A new ski for me?

Newpylong · Sep 21, 2008

I am in the market for new skis this season. I currently ski a 178 Volkl Pro 724. I am 5'10" and weigh about 200 lbs. The ski is too long for me, but otherwise I think this is the type of ski I am looking for. I want to be able to ski bumps, carve, and ski crud. So I guess I am looking for an all mountain ski. What would a good size be?

I don't particularly feel like dropping that much money again since these are only a few years old. Does anyone have any good recommendations on last year's equipment for me? Will I be able to move the rail mounted Marker bindings that came on these to other skis? Or do most now come with bindings?

Thanks!

Philpug · Sep 21, 2008

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=72456

06/07 Nordica Nitrous 170 cm, with XBS Binding:
I got these in 07. As a part of my quiver, they didn't see much action. Last year my husband used them as his tree ski because it was shorter than most of what he has. Time to thin the quiver.
I haven't looked at them closely since putting them away for summer storage, but I recall some top sheet scratches, but good bases. May need a tune, can't remember.

$295 Shipped.

Greg · Sep 21, 2008

Newpylong said:
I want to be able to ski bumps, carve, and ski crud. So I guess I am looking for an all mountain ski.

Well, as you probably already guessed, it's hard to find a ski that does it all. I came off an AC3 which is the more forgiving version of the next generation up from your 724. I upgraded to a Dynastar Legend 8000 and have been very happy with it. Decent in bumps (I normally ski a bump ski so I'm particular there) and excellent in crud and powder. Not a great carver, especially on really icy hardpack, much manageable on groomed. I'd say a 178 cm would be good. Maybe a 172 cm if you want to go a bit shorter. Mount some Look PX12 or equivalent flat and you'll be good to go with a pretty light and nimble ski.

Edit: note - I'm talking about a 2007 model and prior. The 2008+ are a different ski.

Geoff · Sep 21, 2008

Why do you think a 178 is too long?

lloyd braun · Sep 21, 2008

Geoff said:
Why do you think a 178 is too long?

that is exactly what I thought too.

Seems like it is the correct size or maybe even a bit short

Hawkshot99 · Sep 21, 2008

lloyd braun said:
that is exactly what I thought too.

Seems like it is the correct size or maybe even a bit short

I could see it being a ok length on the long side. Unless it was to be a powder ski there is no way I would say it is short.

Trekchick · Sep 21, 2008

I [Hart] Skiing said:
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=72456

06/07 Nordica Nitrous 170 cm, with XBS Binding:
I got these in 07. As a part of my quiver, they didn't see much action. Last year my husband used them as his tree ski because it was shorter than most of what he has. Time to thin the quiver.
I haven't looked at them closely since putting them away for summer storage, but I recall some top sheet scratches, but good bases. May need a tune, can't remember.

$295 Shipped.

Thanks I Hart.

This is my listing on Epic, and its a very nice ski, but(if you haven't followed my household quiver issues) we have too many skis.
My husband has the 724 Pro in a 184, Loves it! He likes this Nitrous as a compliment to the Pro, but I'm forcing him to thin the quiver.
I'm mean that way.

If you're interest, let me know.

Geoff · Sep 22, 2008

lloyd braun said:
that is exactly what I thought too.

Seems like it is the correct size or maybe even a bit short

There seems to be a trend in the east to put people on dwarf skis. On hardpack at recreational skiing speeds, that seems to work OK though it completely destroys moguls. A 200 pound guy on a short all mountain ski isn't going to have a very good time in soft snow. In my opinion, it makes no sense to optimize for the crappy days. With a 1 ski quiver, I think you want gear that maximizes the good days and performs well enough on the crappy days to enjoy yourself. I think an 85mm waist and around 177-180 cm length is the sweet spot for an eastern all mountain ski for a 200 pound guy. I weigh somewhat more than that so I'm one size up from there. Ski technology has improved to the point where an 85mm waist ski has the grip of a narrower ski of 7 or 8 years ago. Everybody makes a ski like that and there are lots of really good options.

