 Poster: A snowHead
|
I have a much loved pair of Scott Crusades from 2012, and I'm wondering whether the time has come for me to replace them. Given that for the last 10 years, most years I've only been getting a week's skiing in each year (which works out to 6 days on the slopes), they've had at most 70-75 days use. I've read before that you typically get 100-120 days use out of a pair of skis, so on that basis they should have a bit of life left in them yet. But how can I tell whether they're knackered or not, lost their 'pop'? I've just come back from a great week's skiing in Austria where they served me well. But on harder, icier snow, at speed, I wasn't so confident about their edge hold and I'm not sure whether that is just something fundamental to the ski (an all-mountain ski with a 90mm waist is unlikely to hold an edge as well as a dedicated piste carver), or whether it is because the ski is ageing.
I have in mind a couple of skis to replace them, should I decide to go down that route - Nordica Navigator 85 (if I can find some), Volkl Kanjo 84 and Elan Wingman 86. I've decided to compromise a little more towards the piste side of things - I like the quicker edge to edge performance of narrower skis - at the expense of soft snow performance, which most holidays is largely academic anyway. I am thinking anyway that, great ski though it was in its time, the Crusade has probably now been well surpassed by the technology of the newer skis and I may get something with better edge hold without losing much in the soft snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I don't know the ski but if I was skiing 6 days a year, mostly on piste, they'd been well looked after/stored and showing no major signs of problems I would stick with them.
In the past I've had issues with bindings as much/more than the ski. If the bindings are still operating well, looking good then again no reason to worry.
If you are talking fundamentals my wife's edge came away completely on our last trip (terminal). They've done maybe 100 days over 6/7 years - all mountain. But I thinks that unusual. If that hadn't happened she wouldn't be thinking of retiring them just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@J2R, I think that fact that you have replacements in mind already suggests you wan't new ones irrespective of whether the poor old Scotts are knackered or not 
With reasonable care skis can last a long time.
Unless they are compromised in some way, then save the trees and don't put your buddy Scott out to grass (quite just yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Layne, thanks. The bindings are actually much newer than the skis - I had some touring bindings (Marker F10) put on them about 6 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I don't think I've ever killed a ski just by killing their "pop" - blown edges and general base destruction yes. I'm never confident on "harder, icier snow, at speed" unless I'm on a ski designed and tuned for that purpose which I'm usually not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@WindOfChange, well, yes, I am tempted But only if my Scotts actually need replacing, rather than because I fancy a younger model. A couple of times in recent years I've hired a pair of more piste-oriented skis for a day or two and have definitely found them to be grippier and faster edge to edge on piste (which, as I said above, is hardly surprising). But I think I might be able to get some of that feel by dropping down to a new all-mountain ski with a mid-80s waist, like the ones mentioned.
Out of curiosity, and because we were staying completely on piste last week in Austria (no viable off-piste snow), I decided on my last day to hire a pair of piste skis, a decision I instantly regretted as soon as I started skiing on them at the resort at the end of the valley, a good hour or so away from the hire shop! They were Head Magnums, good skis, but I had done my hire very quickly without checking them and hadn't noticed that the edges weren't sharp at all, they had some weird tune on them and the bases were scoured. On the hard snow where they were supposed to give me a great advantage, I could hardly hold an edge - nightmare! Fortunately the snow softened up after an hour or two such that a sharp edge wasn't so necessary and I still had a great day's skiing. Gave the hire shop a bollocking when I took them back, and they only charged me half price, but I won't be going back there next time I'm in the resort!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have similar vintage Crusades and it's really hard to officially retire them as they are very versatile and enjoyable. They do of course have some minor battle scars but that's just added character! I have recently bought bought some Black Crows Atris so a fair bit wider but not skied them yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no fundamental why skis should lose their pop over time. Some may if the glue between the layers starts to fail. Pop is mainly a combination of the skis camber and stiffness. If when you put them on a flat surface do they still have camber underfoot and when you flex them by hand do they still feel stiff? If the answer to those is yes then you're still good, or, more importantly if you're still enjoying skiing them then you're good. I have a pair of Scott punishers from 2008, they maybe get 6 days a year use, I do have a different pair as well, and they still generate a nice rebound between turns
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@rambotion, yes, they do feel stiff, but I have no benchmark to measure against. Are they as stiff as they once were? Is there as much camber? Can't be sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@J2R, Bit less technical question :
Would owning a new spangly pair of Nordica Navigator 85s make you happy ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@WindOfChange, only if they made me ski better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Those new skis might force you to focus a little more than when you're on those comfy old Crusades, so it's entirely possible that you will improve. It's also possible that you'll think, why did i spend ££££ and I can barely notice a difference. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've only 'worn out' two pairs of skis (Dynastar Big Troubles + Moment Bibby Pros), but it was really that torsional (sideways) flex and poorer edge grip that I noticed rather than 'pop'. At 10 years/~70 days it is realistic that you are approaching that point with the Scotts too, so probably time to start looking at the options out there...
That said there haven't really been any shaping (or construction) revolutions in the years in between, so I wouldn't consider the Scotts outdated either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
The answer for the reasons stated is no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
OK, thanks all. I think I'll probably keep them going for another year or two, unless I see a bargain price on a suitable replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I am still on some Crusairs and have not found a ski that makes a radical difference to make me change. The conclusion - I am the limitation, not the skis.
I would also add that I believe much of the fun is in the long process of trying and choosing as you get to try new skis every year. Once you have bought, you are stuck with your choice for a long time. The main reason to change other than damage would seem, to me, either weight i.e. you want to go up quicker, or you want a rockered profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I'm not after a rockered profile, certainly. Main reasons would be if the newer skis could be quicker edge to edge and have better edge hold in hard icy snow while not losing out significantly on flotation in deeper snow. My Crusades are 169cm, and I would be thinking of going a little longer with the new ones, so maybe snow contact area wouldn't be much different if I went for something with a 84-86mm waist instead of the Crusades' 90mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
There is no question in my mind that a more modern ski of the same width could give you a more responsive ride. The Crusades were essentially the same construction as the Missions (a little wider especially at the tip and with the "lip"). When Scott rolled out the Crusairs the difference was huge even though the dimensions were essentially the same (I still use the skins from my Missions on my Crusairs). The main difference was the carbon construction and a stiffer top sheet. I still use my Crusairs as my piste-orientated ski as it has a radius of 16m.
The Scott Superguide range would give you a better ride but, if you don't need to go light any ski with some carbon between 88 and 92mm would be worth looking at if the radius was comparable. A slight tip rocker can help keep contact in ice if the ski is a little stiffer. I think there is a whole lot to look at in that width, but looking at brands that have GS/race arms could be useful for what you are seeking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
