 Poster: A snowHead
|
I took the chance last week to test and buy some new skis. For most of the season I’ve been using some Atomic BetaRide 11.20’s and, sometimes, BetaCarv 8’s. The Rides are an excellent all round ski but have a fairly high turn radius which makes them awkward sometimes while the Carvs are too flexible and wander a little at high speed.
My plan was to use the Rides for off piste and maybe look at some fat skis for next year and to pick up some skis for on piste, something between the ride and carvs looked a good idea.
I first tested some Omecarve 10’s from Dynastar. What I liked about these was the stability at speed and the very short turn radius which means you can carve them fast (faster than my rides) on steep runs. The downside though is that on anything other than reasonably groomed slopes they become awkward and just weren’t a patch on my Rides.
I then tried some Head Madtrix skis which I think a snowhead had recommended. These I just did not like at all, far too flexible, not stable at speed and less than impressive in heavy snow or slush. The turn radius is about 17m and not very impressive. In their favour I should say I suspect I may have been skiing them too short.
Given the limited end of season range I gave up at this point, I couldn’t get the Atomics I wanted to test and I decided that Atomic would be most likely to offer the ski between the 8’s and 11’s I have. There’s an Atomic test centre in Flaine so I’ll checkout some of the range next year.
So, I turned to some fat skis. I’ve tried some before and found them lacking as a general ski but I thought I could live with some of the compromise as a second pair.
The first pair I tried were Zag Freeride Big 84’s . The spec’ of these skis is quite amazing; they have the dimensions of 134/84/113 and an incredible turn radius of 13.5m. Compare that to the Seths at 128/95/118 with a turn radius of 24m or the PR’s 122/90/115 and a turn radius of 21m. That leaves the Zags looking very fat but with a brutally short turn radius closer to the Omecarves which themselves are little more than a de-tuned race ski.
The amazing thing is that the Zags ski just like the spec’s suggest they will, loads of flotation for even heavy slush and spring snow but able to carve fast on hard pack. You can ski from top to bottom of the mountain, on and off the piste without any trouble at all. The only real terrain I could find any problem on was the icy, rutted tracks at the bottom of some off-piste runs where their behaviour is reminiscent of a snowboard.
So, I went back to Precision and bought them 
They’re a stunning piece of engineering (more details on their website) and an incredible experience to ski on, quite unlike anything else I’ve ever used. In short, if you’re looking for a fat ski or something for all terrain then you just have to try these.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ise, such a logical and sensible design: wide for powder, curvaceous for the piste. Makes you wonder why no one thought of it before....
I am fascinated that we now describe skis in terms of their vital statistics (and radius). Your Zag Freeride's vital statistics are so famous that a google search with 134/84/113 takes you straight to an article in linken.com on those very skis!
134/84/113 is of course in millimetres (I presume) but if they were (for argument's sake) centimetres and converted to inches, the lady would be an impressive 53-33-44. Taking the analogy further: we used to ski on Twiggies , then come the end of the 90s we moved on to Hurleys , and now you have bought a pair of Jordans (note the new bendy design of ski pole). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
ISE, you're a boarder as well, right? The reason I ask is because like you I have been tempted by the Zags with their unique (as far as I know) combination of huge sidecut AND huge width - they should allow a snowboard-like combination of tight radius carving at low speed with great floatation for off-piste. A friend of a friend who's parents have a place in Bourg St Maurice swears they're the best thing ever!
The only thing that's put me off so far (apart from the fact that I've never actually SEEN a pair in real life!) is that on the EpicSki and Powdermag forums they have been slagged off for being way too soft. I'm only 10 stone, so they may be OK for me, but would you say they are really too soft? How do they compare with other well known off-piste biased skis (XScream Series, Atomic R9, Rossi B2)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Plake, all good questions.
Yes I do board, not as much this year as previously though. There certainly is something very familar from boarding about the dynamics of them.
As for soft, I really don't think so, I like a stiff ski and they don't ski soft. Yet, you pick them up and they're very light and seem flexible, they just don't ski that way and I'm slightly over 10 stone.
