 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Bob, my first ever skis were a nice navy blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@TOLOCOMAN, "it's the flex and dampness"
I'm not sure how you define "damp" in this context, but your sentiment, to my mind, is dead on.
Torsional rigidity makes all the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
He's got a point for sure and to an extent I agree with him. I was going to make a very similar comment yesterday regarding your Mantra feedback but we were so focused on you discovering "race" skis that I thought it best not to confuse the issue further. IMO we're back to a waist width conversation.
Let's look at the evidence. You disliked your Mantras 70% of the time because they were too heavy and ponderous and felt dead unless you were hammering it. 100% that says you don't like damp skis. But it may also say that you simply don't have the technical skills to get the best out of them. The counter argument is that you've loved being out on some slalom and GS skis. Slalom and GS skis, even recreational ones, are also stiff and damp. When I called the SL10s punter slalom skis, it means they're soft compared to a "full on" slalom ski but you'd never call any slalom ski "soft" per se.
So what's the conclusion? I'll be honest, and I hope you're not offended, I had you in the "advanced punter" skill bracket. Confident and experienced but doesn't necessarily ski in a technically correct manner. Can ski at speed but can't carve.
|
That's probably a fair assessment of my skiing apart from I can carve, although I'm not going to be worrying Ted Ligety any time soon.
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
IME, it's not unusual at all for that category of skier to think slalom skis are amazing. The "revelation" of a slalom ski is the instant edge grip they get for so little edge angle compared to whatever they normally ski, which they equate to greater control. But that instant edge grip is primarily down to the skinny waist, and the associated stiffness of a slalom ski, that makes it bite quickly. A simarly stiff wider ski will bite exactly the same if you get it to the same edge angle but getting it to the same angle requires far greater angulation and a higher skill set to achieve it.
|
I feel (although it's subjective because I haven't skied them seince January) like I can get similar grip out of my Atomics at similar speeds, but that they don't have quite the same flick/flack edge-to-egde quickness. I'd put the difference down to the SL10's shorter length and shorter radius, but of course it's perfectly plausible that it could just be my lack of technique.
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
Then I re-read your first post and saw that you're an ex-boarder. So I want to know what your boarding skill level was? Could you carve a board or were you a "rear foot shuffler"?
|
Rear foot shuffler? Is that a new euphemism for homosexual (like butt hole surfer)?  I was a very good boarder (for a holidaymaker): I could carve low enough to reach out and touch the ground with my hands, which I definitely cannot do skiing.
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
If there's one thing I've concluded about boarders that convert to planks, it's that they're not afraid of speed and inherently understand that speed is your friend. A large number of them also understand the principles of standing on an edge and letting the equipment do the work, i.e. carving. So you may be a better (piste) skier than I gave you credit for.
If that's the case, and you want just one ski, we're back to the "what's the middle ground" option. Before "fat" skis existed, GS skis were often mooted as the best option for off piste. Not because they would float but because they would give you the speed and stability to allow you to ski through deep snow rather than on top of it. You still can. A stiff AM ski is somewhere in-between, sometimes you might be skiing over the top, other times you're cutting through and skiing the base. A softer AM ski is biased to being on the top but will be weaker on piste as a result.
So the question is, if you used the 80/20 rule, what are your real priorities in a one-ski quiver? I reckon from your posts that you've based your current and previous ski choices closer to 20/80 than 80/20; it might be time to reassess what really matters for you to have a fun week's skiing. |
That's a really great question. I'd based my first ski purchase on a reaction to how I used to board (i.e. take multiple boards on every holiday, which is something inherently less doable with skis because they can't be packed flat with the bindings removed), so I did my research carefully and bought the ski that qualified opinion said could do everything (i.e. the Mantra). And to be fair, it can.
After skiing more with my wife and kids (i.e. at slower pace) than with my crazy boarder mates I just wasn't having as much fun on them. In fact the only time I really enjoyed them was after the others had gone in mid-afternoon and I had the last hour or so of the day to rip around on my own. I'd put their lack of energy/playfulness/fun factor down to the fact that they were fully rockered, wide and stiff, so (and still wanting a one-ski quiver) I decided to get something cambered, a bit less wide, and a bit less stiff, so I settled on the Vantage 90s. And for the 3 or 4 weeks I've had on them, I've had no complaints at all. I love them and am really looking-forward to skiing them again in a few weeks. I did drag the Mantra out for a week earlier this year after having had a few weeks on the Atomics, and doing so confirmed that I much prefered the Vantages, so the Mantras are retired now!
