EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › IceCoast... Volkl 6*s... 0.7 deg Base... 3 deg Side?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IceCoast... Volkl 6*s... 0.7 deg Base... 3 deg Side?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
It's time to take my 6*s in for a tune and after reading a bunch of threads on the topic I am wondering thoughts on running a 0.7 (or 0.75 whichever) base bevel and a 3.0 side bevel.  These would be the first edge tune on these skis (as I mentioned in another thread I bought them before I went away to college 4 years ago and have used them like 8 times since... oops) and I'm really not sure what was on them to begin with.

As far as I can tell from a true bar and feeler gauges the base is currently between 0 and 0.5.  No idea about the sides.
post #2 of 15
What SHOULD be on them if they've never been tuned, assuming purchased new, is 1 degree base and 2 degree side. If you bought them used, who knows what happened to them in between the factory tune and you. All our skis have been reset to 1 and 3 for use in the Midwest. Your idea of .7ish and 3 should be a nice tune for your area, however, if you skid more than carve your turns, you may want to stay with a 1 degree base. The less base bevel you have, the less tolerant they'll be of inadvertent or sloppy movements.
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
Interesting.  I read some thread where the guy from SlideWright made a drawing that equated base angle to the size feeler gauge you can get between a truebar and the edge of the edge.  I tried this and it seemed like the angle was certainly less than what he listed it would be 1*.  The skis were new when I got them so who knows, I'm probably just going about it wrong.  I'm going to go with .75 / 3 and see how I like it. 
post #4 of 15
You'll find tons of debate about the acurracy of factory tunes.
post #5 of 15
You can always do a "radial tune" on them. That's where the base edge angle is greater in the tip and tail than underfoot - typically 0.5 deg underfoot.

That's a stiff ski. The only people I know who really like that ski weigh over 225lbs. All the others think they like it...but they're mistaken!  
It actually was not that popular on the ice coast. The 5 star was hugely popular but they had a problem bending. Volkl has a propensity to make overly stiff skis and the 6 star was one of the worst. Upshot: when you can, get something that actually flexes and you'll like it! A race slalom is far better than that thing.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
I do like the ski and at speed when you are hard on the gas it is great, but for bumps and in tight quarters it is really stiff - the fact that I only weigh 155 doesn't help that situation.  When I buy myself an 80-90ish width ski I'll make sure it is a little more forgiving flex wise.
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

You can always do a "radial tune" on them. That's where the base edge angle is greater in the tip and tail than underfoot - typically 0.5 deg underfoot.

That's a stiff ski. The only people I know who really like that ski weigh over 225lbs. All the others think they like it...but they're mistaken!  
It actually was not that popular on the ice coast. The 5 star was hugely popular but they had a problem bending. Volkl has a propensity to make overly stiff skis and the 6 star was one of the worst. Upshot: when you can, get something that actually flexes and you'll like it! A race slalom is far better than that thing.

oh i could flex this ski at 35 mph down perry merrill

other than that I thought whats the point?
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

You can always do a "radial tune" on them. That's where the base edge angle is greater in the tip and tail than underfoot - typically 0.5 deg underfoot.

That's a stiff ski. The only people I know who really like that ski weigh over 225lbs. All the others think they like it...but they're mistaken!  
It actually was not that popular on the ice coast. The 5 star was hugely popular but they had a problem bending. Volkl has a propensity to make overly stiff skis and the 6 star was one of the worst. Upshot: when you can, get something that actually flexes and you'll like it! A race slalom is far better than that thing.
that's an interesting thought

I actually own the 6 stars, and I kinda like them.  This may sound naiive, but how do you know if you can't bend a ski?  This ski seems to hold on ice pretty well, and I only weigh 145 lbs (I ski the 161cm).  I do find that at high speeds on soft groomed snow, the edge hold is actually less (but perhaps that's just a technique issue....).

Interestingly, I actually find these skis to be quite good in moguls (go figure).  When I'm skiing them, they don't feel "stiff" or unforgiving at all. 
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin View Post

I actually own the 6 stars, and I kinda like them.  This may sound naiive, but how do you know if you can't bend a ski?  This ski seems to hold on ice pretty well, and I only weigh 145 lbs (I ski the 161cm).
[snip]
Interestingly, I actually find these skis to be quite good in moguls (go figure).  When I'm skiing them, they don't feel "stiff" or unforgiving at all.

