Why did I hate these skis?
Penny Schwyn
all day. I was disappointed and kinda pissed by the end of the day.
Numerous folks whose opinion I generally value told me I would like them.
The skis were 180; This is my length is a conventional ski. Should I have
gone shorter? I did have the binding set 1 cm forward, this has been great
on other skis.
Conditions were about 6" of new, heavy powder; mashed potato-ey by the end
of the day. No groomed, not that I care about that, but it would have been
nice to see how they performed on the groomed.
The skier: I felt like I could never get on top of them; fighting to make
them turn. Probably a combination of kinda difficult conditions ( general
consensus) and opeerator error. I have been trying various mid-fat skis;
these are the first ones that I didn't just hop onto and go "oh, yeah....!!"
Too long perhaps? ( I demoed a x-mtn p6 176cm ? and k2 xflite in a 170,
both were great) I have just made the breakthrough recently of staying out
of the backseat on a consistent basis ( I don't have to think about it all
the time now) and being able to get right on top of my skis, and that is
what I was fighting with all day. And then DH says, well you have to ski
that stuff sitting back a little bit...
<sigh> venting done. I am getting another weekend's worth of free demo's,
this time an ATL in a 170. Not my first choice, but the price is right!
We'll try them out at Red this weekend, eh?
Penny
Penny Schwyn
Bob Kirk wrote in message <7avu7b$soh$1...@wolf.interlynx.net>...
>ps. hows the pow at red ?
I'll let you know on Monday. TB is forcing me to write a trip report, but
I'll have to say it was good even if it's ice. Warming trend predicted;
keep your fingers crossed...
Penny
Kevin McDonald
Penny Schwyn wrote in message <36d36...@news.nextdim.com>...
>I took some Dynastar ATV's out on Sunday, and boy, I was fighting with them
>all day. I was disappointed and kinda pissed by the end of the day.
>Numerous folks whose opinion I generally value told me I would like them.
>The skis were 180; This is my length is a conventional ski. Should I have
>gone shorter? I did have the binding set 1 cm forward, this has been great
>on other skis.
Try different brands, models, and lengths.
I tried a K2 explorer in 193, too long. K2 Four in 188 was pretty good.
Volkl Cross Ranger in 190 was a little heavy in the tail but I got used to
it.
Atomic 9.18 in 190 was awkward to turn. Atomic 9.22 Beta Cruise in 190 was
GREAT! both crud and groomed. It's expensive though--I'm 6'2" and 200
pounds.
I've also tried K2 X-15 in 183 and K2 Merlin VI in 193. Both were ok, but
that's all.
Use what feels good to you and ignore the hype and ski what feels right. Who
knows, the ATL skis might be perfect for you, or perhaps not.
Right now I'm leaning towards the Atomic 9.22 and the Volkl Cross Ranger,
but first I have to convince my wife . . . .
Good Ol' Ed
>
> Penny Schwyn <mailto:psc...@nextdim.com> wrote:
> >.... I have been trying various mid-fat skis;
> >these are the first ones that I didn't just hop onto and go "oh,
> yeah....!!"
>
> pair of Dynastars I tried (last year's 4x4's) with similar observations as
> yours. I had told my brother he would like these new skis and those were
> the first he tried. He hated them as well. It sounds like the conditions we
> had that day were similar to yours.
>
> Make sure you try the Olin Selkirks and/or Rossignol XXs if you are still
> searching.
Mikey, where is joke?
Good Ol' Ed
You commin to wissler?
Bob Kirk
> all day. I was disappointed and kinda pissed by the end of the day.
> Numerous folks whose opinion I generally value told me I would like them.
> The skis were 180; This is my length is a conventional ski. Should I have
> gone shorter? I did have the binding set 1 cm forward, this has been great
> on other skis.
> of the day. No groomed, not that I care about that, but it would have been
> nice to see how they performed on the groomed.
> The skier: I felt like I could never get on top of them; fighting to make
> them turn. Probably a combination of kinda difficult conditions ( general
> these are the first ones that I didn't just hop onto and go "oh, yeah....!!"
> both were great) I have just made the breakthrough recently of staying out
> of the backseat on a consistent basis ( I don't have to think about it all
> the time now) and being able to get right on top of my skis, and that is
> what I was fighting with all day. And then DH says, well you have to ski
> that stuff sitting back a little bit...
>
> <sigh> venting done. I am getting another weekend's worth of free demo's,
> this time an ATL in a 170. Not my first choice, but the price is right!
> We'll try them out at Red this weekend, eh?
