Which Ski/snowboard Shop

[ole2planker]

If you are interested in equipment reviews, surf over to Tech Support for Skiers at http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/ . Access to full reviews and other member benefits requires paying a $19.95 fee.

[skigurl]

I?m loving the new ski lengths for USSA, come on they make perfect sense, I mean I?m only 4?10? and I?m skiing 175 for GS that?s a piece of cake??.*note the sarcasm*

[soldier32]

haha im with u craige, screw this racing bullshizit

[sibhusky]

Well, if you are not racing FIS or USSA (which most on this board are not), then you can get what's best.

 

If you are racing, then here is what USSA and Diann Roffe have to say:

==============

 

Alpine equipment rules updated 9/20/04

 

 

The past decade has seen tremendous advancements in alpine ski equipment design, snow surface preparation and ski preparation. These changes have made our sport easier to learn and more efficient to master; they have also increased speeds to excessive levels. FIS and USSA control equipment and regulate course setting in an effort to slow the speeds in alpine racing.

USSA has had some success in effecting FIS equipment rules in an effort to keep those rules simple and not too restrictive. However, the FIS has found it necessary to establish rules throughout the alpine program, from Children to Masters.

 

The process to establish equipment rules for USSA racing has evolved over a 2-year period in order that athletes, clubs, coaches and particularly the manufacturers could anticipate the requirements. After extensive consideration and debate the USSA Alpine Sports Committee determined that it is necessary to bring USSA athletes into compliance with FIS ski equipment rules.

 

Coaches and officials are encouraged communicate, educate and help bring athletes into compliance with the rules.

 

USSA Competition Regulations

Article1.3.1.1

A competitor may only take part in a USSA competition with equipment that conforms to USSA Regulations. Competitors are responsible for the equipment they use (skis, bindings, ski boots, suit, etc.) It is their duty to check that the equipment conforms to the USSA specifications and general safety requirements and is in working order.

 

The regulations for season 2004/2005 can be downloaded by clicking here.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Following are comments from World Champion Diann Roffe regarding FIS and USSA equipment regulations.

 

The recent changes to the USSA equipment regulations have been evolving over a 2-year period in order that athletes, clubs, coaches and particularly the manufacturers could anticipate the requirements and provide continuity from USSA to FIS racing. Ski development originates with the world's top athletes and 99.9% of the time our sport is driven from the FIS and World Cup competition level. We ascertained long ago the danger of extreme sidecut and a ski that is too short. We have had several years to assess ski development and how it affects safety. Granted it took a while to have a trickle down effect at our regional clubs, but our ultimate goal should always be the safety of our athletes. I grew up skiing on my brother's hand me down skis and they were always "a bit big" for me. I certainly learned something about keeping my hips up over the skis to stay balanced. I was too small to turn them any other way!

 

I realize the current concerns are different, but the point is that the FIS/USSA is not doing this on a whim... Ski companies have become more and more radical in recent years. Junior skis have been created that are lighter, easier to turn and made carving much truer for a young athlete. This was all good. What came about, was a realization that the use of more lateral pressure and shorter skis, shows a younger athlete that carving is possible, much earlier in their progression than ever before.

 

Safety issues only came about when you took a World Cup athlete and added 200 pounds of power, an exacting carve technique, steep, icy terrain, and high turn speeds. The number of knee injuries and dynamic crashes skyrocketed. The shorter lengths could not support the speed and turn radius of World Cup courses. The FIS took the next step and added more turns to the speed events and modified course setting at the FIS level to keep up with technology. The manufacturers responded and created more capped and laminate variations of skis to get the edge up on the new course setting trend. The FIS finally responded with height/sidecut/length restrictions to regulate the amount of forces being created that were catapulting athletes out of the course in a high-speed turn. This in turn regulated the manufacturers R&D.

 

As this has taken years to trickle down, the problem that has been created is fundamental. Our younger athletes have learned a technique on junior skis that has revolutionized skiing at the J3 and J4 level. It works on slower courses and flatter, shorter hills. As an athlete grows in strength and age, the physics of running courses change. Athletes ski faster, the courses are longer, steeper and more difficult. All of this while they weigh more. With the creation of more forces, the injuries start.

 

The age requirements for the ski length/sidecut regulations come in a critical year. We have a responsibility to prepare our kids for this change. With starting the requirements at this age, the kids have a fighting chance to become confident and aggressive a year BEFORE they will most likely race at the FIS level on demanding courses. This is a win-win for safety and athlete development.

 

How does this affect our racers locally? By fighting the ski requirements for another year, we are essentially holding back our athletes from learning a more aggressive technique early enough to be competitive on longer, steeper, and difficult courses, confidently.

 

It should be our clubs' vision to prepare our athletes the best we possibly can for success. I feel strongly that the USSA Alpine Sport Committee is right on the money supporting this move. It is for the benefit and safety of our kids skiing.

 

Diann Roffe

[Ski]

Yeah, that's the letter. She saying that to properly prepair kids for the World Cup, they are better off on 175's and 180's at the age of 15, no matter their size.