RootDKJ · Sep 22, 2008

But isn't that same technology also allows for a better response, control, and float factors in a shorter ski? I'd have to have to go back to anything longer than 180 (still have my 210 K2 TRC's in the attic just in case :wink

Trekchick · Sep 22, 2008

After rereading this thread, I'm convinced that my nitrous is not ideal for this quiver.
My husband is on the 724 Volkl Pro, as stated above, in a 184. He is 6'1" and 180 lbs.
IMO, shorter is not always better.
The Nitrous in a 170 would not be ideal for someone of your stature

prisnah · Sep 22, 2008

short skis suck

That is all

eastcoastpowderhound · Sep 22, 2008

prisnah said:
short skis suck

That is all

funny...there was a "short skis suck" bumper sticker that was popular in the '70s when the GLM method was around...when the Elan SCX came out and made its major debut at Sunday River the shop I worked for ressurected the old sticker with twist; "short skis still suck" in the silhouete of the SCX shape. Wish I still had some of them...I'd put them on my 192 fat skis.

prisnah · Sep 22, 2008

I think it's high time we got some new "Short skis suck" stickers made up.

Newpylong · Sep 22, 2008

Thanks for the tips everyone...

I have nothing against long skis... I come from a racing background and have skied everything from 210 DH skies to 178 Slalom skis. Seeing what most people were skiing at the time, I did consider these to be a little long but I figured I wanted the added stability coming from a racing background.

I'm not sure what's wrong with them... they are a very solid platform on the groomers and when carving, but when I slow it down its another story. They seem long and quite heavy. I have trouble turning getting them around, making bumps and trees quite miserable. I think they are wood core, is that the norm now? Would a foam core be lighter, and maybe cut down on the length slightly?

This was the last pair that I have bought since the early days of carvers when Volkl was giving me their skis, so I definitely am less than knowledgable when it comes to this stuff now... so thanks for your patience.

Any other ideas?

Thanks

eastcoastpowderhound · Sep 22, 2008

Newpylong said:
I'm not sure what's wrong with them... they are a very solid platform on the groomers and when carving, but when I slow it down its another story. They seem long and quite heavy. I have trouble turning getting them around, making bumps and trees quite miserable. I think they are wood core, is that the norm now? Would a foam core be lighter, and maybe cut down on the length slightly?

Any other ideas?

Thanks

They've got metal in them...like your old race skis, look for something without a metal laminate but with a sidewall...the metal laminate makes the ski smooth and stable at speed but unforgiving in bumps and trees and heavier. A sidewall ski with a woodcore will still have solid edge grip but when you lose the metal you get a more forgiving and versatile ski. Some skis to consider are the Fischer Watea 84 (84mm waist with two carbon fiber I-beams milled into the woodcore to make it torsionally stiff like a ski with metal so it holds on hard snow, but much lighter and more forgiving) Nordica Afterburner, 84mm waist sidewalls, woodcore, but no metal (its the non-metal version of the Jet Fuel) or, if you're looking for something a little narrower check the Nordica Afterburner or Fischer Watea 78...both woodcore sidewall skis with no metal, both have 78mm waists and ~17m radius turns. There are plenty of other good skis out there, but I've skied on all of these and think they're a great mix of edge hold and versatility...and you could probably find last year's version of them in a shop/online. My $.02

skidmarks · Sep 24, 2008

Fore-Aft Balance could be what's wrong with them

I agree that the trend is towards too short of a ski. Most of the time you can tell by the ski's turn radius whether it's meant to be skied short or long. Any ski with a turn radius of 16M+ should be skied a bit longer.

I would check the "delta angle" of your binding and the "ramp angle" of your ski boot and the "dorsal flexion" of your ankle to see if you're stuck in the back seat. That would make the skis hard to turn at slow speeds.

PSIA had a great article on this subject a few years ago. A quick check would be if you drop a plumb line from your hips centerline while standing in your equipment (light pressure on boot tongue not flexed) the plumb line should fall through the midsole mark on your boot.

If you don't have great range of motion upward (gas pedal move) a heel lift might help.

eastcoastpowderhound · Sep 24, 2008

skidmarks said:
I agree that the trend is towards too short of a ski. Most of the time you can tell by the ski's turn radius whether it's meant to be skied short or long. Any ski with a turn radius of 16M+ should be skied a bit longer.

I would check the "delta angle" of your binding and the "ramp angle" of your ski boot and the "dorsal flexion" of your ankle to see if you're stuck in the back seat. That would make the skis hard to turn at slow speeds.

PSIA had a great article on this subject a few years ago. A quick check would be if you drop a plumb line from your hips centerline while standing in your equipment (light pressure on boot tongue not flexed) the plumb line should fall through the midsole mark on your boot.

If you don't have great range of motion upward (gas pedal move) a heel lift might help.

this post should include a glossary of terms so most of the folks on here can understand what you're talking about. I'm fine with the lingo...but not too many people know what "dorsal flexion" is let alone how to guage if they have enough. Could you elaborate on your post so those folks who don't have a subscription to the Professional Skier can follow along?

Geoff · Sep 24, 2008

eastcoastpowderhound said:
this post should include a glossary of terms so most of the folks on here can understand what you're talking about. I'm fine with the lingo...but not too many people know what "dorsal flexion" is let alone how to guage if they have enough. Could you elaborate on your post so those folks who don't have a subscription to the Professional Skier can follow along?

dorsal flexion.... It's technobabble for the 1950's "Bend zee knees. Two dollars pleeze"

skidmarks · Sep 25, 2008

Dorsal Flexion

eastcoastpowderhound said:
this post should include a glossary of terms so most of the folks on here can understand what you're talking about. I'm fine with the lingo...but not too many people know what "dorsal flexion" is let alone how to guage if they have enough. Could you elaborate on your post so those folks who don't have a subscription to the Professional Skier can follow along?

Dorsal Flexion. Flexion of the ankle resulting in the top of the foot moving toward the body
Looked it up on Google cause I can't find my copy of Professional Skier.

This is relevant because; if he doesn't have a good range of motion he might not be able to flex in his boots, keeping him in the back seat and making it hard to turn at slow speeds. His fore-aft balance which is a product of boot ramp ange and binding delta angle can make this situation worse. I gave him a little test he could do.

Originally Posted by Newpylong
I'm not sure what's wrong with them... they are a very solid platform on the groomers and when carving, but when I slow it down its another story. They seem long and quite heavy. I have trouble turning getting them around, making bumps and trees quite miserable. I think they are wood core, is that the norm now? Would a foam core be lighter, and maybe cut down on the length slightly?

Any other ideas?

Skis seem to be the right length for someone his size. The Volkl 724 Pro isn't a bad ski is it?
Can we assume the skis bases are beveled (not railed) and otherwise tuned correctly?
I'd check out stance and want to hear more about his ski boots before spending $$ some new skis.

Geoff · Sep 25, 2008

skidmarks said:
Skis seem to be the right length for someone his size. The Volkl 724 Pro isn't a bad ski is it?
Can we assume the skis bases are beveled (not railed) and otherwise tuned correctly?
I'd check out stance and want to hear more about his ski boots before spending $$ some new skis.

I sort of agree with this. The 724 Pro is a pretty beefy ski. A 200 pound guy is probably going to be unhappy with a shorter or softer ski but you have to ski it centered.

A video clip in bumps and trees would be really useful. It might be as simple as being in a stance where the ski doesn't allow him to skid at slow speeds. If you drop a hand, rotate your shoulders out of the fall line, and get in the back seat, you'll get the results he's describing. The edge locks and you can't unlock it to initiate your next turn. We all fight it and do it to some degree. It's easy to lapse into it if you're slightly out of your comfort zone in bumps or trees. You can detune the tail to compensate for some of it. You can go softer or shorter to compensate for some of it. ...or you can get some video of yourself in those situations and see if you're in the wrong body position.

A new ski for me?

Well-known member

New member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads