Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi Guys,
Looking for some advice here. Approx 2 years ago I purchased some Fischer RC4 worldcup SC flowflex skis in 155 length from Ski Bilek (sadly no longer around). I am 1.79m tall and weigh 84kgs. I had previously been skiing on 163/165 length skis, however due to knee problems I decided to try a shorter ski, thinking that a ski of this ability should be able to cope.
I consider myself a fairly competent skier, nothing fancy just able to deal with most terrain, not always elegantly though. These Fischer skis were a real wake up call to me. The skis are obviously far superior to my ability, seemingly having a mind of their own, you follow where I go was the impression they gave me. I persevered with these skis for a whole week in Obertauern, my reasoning was that tomorrow will surely be better than today. How wrong was I? These skis are so stiff that turning seemed almost impossible. Strange as it may seem I did enjoy the week with these skis, but now reality has sunk in. I am not the competent skier that I thought I was, unable to adapt to a ski that I felt sure that I would have mastered after 6 days of trying.
Can anyone suggest a ski around 155 length that is a little more forgiving than the RC4s? Is Atomics GS9 any easier, or possibly even more of a beast to conquer?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Regards
SS
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Anything that isn't race bred - no idea what an atomic GS9 is, but sounds like a GS bred ski so it'll be even worse. Race skis are built to respond to the amount of energy a racer puts into them - skis at a basic level are just built to dealt with the energy put through them, so stiffness dictates how fast and how much edge angle you need to generate for them to respond/bend. It's difficult to learn to do this when you're totally outgunned and can't even start to get the forces you need in a controlled manner. Just rent some stuff and see how it feels.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
For your height and weight 155cm is waaaaaaaaaaaay to small. Even for a pure slalom ski 165 is the shortest you should consider.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
clarky999, not unreasonable with knee issues though I guess - no experience of that myself, but i dont think fore/aft balance/stability is the problem here.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'd have thought shorter skis would put more rotational pressure on the knees though?
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Don't think so - again, I'm no expert, but pivoting will come from the hips/upper body depending on ability rather than the knee, just lower swing weight would help and less of a rocket ship when carving, and less resistance across a long length of ski to deal with. I dunno, it might make no odds at all, but gut instinct is shorter will be easier to manage in general and a bit less stable at higher speeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not an expert either (and just guessing), but to me shorter ski means more turns, which surely means the knees are working harder?
I had a bash a few weeks ago on my gf's 155 RC4s (probs older model though) for shits and giggs (and I'm shorter and lighter than OP) and they were ridiculously turny - I think the radius is 8 metres!! Definitely had to work harder with my legs to absorb ruts and bumps, as they weren't so keen to punch through stuff...
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 23-04-10 19:34; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but isn't that more a function of the radius shrinking with the size? Sounds like the OP went for stiff, tiny radius which is probably the worst of both worlds. Saying that, my experience of shorter skis is probably a bit different - I jumped on my mate's 165 RX8s, and besides their 13m radius, quite liked them for messing around in bumps and in pow (was teaching mid level kids). I tend to ski 180 carvers fwiw.
Someone like Comprex will be along soon to explain the biomechanics hopefully, but thinking about it radius probably deserved a mention earlier than it got.
|
|
|
|
|
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 Guys,
For some reason the longer skis tended to drag when turning, this had the effect of causing more knee problems. I cannot for some reason prevent this drag with the longer skis, hence my idea to try something shorter. I understand your logic about shorter skis being more turnier, this I thought may help using shorter skis, more turning but less dragging, hence a longer day on the slopes. Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
basically, it's how you're making your turns - lots of pivot (think windscreen wipers) will drag along the snow, and the longer the ski the more leverage on the leg (wiper motor, to contine the analogy). Edged, carved turns will keep your knee pretty neutral, so think about lessons too, but shortening the lever will reduce the resistance.
However, as you drop ski lengths you'll find turn radius drops too - so instead of having a draggy, difficult to pivot ski due to length, you'll have a ski constantly seeking to be on edge and squirreling around, creating a new resistance sensation as it edges/unedges and "wobbles". Again, efficient carved turns on the edges will stop this, but it's not an easy goal. So, basically like me and clarky999 kind of wandered to as a conclusion, you're probably better off with a ski more suited to your height, a bit softer flexing, and a bit longer radius. That'll allow you to steer and control the sliding, rather than have the skis fight you. Lessons will help too, your technique will be the main source of strain - but there's gear to help an intermediate skier, and a Fischer RC4 isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Well summed up dude
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Thanks Guys,
Blows my theory straight out of the water. I thought skis were getting shorter, hence the reason I chose the shorter length. I was under the impression that using 2m boards (unless you're Aksel Lund Svindal) are all in the past. Shorter, wider cut skis to enhance turning ability? Incidentally, is there any advantage as I believe in having the binding set as far forward as can be? The reason I chose Fischer is that they seem to mount the binding more centrally on the ski, where as their more Germanic opposition namely Voelkl and Atomic seem to mount the binding further towards the rear of the ski?