 

She's nuts.

 

What's the equivalent? High school JV baseball players will only take batting practice in 100mph batting cages using bats that are 5 oz. too heavy.

 

Making an unrealistic equipment rule is going to enhance the quality of junior ski racing? Yeah, lets not improve coaching and programs, lets just make them ski on the wrong size skis. Great idea. Dianne should be embarassed by that letter. At the little hill she now teaches racing, I'd like to hear her explain to the parents how 1st year J2 girls will be safer and have fewer knee injuries on 175's, instead of skiing the correct length.

[Justo8484]

ski999, i am saying atomics are not good skis because of how they are constructed, not simply because they cost less to make. that and atomic's bindings, which they make you put on nearly all their skis, are the least safe binding on the market according to industry tests. and a foam core ski is inherently inferior to a wood core ski if for no other reason than durability alone. wood just lasts longer, simple as that. and the ski magazine thing, ever notice how its always the same few companies at the top? certain companies pay off the magazines to get good reviews. look through the mag, the companies that have the highest reviews often have the most ads in there as well... coincidence? and the ski garauntee, i think its a pretty decent incentive to buy skis from us too

[AtomicSkier]

I don't care if the bindings aren't the safest, either does ski, who cranks the DIN all the way up. I love the bindings cause of Varizone, it truely makes the ski have 4 different characteristics. Its YOUR opinion, and I value that, but honestly, atomics rock

[skidude]

I don't care if the bindings aren't the safest, either does ski, who cranks the DIN all the way up.  I love the bindings cause of Varizone, it truely makes the ski have 4 different characteristics.  Its YOUR opinion, and I value that, but  honestly, atomics rock

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Im gonna have to disagree with ya on that one.

 

I noticed no difference, even had one binding all the way forward, and another one all the way back, didn't notice.

 

As for the market pistion bindings

[AtomicSkier]

Im gonna have to disagree with ya on that one.

 

I noticed no difference, even had one binding all the way forward, and another one all the way back, didn't notice.

 

As for the market pistion bindings

 

thats probably cause you had 160's....but when i move it all the way back, the ski makes much wider arcs...and skis stiffer. Slide it forward, allows the ski to flex more, and hence make quicker turns. But when i skied in 60 degree weather over christmas, i was getting stuck in the mashed potatoes, and i realiezed doH! i have it set forward, slid it back, and skied it like it was powder

 

to me, maybe its just a mental thing, but it does work

[skidude]

I think its mental, cause you would think moving bindings a few inches forward on 100cm skis would make a bigger difference in feel then moving them a few inches forward on 200 cm skis (just an example peeps)

 

MMMMMmmmm jeff and his mental state

[Ski]

ski999, i am saying atomics are not good skis because of how they are constructed, not simply because they cost less to make. that and atomic's bindings, which they make you put on nearly all their skis, are the least safe binding on the market according to industry tests. and a foam core ski is inherently inferior to a wood core ski if for no other reason than durability alone. wood just lasts longer, simple as that. and the ski magazine thing, ever notice how its always the same few companies at the top? certain companies pay off the magazines to get good reviews. look through the mag, the companies that have the highest reviews often have the most ads in there as well... coincidence? and the ski garauntee, i think its a pretty decent incentive to buy skis from us too

Okay, lemme get this straight: Atomic actually makes a shitty ski. Which is why it wins the most World Cup points by far. (Also, keep in mind that every ski innovation is created, tested, and implemented by racing. Racing is the heart of all testing because it's done at high speed, stress, and extreme base temperature/friction.) Atomic won 47% of the WC races last season, followed by Rossi and Salomon tied at 11%? What's your favorite GOOD ski?

 

"Least safe binding on the market according to industry tests"---huh? That's, uh, just completely wrong. Somebody from Marker must have whispered that little nugget. Or maybe it was those fine Look reps that make waaaay better bindings than Atomic Race 6.14's. Ha!

 

Which is also why their shitty skis in its off-the-rack version also win all the Masters races? And Atomic also pays Doug Lewis and Paul Hochman to give them good reviews in Ski Mag? And Hermann Maier, Stephan Eberharter, and the majority of the rest of the most accomplished race team in history elect to ski an inferior ski?

 

Do the Head reps that come into your store and tell you that Atomic sucks have any understanding of the history of the Red Sled? I wonder if they any grasp of the 1984 Sarajevo

Winter Olympics and how Atomic changed the way skis were viewed, made and ridden from that race on?

 

Dude, you can listen to salesmen from Fischer and K2 and Volant all you want. Me? I'd tend to go with real results. And I've skied a lot of skis. Best ski ever made? Atomic GS:11.

 

Of course, as always, I could be dead wrong. On this, though, I highly doubt it.

