 Poster: A snowHead
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| It's a 5hr round trip to the nearest Oktober test and like you say, it's a limited test environment, especially for an off piste ski...... |
Having done loads of indoor testing over the years I reckon that it's actually a pretty good environment for testing all mtn/off-piste skis, especially if Europe is your usual destination.
Pretty much every time I've been on an indoor slope it's been scraped off down the middle third but with choppy up variable stuff down the sides which is pretty representative of a lot of off-piste skiing. Plus the speed on the indoor slope is pretty representative of skiing steeper variable slopes & trees etc.
And it's a great environment for easily comparing ski geometries etc (ie a rockered tip/cambered/flat tail ski versus a rockered tip/flat camber/rockered tail ski) if you're not familiar with the differences. For example, a long radius but flat cambered & rockered both ends ski is likely to be far more manoeuvrable than a tight radius rockered tipped, cambered & flat tailed ski - which most people won't believe until they try them.
And even in a large resort I'd challenge you to find the quantity & variety of different all mtn/off-piste skis that we'll have at the Oktober tests. At worse an indoor slope is great for narrowing down your choice to a short list of skis to test abroad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I've also found some Cham 2.0 97's @ £369 to add to the shortlist next to the soul 7's and the sky 7's
Thank you for everyone's input, despite skiing 2-3 weeks every year for the past 32 years, I've never experimented much with skis, This is the first time that I have really sat down and thought much about what I am skiing on. Lots of posts have said "X" will be too short for me, what difference does it make if I choose a size that is 1 or 2 sizes below what is recommended for my height / weight? a shorter ski makes more sense in the tight spots that I frequently find myself in between rocks & trees and the whatever they are called turns on really steep stuff where you flick the skis round 180' while in mid air.
Will there be much in the way of discounted skis at the Oktober test? I've always bought last years models and never pay list price, the above skis are all at about 40% off list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I wouldn't go below 190 for an Off Piste ski.
IMO That is the lower end of the length range, for somebody of your height and weight....I'm assuming you are Advanced and reasonably aggressive.
You need the float....and the Rocker at either end should make it very maneuverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
I wouldn't go below 190 for an Off Piste ski.
IMO That is the lower end of the length range, for somebody of your height and weight....I'm assuming you are Advanced and reasonably aggressive.
You need the float....and the Rocker at either end should make it very maneuverable. |
People keep saying this but when I have been happily skiing thigh deep powder on 67mm waist by 170 cm long skis, you can appreciate my questioning, I was thinking 180cm tops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
I wouldn't go below 190 for an Off Piste ski.
IMO That is the lower end of the length range, for somebody of your height and weight....I'm assuming you are Advanced and reasonably aggressive.
You need the float....and the Rocker at either end should make it very maneuverable. |
People keep saying this but when I have been happily skiing thigh deep powder on 67mm waist by 170 cm long skis, you can appreciate my questioning, I was thinking 180cm tops. |
If you can ski powder on 2m Old School planks, you can ski powder on anything....but.....you would have been skiing "in" the powder. I suspect that is what is happening on your 170s. As I understand it, the idea behind the Powder ski, is that it will float up to the surface, making life much easier. For that to happen, you need the correct length for your weight.
I don't own (or have ever skied) dedicated Powder skis, so there are others on here who can speak more knowledgeably, from direct experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
I've also found some Cham 2.0 97's @ £369 to add to the shortlist next to the soul 7's and the sky 7's
Thank you for everyone's input, despite skiing 2-3 weeks every year for the past 32 years, I've never experimented much with skis, This is the first time that I have really sat down and thought much about what I am skiing on. Lots of posts have said "X" will be too short for me, what difference does it make if I choose a size that is 1 or 2 sizes below what is recommended for my height / weight? a shorter ski makes more sense in the tight spots that I frequently find myself in between rocks & trees and the whatever they are called turns on really steep stuff where you flick the skis round 180' while in mid air.
Will there be much in the way of discounted skis at the Oktober test? I've always bought last years models and never pay list price, the above skis are all at about 40% off list. |
tangowaggon, stop shopping by price until you have a basic understanding of the effect of tip rocker, camber, tail rocker, flex, swing weight etc as you're not comparing like for like. At the moment you just have preconceived incorrect ideas so are likely to make a poor choice. This is the benefit of a proper ski test event were the manufacturer/retail reps direct you to the most suitable skis for your requirements but you can try skis with differing elements to see/feel the differences & then see what you prefer. I've lost count of the number of times I've put customers on 'big' skis who thought they'd be unusable only for them to come back saying that they now "get it".
