Just a general enquiry as the urges rise again and I mooch through reviews and skis for sale...
Technically ski-ing on piste, I often find myself (cheap holiday season times?) on runs (any colour) which are not exactly in the best condition... Chopped up, semi-mogulled, lumps of ice, hardpack, soft spring or artifical snow, etc, etc, all at once in any random order. (Or, with no offence, I could be in some interesting Scottish conditions... Or at Chill Factore...) Ski reviews, however, seem often not to give much input on performance in these 'mixed' conditions, and whilst I actually positively enjoy ski-ing them - well, sometimes - I haven't a clue about what ski might best cope with them, and I'm limited only to taking 1 pair with me if outside the UK (flying). Obviously different skis cope better in specific conditions and are not so good in others, and it's a trade off of various personal and techncial requirements - but I wonder what's your pointers, input, experiences, opinions, suggestions, thoughts etc for the best 'Mixed Crud' ski category? Best general type (shape, sidecut, dimensions, flex, construction etc), as well as any specific recommendations or warnings? (Apart from go to a better location!) Is there a ski which can really cope well with both the best and the worst which a pisted run can be?
Personally (and you guys might ski these conditons differently), I find that I need to do (and enjoy) a lot of short or sharp (even jump) turn work, so I tend towards short radius (11.5 to 12 ish seems to suit me @ mid 150s lengths; maybe I could go up to 158 or 160 but that's getting long for me). I'm currently coping OK on 114/70/104 (intermediate basic mid flex Carver-type, about 10 years old), but wonder about the more up to date All Mountain skis (i.e. bigger waist) or maybe a Piste ski (same or narrower waist) and/or go a more profiled ski. I've heard people both recommend and speak badly about each choice.
I certainly want to be able to edge and initiate turns quickly, and of course also need good edge hold on the icy/harder stuff as and when it appears. Control and grip are more important than speed to me, although I'm a reasonably agressive skier and no longer Sid the Snail. Not the fittest or strongest person, but prepared to work a ski in order to get a good run.
Instinct is driving me towards stiffer skis (not quite sure why - to cut through and give control?), but the word 'forgiving' also seems very appealing (which I suppose means softer, or else some modern clever construction/materials?): but how much would a really stiff (race?) ski buck you around more (and is that good or bad?) or otherwise not cope so well? Never sure what 'playful' means when I read it, nor 'damp' - but I have certainly tried a few skis recently which were just damp squibs which I wouldn't feel confident launching down any of the slopes which I'm thinking of here.
Demo-ing is of course a good answer: but with limited time on the slopes and oft-limited ski ranges available (depending on resort/country), never mind the right real outdoors conditions as well, it's great if there's a bit of understanding in my head as well.
Cheers.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
With the SH ski tests coming up in Manchester, that might be the best place to experience both choppy/cruddy piste conditions and a wide variety of 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?
@Grizzler, how tall/heavy are you? 150s are tiny, like child size...
Personally for chopped up stuff and crud I want something pretty stiff and fairly heavy, ideally with metal, that'll just railroad through it. For on piste where the chop's rarely that deep, I guess around 90mm waist.
I want at least a 20m radius, as that just makes a ski more stable and predictable. Also actually makes short pivot/jump turns easier too - remember you're not carving those turns, so sidecut radius is pretty irrelevant. Less aggressive sidecut (longer radius) is just much more neutral and comfortable doing turns of different sizes than an 11m radius ski that really wants to hook up and carve 11m turns everywhere.
Would want it around 180-185 for stability (I'm 5 foot 9, 70kg)
Damp means the ski won't vibrate and jolt you around so much. One of the great things about skis with metal in them is that they seem to absorb so much of the chatter when skiing rough snow.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but how is your technique? Any "reasonable" ski on edge will just carve through chop etc, once it's on an edge not a lot if going to deflect it. But for moguls you are going to need a different technique.
If you on piste all the time as you said then I'd get something around 80mm ish underfoot. This is me skiing some pretty crap snow on 74mm wide skis....
If this is just for piste take a look at the Scott Black Majic - but go longer than you think as they have quite a lot of tip rocker. My 177s ski more like a 160 or 165.
