Perfect Glade Ski?

[awf170]

Just trying to think what would make a good glade ski, this is what I got so far. Feel free to add to it.

-Half twin. Good for when you get in tight situations so you can go backwards. Full twin IMO is useless unless you go in the terrian park
-Little sidecut. Get rid of that even sidecut, skidding is easier without it.
-Light weight. Good for quick turns
-Pretty wide waist. About 85-90mm

 

[riverc0il]

some thoughts:

you really don't go backwards in the woods, so half twin isn't really needed but a lot of models have turned up tails which is cool. i think a moderate sidecut is important for tight turning situations, you engage your edges more than you probably realize and a narrower waist digs in an edge quicker than a wider one. same point about a wide ski, 85-90 is pointless in the trees unless it is pow, more time to engage an edge when tipping the ski on packed snow. edge to edge response time is HUGE in the trees. there needs to be a compromise depending upon the natural and skiing preference of the skier whether to go for more of a pow board or something laterally quick. i think lateral quickness is hugely important in the trees. weight really is relative to the skier, a strong legged skier that powders turns will notice weight issues less though when it comes down to it, i would prefer something a tad lighter when comparing various skis. bear in mind, wider boards weight more than narrower boards. when i picked up my 8000s, my primary mission was a natural snow/tree ski, so there you have my bias

 

[awf170]

you really don't go backwards in the woods

You have obviously never skied O.B. at Wildcat...:smile::lol:

And about the sidecut: I get what your saying, but with little sidecut skidding will be a lot easier, which is good in the woods. Also with sidecut the edges might be too "grippy".

 

[riverc0il]

grippy is a good thing when you want control. how is less sidecut going to make skidding easier? i much prefer the 8000 to the 8800 (inBig) for woods, by far, it is quicker in the turn. just my experience though.

 

[awf170]

grippy is a good thing when you want control. how is less sidecut going to make skidding easier? i much prefer the 8000 to the 8800 (inBig) for woods, by far, it is quicker in the turn. just my experience though.

I think you need some grip but too much is no good IMO. About less sidecut making skidding easier: Isn't a straight ski way easier to skid then a shaped ski, espically a carving ski? Beyond that I don't really know too much. I defiantly have to get out and try some 8000(and some other skis in there class) before I say more.

 

[kbroderick]

Some skis are harder to make a controlled, skidded turn (or perhaps "brushed" is a better term) than others. I'd define a brushed turn as one where the skier attempts to approximate a carved turn as much as possible while making a turn that is smaller than the turning radius of the ski; on a groomed trail, this results in tracks that have a nice round turn shape but are obviously not cleanly arced but still narrower than the tracks left by windshield-washer turns. The brushed turn may even give way to a carved turn during part of the turn shape (c.f. World Cup ski racing, where racers will often pivot and skid during turn initiation, arc through the middle of the turn, and then pivot into the next turn when the course is simply too tight to arc cleanly).

I think what Austin is talking about is the nasty tendency for some deep-sidecut skis to lock into a carved turn once they're on edge, thereby preventing the skier from making a controlled, brushed turn. I know that my Skiercross 66's are like that--I can't brush them worth a damn unless I'm trying to make ski-instructor turns at low speed on the groomed. My T-Power Vipers, on the other hand, I *can* brush turns with reasonable precision, and they have more sidecut than the Dynastars (they're a softer version of the first widely-available Rossi shaped slalom ski, whereas the Skiercross 66 is much closer to a GS ski in profile).

I'm debating the same questions--what do I want in an all-terrain ski? I definitely want something wider than the T-Power Vipers (more floatation would be a good thing, methinks, particularly on days in the 6-12 inch range) and not a whole lot longer (167s are rather helpful when it comes time to chuck 'em around and hope not to hit a tree as you realize that you really, really need to slow down and don't have anywhere to do it). I'm not quite sure what other characteristics I'm looking for.

 

[riverc0il]

don't pay attention to the trolls, austin nice one mods.

 

[awf170]

I think what Austin is talking about is the nasty tendency for some deep-sidecut skis to lock into a carved turn once they're on edge, thereby preventing the skier from making a controlled, brushed turn. I know that my Skiercross 66's are like that--I can't brush them worth a damn unless I'm trying to make ski-instructor turns at low speed on the groomed. My T-Power Vipers, on the other hand, I *can* brush turns with reasonable precision, and they have more sidecut than the Dynastars (they're a softer version of the first widely-available Rossi shaped slalom ski, whereas the Skiercross 66 is much closer to a GS ski in profile).

Yeah. Thanks for clearing up what I was trying to explain. On this same topic of brushed turns I actually liked my skis more in the glades before I got them tuned vs. after.