This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
To all the ski bums,
I read that having dynafits gives you really good control as your foot is closer to the ski than on bindings like the fritschi explore, where the bar is between your foot and the ski.
So.... can you get away with longer skis for the same ability? I am totally happy on 170/175s and have tried up to 179s (with difficulty)
but.... have seen a great deal on some movement logic -x series in 176.
Any thoughts?
I read that having dynafits gives you really good control as your foot is closer to the ski than on bindings like the fritschi explore, where the bar is between your foot and the ski.
So.... can you get away with longer skis for the same ability? I am totally happy on 170/175s and have tried up to 179s (with difficulty)
but.... have seen a great deal on some movement logic -x series in 176.
Any thoughts?
In reply to smithaldo:
Wow ski post on 23 June - cool!
Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement. So the benefit that with Dynafit the foot is closer to the ski is negated by the movement and vice versa, less movement with Fritschi is negated (perhaps) by distance from the ski. This is further influenced by boot choice, i.e. how high the foot sits above the base of the boot. IMHO Your choice is personal and feel of the bindings as they behave differently and if weight is an issue. The "which binding release best" is a huge one still raging it seems so i won't go there
I would say ski length is a different subject. The advance in ski materials and build techniques has removed the benefit of a longer ski for touring. You get the stiffness and performance from a 170cm ski that required a 190+ cm in the recent past plus everything is then easier with a shorter/lighter ski.
Movement skis rock. Although currently I'm on Volkl Amaruq 177cm which also rock, feel like I can ski mach 7 any conditions.
Wow ski post on 23 June - cool!
Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement. So the benefit that with Dynafit the foot is closer to the ski is negated by the movement and vice versa, less movement with Fritschi is negated (perhaps) by distance from the ski. This is further influenced by boot choice, i.e. how high the foot sits above the base of the boot. IMHO Your choice is personal and feel of the bindings as they behave differently and if weight is an issue. The "which binding release best" is a huge one still raging it seems so i won't go there
I would say ski length is a different subject. The advance in ski materials and build techniques has removed the benefit of a longer ski for touring. You get the stiffness and performance from a 170cm ski that required a 190+ cm in the recent past plus everything is then easier with a shorter/lighter ski.
Movement skis rock. Although currently I'm on Volkl Amaruq 177cm which also rock, feel like I can ski mach 7 any conditions.
In reply to sam1971:
Thanks sam, that makes perfect sense.
I got reccomended the amaruq in a 170 by a mate, good for everything.. but they are 2900 grams, whereas the logic x are 2000! that is a big difference
Was thinking that the weight saving would mean you could climb with them on pretty techincal stuff without noticing them. Especially with tlt speed bindings which would mean ski +binding at 2700g.
I dont really ski fast enough to worry about whether a ski will be fast enough if that makes sense, but am thinking as they are light turn initiation should be pretty easy, so again, the longer length might not matter so much?
choices choices....
Thanks sam, that makes perfect sense.
I got reccomended the amaruq in a 170 by a mate, good for everything.. but they are 2900 grams, whereas the logic x are 2000! that is a big difference
Was thinking that the weight saving would mean you could climb with them on pretty techincal stuff without noticing them. Especially with tlt speed bindings which would mean ski +binding at 2700g.
I dont really ski fast enough to worry about whether a ski will be fast enough if that makes sense, but am thinking as they are light turn initiation should be pretty easy, so again, the longer length might not matter so much?
choices choices....
In reply to smithaldo: I'd disagree strongly with the comment above about there being greater movement between ski and binding with Dynafits. On the contrary - they are way more solid than other touring bindings. I ski lots with guides / ski bums / ski patrollers and, of all my ski mates I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.
I'm not sure that's a reason to go for a longer ski, though. There's a quotation from some ex-legend ski race whose name escapes me right now. When asked about the perfect ski he said it was any ski - 6 inches shorter than you think you need.
If you're looking for lightweight skis BD are making some very light ones now.
I'm not sure that's a reason to go for a longer ski, though. There's a quotation from some ex-legend ski race whose name escapes me right now. When asked about the perfect ski he said it was any ski - 6 inches shorter than you think you need.
If you're looking for lightweight skis BD are making some very light ones now.
In reply to smithaldo:
Choices as you say! Debate continues also to rage about weight, I've gone for the "skier" option: Amaruqs plus Diamir Eagle as I want best set-up for descent. I really don't notice the weight on 1 or 2 day trips, I keep pace with others and feel fresh. I also find I can climb just as technical ground as the weight weenies, when its too steep to skin its too steep to skin regardless of set-up, everyone has skis on the back.
