until the last run and they just danced.  It made up for all the frustration.

The quickness of the Blizzard 8.1 seems worth a try, too.

Thanks for the input.

bz
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 › At what point is a ski concidered to be "BEAT"