Ski choice is what allows us to progress — our stories

[TiffAlt]

@TiffAlt, I was eyeing that same pair of Volkl Flair SCs yesterday and today (even after I said I would not buy all the skis)! I agree the price didn't seem great for a 3-year old model.

I think Rossignol Nova (6? 8?) would be fun to try, too.

I will wait til next season...I will wait til next season...I will wait til next season...

Let's start a prayer circle! My wallet is already praising your levelheadedness

 

[skinnyfootskis]

Big fan of narrower skis to learn how to carve. I never quite "got it" until I ended up on a pair of used master racing skis. Serious epiphany, lightbulb, moment. Less angle is necessary to engage and keep the carbe going with narrower skis. I also felt the apex to apex sensation that was missing on my 80 plus width skis.

As stated in previous replies, I am now able to carve with wider skis more easily.

Firm snow lessons the 72 underfoot boards come out, otherwise I still ski 90 and up to 112 underfoot, but that is because the bumps suck on stiff carvers. Eager to try a soft flexing 80 with some pop and edge grip.

What is your JH daily driver?

 

[snoWYmonkey]

What is your JH daily driver?

That is a great question. I was injured on a new pair of Stockli SR 88s and promptly sold them. Only had a chance to try out my new fischer 90s for 3 days after the doc cleared me, and I think that they will serve the general lesson well, which is one that includes some groomers, and some bumps, and some off piste and light new snow. I love my 72 underfoot. I have stiff Stocklis and less stiff dynastars in that width. They suck in bumps and new snow. Finally I tend to use my mantras, or stella 106s for powder lessons.

Still looking for the perfect 84 underfoot ski, but the fischers seem like they might do it all well enough that I can just go with those. Maybe a tad more work edge to edge in short radius carved turns. But that is to be expected.

I have skied Kastles in the high 80 range and rossis in that range as well for most lessons, but both pairs got very soft after a few years of daily beatings.

 

[skinnyfootskis]

That is a great question. I was injured on a new pair of Stockli SR 88s and promptly sold them. Only had a chance to try out my new fischer 90s for 3 days after the doc cleared me, and I think that they will serve the general lesson well, which is one that includes some groomers, and some bumps, and some off piste and light new snow. I love my 72 underfoot. I have stiff Stocklis and less stiff dynastars in that width. They suck in bumps and new snow. Finally I tend to use my mantras, or stella 106s for powder lessons.

Still looking for the perfect 84 underfoot ski, but the fischers seem like they might do it all well enough that I can just go with those. Maybe a tad more work edge to edge in short radius carved turns. But that is to be expected.

I have skied Kastles in the high 80 range and rossis in that range as well for most lessons, but both pairs got very soft after a few years of daily beatings.

I like my Dynastar Legend 84’s. Not sure how they would handle deep snow. But…I don’t know much other than they are forgiving.

 

[Soujan]

So we should go shorter with carvers, got it. The skis my friend will let me try next season are these in 149. They are junior skis so I'm thinking less stiff than the Stocklis and maybe that's a good thing?

It's not so much that a carving ski should be shorter. You should base ski length on effective edge length. A ski that has more tip and tail rocker will have a shorter effective edge (less contact with the snow) and will feel like "it skis short." Skis meant for more or only on piste terrain will usually have little to no rocker. My recommendation would be to watch some of the ski comparison videos from Ski Essentials on YouTube. They compare and show you the amount of rocker and camber the skis have so you can have a better understanding, especially when you're looking to buy something sight unseen.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

As Soujan stated length is relative to so so many factors. I had to bite my tongue last week when I rented skis and the poor gal at the shop told me that I was going to long when they were heavily rockered, super soft, pow skis. As suspected 5cm above the top of my head was way too short. On a stiff carver I would downsize 5 cm. But then again my weight affects the length as does the snow and personal preference.
Colleagues got to demo super G racing skis. Stiff and very long. Yikes!

 

[TiffAlt]

It's not so much that a carving ski should be shorter. You should base ski length on effective edge length. A ski that has more tip and tail rocker will have a shorter effective edge (less contact with the snow) and will feel like "it skis short." Skis meant for more or only on piste terrain will usually have little to no rocker. My recommendation would be to watch some of the ski comparison videos from Ski Essentials on YouTube. They compare and show you the amount of rocker and camber the skis have so you can have a better understanding, especially when you're looking to buy something sight unseen.

