 Poster: A snowHead
|
Thinking about buying a pair of rocker skis such as s7 or jj's,
my current off piste ski is a prophet 90, which is good, on piste is excellent, off piste good, but a bit stiff, they do seem to tip dive a bit.
so i purchased a pair of line blends (100mm across waist) on a bit of a whim at the end of last season that have a slight rocker effect, but they seem to cross over with the prophets a bit.
so thought about selling the blends and buying a pair of s7's or something like that?
I have a pure piste ski, (progressor 9's). Considering i ski in the grand massif all the time, will i actually use something as fat as an s7? or would it be better to sell prophets and keep the blends??
The off piste i usually ski is often awkward, (trees, crud, gullies etc) and needs a quick turning nimble ski, its not big open faces (well a bit, but not much)
We do get powder days, but its not like the USA, its usually top of boot.
opinions welcome 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
carroz, Have you tried the S7 and/or the JJs. I know many people who ski in Europe and use those as an everyday ski. Can you rent a pair for a week so you can get a feel for them. You need to demo them both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Yes, for sure.
I used my 118mm Bibby Pros quite a lot this season, even though I only got one powder day - rocker and width is great for variable snow too, whilst anything is easy and fun in hero pow. They're way way more versatile than I expected. I've also had plenty of waist deep days in Austria in the past too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Atomic Theory fits bill, but Graphics not sick, they smear, check, skid and turn off-piste without you worrying if they are going to do the same thing twice, unlike some of the pretty ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I've go the S3s and ski them as my everyday ski in Scotland, I would definitely get a fatter ski to take on holidays in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
carroz, you bought a pair of s7`s of me to replace a longer pair you bought but found to much to handle 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carroz, the missus loves the way her S7s ski on groomed runs. You can't wipe the smile off her face when she skis them in ANY conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meandrew, They ended up not for me............long story.......stuffed my time trial zipp rear wheel day before a race in august and did a swap... skis for another rear wheel (not zipp however...grrr )...race didn't go very well anyway ...zipp warranty is good, got another one ..and the 188's I never skied, just seemed way way too long as i am not very tall......so a mate in les carroz ended up with them in the plastic
Just trying to work out if I need to spend lots more..........s7 etc are a bit expensive
It seems for what everyone is saying they work ok in a variety of conditions but would the blends be more practical and nearly as good? its just its a bit cheaper so to speak....
Maybe will try to hire a pair as Dot. said
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
carroz, you make a good point re fat skis. I nearly always end up at some point combat skiing, where nimbleness is important and have found 30m radius skis a real handful in trees, rocks and bushes. I have on order some wd preachers which I am hoping because of their tight radius for a 112 might suit me. I will post the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carroz, you would be pleasantly suprised with how easy s7`s are to ski i just wish i could of got hold of a pair of 188`s I find my jj`s are more lively than the s7`s and dont have as stable feel to them but they are super quick to turn I have never skied on blends but the shape of jj`s s7`s is quite different to a traditional twin tip ski.Its a shame you had to part with your ski`s as I dont think there will be many £200 s7`s knocking about. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
EP pros or franny Bs if you want o stick with line..the blends are more early rise then rocker. was looking at some msp ants today with looked pretty sorted for 116s
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jbob wrote: |
| ....I nearly always end up at some point combat skiing, where nimbleness is important and have found 30m radius skis a real handful in trees, rocks and bushes. I have on order some wd preachers which I am hoping because of their tight radius for a 112 might suit me. I will post the results. |
jbob, little or no camber underfoot plus rocker/pintail = super easy pivoting for tight trees, rocks & bushes etc. A conventional camber ski (like the Preacher) which pressures the tips'n'tails won't help much in this terrain even if it has a tight radius. My Llasa's are 39m but I can pivot them on a dime. If you want these features then change your Whitedot order for a pair of Directors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meandrew, I do wish i hadn't parted with them....they were a bit of a bargain....but I had done lots of training for this race so had to do it.....and he will not swap back, i have tried!.....I think i am going to try to find a pair to hire, and a day when its normal conditions for where i ski, so bit chopped up, with the odd bush, rock etc (hopefully not like last season which was patches of mud and grass as well!) and see what they are like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
spyderjon, I disagree. Had the Preachers for a season and they never let me down. I really think they do turn on a dime and I'm never worrying about getting caught out in a tight situation.