I don't ski Ride 9's but I do use Ride 11's and the Zags are a tighter radius turn, much more of an easier turn. I've some Xscreams and they are soft, the Xscreams are not bad off piste but too soft on the piste. As for the B2, that's marketing, it's a punter ski
All I can say really is you've got to try them
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Of course everybody would dearly love to have an on-piste carver that can do well in soft snow. My worry is that even though the Zags are wide, with such a deep sidecut, they will be twitchy to the point of being useless in tracked-up partially consolodated heavy snow. At least in the USA, unfortunately, this is what you have to deal with far more often than idyllic untracked powder.
By far, my best off-piste skis are Volkl Explosivs, which have an almost straight sidecut (radius of about 30 meters). From very credible sources, I have heard that the Spatulas with their "reverse" sidecut (ie, wider in the middle) are even better in such conditions. The Zags are essentially the exact opposite of the Spatulas in terms of design philosophy. I would love to try a pair, but this would make me think twice if I were considering them for purchase.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Physicsman wrote: |
Of course everybody would dearly love to have an on-piste carver that can do well in soft snow. My worry is that even though the Zags are wide, with such a deep sidecut, they will be twitchy to the point of being useless in tracked-up partially consolodated heavy snow. At least in the USA, unfortunately, this is what you have to deal with far more often than idyllic untracked powder.
By far, my best off-piste skis are Volkl Explosivs, which have an almost straight sidecut (radius of about 30 meters). From very credible sources, I have heard that the Spatulas with their "reverse" sidecut (ie, wider in the middle) are even better in such conditions. The Zags are essentially the exact opposite of the Spatulas in terms of design philosophy. I would love to try a pair, but this would make me think twice if I were considering them for purchase.
Tom / PM |
Interesting comments, it's not totally clear from what you're saying whether you've skied the Zags or not, did you ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> ...it's not totally clear from what you're saying whether you've skied the Zags or not, did you ?...
Sorry. I thought it was clear that I have never been on a pair of Zags. When I said, "I would love to try a pair", obviously, the reference wasn't clear. I should have said, "I would love to try a pair of Zags".
FWIW, I do have personal experience attempting to use somewhat narrower deeply sidecut skis in deep, tracked-up, heavy new snow. My regular skis are 184 cm Head xp-100/IC-200's. They are my all-time favorite groomer ski. I teach on them, free-ski on them, have taken PSIA clinics/exams on them, bought an identical replacement pair, etc..
They are not quite as wide (123/69/108) as the Zags, but they are quite stiff and heavy. When we got 24-30 inches over two days last year, I made it my business to be "trapped" at my home resort, and had plenty of time to do direct A/B (successive run) comparisons of these skis with my Explosivs, my Atomic 10ex's, and a couple of other skis before the roads were cleared and the hoards arrived.
Because of their large surface area, stiffness, length and weight, I had hopes that the Heads would be reasonably stable in tracked-up soft snow. They were indeed quite skiiable when the new snow was untracked or only lightly tracked-up. However, once it got heavily tracked up, they were much too skitterish for me to enjoy.
While the Heads probably were better than many other 70-ish mm skis because of their area, stiffness and weight, there was absolutely no comparison to the Explosivs and 10ex's. Basically, as soon as my tests were concluded, I couldn't wait to switch back to my Explosivs for the rest of the day. From my own experience on this and other days, I would be very cautious about purchasing deeply sidecut skis for soft snow conditions. IMHO, this is a case where demo'ing them in appropriate conditions b4 purchase is absolutely essential.
HTH,
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Could someone please explain what dimension is meant by 'nose length' on these skis?
I suspect that this refers to the distance between the point A) maximum-shovel-width-closest-to the waist (just next to the 'y' in Plenty) and the point B) beginning of turned-up-section at the shovel (just above the g in Big).
If so (owners please enlighten me):
(i) is this section cambered to match the shovel-to-waist camber?
(ii) is this section effectively decambered in use, say in powder?
