Poster: A snowHead
|
I am looking towards selling my supersports (4* 161) and picking up some all-mountain skis for spending a season at whistler. Bear in mind I am fairly timid and pretty light at 150lbs. I was thinking of the following
174 apache recon
172 Dynastar legend 8000
170 atomic sweet daddy
170 ish b3 bandit
170 ac3/ac4 from volkl
I am tempted by the volkls as they are suppsoed to have good grip on the groomers. I think maybe the ac4 may be too much. I want something that'll be easy to ski all day and perform at slow as well as fast speeds. I intend to spend around 40% off-piste, what do you guys think, Am I way off the amrk in selection.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'd suggest you demo when you get to Whistler. And, given your weight, I'd be looking at 160-165 in terms of length.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Edmundh009, if you're wanting float, go WIDER not longer. My off-piste skis are 179 twin tips - that means they are around 174 for a normal ski. My all mountain skis are 174 twins, so are equivalent to around a 169. My piste bashers are 170. I weigh in around the 185lb mark, and wouldn't exactly describe myself as a timid.
For somewhere like Whistler, if you want 1 ski for everything, then I'd go with something around 85mm under foot. Basically, I think you should look at Volkl Karmas or K2 Public Enemies no longer than 169, Dynastar 8000 or Rossi B3 around 164.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I demoed some public enemy's in Val d'isere and wasn't fussed on em, the ac4 is around 82mm under foot I think. Might have a look at the b3 as you say. How are the karmas on piste at moderate speed.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Edmundh009, should be similar to the PEs. What length PE did you demo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it was around a 165 ish, It had big heavy m1000 marker bindings, the skis and bindings weighed twice as much as the 4*s . I was really looking for something that is very workable on-piste. Do you think an m11 metron might cut it in a 162.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Cynic here. Does all this stuff really make any difference?
Width, length, radius, number of tips, and all that.
Years ago I was a Hi-Fi Fanatic. We talked on for hours about our tweeters and woofers and tri-amped active speakers. We put those speakers on spikes, removed the telly and the phone from the room because we heard it made a difference to the sound, and we carefully furnished the room for the ultimate listening experience. And of course we thought CDs and anything digital was the spawn of the devil.
No more. Most of it was a load of hogwash.
So, now I wonder if it is the same with skis. Why do we have so many?
I reckon it is all hype.
To choose skis take your daughter or wife along and go for the ones they think look best.
Works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It's more useful tp compare different types of skis using an analogy with cars.
You might not want to take a F550 across a special stage in the forest, whilst a high CoG 4x4 will have severe disadvantages on a tarmac race track.
Same with skis. Fat wide powder skis will not be at home on the groomers and racecourse, whilst 64mm underfoot slaloms will not be that stable doing big mountain powder turns in the steeps.
Horses for courses. There are not many true one quiver skis out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edmundh009,
Here's a tip... the XL is THE ski out of that lot for what you want to do.... IMO
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Edmundh009, If you can find a pair try the Zag Le Rouge as you're fairly light. I don't think they market in Canada though. It's truly an all round ski, stiff, carves and grips well on piste 78mm under the foot so plenty of float, and very good off piste in all conditions. Light to carry, turn well, edge to edge quick if shallow. I find them a bit tricky on very short radius carved turns and a tad stiff in bumps, but hey! no ski truly does it all!!!
|
|
|
|
|
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'll have a look for the Zags, cheers for the tip, may be difficult to find though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
my 2p. Keep the supersports for on piste then get a pair of proper Whistler skis when you're out there - Prior skis are made right in town & you should be able to get a deal on demos (be warned though they start fat & get fatter). Or you can demo a load of skis at your leisure with no pressure to buy if you've still got your old skis.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I bought some Salomon scrambler hots in the end of season sales because they seemed cheap - I can't normally tell the difference between skis. I bought them because i wanted to ski powder but still ski on piste. On piste they are amazing, you can ski them agressively (seemed just as good as atomic gs:9s when pushed) but can also be layed back for cruising. Off piste flotation is fantastic, they keep you in total control! I would strongly recommend them.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I think you might be right fatbob, Its just the fact that I would have to bring them with me. I'll be starting in Vancouver and moving up to whistler a week or so later. I could get something with a 90mm waist then, rather than a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Edmundh009, carrying the skis with you shouldn't be too big a deal!
