 Poster: A snowHead
|
| 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. |
It was a bumps field with a light covering of powder, enough to hide the bumps but not enough to make fill in the troughs. I was on Titans (then 78mm underfoot) and, IMO, a good all-round ski with an emphasis on piste performance. This slo-mo shows the ski flexing quite strongly even though it's a relatively stiff ski in its category, especially at the end when I had to pull out of the run to avoid the boarder who skied across my line.
https://vimeo.com/77849806
For the OP, my question would be if you mostly ski on piste and want to have fun with the variable snow you find on piste and sometimes off to the side then something around 80mm with a traditional camber is what you're looking for. If you are taller than average go for the longer length in the range for that ski, if you are shorter than average go for the shorter length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I suspect an I Beam would flex strongly if you try to GS it through a firm bumps field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| I suspect an I Beam would flex strongly if you try to GS it through a firm bumps field. |
Yeah, I was glad I was not on anything softer as it would have been even more rock and roll. The tips would have flexed so much they might as well not have been there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Yeah, a good skier will adapt to pretty much anything they are on 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
For the OP, my question would be if you mostly ski on piste and want to have fun with the variable snow you find on piste and sometimes off to the side then something around 80mm with a traditional camber is what you're looking for. |
Can you even get a (new) ski that has no form of early rise tip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
For the OP, my question would be if you mostly ski on piste and want to have fun with the variable snow you find on piste and sometimes off to the side then something around 80mm with a traditional camber is what you're looking for. |
Can you even get a (new) ski that has no form of early rise tip? |
Maybe not, although mostly I think an early tip rise measured in a millimetre or two is mostly marketing nonsense. The stiffness of the front of the ski is infinitely more important, 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.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
For the OP, my question would be if you mostly ski on piste and want to have fun with the variable snow you find on piste and sometimes off to the side then something around 80mm with a traditional camber is what you're looking for. |
Can you even get a (new) ski that has no form of early rise tip? |
Maybe not, although mostly I think an early tip rise measured in a millimetre or two is mostly marketing nonsense. The stiffness of the front of the ski is infinitely more important, IMO. |
Given they race on what you describe, you are undoubtedly right.
I still ski on traditionally cambered skis, so was wondering if they were still available, as I hadn't noticed any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errm a tiny bit of early rise or "marketing rocker" in a piste ski does not mean they are not fully traditionally cambered - it just means the tip contact point is fractionally further back. If it's such a worry just buy a size up.
IMO if you are intending to ski anything outside pure hardpack (including pistes in spring) then rocker is a good thing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, Seconded, in most variable conditions a little rocker is a good thing. Saying that, skiing an icy steep black with 30% front rocker did lead to my tips flapping like excited pupppies 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Back to the OP
| Quote: |
I'm currently coping OK on 114/70/104 (intermediate basic mid flex Carver-type, about 10 years old)
|
Mrs Yeti sounds like a similar skier to the OP and made a similar change for similar reasons. Skiing together in spring we were well matched in the mornings but I would carry on regardless (old school stiff punter GS skis) while she ground to a halt as the day wore on and everything cut up. She didn't fancy my "skis as heavy and stiff as possible to smash through anything" approach and settled on Atomic Affinities in 155. I think the official radius is around 14m.
She found a huge difference, and is very pleased with them not only for mush/ crud but much better than the previous (10yo Blizzard piste skis) on good hard snow as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks, lads and lasses. There's a lot there to think about and research.
Interesting that all of the recommendations are not models with which I'm familiar and which don't tend to feature at all in any 'best of' tests which I've read on the Net, UK and other. Nor as a rule are they ones which I've seen in either hire shops or for sale on the Net or in shops UK or Europe.
Yes, it really is ideal to be able to test and test and test - and test again. Now, if only I can afford to move to and live at somewhere where I can do that!  (Seriously happy and wanting to do so if I could find a suitable place cheap enough!) In the meantime, hopefully I'll be able to get down to the Ski Test and at least get a bit more of an idea. I will post some feedback as and when.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@Grizzler, I'm surprised you haven't seen any of these in reviews - they are mostly pretty well regarded and mainstream. That said, UK retailers don't always have the best ranges. But they are all readily available in my local area in France...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| I'm surprised you haven't seen any of these in reviews - they are mostly pretty well regarded and mainstream. That said, UK retailers don't always have the best ranges. But they are all readily available in my local area in France... |
Once looking for them, there are several reviews - the Lunas and Black Pearls, for instance, seem well regarded. But they are not generally in UK reviews/tests, certainly not those which come up on general Google searches - I will freely admit that I don't know which test or review to trust and which not, so I look at a fair lot, but only by random search engine and following the trail as I waste half my life away... 
