What ski to buy? Advice please.

[Steve Harter]

I'd like to buy something my son and I can both ski on.
Details:
Dad: 6'1", 185 lbs., 39 years old.
Son: 6'2", 160 lbs., 14 years old.
This is our second season of slalom skiing.
We're skiing on an older 67" Jobe. (hand-me-down from a friend)
We skied our first season on a wide, shaped ski. (O'Brien Freecarve - great
for practicing deep-water starts, but...)

What do the different bottom types (narrow/wide concave/conical tunnels....)
really do for you? Our ski has a concave tunnel with about 3cm of flat space
near the edge with a beveled (45 deg) edge. This type, I assume, is for
recreational skiers. How would a wider concave tunnel differ? A conical
tunnel? What is easier to get and hold on edge through turns and wakes? I've
read what it's supposed to do but I guess I'd like to hear what it "feels"
like.

Any recommendations? I know I should have a 69" ski. I rode a friend's 67"
Connelly Revolution yesterday which started nice and seemed to transition
better edge to edge than the Jobe.

My son want's to know which type of ski throws more spray. ;-)

Thanks in advance.
-Steve

--
Remove _NOSPAM_ from e-mail address before sending.
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Harter
sha...@mindseye.mv.com
Merrimack, NH, USA

[Lifespeed]

The edge-to-edge concave are easy to roll onto an edge. They
cut hard, and seem to decelerate well, as a consequence of
their higher drag. They can also be "twitchy" if you try to
ski in a straight line.

The tunnel concave require a bit more effort to turn, have
less drag, don't slow quite as easily into the turn, and
accelerate very hard towards the wake.

Generalizations, of course. The actual implementation has
alot of influence on the handling, also.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

[H2Oskierc]

The Mapple Siege is great, I can't tell you what size to get, but I love it.
It seems to decelerate on a dime, and accelerate even faster. I have found
that is is the best ski.

[Mark Kovalcson]

You left out a few things.

Are you and your son wanting to ski the slalom course or open water ?
What are you doing for binders ? Are they adjustable ?
What speed are you going ?

--

Mark Kovalcson
http://www.perfectpull.com
Waterski Training Equipment

[Mark Kovalcson]

There are probably a lot of skis to pick from that would satisfy your
needs at this point. When you both decide to ski the course, you might
want to consider having different skis that are fit closer for each of
you.

The current KD3000 ski is based on the Kidder Hammer which I considered
a very forgiving ski. It also has a wider body than some others its
size. At 30-32 mph a 67" ski with binders set neutral might work well
enough for both of you. The KD3000 will get you into the ski course as
well. As slow as you are going it might make sense to get a 68" ski and
put the binders back a notch. I don't think it will hurt him any and you
will be less worn out skiing it. Then if you make the move to the slalom
course, you already have a ski that should fit you and you could get a
smaller one for him. Also having the binders back will probably save you
from some crashes across the wake.

That's my 2 cents.

Steven Harter wrote:
>
> >Are you and your son wanting to ski the slalom course or open water ?
>

> Mostly open water. Skiing a course is probably a couple seasons away.

>
> >What are you doing for binders ? Are they adjustable ?
>

> Yes, but don't need to be. We are within a half-shoe-size of each other.

>
> >What speed are you going ?
>

> 30-32 mph
>
> Thanks
> -----
>
> Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <37CA3735...@perfectpull.com>...

--

[Slalomgrl9]

>The current KD3000 ski is based on the Kidder Hammer which I considered
>a very forgiving ski. It also has a wider body than some others its
>size. At 30-32 mph a 67" ski with binders set neutral might work well
>enough for both of you. The KD3000 will get you into the ski course as
>well. As slow as you are going it might make sense to get a 68" ski and
>put the binders back a notch. I don't think it will hurt him any and you
>will be less worn out skiing it. Then if you make the move to the slalom
>course, you already have a ski that should fit you and you could get a
>smaller one for him. Also having the binders back will probably save you
>from some crashes across the wake.
>

I have a KD 3000 and i love it, except for one thing..i cant seem to slice
through the wakes too good...my uncle thought the same thing when he tried it
(he uses a goode) and my aunt couldnt either (shes on a camille synergy)..

[Mark Kovalcson]

Slalomgrl9 wrote:
>
> I have a KD 3000 and i love it, except for one thing..i cant seem to slice through the wakes too good...my uncle thought the same thing when he tried it (he uses a goode) and my aunt couldnt either (shes on a camille synergy)..

My Hammer also required effort to keep on edge, unlike the KD7000 or my
Iconn which love to be on edge. There is a trade off between performance
and stability, but I think stability is the way to go in the beginning.
I used my Hammer for 5 years. I probably should have traded up sooner,
but I didn't. On the other hand one of the guys in my ski club was
running 32 off on his.

[Steven Harter]

Thanks for your two cents. You were the only one who responded
and every little bit helps.
I guess we'll wait until next season to upgrade. We're having a tough
time finding a spotter to go along so we're not skiing as much as we
should.
One last question: What problems would a recreational skier have
with a ski such as the Kidder Redline Classic? (you mentioned the
Hammer and this is supposed to be based on it)

Thanks,
-Steve

Mark Kovalcson wrote in message <37CC59FD...@perfectpull.com>...

>There are probably a lot of skis to pick from that would satisfy your
>needs at this point. When you both decide to ski the course, you might
>want to consider having different skis that are fit closer for each of
>you.
>

>The current KD3000 ski is based on the Kidder Hammer which I considered
>a very forgiving ski. It also has a wider body than some others its
>size. At 30-32 mph a 67" ski with binders set neutral might work well
>enough for both of you. The KD3000 will get you into the ski course as
>well. As slow as you are going it might make sense to get a 68" ski and
>put the binders back a notch. I don't think it will hurt him any and you
>will be less worn out skiing it. Then if you make the move to the slalom
>course, you already have a ski that should fit you and you could get a
>smaller one for him. Also having the binders back will probably save you
>from some crashes across the wake.
>

[Mark Kovalcson]

Steven Harter wrote:
>
> Thanks for your two cents. You were the only one who responded
> and every little bit helps.
> I guess we'll wait until next season to upgrade. We're having a tough
> time finding a spotter to go along so we're not skiing as much as we
> should.
> One last question: What problems would a recreational skier have
> with a ski such as the Kidder Redline Classic? (you mentioned the
> Hammer and this is supposed to be based on it)

Actually the Hammer is a more stable ski that was originally based on
the Redline which hunted for edge more. In other words the Redline was
harder to control.

I have a 1993 66" Kidder Hammer with Medium double highwraps and cover
that I have been trying to sell. It would make your son a great ski and
I will part with it cheap. The ski is a little stained, but the binders
are in very good condition and I have size 9.5-10 feet. Email me if you
are interested. You still might want to find a 68" KD3000 which would
be very similar to the Hammer. I will be selling my 1998 68" Iconn blank
shortly, but I think it would be a bad match for you at this point.