For example, my 190cm Whitedot Ragnarok CL's (118mm & 30m radius) are waaaay lighter/more manoeuvrable than my 180cm Blizzard Brahma's (88mm underfoot & 19m radius) but if I showed both skis to you then you would think the opposite.
If you can ski deep powder on short/skinny skis (which is past my pay grade) then you're obviously pretty natty so any ski is gonna work for you but it would be a shame for you to miss out on the features of the latest designs.
BTW, if you paid £600 for a ski/binding combo then the additional cost per day of use over 5 years of ownership compared to a £350 combo amounts to less than the cost of an apres ski beer (assumes 3 weeks/18 days a year @ 40% usage) so stop being so cheap 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tangowaggon, as a fully paid up member of Team Testosterone, I suspect you may not get on with the Dynastar Chams. I think you'll find them a bit flappy, though I could be wrong, but having seen you ski at warp speed on one leg, I think something like the Preacher or Superguide might suit you better, or the R108.
But yeah, what @spyderjon said about testing them (where's the banners, btw?). Test, test, test until you know what you want, then hunt it down at the right price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
I wouldn't go below 190 for an Off Piste ski.
|
Really?
In the entire catalogue of the Snowheads' favourite Whitedot skis, their longest models (with the exception of the ranger pro at 195) top out at only 190/191.
Their Preacher has a pretty good track record for being a top notch off-piste ski and the longest one comes in at 189...
Times have changed and particularly with the modern generation of fat skis, they don't need to be as long as they once would.
| Scarlet wrote: |
I think something like the Preacher or Superguide might suit you better, or the R108.
|
Agreeing on the team testosterone front (I spent 2 days with TW on the PreBB  ) I would like to suggest adding the Ragnarok trad, the Movement GoFast, and the Blizzard Cochise to that list... The Ragnarok is a bit less piste carve-able than the Preacher but more than doubly makes up for it in low speed manoeuvrability (and if you've got the balls they're still amazing fun for giving it some welly on piste... they just feel a bit less, er, safe...). I have compared the Rag and the Preacher off-piste and the former is a lot easier for low speed fiddling around rocks and what not. The GoFast I have only skied at Oktobertest but it literally does what it says on the tin, with very nice control. I would say it's very comparable in feel to the Preacher. Then the Cochise is just downright scary... similar feel to my Ragnaroks but all-metal construction... of course Alan swapped his Rag CLs for the Cochise. Once I got comfortable on them and went 'balls out' (not literally) they were very good fun and extremely secure but like the Rags you do basically have to go hard or go home (although I expect that's a pre-requisite for tangowaggon anyway).
Don't get me wrong the Preacher is absolutely fantastic fun (hence why I bought some) but for a dedicated off-piste ski it's a bit less capable than it's Ragnarok brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
BTW, if you paid £600 for a ski/binding combo then the additional cost per day of use over 5 years of ownership compared to a £350 combo amounts to less than the cost of an apres ski beer (assumes 3 weeks/18 days a year @ 40% usage) so stop being so cheap |
This is true, but with three kids and their horses to pay maintenance for  I shouldn't even be looking at more skis, it's only because the weather has been poo poo and I've been working weekends instead of being out on the motorbike that there might be some loose change behind the cushions. In reality I was hoping to pick something up 2nd hand for <£200 but there is nothing worth having, the sky 7's at £309 with bindings might be just a 75% improvement over what I am using and spending £600 might give a 100% improvement but beggars (tight arsed naturalised yorkshireman) can't (won't) be choosers
Whilst I can ski deep stuff on almost any ski (offpiste on snowblades was a really silly idea ) on skinnies, it is a fine balance between too far forward and face planting or too far back and burned out legs. I'm assuming that fat/offpiste skis will widen the balance window.
I have stayed with primarily piste skis as that is where I mostly ski for one reason or another. I have carved turns on everything from 2m 1980's skis with a radius in the next valley to snowblades and if you are actually carving the turn, ski turn radius makes a very big difference, especially carving reds & blacks where you need the ski to turn before the sound barrier is reached
I would like a ski that is easier / more fun offpiste than my skinnies but can still carve a tight turn on piste. I know that there are instructors and people with far more experience than me on this forum but I have met a lot of people that witter on about carving, but on the snow, the couldn't carve a turn if they tried (especially a very tall guy that isn't dp whose name will be withheld)
I'll look into the suggestions but I'm so sick of the White Dot banner ads that are popping up that they will be scrubbed from the list, are you listening Admin???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@dp, TBF. I also said the OP needs the right right length for his weight....and to seek advice from people more in the know than me.
I would be surprised if going below 190 in most brands would be ideal for an Off Piste ski for someone of over 14 Stone.....but I'm happy to be corrected.