A lot of what I've so far found seems to have been pushing me towards slightly less wide skis, ones such as Atomic Cloud Elevens (XT Redster basically), some of the K2s, one of the Volkls (but very long radius), maybe Salomon or Head piste skis, Head Great or Super Joys, etc.
I haven't skied in France; mostly Austria to date or Lapland or Scotland plus looking at a few UK ski equipment shops. Sadly, ranges can be restricted (especially women's ones).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No more than a level 8 skier on the IO Guide
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Grizzler, as before, unless you are fixated on pink and floral graphics, why bother with women's 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, Check out skidiva for a range of female specific ski advice. There are some very good skiers there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Grizzler, lots of ski test reports on here too - click Snowbase at the top of the page.
@under a new name, because "men's" skis don't generally cater for short, light women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Grizzler, as before, unless you are fixated on pink and floral graphics, why bother with women's skis? |
One of the reasons why I haven't yet bought a women's ski is that I do not do colourful, pink, blue, purple, flowery, swirly, etc, etc, etc.... (There isn't an emoticon which adequately expresses my foot-stomping feeling on this one!)
However, as someone said earlier, I have read that there is a point in having the bindings a little more forward (and some skis don't indeed really come short enough maybe) - and sometimes for a given level of performance or construction they are a little more flexible/soft than the mens' versions (if that matters).
I've never actually skied anyting but unisex ones - but it was just a thought; I know that opinions differ. I can probably play around with adjustable bindings if it is an issue (it isn't with the right boots, I don't feel - at least, on current experience) though I wouldn't want to try to re-mount bindings/plates myself otherwise (though if I bought new and got someone who knows what they're doing to set them up for me then... Maybe???)
Pesonally, I think that I'm looking at any ski, whoever aimed at, which I feel happy on, that allows me to ski the conditions which I want or have to and which allows me to do the kind of ski-ing which I enjoy. As long as it's not girly purple pink blue or swirly flowery... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Grizzler, comment above that a girl's CoM was a couple of cms further somewhere than a bloke's.
1. That surely depends on the girl. And the bloke. And pie consumption of each.
2. I suspect most skiers would not notice that anyway.
3. and in the scheme of things, it's easily compensated for and the dynamic fore-aft movement required in skiing is going to have it disappear in the noise.
And the talk of a ski being softer? sure, there are more or less soft skis, and female specific ones may (or may not) be generally softer but it's all relative really isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, Do you really not accept that individuals have biomechanics that are specific to them and that as a class, women might have slightly different biomechanics and weight distribution to equivalent weight men? Does Beyonce look the same as Tinie Tempah frinstnance?
It might be able to be compensated for by skilled individuals but for others might be critical. I used to be fairly cynical about the whole "alignment" industry in skiing until I got into some demo boots I absolutely could not ski in. Crossed tips, falls on an innocuous turn, total amateur hour*. Next run back in my own boots on the same skis absolute dream.
* For the wisecrackers EVEN worse than usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, no I absolutely do accept that - what I absolutely do not accept is that you can make a sweeping statement about male/female biomechanics and expect it to stand up to any scrutiny. Especially when the biggest (only) resulting difference is pink floweriness.
On demo boots:
1. you spend much/most/all of your time on good kit. Adapted to yourself. Most people don't and most people, while not performing to the highest of their capabilities, get away with it. You, I and my wife would not put up with that.
2. In recent years I have skied, once, in rental kit. I do not understand how anyone learns to ski in that. At all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My daughter is 12 quite a bit lighter and uses 152's with a 80mm waist, just by going longer you'll find them more stable and able to deal with crud better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
On the women's skis, I've bought my wife 2 pairs in the last couple of seasons, both of which are women's models, and the swirly patterns aren't too bad...
Piste: Rossignol Unique 10 http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/skitests/ski.aspx/2015/Rossignol-Unique-10
Touring/off-piste: Nordica Wild Belle http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/skitests/ski.aspx/2015/Nordica-Wild-Belle
The Nordica hasn't seen much use yet but the Rossi was bought pretty much for the same requirements as the OP. They've worked well for a couple of holidays, including some mild off-piste, and a few days skiing in Scotland. They've not been to the fridge yet but would be ideal for that. The modern piste performance ski makes a pretty good job of most piste conditions, imho. Don't be afraid of the 'expert' marketing tag on skis like the Rossi above, my wife's skiing is more accurate than powerful and much prefers these to the lower models she's tried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
That's a generous assessment 