New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Skis - Page 2

post #31 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post

Skied a some rockers but no pintails yet.  They are rockers so they will have a shorter running length anyway.  The reduced tail surface should mean being neutral to slightly forward would be even more critical in the soft and crud.  Being mounted forward would be a compensating aspect for a longer ski, there is less tip on the snow with the rocker too.  If you were to mount plus ?.? you should have a more stable ski cruising to the lifts too with the additional tail.

 

The Owl used to be the Arian Nations unofficial dinner up there, definitely all vanilla.  The food is an upgraded Waffle House, but the conversations around you can be astounding.  Last time in the guys behind me were debating what length barrel is best for the shotgun kept behind the door.    Very educational place.


The original FBI negotiator at Ruby Ridge and I are friends and have taught together.  He quit a few months after Ruby Ridge killings he was so disgusted with the SWAT mentality. Most of the Aryan White Super men are gone now, Couer d Alene and Hayden are pretty "normal" now.  Thanks for mounting info.  Going to send Start Haus a check wednesday.
 

post #32 of 39

Tell me once more how it is that everyone knows more about where to mount the ski than Rossignol does? without considering the requirements of riding switch?

post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Tell me once more how it is that everyone knows more about where to mount the ski than Rossignol does? without considering the requirements of riding switch?


Rossignol marks them from -3 to +6.

post #34 of 39

my choice wasnt based on long ski guys. he like his 183 gotamas if he liked a pair of 176 gotama i would have said sure go for the 176.....

 

post #35 of 39
Thread Starter 

This is one of the great things about Epic, all the information available.  Thankyou everyone for your input it is appreciated.  Thinking I am making more of an informed decision now. BWPA recommended the Gotamas to me a few years ago (183) and I really like these ski's.  Watching the rocker powder videos here on Epic and elsewhere has just got me stoked about skiing the powder more dynamically with a bigger smile, couldn't resist.  Besides those of you that know me notice that I am rather on the downside of the years and damn it I am going to do some serious powder skiing in BC this winter - thinking the S7's will make it easier and more fun.   Thanks  BWPA, Newfydog, epic, Finn,ecimmortal, Stranger and eveyone for the input, oh yes Sierrajims review of the S7 and Philpugs - Start Haus' great price.  

 

post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Tell me once more how it is that everyone knows more about where to mount the ski than Rossignol does? without considering the requirements of riding switch?


At least you knew what you were talking about when you made this snarky comment.
 

post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post




Rossignol marks them from -3 to +6.



OK, fine, and the scale also has a zero. This ski, more than most, is bought by everyone for the same reason (except switch riding for one consumer group; the plus range of positions I'm guessing by the large, long numerical index?), so I would think that riding powder is the use and method assumed by Rossignol to represent the base line. Is that Rossignol's zero =  baseline, benchmark, standard powder riding? I recall for years here alot of talk about people mounting back for stability at speed. What a lot of posturing in print where it's so easy to ski everything so fast!          (Just an opinion, so don't be offended.)

post #38 of 39

My perspective is a bit different than davluri's. And involves no posturing on the part of anyone.

 

On some of the newer ski designs, the "suggested" mark is sometimes a significant compromise. To my mind, the benchmark example of this is the Hell Bent (let's keep to the old one for now). It has a huge range. zero to +7.5. And really jibby types often went to true center at +9. K2 had a "recommended" mark at something like +2 IIRC. In reality, that mark seems to have been a weird compromise - targeted at more classic "driving" style skiers, racers, etc. And intended to let heli/cat clients hop on and & use the ski in powder. For those people in particular, it allowed their "get over the tips" style to work well enough to get by. But in reality, the ski worked best when skied "from the center". And the tendency of "classic" skiers to drive their tips limited the utility and feel of of the ski. 

 

This is, IMO, part of why there is such a wide span of opinions on this class of ski. So.... it pays to understand each ski well & how the designers and top level users feel it should be mounted & skied. In the case of the HB, virtually everyone who understands the ski & has taken the trouble to learn it is forward of +5. Most forward of +6.

 

This pays dividends under all conditions. In powder, it has the counter-intutive effect of reducing going over the bars because you are not trying to drive your tips down to engage them (relatively futile on a fully rockered ski anyway). On hardpack, you can engage the ski more readily underfoot. In all conditions, it offers a tiny bit more "tail" - which there will not be a ton of anyway. Even with skis like the S7, the short camber zone reduces the force needed to drive the contact point & decamber the shorter camber area - so you can probably cut down on the getting out over the tips thing (although I admit that I am speculating a bit as I have not skied the S7). 

 

Then, within this issue is the spectrum of use. In some ranges of design, even with in the general smaller "good" range, jibby types will err toward the center of the ski. More directional skiers will likely not err quite as far forward. Athough with some skis that can bring into question why someone really picked that ski (eg mounting a HB behind +6 or so -- I mean just get a Pontoon & be done with it... but mount that +1  ).

 

So, in short, this is an interesting issue. And the sensible mounting answer for optimal versatility and function on any given ski presently seems to vary by manufacturer, line and specific ski. Tempered by skiing style. Over time, I suspect this will settle down to narrower ranges. But for now, there is legit discussion & debate. And questions. Some answers can be found on certain boards (some not this one) and from shops that know & understand these skis well (eg evo.com, untracked.com, etc. ). And FWIW, my gut sense is that some reps who are well connected or are progressive skiers using those skis regularly themselves know the scoop as well.


Edited by spindrift - 9/7/10 at 8:03pm
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

On some of the newer ski designs, the "suggested" mark is sometimes a significant compromise. To my mind, the benchmark example of this is the Hell Bent (let's keep to the old one for now). It has a huge range. zero to +7.5. And really jibby types often went to true center at +9. K2 had a "recommended" mark at something like +2 IIRC. In reality, that mark seems to have been a weird compromise - targeted at more classic "driving" style skiers, racers, etc. And intended to let heli/cat clients hop on and & use the ski in powder. For those people in particular, it allowed their "get over the tips" style to work well enough to get by. But in reality, the ski worked best when skied "from the center". And the tendency of "classic" skiers to drive their tips limited the utility and feel of of the ski. 

 

This is, IMO, part of why there is such a wide span of opinions on this class of ski. So.... it pays to understand each ski well & how the designers and top level users feel it should be mounted & skied. In the case of the HB, virtually everyone who understands the ski & has taken the trouble to learn it is forward of +5. Most forward of +6.

 


I have the 185 praxis. The recomended point is 97cm from the tip. I origianlly mounted freerides at 99cm from the tip becuase I could not fit them further forward than that and Keith siad it would be OK and give a more traditional feel. I loved the skis and had them like that for a year. But you definately could not drive them from the boot cuff and I definately stuffed the tips a hnadfull of times on deep days trying to do that. 

 

The next year I put dukes on them and used some pre-existign holes so I was a bit more forward -- right at 97cm. They were much more playful and fun in soft snow and the balance felt more dialed. They slarve better. I really I like them better at 97 and they ski with less weirdness and tip digging too. So the moral of the story is don't mount funshapes back and expect a traditional feel. Mount them forward and learn to ski them the way they want to be skied.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion