Pick me a ski

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

8 minutes ago, indiggio said:

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

How often are you on your bump skis??

[RootDKJ]

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.

[indiggio]

4 minutes ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

How often are you on your bump skis??

I usually dig them out Sat/Sun afternoons when the bumps are good.  All depends upon the conditions.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

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

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

 

I liked when rossignal skis had roosters on the tips...

[indiggio]

2 minutes ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

 

I liked when rossignal skis had roosters on the tips...

I had a pair of Rossi ST Comps with the rooster on them.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I also had two pairs of Pre skis which were made in park city Utah. They were very nice looking skis. They looked similar to these and very similar to these K2s which look badass. I believe K2s also made a Grateful Dead ski..you ever listen to the dead Indiggio?

[indiggio]

1 minute ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

you ever listen to the dead Indiggio?

Yeah, I don't mind the Dead, but not a Dead-Head.  More into Punk.

[RootDKJ]

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.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

15 minutes ago, indiggio said:

Yeah, I don't mind the Dead, but not a Dead-Head.  More into Punk.

I like rap music, trains and dancing 

[GSSucks]

1 hour ago, RootDKJ said:

I have some K2 TRC Comps in 206 somewhere.  I think they are 60 under foot.

If these ever become up for grabs, dont forget about me  

[RootDKJ]

4 minutes ago, GSSucks said:

If these ever become up for grabs, dont forget about me  

Merry Christmas?

[Shadows]

i think hes mormon now

[eaf]

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?

[RootDKJ]

The Monster 88 is a more traditional camber.  The 98/108 has some tip rocker.   

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

If the rockered tip was flapping in the air then that skier wasn't skiing very well ⛷ 

[Shadows]

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

[NMSKI]

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

[Shadows]

Yea but 7$ lol

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

[eaf]

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.

[Johnny Law]

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

[eaf]

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.

[Shadows]

That was my main question... an all around twin tip between 90-100 waist is all rockered. How big of an issue is it at blue?

maybe ill get a thinner ski in order to get a traditional camber? Altthough price again.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

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. 

[eaf]

1 hour ago, GrilledSteezeSandwich said:

Eaf you should come with us to Jackson hole. 

Thanks for the invite. Maybe next year. I already had another trip scheduled for the end of Jan.