Heavy or light setup

[highpeaksdrifter]

Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.

I'd like to hear your bad experiences when demoing, I haven't had any.

I think the Marker XBS Balance system for Nordica are great bindings. I thought the claim of a bigger sweet stop was a marketing gimick at first, but they really do work well.

 

[JimG.]

Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.

I'd like to hear your bad experiences when demoing, I haven't had any.

I think the Marker XBS Balance system for Nordica are great bindings. I thought the claim of a bigger sweet stop was a marketing gimick at first, but they really do work well.

I prefer bump skis, twintips to be specific; for my height and weight they work best for me as an all mountain ski. I don't want to have to drag several pairs of skis around depending on conditions. To me, that's nonsense.

I don't like alot of bells and whistles on my skis. Simple wood cores, preferably laminated and not caps. Don't want riser plates, integrated bindings, or any of that crap. Just about every new ski other than twintips that I've demoed has all that stuff I consider useless. Just alot of added weight and expense.

All these new fangled skis I've demoed seem to do one specific thing well and not much else. Either they carve well on groomers but are too stiff for bumps, or they're good in bumps but too narrow underfoot to be useful in powder, or they're good in powder but can't hold an edge on hardpack. I don't want skis like that.

And I ESPECIALLY don't like the idea of having to buy a specific binding because I want a certain ski.

But that's just me, the dinosaur.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.

I'd like to hear your bad experiences when demoing, I haven't had any.

I think the Marker XBS Balance system for Nordica are great bindings. I thought the claim of a bigger sweet stop was a marketing gimick at first, but they really do work well.

I prefer bump skis, twintips to be specific; for my height and weight they work best for me as an all mountain ski. I don't want to have to drag several pairs of skis around depending on conditions. To me, that's nonsense.

I don't like alot of bells and whistles on my skis. Simple wood cores, preferably laminated and not caps. Don't want riser plates, integrated bindings, or any of that crap. Just about every new ski other than twintips that I've demoed has all that stuff I consider useless. Just alot of added weight and expense.

All these new fangled skis I've demoed seem to do one specific thing well and not much else. Either they carve well on groomers but are too stiff for bumps, or they're good in bumps but too narrow underfoot to be useful in powder, or they're good in powder but can't hold an edge on hardpack. I don't want skis like that.

And I ESPECIALLY don't like the idea of having to buy a specific binding because I want a certain ski.

But that's just me, the dinosaur.

When you wrote that the system bindings you demoed where not worth spit I thought maybe they malfunctioned. Now after I’ve read your reply I realize your spit post was just the mindless ramblings of an old coot that is afraid of advancing technology.

I demod the Rossi twin tip (name?) ski out West last year. It was nice.

Wood cores, are the way to go. That foam fill core crap blows. Just my unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Marc]

Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.

I'd like to hear your bad experiences when demoing, I haven't had any.

I think the Marker XBS Balance system for Nordica are great bindings. I thought the claim of a bigger sweet stop was a marketing gimick at first, but they really do work well.

I prefer bump skis, twintips to be specific; for my height and weight they work best for me as an all mountain ski. I don't want to have to drag several pairs of skis around depending on conditions. To me, that's nonsense.

I don't like alot of bells and whistles on my skis. Simple wood cores, preferably laminated and not caps. Don't want riser plates, integrated bindings, or any of that crap. Just about every new ski other than twintips that I've demoed has all that stuff I consider useless. Just alot of added weight and expense.

All these new fangled skis I've demoed seem to do one specific thing well and not much else. Either they carve well on groomers but are too stiff for bumps, or they're good in bumps but too narrow underfoot to be useful in powder, or they're good in powder but can't hold an edge on hardpack. I don't want skis like that.

And I ESPECIALLY don't like the idea of having to buy a specific binding because I want a certain ski.

But that's just me, the dinosaur.

While I have no particular prejudice towards binding systems... or buying a certain binding for a certain ski... I appreciate the sentiment and feel the exact same way. I just want a ski that is middle of the road that has the ability to do everything, it doesn't have to do any one thing well.

Unlike Sky, who uses the fighter/bomber analogy, I generally use the car tire analogy, in that, I drive with a little more 'enthusiasm' than most people. Hence, I want a season specific tire, not an all season. I want my tire to excel for the particular condition.

This is not important for me anyomre for skiing. I bought my Volkl P50 F1 EnergY's, basically their race stock ski at the time when all I skied were groomers. I don't anymore and I reverted back to my 2000 MY Rossy Cut 10.4.

They're not great at anything but I'm not worried about sking perfect in one condition, I want to just ski in any condition. I'm now simply looking for an update with a little bit more spring in them and maybe a few more mm's at the waist.


I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a multi ski quiver either. That would be my ideal, to pick the perfect ski for that day's conditions but that is just too impractical. The day changes as does the terrain.

The reason I haven't sold my Volkl's is because there is nothing more fun for screaming on hardpack and groomers, and I will never give up my speed freak side. Sometimes I just have to go fast. But I want the convenience and the affordability of an otherwise one ski quiver.

 

[JimG.]

Now after I’ve read your reply I realize your spit post was just the mindless ramblings of an old coot that is afraid of advancing technology.

Partly true...but then again my AT gear and especially boots are pretty high tech.

It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Now after I’ve read your reply I realize your spit post was just the mindless ramblings of an old coot that is afraid of advancing technology.

It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.

Ahhh...I get it now. You make a good point.

