# Heavy or light setup



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 6, 2005)

Anyone care how heavy their setup is. I was reading a thread on the Metron B5 at Epic and a couple of guys felt at @ 8 1/2 lbs. per ski they were to heavy to be considered. I've never skied the B5, but have heard great things.

Anyways, my Top Fuels are pretty heavy so I weighed them to see how much. They were just under 8. I love these skis and believe me they don't ski heavy and that's what counts.

Any opinions?

BTW I skied them in bumps with no problems,


----------



## JimG. (Oct 6, 2005)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> Anyone care how heavy their setup is. I was reading a thread on the Metron B5 at Epic and a couple of guys felt at @ 8 1/2 lbs. per ski they were to heavy to be considered. I've never skied the B5, but have heard great things.
> 
> Anyways, my Top Fuels are pretty heavy so I weighed them to see how much. They were just under 8. I love these skis and believe me they don't ski heavy and that's what counts.
> 
> ...



One of the reasons I use AT gear everyday is because of weight. My skis are simple wood core bump skis with no damping materials or binding plates. My Freerides weigh about half as much as alpine bindings. My boots are ridiculously light and actually took a few weeks to get used to. So I'm a stickler for light equipment. But I don't know too many folks who care about it as much as me if at all.

Is it possible that the Epic discussion was centered around BC skiing where weight is a major factor?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 6, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Is it possible that the Epic discussion was centered around BC skiing where weight is a major factor?



Nope, basic lift served downhill.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 6, 2005)

is it just me, or is there a general trend for skis to weigh more lately?  maybe it's just the skis i have tried (especially volkls), but it seems like stuff is getting crazy heavy.  i guess it is great for guys looking to tear up the groomers.  for example, the 6 star is a friggin' tank, but the heavy suckers can't be beat for ripping groomers.  same with the 724 pro, ick, way too heavy for my tastes.  could be a response to market demand, seems like a lot of people want something that rips groomers then "busts through crud" as everyone is calling it with some pow too.    so you take a powder ski and make it damp and stiff for the groomers, woot!

i am a mid-weight fan myself.  i need a strong ski, i'm a big and heavy guy and have a technique geared toward power rather than grace.  but i dislike a ski that is too heavy which can wear me down on groomers and natural snow when utilizing quick snappy turns or terrain requiring hop turns.  i need a ski stiff enough that gives some resistance when making a turn to pop off the sweet spot, but something too heavy wears on me.

my xwave10 boots just kill my legs, that's for sure.  after walking around and flexing a pair of gride's, i decided there isn't much use for a pair of boots like that except for tearing up groomers or steep precision situations.  both ends of the weight perspective seem rather over rated unless you have specific requirements.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 7, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> could be a response to market demand, seems like a lot of people want something that rips groomers then "busts through crud" as everyone is calling it with some pow too.    so you take a powder ski and make it damp and stiff for the groomers, woot!
> 
> i am a mid-weight fan myself.  i need a strong ski,
> .



You always bring good insight to gear discussion Oil.
I'd add to your list good edge grip on hard pack/ice, aka one ski quiver, all Mt. expert, free ride expert whatever you want to call them.

When I skied my Top Fuels for the first time I was amazed at everything the ski could do well.

Mid-fat fan - 2 years ago that ment around 70mm under foot, not anymore.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 7, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> is it just me, or is there a general trend for skis to weigh more lately?



You're not crazy...newer skis are heavier with all the damping materials and binding plates. 

Probably why the Epic thread was started to begin with.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 7, 2005)

Skis are getting heavier, no doubt. It's interesting, though- when you see reviews of new bindings, and related marketing stuff, they'll often go on about using lighter materials, shaving weight, etc. 

Seems to me, unless you're carrying it BC, a pound or so won't make much difference to your legs, except hanging off a chairlift. Even then, I doubt you'd actually notice the difference.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 7, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Seems to me, unless you're carrying it BC, a pound or so won't make much difference to your legs, except hanging off a chairlift. Even then, I doubt you'd actually notice the difference.



That's what I think too. I also weighed my SUV14's cause they felt a little lighter and they where by about a lb each ski. Overall the Top Fuel is a better ski IMO and the weight doesn't matter to me.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 7, 2005)

the going light trend in BC is generally due to uphill mobility, quickness, and fatiuge factors.  clearly nothing prohibiting regular alpine equip from getting heavier and heavier.  generally in the BC, going lighter means sacrificing some performance due to less stiffness and response.  i wonder if people buying heavier skis on alpine gear looking for the one ski do it all quiver are sacrificing on the opposite end instead of getting skis that specialize in particular aspects of skiing.  someone over on epic has a great signiture that says something along the lines of "all mountain ski definition is a ski that is equally bad at everything" :lol:

i appreciate the mid-fat direction and skinny skis are definitely out unless you are looking for a racing/GS/slalom ski which still put in around 70 or less waist or a zipper line bump ski.  the extra weight for a mid-70s mid fat is okay because the performance for natural snow conditions is stepped up.  but the ultra stiff end of the mid-fats meant for folks who are partial to groomers makes no sense to me!  if you ski groomers most of the time, don't get a mid-fat...  get a friggin race ski!

know we know why so many people enjoy safety bars with foot rests, jeez. :lol:


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 10, 2005)

Personally weight has never been an issue with me. I am however getting into BC so am re-evaluating my stance on this. I am getting the new Teneighty GUNS this season (buddy works at a ski shop can't beat the deal), and am thinking of mounting them with free rides, but have yet to decide. 

On another note. I have been skiing for approx 18 year +/- a couple, anyway I notice all the talk on stiffness, and edge, etc. You know honestly I NEVER noticed the big difference, besides waist and tip/tail on any ski I ever skied. I guess basically I just put them on an go...I don't sweat the "small" stuff..

I'm wondering if I don't have "feel"?

M


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 10, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> On another note. I have been skiing for approx 18 year +/- a couple, anyway I notice all the talk on stiffness, and edge, etc. You know honestly I NEVER noticed the big difference, besides waist and tip/tail on any ski I ever skied. I guess basically I just put them on an go...I don't sweat the "small" stuff..
> 
> I'm wondering if I don't have "feel"?
> 
> M



I can dig it, you just ski with what you have and not worry about every little nuisance.
There are certainly brands and models I prefer over another, (Nordica Hot Rod Hot Fuel   ) but put me on any high-end ski and I’ll be fine.

That said, you should be able to feel the difference between a stiff and soft ski. At the very least you should feel that a stiffer ski is faster and more stable on hard pack and a softer model will turn with less effort in deeper snow. Although, the new 1 ski quiver models are changing that deep snow perception.


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 10, 2005)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> I can dig it, you just ski with what you have and not worry about every little nuisance.
> There are certainly brands and models I prefer over another, (Nordica Hot Rod Hot Fuel   ) but put me on any high-end ski and I’ll be fine.
> 
> That said, you should be able to feel the difference between a stiff and soft ski. At the very least you should feel that a stiffer ski is faster and more stable on hard pack and a softer model will turn with less effort in deeper snow. Although, the new 1 ski quiver models are changing that deep snow perception.



I also prefer "brands" over one another and have certianly skied both race type skis and bump type skis and do notice the difference, but I wonder how much I noticed it??? Eh...I dig skiing thats all I care about....if they were pine 2x4's if they had enough wax....and some edge...i'm in... 

M


----------



## bigbog (Oct 12, 2005)

*ski weight........*

highpeaksdrifter,
I think the lighter feel is why the Nordica family is the bunch that I'm interested in demoing... 8)


----------



## bigbog (Oct 12, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> .......the extra weight for a mid-70s mid fat is okay because the performance for natural snow conditions is stepped up, but the ultra stiff end of the mid-fats meant for folks who are partial to groomers makes no sense to me!  if you ski groomers most of the time, don't get a mid-fat...  get a friggin race ski!
> Now we know why so many people enjoy safety bars with foot rests, jeez. :lol:


 ...Not only am I in total agreement rivercOil, but at 5'8"...a ski that can do what needs to be done, yet feel lighter than a thunderstick...to swing around here & there, is a lot more fun...


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 12, 2005)

*Re: ski weight........*



			
				bigbog said:
			
		

> highpeaksdrifter,
> I think the lighter feel is why the Nordica family is the bunch that I'm interested in demoing... 8)



I'll find out when Nordica will be demoing in your neck of the woods and let you know. Glad to here you're interested.


----------



## skidon (Oct 12, 2005)

You can still get a light setup, you just have to be "flexible". Heh. It's not skis that are heavy - it's SYSTEM skis that are.  Take a K2 Fujativ or Crossfire, or a Dynastar 4800 (all available as flat skis) and put on 'em a Sally 912 Ti or such, and you've got a lightweight rig that rips.  There's lots more examples like that.  Heavier skis can plow through the gnarly stuff, though.  They're just a pain getting to the lift, and back to your truck after happy hour...


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 13, 2005)

skidon said:
			
		

> You can still get a light setup, you just have to be "flexible". Heh. It's not skis that are heavy - it's SYSTEM skis that are.  Take a K2 Fujativ or Crossfire, or a Dynastar 4800 (all available as flat skis) and put on 'em a Sally 912 Ti or such, and you've got a lightweight rig that rips.  There's lots more examples like that.  Heavier skis can plow through the gnarly stuff, though.  They're just a pain getting to the lift, and back to your truck after happy hour...



Your point is right on. A couple of years ago I got Fischer RX8's and had the choice of their real flex system or get them flat. I choose flat and put on the Solamon 912's for two reasons. I didn't know much about Fischer bindings and the 912s where alot lighter.

What I ended up with were light skis that were turning machines. They were alot of fun, but that said, I prefer the power and versatility of the Nordica Top Fuels I have now.

I also think that not too far in the future all skis will have system bindings. It's just the way the industry is going.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 13, 2005)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> I also think that not too far in the future all skis will have system bindings. It's just the way the industry is going.



Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit. 

Thank God for e-bay.


----------



## RossiSkier (Oct 13, 2005)

I don't mind skiing on a heavy board, but if I can't get a parking spot close to the lifts then I come to dislike them.


----------



## Sky (Oct 13, 2005)

I'm not as technically sophosticated as most of you posters in here...the one post about "not "feeling" had a familiar ring to it.  I don't know what I don't know.  

That being said...I can remember my first pair of skis...210 Kniesel's...old school...heavy and stiff.

When I got my first pair of modern skis (with some shape...Salomon CUT's)...they were super light.  Next came the Atomic Beta Ride 820's...advertising (I scanned the Ski Mag review) claimed they were light.  Not according to the CUT's!!

Last year I picked up a pair of Volkls Supersport Superspeed's.  H-E-A-V-Y!  Substantially heavier @ 175 vs the 190 Atomic 820's

As far as one-ski-quiver...two excellent observations...1) all mountain doing all things equally bad.  No different than the fighter/bomber argument.  I don't mind the heavier skier due to my ht/wt.  Also because I don't go BC.  So, stable, bust through crud, edge grip all season long.  I'm set with one ski.  Keeping a quiver and keeping it tuned and up-to-date is not important to me.  As Jack said in "A Few Good Men"..."I have neither the time nor the inclination..."  AND 2)....erraahhhh...I forget.  *smirk*

I guess I'd rate "weight" as one more thing to consider when demo-ing your next new set f skis.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Probably true, not a good thing in my opinion. Have yet to demo a system ski/binding set-up I thought was worth anything more than spit.



I'd like to hear your bad experiences when demoing, I haven't had any.