As I mentioned in the instructional thread Carving in Deep Powder, accessible here:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1280
I am fascinated by the role of ski tips in powder and mixed conditions, specifically to ease the skier's effort in finding a proper (PM what is the term here?) angle of attack (pitch plane) for any given snow density and speed. Does this section of a Zag ski play a similar role? As an aside, why have long (my term: crust breaker) tips disappeared from current design?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel instantly attracted bythe zag skis, alas, at 1000 Euros (listed price w/o bindings) they're way out of my reach....
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Matteo wrote: |
| I feel instantly attracted bythe zag skis, alas, at 1000 Euros (listed price w/o bindings) they're way out of my reach.... |
That sounds too expensive, mine were in the end of season sale from Precision in Val d'Isere at around 30% off. But Precision list price would have been around 800 euro with bindings so 1000 without bindings sounds way too much. The Precision web site still lists them at 570 euro ski only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
That's better...will have a look at the italian shop.
After all, to dream is free, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Hey comprex did you build your own? That sounds a nice project to have!
And yes, seeing snowboards prices I was tempted to go that direction too...
But I'm a bit lazy and the idea to start all over again...even on an accelerated learning curve...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| comprex wrote: |
Could someone please explain what dimension is meant by 'nose length' on these skis? ...If so (owners please enlighten me):
(i) is this section cambered to match the shovel-to-waist camber?
(ii) is this section effectively decambered in use, say in powder?
...I am fascinated by the role of ski tips in powder and mixed conditions, specifically to ease the skier's effort in finding a proper (PM what is the term here?) angle of attack (pitch plane) ... As an aside, why have long (my term: crust breaker) tips disappeared from current design? |
Comprex -
Great questions.
A) nose length - I have absolutely no idea what "nose length" means. Your quess sounds reasonable, but I have never heard the term before.
B) Names of angles - (1) Edge angle (ie, roll) is well known and obvious. (2) The angle between the centerline of the ski and the direction of its travel (viewed from above) seems to be called the "angle of attack" (in technical articles) or the "skid angle" (in less technical discussions). This name seems a poor choice in the 3D environment of powder - perhaps yaw angle would be better. (3) Since serious technical discussions of skiing in powder are few and far between, I have never heard of a name for the pitch (ie, tips up-down) angle. Pitch sounds like a fine name as it stands.
C) Large (ie, more upturn, not necessarily wider) ski tips - I suspect that the general demise of large ski tips was caused by (1) grooming, (2) a desire to reduce swing weight, and (3), style considerations.
Among powder skis, I suspect that (1) the general softening of the longitudinal flex in the last 5 or so years has resulted in more forebody upturn and hence diminished the need for large tips; and (2) drag considerations. OTOH, my personal preference is towards a more firm flex in powder skis, and I would love to see large tips come back for exactly the reason you suggested (ie, crud breaking). In addition (as per our previous discussions), IMHO, a bit of extra polar moment of inertia (from the larger tip) and damping is quite welcome in soft snow / crud skis.
Gotta run,
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No, Matteo I couldn't fit another pair of skis in sideways, both for the number of existing toys and for time to spend with them. Unfortunately for my peace of mind, these folks http://www.clcboats.com are open for business just down the highway, and using related epoxy/plywood/fiberglass construction methods I have in mind a hot box and a cartop carrier.
I do notice that most of these boutique boards seem to be limited to a range useful to men 175cm-195cm, so if I had kids to outfit for powder the situation would be very different.
PM, thank you for a well-considered reply.
I would still like to know what it is that Zag calls nose length . Any owners at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
OK, my nose is about 5.5cms long. What length Zag skis should I go for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| OK, my nose is about 5.5cms long. What length Zag skis should I go for? |
Powder that nose? Not without a plunger and connections in Medellin!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
comprex, PM I think that "nose" is the way they translated "tip" (isn't "shovel" employed too?).
If you notice they say:
tip +long +large +flat
To confirm this I've gone to the frecnh version of the site and there the message is
Une Spatule +longue +large + plate
(I'd translate it as A wider, longer and flatter tip...)
Spatule is the same as the Italian Spatola, which is the term with which the ski tips are known here...