It is only when we do longer multi day trips that the legs start to feel it, we did several 4 day and one 8 day trip last winter and I remember on the latter climbs thinking then a few grams less would be a bonus but its also forgotten as soon as you start the ski down on a set-up that lets you relax more.
Don't forget boot choice as well, the best ski-tourer buddy I know has a recreation and race pair of boots. The recreation pair weigh 3kg and he skis like a legend in them. In his race pair weighing around 1.2kg he skis like a beginner and hates them. More choices!!
Choices as you say! Debate continues also to rage about weight, I've gone for the "skier" option: Amaruqs plus Diamir Eagle as I want best set-up for descent. I really don't notice the weight on 1 or 2 day trips, I keep pace with others and feel fresh. I also find I can climb just as technical ground as the weight weenies, when its too steep to skin its too steep to skin regardless of set-up, everyone has skis on the back.
It is only when we do longer multi day trips that the legs start to feel it, we did several 4 day and one 8 day trip last winter and I remember on the latter climbs thinking then a few grams less would be a bonus but its also forgotten as soon as you start the ski down on a set-up that lets you relax more.
Don't forget boot choice as well, the best ski-tourer buddy I know has a recreation and race pair of boots. The recreation pair weigh 3kg and he skis like a legend in them. In his race pair weighing around 1.2kg he skis like a beginner and hates them. More choices!!
In reply to AdrianC:
Disagree strongly after you've done some reading.
Here is the Wildsnow FAQ on Dynafits. Most complete analysis I have found on the pros and cons and some of the backcountry issues arising from these bindings.
http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/dynafit_faq/dynafit_faq1.html#likealp
BTW I am not pro or con Dynafit or Diamir, on a club outings we are invariably 50/50 split which tells its own story.
Disagree strongly after you've done some reading.
Here is the Wildsnow FAQ on Dynafits. Most complete analysis I have found on the pros and cons and some of the backcountry issues arising from these bindings.
http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/dynafit_faq/dynafit_faq1.html#likealp
BTW I am not pro or con Dynafit or Diamir, on a club outings we are invariably 50/50 split which tells its own story.
In reply to AdrianC: Thanks Adrian, it's not just the weight, I'm not that good a skier so want something that has control on hard stuff as well. The movement skis seem to be combining light weight with good control somehow (perhaps why they are so expensive usually).
The deal I have seen is only in a 176cm and the other option is 167, which is definitley too short as my current ones are that length and dont have the feel of any real stability for my weight I think, certainly on icy stuff.
and sam, boots are going to be the dynafit tlt 5s definitley. climbing performance better than the 1st gen leather scarpas like the freney but very good ski performance too. No brainer I reckon.
The deal I have seen is only in a 176cm and the other option is 167, which is definitley too short as my current ones are that length and dont have the feel of any real stability for my weight I think, certainly on icy stuff.
and sam, boots are going to be the dynafit tlt 5s definitley. climbing performance better than the 1st gen leather scarpas like the freney but very good ski performance too. No brainer I reckon.
In reply to sam1971: Hmmm. Read that article before buying my Dynafits and again just now and I don't see the bit that says they have more movement than other touring bindings.
I'm not saying they're perfect, btw, but they're solid to ski on.
I'm not saying they're perfect, btw, but they're solid to ski on.
In reply to sam1971:
You've got it wrong mate. Where does it say in the Dynafit Faqs on Wildsnow that there is more movement with the Dynafits? On the contrary, they have far greater torsional rigidity than Fritschis.
To the OP: What length of ski has little to do with the binding, more a question of your weight. Also depends on the width. With a wider ski, you can get away with a shorter ski.
You've got it wrong mate. Where does it say in the Dynafit Faqs on Wildsnow that there is more movement with the Dynafits? On the contrary, they have far greater torsional rigidity than Fritschis.
To the OP: What length of ski has little to do with the binding, more a question of your weight. Also depends on the width. With a wider ski, you can get away with a shorter ski.
Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement.
http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests/
http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests/
In reply to smithaldo:
Also disagree that Fritschi bindings are stiffer.. if anything what I've heard they are actually looser..
http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests/
I'm not sure I would think a different binding would suddenly make you able to ski 10cm longer.
