ski weight...what does it affect?

[Pequenita]

The construction of the ski and whether the binding system is integrated are two things that affect a pair of skis' weight. All other things being equal, what are the differences in performance one will notice when skiing boards that have an integrated binding system vs. a non-integrated system?

Is the weight ultimately a skier preference thing?

 

[Shellski]

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference to the way they ski, when they are on your feet. The only issue I have with a skis weight is carrying them around.

 

[Native Vail Gal]

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference to the way they ski, when they are on your feet. The only issue I have with a skis weight is carrying them around.

....or my legs falling asleep on the lift because the skis are too heavy!:p

 

[Robyn]

I disagree, I think a heavier ski is going to be tougher to do hop turns in tight places, ski the bumps and is going to be tougher to keep afloat in powder. On an groomed cruiser things will be quite similar.

 

[volklgirl]

Gear Geek

All other things being equal, easiest first:

Weight: heavier skis tend to be more stable at speed, more willing to make longer turns, and better
able to bust through heavy crud without deflecting. Lighter weight skis generally feel more playful but will have less grip on ripply stuff, will tend to flap and chatter at high speeds, and will be easily deflected in glop.

Integrated Binding: the integrated binding is actually suspended above the ski by being mounted to a rail system manufactured into the ski rather than to the ski itself. The manufacturer usually either leaves a big open area between the toe and heel mounting areas or cuts flex grooves into a full length rail to allow the ski to flex evenly and continuously under foot. A standard binding is mounted directly to the ski at heel and toe creating a large flat spot in its flex pattern directly under the boot sole. The integrated binding (by virtue of raising the boot) also typically allows for higher edge angles without "boot out" (inside of the boot hitting the snow causing the ski to skip out from under the skier).

 

[altagirl]

To me it's a balance. Skis that are too light feel flighty - they deflect off things, don't stay as stable, etc. Heavy skis usually feel better to me on the way down the mountain, particularly on groomers or when busting through crud... But a lot of the skiing I do involves sidestepping or hiking and then heavy skis are miserable. They can also be harder to handle in bumps or terraiin where you're really trying to be dynamic.

Volklgirl beat me to it!

 

[volklgirl]

Sorry

 

[Jilly]

I skied on a pair of Metron's B5's one day. Not only are they heavy to cart around, I found them heavy to ski. Bumps and rough stuff tired my out in no time. Yes they were stable and crud busters, but moving them around wore me out. The binding were demo type so I asked if the normal ones were any lighter. No! So I decided against that ski. But it leads into this question. The binding system had nothing to do with how the ski performed. The last 2 pairs of skis I've had have rail systems that the bindings mount on. I didn't find these any heavier than the first pair that I added lifts to, so I wouldn't boot out! I would say that the ski construction is what is making a heavy ski ie the Metron by Atomic. (around our shop it's called Mega-tron!)

 

[volklgirl]

Having an integrated binding system alone does not necessarily mean a ski will be heavy. The bindings themselves are typically the same as those you can buy flat, plus an adapter to match the rail system in the ski. In fact, a system may allow the ski manufacturer to remove material from the ski itself because it no longer needs to be fortified in the binding area.

However, many of the manufacturers using binding systems tend to make heavier skis in general (read usually wood core and/or 1 or more metal layers). These include Volkl, Atomic, Nordica/Kastle (the German and Austrian skis), K2 and some Fishers and Rossignols. Skis that tend toward lighter weight include Salomon, Blizzard and Dynastar (basically all the Frech skis)

 

[bettei]

I noticed my new Burning Luvs were really heavy! I did demo them last year, and liked them though. But I did wonder why they weighed so much more than my old K2's did.

 

[snowgem]

I just got the Lotta's 160 flat with Salomon bindings and have the 153's BL's with the integrated binding and swear the the 153's are heavier! Guy at the shop (Al's Ski Barn) told me that the integrated makes the ski a lot heavier (and more stable at speed - he said it'd be better for racing, which I interpreted as at speed), but that lighter is easier to handle. He recommended the lighter bindings for easier handling or fluffier conditions. Haven't had the chance to try the Lotta's yet. They are a longer, lighter, and I wanted them for different conditions, so I don't know how they'll compare to the BL's! Love the heavy BL's on the eastern hardpack and granular cover.

 

[Pequenita]

Love the heavy BL's on the eastern hardpack and granular cover.

Yeah - I wonder if that's why I've always favored heavier skis in general, and that the integrated binding system adding weight isn't really something I've thought of much.

 

[back2ski]

Is there anyplace to find out the true weight of the ski/binding package? Right now deciding between K2 One Luv 167 and Atomic 918 puls 170.

 

[skigrl27]

I just made the transition from a light to heavy ski.

It's kind of a preference thing. My Mantras are much heavier than my Nancys were - but that's what I LOVE about them. They're like skiing with 2 huge DOT dumptruck plows on your feet. They power through everything. Yet, they are still lively & manuverable. My Nancys would get jostled around all over the mountain.

I actually notice that jump turns are easier with my Mantras & I was very surprised, considering their weight. I remember the first chute we went down when I demoed them thinking "this should be interesting" - we were on a 45 degree pitch with 12" of powder. The first turn in I thought "oh yeah baby!!" The bindings on them (Marker Jesters) are super light, which is good.

 

[Sheena]

I don't have a lot of technical knowledge, but for me, my Head iM 88s are a heavy ski. They are great in soft moguls, corn snow, groomers, and crud. I don't like them as well in powder or icy tight moguls, but they perform well.

My other ski is the Atomic Sugar Daddy with a very light touring binding. I LOVE these skis in powder. They are really light and maneuverable, and respond well to direction change (if that makes sense). I don't like the Sugar Daddys in crud or heavier tracked out powder. I also don't feel they perform as well for me on groomers.

So, I guess for me, the weight of the ski makes a huge difference.

 

[snowgem]

So, for me, the heavier shorter BL's hold great on hardpack and plow thru stuff well, turn quickly and are stable at speed, and they are speedy! The Lotta's, which are longer but lighter because of lighter bindings, were great in deeper snow, off piste and on covered groomers, but didn't grab as well on the hardpack and ice, and turned less quickly. It's hard to isolate one factor, since the length, weight and shape of both pairs of are different, but I think the weight significantly contributes to the performance difference. I definitely feel like the BL's are the more solid ski underfoot - and yet, very responsive and lively.