 

[ctenidae]

Bah, you kids and your riser this and your system that. Back in my day, all we had was a couple snarlin' snappin' alligators to ski on. The meaner the better, I always said.

Stop me if you've heard this one...

 

[riverc0il]

I also think that not too far in the future all skis will have system bindings. It's just the way the industry is going.

Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.

Thank God for e-bay.

i don't think the industry will ever go completely the way of system setups. they would risk loosing too many BC skiers to the BC ski outfits like BD, g3, etc. or new upstarts like PMGear, etc. a lot of skiers DEMAND a flat setup, especially skiers that want to mount AT bindings to skis and folks that don't like certain bindings and systems.

that said, i have a volkl p50 motion pair of skis with the motion system and it is a great binding system. the supersport series has a similar binding, quite something to ski those puppies. i think the system option is great for folks who love ripping the groomers, most of those skis are really designed for that type of performance. the system really adds a lot of weight to the ski though.

one thing i noticed with newer volkls that has added a lot of weight is cosmetics! volkls had a few years in which the company took some heat for easily chipped top sheets. PEOPLE, WHAT THE HECK? WHO CARES WHAT THE TOP OF YOUR FRIGGIN SKI LOOKS LIKE!?!?!? :uzi: /rant

okay, now that i got that outta my system, the new volkl top sheets are rubbery on the skis i have tried. it's a really weird feel, but definitely feels like the top sheet will never be chipped or scratched :roll: probably adds at least a pound to the skis' weight i bet.

 

[atomic68]

I like the heavy skis that just plow through any conditions...my atomic pcms are a very heavy all moutain extreme ski...p c m stood for powder crud and moguls

 

[riverc0il]

It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.

i don't see that idea out there at all. actually, i see teh opposite. most ski companies seem to be pushing the one ski quiver idea pretty hard. most people don't want multiple skis, so that is what the ski companies are going after. i have also had a different esperience in that the skis have demoed recently did not specialize in anything, they were over broad in their intentions and ended up performing average in all qualities instead of exceling in one field.

i don't think a different ski for every condition is needed, but i do think having one pair for pow, one pair for ripping groomers, and one in between and meant for rocks is a good investment for someone that enjoys certain performance in certain conditions. all depends on what an individual ski demands for performance in various conditions, what is acceptable.

 

[JimG.]

It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.

i don't see that idea out there at all. actually, i see teh opposite. most ski companies seem to be pushing the one ski quiver idea pretty hard. most people don't want multiple skis, so that is what the ski companies are going after. i have also had a different esperience in that the skis have demoed recently did not specialize in anything, they were over broad in their intentions and ended up performing average in all qualities instead of exceling in one field.

i don't think a different ski for every condition is needed, but i do think having one pair for pow, one pair for ripping groomers, and one in between and meant for rocks is a good investment for someone that enjoys certain performance in certain conditions. all depends on what an individual ski demands for performance in various conditions, what is acceptable.

Wish I had a nickel for every time a ski company rep said to me that I'll need a ski caddy to ski with me so that I can choose the exact correct ski for each pitch on the hill as I ski down.

And then there's a few of my ski buddies who can't seem to ski more than 3 runs without running to their locker or car for a different pair of boards.

Then again, I didn't demo last year and concentrated on getting used to my AT gear...maybe they've wised up in the interim.

 

[riverc0il]

grabbing a second set of skis every three runs is pretty lame. last year, some days i would bring two pair with me to the hill if i wasn't certain what type of day it is. within a run or two i knew if i made the right decision. it not, one switch was it and i was glad i had the option. if you only ski inbounds, especially only groomers, one ski should be plenty any ways. i never thought about multiple skis until i started doing side country and needed a rock ski then backcountry when i needed a different binding.

 

[JimG.]

grabbing a second set of skis every three runs is pretty lame. last year, some days i would bring two pair with me to the hill if i wasn't certain what type of day it is. within a run or two i knew if i made the right decision. it not, one switch was it and i was glad i had the option. if you only ski inbounds, especially only groomers, one ski should be plenty any ways. i never thought about multiple skis until i started doing side country and needed a rock ski then backcountry when i needed a different binding.

The only extra pair of skis in my locker are rock skis. And they're the same make and model as my everyday skis. Using AT gear all the time eliminated the BC issue.

As long as my skis are frequently tuned, waxed, and maintained, they ski fine for me in any conditions.

 

[Rushski]

I remember in the late 80s or so when lighter skis really started to hit with Dynastar leading the way. The problem back then was that these skis "Verticals", etc... were absolute noodles after a hard season of bumps. Also, the hot ski of the time was the Rossi 4S and they lasted only slightly longer, but were substantially heavier.

I'm sure the newer lighter skis are tougher. Hope so as My Crossmax 10s w/S912s are pretty damn light.

 

[SkiDog]

I remember in the late 80s or so when lighter skis really started to hit with Dynastar leading the way. The problem back then was that these skis "Verticals", etc... were absolute noodles after a hard season of bumps. Also, the hot ski of the time was the Rossi 4S and they lasted only slightly longer, but were substantially heavier.

I'm sure the newer lighter skis are tougher. Hope so as My Crossmax 10s w/S912s are pretty damn light.

I skied verticals for many many years...always loved them and never found that they lost anything after hard seasons of bumps...im no comp bump guy, but I can hold my own...but again...I dont think I have "feel" for skis..I just ski and don't worry.

M