Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Who is Al Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
under a new name wrote: |
Who is Al Morgan |
He was (is?) the equipment expert/editor at the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Old Fartbag, oh.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Old Fartbag wrote: |
under a new name wrote: |
Who is Al Morgan |
He was (is?) the equipment expert/editor at the SCGB. |
Was. Left quite a few years ago, if memory serves. But he had a raft of experience before then and continues in the industry, as we can see.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I rode the Deacon 74s and they were great. The 72s are labelled as all mountain. Based on my experience with the 74s, I’d be tempted to keep them to the pistes, tho I guess if the snow was pretty hard off piste they might be ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
MaxiD wrote: |
I rode the Deacon 74s and they were great. The 72s are labelled as all mountain. Based on my experience with the 74s, I’d be tempted to keep them to the pistes, tho I guess if the snow was pretty hard off piste they might be ok |
That has to be marketing fluff. A narrow AM ski is around 86....but 88-93 is closer to the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I agree. Anybody think differently?
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@MaxiD, that’s defo a piste ski.
And if you’re after a great piste ski, surely the letters FIS feature somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Al writes for The Telegraph and other publications...also our equipment expert at The Ski Podcast (www.theskipodcast.com)
Have a listen to what he says...seriously loved them. Not sure it's marketing fluff.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
under a new name wrote: |
@MaxiD, that’s defo a piste ski.
And if you’re after a great piste ski, surely the letters FIS feature somewhere? |
I learned to ski off piste on Völk P9 RS @ 205cm... I can see no reason why these should just be 'piste' skis.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Steilhang wrote: |
under a new name wrote: |
@MaxiD, that’s defo a piste ski.
And if you’re after a great piste ski, surely the letters FIS feature somewhere? |
I learned to ski off piste on Völk P9 RS @ 205cm... I can see no reason why these should just be 'piste' skis. |
Back then - there weren't AM skis per se - just long, narrow straight skis that you took anywhere you wanted to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Steilhang, there is certainly a point there.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Old Fartbag wrote: |
MaxiD wrote: |
I rode the Deacon 74s and they were great. The 72s are labelled as all mountain. Based on my experience with the 74s, I’d be tempted to keep them to the pistes, tho I guess if the snow was pretty hard off piste they might be ok |
That has to be marketing fluff. A narrow AM ski is around 86....but 88-93 is closer to the mark. |
It is marketing fluff that you need something the width of a snow board on each foot in order to ski well off piste.
72 is fine as an all-mountain ski.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
NoMapNoCompass wrote: |
Old Fartbag wrote: |
MaxiD wrote: |
I rode the Deacon 74s and they were great. The 72s are labelled as all mountain. Based on my experience with the 74s, I’d be tempted to keep them to the pistes, tho I guess if the snow was pretty hard off piste they might be ok |
That has to be marketing fluff. A narrow AM ski is around 86....but 88-93 is closer to the mark. |
It is marketing fluff that you need something the width of a snow board on each foot in order to ski well off piste.
72 is fine as an all-mountain ski. |
It's a Piste ski that you can take Off Piste if your technique is good enough. That doesn't make it an All Mountain Ski - where there is a specific category now for that.
In the UK we have Piste; All Mountain; Freeride and Powder skis - The first three categories are pretty versatile, but they have design briefs as to where they are best suited. A ski with a waist of 72 is best suited to Piste Skiing....and won't perform as well Off Piste as something with 93 underfoot.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
deacon V-werks for the win.... now where is the £1100 to buy a pair
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
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?
|
@adithorp, Ok, it's clearly true that fat skis make off piste easier/less work. My current go everywhere ski is a Völkl Kendo at 88, which I find perfect for both piste carving and off piste in the usual 30cm euro pow that we get around here. Fatter would be more work to get on-edge on piste, and I have found that my knees suffer as a result (may just be me, I don't know) and I don't see the need for fatter off piste unless we are talking Japanese chin pow... Just my opinion of course.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Steilhang wrote: |
@adithorp, Ok, it's clearly true that fat skis make off piste easier/less work. My current go everywhere ski is a Völkl Kendo at 88, which I find perfect for both piste carving and off piste in the usual 30cm euro pow that we get around here. Fatter would be more work to get on-edge on piste, and I have found that my knees suffer as a result (may just be me, I don't know) and I don't see the need for fatter off piste unless we are talking Japanese chin pow... Just my opinion of course. |
That is exactly my view.
88 underfoot is a great width for versatility.....As you say, it is a compromise ie. Not as good as a dedicated Piste ski On Piste and not as good as a wider Freeride ski in deep powder.....but that is the whole raison d'etre of the AM category.
I also learned on straight skis - 2m VP19 SLX Volkls/201 Salomon Force 9 3S.....by comparison, anything modern is easier.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
iainm wrote: |
Al writes for The Telegraph and other publications...also our equipment expert at The Ski Podcast (www.theskipodcast.com)
Have a listen to what he says...seriously loved them. Not sure it's marketing fluff. |
I listened to what he said with interest.
I'm not sure I have ever heard him be so enthusiastic over a ski - and I followed his opinions for years when he was at the SCGB (and even asked his advice on occasion).
My issue is not with the brilliance of the ski - which he said was outstanding On Piste, with no speed limit (I didn't hear him comment on its All Mountain capability).....but IMO.....putting a mild tip and tail rocker on a 72mm ski, doesn't make it an All Mountain ski....but a Piste ski that might be slightly easier to use Off Piste. My issue is with Volkl marketing it as an AM ski.
Given how stable and spectacular it is On Piste, it is likely to be too stiff and too narrow to be ideal as a versatile AM choice, when compared to something in the 88-95 range (but it will run rings around them in hard icy conditions).
If I went into a specialist Ski Shop and asked for an All Mountain ski, where it would regularly be used Off Piste - would they really recommend something with 72 underfoot? On the other hand, if I asked for an outstanding Piste ski, with features that made it a bit more versatile - the Volkl would seem ideal, if the budget was there.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 31-05-22 19:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utter Nonsense, besides which he skied it with a rental binding, the final choice of binding could radically change the ski. Find any ski with the same geometry, at the same price point and serviced by the same person, i thoroughly doubt he'd tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O wrote: |
Utter Nonsense, besides which he skied it with a rental binding, the final choice of binding could radically change the ski....... |
Al skied it with the rMotion12 rail binding (as pictured) which is the only binding available on the Deacon 72. My pick would be the Deacon 72 Master which is the same ski but with a full aspen core (like their FIS skis) mounted with the Marker piston race plate and XComp bindings which is a much more rigid set-up.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Back in the day the same old guffawing would have been made at having an all mountain ski like the Latest Salomon X scream at around 67 mm waist .. Soon after, the same old marketing got you all hyped up on 100mm and more for skiing a drop of fresh snow on a firm base and people regaling stories of derring do in conditions they could only dream of conquering on such ridiculousness.... Back to reality chaps and chapesses...Sense has prevailed in the AM bracket and fat skis are out . !!
https://www.blossomski.com/turbo/?lang=en#AM74
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pity the deacon master wasn't a flat top that would of been another one to have a butchers at later on year.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
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.
|
@BobinCH, Hmmm, I am struggling to understand Blossom's marketing plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blossoms are nice skis but they utterly full of shit when is comes to calling them all mountain the AM74 is according to their own designation a piste ski yet add 3mm to the width and suddenly they are slaying the pow and the 85 is 50% pow designated.
It's BS. Anyone skiing them as a pow/ soft off piste ski is either an absolutely excellent skier or a rich baby boomer who accidentally got lost on his/her primarily piste skiing.
That said I'm sure the AM85 would be great as an all round "hasn't snowed in a while" ski. As that is often the description of Italy maybe that's what they mean by all mountain?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I meant @Limegreen1’s location “Jurassic coast”
I believe it was around the Jurassic period that a 74mm waisted ski was considered all mountain!
I would say it’s around 90-100. Even a 96mm Kaestle FX, while perfectly fine and enjoyable on the piste is significantly inferior to a 110-120cm ski once you get into any old remotely 3D snow (typical windblown, crusty stuff)
If you’re talking about properly tracked out itineraries, moguls and side of piste it’s a bit different as a piste ski will still work fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@BobinCH, but how many folks can ski moguls these days?
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
under a new name wrote: |
... but how many folks can ski moguls these days? |
Enough to make them?
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
under a new name wrote: |
@BobinCH, but how many folks can ski moguls these days? |
I'd say any decent all mountain skier can and obviously bump rats can. Bar for decent set quite high though and factors like age, knee health etc can impair some from repeated laps.
|
|
|
|
|
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,
Quote: |
It's BS. Anyone skiing them as a pow/ soft off piste ski is either an absolutely excellent skier
|
"absolutely excellent"
That kind of hyperbole isn't very British you know
I think the standard you mean is "pretty decent for a punter".
I'd expect to be able to ski perfectly respectably off piste on those skis and I'm definitely not "absolutely excellent". I've seen "absolutely excellent" and no one who knows anything about skiing would confuse that with me!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@philwig, too funny.
@Dave of the Marmottes, how many "decent" skiers do you see on piste on a daily basis?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
jedster wrote: |
@Dave of the Marmottes,
Quote: |
It's BS. Anyone skiing them as a pow/ soft off piste ski is either an absolutely excellent skier
|
"absolutely excellent"
That kind of hyperbole isn't very British you know
I think the standard you mean is "pretty decent for a punter".
I'd expect to be able to ski perfectly respectably off piste on those skis and I'm definitely not "absolutely excellent". I've seen "absolutely excellent" and no one who knows anything about skiing would confuse that with me! |
Except you wouldn't - as an intelligent man for soft snow/powder you'd choose something more suitable and fun rather than something where you'd be showing off how good you were on less suitable skis.
@UANN Highly dependent on where you are but for an average Euro ski factory at a busy time maybe 5% Tiny Austrian local hill at 8.30am when the local masters racers are having their blast before coffee near 100% (excluding self as drags average down)
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think the days of "showing off" what you ski on in particular conditions have been consigned to bin 101 along with fat skis. No one cares what you do.. Its all about doing what you can the best you can
. Quick fix tools are OK but people want to learn basics up and have a sense of achievement.
It's time to embrace the sensible width culture.. that is the future.. The more you put in, the more you get out...
Fat skis are so passe
|
|
|
|
|
|
If 72mm as a true all mountain ski* is "sensible" I don't want to be sensible. It's just retrogrouching under a modern banner.
* Different to a marketing all mountain ski which basically means piste ski for a piste skier who fools themslf that they ski offpiste occasionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BobinCH wrote: |
I meant @Limegreen1’s location “Jurassic coast”
I believe it was around the Jurassic period that a 74mm waisted ski was considered all mountain!
I would say it’s around 90-100. Even a 96mm Kaestle FX, while perfectly fine and enjoyable on the piste is significantly inferior to a 110-120cm ski once you get into any old remotely 3D snow (typical windblown, crusty stuff)
If you’re talking about properly tracked out itineraries, moguls and side of piste it’s a bit different as a piste ski will still work fine. |
Being a bit odd, I find the evolution of the different ski categories interesting.
The first "Freeride" ski I owned was the Salomon X Scream Series back in about 1999. IIRC it had a waist of 68 and was considered a wide ski, at a time when Piste Skis were early 60s underfoot. After damaging them badly on rocks, I then ended up with some Atomic Beta Ride 11.20 in around 2003, which at 70 underfoot were considered a wide Freeride ski.
Freeride skis then got wider and wider, to the point that they generally started at 110 underfoot and went up from there. Even though Piste skis got a bit wider, this left a gap which the All Mountain ski then filled. In America, they have AM Frontside and AM Backside (which is our Freeride ski).
Sense then started prevailing and skis started to get narrower again.
To me, Piste skis go from 65 - 80; AM 83 - 93; Freeride 95 - 120
IMO. If going Off Piste - All else being equal, your own weight plays a big role in how wide you actually need to go (to get float) - As someone of 10 stone will get away with a narrower ski than someone of 16 stone.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Google tells me that the old Miller Soft, the standard heli-ski in the 1980s, were 82mm wide.
I doubt very much anyone would have willingly used them on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
philwig wrote: |
Google tells me that the old Miller Soft, the standard heli-ski in the 1980s, were 82mm wide.
I doubt very much anyone would have willingly used them on piste. |
IIRC In the early 90s, Atomic came out with "Fat Boys", or officially the "Powder Plus" - which I think were 133/115/122....which changed the thinking about dedicated Powder skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|