>
> Penny
>
>
Listen up. There are lots of skis out there. Some are 'right' for you.
NO ONE can pre-predict what you will like. I've tried a lot this year
and each one performed differently. Some that my friends liked felt
chattery for me, although they looked good on them. You gotta try lots.
And then trust your instincts, regardless of whats written in the mags
or what your buddies say. YOU will feel a difference, for the kind of
skiing you do.
pigo
Penny Schwyn wrote in message <36d36...@news.nextdim.com>...
(snip)
In any given group/type of ski by a major manufacturer, they're the same,
IMO.
You know sometimes you just have a bad day. Maybe too much thought about the
new demo's, and not just going out and skiing.
pigo
Let Mikey Ski It!
>these are the first ones that I didn't just hop onto and go "oh,
yeah....!!"
Of all the skis I have demoed, I reacted exactly the same way to the one
pair of Dynastars I tried (last year's 4x4's) with similar observations as
yours. I had told my brother he would like these new skis and those were
the first he tried. He hated them as well. It sounds like the conditions we
had that day were similar to yours.
Make sure you try the Olin Selkirks and/or Rossignol XXs if you are still
searching.
Mike...
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Saemisch, Littleton, Colorado
Bishop, Breckenridge Ward, Summit County Stake, Church of Vail
Visit me at http://www.seqnet.net/~msaemisch
Carpe powder-diem.
Remington
general classification of high speed crud busters. I am curious. When you
moved the bindings forward one cm, did you do that on other models of semi
fat, and get good performance? Or, did you move the bindings forward one cm
on other, non-semi-fat skis, and get good performance? We are trying to get
an understanding of moving the bindings forward on shaped skis for women.
AT Remington, we are not believers in shaped skis specifically designed, and
labeled, "women's" skis, due to the manner in which shaped skis are
inherently made, i.e., soft enough back and front for the "shape" to work.
However, there are some skis that women generally prefer, on which you can
stand centered, or, slightly forward, and easily "drive" them down the
mountain. Some are women's skis;t some are not.
In semi fats, there are a couple of models that women prefer over others,
and, if you send me a note, I'll try and dig out that information for you.
Lastly, ski semi fats shorter, rather than longer, for best all around
performance. Remember that most of the semi fat models are designed for
high speed, and the shorter models will take the speed very well. At
Remington, we always recommend, in semi fats to go to the shortest model,
recommended, and then test it for speed. If it feels unstable, go up one
size, and that size will usually fit, as the best combination of ease of
turning, and proficiency at speed.
I don't have any semi fats in inventory for close-out, but I hope this
information helps you. Remington.
Penny Schwyn wrote in message <36d36...@news.nextdim.com>...
>I took some Dynastar ATV's out on Sunday, and boy, I was fighting with them
>all day. I was disappointed and kinda pissed by the end of the day.
>Numerous folks whose opinion I generally value told me I would like them.
>The skis were 180; This is my length is a conventional ski. Should I have
>gone shorter? I did have the binding set 1 cm forward, this has been great
>on other skis.
>Conditions were about 6" of new, heavy powder; mashed potato-ey by the end
>of the day. No groomed, not that I care about that, but it would have been
>nice to see how they performed on the groomed.
>The skier: I felt like I could never get on top of them; fighting to make
>them turn. Probably a combination of kinda difficult conditions ( general
>consensus) and opeerator error. I have been trying various mid-fat skis;
>these are the first ones that I didn't just hop onto and go "oh,
yeah....!!"
Kevin
>
> "Penny Schwyn" <psc...@nextdim.com> writes: > I took some Dynastar ATV's out on Sunday, and boy, I was fighting with them
> > all day. <SNIP>
By all means don't try the 4x4s then. They are ATVs with lifter
plates. I just got back from a week at Big Sky (3' of pow during the
week!) and absolutely loved my 4x4s. They floated through the pow. All
I had to do was lay they on edge, like I was on the groomed, and they
made their turn and popped up for air and then dove right back in.
Easily the most fun I've ever had in the light stuff.
Concerning the mid fat skis, I find that it helps me to try and stay
more centered front-to-back and stay off the front of my boots so much.
This really seems to let the ski do the work instead of my knee
ligaments.
I just switched from Rossi Viper X 193 to the Dynastar 4x4 180 and they
are much easier for me to turn, but don't feel nearly as stable when I
lay them flat and let them run. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make.
As everyone here will tell you; Demo, Demo, Demo!
Good Luck finding your skis,
Kevin Staton
Knoxville Ski Club
Southeastern Skiing - All terrain ice skating!