UKC

Having skiied for years but not very seriously, I am a fairly typical red/occasional black punter. However after making a conscious effort to improve a bit and get off the pistes in the last couple of years I have started to wonder if I might notice some difference with new skis. I started off with old style straight skis, then after a few years in my 20s where I barely skiied at all, mainly used hire kit until I picked up some second hand skis a few years ago. They were cheap when I got them and are now pretty trashed to be honest. Apart from the edges and bases which have suffered a few seasons Scottish rock hopping, they seem quite floppy. They are atomic sl11s which are quite narrow waisted pseudo race style skis, 170 which is probably short for me (6'2 / 15st).
I had a couple of lessons recently which I found helpful but still struggle with some things, particularly powder. I have always been slightly sceptical of developments in ski kit some of which seem to be fashion-led, but am now wondering (a) if my current skis are fit for the bin and (B) if I would feel much benefit from some new skis, possibly slightly longer/wider and maybe with more of an upturned tip (rocker?). BTW my boots are quite new, fitted to me and feel fine. Would be grateful for any thoughts..

In reply to DH3631:

Well the old saying its all about the Indian not the arrow kind of applies but something a little wider with a bit of rocker may improve things *, I really like my Dynastar Cham 97 but then I also like my older Salomon Rockers which are 90mm wide and 10cm shorter and feel no different.

Back to the Indian and his arrow, I skied a few weeks back with a guy on 85mm wide touring skis in all sorts of conditions and he kicked my ass

* I am a punter and no expert but can ski OK so all comments are my own personal experince

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

To the OP forget all that 'bad workman' guff and get yourself some decent skis. Depending on exactly what you want to do something 90-100mm underfoot and with a bit of rocker will do the trick.

In reply to DaveHK:

Well its was said in jest really but my point was more along the lines of its amazing what some folk can make skinny non rockered skis do.

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Same goes for telemark.... or driving a Trabant.<

But it only makes sense if you have a few screws loose...

The climbing analogy would be to ditch the harness and swami belts and get back to tying a hemp rope around the waist and only use actual threaded nuts as nuts .

Can be done, but doesn't really make much sense.

In reply to DH3631:

what you've got is a slalom ski, designed for sharp turning on a hard surface;
even I "ahem " would struggle to go these in deep powder..... [maintain speed, straight lining it, hauling back to keep the tips up, feet welded together,etc......]

the difference a ski makes when they are designed for the use you are giving them is.... noticeable.
it won't make you a better skier, as such, but it will make it easier and therefore you (should) ski better. kna wot a mean.

decide what you want (what you are most likely to ski; not what you wish or dream of) and look into what suits what you actually plan to do; (unless it really is proper deep powder you won't need >90 width).

In reply to DH3631: once you've decided roughly what you want,r don't buy them just yet . In a few weeks sport Conrad and telemark Pyrenees with both have lots of deals . If you look now there will be some 2014/15 skis on offer, these will probably be reduced further. If you are not too fixated on "the" ski, what ever that is this year , you'll get something at half price or less. Both of the above websites will also drop the prices again when the season really is over, but obviously the choice will be reduced .

In reply to DH3631:

A ski upgrade can make an absolutely phenomenal difference. For what it's worth, I've been ski-touring with the Cham 2.0 107mm this season and they are amazing. Happy with everything from skiing deep powder through to side-step downclimbing on ice, stable at speed, hold a carve but also very manoeuvrable in tight spots. If you don't want something so wide, you might want to take the 97mm version, which I have also heard very good things about.

In reply to James Jackson:

Thanks all, plenty of food for thought, think I probably need to bite the bullet and look out for the end of season sales. I did have a day on cham (97 I think) a couple of years ago and really liked them, but anything broadly similar would be fine. I take the point about bad workmen/tools, though I am trying to work on my technique. However, from a climbing point of view I suppose one parallel is that it is possible to climb grade V with blunt vertiges, but sharp quarks make it all a bit less of a struggle, and more like fun...
On the specific point of how fat to go, is it possible to go too wide, bearing in mind these will mostly be used in Scotland? Are there particular downsides eg harder to handle on ice/neve?