Perhaps I should quit using any ski of this length, and dig out the Atomic ETL 123s, go back to being able to last a whole day on the slopes, without aggravating the knee problems!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
sunnyskier, binding mount basically changes where the (initial) pivot point of the ski is (your stance and where you balance on it will ultimately decide that) - higher end skis are mainly designed with the consideration that a lot of the steering effort will come from the sidecut and edging, rather than pivoting. Centre mounted skis will have the lowest swing weight, and probably be easier to pivot - but half of the ski behind you, which is a bit undesirable if you're carving turns and a bit awkward if you're pivoting them since it reduces any tolerance to your feet doing different things - suddenly you can cross your tails as well as your tips quite easily.
FWIW, ski length is basically a tradeoff between stability and manuervability - DH boards are 2m long because those guys are going at 110km and putting so much force through them, the slow motion footage is crazy. SL skis are short because they're negotiating super tight courses at the maximum possible speed - which is why they're not suitable for recreational skiers, they're built to allow control at maximum speed. What that means for a regular skier is that you want to find the happy medium of length and flex to allow you to do what you want to do most efficiently.
Try some skis out and see what you prefer, and ski which you find most enjoyable. No factor is massively relevant, your technique is the biggest one by miles - just avoid the extremes.
(oh, and I'll put another disclaimer out there that I'm not an authority on this stuff!)
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Quote: |
Fischer is that they seem to mount the binding more centrally on the ski, where as their more Germanic opposition namely Voelkl and Atomic
|
Fischer and Atomic are both Austrian, but you can tell the shop to mount the bindings where you want them.
It sounds like some lessons could help you sort out your turning, and get you to use the shape (sidecut) and edges better, but I think what you want is a medium radius (somehwre around 15m) fairly soft flexing general piste ski.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Sorry Clarky999, I know both Fischer & Atomic are Austrian manufacturers, and I believe Voelkl, initially being German are now owned by K2. I should have used the term counterparts, rather than opposition. For some strange reason, I seem to have better luck with Fischer skis than any other brand, except the RC4s. I will take all your advice and maybe next season try something from Fischers RX range, I have no preference for the Fischer brand, but as said, I seem to be able to "get on" better with their skis, there must be something in this range that will suit my ability. Fischer RC4 WORLDCUP SC Flowflex 155 skis for sale, only had 6 days amateur use. (only joking)
Thanks once again guys for your help and advice.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
sunnyskier, Sorry to throw this in here when you're getting so much advice already, but -
Have you considered trying telemark? Some "knee-aflicted" friends made the jump this season and are swearing blind by it. Obviously you'll need to grow a scraggly beard, acquire a dog to ride the chairlift with you and brush up on your Norwegian.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DaveC,
Quote: |
they're not suitable for recreational skiers
|
depends on your definition of "recreational"...
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
sunnyskier, yep, I'm going to concur that it sounds as though you need a little fine tuning on technique and a more forgiving ski. Forgiving does not necessarily mean unrewarding. E.g. Volkl AC series are a fine, rewarding ski whereas IMHO the Salomon equivalent (used to be called street racer) are not rewarding at all...
No, please do't ask me to define rewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
sunnyskier wrote: |
Hi Guys,
... able to deal with most terrain, not always elegantly though.
SS |
I'm not getting into any technical matters, but it just occurs to me that an hour or two's private tuition with a good instructor might be well worth the money. Firstly they'll be able to help you assess what type of ski you want and secondly they'll advise you on how you could improve your style in order to minimise the effect on your knees. For example a 70 year old friend of mine through having a few lessons is now skiing with far less strain on knees/hips and is confident she has added a good number of years to her active skiing life.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
under a new name, it's really hard to phrase "not that strong" without using "intermediate" every single time... but yeah, recreational was a poor adjective there...
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I had some RC4, which were quickly renamed RSJ's.
Go for something softer and longer.
Next time skiing hire for the week but ask the shop if you can try a lot of different skis, any decent shop will be OK with that as long as the conditions are not rocky.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 25-04-10 10:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I fancy telemarking. Don't mind the beard bit etc but have never really understood the logic of the process? Whenever I see people doing this technique I stand and watch, think to myself "that looks difficult to master", then stop and think "whats it all about"
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Like the RSJ idea, Fischer RC4 RSJ has got a ring to it. It's just dawned on me that not only are they as stiff as an RSJ, but carrying them in the skibag needed a crane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sunnyskier, telemarking is a big practical joke designed by mountain locals who really liked doing lunges, so they get to watch people trying to learn a version of skiing where you can kick yourself in the face with your tip
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DaveC, I think you're right, I was In Obergurgl, Austria 2 years ago, a couple of weeks before christmas, telemarkers were everywhere. They were obviously using the fantastic snow conditions, doing the lunges to avoid being in the gym, getting themselves fit for the rest of the season. Perhaps now when you're back in resort, you can tell who the telemarkers are by their flat noses? I just thought that there was a lot of boxers who had taken up skiing!! (sorry telemarkers, no offence intended, it just seems a rather odd technique)
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|