 Poster: A snowHead
|
Following on from my other post about when to upgrade skis, and in a general quest to understand things and disentangle the marketing hype from the real advice and knowledge...
What can an 'advanced/expert' skier do on a 'basic/intermediate' pair of skis which a beginner/intermediate skier could not hope to do on a pair of 'advanced' skies - and why?
What could an 'advanced/expert' skier NOT be able to do on a 'basic/intermediate' pair of skis - and why?
What happens if you put the beginner/intermediate onto the 'advanced' skis? (except lots of falling over..?)
What is it in ski design which both determines and limits who they are (ideally) suitable for - and is it really as simple as how tecnically skilled and practiced you are, or are there many more nuances? (trying to ignore the rocker/camber debate and all the other tecnical confusing construction stuff which abounds - or is that actually really more important than perhaps it appears?) In other words, is it - oooh-er, Madam - all just a question of rippling muscles and stiffness  or is there a little more to it these days?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
In general, a ski which is designed for more advanced performance will enable you to ski with much higher speeds and much higher forces. It does this mainly by being stiffer, along the length of the ski as well as across the width of the ski. If you try to ski at a high level of performance on a ski which is not designed for that it will feel more unstable, will not grip as well, will bend too easily, hook you in to too tight a turn, breakaway as it loses control, etc. It's not often that I find the limit of a ski, but when I do it feels very disconcerting and I instinctively back off.
The converse of that situation, when a less experienced skier is on a ski designed for higher performance levels than they are capable of, will be a ski which does not turn as easily as the skier needs, and can often be very tiring to be on as the ski will need to be driven hard to enable the skier to have as much control as they are hoping for.
In both scenarios being on an inappropriate ski will be less fun than it should be. Perhaps more seriously, if one of your goals is to improve as a skier, it may also hinder your technical and tactical development as a skier. A less experienced skier on too advanced a ski is more likely to develop the classic bad habits which will ultimately hold back their skiing. A more advanced skier on too soft a ski will be less likely to develop their skills at a high performance level as their ski will not support that level of performance.
Please note, I've completely ignored the design of the ski, particularly the main purpose or category that the ski designer was working towards, I've simply commented on the broad performance level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
OK - I'll bite.
My simplistic / very general take is that the key difference is that more advanced skiers will typically ski faster and are more capable of loading skis up into the turn (better able to bend them into an arc). This means that typically they don't need a ski to perform the turn as much for them and so in practice this means that they might opt for longer, straighter, stiffer skis (and in the case of a powder ski, less rocker).
The benefit of longer / stiffer skis to an advanced skier is that they are more stable at speed and a bigger turn radius (straighter ski) makes them less likely to 'hook up' in unpredictable snow. The difficulty for a beginner is that they may find it harder to flex the skis to get them to turn.
I'll caveat all of the above to point out that this is a huge generalisation. It depends a lot of what you are skiing (slalom vs DH vs offpiste) and I know excellent skiers who prefer shorter, softer skis with tight turn radius. However I think that my generalisation really centres on the point that a stiff straight ski will be a handful for most beginners, and most people that I know have progressed to longer, stiffer, straighter skis as they have improved.
I'll make one last point that big fat rockered skis are not what I would consider to be advanced skis. In fact if you are skiing soft snow or even variable snow, offpiste, then the bigger, fatter, softer and more rockered your skis, the easier it is to learn because they are much less sensitive to careful weighting than a skinny ski in the soft.
OK, flame away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@robrar - you got there first - I think that we broadly said the same thing though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| BenA wrote: |
| I'll make one last point that big fat rockered skis are not what I would consider to be advanced skis. In fact if you are skiing soft snow or even variable snow, offpiste, then the bigger, fatter, softer and more rockered your skis, the easier it is to learn because they are much less sensitive to careful weighting than a skinny ski in the soft. |
Agree with everything you say, except for this bit. Within the category of big (wide), rockered skis designed for off piste you can get skis which are meant for high performance (the original Whitedot Ragnarok for example, which was as stiff as a girder) as well as skis which are much softer and designed to flex with much lower forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Many thanks, chaps. That broadly confirms what I'd believed the situation to be.
One question, from what BenA says: is it possible to buy a high-performance 'advanced' ski which is actually still quite 'soft' or flexible (this won't be a long race ski I presume!), or is that simply a good skier saying that they just like something a little 'detuned' (to borrow a motorcycle world term)?
As another generalisation, at what point do you think that current, mass-available skis make a serious difference in terms of development and performance? I'm not talking about skis which are distinctly race or GS or pure slalom (etc), but those sold by shops and online which are described as covering areas of ability: beginner to intrmediate, intermediate to advanced, expert, 'race', etc (and often covering quite a wide range). Are these descriptions really meaningful or helpful (especially for those who can't try out skis before buying) or do they not mean much? Are they really just some indication of stiffness/flexibiity (longitudinally and/or torsionally) and the effort which the ski will require? (Obviously other specs, radius, sidecut, profile, camber, rocker etc need taking into account.)
I don't know many makes of ski well, so I don't know if some have a significant difference in their easily-available ski ranges. But I do wonder how much of these descriptions/classifications is marketing and how much really makes a difference to the majority of recreational/holidaying (as opposed to the lucky full season/live there peoples - much jealousy!) skiers who do 1-3 weeks a year mainly on piste?
Thanks again folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grizzler wrote: |
| One question, from what BenA says: is it possible to buy a high-performance 'advanced' ski which is actually still quite 'soft' or flexible (this won't be a long race ski I presume!), or is that simply a good skier saying that they just like something a little 'detuned' (to borrow a motorcycle world term)? |
It depends more on the purpose that the ski was designed for. A ski which is more at home in deep snow is going to easier to flex than the equivalent ski in performance terms which is designed for long radius turns on firm snow. So within each category of ski generally the stiffer it is the more high performance it is designed for, but comparing skis across different categories doesn't really tell us much about the relative merits of each ski.
| Grizzler wrote: |
| As another generalisation, at what point do you think that current, mass-available skis make a serious difference in terms of development and performance? I'm not talking about skis which are distinctly race or GS or pure slalom (etc), but those sold by shops and online which are described as covering areas of ability: beginner to intrmediate, intermediate to advanced, expert, 'race', etc (and often covering quite a wide range). Are these descriptions really meaningful or helpful (especially for those who can't try out skis before buying) or do they not mean much? Are they really just some indication of stiffness/flexibiity (longitudinally and/or torsionally) and the effort which the ski will require? (Obviously other specs, radius, sidecut, profile, camber, rocker etc need taking into account.) |
I think skis can make a big difference (positive and negative) in terms of skier development and performance. The more "niche" a ski is the more that skier development and performance is compromised when the ski is outside of its niche. For me it's much more important to be on the right 'category' of ski than it is to get the performance level of a ski correct. So the specs such as radius, width, geometry are more important than whether it's an "expert" ski or an "intermediate" ski.
| Grizzler wrote: |
| I don't know many makes of ski well, so I don't know if some have a significant difference in their easily-available ski ranges. But I do wonder how much of these descriptions/classifications is marketing and how much really makes a difference to the majority of recreational/holidaying (as opposed to the lucky full season/live there peoples - much jealousy!) skiers who do 1-3 weeks a year mainly on piste? |
I don't think there is much difference across ski brands in terms of performance or enjoyability, providing you are comparing skis across the same category. Some brands specialise in one category more than the other, so they'll have more choice within that category. Best advice is to know what category of ski you want to be on, then test as many different options within that category as is sensible and buy the pair you feel happiest on 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BenA, (to a point) longer skis are not necessarily any more stable at speed. Stiffer, straighter, more rigid skis are.
I disagree that
| Quote: |
| progress to longer, stiffer, straighter skis as they have improved |
@Grizzler, my inner cynic suggests that the lower down the performance lines you go, the more the manufacturer has compromised on design and materials (because the performance requirements are, in fairness, lower.