As to the question of what the right ski is for me, I think it has to come down to what I need, rather than what I want. And I need a ski that is enjoyable whatever the weather throws at me. I'm lugging several pairs of skis on most holidays anyway so there's no room for me personally to take an extra pair even if I wanted to. In reality most of my 'off-piste' is of the 'side-piste' or 'between piste variety' so the Atomics are plenty good enough for what I need. What I could actually do with doing is, on my next holiday, renting some of the GS12s (or an equivalent ski from another manufacturer - any recommendations anyone???) for a day and using them back to back on the same slopes with my Atomics. That's the only way for me to see if they are as wonderful as I thought, or whether it was just in comparison to the tiring time that I was having on the overly-ling Brahmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| Rear foot shuffler? Is that a new euphemism for homosexual (like butt hole surfer)? I was a very good boarder (for a holidaymaker): I could carve low enough to reach out and touch the ground with my hands, which I definitely cannot do skiing. |
Not at all, it wasn't meant to be offensive. It's a phrase a skiing buddy of mine used to use to describe a low skill level boarder. One that steers the board by just moving his rear foot forwards and backwards without ever really getting on the edge. Kind of the equivalent of a low level skier who steers by chucking his shoulders around and flicking his heels to make Z shaped turns.
Glad to hear that you're way above that level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Je suis un Skieur, I'm definitely not offended! And I'm very grateful for the amount of time you (and others) have put into responding to the thread, so many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@greengriff, What do you weigh?....as that can be a factor on what you like.
I think @Je suis un Skieur gave a really good analysis....When thinking about it, I had followed a very similar line of logic (as in what you liked and didn't like; and what it said about what might be going on), but didn't take it to its conclusion anything like as well.....and certainly didn't think about the potential impact of the snowboarding element.
In recent times, the only skis that I have used which felt planky, were some Blizzard Quattros. As they were hired, I changed them for Head Magnums, which suited me much better. It was probably a matter of weight (10 st), preference and technical ability.
On Piste, I like reasonably narrow (68 - 72); full Camber; reasonably stiff, but also reasonably playful/reactive eg. Magnums/Dynastar SZ 12) and a turn radius of 14-18m....I normally go for a length of 170 (or a little less).
For AM use, I like a more playful ski, which I can ski in a longer length....hence why I have Scott the Ski in a 180.
I mention the above, as I don't think it's a mile away from your experience/preference.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Sun 17-12-23 12:15; edited 5 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@greengriff, you haven't mentioned at any point what length you skied these various skis in, and I don't know your stats so I'm going to assume that the SL were 165cm, the GS were 175cm and your Vantage 90s are 176cm. Correct me if I'm wrong but the principles between them are the same.
Yesterday, you compared the SL and GS and said of the GS:
| greengriff wrote: |
| On my end-of-week very tired legs I definitely preferred it to the SL10, as it was notably less jittery (presumably because I was spending more time riding the sweet spot of the sidecut radius rather than outside it?) but it lacked a little bit of the nippy fun factor. |
This is primarily down to two things, one the length, two the tail width. The tip and waist widths are the same but the tail is narrower on the GS which, with the length, gives you the longer turn radius. More significantly, the narrow tail will also release from a turn more easily and be less affected by any clumsy (or tired) movements - that's why it's less jittery.
| greengriff wrote: |
I feel (although it's subjective because I haven't skied them seince January) like I can get similar grip out of my Atomics at similar speeds, but that they don't have quite the same flick/flack edge-to-egde quickness. I'd put the difference down to the SL10's shorter length and shorter radius, but of course it's perfectly plausible that it could just be my lack of technique. |
No, I don't think it's technique, if you could carve a board, I believe that you can carve a ski. But this comparison is not the same as above. Here it's waist width which gives you edge to edge speed. Sure, you can read that an 88 or 90mm ski is quick from edge to edge because it has torsional stiffness but it's only really in comparison to an alternative 90mm ski. It's never going to be quick in comparison to a slalom ski.
