• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

AngryAnalyst

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 31, 2018
Posts
713
I am sure you can understand. However, I believe your understanding is incorrect.

In that case I’ll strengthen my original statement, just get heavy skis for bad snow. Doesn’t matter if you’re 6 or 66. In my defense I’ve only been one of those ages so far.

Was that the direction you were suggesting I move in?
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,287
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
@GregK I have demoed Moment skis. I'm not sure which model but I really liked them in the cruddy conditions at Alpine. They were light enough for me to consider, quick enough to find the way through partially covered bumps, stable enough to give a comfortable feel and carving wonderfully. They might be exactly what I'd use as an example of a light weight crud ski.

Weight reduction is a diminishing returns kind of thing. Going below the 2 kilogram threshold is huge. Going from 1400 grams to 1200 might not be noticed.

Nobody puts lead on their skis to improve them. Unicorn skis (light and stable) are very appealing.

Eric
 

Henry

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Posts
1,229
Location
Traveling in the great Northwest
Last year I skied both my very light Head Kore 99 skis and heavy Atomic Redster G9. I really didn't notice a difference in the weight on the snow. Of course these skis have different characteristics for different snow, but just weight wise I enjoyed both.

When I first got my light weight carbon fiber Dodge boots I noticed the light weight and how I could make quicker movements. Now, 6 years later, I've lost my sense of comparison.

Get the performance you prefer first. If the weight is light, so much the better.
 

AngryAnalyst

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 31, 2018
Posts
713
Nobody puts lead on their skis to improve them.

The quote above is not accurate. Some people strongly prefer heavier skis and go to great lengths to custom build heavier models of some existing skis (see e.g. https://blisterreview.com/gear-reviews/2019-2020-folsom-blister-pro-104). It is true relatively few people put lead tape on their skis to increase damping, though I actually do recall seeing at least one person post pics of lead tape on their skis on another forum some time ago. I can't find it or I'd post it here, it was pretty funny.

That said, I think most people who actively prefer heavy skis value performance characteristics you may not value as highly. While I tend to like heavy skis, I would acknowledge that using them can be more fatiguing than a lighter ski without a big performance benefit in some conditions. On a smooth groomer, for example, a heavier ski is just a heavier ski. It has no magic and unless you are going stupid fast there is little benefit to moving the extra mass around.
 

AngryAnalyst

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 31, 2018
Posts
713
Hard the snow the heavier the skis.
That’s fair, smooth and soft corduroy is not a refrozen ice sheet or injected downhill course and on both of those I would much prefer a heavy ski.

Main point is heavy is better if you have bad snow, it does matter less with better snow.
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
@Eleeski Just saw the Teton Gravity Playground video about Squaw Valley just released and at the end of the video, there is a guy rocking a pair of Moment Wildcats in the powder. It’s meant to be! Haha

Agree on the 2kg minimum of ski weight on skis 180-186cm that are a good mix of playful yet still stable. 2.1-2.3kg is my ski weight “happy place” and I have 4 pairs of skis in this range which are perfect in weight for a playful charger. I’ve had some in the 2.4kg plus skis in the past with a heavy swing weights and they were more work in the air etc for a very slight gain in stability. The ones under 2kg weren’t as fun when things get roughed up.

No one is adding lead to their skis as the manufacturers are already adding metal on the inside to increase weight, dampness and rigidity on their harder charging skis. The difference now is most heavier charging skis with metal are still lighter than many older skis that had lots of heavy fiberglass layers, epoxies and heavy wood cores to increase stiffness and dampness.
 

Eleeski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
2,287
Location
San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
Judging by the responses here, there are people who will search out and buy a ski because it is heavy. There's still a market for them even if there are lighter ways to get the performance.

I wonder if Ligety might have a longer career if his skis were lighter (with the same performance). Race skis are extremely heavy - heavy enough that there are lots of straightforward ways to reduce the weight while maintaining stiffness and damping. Old ways die hard - until Bode wins on shaped skis. It's likely just a matter of time before a breakthrough skier takes advantage of a light race ski.

Phil is right, it is expensive. Glass is $1/yard. Carbon is $1/foot. Boron is $1/inch (and horrible to work with). (Note, these aren't real prices but they do reflect relative costs as strength to weight improves.) I'm building waterskis with Boron reinforcement and it's pretty amazing how strong and light I can go (is boron considered metal? It could certainly replace metal.). My beloved Goode snow skis are ridiculously light in all carbon but quite expensive. I haven't yet skied the Renoun skis but they are supposed to have innovative damping without a lot of added weight. It will take a lot of inspired engineering of these exotic materials to reduce the weight while improving the skiing - but a lot of that is going on now.