Also, no-one has mentioned weight. I have a pair of "exotic" skis that to all intents and purposes are the right size for me but my word are they hard work. I'm a modest 60kgs and the skis designer must be a good 100kgs+. I'm just not heavy enough to work them appropriately. I found the same back in the days when we were all skiing on 203s and Atomic had produced an Sl "for" Alberto Tomba, another beefy chap. Although quite happy on my bosses 210 GS Atomics I just could not turn the SLs at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| BenA wrote: |
| I'll make one last point that big fat rockered skis are not what I would consider to be advanced skis. In fact if you are skiing soft snow or even variable snow, offpiste, then the bigger, fatter, softer and more rockered your skis, the easier it is to learn because they are much less sensitive to careful weighting than a skinny ski in the soft. |
Agree with everything you say, except for this bit. Within the category of big (wide), rockered skis designed for off piste you can get skis which are meant for high performance (the original Whitedot Ragnarok for example, which was as stiff as a girder) as well as skis which are much softer and designed to flex with much lower forces. |
Sorry - yes I agree - I should have been clearer. What I meant to say was that often people see fat rockered skis and assume that they are all 'advanced' by default. My point was that often these can be soft easy to ski options, and are often easier to ski offpiste than a narrower ski, but as you say you can also get burly fat skis too.
@ Underanewname we may have to disagree:) it depends on application but with all other things being kept equal, longer skis are heavier and have a greater moment of inertia making them less easily deflected which is certainly a big benefit in crud. The increased length also has a bridging effect with smooths out the ride. My GF and I have similar tastes in skis and have had the same ski in different sizes on a couple of occasions and the longer ski was a 'smoother' ride, but with the penalty of being less maneuverable in tight spaces. Interestingly she preferred the longer length of one of those skis (which was not too stiff).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BenA, I'm going to definitely disagree that the greater moment of inertia when compared to the other forces in play has much to do with it in crud. Bridging effect => smoothness, I can go with that but smooth doesn't necessarily = stable.
Also, consider dynamic stability (i.e. not in a straight line). My FIS SLs are outstandingly stable in a turn, not so much in a straight line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
This is really not helping Grizzler, who is:
"Mature" female
5'5"/1.65m
9-10 stone/60kg(ish)
Skis 3 weeks a year
Intermediate/Advanced
Wants relatively light skis that won't quickly top out when she gets better but won't punish her when she backs off and takes it easy and just cruises. There is no way Grizzler at 1.65m/60kg skiing at moderate speed is going to bend a 'stiff' ski.
So what are the options? (pam w ?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| irie wrote: |
| This is really not helping Grizzler... |
I didn't realise that this was a thread asking for advice on a ski suitable for the OP, I thought it was more of a general discussion about ski design and marketing. In which case have a look at the Head SuperJoy in a 153cm or perhaps 158cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| irie wrote: |
This is really not helping Grizzler, who is:
"Mature" female
5'5"/1.65m
9-10 stone/60kg(ish)
Skis 3 weeks a year
Intermediate/Advanced
Wants relatively light skis that won't quickly top out when she gets better but won't punish her when she backs off and takes it easy and just cruises. There is no way Grizzler at 1.65m/60kg skiing at moderate speed is going to bend a 'stiff' ski.
So what are the options? (pam w ?) |
hmm, for a specific model under defined 'conditions' - Scott The Ski could be a candidate. Easy and enjoyable, for 60 kg skiier could also be used on a light off-piste, OK to up untill high speeds. At almost 90 kg I took 180 (?) model and gathered as much speed as i could on a long and wide piste and only at the very top I could sense that skis could give-up. Otherwise very easy and enjoyable ski and I am sure at 60 kg and shorter ski it would be stale enough for most speeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I hadn't realised that Grizzler was looking for a recommendation!
Let's start again. We have her basic stats, and an understanding that she is looking for something middle of the road that won't ski like a plank but isn't such a noodle that she will find it's speed limit too quickly.
So now, what is the ski to be used for?
How much piste vs off piste, trees / tight terrain vs open? Touring or just downhill?
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| BenA wrote: |
I hadn't realised that Grizzler was looking for a recommendation!