That said I've never skied a rocker so maybe they're even better...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Will S, physics says rocker will always pivot quicker/easier than camber - although camber obviously has other advantages.
carroz, don't let the length intimidate you, rocker makes things ski shorter. For instance at 5 foot 9 and 72kg, my 190 Bibby Pro's (similar shape and design to S7's) are perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
carroz, I've spent the last couple of winters on Volkl Katanas in 191cms. Super easy ski all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Will S, didn't say that Preachers weren't maneouvrable but in tight spots it's a pivoting/steering turn that's required & the ability to do that has little to do with the radius of the ski. A mid-high teen radius is still a big turn in a tight spot if one's carving/riding the sidecut. And a rockered ski will pivot waaay more easily than a conventional design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Having skied both the Preachers and their bigger cousin the Redeemers I'd say both will turn pretty readily in tight spot but the regular camber Preacher requires more conscious technique. A double rockered ski like the Redeemer will just pivot when you need it which can get you out of tight spots as well as being fairly fun when you get it trucking on softish groomers. It's this spectrum of use that makes me think Directors will be a big success in Europe as its correct that the need for a ski for really big days is reduced. Redeemers were great in spring conditions at the end of April in Val Thorens though.
So to answer the original question IMO is it totally worth it. For the reasons that you might encounter harder snow I'd say go for the skinnier of the widest 2 rockered skis in a range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
spyderjon, Will S, I tend to agree with both of you The Preachers are very manoeuvrable for a fat ski, it depends on what type of turn you are doing as spyderjon, says.
On rocker skis tho there are so many options now, full rocker, reverse camber and just tip rocker etec etc, Oh and then there is the DPS SPOON, but lets leave that one out for now.
Full rocker skis like the WD Director will turn very quickly in the trees or tight spots, as long as your not waist deep, the deeper the snow the more the turn radius of th ski kicks in, unless your doing a surf style or sluff style turn and then a full rocker will turn much quicker, some of it is down to how fast your going
I guess the however bit is that something like the WD Preacher will also surf turn and to some extent there is the dilemma, there is no rightor wrong answer just personal choice as to camber of the ski your skiing across the whole mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
A quick comparative between skis in our range only (as it's all i get to ski, really): on a powder day from the season just gone (one of the few), out with a friend, my 189 Preachers and some 188 prototype Directors, we ended up doing loops of a descent down an open face dropping to the tree line and into quite dense woods. We alternated what we had underfoot over about 6 loops. Both skis performed very well (i would say that wouldn't I) but on the open face there was no substitute for width and the Preachers were favourite, once into the trees the rocker made the Director more agile especially on the latter runs as the pace crept up, the Preachers were able, just harder work that's all
In other words, pretty much what everyone has said above, backed up by empirical experience back to back, which isn't easily available generally.
FWIW
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
spyderjon, gotcha. Makes sense. Wish I could find out but just can't justify another pair of WDs!!
Could sell Mrs Wills preachers and put the money towards the Directors 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
carroz, only just noticed this thread...I'm in almost exactly the same position as you - feel like my prophet 90s need an upgrade, and thinking about WD directors, JJs or (following a conversation with a canada-bound colleague) S7s. I don't have the Blends though, and my rationale for spending money this year is a trip to Japan.
The number of people who cite JJs/Directors as a one-ski quiver makes me think they must work fairly well in European conditions...my plan is to go and demo some of the candidates early this season and see how I feel about rockers. If I were you I'd try the fatter skis out and then convince yourelf that you get best value by selling the Blends and buying something bigger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Problem Page
I'm on my Blizzard super carvers, 159 cm long but 65mm under foot. They are great versatile skis that seem happy on piste, off piste and in bumps.
They have served me well in waist deep powder on several occasions, including Alta and (last season) Schladming in December.
I've cat skiied in Canada 3 times on 100mm wide (rental) fat boys and they were great fun! In fact they made the powder a doddle.
However, I still don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with my skinny skis. I can honestly say that, on that legendary day on my skinnies last December in Flachau (as the powder flew over my head) it never crossed my mind to wish I was skiing on fatter skis.
So while the trend seems to be for fatter and fatter skis I think it's driven more by the ski industry's marketing gurus rather than a skiing necessity, particularly in Europe's boot deep stuff.
Am I normal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
No just out of date. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
... and having more fun when you're skiing on piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, why the rolled eyes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there so much resistance to change? Surely any tool that makes skiing easier and more fun should be welcomed. It doesn't mean the old tools have no value but it shouldn't engender faction rivalry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Zero-G wrote: |
| Surely any tool that makes skiing easier and more fun should be welcomed. |
Exactly right. Be on the right skis for what you're skiing as much of the time as possible is my advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rob@rar, and sensible advice it is too.
But good sense doesn't always factor when buying skis, which is a largely an aspirational decision for most people. All helped along by advertising, marketing, peer pressure, ski films and ego.