Also disagree that Fritschi bindings are stiffer.. if anything what I've heard they are actually looser..
http://www.wildsnow.com/379/backcountry-skiing-binding-flex-tests/
I'm not sure I would think a different binding would suddenly make you able to ski 10cm longer.
Amusing that two people have used the same link to argue either side of an argument - suggest everyone reads that link and draws their own conclusion.
In reply to the OP- length is not always a measure of stiffness.. a shorter stiffer ski would be better on hard pack than a softer ; long ski. What are you mainly skiing? I've being going shorter with every ski I own; I'm 6ft and now ski 175 G3 Saints. I just prefer a slightly shorter; wider ski for trees and never go fast enough to think I need longer.
In reply to the OP- length is not always a measure of stiffness.. a shorter stiffer ski would be better on hard pack than a softer ; long ski. What are you mainly skiing? I've being going shorter with every ski I own; I'm 6ft and now ski 175 G3 Saints. I just prefer a slightly shorter; wider ski for trees and never go fast enough to think I need longer.
In reply to sam1971:
Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement. So the benefit that with Dynafit the foot is closer to the ski is negated by the movement and vice versa, less movement with Fritschi is negated (perhaps) by distance from the ski.
That is just not true, a dynafit binding has less "slop" than a fritschi, and is much more presice to ski on. The only movrment you will get is the heel pins moving forward as the ski flexes or backwards if you decamber it. Fot this reason skies that are too soft dont work well with dynafits as the pins can release from the boot heel if the ski is decambered too much or break the binding by bashing into the boot.
Ski length is not really an issue although width is i wouldnt mount a dynafit on a ski over 100mm underfoot for risk of binding rip out. Movement skis are great, and dnyafits on them will ski better and be lighter than fritschis.
Ben
Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement. So the benefit that with Dynafit the foot is closer to the ski is negated by the movement and vice versa, less movement with Fritschi is negated (perhaps) by distance from the ski.
That is just not true, a dynafit binding has less "slop" than a fritschi, and is much more presice to ski on. The only movrment you will get is the heel pins moving forward as the ski flexes or backwards if you decamber it. Fot this reason skies that are too soft dont work well with dynafits as the pins can release from the boot heel if the ski is decambered too much or break the binding by bashing into the boot.
Ski length is not really an issue although width is i wouldnt mount a dynafit on a ski over 100mm underfoot for risk of binding rip out. Movement skis are great, and dnyafits on them will ski better and be lighter than fritschis.
Ben
In reply to sam1971:
Not true.
Dynafits are some of the most torsionally rigid bindings there are; certainly more rigid than Fritschis (I ski Fritschis, btw).
Kind of. Some of the benefits of length have been negated by stiffer materials etc, but length is still a contributing factor to surface area. For equal underfoot width, the heavier you are, the longer ski you need if you intend to ski powder.
Volkl Mantra, 184cm, Fritschi freeride+
>
> Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement.
> Ignoring the obvious fact that ski, binding and boot choice are hugely personal the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding where there is a much larger contact point round, and down onto, the front of the boot to reduce movement.
Not true.
Dynafits are some of the most torsionally rigid bindings there are; certainly more rigid than Fritschis (I ski Fritschis, btw).
> I would say ski length is a different subject. The advance in ski materials and build techniques has removed the benefit of a longer ski for touring. You get the stiffness and performance from a 170cm ski that required a 190+ cm in the recent past plus everything is then easier with a shorter/lighter ski.
Kind of. Some of the benefits of length have been negated by stiffer materials etc, but length is still a contributing factor to surface area. For equal underfoot width, the heavier you are, the longer ski you need if you intend to ski powder.
> Movement skis rock. Although currently I'm on Volkl Amaruq 177cm which also rock, feel like I can ski mach 7 any conditions.
Volkl Mantra, 184cm, Fritschi freeride+
In reply to Mark Sweatmasn:
I didnt argue either side. But the conclusion i have drawn from the article is the same one you have..
Dynafits are stiffer.
I ski dynafits and movement thunders
I didnt argue either side. But the conclusion i have drawn from the article is the same one you have..
Dynafits are stiffer.
I ski dynafits and movement thunders
In reply to smithaldo: Also have a look at the plum guide binding instead of dynafit there great.
In reply to smithaldo:
Dynafits are thought to be the way forwrd, especially due to the light weight and great performance. They can be quite trying to step into on steep icy slope though, I manage to mrss it up on the flat every so often.
