 Poster: A snowHead
|
Been to Tamworth with my sis and her kids, one of whom was in a lesson. They have just had new skis in, and I was told mine were pretty much brand new, and to mind my fingers 'cos the edges were sharp!
Well, apart from being a bit stiff, due to my back being sore, I found I was skiing much more confidently - the turns coming really well (yeah ok, still in a plough  ) with NO sliding out of them at all! Was it just that I was having a good day and getting a better technique or would it be that the skis gripped better?
They are the same make etc as before I think (is it Salomon X-wave?) in a 155 length which seems to suit me quite well. (I'm just over 5'6" - somewhat undertall for my bulk!).
Edited to add:
incidentally I thought the snow conditions were very good, much better than last visit; also they said they were 'full' & were turning away folks who hadn't booked, and yet it did not feel NOT over-crowded - to my huge relief!
PS if this ought to be in BendZeKnees, could someone move it please?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Thu 25-10-07 21:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
NewSkier, maybe a bit of both. Sharp edges do make a noticeable difference, especially if the snow is a little bit icy like it gets at Tamworth. Your technique is probably improving, and there might have been a bit of psychology at play (thinking new skis = good control, therefore you skied more confidently).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
X-wave are nice skis - I always preferred them when renting and good edges would make it easier, I think.
Were the previous skis 155? The length could make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rob@rar, There was very little ice today - conditions much better there - think there was more depth of snow than usual.
holidayloverxx, No I have had 155 there every time - at Castleford 2 'techies' argued over whether I ought to have 150 or 160, so when I found Tam did 155, I went for them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
holidayloverxx, It certainly sounds like it doesn't it? Mind you given the progress over the day we spent at MK with NewSkier, I can believe that she must have made huge strides since then if she has been able to get more practice in. I can quite believe that as NewSkier, seems able to get to these indoor slopes on a regular basis she could easily improve more than 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.
|
Thanks all - you are embarrassing me!
SnowHot, you're making a case for the purchase of one's own skis there! I am hoping though that rental kit abroad will be better than that on offer at indoor snowdomes as, sadly, I simply cannnot justify buying my own.
When I saw another thread offering some ladies skis for £50 I had to tell myself they would definitely be unsuitable, and to stop reading it quickly before the interest grew!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NewSkier wrote: |
:oops: Thanks all - you are embarrassing me!
SnowHot, you're making a case for the purchase of one's own skis there! |
She is also making a case for
taking the hire skis back until you find ones you like on the worst possible run in the worst possible conditions,
keeping track of what you tried and liked (model, length, where skied)
then purchasing if and when something like that comes up for supercheap.
Notice that steps 1 and 2 are really no cost except for a few entries in a PDA or notebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
comprex, that makes a lot of sense. Up till now I've always thought that it was just me and that to lay any of the blame on the skis was the "poor workman blaming his tools" syndrome. However, last April I borrowed some skis that are kept in good nick (Atomic Beta Race - a 'junior' copy of a race ski or something I think) and skied better on them than on Castleford's hire kit to the point that an instructor who had taught me made a point of coming over and asking about them, saying they suited me. Now I have for the 1st time had pretty much brand new ones (from Tamworth) and skied better... interesting.
I will certainly bear the comments in mind when I am abroad - but aren't they going to get p'd off with me if I keep going back to try something else??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| NewSkier wrote: |
I will certainly bear the comments in mind when I am abroad - but aren't they going to get p'd off with me if I keep going back to try something else?? |
It's their job to make you happy, not yours them.
(I now totally expect everyone to do a survey of hire skis available then come back here and post questions here :lol: ) .
I remember the thread on the junior race Atomics, did we ever sort out what the comparable parameters such as published radius were?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
I remember the thread on the junior race Atomics, did we ever sort out what the comparable parameters such as published radius were? |
No, I never did find out the full details, which is a great shame and the owner knows no more about them - they were bought a few years ago for the teenage son/daughter to share (they also had a board between them).
They were red with a checquered strip on them, something like about 160 length (not marked) and the only info was "Atomic Beta Race 10'22"; the bindings were "Marker M52, dual direction technology", and were selected to be suitable for altering for the two teenagers' use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I'd guess the dimensions were 106/62/94 for a 14m turn radius. Check me on that, though. It might even be printed on the topsheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
There was no other info on the skis at all. What makes you come up with those figures, what do they refer to, and what do they mean to the level of the skier? How would I tell if these were a 'stiff' or 'soft' ski for instance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
NewSkier, that's the tip at its widest point, the waist at its narrowest, and the tail at its widest, in mm.
14m refers to the radius of an idealised curve the ski will naturally trace when put on edge and loaded. Quite right, it says nothing about flex.
I -suspect- that the front of the ski is quite as stiff or stiffer than the tail from the binding back but, as with the numbers, I'm pulling that out of a hat.
As for your being able to tell, each person builds up their own context of stiff and soft, largely by going out and flexing more skis. Similarly, each person builds up their own context of what is appropriate for any given skier and what makes up a skier "level". The sometimes considerable mismatch between those individual contexts is why we have e-fights on "Who's an expert" threads.
(FWIW and IMHO, the 14m published radius is entirely appropriate for a limited-time learner, what might actually make the ski better for said learner is a slightly wider tip (over 110mm) and a softer front of the ski. I suspect that, if the new gear you tried is really to be credited for the apparent improvement, those two changes might very well have been made).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Thanks comprex, now you mention it the Atomics were visibly narrower by quite a lot than the Salomons in the indoor snowdome here. What interests me is that my skiing on the Atomics AND on the brand new Salomons has been noticeably better (far easier to turn and not skid) than on the tired old version of the Salomons (identical apart from condition to the new ones). That's why I wondered whether the condition of edges might be why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
NewSkier, find out for yourself: attempt to shave a fingernail. You ought to be able to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
They are the same make etc as before I think (is it Salomon X-wave?)
|
Salomon X-Wing 400/500 with 609SC/SR bindings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
comprex, will try that!
veeeight, Thanks - I take it that is what both Xscape and Tamworth use? They certainly look the same. The only diff I think is Tam have 150-155-160, but Xs only have 150-160.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
12m 70 waist softer than most pillows eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NewSkier, can't speak for XScape, but that is what Tamworth use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
| 12m 70 waist softer than most pillows eh? |
so not the most desirable bit of kit? Tried googling for them, did not find much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
NewSkier, exactly right for you and for where you ski them. Not something you would want to purchase, because the expectation is that you'll use what you do purchase elsewhere (bigger hills) and at higher speeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, thanks. You say they are 'soft' - but they are issued to all shapes/sizes of skier - so is this not that important at slow speeds? Sorry to be a pain, asking too many questions! I just find it really interesting and there's a lack of info out there that I can find. In another thread you'll recall I was seeking advice on which rental ski to book, having been offered a choice of diff colour coded options that seemed to be based totally on skiing experience, not on any individual skier characteristics, yet there have been such complex discussions on ski purchase on here. It seemd to me that the same skis, albeit perhaps in a diff length, would not suit both a 7st lady & a 20st bloke who were both nervous 2nd weekers surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| NewSkier wrote: |
| Ah, thanks. You say they are 'soft' - but they are issued to all shapes/sizes of skier - so is this not that important at slow speeds? |
It helps make nicely rounded turns at slow speeds without too much steering of the skis by the skier.
The danger at higher speeds and at higher skier weights is that it will slip by forming a U with the part around the midsection extremely bent and the ends flopping about with inconsistent pressure on the snow. This is also more noticeable on harder surfaces. None of which really applies in a snowdome.
| Quote: |
| In another thread you'll recall I was seeking advice on which rental ski to book, having been offered a choice of diff colour coded options that seemed to be based totally on skiing experience, not on any individual skier characteristics, yet there have been such complex discussions on ski purchase on here. It seemd to me that the same skis, albeit perhaps in a diff length, would not suit both a 7st lady & a 20st bloke who were both nervous 2nd weekers surely? |
Engineers at major ski companies are good, much, much better than ski hire chimps. I am perfectly prepared to believe that they can, for different lengths of one model, achieve appropriate flex to suit the expected skier weight range. I am prepared to believe that they can also, within limits, control the published radius so that edged behaviour is fairly consistent across the length range.
The problem arises in picking the length blindly based on some rough categorisation without awareness of what ski model you're choosing.
Now if you tell them 12m 70mm waist 155cmish not very stiff but sharp, where does that put you in hire chimp categories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
NewSkier, I am sorry, my day got a bit nuts and I have not checked back until now. comprex, is giving you some great advice.
I think you're ready for the next step in this journey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, SnowHot, Thanks! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
| Engineers at major ski companies are good, much, much better than ski hire chimps. I am perfectly prepared to believe that they can, for different lengths of one model, achieve appropriate flex to suit the expected skier weight range. |
This rings bells with me, because we have a number of skis at our apartment which seem to have well suited quite a range of visitors, in terms of both weight and expertise, and on quite a range of snow conditions. And with my own tuning and waxing, too (still very inexpert despite a great morning with spyderjon). The arguments about how many angels, of what weight, and how many years ski experience, can carve their turns on the head of which pin, are probably well beyond many of us. I think what you have found, NewSkier, is that improvement tends to come in lumps, rather than gradually. Two lumps forward, one back, sometimes. But when you go somewhere you have skied before, down a run where you encountered some very tricky bits, and get to the bottom wondering whether they've taken a bulldozer to the tricky bits, you'll be even more sure you're making progress! But yes, if the skis you hire are not pretty new, and pretty sharp (and pretty pretty), take 'em back! My limited experience of hiring skis and snowboard at UK dry ski slopes is that they are often ABC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
| NewSkier wrote: |
There was very little ice today - conditions much better there - think there was more depth of snow than usual.
|
I think this is more likely to have helped than differences in the hire skis. Snow quality makes a huge difference to how easy it is to ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| NewSkier wrote: |
| Was it just that I was having a good day and getting a better technique or would it be that the skis gripped better? |
The total ability to ski is a combination of:
skis + skier + snow quality + weather.
Changes in any one of these 4 factors will make you a better or worse skier at any one time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
brian,
| Quote: |
Snow quality makes a huge difference to how easy it is to ski.
|
I noticed this point this year - we had a huge range from ice (yes, about as close to proper ice as you can get as I've described before) through to really slushy (that's what caused the ice in the mornings!). It was only really nice to ski on at certain times of the day. Also, interestingly I've been told by someone that ought to know that in terms of ski length 160cm ought to be long enough for most people, and no manufacturer these days really makes a bad ski. So I'll lob those two thoughts into this melting pot and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| It was only really nice to ski on at certain times of the day. Also, interestingly I've been told by someone that ought to know that in terms of ski length 160cm ought to be long enough for most people, and no manufacturer these days really makes a bad ski. So I'll lob those two thoughts into this melting pot and see what happens. |
Can't get ice cream out of a melting pot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
comprex, No, but Ben and Jerry's is just down from Stowe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