Spyderjon is the ideal person to comment on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm about 160cm tall, 65kg and my big skis are 181. I look like I'm wearing clown shoes when I'm wearing them. I get very funny looks in gondolas. And they're a b@stard for me to carry around anywhere. But they don't half ski well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Maireadoconnor, what skis are those, how wide are they?
Seems ott to me but I'm only just starting more serious off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Daishan, the aforementioned clichéd Whitedots. I have Carbonlite Directors; there's a very large rocker on them so they're surprisingly manoeuvrable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Maireadoconnor, and they rarely fit in the slots on the outside of gondolas, and the beggers are too big to fit inside... I know the looks too, even though mine are 10cm shorter than yours, when surrounded by a cable car full of Italians on skinnies. I think I had the last laugh when the snow started coming down at midday 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Nice, I tried the Directors but preferred the Preachers, so got some carbonlites of those instead, though only 169's
I'm 172cm 60kg
I'm guessing with the slightly wider waist and big shovel tips the 169 Preachers will have similar area to 181 Directors so equal float?
Would ski area vs skier weight be a more useful metric for off-piste skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Daishan wrote: |
Nice, I tried the Directors but preferred the Preachers, so got some carbonlites of those instead, though only 169's
I'm 172cm 60kg
I'm guessing with the slightly wider waist and big shovel tips the 169 Preachers will have similar area to 181 Directors so equal float?
Would ski area vs skier weight be a more useful metric for off-piste skis? |
No. It's about how the area is used and the feel that generates. Taking any single metric in isolation is pretty useless as it's the combination that matters.
Directors are narrower but have more rocker (tip and tail). They'll be much looser and surfier in powder, and work better with a more neutral stance.
Preachers are full camber, which is probably why you preferred them as they'll feel more similar to the skis you're used to (they also feel longer for the length). The big tips will float well in powder, but you won't be able to work and slash the tail as easily, and they'll prefer a more traditional 'drive the tip' style.
Preacher almost certainly has more surface area and 'float' but personally I'd prefer the Director every time on a deep day. All about the tail slash and drift, and tail rocker makes tight trees on storm days way more easy and fun (even compared to a non-rocketed shorter ski).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@tangowaggon, @PaulC1984 probably doesn't mean to make this point, but if only you were a bit smaller, you could just follow him around collecting up whatever bits of kit he's discarded in favour of something shinier. It will only have been used twice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@tangowaggon, SOPB ,GBN possibly but not much I would think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, @PaulC1984, @Scarlet, matrski, it's good to have comments from guys who have skied with me and know my "style" which is probably a bit unconventional, I think I've skied with Daishan as well on the bb a couple of years ago (smallish guy that looks about 20 years younger than he is?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@tangowaggon, Sorry don't remember you by your screen name, I don't quite look 20 years younger as I'm only 33 but yeah still occasionally get Id'd....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Daishan wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, Sorry don't remember you by your screen name, I don't quite look 20 years younger as I'm only 33 but yeah still occasionally get Id'd.... |
real name Gary, tall ginger with kermit green jacket, skiing with Jude, Matt, ( boarders) and a few others[/img]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Do you recognise any of these suspects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Daishan, not doing bb but will see you on the gnarbug and sopib
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
This thread seems to be going in circles. If you're a good skier get the most monster ski with plenty of width, decent tip rocker in a grown up length and learn to tip em so you ski on groomers.
Don't nancy around saying I ski this girl's length in something else just fine.
Then go places with actual snow to ski them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bought Sky 7s last year ahead of a trip to the US in January (en route to live in Australia, where Japan will be the winter ski holiday destination) as I wanted something a bit wider. Previously had Head Supershape Titans 177 @ 80mm.
I'm 6'4" and about 95kg, so got the 188cm Sky 7, which I think are 100mm at their narrowest. Loved the Sky 7. We got a lot of snow in Park City at the end of Jan/early Feb and they did a really good job in fresh stuff, and also had decent grip on groomed bits. Very nice in bumps. Definitely softer than the Titans so easier to flex and turn.
Skied a bit in Australia over the past few weeks too and they've been good here too, in conditions which are probably closer to European spring (firm morning, soft afternoon and on north [sun] facing slopes)
I don't find myself missing the Titans at all - perhaps the Skys are a bit unstable at pace on steepish hardpack/ice (perhaps that's also my ropey technique) but they're better at everything else that I want to do
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| this thread seems to be going in circles. |
You should be used to snowheads by now
A bit like my mind at the moment. I wish that I had tapped northerngeezer for a run on his soul 7s last season.
Has anyone tried head venturi 95's ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
