# Volkl AC4: 2005/06 model versus 2006/07 model



## saus (Sep 4, 2006)

What difference would one notice skiing the AC4 of the 2005/2006 season back to back with the AC4 of 1006/2007?

Also, for an average skier of about 155 pounds, 5' 8" who already owns the 2005/2006 All Star in 161 (love them) and the Head Monster iM 77 Chip in 170 (also love them), what length of new AC4 would seem appropriate - the 163 or the 170?

The plan is to replace the Monster 77 with the AC4. The All Stars would be for everything at which they excel, and the AC4's would be for everything else.


----------



## madskier6 (Sep 4, 2006)

I believe the '06-'07 AC4 is stiffer than last year's because they added 2 sheets of titanal.  They also integrated the binding into the ski to a greater degree so it should carve better than last year's.  I have not skied the '06-'07 model but I did demo last year's AC4 in a 170 and loved it.  I thought it was a great ski.

As far as which size, first try to demo both and make-up your mind.  Otherwise, where will you be skiing them mostly, East or West and what type of terrain do you like to ski?

I am 5'10 and 200 lbs so I'm heavier than you but I thought the 170 was great for me.


----------



## saus (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanks for the feedback, Jeff. 

I think that the difference in our weights makes the AC4 in 170 a different ski for you than it would be for me. I already have a ski for primarily on piste - the 2005/2006 Volkl All Star in 161. I'd be using the AC4 to ski in conditions where it would do better than the Allstar - mainly, deeper snow, heavier snow. If you and I both skied, side by side, on the 170 cm AC4 in those conditions, I imagine we'd have different experiences. 

It just says great things about the AC4 that you enjoy it so much in the 170. I think it shows that the final test of a ski is what it does for a particular skier in particular conditions.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 4, 2006)

out of curiosity, have you tried other skis in that class? i am curious what factors have caused you to narrow down specifically on the AC4 for your needs.


----------



## saus (Sep 5, 2006)

(a) I am a gear whore.

(b) I am interested in ski equipment as some people are interested in cars - I just like it.

(c) Although I previously have made a practice of trying to demo as many skis as possible, I now try to choose a well rated ski and use it for a season - not just a few runs - to evaluate both the ski and the ratings. This helps me to advise the guests at Smugglers' Notch who ask for advice about such things.

(d) The Volkl AC4 is a very highly rated ski (you know what I mean, I'm sure).

(e) Last year, the Volkl All Star also was very well rated. I bought it. It lives up to its hype.

(f) ergo, I am curious to see if the AC4 will do the same for its class of ski, and I'll have tons of fun finding out. The AC4 appeals because (1) it is wider than my Head Monster 77s - but not TOO much wider, and (2) it is said to be stiffer and more stable.

Thanks for asking!


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 5, 2006)

saus said:


> (a) I am a gear whore.
> 
> (b) I am interested in ski equipment as some people are interested in cars - I just like it.
> 
> ...




A) Me too
B) Me too
C) Do you work at Smuggs?
D) I do, I demoed it last season and it was not one of my favorites.
E) Didn't try that one
F) With 2 sheets of metal on a wood core it better be stiff and stable


----------



## saus (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm a weekend and part-time instructor at Smuggs. It's fun, but not my "day job".

After a season of becoming accustomed to the AC4, I'll be able to give you a solid opinion. In the past, I've bought skis I've never demoed but bought on recommendations and ratings. Some, of course, I liked better than others - but I can't say I just hated any of them. All were fun when I used them. Then, dang! I hadda try something new.

Not infrequently, I found that the skis had the characteristics described on page and screen but were not as difficult to use - except for one, a long time ago. Volkl P30 - it was too long and too stiff for me at that point. I bet I would have enjoyed it much more in the next shortest length. Only thing was, the next shortest was a full 10 cm shorter!

Stay tuned. I'll give you my unvarnished opinion, once I have a solid opinion.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 5, 2006)

saus said:


> (a) I am a gear whore.
> 
> (b) I am interested in ski equipment as some people are interested in cars - I just like it.
> 
> ...


cool cool. doesn't sound like you have tried any other skis in that upper mid-fat range. i am not trying to talk you out of the AC4 and i recognize you have had good luck without trying a variety of skis, but by narrowing down your ideal ski without trying other skis, you may just be missing out on a ski that would be better suited to your needs. there are a great many skis out there that are slightly wider than your monster 77s while also being very stiff and stable. i think there are better skis out there to complement a volkl all star in terms of having a non-groomed ski to complement a ski that rips groomers. just wanted to put in a vote for try before you buy, you could be missing out on skis better suited to yourself and your needs. or not, but you'll never know if you don't demo.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 5, 2006)

riverc0il said:


> cool cool. doesn't sound like you have tried any other skis in that upper mid-fat range. i am not trying to talk you out of the AC4 and i recognize you have had good luck without trying a variety of skis, but by narrowing down your ideal ski without trying other skis, you may just be missing out on a ski that would be better suited to your needs. there are a great many skis out there that are slightly wider than your monster 77s while also being very stiff and stable. i think there are better skis out there to complement a volkl all star in terms of having a non-groomed ski to complement a ski that rips groomers. just wanted to put in a vote for try before you buy, you could be missing out on skis better suited to yourself and your needs. or not, but you'll never know if you don't demo.



You what they Oil, I get your point, but so what if he doesn't demo it's not the end of the world if he would have found a pair he'd like better. High end skis are all good skis. I have preferences and I love to demo new skis, but if someone doesn't want to spend half a season demoing to try to find the perfect ski I say to each their own.

Anyways, say someone demos 20 skis, does that person drive themselves nuts wondering if they had just demoed that 21st ski that would be it.

I say do it your way saus and more power to ya.


----------



## saus (Sep 5, 2006)

Steve, thanks. Your advice is sound. I would have given it myself . . . to someone else :lol:

However, at this point - and I have a mind like a steel trap - my mind is shut and won't open again until the next time I want to buy skis. I'm taking highpeaksdrifter's advice (it's just coincidence that it matches my own philosophy).

Last time I insisted on a demo before buying, I was told that there was no prostock left in the distributor's inventory. I put my hound dogs on the hunt and found THE last pair of All Stars in the size I wanted at proform, and I don't want to risk missing this chance of a lifetime (which at my age might be even shorter than my whatsis). I'd rather risk kicking myself because I buy THE worst pair of skis I've ever used.:razz: 

Hey, if I were all that good at listening to reason, why would I be a lawyer?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 5, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> ...but if someone doesn't want to spend half a season demoing to try to find the perfect ski I say to each their own.


you don't need to spend half a season demoing. when i decided to buy my legends a few seasons ago, i spent one single demo day at cannon on a $20 lift ticket and no demo fee trying out 9 or 10 different pairs. back then i was huge into volkl and would never have considered the legend if i hadn't demoed whereas the 724pro just didn't do it for me at all, would have made a mistake following a preferred brand if i hadn't tried them.


highpeaksdrifter said:


> Anyways, say someone demos 20 skis, does that person drive themselves nuts wondering if they had just demoed that 21st ski that would be it.


you don't need to demo 20 skis. say, one in the preferred class from the major half dozen or so manufacturers. toss in three or four more of the other players and you have a solid day on rentals. would someone drive themselves nuts if they could have had a better purchase? not unless they didn't like the ski they purchased. but if you demo a lot of skis, you realize you might have been less happy if your first gut choice wasn't the one you liked best. i consider demoing a very cheap insurance policy against wasting time and money.

that said, i have purchased many skis without demoing. i have purchased a few due to prior experience with similar skis from the same brand (loved the volkl p40 so the p50 was a no brainer and good choice... loved the 8000 so the 8800 equiv last seasons model was a no brainer). but i have also bought a ski without demoing that didn't suit me and i am taking a loss and reselling it after skiing it only one day. it can work both ways. demoing isn't always the best course of action and even though i am a big advocate for it, i regularly purchase without demo and believe it is okay in many situations.

i advocated strongly in this case as it doesn't seem like saus is really familiar with the choices on the market from a first person perspective. all the skis in a certain class may indeed be great skis, but great skis are not always great fits for individuals. i have skied on lots of "great skis" that i hated.

all that said, saus... if you got a proform deal, you might as well go for it. you could likely turn around and sell those puppies at a profit even if you don't like them


----------



## saus (Sep 5, 2006)

All good points, my friend. My point is this: I want to buy and ski the AC4 over the course of a season. I just want to. One run, one day, one week won't do it. Near the end of the season, I'll post my solidly developed opinion.

Besides - being a reasonable guy, I consider this: They look soooo cool! and they're *RED*!!!! 

How can I go wrong?! 

Cheers! :beer:


----------



## tree_skier (Sep 6, 2006)

I demoed the 06/07 AC4 at the end of last season and loved it.  It would be the first ski in my quiver  after the race boards.  I liked it much better the the supersports, but not as much as the racetiger race stock.  The supersports were like the racetiger's ugly sister who took the short bus.  Whereas the AC4's were more like the brunette vs. the blonde.  As you may guess the racetigers were awesome on NE packed powder and not as good in the corn/mashed potatos/ bumps of spring.  While the AC4's took a little more work to perform on the firm stuff (although I thought they were as good as the supersports) they were just unbelievable on the spring conditions and very enjoyable in the big soft bumps on beartrap.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 6, 2006)

tree_skier said:


> I ) they were just unbelievable on the spring conditions and very enjoyable in the big soft bumps on beartrap.



I'm sure not trying to tell you that you didn't like them, but what mid-fat isn't in those conditions.


----------



## saus (Sep 6, 2006)

Over the years, I've noticed that some are better than others. I think that's what tree_skier means.


----------



## tree_skier (Sep 7, 2006)

They were far better then Fischer's similar offering and although not as good as the racetigers on hardpack as good as the supersports.  The AC4's are what I am looking to get for my wife.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

If your wife doesn't mind your sharing this: Her height, weight, years of experience, and ability level.


----------



## tree_skier (Sep 7, 2006)

saus said:


> If your wife doesn't mind your sharing this:
> Her height 5' 10
> weight not going to say  but a little less then me
> years of experience 30
> and ability level can ski anything but prefers groomed cruisers.



She currently skis salomon sl race skis about 6 years old.  She would be much happier when conditions aren't groomed on a different ski


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

OK, then, TS! What is _your_ weight?

My stats are 5'8", 163 lbs and shooting for 150, 64 years old (65 in Oct) and shooting for 1000, skiing since I've been 50 yo but I'm just an average skier. There are DEFINITELY places which I can survive but not actually ski. Improving with age.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 7, 2006)

tree_skier said:


> The AC4's are what I am looking to get for my wife.



They make women's skis for a reason. AC4 would be too much ski for all but very powerful expert women. Most women are just not as strong or quick in their movements to handle that ski.

My daughters about 5'9" and an advanced skier. We each have demo bindings so one run we switched and she took a run on my Top Fuels. It only lasted about 500 feet. She couldn't wait to get her own skis back.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

Fascinating! The women with whom I ski use the same skis that the guys do. I never heard any of them mention a "women's ski". Feel fortunate they're not hearing your comment while standing nearby. In all candor, the cmment sounds entirely patronizing to women.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 7, 2006)

saus said:


> In all candor, the cmment sounds entirely patronizing to women.


his comment is not at all patronizing to women. the ski industry is quickly realizing that men's body's and the physics exerted by the different sexes are different. most ski manufacturers are coming out with entire lines of skis more dedicated to women's physiques and builds. how is it patronizing to suggest women use skis designed for their physiques that are different than a males? HPD did after all point out that some women could easily handle the biggest and burliest of skis, but most women won't.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

Of course, we're all entitled to our own opinions, including me and many women who don't buy into the need for "women's" special skis. Also, this post replied to a guy who says he's getting them fpor his wife. Perhaps others who don't know her know better than he and his wife just what she needs -  but I doubt it. Since the "what women's skis are made for" responded to that post, it came across to me - and still does - as patronizing to women. As I say, we're all entitled to our opinions, patronizing or not, and in my opinion, the post was - is - gratuitously patronizing to women. That doesn't mean the guy needs to be worked over with a wet noodle or banned from interacting with women ever again - he just stated his opinion. I just stated mine.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 7, 2006)

saus said:


> In all candor, the cmment sounds entirely patronizing to women.



In all candor I resent your accusation. The purpose for recreational skiing is to have a good time. If a person (man or woman) is on a ski that is too difficult to turn for them it isn’t pretty and it’s not fun for the person. Truthfully based on what you’ve written about your own ability I would have to say the AC4 is probably too much ski for you. Men often let their egos get in the way when buying the correct equipment for themselves, most women I know don’t suffer from that problem.

I sell skis to women patrollers and instructors all the time, a few want men’s skis and benefit from them, but most want nothing to do with them.

I have a feeling you try to talk the gear talk, but your knowledge in reality is limited.

Below is a link about women’s skis written by a woman, one of hundreds you can find searching the Internet.

http://www.winterfeelsgood.com/winterfeelsgood.php?section=gear&page=buy_w_skis

I would like to hear the opinions of our female members.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

My goodness! No problem! You have a point! and you're right - I'm not only an average skier (and that's no brag - I'm really that good), I also don't know squat about skis. Haven't I said I'm buying them because they're _*RED*_ and look cool in the lift line?:grin: 

In all candor, I wish I'd posted that in different language after waaaaay more careful thought. Bear in mind I was not intending to judge you, I was giving my opinon on your post. If my post conveyed otherwise, that's my error. Please accept my apology.

Some women in the business are strong advocates for gender (woman) specific skis. Some women in the business thinks that's rubbish. My own wifey is a level 5 on a good day (she doesn't ski all that much) and she just detests the "woman" things people have done to her boots and bindings. No more heel lifts, etc. She's happier on other stuff.

If I said that I've skied with my wife for six years, she's a strong skier, she was on ABC skis and didn't like them in crud, and so I was getting her some XYZ skis for that, I probably wouldn't want to argue with someone - who's never even met her - that my choice (and hers) is wrong based on her gender. However, that person STILL would be entitled to his opinion no matter HOW patronizing it seems to me.

Even we average skiers who don't know squat about skis are entitled to our opinions. For heavens sake! No offense intended! Here -  :beer:  I-  owe you a beer when we meet. Fresh tracks to you.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

I won't resist making a comment about Lisa's article. She's doing the same thing - making statements about problems caused by being a female skier. My concern about that is - many men have the same problems. Maybe it's their weight or weight distribution, maybe it's their athletic abilities - whatever. Many of these men can benefit from what are called "women's skis" - but they won't. They don't want to be "girlly men".

Sure, woman are built differently than men (_Gott sie dankte_). But women are built differently from each other, men are built differently from each other, and we all have different neervous systems. Why not deal with individuals in skiing? 

The women who have argued for women specific equipment are very convincing to a very large market. Frankly - I mean, in a ll candor - I'm delighted with what these women they bring in to the skiing market. I also listen to the other women - professionals and recreational skiers.

Anyway, debates that argue issues are good for the sport.

Excuse me, must go now.  I have a craving to look at the pictures of my red skis. I'll let you know at the end of the season whether that color helps me to ski better, or not.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 7, 2006)

saus said:


> Please accept my apology.



Apology? No need I liked your post.  I like to mix it up sometimes and defend my position. U called me out a little and I hit back a little, that's all.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 7, 2006)

saus said:


> . Many of these men can benefit from what are called "women's skis" - but they won't. They don't want to be "girlly men".
> 
> .



Of course they won’t, they’d be laughed off the hill. There’s also no reason to cause there are all sorts of men’s soft flex, easy turners on the market. 

Also take a look at the graphics lately on women’s skis, very feminine. I think that’s empowering for women. In a sport where men make up the vast majority, it’s saying the ladies are here too.


----------



## saus (Sep 7, 2006)

Hey, HPD, if this rings the bells and brings the people into the church, who can complain.

I sure would like to hear from women on this forum. ARE there any? Speak to us, PLEASE!:grin:


----------



## tree_skier (Sep 8, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> They make women's skis for a reason. AC4 would be too much ski for all but very powerful expert women. Most women are just not as strong or quick in their movements to handle that ski.
> 
> My daughters about 5'9" and an advanced skier. We each have demo bindings so one run we switched and she took a run on my Top Fuels. It only lasted about 500 feet. She couldn't wait to get her own skis back.




As a race coachI have yet to see any women racing on women skis. 

 Also if you dig into the tech. data the big difference between most womens skis and mens of the same product slot is graphics and perhaps a softer flex.  Some have identical specs.  So should a 5'10 180 lb strong female be on a womens ski that may be softer then a mens and a 5'4 130 lb seditary man be on a mans ski that may be stiffer?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 8, 2006)

tree_skier said:


> As a race coachI have yet to see any women racing on women skis.



I wasn't referring to women who race, that's a whole different deal. You as a race coach know that better then I.


----------



## tree_skier (Sep 8, 2006)

My wife doesn't race anymore but still loves the slalom skis, just doesn't like how they ski off of a smooth surface thus the AC4 option


----------



## saus (Sep 8, 2006)

Great experiment: Conceal all graphics and markings on a set of unisex and women's skis. Take ten average men and ten average women of comparable weight ranges. Have them evaluate the skis. Be sure that the lenghts are appropriate for weight/height of each skier. Then . . .


----------



## BeanoNYC (Sep 8, 2006)

saus said:


> Great experiment: Conceal all graphics and markings on a set of unisex and women's skis. Take ten average men and ten average women of comparable weight ranges. Have them evaluate the skis. Be sure that the lenghts are appropriate for weight/height of each skier. Then . . .



Good idea.....Beano likey.


----------



## saus (Sep 23, 2006)

bump


----------