Wow the title and the OP's actual requirements and existing equipment are about as far apart as I can imagine. As clarky said he's on kid's skis (if an adult male) so almost anything
To answer the title I might have said something like a Dynastar Cham 107 or Blizzard Cochise in a high 80s length. But for on piste only - outside of the glorious spring cornfest yeah high 80s width.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
and here's rob@rar in some cruddy snow on sub 80mm skis (I think)
As Chill Factore seems to be within your reach (based on your first post) then I'd agree with @Richard_Sideways - get yourself over to the sH ski test there in a few weeks. All the brands/skis already mentioned above will be there I think, plus lots of knowledgeable people to suggest suitable ones to try. Trying multiple models back to back on a consistent slope will tell you a huge amount about different skis, and what your preferences are!
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.
@kitenski, Looks quite powdery to me and he does have a couple of wobbles. Not bad skiiing but a skier of Rob's calibre could do better and might do so on skis that truck better. So for me you posted evidence that sub 80mm (Titans?) aren't the ideal ski for those conditions. Not sure if that was your intent.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Those are seriously short skis you are on.
You want more length. Longer side cut. Beefier skis.
There's a great deal on K2 AMP Rictor 90 & Rossi Experience 84 on glissop.co.uk at the moment. They've only got the K2s in 170, but there is a good range of the Rossis.
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.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
@kitenski, Looks quite powdery to me and he does have a couple of wobbles. Not bad skiiing but a skier of Rob's calibre could do better and might do so on skis that truck better. So for me you posted evidence that sub 80mm (Titans?) aren't the ideal ski for those conditions. Not sure if that was your intent.
+1
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Sounds like the OP is on slalom skis. Great fun but defo not the best all rounder.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Dave of the Marmottes, yeh but that was "proper" off piste and I think Rob was asked to ski it GS speed!
But the point was that for what the OP is asking for, then I believe around an 80mm waist would be ideal!
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@Scarpa, too short for slalom skis!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Thanks for the input so far.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
...... he's on kid's skis (if an adult male)
Adult, yes (well, tantrums notwithstanding). Male, no
Actually, my old 152 are the exact manufacturer's (Elan) recommened length for my height and weight (5' 4", around 60kg?) and 'advanced' ability (not quite sure I'm really more than advanced idjut but... ) - for a piste ski, anyway. Not a great deal of tip lift/rocker so ski length usually comes up a bit small, so I'm told. Up to over eyebrow height would put me on 158s, apparently - and I've never been given anything bigger than 155s when hiring, UK or Europe. I am looking at going longer than at present, especially as I'm now much more confident at higher speeds and, apparently, occasionally carve reasonably well (stress occasionally). My preference for on-piste playing is indeed a slalom ski and that's what I was recommended to get when I asked a couple of instructors, but when trying to find one all-round ski I am wondering if it's not going to cope well in realistic conditions which I seem to be meeting lately (up the top of the glaciers is a differnet matter) - and, to be honest, I do just enjoy short radius turning rather than longer faster runs (i.e. whilst I will sometimes when the slope allows go for long, wide and fast -or just straight down - I am more of a slalom than GS skier in terms of what I enjoy and the types of pistes which I've so far found myself on. This may of course change as I gather more experience...
Waist-wise, there seems to be a tendency (and indeed advice here) to go wider these days. Whilst I can see that this is sensible in anything deep, soft, etc, would it still perform well on harder or icier sections/conditons? A lot of the general piste skis and slalom skis which I'm lookin at are well less than my current 70mm. This is the kind of choice which I'm trying to understand at the moment.
Someone asked about my technique; a valid question. Doubtless of course needs improvement, but within the time and cost limits of recreational ski-ing, certainly overseas, enjoyment and safety have to take priority to some degree and, well, I'm staying upright and reasonably in control in said cruddy conditions and, so I'm told, don't look too bad compared to a lot of people (wich means nothing, I know). Have had some instruction, generally given reasonable feedback but I ain't no expert .
I am going to try and get to CF for the ski test: but (although I agree about the conditions!) indoors is never the same as outdoor (never mind the length), though it will be helpful and enlightening, I'm sure. Trouble is, I'm without decent boots at the moment, so am struggling somewhat in some unsuitable off the shelfs whilst waiting for custom fit ones to be made (so may be hiding head in shame and embarrasment at my lousy public performance - please, please, be kind to me... )
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
So the clue was Sid the Snail. Maybe Sindy the Snail would have saved gender confusion.
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?
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
So the clue was Sid the Snail. Maybe Sindy the Snail would have saved gender confusion.
Sorry... Never played with dolls. (Just having been watching Ice Age, I think it was actually Sid the Sloth that was on my mind at the time.)
Interesting point, though - why should it matter? (Length apart). Do you think that going for a female-specific ski is advisable or am I OK looking at the shorter unisex/male skis?
@Grizzler Less aggressive sidecut (longer radius) is just much more neutral and comfortable doing turns of different sizes than an 11m radius ski that really wants to hook up and carve 11m turns everywhere.
One of the great things about skis with metal in them is that they seem to absorb so much of the chatter when skiing rough snow.
Can you please elaborate what you mean by "neutral", "comfortable" and "hook up".
Re "metal in them" - I see lots of "Ti" (titanium) in names; how much metal and where? Again, is it possible to elaborate please?
Ta.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Grizzler wrote:
Thanks for the input so far.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
...... he's on kid's skis (if an adult male)
Adult, yes (well, tantrums notwithstanding). Male, no
Cue all the assumptions that a ski forum user is a bloke and all the recommendations that come with that Though to be fair, your handle doesn't give much away.
So maybe a women's ski that is fairly stiff or a unisex that has a good range of lengths, 85ish in the middle, good edge hold, works in most conditions? The ski test would give you the best idea, but failing that have a look at the top end of the Volkl women's range (very good skis but a bit pricey), Atomic's all mountain equivalent (I have the Storms myself, also good skis but a fair bit cheaper), Whitedot Ones (feels just like the Atomic Storm but has a twin tip) or Kneissl Black Stars (very good skis but rather pricey new, ex demos can be a bargain though). Blizzard Black Pearls also come highly recommended, although not by me as I didn't get on with them, but everyone's different.
So the clue was Sid the Snail. Maybe Sindy the Snail would have saved gender confusion.
Interesting point, though - why should it matter? (Length apart). Do you think that going for a female-specific ski is advisable or am I OK looking at the shorter unisex/male skis?
Well the main problem is that most kit geeks are male and therefore aren't really qualified to say what works for a short light female. Almost certainly you can scale back on width as well as length and perhaps downgrade on the amount of metal in a ski ( which dampens ) and things like torsional stiffness. I might have demoed a 97 mm wide ski in a 184 length and come back saying that it needs to be 191 if you want to give it beans. None of that is very useful to you as it might feel like a plank to you.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Well the main problem is that most kit geeks are male and therefore aren't really qualified to say what works for a short light female.
*sticks hand up*
After all it is free
After all it is free
Scarlet wrote:
Cue all the assumptions that a ski forum user is a bloke and all the recommendations that come with that Though to be fair, your handle doesn't give much away.
You seem to know a lot about women's skis for a Welsh Valleys Rugby boyo
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.
@Grizzler - Scott Lunas, with your stats. In the 156cm probably (85mm underfoot), though I'm sure you could handle the 166cm too.
I'm on my second pair (166cm), as they are just so so so damn good, and they are designed as crud bashers. I have 3 pairs of skis, and they are my 'baby' skis, but I use them 90% of the time. Short radius (14m), extremely manoeuverable, very playful, carve brilliantly, but enough float to handle powder too (though they are obviously not a full powder ski).
I recommended them to Hurtle - she tested them on the EoSB and promptly fell in love and bought a pair. Spyderjon sells them, and might be able to bring a pair to the ChillF test if you give him a heads up.
I've tested a lot of skis, and never found anything to better them (I have found some skis to equal them) - that's of course for my preferences and skiing style though...
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Can you please elaborate what you mean by "neutral", "comfortable" and "hook up".
Re "metal in them" - I see lots of "Ti" (titanium) in names; how much metal and where? Again, is it possible to elaborate please?
Ta.[/quote]
These three terms equate to 'less carvy than a slalom type ski' with which you'll be familiar. In short, less short turning, less quick to engage carve etc but more tolerant of your stance over the skis. For slalom type skis your length is right, only go longer if you're choosing an all mountain type ski, which should then have wider waist and be more all round but will lack the 'tight' feeling of your slalom type skis. Beware full blown slalom race skis, as very demanding, instead go a step or two down - check sites for accessibility rating = how manageable. As an instructor I favour slalom skis, and still make them work in deeper or difficult snow though not ideal. My daughter, also qualified, and similar build to you, skis slalom skis of again a similar length. Metal, usually Titanal (not Titanium!) makes a ski stiffer and gives better grip on the firm, and can spring back a little when pushed harder in the turn (aka rebound) which can make getting the ski round very quickly so easy - and can be delicious when the timing is right, a kind of fun, bouncy descent! Titanal will be either full sheet or sections within the ski, newer and lighter compounds are increasing also. A stiffer ski will make easier work of slicing through choppy stuff, too stiff and it's difficult to bend/flex it to get that carve shape and zoom. Dynastar women's range of piste skis has been right on the money for several years, but always best to trying first where possible since can be quite subjective. If abroad, rent as many different skis until you find your ideal! Hope this helps!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
My recommendation would be Scott "The Ski" (Women's version), probably in a 160. Fun, playful, do anything ski.
