 Poster: A snowHead
|
Interesting listening to Al, that's why I went for the Volkl Kendo.
The Deacon 72 looks and sounds like a throwback to the good old days of shorter/thinner piste skis. If that's your thing, then great.
Used to ski powder (when available) with Dynastar Dynasty or Course CdMonde and even Sally 9000 Equipe 2S power 8 (210cms), so for me the evolution of skis over the past 40 just shows the ebb and flow of design and functionality combined with increasingly modern materials, like Kevlar, Carbon, Titanal, Magnesium, Flax, etcetera.
72mm underfoot (for me) is not an "All Mountain" ski, methinks he doth protest too much! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@under a new name, I thought that the "power 8" bit of the original Salomon skis was the length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@rjs, now you mention it, maybe? At the time* I was rather uninterested in Salomon skis, although I did own a pair of SX92s …
* hasn’t changed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rjs wrote: |
| @under a new name, I thought that the "power 8" bit of the original Salomon skis was the length. |
It was.
Instead of selling in a cm length, they had a PR rating. I believe it went from PR5 to PR8. It took into account factors like contact length, flex and swing weight. I think that when you worked out your PR rating (say PR7), it then remained the same across the whole Salomon range, even though the length of those skis would be different.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 1-06-22 20:29; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@under a new name, The Power 8 refers to length of the Salomon skis, and I can remember skis way before the nineties before Kevlar was being used.
My thoughts on the Deacon 72's is that they have a decidedly "retro" look about them especially at the waist, and the radius looks rather "parabolic" as the French would say.
But I remember skiing some very good Salomon X-Race, X-Wings, and 3V LAB's over the years. The SX92 Equipes were, to be honest, a bit of a fad. I soon swapped them for a pair of yellow/black Rossignol Course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@skimastaaah, my first skis (1970ish) were 110cms wooden “Blue Masters” (Fischer) with no construction other than being wooden and iirc no edges.
I was enormously excited to upgrade to 130cms Red Masters with green plastic bases and !! Metal Edges 
Yeah the SX92s were crap. So many adjustments, so little idea.
Upgraded them to the original Tecnica TNTs which were a delight. And a great colour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| 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. |
Solid advice Jon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Husky Dave wrote: |
| spyderjon wrote: |
| 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. |
Solid advice Jon. |
Now... If you are suggesting tuning up a ski to full FIS spec and mounting a binding to get it more rigid.. Then the AM aspect use of the ski is ridiculous.. Most people can't get the most out of a FIS ski on a prepared piste. Thought people wanted an easier ride everywhere AM ski with a "bit" of perfornance bias . Best get doing some extra heavy squats and lunges and some lessons if they're going off piste 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure PJ was suggesting that as as an AM option but rather as a Piste smashing option. I have my eye on a Swiss precision engineering instrument Stockli AX 175 but am aware my German cousins may be pawning some new fangled tech… that may even be better…
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
As per some o the above posts, the PR was Salomon's way to size skis. I think they did some 8000 models, which were detuned from the 9000s. Not sure if there was an 8000 Equipe though. There was an 8000 Expert, but I don't think there was an 8000 Force (would kind of defeated the object). They also did an S rating (1S to 3S) which indicated if the ski was aimed more for shorter or longer radius turns. I was working in a ski shop at the time, and it did take a bit of explaining when most punters would ask for a ski solely by its length, which would always be a multiple of 5 (though I think Rossignol had already started confusing people with e.g. 203s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@viv, just to be a pedant, I think skis were in 5s until 200, then typically 203, 205, 207, 210 ...
Rossi decided with the 7S to shorten the tip, to reduce swing weight, apparently, which iirc were 197, 201, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@viv, just to be a pedant, I think skis were in 5s until 200, then typically 203, 205, 207, 210 ...
Rossi decided with the 7S to shorten the tip, to reduce swing weight, apparently, which iirc were 197, 201, etc. |
And some brands (like K2) gave a measurement that was Contact Length, whereas mostly, it was to the tip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@viv, That rings a bell - I had some 9000 Equipe 9E2S PR8's which I seem to remember were GS - fantastic skis at the time and used for every condition both on and off piste, but no visible sidecut and moguls were quite hard work since they were 203cm long!
Apologies for the thread drift...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Old Fartbag, I'm thinking around 1990? I don't recall (!) K2 being so avant garde at that point ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, I'm thinking around 1990? I don't recall (!) K2 being so avant garde at that point ? |
K2 were still measuring contact length in around 2007. I don't know when (if?) they went back to the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@iainm, what a great conversation starter (for early June!)
@BobinCH, the dinosaur comment made me smile
@Old Fartbag, “ In the UK we have Piste; All Mountain; Freeride and Powder skis” - what does the ROtW have if we’ve got the whole spectrum covered?
I just did a tot up and the vast majority of my skis are >91mm and that includes piste skis like my BC Camox which many would consider all mountain skis. Almost all my experience in the last 18 years has very much skewed my norm to wider skis since moving to Mantras (9 . Two out & out piste skis Fischer Curvs and DPS Cassiars are very rarely skied. For me, I’m looking at sub-100s as a very skiable piste ski and anything over 93 making it into the All Mountain category.
One thing I think we might all be able to agree on is that the DPS Spoons are a powder ski…
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Grinning wrote: |
what does the ROtW have if we’ve got the whole spectrum covered?
|
Sorry - can you tell me what ROtW is short for.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 6-06-22 8:35; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Rest of the World?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| stevew wrote: |
| Rest of the World? |
Thanks.
@Grinning. They will have what the ski companies provide (same as UK) but may label differently. As I said above, the USA has AM Frontside and AM Backside. In the middle of all this, there is how the skis themselves are marketed by the different brands.
So, what I am trying to say, is we all, by in large, have access to the same pool of skis.....but how they are described in various parts of the world may differ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grinning wrote: |
| @iainm, what a great conversation starter (for early June!) |
True enough and very interesting debate. I'll include some of these commennts in Episode 96 and we can continue the conversation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hah - Fame at last!
Despite respecting Al's knowledge and experience - I still don't think that 72 underfoot should be marketed as an AM ski.....and up to very recently, I don't think it was/would have been, by any manufacturer. I do understand however, the fine (diplomatic) line Al has to tread on these matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, got a mention too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
Hah - Fame at last!
Despite respecting Al's knowledge and experience - I still don't think that 72 underfoot should be marketed as an AM ski.....and up to very recently, I don't think it was/would have been, by any manufacturer. I do understand however, the fine (diplomatic) line Al has to tread on these matters. |
Of course it shouldn’t. It’s utter garbage. As was his line about a 106mm ski being an All Mountain in the US while a 72/74 could be an All Mountain in Europe. When walking a fine line equals spouting misleading marketing drivel it’s gone too far. Look at the Blister reviews for the gold standard in ski reviews IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
