Poster: A snowHead
|
Hello
I found some skis in a local charity shop. They didn't cost much and seemed in reasonable condition. They are branded Dynastar Big Max 2, and some searching on google suggests they are probably about 10 years old.
Are these skis any good? I guess I'm an "average" skier, mainly reds and not really off-piste.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
They are the (possibly first) early shaped dynastar made, at least that's what my 1 min google search is telling me, good... doubt it, but it probably depends on your skiing ability, it cant hurt to try them though as long as the bindings seem fine take them for a spin, then decide.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
McWulf, if you bought them longish (170-180cm for 150lbs), if you're in the lowest third of your BMI bracket, and if you have a 'soft' touch on skis, and don't ski too fast, and if you don't run into icing or irregular snow, they could be allright.
NOT a ski for a fall->die situation.
I once skied a set with Cobra R4s on them, on very mellow terrain; they not as objectionable as with alpine bindings.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I would suggest you may get on better with a more modern properly shaped ski. A lot has changed in the last 10 years!
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
clarky999 wrote: |
A lot has changed in the last 10 years! |
Ah, but, has McWulf?
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Hey, there's nowt wrong with old school skis. Some might even say they are retro cool. If the edges/bases/bindings are in good condition, then what's the problem? You can use them to ski like we used to in the old days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
queen bodecia wrote: |
Hey, there's nowt wrong with old school skis. |
As a -class-, no. Except that you only get to have as much fun as we had back in 1994.
As a specific example, these are _not_ old school skis.
Quote: |
If the edges/bases/bindings are in good condition, then what's the problem?
|
- The ski flexes out in torsion even when you're doing everything right and you wind up going straight into the trees or the next skier.
- The ski engages the outside edge when you're trying to go straight and you wind up with your knee torqued out or a facefull of icy mush or both.
- The instructor tells you to engage the edges by pivoting the knees uphill and you're -still- sliding down. Except sideways. (See point 1)
- Even on soft snow you can't possibly do what the instructor is doing because, in order to get any hard surface grip at all, you had to get a ski 25 cm longer than what the instructor is using. (It was even the proper size for your weight at the time). Of course, if you go a bit faster, the skill gets easier, but you have absolutely no idea what to do next and you're out of control (see point 1).
Shall I go on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, I'm tempted to take them with me anyway but it sounds like I shouldn't expect too much.
They're 180cm and so am I, by the way. But I'm only 11.5 st. And as they were only £20 I thought they were worth a gamble.
Yes, the shape was the first thing I noticed about them. But I had no idea just how much difference that really makes compares with newer types of ski.
So it looks like I might end up hiring some new ones when I get there!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
for £20 they are ok to use on local hills and stuff but would hire when going away..... they were the first 'carving' ski I think.... a quick look at the shape compared to modern ones suggests there was much improvement made to that initial design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
McWulf wrote: |
.
They're 180cm and so am I, by the way. But I'm only 11.5 st.
|
180cm for 160lbs is about correct. Don't wear too heavy a coat.
Quote: |
And as they were only £20 I thought they were worth a gamble.
|
What bindings are on there?
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
"The instructor tells you to engage the edges by pivoting the knees uphill"
Time to get another instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
comprex, sorry, that was all far too technical for me to understand. All I know is that having skied on 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s skis, I can safely say they are all fun if in reasonable condition. Yes, skis have changed a lot over the decades, but the principle is still the same. I borrowed some old 80s 2 metre skinny skis a couple of years back and had a right laugh. I stand by my earlier comment, if the bases/edges/bindings are in good condition, then for £20 there must surely be £20 worth of fun to be had!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
they were only £20 I thought they were worth a gamble.
|
but how much will it cost you to take them on a plane?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
queen bodecia wrote: |
All I know is that having skied on 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s skis, I can safely say they are all fun if in reasonable condition.
|
You haven't skied on -all- 90s and 00s skis or you wouldn't use 'safely'.
There were some real dogs especially in early shaped designs.
Quote: |
Yes, skis have changed a lot over the decades, but the principle is still the same. I borrowed some old 80s 2 metre skinny skis a couple of years back and had a right laugh. I stand by my earlier comment, if the bases/edges/bindings are in good condition, then for £20 there must surely be £20 worth of fun to be had! |
Sure, if carrying them to the slope and sliding through the lift maze or up the drag lift counts as £20 worth of fun.
A bit pricey, imo, but to each their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Fortunately we're driving this year and the skis will easily slip under the seats of our people-carrier. Also I live in Scotland, and £20 is probably cheaper than hiring some (probably worse) skis from one of the shacks on the way to Glenshee. And I won't have to worry too much about ruining decent skis on the inevitable stones poking through the ice.
My fantasy is that there will be a nearly-new ski sale when I get to St Gervais and I'll pick up some decent 2yo Atomic or K2 skis for EUR100. But I suspect not. I've always hired skis in the past without paying much attention to what I'm actually using. Would I be starting an argument by asking what the best value used ski is going to be?
Don't know what the bindings are. I'm at work but I'll look when I get home.
OK, I'll not wear a coat! And sunglasses rather than goggles presumably. And easy on the sunscreen I guess
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Quote: |
My fantasy is that there will be a nearly-new ski sale when I get to St Gervais and I'll pick up some decent 2yo Atomic or K2 skis for EUR100.
|
Better off looking on ebay or at discount stores like skiwearforless, or winter shack.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
comprex wrote: |
McWulf wrote: |
And as they were only £20 I thought they were worth a gamble. |
What bindings are on there? |
I had a pair of K2 TR Comps which I bought c.1990. A couple of years ago, I binned the planks and put the Sally 957Comp bindings on fleaBay and got £25+P&P, so if you're lucky you might just get your money back....
|
|
|
|
|
|