[Ski]

I think its mental, cause you would think moving bindings a few inches forward on  100cm skis would make a bigger difference in feel then moving them a few inches forward on 200 cm skis (just an example peeps)

 

MMMMMmmmm jeff and his mental state

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, 'Dude, moving bindings a few cm makes a pretty big difference. They even recommend that women have their bindings set forward to make up for the difference in hips. I get all screwed up when I change my settings...

[AtomicSkier]

you hit the nail right on the head, ski, could've said it better myself.

 

Can i get an amen?

[Ski]

either does ski, who cranks the DIN all the way up.

 

Aren't you supposed to crank your bindings to the highest number? Doesn't that mean safest? It sucks to have to go find your ski after you crash.

[AtomicSkier]

Aren't you supposed to crank your bindings to the highest number? Doesn't that mean safest? It sucks to have to go find your ski after you crash.

 

yes, from the pages of Skidude's begginers guide to skiing, the DIN number is how safe the bindings are, the higher it is, the safer you are

[Ski]

When Rossi makes a better ski than Atomic, then I'll buy it. My new rock skis are Rossi 9X Race skis. My backup slalom skis to my Atomic's are K2's. But I just wouldn't race on something inferior.

[sibhusky]

Personally, I'd like to hear from the repair shops AT the mountains about which bindings and skis are falling to bits. They're the ones who probably get the upset skier first and at least at CB, they were part of the mountain, not the ski shop so they had no interest in backing one ski or binding over another.

[Ski]

Personally, I'd like to hear from the repair shops AT the mountains about which bindings and skis are falling to bits.  They're the ones who probably get the upset skier first and at least at CB, they were part of the mountain, not the ski shop so they had no interest in backing one ski or binding over another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, true, but every year I hear that a different part of your anatomy is more important to protect. Better rear release...better twisting release...better forward whatever...Or is it just the binding's durabilty? IDK, but the only binding I ever broke was from jumping off the Shawnee lift on a dare. I think prelease is the worst kind of release.

[sibhusky]

And it's not "safest" to have your bindings cranked to the highest number, ski999 is being facetious. Yes, it's a pain to go look for a ski, but it's better than a trip to the ER and an instant end to your skiing for the season.

[sibhusky]

Yeah, true, but every year I hear that a different part of your anatomy is more important to protect. Better rear release...better twisting release...better forward whatever...Or is it just the binding's durabilty? IDK, but the only binding I ever broke was from jumping off the Shawnee lift on a dare. I think prelease is the worst kind of release.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You want it to release when it should release. Personally, I can't remember ever falling with a pre-release. In fact, 90% of the few times I fall, they don't release at all.

 

And, as you know, I have the stats on the number of times I fell every year for the last 16 seasons or so.

[Ski]

Moguls, Sib. There was a time when I skied lots and lots of moguls. Bumps had me cranking much more than any racing. Nothing freaks you out more than stepping out of a perfectly good binding during a perfectly good turn in the moguls. All of a sudden, one ski is MIA. Like being Wile E. Coyote chasing Roadrunner off a cliff...you hang there for a long second, then.......

[skifreak]

ski999, i am saying atomics are not good skis because of how they are constructed, not simply because they cost less to make. that and atomic's bindings, which they make you put on nearly all their skis, are the least safe binding on the market according to industry tests. and a foam core ski is inherently inferior to a wood core ski if for no other reason than durability alone. wood just lasts longer, simple as that. and the ski magazine thing, ever notice how its always the same few companies at the top? certain companies pay off the magazines to get good reviews. look through the mag, the companies that have the highest reviews often have the most ads in there as well... coincidence? and the ski garauntee, i think its a pretty decent incentive to buy skis from us too

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Justo-have you ever even skied on atomics? I have skied many different compaines and lemme tell you I have NEVER EVER had a problem with my atomic skis or bindings. Sure I have volkls and k2's as back ups but I have more problems with my other skis. The only problem I had with my atomics was on the race 6 14 bindings when I went to click in the things had snow in the back and they didn't allow the boot to go in properly, but with the spray of a lubricant it was all fixed. As for a wood core ha you must be kidding me my one pair of k2's had a deep gouge on the base and it rotted out my wood core.

[skidude]

This is what Mark Bower in the CB repair shop told me (Mark is possibly the best ski tuning guy in PA btw). "Ohh you got marker bindings, should have gotten Salomons, there better."

 

In other times I have talked to him, he has told me that markers are good (just not the best), and atomics are ok, (better than look and some other brands) but not as good as marker and salomon.

 

 

I think Mark races nastar at about a handycap of 8 or 9 if my memory is correct, and it is the same Mark bower, or how ever you spell his freaking last name.

 

 

Bottom line best bindings (according to him) are

1. salomon

2. marker

3. atomic

4. everything else

5. Look

6. what CB uses

[skidude]

As for a wood core ha you must be kidding me my one pair of k2's had a deep gouge on the base and it rotted out my wood core.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You gotta get that P-Texed right away, son

[Ski]

Like the freaking honeycomb design under the Atomic race boots. Great boots, but you had caulk the bottoms or you walked around collecting snow. Major pain.