Dynafits are thought to be the way forwrd, especially due to the light weight and great performance. They can be quite trying to step into on steep icy slope though, I manage to mrss it up on the flat every so often.
In reply to Ben Briggs: Cor blimey, they sound amazing, but 400 euros is double what you can get tlt speeds for, and at my ability level I cant see it will make that much difference.
am now utterly perplexed as to what skis to get and might even just get some dynafit bindings for my atomic slim daddy 167s and forego the new skis.
am now utterly perplexed as to what skis to get and might even just get some dynafit bindings for my atomic slim daddy 167s and forego the new skis.
In reply to sam1971:
Being the geek that I am and seeking any excuse to avoid my OU essay I went up into the loft and tested the above assertion.
I can confirm that sam1971 is wrong. The Dynafits are rock solid and the Fritschi have a degree of movement. They have to have play in the toe to allow for release.
I think out on the slopes that this is probably a 'princess and the pea' scenario though.
> (In reply to smithaldo)
> the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding
> the Dynafit attachment system (two small clips into side holes in the boot) naturally introduces a bit of movement that you don't get with a "normal" alpine or Fritschi binding
Being the geek that I am and seeking any excuse to avoid my OU essay I went up into the loft and tested the above assertion.
I can confirm that sam1971 is wrong. The Dynafits are rock solid and the Fritschi have a degree of movement. They have to have play in the toe to allow for release.
I think out on the slopes that this is probably a 'princess and the pea' scenario though.
In reply to smithaldo:
Do a forum search too as this has been discussed before. I for one have already asked a similar question:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=444681
Do a forum search too as this has been discussed before. I for one have already asked a similar question:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=444681
In reply to smithaldo:
Hehee, funny reading. I stand by my views and seeing both bindings in action most winter weekends confirms the pros/cons, and most important to me, why I'll stick with my choice. This subject polarises opinion like so many tech opinions, I guess we should be glad we now have such a big choice. I recall not so long ago there was one
Smithlado - let us know if you are passing through Geneva. We have a ski mountaineering playground here for you to test whichever shiny new toy you go for!
Hehee, funny reading. I stand by my views and seeing both bindings in action most winter weekends confirms the pros/cons, and most important to me, why I'll stick with my choice. This subject polarises opinion like so many tech opinions, I guess we should be glad we now have such a big choice. I recall not so long ago there was one
Smithlado - let us know if you are passing through Geneva. We have a ski mountaineering playground here for you to test whichever shiny new toy you go for!
In reply to DaveHK: Thanks Dave, I assume that you are the same dave kerr that went touring with tony m when my foot had blistered due to ill fitting touring boots and an epic day on sticil face? If so, I see you have progressed your ski tour adventures since then!
In reply to smithaldo:
That's me. That was my first day out on the touring skis. Got a bit obsessed with it really and have done a lot more skiing than climbing since.
You did look fairly busted that day!
That's me. That was my first day out on the touring skis. Got a bit obsessed with it really and have done a lot more skiing than climbing since.
You did look fairly busted that day!
In reply to DaveHK: Ha, a 5.30am start with a midnight finish, postholing from hells lum, and minus fifteen temps will do that to a man!
Do you know anyone with scott crusairs? the 166 are appealing as they are actually 169 and are rigid so shorter might be good for me.
Do you know anyone with scott crusairs? the 166 are appealing as they are actually 169 and are rigid so shorter might be good for me.
In reply to smithaldo:
I've heard good things about them. I got K2 Waybacks with Dynafit at the end of last season but can't comment on them as I only had one short day on them. They are nice and light for carrying though. I'll probably get something a bit beefier with Freerides for lift accessed stuff and to complement the Waybacks.
> (> Do you know anyone with scott crusairs?
I've heard good things about them. I got K2 Waybacks with Dynafit at the end of last season but can't comment on them as I only had one short day on them. They are nice and light for carrying though. I'll probably get something a bit beefier with Freerides for lift accessed stuff and to complement the Waybacks.
In reply to DaveHK:
I got Crusairs this winter, and I really like them. My mate bought a pair not long after me. I've got Fritchi Freeride Pros on mine - he has Dynafits. Both happy!
I've never used the Dynafits, but I do realise they are significantly lighter, and lock your boot in rigidly, which would be an advantage. Yes, there is some/more play with Fritchi bindings than Dynafit, but I would be surprised if you really do notice the difference. I am not aware of any problem with movement in the toe area.