Should I go for a carver without tip and tail rocker though right? Or perhaps it's better to put it as - it's not a carver if it has tip and tail rocker? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the impression I was getting.

 

[Soujan]

Should I go for a carver without tip and tail rocker though right? Or perhaps it's better to put it as - it's not a carver if it has tip and tail rocker? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the impression I was getting.

I found this simple explanation. A lot of the skis you're looking at probably have some tip rocker to help with turn initiation.

Full Camber (or “Traditional Camber”)​

Full camber means the ski maintains a consistent (downward facing) curvature from tip contact point to tail contact point. By utilizing traditional camber throughout the full effective edge length, the ski is able to direct maximum energy down to the snow—meaning the most power, dampness, and edge grip possible.

Image courtesy of Atomic.

Tip Rocker (or “Early Rise”)​

Tip rocker means the ski’s camber ends before the tip, thus bringing the contact point farther back on the ski. Tip rocker is used to make turn initiation easier (the ski feels shorter and easier to turn), and reduce tip grab in soft or mixed snow conditions by keeping the front of the ski up and out of the snow.

Image courtesy of Atomic.

Tip and Tail Rocker (or “All-Mountain Rocker”)​

Tip and tail rocker means the ski’s camber ends early at both the front and back of the ski. This allows for easier in and out of the turn, enhances floatation in soft snow, and makes it easier to pivot or steer the ski in soft snow.

Image courtesy of Atomic.

Full Rocker (or “Reverse Camber”)​

Full Rocker means the ski has no camber at any point along its length. This is used primarily in powder skis as a way to enhance floatation. It is done at the cost of hardpack stability and rebound.

Image courtesy of Atomic.

 

[Soujan]

That said, I guess "trends" sell skis . . .

Marketing is everything. When we were at Palisades earlier in the year, DH demoed Stormrider 88. A European couple commented on how wide they were and asked him if they were powder skis.

 

[Jilly]

I'm sure that @volklgirl did a through explanation in the gearpedia section. Check it out. And yes, European skiers ski narrower ski than NA. Well except me..

 

[TiffAlt]

I'm sure that @volklgirl did a through explanation in the gearpedia section. Check it out. And yes, European skiers ski narrower ski than NA. Well except me..

Don't you ski Rossi Heroes? I thought those were pretty narrow 70-ish?

 

[Jilly]

Yes, I do. So I ski, skis narrower than the norm for NA. Although at Tremblant you'll see a lot of narrow skis, but there are a lot of wider skis too. They don't handle the hardpack very well.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

Yes, I do. So I ski, skis narrower than the norm for NA. Although at Tremblant you'll see a lot of narrow skis, but there are a lot of wider skis too. They don't handle the hardpack very well.

I have to ask, because my assumptions often lead me astray. NA for North America?

 

[Soujan]

All this talk about carving skis has been looking through Powder7 for a used pair.

 

[Jilly]

I have to ask, because my assumptions often lead me astray. NA for North America?

Yes. Too lazy to type it out!! And I'm referring to both Canada and the US.

 

[VickiK]

But then again my weight affects the length as does the snow and personal preference.

This is true for me. I compensated for being heavy by going longer than recommended in my carver ski.

 

[BlizzardBabe]

https://www.stoeckli.ch/usen/ski/ski/race/laser-mx

They are on my wall just waiting for snow to fly.

 

[mzapsCO]

Love listening to Deb too! She has been on a roll with releasing awesome vids this past season

Deb is so great. My husband and I will often let her YouTube channel just play!

 

[SnowHot]

Admittedly I have not read all of these posts, but I'll add....
The year I made my best progression I was advised to get on a ski that was 77mm-ish under foot and ski it in every condition working on my skills.
I did exactly that, with the exeption of the week I was in Big Sky and had huge snow so I deomo'd a pair of wider skis.
I am confident that committing to a ski like that for a full season with a commitment of working on my skills is part of the reason I'm the skier I am today.

 

[BlizzardBabe]

Deb is so great. My husband and I will often let her YouTube channel just play!

Maybe we could persuade her to become a Diva!