I am a prime example where ego outweighs my abilities. In my head, I am a ski god(dess) who can ski Ragnaroks down huge Alaskan spines. While the reality (skills- and terrain-wise) is entirely different, it doesn't change my aspirations. So, I buy skis above my skiing level and learn to ski the damned things in all conditions, which, in turn, allows me to go further afield in more hairy terrain and increase my skill set.
While aspirations may mean we don't always use the right skis for the terrain we are skiing, it does help to push us further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Zero-G wrote: |
| While aspirations may mean we don't always use the right skis for the terrain we are skiing, it does help to push us further. |
I'm not sure that is the case, but if it is true it sounds like a convincing case to ski skinny skis off piste all them time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Well said Zero G. My 2 cents are that I have skied prophets, blends and preachers. - I have sold the others and am keeping the preachers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Zero-G wrote: |
| While aspirations may mean we don't always use the right skis for the terrain we are skiing, it does help to push us further. |
I'm not sure that is the case, but if it is true it sounds like a convincing case to ski skinny skis off piste all them time. |
That's the beauty of it, it works for any ski and terrain configuration
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Zero-G wrote: |
| That's the beauty of it, it works for any ski and terrain configuration |
Excellent! I shall look forward to a rash of posts advocating nothing wider than 65mm should ever be skied in a foot of fresh pow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
rob@rar, hark, I hear a stampede approaching!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Excellent! I shall look forward to a rash of posts advocating nothing wider than 65mm should ever be skied in a foot of fresh pow... |
Paging under a new name!
I've got no doubt you can ski slalom skis in fresh snow - but there is powder and powder and it isn't all light and fluffy with low resistance. And more often it gets cut up by others which begins a bit of transformation. Same as pistes really which at certain times of day and in certain weather can be far harder to ski than "off-piste". I think rob is bang on - people should choose a ski based on what they are most likely to be doing but there is nothing wrong in being a bit aspirational provided you aren't getting straight on the 195 AK chargers if you're just thinking of dabbling in a little off-piste.
Personally I think waist width is in danger of becoming a red herring, there are so many other variables in how a modern ski behaves the idea that it must be narrow or it'll be useless on piste or profile/camber/mounting point aren't just as relevant to how it floats in powder probably are going out. And of course you can still believe that its all a marketing con by ski companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| ... there is nothing wrong in being a bit aspirational |
I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously what you aspire to is going to vary from skier to skier - for some people it will be measured by the colour of the piste they can get down, for others it might be making the transition from on-piste to off-piste, for some it might be feeling they have a wider range of ski technique they can draw upon, for others it might be enjoying more extreme terrain or snow conditions. But putting the aspirations to one side for a brief moment, the reality is most people are going to be using one pair of skis for all their skiing. It's expensive to have more than one pair and it's getting increasingly expensive to haul them around on skiing holidays, so it's a one-ski quiver for most people. If that one ski quiver is going to be an extreme/niche/specialist ski I think there is a danger that unless people are skilled enough to use that ski well they will simply develop bad habits in order to make that ski do what they want it to do. It's the opposite viewpoint to the one expressed earlier that an aspirational ski will enable you to become better because it helps you do more 'stuff'. This applies equally to a race department pair of GS skis as it does to a fat ski with funky geometry, IMO. So while I love to see skiers having aspirations I think there is the danger that choosing the wrong pair of skis can actually hold them back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar, you are right. Choosing a ski from one end of the spectrum when you will be skiing conditions largely at the opposite end of the spectrum wouldn't do the skier any favours.
I'm not suggesting that aspirations should be the rationale behind extreme choices. Rather, that aspirations can lead you to challenge yourself by selecting skis just above your skiing level and geared more towards the terrain you may not yet be skiing on all the time but intend to ski. If the skier's intention is to eventually ski terrain the skis are made for, getting to grips with the skis and learning how they perform on all terrain will be beneficial.
I am not experienced enough to say that this is the right approach but can say it is the right approach for me - I prefer to be challenged. For people who need gentle encouragement, then choosing 'easy' skis (is there such a thing?) may be better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zero-G wrote: |
| I'm not suggesting that aspirations should be the rationale behind extreme choices. Rather, that aspirations can lead you to challenge yourself by selecting skis just above your skiing level and geared more towards the terrain you may not yet be skiing on all the time but intend to ski. If the skier's intention is to eventually ski terrain the skis are made for, getting to grips with the skis and learning how they perform on all terrain will be beneficial. |
I agree with you. I think your kit should be able to support and encourage you to push your boundaries, whether that's the gnarliest terrain you can imagine or just pushing your comfort zone to ski red pistes with a smile. But it seems to me that sometimes the opposite can happen if you end up on inappropriate skis for the snow and terrain you mostly ski on. IMO the more the extreme the ski choice the more this is likely to happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