In reply to DH3631:

I skied the 87 a couple of years ago and really liked them then. They've modified the design a bit since then to really smooth them out.

I have skied my 107s entirely in Scotland this season. I wouldn't want anything fatter, butI've found them a great (if slightly wide) size. The things often held against wider skis are edge hold and turn transition time (i.e. how long to get from one edge to another on a change of direction), but I can honestly say on edge hold they compare happily with my thinner (89mm) lightweight skis, and frankly edge-to-edge transition time is only an issue if you're shredding hardpacked stuff like a loony expert.

You won't go wrong with either the 97 or 107, frankly. But, for the slight edge on powder days, I'd go 107.

(I am not sponsored by Dynastar; I just genuinely think they are awesome fun skis).

In reply to DH3631:

I would definitely say the type of ski you use makes a difference to the skiing experience. I have both skinny short skis (Skitrab Maestro, 76mm wide at the waist) which work fantastic on spring snow and fatter skis with tip/tail rocker (Black Crows Corvus, 105mm wide) which are on the heavy side for touring but work well all winter long when the snow pack up here varies between rain crust, wind packed snow, powder...... I can pretty much guarantee that a fat ski will get you down the mountain not just feeling like you have survived the descent but having actually enjoyed it too. I'm not the world's best skier but different skis work well on different kinds of snow so I wouldn't ditch the skinny ones you have already, but maybe consider buying another set that tackle the kind of snow you want to ski!!

In reply to daWalt:


That all sounds horribly familiar...

Have been thinking about setting some new skis, and liking the look of the fatter skis better suited to off-piste.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Funny, that 4 years ago when I stated that ~100mm waisted ski is about perfect for for all conditions... I got laughed here (bar a few people that really understood)... And now people are indeed starting to see the light.

And there's indeed a good selection of suitable skis availalble now... Eg. unless you're over 180cm (and 85kg), the Black Crows Corvus can be had for a good price:
http://www.sport-conrad.com/en/skiing/skis/big-mountain-powder-skis/corvus-...

BTW. I'd say the Corvus is a nicer ski than the Cham's... But it might just be me and idea that the small players make better skis... After all, pretty much all of my skis are from small brands (at least the skis I use...).

How ever, I think the main reason is that I like the built-in turn radii to be long... for a mid 180s ski, I'd prefer the turn radii to be over 25m (loved the original Bag Daddies, with 32m). Not much luck with modern skis... Corvus is 21m and the Cham is 18m. And before someone states anything stupid, remember that simply flexing the ski makes the turn radii shorter... where as the built in radii is what it is, and small radii will be a ski that catches easily, not to mention can be rather PITA when sidestepping hard snow, rocks or ice... or skinnin' steep hard snow.

In reply to HeMa:

18m to 21m isn't really a huge difference in the sidecut. I've heard very good things about Black Crows skis, and a couple of friends ski the Corvus. I've never had a chance to try them, but just didn't like the feel of them in the shop, and for me the Cham was a known quantity. Both good skis I'd wager!

In reply to HeMa:

I wouldn't have laughed; I've known for enough years that my skis don't cut it powder, and the simple engineering answer is inadequate area to give low enough ground pressure not to sink. Like a snowboard...

That and the fact that I know I'm too much of a skiing punter to make informed comment.

I did find myself earlier, measuring the reach of my hand, and concluding I would have to hold fat skis differently...

In reply to HeMa:

Agree on the aggressive carve radii; I've hired skis with small radius, and found them twitchy as hell.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Short skis suck, long skis truck

In reply to DH3631:

I've just come back from a fortnight in Austria with my new planks - K2 Shredditors, 102mm underfoot, Fritschi Eagles. Very little (if any) difference on piste from my shorter and narrower Salomon Scrambler hots, but a massive difference off piste and in powder. As suggested above, get onto the Sport Conrad website and pick up (as I did) a less than half price bargain - you won't regret it

JW