Jump to content

Pick me a ski


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

spent two hours at nestors earlier today. Almost bought chronics but wanted to look around online a lil more.

Finally got some monsters. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

3 sentences in that specific sequence my wife will never say.

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, indiggio said:

I had to dig them out, they're 62 underfoot and tower over my head!  Thinner than my bump skis!

I think I actually have a pair of decent Look NX bindings on mine.  Maybe I'll bring them out one day in the spring.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first got into skiing in 6th grade at Blue I went from 135s to 160s the first season and the rentals were step ins. Then the next year at rocking horse ranch they had the old style bindings and I needed someone to show me how to get into them and they had safety straps probably from the late 70s

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first shaped ski was a 2003/04 Head Monster 70 in 177 with system bindings.  I'm stoked to see how they've evolved years later.  I'm sure the 2016/17 Monster 88 in 184 is going to be a much better ski and I even found some Pivots to put on them.

head-monster-88-ft-1024x420.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's not very helpful comparing really old skis with what's out there now. In the far past they didn't even have edges, or those edges were screw-ins. So seeing those super-long straight and narrow K2 might give you a shot of nostalgia, but is that really something to go by in the current market? Materials are different, shorter skis today have better damping than longer ones yesterday. I'll readily agree that the modern trend is toward fat skis, but somehow I believed that it's also toward shorter ones.

Now that I got thinking about it, the only reason why the trend might also be toward increasing the length is that rocker that reduces the effective edge length. But then again that rocker is a funny beast. Yesterday I tailed someone on Rossignol Sky 7, and that rockered tip was flapping up and down in the air all the way. So, what's the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
seriously though, Ive neve tried camber/rocker. I wont be trying any out either really; want to get this for xmas so whatevers online. Should i be looking at rocker/camber or is it a waste for a one ski thingy


I’m a big fan of the moment triple camber technology, although I’m not as knowledgeable as some others on here.

https://www.momentskis.com/pages/triple-camber-tech

Johnny Law mentioned the pb&js I think? Those would be sick in 182 or 188 for you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shadows said:

Yea but 7$ lol

theae threads are dumb. Gettin whatever is decently cheapest. Will update when i buy

OK, a constructive advice: https://www.coloradodiscountskis.com/store/product4871.html

I haven't skied this specific model, but I did try the women's one that I bought for my daughter, based on the same technology. Those held the edge nicely, were easy to initiate the turn and smooooth. Also had a smaller TR, but most people here appear to be subject to a certain degree of gigantomania, so this may actually be better. If you're cautious of rocker and don't want to test drive, this is the deal. Only camber on the outside ski, and some rocker on the inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 3:32 PM, eaf said:

. But then again that rocker is a funny beast. Yesterday I tailed someone on Rossignol Sky 7, and that rockered tip was flapping up and down in the air all the way. So, what's the point?

Y'all for real ?

Reverse camber is not for hard snow

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Law said:

Y'all for real ?

Reverse camber is not for hard snow

Exactly, that's how they've been initially introduced: to float better in powder. Nowadays with most skis having at least 15% of rocker people manage to find benefits of rocker even on hard snow. Usually they would list arguments like: "it shortens the effective edge thereby making the ski more playful and easier to turn". Even for carving on hard snow many discover pluses like: "the ski is already bent up, so all that's needed to make it carve is to angle the ankles a little bit, and it starts turning by itself". It's hard to separate marketing BS from the true benefits.

Before reading some strong opinions here I wasn't even looking at fat and rockered skis. Now I'm anxious to hit big mountains in Jan and demo day in Feb to sort it out for myself in person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, eaf said:

Exactly, that's how they've been initially introduced: to float better in powder. Nowadays with most skis having at least 15% of rocker people manage to find benefits of rocker even on hard snow. Usually they would list arguments like: "it shortens the effective edge thereby making the ski more playful and easier to turn". Even for carving on hard snow many discover pluses like: "the ski is already bent up, so all that's needed to make it carve is to angle the ankles a little bit, and it starts turning by itself". It's hard to separate marketing BS from the true benefits.

Before reading some strong opinions here I wasn't even looking at fat and rockered skis. Now I'm anxious to hit big mountains in Jan and demo day in Feb to sort it out for myself in person.

Eaf you should come with us to Jackson hole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...