View Full Version : Weighty skis
Mumster
11-17-2003, 08:16 PM
I just realized my 156's are heavier than skidude's 183's. I think they are heavier than any ski on the planet. Given my convalescing knee, which rebels when I ask it to work too hard, I'm pondering the wisdom of moving to a lighter ski. Does anyone know what disadvantage a lighter ski would have?
Skilasnow
11-17-2003, 08:38 PM
Mumster:
I just realized my 156's are heavier than skidude's 183's. I think they are heavier than any ski on the planet. Given my convalescing knee, which rebels when I ask it to work too hard, I'm pondering the wisdom of moving to a lighter ski. Does anyone know what disadvantage a lighter ski would have? I can tell you this, I particularly love my big heavy skis for variable conditions because they can pound through anything without flinching, crud, breakable crust, mashed potatoes, etc.
Freebird
11-17-2003, 09:07 PM
A lighter ski is like driving a lighter car. A lighter car can get blown around a little easier in higher winds just like a lighter ski can get tossed around a little easier in variable snow conditions. I do not think you'll notice a difference unless you went insanely light, say to a TUA Helium (around 5 lbs/pair I think).
Let me throw this out there. Are you sure it's the ski? What about the binding? If you're going to consider going lighter, I'd do it with everything then. Meaning you can shave a little weight off on everything. SKI, Binding, Boot, and thereby feel a lot lighter with almost no sacrifice in performance. This is the age old question that plagues AT and Telemark Backcountry users.
An experienced ski mountaineer, Lou Dawson tries to save weight wherever possible. He has some good points on his site: http://www.wildsnow.com/
While his points prove for a strong argument, I'd rather have a few extra pounds, but also the added confidence my gear isn't going to break at a key moment. (I'm not exactly trying to tour 20+ miles at 13,000 feet in Colorado)
Unfortunately, only you can answer these questions. I think a good place to start is to figure out what type of skiing do you do most? ie- ski area skiing, or calm backcountry, or steep and gnarly backcountry. (or any other option you can dream up) That should tell you what kind of equipment you need.
Hope that helps some... I'll check back in later, good luck.
Freebird
11-17-2003, 09:14 PM
Pits, "I can tell you this, I particularly love my big heavy skis for variable conditions because they can pound through anything without flinching, crud, breakable crust, mashed potatoes, etc."
...
Sand
Since I am of the group having five lustrums in my past and kneees that feel a good deal older I feel absolutely no shame in skiing light skis.
Durability is a big deal, but at less than 250,000 vertical feet per year, light is right for me.
Listen to the little voice that says: Protect!
Gotta go
Manyana
skidude
11-17-2003, 09:50 PM
I think it is a mix between her ski and bindings. I have marker 1200 pistion bindings which are high profomance bindings. Skimum has 1400 Pistion which are the race bindings from marker. Higher end bindings= more weight.
On the skis :skis: , my skis are race skis, but hers are race stock race skis.
I think both of our set ups are the same weight :scale: but mine are about a foot longer than hers. :eek:
skicdave
11-18-2003, 07:03 AM
I'd prefer heavier skis for eastern skiing for sure. I want to be able to carve though the death cookies and feel secure at higher speeds. Not ideal for bump runs though.
On the other hand :tucks: = < :scale:
Mumster
11-18-2003, 08:35 AM
Freebird:
I think a good place to start is to figure out what type of skiing do you do most? ie- ski area skiing, or calm backcountry, or steep and gnarly backcountry. (or any other option you can dream up) That should tell you what kind of equipment you need. Hope that helps some... I'll check back in later, good luck. Thanks Freebird. Ski the most? We race in the Poconos, and most nonrace skiing is groomed. Calm backcountry when we have opportunity to escape to better ski country. And write in a trip or two to TR this spring (assuming my right sided turns return).
Skidude: my skis :skifemcool: weigh a ton :scale: more than yours :jumpturn: .