If you look at the sidecuts, an SL10 is 121-68-104 and a Vantage 90Ti 128-90-114. By far the biggest difference is at the waist. If you don't believe me, try the experiment the opposite way one day. Rent a 112mm ski and see how much fun that is to carve on a firm piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
I did drag the Mantra out for a week earlier this year after having had a few weeks on the Atomics, and doing so confirmed that I much prefered the Vantages, so the Mantras are retired now!
As to the question of what the right ski is for me, I think it has to come down to what I need, rather than what I want. And I need a ski that is enjoyable whatever the weather throws at me. I'm lugging several pairs of skis on most holidays anyway so there's no room for me personally to take an extra pair even if I wanted to. In reality most of my 'off-piste' is of the 'side-piste' or 'between piste variety' so the Atomics are plenty good enough for what I need. What I could actually do with doing is, on my next holiday, renting some of the GS12s (or an equivalent ski from another manufacturer - any recommendations anyone???) for a day and using them back to back on the same slopes with my Atomics. That's the only way for me to see if they are as wonderful as I thought, or whether it was just in comparison to the tiring time that I was having on the overly-ling Brahmas. |
Back to the matter at hand...
So you bought the Mantras based on the marketing blurb. Well you won't be the first to do that. I haven't skied the Vantages but from what I read and what the other poster said, they're a much friendlier ski so for your all round needs they're probably a pretty decent compromise. But you absolutely should try and do a back to back comparison between them and the GS12s because that's really going to help you decide where the most fun for you really is.
And to turn the conversation full circle, the turn radius of a GS12 in 175cm is 18m and the Vantage 90Ti in a 176cm is 18.4m. So it isn't turn radius that's going to differentiate between your enjoyment, it's waist width and stiffness.
It may well be that your final conclusion is that you want a tighter turning ski, somewhere between the SL and GS around 16m but you could get that in a full on piste ski or an AM. So I guess the need vs want internal thought process is going to have to be on-piste quickness with the family vs the occasional dip off the side. I think my view would be that if you're using words like wonderful to describe the GS, and you're a highly competent ex boarder who enjoys carving, there's got to be a fair chance that your 80% is the piste ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great thread, I'm also trying to make a similar decision.
Though its slightly leaning me toward going out and buying 6 pairs 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@greengriff, I suspect the length had something to do with it.
You could maybe look at something like the Elan Ripstick family?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I revert to short skarved turns more often than not based on bad habits and when I learnt to ski (80s = silly long lengths and slim waists) . . . however with modern carving ski tech this now equates to a slightly shorter length than recommended (I'm 6'1" / 95kg and ski 178/180s) and a mid AM waist at 84-90 with a 15-18M turn radius as a 'sweetspot' . . .for me this means I can flick the skis about at slow speed (they used to call it yodelling?) but also set an edge and carve a wider arc when pushing.
The Rossy Experience range (for me at any rate) has been a revelation over the last decade for exactly this 'range' of skiing and I've used the last 3 iterations exclusively as daily drivers . . like yourself I do have the occasional foray on dedicated slalom skis (used to ski Fischer RC4 WCSLs in my fit and agile late 20s/30s everywhere inc powder/off piste) but the last time I did this (with Rossy Hero SLs) I found them a bit hardcore (flying out of turns like a 'jet turn' of old) and therefore tiring!
Have just acquired some Head Kore 87s based on their much lighter weight (and therefore alleged playfulness / flickability) but these are a much stiffer ski than the Rossys so will be interesting to see (Zell Jan 24) whether the combination of light/stiff means I enjoy them or not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| What do you weigh?....as that can be a factor on what you like. |
65kg. Although sitting here at Grenoble with nothing to do for the next couple of hours except eat pains au chocolat I might be 70kg by the time I get on my flight. I'm hoping to run out of Euros before I get type 2 diabetes
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
@greengriff, you haven't mentioned at any point what length you skied these various skis in, and I don't know your stats so I'm going to assume that the SL were 165cm, the GS were 175cm and your Vantage 90s are 176cm. Correct me if I'm wrong but the principles between them are the same.
|
Spot on for the Salomons, but my Vantages are 169cm.
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
No, I don't think it's technique, if you could carve a board, I believe that you can carve a ski. But this comparison is not the same as above. Here it's waist width which gives you edge to edge speed. Sure, you can read that an 88 or 90mm ski is quick from edge to edge because it has torsional stiffness but it's only really in comparison to an alternative 90mm ski. It's never going to be quick in comparison to a slalom ski.
If you look at the sidecuts, an SL10 is 121-68-104 and a Vantage 90Ti 128-90-114. By far the biggest difference is at the waist. If you don't believe me, try the experiment the opposite way one day. Rent a 112mm ski and see how much fun that is to carve on a firm piste. |
So really you're confirming what you said a couple of days back: that, dampness/stiffness etc. is not the issue, and I'm never going to get that lovely flick/flack transition that I enjoyed so much unless I get a ski with a sub 70mm waist width?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| ...there's got to be a fair chance that your 80% is the piste ski. |
Yes I'm beginning to think you're right. My biggest fear is buying a ski like that and then the conditions being totally wrong and me not having a good time. I look forward to skiing all year so I want it to be as good as it can be, whatever conditions I get. An AM ski means I can do that, and I was actually perfectly happy with that until tried the dedicated piste skis and realised there was another layer of engagement and enjoyment to be had on top of that which I was already having. Ignorance is bliss as they say, and in this case it was. However now I've opened this particular can of worms I'm going to have to so something, because I'm already finding myself planning ways to explain away the purchase of a set of GS12s to my wife! So far, none of the explanations I've come up with sound particularly convincing. That's probably a good thing as it stops me pulling the trigger (for now)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| So really you're confirming what you said a couple of days back: that, dampness/stiffness etc. is not the issue, and I'm never going to get that lovely flick/flack transition that I enjoyed so much unless I get a ski with a sub 70mm waist width? |
Yep. Maybe also around 70mm rather than sub 70mm but the fact you could tell the differences between the various models you demo'd suggest you'd appreciate sub 70mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| greengriff wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| What do you weigh?....as that can be a factor on what you like. |
65kg. Although sitting here at Grenoble with nothing to do for the next couple of hours except eat pains au chocolat I might be 70kg by the time I get on my flight. I'm hoping to run out of Euros before I get type 2 diabetes |
That is another thing you have in common with me. When I was at the gym today, I weighed 64.8kg. As a holiday skier, I think it has a bearing - as IMO, one wants something that is reasonably forgiving and doesn't take all week to get to grips with.
Dedicated Piste skis - even if stiffer - have a design that just wants to carve (eg. Full Camber, narrow waist etc etc). Where one gets wider (88-95 under foot), with AM Rocker and a heavy, Damp construction....it can be hard work for someone who is light (or at least that is what I have found), as the tip doesn't pull you into the turn as well and the Tail doesn't remain locked into the carve in the same way....and if the AM ski is on the longer side (as you might expect for this type of ski), it adds to the problem.
If I didn't have the Scotts, I'd have been looking at something like you have, or perhaps something from Elan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
See what @under a new name thinks regarding suitable length, I'm pretty sure he's around the same weight. And @Old Fartbag is. |
UANN - skis multiple weeks in a season (and used to ski 2m+ straight skis), so his preferences might be different.
@ OP: I am your weight and a holiday skier - so might be more aligned with your needs/preferences.
I have some Atomic SL11 @ 157, which are a blast....bought in about 2003, when I was 9.5 stone (and now designated as rock hoppers).
For Piste, I was happy on some 170 Magnums and 170 Atomic Beta Ride 11:20, but might drop to mid 160s for a stiffer Piste ski. I also had 179 Salomon X-Scream Series.
For AM: 170 - 180 (180 in theory is a bit long for my weight), depending on Rocker Length and forgiveness...but I, like UANN spent years on 2m old skool skis - which means I don't mind a longer ski, provided I can bend it.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sun 17-12-23 18:25; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| greengriff wrote: |
Those were the only sizes they had. I'd kind of assumed they were right anyway because the rental shop people had given me the SL10 in a 165 after looking me up and down and asking my weight. Of course, the 165 could have been all they had as well and that's why I was given it
OK, so I'm now very keen indeed to try the GS12 in a 170! |
No, they would be the most common lengths so I'm not surprised that's all they had on test. I've found the GS12 award winning reviews, these guys really like them, and they're the cheapest in their class so win-win! The French test's interesting because it comments that the ski is shorter than "normal" but it makes no difference, so I think 170cm for you would be ideal.
https://www.ski-online.de/tipps-infos/dsv-skitest/racecarver.html
https://www.mon-sejour-en-montagne.com/tests/decouvrez-les-meilleurs-skis-piste-performance-pour-l-hiver-2023-2024/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Je suis un Skieur, wonderful thank you. Just sitting on the plane now so will read these when I'm back home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@greengriff, as @Old Fartbag alludes, I ski (generally) longer than recommended, although when I bought the Blizzards, I tested the 180 as well as the 173 and they didn't add anything fun, whilst making life a bit harder work.
But at 168cm height I ski a 177 mantra, as reference. And my longest skis are 203 SGs. Which are remarkably drive-able.
OFB's "multiple weeks" - I live in Chamonix and we work for ourselves so I ski (when I am not having heart/knee/hand/eye surgery) quite a lot.
At 65kgs, you are a mere whisker over my 62-ish, so I'd be thinking sub_175_plus_165-ish or thereabouts? For GSs, well I was on 183s on Friday although the 178s might have been easier for a first day after lots of anaesthetics. 170 is way too short. If you want/need to go that short, you need a different ski, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| 170 is way too short. If you want/need to go that short, you need a different ski, IMO. |
They only make the ski in 170/175/180. 65kg is at the bottom end of the scale for a male so simple logic says it's 170 or 175 in that ski. I doubt he's going to overpower it so it's personal preference between a 16 or 18m turn radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Je suis un Skieur, ta, to be clearer to @GG, if the 170 feels too long, they need a different ski, and as the 170 is the shortest, then they defo do 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
They only make the ski in 170/175/180. 65kg is at the bottom end of the scale for a male so simple logic says it's 170 or 175 in that ski. I doubt he's going to overpower it so it's personal preference between a 16 or 18m turn radius. |
If it was me, I'd expect to go for the 170 in the GS and probably the 160 in the SL12 / 165 in the SL10....though that might change with a trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I just take the view that if there are 3 sizes, then:
180cm = 16 stone
175cm = 13 stone
170cm = 10 stone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Je suis un Skieur, what if you're 14.5 stone or 11.5 stone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Je suis un Skieur, ta, to be clearer to @GG, if the 170 feels too long, they need a different ski, and as the 170 is the shortest, then they defo do |
He didn't say 170cm was too long. He tested the 175 because that was all they had and commented words to the effect that it wasn't quite as nimble as he'd hoped. So 170 x 16m vs 175 x 18m means 170 may well fix that issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Je suis un Skieur,
In general I agree with what you've posted on this thread but you've confused me with this bit
"The "revelation" of a slalom ski is the instant edge grip they get for so little edge angle compared to whatever they normally ski, which they equate to greater control. But that instant edge grip is primarily down to the skinny waist, and the associated stiffness of a slalom ski, that makes it bite quickly. A simarly stiff wider ski will bite exactly the same if you get it to the same edge angle but getting it to the same angle requires far greater angulation and a higher skill set to achieve it."
What do you mean by requiring far great angulation to achieve the same edge angle?
Angulation and edge angle are directly connected by geometry.
I think what you are getting at is that rolling a wide ski onto a high edge angle without losing grip is challenging - at least on a hard piste. It is much easier on a narrow ski where you can get to that edge angle much more quickly and with less torque trying to send the edge sideways before it is really biting. The high skill level you talk about is the smoothness and delicacy required to get the fatter ski set at a high edge angle. If that's what you mean then we are on the same page.
People often pop up saying that their wide skis are great on piste when I think they mean "my wide skis are great on piste (unless it is hard and icy) and because I don't attempt to carve short linked turns on them". Certainly I don't see any skiers carving SHORT turns on HARD pistes on fat skis. I'm sure some people can do that but I don't see any.
The ski I spend most of my time on is 108mm in the waist and has a 28m radius. I can ski them OK on even hard pistes but then I'm carving a fairly limited range of long turns and using plenty of pivotting/rotary when things are tight. On soft pistes I have many more turn shapes available (easier to bend them, easier to get up on a high edge angle without slipping). But these compromises mean that they are - IMO - not a great piste ski. Which is fine, I expect to mainly be off piste when I'm using them.
What is a great piste ski are my FIS SLs (165 and 68mm) which I can crank to high edge angles under any snow conditions and generate lots of G forces and grins. I can link short carves with cross under transitions on hard snow. And when on edge they are damp and sable and chop through any lumps and bumps. Personally I like turning and have never felt the short radius limited by ability to get from A to B fast. When off piste conditions are poor then I tend to focus on either skiing bump runs or linking short carves at high edge angles. The SLs are good for the latter although only OK for bumps.