Moment, Praxis, Renoun and others are working on it with fun results. Don't automatically assume a ski's properties by its weight.

And I do love my heavy race skis on the boilerplate. But who really loves boilerplate?

Eric
 

Spring1898

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Posts
113
Location
WA
I demoed light vs heavy ski boots back to back. I came from 5lb+ boots and tried 4lb, 3.5lb, and 3lb boots.
Skies were the same for all testing in the 7lb range with binding, and the same slope was run for all boots.

The conditions were typical east coast hard pack, with some fresh made snow on top, some older chunkier stuff, some older ruts, and ice underneath.

What was immediately apparent to me was that the heavier boots bulled through the rougher terrain like a snow plow and had a noticeably dampening effect
Lighter boots bounced over the terrain more, but were noticeably more agile and quicker edge to edge, or perhaps better put they were 'easier' edge to edge.
All boots were the same flex, but I suspect and felt that the lighter boots had less effective flex than the heavier ones.

I personally liked the 3lb boots the best, but they definitely felt more bouncy, and if my skies were not very damp or were much lighter, I imagine that would be magnified.
That probably comes down to personal preference. I prefer a damper setup, my friend likes a much more lively set up. For me the ideal weight probably was around the 3.5lb range, but I really liked the 3lb boots, so that is what I went with.

Strength of the skier would also be a factor. A stronger heavier skier would probably overcome the limitations of the heavier set up easier than a lighter built skier.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
What was immediately apparent to me was that the heavier boots bulled through the rougher terrain like a snow plow and had a noticeably dampening effect
Lighter boots bounced over the terrain more, but were noticeably more agile and quicker edge to edge, or perhaps better put they were 'easier' edge to edge.
All boots were the same flex, but I suspect and felt that the lighter boots had less effective flex than the heavier ones..

You might have fun with the Blister podcast on boot plastics:

https://www.pugski.com/threads/cat-in-a-box.864/page-36

Notice that plastic rebound is a separate control quantity from plastic thickness.

Notice that the density of 'light boot plastics' is often not much different from the density of 'heavy boot plastics' - it's just that it takes to the mould differently.

One takeaway is that properties we observe in the product are *not* necessarily inherent properties of the ingredients - and a lot of properties are functions of design rather than material.
 

Spring1898

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Posts
113
Location
WA
I will have to check it out
It is worth clarifying that the boots were all different brand, and that the heaviest boots were known to be pretty burly, and the lightest pair were known to be on the lighter side of flex besides being all nominally the same flex.
But one thing is sure, a heavier boot feels and reacts differently to flex and stress than a thinly built lightweight one.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
My Tecnica Phnx 90 boots are 2338 grams (5 lbs 2.5 oz) each. and my Salomon X-Wing 10 skis with integrated bindings are 6690 grams (7 lbs 6 oz) each. So that is approx 25+ lbs on my feet, dangling.
Page 2, post 34 and no one has said a word about the set up you're currently skiing.

As many have said, the weight of the gear making a difference depends on the application and what you expect to get out of your gear.
With your current set up, which you seem to be enjoying, is not just heavy-ish, but the difference in something more current, but in that same category will likely be similar in weight, but the performance will blow your mind.

Boots:
If you were to get into a current boot with the lighter weight plastics, trust me when I say, you won't be giving up anything in performance from the Phnx 90. In fact, the consistency in flex in the current plastics will blow your mind.
 
Thread Starter
TS
avgDude

avgDude

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Posts
22
Location
land of misfit toys
Page 2, post 34 and no one has said a word about the set up you're currently skiing.

As many have said, the weight of the gear making a difference depends on the application and what you expect to get out of your gear.
With your current set up, which you seem to be enjoying, is not just heavy-ish, but the difference in something more current, but in that same category will likely be similar in weight, but the performance will blow your mind.

Boots:
If you were to get into a current boot with the lighter weight plastics, trust me when I say, you won't be giving up anything in performance from the Phnx 90. In fact, the consistency in flex in the current plastics will blow your mind.
Thank you for this. I've not been unhappy with the tecnica phnx 90, they have been great. but I'm thinking of new boots and your comments just help reinforce that it is time to upgrade.
 

GregK

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Posts
4,018
Location
Ontario, Canada
What’s interesting is that even today’s heavy, long heavy, charger skis are still lighter than the OP current skis so WHATEVER he chooses will be lighter. Current 130 flex boots are also much lighter so he’ll be lighter without even trying.

As soon as I saw the weight of his gear, I knew that all of his new gear will be lighter and MUCH HIGHER performance levels regardless of what he chooses. My 26.5 130 Flex Atomic Hawx Ultra boots with Intuition liners now weigh 1600 grams and they rock!
Knew the boots would be the even bigger upgrade with the quality of boots and fitting now available.
 