How tall are you? My analysis of this story is that most 6* buyers thought of themselves as hot skiers, and would never have been caught dead buying a 161, even if it was clearly the right length for them. I agree with others that it's an annoyingly stiff ski. (But then I weigh even less than you, and probably tried the 168.) But I suspect that this impression was greatly exacerbated by sizing too long. You are probably one of the very few people who's on the right size in this ski, and that may explain why you like it. <end stargazing>
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post




How tall are you? My analysis of this story is that most 6* buyers thought of themselves as hot skiers, and would never have been caught dead buying a 161, even if it was clearly the right length for them. I agree with others that it's an annoyingly stiff ski. (But then I weigh even less than you, and probably tried the 168.) But I suspect that this impression was greatly exacerbated by sizing too long. You are probably one of the very few people who's on the right size in this ski, and that may explain why you like it. <end stargazing>
im 5 foot 10 145 lbs
and i went for the shorter length, thinking that a stiff ski would be better skied short
and at low to moderate speeds, the short length works well.  at higher speeds, its not as good
i guess its impossible to find a ski that works well at both low and high speeds--you kinda have to pick one or the other
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin View Post



im 5 foot 10 145 lbs
and i went for the shorter length, thinking that a stiff ski would be better skied short
and at low to moderate speeds, the short length works well.  at higher speeds, its not as good
i guess its impossible to find a ski that works well at both low and high speeds--you kinda have to pick one or the other

 

I had the same ski and just sold it.  My reason I lost a lot of weight. went from 225 to 185 pounds.  Totally changed my opinion about the ski.  At 225 I had no problem getting flex but last year it was a totally different story.  Bought the Prophet 100 and skied that the past 2 seasons and it is way more fun so sold my 6 Star.   I agree with what other people said.  If you are a big guy the ski acts way different.  Just my experience.  
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbmski View Post




I had the same ski and just sold it.  My reason I lost a lot of weight. went from 225 to 185 pounds.  Totally changed my opinion about the ski.  At 225 I had no problem getting flex but last year it was a totally different story.  Bought the Prophet 100 and skied that the past 2 seasons and it is way more fun so sold my 6 Star.   I agree with what other people said.  If you are a big guy the ski acts way different.  Just my experience.  

im assuming you had the 177
i actually "tried" the 177 just out of curiosity (my friend lent them to me for one run).  It felt like my first day on skis-- (it took me like an hour to basically slideslip down the hill).  I couldnt even make a turn, and i had to navigate through 3000 vertical feet of crud (not fun).

obviously, at my size, 177 is ridiculous. but the 161 seems just fine to me.  it doesnt really feel stiff at all (actually, its quite manuverable and yet somewhat stable at the same time, although not so stable at the higher speeds).  Im wondering if i shouldnt upgrade to 168cm.  or maybe i should go with the new volkl tigershark 10 in a 168.  will have to demo some time.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzinwin View Post




im assuming you had the 177
i actually "tried" the 177 just out of curiosity (my friend lent them to me for one run).  It felt like my first day on skis-- (it took me like an hour to basically slideslip down the hill).  I couldnt even make a turn, and i had to navigate through 3000 vertical feet of crud (not fun).

obviously, at my size, 177 is ridiculous. but the 161 seems just fine to me.  it doesnt really feel stiff at all (actually, its quite manuverable and yet somewhat stable at the same time, although not so stable at the higher speeds).  Im wondering if i shouldnt upgrade to 168cm.  or maybe i should go with the new volkl tigershark 10 in a 168.  will have to demo some time.
 

had the exact ski 161.  used it mostly in EC and once at Deer Valley.  it was everything I wanted for the time I used it.  Today I just like the way twin tips ski and having a fatter ski with more flex is more forgiving.  As i get older it just suits me more.  I definitely like to chill more these days.  I tried a lot of different skis before I decided on the Prophet.  I would definitely demo as you said.  Makes all the difference. But if you like the Star 6 thats all that matters.  Opinions are just opinions and in the end its just you and your tools on the mountain. 
post #14 of 15
Are you measuring the gap at 60mm across the ski? 1 degree of gap when the truebar is matched to the base edge bevel angle at measured at 60mm across the ski = 1mm

Quote:
Originally Posted by NEMatt View Post

Interesting.  I read some thread where the guy from SlideWright made a drawing that equated base angle to the size feeler gauge you can get between a truebar and the edge of the edge.  I tried this and it seemed like the angle was certainly less than what he listed it would be 1*.  The skis were new when I got them so who knows, I'm probably just going about it wrong.  I'm going to go with .75 / 3 and see how I like it. 
 
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
AtomicMan: I was measuring it with a feeler gauge on the outside of the edge (there was a diagram floating around on the boards somewhere).

I wound up doing 1/3 on the edges and was just up at Kton for the weekend.  They skied well but as I mentioned above I feel like the factory tune may have had a smaller base bevel.  The skis felt a little "smearier" and were more willing to drop into tight uncarved turns and release longer carved turns.

I have the 6*s in a 168 and I agree that given my weight (155) the 5*s might have been more enjoyable and playful.  I think the length is right for me but they are so stiff I really have to be moving and laying them over for them to shine.  I guess this is when I can generate enough force to really get them working.  They are somewhat unweildy in the bumps and trees but that is probably half my fault.  Something wider and softer is in my future.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Tuning, Maintenance and Repairs › IceCoast... Volkl 6*s... 0.7 deg Base... 3 deg Side?