I was prepared to sacrifice the weight saving for less fiddliness, plus I saw the state the notches on my last pair of boots got into and thought better of it. Each to their own.
I got Crusairs this winter, and I really like them. My mate bought a pair not long after me. I've got Fritchi Freeride Pros on mine - he has Dynafits. Both happy!
I've never used the Dynafits, but I do realise they are significantly lighter, and lock your boot in rigidly, which would be an advantage. Yes, there is some/more play with Fritchi bindings than Dynafit, but I would be surprised if you really do notice the difference. I am not aware of any problem with movement in the toe area.
I was prepared to sacrifice the weight saving for less fiddliness, plus I saw the state the notches on my last pair of boots got into and thought better of it. Each to their own.
In reply to Scomuir: the killer point for me is the new dynafit tlt 5 boots only suit tech inserts, and they look like the DBs for climbing and skiing trips. A real one boot does all.
have used fritschis for a while and climbed up to damilano 4+ tech in garmont megarides but reckon a change to the dynafit set up of boots and bindings would be the way to go!
have used fritschis for a while and climbed up to damilano 4+ tech in garmont megarides but reckon a change to the dynafit set up of boots and bindings would be the way to go!
In reply to smithaldo:
In reply to your original post, I don't feel Dynafits have any great influence over length of ski you can feel comfortable on. If you are happy on 170/175 then 176 X Series Logic should be just fine...have heard plenty of good reports about these from clients & friends.
Over the course of each winter (typically 150+ days on skis) I ski a mix of Dynafits, Fritschis, Marker Barons and regular alpine bindings. The Dynas have much better torsional rigidity than the Fristchis, as do the Barons, however this is only ever going to make a difference on firmer snow.
In reply to your original post, I don't feel Dynafits have any great influence over length of ski you can feel comfortable on. If you are happy on 170/175 then 176 X Series Logic should be just fine...have heard plenty of good reports about these from clients & friends.
Over the course of each winter (typically 150+ days on skis) I ski a mix of Dynafits, Fritschis, Marker Barons and regular alpine bindings. The Dynas have much better torsional rigidity than the Fristchis, as do the Barons, however this is only ever going to make a difference on firmer snow.
In reply to smithaldo:
In addition to the above - for what you want would recommend dyna or Plums without any hesitation. The weight-saving alone is worth it, they ski well, you can 'lock' the ski on to your boot for those times when you really don;t want a ski coming off. The new inserts (certainly as of last year) offer almost step-in like performance, and next years range of dynas have an additional post or bar in front of the toe to assist stepping in even more (remains to be seen how useful/less this is).
In addition to the above - for what you want would recommend dyna or Plums without any hesitation. The weight-saving alone is worth it, they ski well, you can 'lock' the ski on to your boot for those times when you really don;t want a ski coming off. The new inserts (certainly as of last year) offer almost step-in like performance, and next years range of dynas have an additional post or bar in front of the toe to assist stepping in even more (remains to be seen how useful/less this is).
In reply to smithaldo:
I ski Dynafits on 180cm BD Verdicts which are a pretty long, stiff ski, especially as up until next year they have no rocker/early-rise. Honestly I don't think the reduced stack height has much if any bearing on what length of ski would match your ability.
Dynafits are much less sloppy than normal bindings though as your knees will find out on chopped up icy slopes.
Anyway advice on skis is high subjective so I'd suggest trying to demo the ski you are looking at buying and some alternatives. Especially as the vogue for rocker on nearly everything means the effective edge can often be a lot less than you'd think on the longer skis (and make powder more fun).
I ski Dynafits on 180cm BD Verdicts which are a pretty long, stiff ski, especially as up until next year they have no rocker/early-rise. Honestly I don't think the reduced stack height has much if any bearing on what length of ski would match your ability.
Dynafits are much less sloppy than normal bindings though as your knees will find out on chopped up icy slopes.
Anyway advice on skis is high subjective so I'd suggest trying to demo the ski you are looking at buying and some alternatives. Especially as the vogue for rocker on nearly everything means the effective edge can often be a lot less than you'd think on the longer skis (and make powder more fun).
In reply to smithaldo:
A word of caution about TLT speed bindings. Unless they've recently changed it, the crampon slot on this model is just made of plastic and has a tendency to break if you step onto boilerplate ice or rock. The later Comfort model and the FT12 have steel reinforcement inserts to deal with this problem. The Plum Guide binding is one piece alu, including the crampon slot, so very solid indeed.