I think the Marker XBS Balance system for Nordica are great bindings. I thought the claim of a bigger sweet stop was a marketing gimick at first, but they really do work well.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 13, 2005)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I prefer bump skis, twintips to be specific; for my height and weight they work best for me as an all mountain ski. I don't want to have to drag several pairs of skis around depending on conditions. To me, that's nonsense.

I don't like alot of bells and whistles on my skis. Simple wood cores, preferably laminated and not caps. Don't want riser plates, integrated bindings, or any of that crap. Just about every new ski other than twintips that I've demoed has all that stuff I consider useless. Just alot of added weight and expense.

All these new fangled skis I've demoed seem to do one specific thing well and not much else. Either they carve well on groomers but are too stiff for bumps, or they're good in bumps but too narrow underfoot to be useful in powder, or they're good in powder but can't hold an edge on hardpack. I don't want skis like that.  

And I ESPECIALLY don't like the idea of having to buy a specific binding because I want a certain ski.

But that's just me, the dinosaur.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> highpeaksdrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you wrote that the system bindings you demoed where not worth spit I thought maybe they malfunctioned. Now after I’ve read your reply I realize your spit post was just the mindless ramblings of an old coot that is afraid of advancing technology.

I demod the Rossi twin tip (name?) ski out West last year. It was nice.

Wood cores, are the way to go. That foam fill core crap blows. Just my unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## Marc (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> highpeaksdrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I have no particular prejudice towards binding systems... or buying a certain binding for a certain ski... I appreciate the sentiment and feel the exact same way.  I just want a ski that is middle of the road that has the ability to do everything, it doesn't have to do any one thing well.

Unlike Sky, who uses the fighter/bomber analogy, I generally use the car tire analogy, in that, I drive with a little more 'enthusiasm' than most people.  Hence, I want a season specific tire, not an all season.  I want my tire to excel for the particular condition.

This is not important for me anyomre for skiing.  I bought my Volkl P50 F1 EnergY's, basically their race stock ski at the time when all I skied were groomers.  I don't anymore and I reverted back to my 2000 MY Rossy Cut 10.4.  

They're not great at anything but I'm not worried about sking perfect in one condition, I want to just ski in any condition.  I'm now simply looking for an update with a little bit more spring in them and maybe a few more mm's at the waist.


I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having a multi ski quiver either.  That would be my ideal, to pick the perfect ski for that day's conditions but that is just too impractical.  The day changes as does the terrain.  

The reason I haven't sold my Volkl's is because there is nothing more fun for screaming on hardpack and groomers, and I will never give up my speed freak side.  Sometimes I just have to go fast.  But I want the convenience and the affordability of an otherwise one ski quiver.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 13, 2005)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> Now after I’ve read your reply I realize your spit post was just the mindless ramblings of an old coot that is afraid of advancing technology.



Partly true...but then again my AT gear and especially boots are pretty high tech.

It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> highpeaksdrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahhh...I get it now. You make a good point.


----------



## ctenidae (Oct 13, 2005)

Bah, you kids and your riser this and your system that. Back in my day, all we had was a couple snarlin' snappin' alligators to ski on. The meaner the better, I always said. 

Stop me if you've heard this one...


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> highpeaksdrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't think the industry will ever go completely the way of system setups.  they would risk loosing too many BC skiers to the BC ski outfits like BD, g3, etc. or new upstarts like PMGear, etc.  a lot of skiers DEMAND a flat setup, especially skiers that want to mount AT bindings to skis and folks that don't like certain bindings and systems.

that said, i have a volkl p50 motion pair of skis with the motion system and it is a great binding system.  the supersport series has a similar binding, quite something to ski those puppies.  i think the system option is great for folks who love ripping the groomers, most of those skis are really designed for that type of performance.  the system really adds a lot of weight to the ski though.

one thing i noticed with newer volkls that has added a lot of weight is cosmetics!  volkls had a few years in which the company took some heat for easily chipped top sheets.  PEOPLE, WHAT THE HECK?  WHO CARES WHAT THE TOP OF YOUR FRIGGIN SKI LOOKS LIKE!?!?!? :uzi:  /rant

okay, now that i got that outta my system, the new volkl top sheets are rubbery on the skis i have tried.  it's a really weird feel, but definitely feels like the top sheet will never be chipped or scratched  :roll: probably adds at least a pound to the skis' weight i bet.