Castlerock
11-18-2003, 11:51 AM
Mum, your knee wont feel the weight of your skis. However your back will when you hike with them! My 188 G4s weigh a ton. I will get an AT set. (If I keep saying it it will come true, right?)
Just make sure your bindings are set appropriately. Way too many people have their din set too high. especially good skiers that have might have pre-released at one time and then "cranked em up". Make sure your boot toes are in good shape too. The binding can only work right if both sides of the interface are OK.
Mumster
11-18-2003, 12:35 PM
Wouldn't a heavy ski impact knee fatigue when the inside leg flexes/lifts for the turn (after a number of runs)? For whatever reason, my knee gave up the ship after about 6 runs, which is totally unsatisfactory. A lighter ski was just a thought.
You are being dilligent with your PT? Except for that last surgery (#5), the PT had me getting back to 100% or better.
No doubt this is just coals carried to Newcastle, but sleep and excellent nutrition are the main allies of a good PT process.
Edit: another thought:
The surgical process is roughly equivilent to spreading the joint open with a crowbar (yikes!). As a result it will take some time for the capsule to tighten back up.
PT, PT, and more PT.
Mumster
11-18-2003, 01:03 PM
RR:
I opted for the concervative approach. The orthopod also thinks I need to allow for a long recovery time - I'll give it until Thanksgiving. :D
Hey Dave, now that I see no one thinks a light ski will solve the problem, lets delete this whole thread - it's more fun to talk about what we can do than what we can't do....
Castlerock
11-18-2003, 01:22 PM
From a pure physics standpoint, the amount of static resistance ot compression (Basically the load on your quads, and the subsequent stabilty around your knee, dwarfs the several pound difference in ski weight.
Just think, the amount of force the quads support just standing F=ma. (put your own body mass here, I won't go there, but it is indicative of how nmuch easier it is when you lose a few pounds which I desperately need to do). Now load that up with a nice GS turn. If you are really good you can load up till the a=2. Now you have doubled the load on your knee/quad.
In addition, most of the time the weight of the ski is supported by the ground, and based upon the thought you are a racer, I'm assuming you are getting a significant amout of rebound out of your ski which again minimizes the amount of weight you need to lift.
Castlerock
11-18-2003, 01:24 PM
Speaking of light skiis, for the old folk out there, anyone remember Hexcels?
NH_tele
11-18-2003, 07:45 PM
My 7TMs are pretty light...Very nice binding too, and they'll definitely help if you're feeling a little "trapped" by your binding (especially in the heel area ;) )
Anyway, my 7TMs are set to a DIN of about 6-6.5 right now, but I popped out once at Bretton Woods over the weekend, without falling, so if it becomes a "regular" thing, then I'll have to crank them down to about 7-7.5-ish...
On my old GS Race skis, the DINs were set to about 10, Super G, I had 13 or 14. These settings are actually need, since we were clocked (speed gun) at about 65-70 MPH in Super G!
At a ski sale the other day, I saw a pair of Atomic Super G skis with special bindings. DINs started at 12, and went to 20...!
BladeGirl
11-19-2003, 09:37 AM
Castlerock:
Speaking of light skiis, for the old folk out there, anyone remember Hexcels? What were Hexcels?
-BG
Castlerock:
anyone remember Hexcels? Yes I do! Honeycomb construction? Right?
Castlerock
11-19-2003, 10:05 AM
RR and DMC win again!
Hexcel (they are still around but got out of the notoriously unprofitable ski business) makes composites and had a line of skis makde of an aluminum "honeycomb" construction. They were sick light, (and notoriously breakable because of it). They also were the first to have a split tail construction, which I have seen advertised with some other manufacturer this year.
Their two top sellers were the edgey Hexcellerator and the fluff happy Sundance. The Hexcel company still makes honeycomb composite (and other cool stuff), but is out of the ski making business.
As I recall the Sundance chattered a bit on the firm and slick, but was pretty good in all but icy conditions. Never tried the Hexcellerator's though.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.