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.
Kooky, who is light and rather tiny skis on Elan slalom race skis but she lives in the Alps and used to ski about 100 days a year. But she can mix and match, has some 100mm underfoot Atomics and now Carbonlite Directors for the off piste and soft cruddy conditions. Many of the women I know ski on non-women specific skis, just set the binding a touch forward if necessary.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Sun 18-09-16 11:03; edited 1 time in total
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Scarpa, the problem with "men's" skis is that the shortest length can often be too long for a short, light woman. The exceptions are the unisex brands that stock a good range of lengths (looking at Kneissl and Whitedot here), but they are not the rule.
What length did Kooky go for in the Directors in the end? I ended up with Carbonlite 171, but I think I might be a bit bigger although probably not as good a skier.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I'm the same height and a bit lighter.
Have you tried the Nordica Wild Belles? Not mentioned often.
During a test when Snowheads used to come to Scotland I loved them and bought a pair. Preferred over the Blizzard Black Pearls.
They cut through chop, sugar in April , great on piste. On the odd pure off piste day they are fine as I'm light and athletic but something wider would always be better.
Prior to this I skied K2 Super Burning which had a 72 waist and I thought they were great in all conditions but changing to a wider ski was effortless.
A test day at a snow dome would maybe be a good idea.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@Grizzler, that's more helpful.
1. More or less skis don't know how tall you are, just what you weigh. And they definitely do not know where your eyebrows nor chin(s) are. Gauging ski length by those metrics is at best an easy heuristic for lazy skishops to hire you skis in minimum possible time.
2. They also can't tell what bits and bobs are dangling, nor protruding. "Women's" skis are a dreadful, shameful ploy on the manufacturers' parts to extract more money from the female coin by appealing to pink.
3. Get the boots sorted first.
All that over with, prior advice holds. Longer radius, beefier ski. Longer ski. My OH (I'm a bloke) is fractionally lighter than I and we both ski on 177s. That will change this year as the skis are exhausted and need to be replaced.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@Scarlet, After demoing them at the EOSB she ended up going with the 161s as she does a lot of tree skiing and the shorter length is a lot more manageable in confined spaces. As she is only 50kg the float is fine. She has a couple of pairs of Atomic Access ( think) and prefers the shorter of the pair. Guess the 171cm ones can be kept for Alaska charging (we can dream)
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
under a new name wrote:
2. They also can't tell what bits and bobs are dangling, nor protruding. "Women's" skis are a dreadful, shameful ploy on the manufacturers' parts to extract more money from the female coin by appealing to pink.
.
They can however tell when " baby got back" which is why I understand female recommended mount points are different - different CoM in the same mass.
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?
@Dave of the Marmottes, Yup, most women (and some men) ski much better with a mounting point a couple of cm forward than the standard recommended.
@Scarpa, I have played a few times with bindings that allow +/- ~2 cm adjustment.
While there is a perception of a change in ski feel, I've never noticed any real change in my nor anyone else's skiing.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Grizzler wrote:
clarky999 wrote:
@Grizzler Less aggressive sidecut (longer radius) is just much more neutral and comfortable doing turns of different sizes than an 11m radius ski that really wants to hook up and carve 11m turns everywhere.
One of the great things about skis with metal in them is that they seem to absorb so much of the chatter when skiing rough snow.
Can you please elaborate what you mean by "neutral", "comfortable" and "hook up".
Re "metal in them" - I see lots of "Ti" (titanium) in names; how much metal and where? Again, is it possible to elaborate please?
Ta.
Basically long radius skis don't do much until you tell them do something. Point them down the hill and they'll happily run in a straight line, keep them bases flat and pivot and they'll come round smoothly, put them on edge and they'll rail the turn radius, flatten the bases half way through and they'll slide/smear without wanting to turn further. All very stable and predictable. Skis with short turn radius have a much more exaggerated shape, and I find they are always want to turn. Point them straight down the hill and the big fat tip wants to pull you into a turn, pivot a 2m radius turn and the tip/tail would rather catch and carve the turn radius. That's great if you want to carve slalom turns everywhere, but they can be a bit twitchy (relatively) if you want to do anything else.
