Suitability of new carving skis? Atomic C-9 -v- Rossignol Passion -v- Head Intelligence C160
catto
to suitability, second as to size.
I guess I'm an intermediate level ( Snow & Rock's classification 5-6 )
on-piste skier in crowded European ski resorts, skiing 1 week annually
and a total of about 15 weeks. I like skillful turning rather than
high speed. I'm out to enjoy myself, not wipe-out. I've always used
hire skis.
I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg.
I short-listed Atomic C9 160cm as a suitable carving ski for me.
Instead I bought Rossignol Passion Classic women's (112-69-95) 154cm
2006-07 model. But I 'm also interested in Head Intelligence C160
156cm which had good reviews and have been offered it pre-owned so to
speak.
Any advice about the skis appreciated, especially from anyone who has
tried them.
Walt
> ...I'm an intermediate level on-piste skier
> I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg.
Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system.
>
> I short-listed Atomic C9 160cm as a suitable carving ski for me.
> Instead I bought Rossignol Passion Classic women's (112-69-95) 154cm
> 2006-07 model. But I 'm also interested in Head Intelligence C160
> 156cm which had good reviews and have been offered it pre-owned so to
> speak.
>
> Any advice about the skis appreciated, especially from anyone who has
> tried them.
I've skied both the Atomic C9 and the Head iC160. They're pretty
similar: an all around amiable ski for usage on groomed snow. Pretty
forgiving, easy to ski, yet with excellent edge hold and a decent level
of performance if you ask them for it. You're not going to win any
Masters events them, and you should look elsewhere if you want to go at
mach 9 or spend much time off-piste, but for the intermediate to
advanced skier who mostly stays on the groomed, either will be fine.
The standard advice is try before you buy, but if I had to pick a ski
for someone to buy without trying first, I'd go with the C9 - everybody
I've talked to who's tried them (or their predecessor, the 9-18) liked
them, even if it wasn't their favorite. The Head iC160 is similar
enough that it might qualify too. There are other skis out there that
people either love or hate, these aren't in that category.
I've never heard of the Rossignol Passion Classic, much less skied on
them. You're on your own there.
If the pre-owned Head's are from a friend, see if you can borrow them
for a day and see for yourself. You'll need to have the bindings
adjusted to your boots, but any ski shop can usually do that in a matter
of minutes.
//Walt
Harry Weiner
wrote this crap:
>catto wrote:
>
>> ...I'm an intermediate level on-piste skier
>> I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg.
>
>Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system.
Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just
don't have a way to calculate metric into normal.
Oh, wait... this is a computer.
He's just too short for his weight.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
Walt
> Walt <walt_...@SHOESyahoo.com> wrote this crap:
>> catto wrote:
>>> I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg.
>> Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system.
>
> Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just
> don't have a way to calculate metric into normal.
Oh, c'mon. Anybody who went to MIT knows that 1 cm == .005876 Smoots.
And anybody who hacked their way through Engineering 101 could calculate
in their head that the OP is 0.9578 Smoots tall.
Didya take Physics for Poets or what?
//Walt
alf
>
> Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just
> don't have a way to calculate metric into normal.
>
> Oh, wait... this is a computer.
>
google for it:
163 cm in inch
gives:
64.1732283 inch
it is very often quite handy ...
A.
alf
> similar: an all around amiable ski for usage on groomed snow. Pretty
> forgiving, easy to ski, yet with excellent edge hold and a decent level
> of performance if you ask them for it.
how do you define 'forgiving', any example of situation where skis are
easy or hard.
A.
Harry Weiner
this crap:
>Harry Weiner wrote:
>> Walt <walt_...@SHOESyahoo.com> wrote this crap:
>>> catto wrote:
>
>>>> I'm 163cm tall and weight 66kg.
>
>>> Lucky for you Horvath doesn't understand the metric system.
>>
>> Of course I do. I'm an engineer, with a degree from MIT. I just
>> don't have a way to calculate metric into normal.
>
>Oh, c'mon. Anybody who went to MIT knows that 1 cm == .005876 Smoots.
What is that in cubits?
>And anybody who hacked their way through Engineering 101 could calculate
>in their head that the OP is 0.9578 Smoots tall.
What is that in cubits?
>Didya take Physics for Poets or what?
I didn't go to MIT. I got a degree from Phoenix, on the internet.
Walt
Mostly it has to do with flex. In very broad terms, a beginner ski will
bend very easily, meaning you don't have to pressure it very hard or be
going very fast to get it to bend and turn. The downside of this is
that when you try to go fast on it the forces are so high that it bends
too much or in an unpredictable way, becoming "squirrelly".
At the other end of the spectrum, "expert" or "racing" skis are designed
to be skied at high speeds and are built to maintain their flex
characteristics at higher forces. This means you have to pressure them
harder to bend and turn, and some won't bend at all until you're going
fairly fast. You have to "work" them harder to ski, and if you don't
use proper technique they'll misbehave. (e.g. if you let your center of
gravity move towards the back of the skis, they'll run away from you.)
Most of us want something in the middle, i.e. a ski that makes the
appropriate compromise between forgiveness and stability at speed.
There's more to it than just stiffness of course.
//Walt
catto
I've decided that this season I'll try the Rossignol Passion Classic
that I'd already bought as the Head skis found another home.