Last edited:

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
As soon as I saw the weight of his gear, I knew that all of his new gear will be lighter and MUCH HIGHER performance levels regardless of what he chooses. My 26.5 130 Flex Atomic Hawx Ultra boots with Intuition liners now weigh 1600 grams and they rock!
Knew the boots would be the even bigger upgrade with the quality of boots and fitting now available.

I said so in post #5 of the thread :D

The other point, and I touched on it in post #5, but still needs amplification, is that 'MUCH HIGHER performance' actually means much different performance. The Xwing 10 was basically a Metron-lite, with a relatively stiff core and consistent front-to-back flex and a three-point sidecut.

The XW10 would do full carved 360s on hardpack; how many non-race modern skis still do that and what category are they in?

Within the set of things that the XWing 10 did well, including hardpack grip, the OP is not going to find significant improvement without stepping up to a significantly higher category of ski.

The higher performance is in all the areas where the XWing 10 felt wanting. Turn shape changeability? New skis will have it, the XW10 didn't, but the user has to want it. Suppleness in broken snow? New skis will have it, the XW10 didn't, but the user has to want it. Easier turn release? New skis will have it, the XW10 didn't, the user has to want it. Float in crud and insensitivity to large snow inputs like coral? New skis will have it, the XW10 had a lot less, is that what the user looking for? Suppleness in mashed potatoes? (Some) new skis will have it, the XW10 didn't, does the user even want it or will they call it 'bounciness' in a bad way?

And so, back to the message from post #5 - the user has to adapt their performance expectations to current ski design. And worrying about lighter weight of the overall package is the very last thing to do- it can only distract from learning what all the new ski designs are about.

And now for another 30 posts of whatevs...
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,298
Location
Reno
Thank you for this. I've not been unhappy with the tecnica phnx 90, they have been great. but I'm thinking of new boots and your comments just help reinforce that it is time to upgrade.
Thanks.
I try really hard to be subtle when I'm telling someone that what they are "currently" skiing on isn't "current. :duck:

Sometimes its because you love your stuff and sometimes its because budget is a concern but either way, I think new boots will open up a whole new ski experience for you
 

Swede

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Posts
2,390
Location
Sweden
Depends what you are doing with your ski and how and where you ski. Weight matters if you are going to carry your equipment a lot (hiking?). Or maybe if you like to "throw the skis around" or do ski ballet or such. I guess it (light weight) can also sell skis in the shop, because a heavy ski might deter someone new to the sport.
Weight has no real impact on performance in regular skiing (race derived piste skiing). Weight is a concequense of the construction and the materials used in the ski, and that's what impacts/dictates the performance. Not really an end goal. So a ski that is (happens to be) heavy and works good in crud and cut up piste, does so because of the construction and materials. Not because it's heavy, per se. I remember the first time I picked up a pair of Elan RCX:s for my then 9 year old daughter. They were 125 or 130:s and weighed about as much or even more than my 80 mm 179 cm double layer TI allmountains. "They are so heavy, should I be worried!?!". The tech coach: "weight is generally a good sign -- it's a proper construction".h
 

Noodler

Sir Turn-a-lot
Skier
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Posts
6,314
Location
Denver, CO
Here's some thought on gear weight that I haven't seen posted/published anywhere previously.

In the golf world we have the term/measurement called swingweight. In reality swingweight tries to provide a relative measurement of the MOI (Moment of Inertia) of the club when swung. Think of the MOI as a measurement of the dynamic heft/effort required to swing the club. Similarly, there is a dynamic effort involved in turning skis; more so for those that twist their skis rather than tip them. The ski MOI also plays into the stability of a ski as it encounters uneven terrain.

So I think it would be interesting to know how the weight is distributed across the length of the ski. Measuring the MOI from the location at the boot midsole point would provide a better indicator of the effort required to pivot the skis and how stable the ski may be. Two different skis could have the same exact weight, but the ski with more weight situated toward the tips and tails is going to ski "heavier" than a ski with the weight more centered under your feet. Having the weight more evenly distributed along the length would probably yield a ski that feels more stable. Too much weight primarily in the tips and tails may adversely impact the stability by creating unwanted vibration down the length of the ski. Of course this is all conjecture on my part because it's not something I've ever measured and then correlated to actual ski performance.

The point of all this is that there is real science behind how skis ski, but the industry is woefully behind other sports, like golf, when it comes to publishing the hard numbers and educating consumers. Without a move in this direction, we must continue to rely on our own demos and subjective reviews.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Andy Mink
    Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Top