BTW re:listed prices, I've gone back to the buyer's guide and the 1k euro listed price refers to the GOLD version, the one wiith a 93 mm waist. The other two the 74 and the 84 are listed at 629 euros, ewhich is much closer to the 570 you saw...
Still out of reach though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| comprex wrote: |
I would still like to know what it is that Zag calls nose length . Any owners at all? |
Pretty obvious from the web site, the nose + tail + contact lengths is the full ski length. Contact length is a standard term for boards, maybe skiers just don't get it It's the length of the ski that contacts .......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
So, ise, the 'nose length' includes the turned-up portion to the very tip?
As to 'contact length', does this not change with conditions and how the ski is flexed?
I think it very likely some terms do -not- cross over from snowboard to ski. For instance, no double-camber classical cross-country skier would think of 'contact length' as a fixed number since it changes during each stride. Camber and a half touring skiers or telemark skiers might be extremely hesitant too.
I understand Matteo's comment and I agree with it, but I am not sure it is complete.
In talking of downhill skis, I think we take for granted that the widest point of the ski in front of the binding is necessarily both the start of sidecut and start of camber.
What if that wasn't the case?
What if you had a ski, with a -wide-, -flat-, -long-nose that was cambered but NOT side cut?
What if you had a ski, with a -wide-, -flat, -long- nose that was NOT side cut or cambered but also NOT turned up?
Is this what a Zag promises to deliver? Or is it just saying "longish upturned tip" in snowboard jargon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, if you think that the above questions are preposterous or over-imaginative, take a look at Scotty Bob's designs:
http://www.scottybob.com/design.htm
Scotty bob talks of shifting sidecuts relative to each other. I am wondering if Zag shifted BOTH sidecuts to the back of the ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| comprex wrote: |
So, ise, the 'nose length' includes the turned-up portion to the very tip?
As to 'contact length', does this not change with conditions and how the ski is flexed?
|
It does, it's really quite simple. The contact length is the distance between the contact points, it's measured with the board/ski at 'idle" and unloaded obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
What if you had a ski, with a -wide-, -flat-, -long-nose that was cambered but NOT side cut?
|
That is exactly what the Zag has.
Any ski or snowboard, with any kind of upturned tip, will have one contact length when sitting unloaded on a hard surface. When the weight of a skier is added, this will length will increase slightly as the ski flattens from its "bowed" camber. If the ski is also edged, the contact length increases again as the ski flexes into reverse camber. (One of the justifications by the manufacturers a few years ago for getting people to use shorter lengths was that the edge length in contact with the snow when carving is greater, for a given tip to tail length, for a "shaped" ski than for a "straight" ski - yes yes I know they weren't really dead straight.)
But once the tip is fully submerged beneath the snow, the contact length will of course encompass the entire ski.
I think Zag's point is that the difference between their "hard surface contact length" and their "submerged contact length" is much greater than for other skis.
By the way, I skied much of last season in Vail on a pair of Zags, and they were not at all "twitchy" in skied-out Colorado powder. Their 15.5m radius even carves nice turns on dry packed powder groomers.
But their lack of torsional stiffness gives them on real ice (yes you occasionally see it in Vail and not just in your Marg) approximately the gripping capability of a dead mackerel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I've just sat and read the lot of this. I got kind of lost in the middle when people started going on about nose lengths and reverse sidecut cambers, it must be said, but then I started to understand again.
Anyway, martin's comment :
| Martin Bell wrote: |
By the way, I skied much of last season in Vail on a pair of Zags, and they were not at all "twitchy" in skied-out Colorado powder. Their 15.5m radius even carves nice turns on dry packed powder groomers.