If I didn't spend most of my time offpiste and wanted one ski to do everything, I'd probably get something 80-85mm with 16-18m radius which was stiff and damp but probably not as much as a race ski. I suspect that is what the OP should do too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| jedster wrote: |
| @Je suis un Skieur, I think what you are getting at is that rolling a wide ski onto a high edge angle without losing grip is challenging - at least on a hard piste. It is much easier on a narrow ski where you can get to that edge angle much more quickly and with less torque trying to send the edge sideways before it is really biting. The high skill level you talk about is the smoothness and delicacy required to get the fatter ski set at a high edge angle. If that's what you mean then we are on the same page. |
That's exactly what I meant.
Perhaps what I should have said in the first sentence was, "The "revelation" of a slalom ski is the instant edge grip they get for so little effort compared to whatever they normally ski". Does that make more sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| jedster wrote: |
| @Je suis un Skieur, I think what you are getting at is that rolling a wide ski onto a high edge angle without losing grip is challenging - at least on a hard piste. It is much easier on a narrow ski where you can get to that edge angle much more quickly and with less torque trying to send the edge sideways before it is really biting. The high skill level you talk about is the smoothness and delicacy required to get the fatter ski set at a high edge angle. If that's what you mean then we are on the same page. |
That's exactly what I meant.
Perhaps what I should have said in the first sentence was, "The "revelation" of a slalom ski is the instant edge grip they get for so little effort compared to whatever they normally ski". Does that make more sense? |
It does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hi all. I've not much to offer in terms of advice but what a fascinating and interesting post this is. Thanks for all the input and comments. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Je suis un Skieur wrote: |
| Perhaps what I should have said in the first sentence was, "The "revelation" of a slalom ski is the instant edge grip they get for so little effort compared to whatever they normally ski". |
It's worth remembering that this is also true for a proper GS ski, with the caveat that a SL ski may _feel_ like it grips more and earlier due to the sidecut, which is effectively making a much more sudden and noticeable start to the change of direction.
This whole thread is much more about ski width (and stiffness) than it is about turn radius, but it seems that some people still tend to confuse the two issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am currently tootling around Mayrhofen in a pair of volkl racetiger SC in 165 cm slalom ski but a tad softer than their full in SL) which on paper are probably too short for me (182 cm tall and 80 kilos) but they are great and I don’t feel like I am overpowering them.
13 M turn radius and I can happily blast along (40 mph today according to slopes ) doing long or short turns as I wish carving (ok some skidding on steeper stuff) and they were even good mid afternoon in soft choppy snow.
So they seem to do everything I need where my usual pick of a GS ski in maybe 172 cm can only do longer turns
And I may not go back to my AM Nordica navigator 85’s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sheffskibod wrote: |
So they seem to do everything I need where my usual pick of a GS ski in maybe 172 cm can only do longer turns |
Can only do carved long turns.....
Any ski can do a short turn 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Late to the thread.
A "daily driver" is by definition a compromise is it not? You want something that can do both short and long - and everything else - pretty well, if not spectacularly good.
TBH, I've rarely took much notice of radius when buying skis for me and the family. The last pair I bought because I had both bindings break, had to hire something, got given these by the shop and loved them.
I note now they are radius 17m which I read falls in the middle of the standard all mountain range (15–20m according to this). Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| swskier wrote: |
| sheffskibod wrote: |
So they seem to do everything I need where my usual pick of a GS ski in maybe 172 cm can only do longer turns |
Can only do carved long turns.....
Any ski can do a short turn |
Ah yes true ! I meant carved turns….
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great thread this! So the conclusions I have drawn are that if you are skilled enough you can carve anything stiff or otherwise. But you might have more fun on slaloms or GS or SG or wider skis depending on crowds or conditions or personal preference. It just makes me want to a) Improve b) Buy lots of skis/try loads out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
You didn't mention your height but at 65kg both the SL and GS that you tried are probably one size up from ideal for you, maybe two sizes for the SL. Did the Salomon tech recommend those lengths or was it all they had? A GS12 in 170cm would give you a 16m turn radius that could just be that perfect sweet spot...