----------



## atomic68 (Oct 13, 2005)

I like the heavy skis that just plow through any conditions...my atomic pcms are a very heavy all moutain extreme ski...p c m stood for powder crud and moguls


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 13, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> It's not the technology I don't like, it's this new age idea that you need a different ski for every kind of condition out on the hill. All marketing hype.


i don't see that idea out there at all.  actually, i see teh opposite.  most ski companies seem to be pushing the one ski quiver idea pretty hard.  most people don't want multiple skis, so that is what the ski companies are going after.  i have also had a different esperience in that the skis have demoed recently did not specialize in anything, they were over broad in their intentions and ended up performing average in all qualities instead of exceling in one field.

i don't think a different ski for every condition is needed, but i do think having one pair for pow, one pair for ripping groomers, and one in between and meant for rocks is a good investment for someone that enjoys certain performance in certain conditions.  all depends on what an individual ski demands for performance in various conditions, what is acceptable.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 13, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> JimG. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wish I had a nickel for every time a ski company rep said to me that I'll need a ski caddy to ski with me so that I can choose the exact correct ski for each pitch on the hill as I ski down.

And then there's a few of my ski buddies who can't seem to ski more than 3 runs without running to their locker or car for a different pair of boards.  

Then again, I didn't demo last year and concentrated on getting used to my AT gear...maybe they've wised up in the interim.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 13, 2005)

grabbing a second set of skis every three runs is pretty lame.  last year, some days i would bring two pair with me to the hill if i wasn't certain what type of day it is.  within a run or two i knew if i made the right decision.  it not, one switch was it and i was glad i had the option.  if you only ski inbounds, especially only groomers, one ski should be plenty any ways.  i never thought about multiple skis until i started doing side country and needed a rock ski then backcountry when i needed a different binding.


----------



## JimG. (Oct 14, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> grabbing a second set of skis every three runs is pretty lame.  last year, some days i would bring two pair with me to the hill if i wasn't certain what type of day it is.  within a run or two i knew if i made the right decision.  it not, one switch was it and i was glad i had the option.  if you only ski inbounds, especially only groomers, one ski should be plenty any ways.  i never thought about multiple skis until i started doing side country and needed a rock ski then backcountry when i needed a different binding.



The only extra pair of skis in my locker are rock skis. And they're the same make and model as my everyday skis. Using AT gear all the time eliminated the BC issue.

As long as my skis are frequently tuned, waxed, and maintained, they ski fine for me in any conditions.


----------



## Rushski (Oct 14, 2005)

I remember in the late 80s or so when lighter skis really started to hit with Dynastar leading the way.  The problem back then was that these skis "Verticals", etc... were absolute noodles after a hard season of bumps.  Also, the hot ski of the time was the Rossi 4S and they lasted only slightly longer, but were substantially heavier.

I'm sure the newer lighter skis are tougher.  Hope so as My Crossmax 10s w/S912s are pretty damn light.


----------



## SkiDog (Oct 14, 2005)

Rushski said:
			
		

> I remember in the late 80s or so when lighter skis really started to hit with Dynastar leading the way.  The problem back then was that these skis "Verticals", etc... were absolute noodles after a hard season of bumps.  Also, the hot ski of the time was the Rossi 4S and they lasted only slightly longer, but were substantially heavier.
> 
> I'm sure the newer lighter skis are tougher.  Hope so as My Crossmax 10s w/S912s are pretty damn light.



I skied verticals for many many years...always loved them and never found that they lost anything after hard seasons of bumps...im no comp bump guy, but I can hold my own...but again...I dont think I have "feel" for skis..I just ski and don't worry.

M


----------