But their lack of torsional stiffness gives them on real ice (yes you occasionally see it in Vail and not just in your Marg) approximately the gripping capability of a dead mackerel. |
has rung a bell with me. Unfortunately I didn't ski the entire season, just two weeks in Fernie, and some of that on thin skis (Rossignol Cutz 9.6), but I spent 6 or 7 days on 165 Pocket Rockets (15m radius sidecut on the 165s as it has the same measurements as the longer version) and my experiences sound very very similar. I had the good fortune not to see any ice, but the ski handled well enough on all the other surfaces I skiied. Like ise though I still want another ski for piste work, althoug lack of cash may well mean I'm on the PRs for the whole of this season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| nbt wrote: |
| I've just sat and read the lot of this. I got kind of lost in the middle when people started going on about nose lengths and reverse sidecut cambers, it must be said, but then I started to understand again. |
Quite, but we’re back talking about skis in English (so far).
| nbt wrote: |
| has rung a bell with me. Unfortunately I didn't ski the entire season, just two weeks in Fernie, and some of that on thin skis (Rossignol Cutz 9.6), but I spent 6 or 7 days on 165 Pocket Rockets (15m radius sidecut on the 165s as it has the same measurements as the longer version) and my experiences sound very very similar. I had the good fortune not to see any ice, but the ski handled well enough on all the other surfaces I skiied. Like ise though I still want another ski for piste work, althoug lack of cash may well mean I'm on the PRs for the whole of this season. |
I’m not sure the PR’s are comparable a turn radius of 15.5 at 165 doesn't compare with the 15m at 188 that Martin skied or 13.5 at 179 that I have on the Zag. The PR’s at a comparable length are probably 21m radius at 185
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
21m at 185 sounds about right. however I can only compare my experiences : i didn;t ski a 185, I skiied a 165. Length is not seen to be as important as it was (remeber Glen Plake saying "Short skis suck, long skis truck" ?), hence I've chosen to go shorter for more manouevrability. I didn;t feel that the length of the ksis held me back in any may - no sinking in soft snow, no maxxing out the speed on pisted runs etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Posted a bit early there :
I'm quite happy to be shown how I'm wrong about how the length will affect the experience : Bikes I can tell you about how changes will affect handling etc, skis less so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| Quote: |
What if you had a ski, with a -wide-, -flat-, -long-nose that was cambered but NOT side cut?
|
That is exactly what the Zag has.
<SNIPPED for some brevity>
But once the tip is fully submerged beneath the snow, the contact length will of course encompass the entire ski.
I think Zag's point is that the difference between their "hard surface contact length" and their "submerged contact length" is much greater than for other skis.
|
Martin Bell , that is exactly what I first suspected when I read the website description, and I was trying to get a hard number for the extra length.
I have a few more questions, if you would not mind?
- Is there a noticeable 'break' or discontinuity between the two modes (nose-edge engaged and nose-edge disengaged), and , supposing you were trying to carve at rather high angles, approaching modern slalom say, would you notice this? A similar situation might arise from a fairly heavy skier for the length, I might imagine.
- Would you ever ski these with a plate of any sort?
- Is that fresh mackerel or yesterday's (eeeew)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
comprex,
One thing I found was that the sweet spot, when carving on hardpack, felt a long way back. I almost felt like the binding was mounted too far foward on the ski, even though I had used the further back ("freeride") of Zag's two boot-centre mounting markings. It may well be that the binding has to be fairly far forward to balance the ski in deep snow when the big spoon tip is engaged - which then gives rise to the strange feel on the firmer stuff when so much of the front part of the ski is effectively airborne.
*To answer your questions, I didn't notice the nose-edge engaging abruptly, probably because there's a natural change of feel going from on-piste to off-piste anyway.
*It is possible to carve at high edge angles on Zags (even quite fun) but the main difference to any race type ski is the total lack of rebound - because the ski is so soft.
*Not really much need for a plate - with an 84mm waist, boot-out is never an issue. A Derbyflex-type plate might stiffen the middle of the ski somewhat, but wouldn't solve the lack of torsion at either end.
*Probably fresh - yesterday's would be drier and stiffer...
By the way, one thing that the Zags are surprisingly OK at is quick pivoted turns in the bumps - because they are lighter than they look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Martin Bell, more echoes of what I thought. The weight does seem to be a long way back, I think they comment on that on their own website. I agree about the plates as well, I don't have them, it doesn't seem to be required. And they are light, it was the first thing I thought as I carried the test pair out, the second thing was how sharp the edges were and how shallow the angle on the on the edge was as I slashed my hand on them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