A cheaper solution might be to buy an extra pair of Comfort/FT front baseplates and use them instead of the Speed ones. Telemark Pyrenees sell them as a separate item and not at all expensive. You might need to cut away the plastic extension behind the crampon slot, as the heel of your boot sits closer to the ski with TLT Speeds, so the extra plastic at the front could block the toe step-in mechanism.
On the ski front, I wouldn't get too hung up on getting a stiffer ski. If you are not that good a skier, a softer ski will be more forgiving.
A word of caution about TLT speed bindings. Unless they've recently changed it, the crampon slot on this model is just made of plastic and has a tendency to break if you step onto boilerplate ice or rock. The later Comfort model and the FT12 have steel reinforcement inserts to deal with this problem. The Plum Guide binding is one piece alu, including the crampon slot, so very solid indeed.
A cheaper solution might be to buy an extra pair of Comfort/FT front baseplates and use them instead of the Speed ones. Telemark Pyrenees sell them as a separate item and not at all expensive. You might need to cut away the plastic extension behind the crampon slot, as the heel of your boot sits closer to the ski with TLT Speeds, so the extra plastic at the front could block the toe step-in mechanism.
On the ski front, I wouldn't get too hung up on getting a stiffer ski. If you are not that good a skier, a softer ski will be more forgiving.
In reply to smithaldo:
Does all this mean my 404's are out of date?
Does all this mean my 404's are out of date?
In reply to smithaldo:
i have some, so here is my contribution:
http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/99830/2011-scott-crusair-mini-review#po...
Not sure why you would consider the shorter ones - I am 174cm and 72kg and find the 176cm perfect. Keep in mind if you're touring to add 10kg to your weight. I tend to think carbon is a really good material for a ski, you lose weight but don't sacrifice handling which i found a problem with some other skis. The crusairs are not rockered which i think is a good thing for all round performance. Any shortcomings in powder which are minor are probably more down to me! If you can get them on special then that would be a bonus.
>
> Do you know anyone with scott crusairs? the 166 are appealing as they are actually 169 and are rigid so shorter might be good for me.
> Do you know anyone with scott crusairs? the 166 are appealing as they are actually 169 and are rigid so shorter might be good for me.
i have some, so here is my contribution:
http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/99830/2011-scott-crusair-mini-review#po...
Not sure why you would consider the shorter ones - I am 174cm and 72kg and find the 176cm perfect. Keep in mind if you're touring to add 10kg to your weight. I tend to think carbon is a really good material for a ski, you lose weight but don't sacrifice handling which i found a problem with some other skis. The crusairs are not rockered which i think is a good thing for all round performance. Any shortcomings in powder which are minor are probably more down to me! If you can get them on special then that would be a bonus.
In reply to Morgan Woods: Just as an observation on Dynafit rigidity. Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Insert a skiboot and lock it down in ski mode. Clamp the ski to the floor with your foot. Wiggle the heel of the skiboot from side to side. Then grab the top of the cuff and test the torsional stability. There's a whole lot of movement there which certainly gives me food for thought on steep terrain..
In reply to Morgan Woods: thanks morgan, got some 166 (well 169 really!) new scott crusairs from an american shop for 310 quid posted and customs fees all in (they accepted an ebay best offer of 300 dollars for the skis plus 100 posted and customs fees are 60 quid)
I figured that for what I want them for ( a one ski does all) / more importantly my ability on harder steeper stuff the 176 (that measure 179) are too long to control effectively, and the shorter length wont create too many powder problems as it is rare that I get to ski powder very deep at all.
now to the bindings... might treat myself to some plums given the saving on skis if not I think one of the dynafit verticals.
I figured that for what I want them for ( a one ski does all) / more importantly my ability on harder steeper stuff the 176 (that measure 179) are too long to control effectively, and the shorter length wont create too many powder problems as it is rare that I get to ski powder very deep at all.
now to the bindings... might treat myself to some plums given the saving on skis if not I think one of the dynafit verticals.
In reply to smithaldo:
nice to grab a bargain - i'm sure you will enjoy soon enough. i was just organising a ski tour after a recent for next week but it's fallen through because of work....yes it does snow occasionally in australia!
nice to grab a bargain - i'm sure you will enjoy soon enough. i was just organising a ski tour after a recent for next week but it's fallen through because of work....yes it does snow occasionally in australia!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...