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It was just cos I'm going on this Bunac thing. Going from Belfast to London with 30kg bag + Laptop +2 pairs of skis. Then going from heathrow to vancouver and staying in a hostel and going onto to whistler. Ah well so much for travelling light
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Edmundh009, OK, take the 30kg bag, and the 2 pairs of skis in their bag, and put more clothes in the ski bag. Take your boot bag as carry-on, and your laptop. But remember, if you are taking a laptop to Whistler, there are two things worth noting:
1. it's 110v not 240v, so make sure you have a power supply that can cope with it.
2. if you get a job with Intrawest, you may well be in shared accomodation, so make sure you get it insured (and make sure the insurers know what country you'll be in/where you will be staying.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'd second fatbob's recommendation - I demoed some priors the other day (the Original) and they were excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Wtfh can you recommend an inconspicuos boot bag as I hear alot of carriers don't let you bring boot bags as carry-on. I shall probably go on the Bunac flight with Air Canada as opposed to Zoom so do you think they may be more forgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Air Canada have bigger luggage allowances than Zoom: two "pieces", max 32kg/piece. Skis+boots count as one piece, although I've usually got two or three pairs in the ski bag!
With Zoom it's weight based: 25kg IIRC + skis. Check-in staff got snotty this year on the way back as claimed bootbag came within the 25kg allowance, not with the skis - but they didn't enforce a charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, did you say something?
I tend to agree with you though. I have some hifi buff friends who are now into using golden cables! Of course you have to have special cables for the left and the right hand speakers. I'm considered to be a lepper because I have B&O, and can't even remember which one at that.
On skis, well yes. I still ski Atomic Beta Ride 11/20 at length 190, which were billed as all mountain skis at the time . By todays standards I guess those are skinnies. Somehow I still manage to use them for 95% off piste without too many problems.
But judging from what is said on this forum I must be doing something wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lawrie, an ally! I did think maybe my post was invisible. I often hear suggetions from fellow-skiers that equipment can make us better skiers. For the professionals: maybe. For us average punters: unlikely.
I accept there is a sensible length. And it would seem that very wide skis make piste-skiing less easy. Most skis on the market are however more-or-less the same, but with different graphics.
Choose a ski as tall as your nose at a price you can afford with graphics you like.
Sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Mike Lawrie wrote: |
On skis, well yes. I still ski Atomic Beta Ride 11/20 at length 190, which were billed as all mountain skis at the time . By todays standards I guess those are skinnies. Somehow I still manage to use them for 95% off piste without too many problems.
But judging from what is said on this forum I must be doing something wrong? |
More likely something right.
Fatter skis make the deep stuff easier to cope with, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Mike Lawrie wrote: |
Jonpim, I still ski Atomic Beta Ride 11/20 at length 190, which were billed as all mountain skis at the time . By todays standards I guess those are skinnies. Somehow I still manage to use them for 95% off piste without too many problems.
But judging from what is said on this forum I must be doing something wrong? |
Your atomics get their area from the extra length, no surprise they don't give trouble off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rich, well yes I do know that. So why is everybody so sold on short and fat instead of long and thin if the important factor is area under your feet? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with fat skis, I would just like to understand what makes short fat skis so desirable... It can't be purely down to surface area, cos you get that with long skis too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lawrie wrote: |
....... I would just like to understand what makes short fat skis so desirable... |
A short fat ski of the same surface area of a longer thinner ski will be more manoeuvrable. Great for tight spots & trees etc.
The latest materials & manufacturing mean that you can obtain the desired torsional rigidity that was unobtainable before which meant that a wide shovel would twist, edge hold would be poor & edge to edge speed was slow.
The latest constructions mean that you can now have a good floating tight radius ski that gives great edge hold & is stable at high speed, all in the one package. Although this construction tends to make for a heavy ski, the weight is not felt on the slopes as the 'swing weight' is low.
|
|
|
|
|
|