Skis are made of a bunch of materials. Almost always you start with a wood core, and then add things to it. Carbon makes a ski stiffer without adding much weight, and makes the skis very reactive, but transmits lots of vibrations and feedback into your legs. Layers of metal (titanal not titanium!) adds stiffness and and helps to absorb those chattering vibrations, but also adds weight (which can be good bad or neither depending on what you want the ski to do - all races have lots of metal in them). Fibreglass would be somewhere between the two. There's a bunch of other stuff (rubber, aramid, etc) that goes into the lay up too though.
@under a new name, I definitely noticed an improvement when I moved my binding a little forward on my old twin tips. They were a lot easier to initiate turns on, more in slower skiing though. My SL skis have a 3 position binding, you can notice a bit of difference between the quick turning or the rearwards stability positions. At my level I just stick them in the middle though
A lot of women who ski on men's skis (with the bindings set up for men) have been suffering from not being able to pressure the tip and turn the ski as well as they should. Centre of mass and pelvis width also has an effect.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Scarpa, an improvement or a perception? The skis feel different, sure, but I don't think they performed any better.
My wife and her sister would be most unhappy to hear any suggestion that they weren't turning their skis as well as they should and both ski unisex skis, mounted completely as standard.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Grizzler wrote:
my height and weight (5' 4", around 60kg?) and 'advanced' ability (not quite sure I'm really more than advanced idjut but... ) -
fixx wrote:
@Grizzler - Scott Lunas, with your stats. In the 156cm probably (85mm underfoot), though I'm sure you could handle the 166cm too.
I'm on my second pair (166cm), as they are just so so so damn good, and they are designed as crud bashers. I have 3 pairs of skis, and they are my 'baby' skis, but I use them 90% of the time. Short radius (14m), extremely manoeuverable, very playful, carve brilliantly, but enough float to handle powder too (though they are obviously not a full powder ski).
I recommended them to Hurtle - she tested them on the EoSB and promptly fell in love and bought a pair. Spyderjon sells them, and might be able to bring a pair to the ChillF test if you give him a heads up.
I've tested a lot of skis, and never found anything to better them (I have found some skis to equal them) - that's of course for my preferences and skiing style though...
FWIW Mrs MishMash (5' 2" around ~50kg) has really enjoyed the Lunas as an intermediate and now advanced skier . I got her them after sking the bloke's version, the Crusade which I enjoyed.
She also recently migrated her touring ski from Dynstar Cham 88 w from 152 to 158 and won't go back onto the 152 - she is good enough to see the shorter length was harder to ski.
She has also recently loved the DPS 99 hybrid in 158 (99 underfoot ) in powder, chop and soft on piste .
I think you need to size up now. Let us know how you get on - these ski threads are really boring because no one ever comes back and says "I loved/hated it"!!
Last edited by After all it is free on Sun 18-09-16 20:36; edited 1 time in total
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, It is totally individual. But on average women's centre of balance point is a couple of cm forward of the average man. That is a fact. Now that does make a small difference. If your wife or their sister had been complaining that the skis felt like they were running away a bit and that they were having to force the tips round then then it may be advised that they should look into whether their bindings were mounted correctly for them. If they are having no trouble then it is likely that their set ups are fine for them. It seems to happen more with longer skis from what I have seen, maybe leg strength combined with technique has an effect.
On my Nordica's it was a definite improvement for what I wanted. Slightly easier turn initiation, it definitely made skiing switch much better too. For fast carving skiing on the piste there was no difference that I could feel, but for short turns and also for zig zagging through tight trees it definitely felt smoother. Whether it is better for a person much depends on what they want. If I was blasting down high speed open powder then a would be happy with a rear oriented position. If I am doing jumps and tight turns then I much prefer a more forward position. I've noticed that on fat twin tip skis like my Bent Chetlers the manufacturers mounting line is more towards the centre than on older skis, this is the way the ski has been designed. Stick me on stiff GS skis and I want stability at speed. Horses for courses
There is a good reason a lot of railers and park skiers have a centrally mounted binding ski for their stunts.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@mishmash, Yup... ski reviews by happy snowHeads are much appreciated.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
.
Never played with dolls. (Just having been watching Ice Age, I think it was actually Sid the Sloth that was on my mind at the time.)
Though to be fair, your handle doesn't give much away.