Let's start again. We have her basic stats, and an understanding that she is looking for something middle of the road that won't ski like a plank but isn't such a noodle that she will find it's speed limit too quickly.
So now, what is the ski to be used for?
How much piste vs off piste, trees / tight terrain vs open? Touring or just downhill?
Ben |
The OP is asking for information which will help her select suitable skis.
FYI here's the OPs preceding thread.
http://www.snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=121764
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
information which will help her select suitable skis
|
which is not a recommendation is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Quote: |
information which will help her select suitable skis
|
which is not a recommendation is it? |
Pedantically correct, but at a guess some recommendations of several possibly suitable skis with information about their different properties would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@irie, I am quite the pedant, don't you worry about that.
Problem is that, for me, unless I know the skier telling me about skis, I know how they ski, they know how I ski, the descriptions are more or less meaningless.
Geometry, "stiffness", etc. are equally too one dimensional to adequately predict how the ski is going to feel.
I'm not sure how much cop a snow dome is either, but then, the only time I ski tested in one I had their rental boots on
a. I do not understand how anyone can learn to ski in snow dome rental boots and
b. the skis both I and the OH were mist disaapointed with got borrowed elsewhere (I'd forgotten that I'd left mine at home, imagine my surprise) and taken out on a very nasty descent of refrozen slush off the back of Courmayeur and were excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks everyone to date.
I am not asking per se for any "specific" recommendations, although any comments or feedback or ideas are always helpful. I'm really just trying to learn more about skis, get folks' opinions and, yes, get my head around everything that I'm reading and researching in order to try to make some form of coherent thought pattern/cunning plan and decide if, as per my original thread, I even need to (or want to) upgrade or change skis which, at least in one way, I'm very happy with (but in other ways I do feel are starting to let me down as I get better).
As regards the latter, whilst it would be lovely to be able to test every ski, or find a good selection of skis to be able to test, for where I live (even at snowdomes - pretty useless as I have previously found them for boot or ski testing) - and where I go ski-ing it's really not proving very easy to be able to access and test many skis at all, so I'm having to supplement my decision-making (at least, perhaps ultimately the buying too, although far from ideal) from internet reviews and whatever advice I can obtain from my experienced betters (i.e. you kind people . At the end of the day, although I can hire something for a few days (and most likely will, if I want to get new skis) I doubt that what I end up buying will be what I hire.
So, it really is more a series of hypothetical questions at the moment, which I can then merge into reviews and other information which I read and a lot of thought about my current skis and how they might or might not be helping or holding me back, what I might expect if I ended up buying something too 'advanced' for me - and, fundamentally, what I want out of the rest of my ski-ing days and trips (may they be many  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
From the 'other thread':
| Grizzler wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
@Grizzler, good grief! your heels and feet should not be sliding around in your boots. more or less at all.
held firmly, snuggly but jot uncomfortably is what they should be...  |
Respectfully, you think that I didn't work that out back in, oh, 2004 when I first started ski-ing seriously ??!
To be fair, I can't get a set of walking or mountaineering or tactical boots (even cowboys or fashion ankle boots) that anywhere near fit without many additional layers of customised insoles and at least 2 layers of thick everyday socks plus laces wrapped around ankles, etc.
So far I've been through many multi-layered socks of varying thicknesses (with one set of boots it did actually solve it on the foot, but left the calf area still too big), paddings everywhere in and out, extra straps, custom footbeds, 3 sets of allegedly-suitable boots, 2 sets of foam-injected liners, countless footbeds (podiatry/ortho, boot fitter and shop), relocated buckles, several boot fitters and specialist shops and... yeah, well  Just paid out humungous amount of money on a pair of Stroltz specially-reduced liners and shells. Really, really, really hoping that finally.....
On the plus side, it can help you really know where your balance is and what's happening in your foot, etc. Prefer to have spent the time just happily and easily ski-ing, though. |
Bluntly Grizzler, you are wasting your time thinking about different skis until you are certain your boots issue is sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Yeh but great points have been addressed by all of the above, I have often wondered whether it just the 'marketing department' & unless you can actually try out the ski you are on a 'wing & a prayer' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
