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

"feel" again

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
Going back to original post, Taking out the exceptions of the super premium skis (stockli, renoun, custom boutique skis) that have some high technology in them to do magic without weight;
I think original question is the one factor you are looking for to describe "dampness" is 2sheets of metal. Typically, my limited experience is if you got the 2 sheets of metal then you got yourself a big mtn ski where that mass is going to eat up the crud. Plus use demo bindings that adds a rail and/or aaaaaatacks with binding elasticity for more dampening.
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Metal comes in different thickness sheets, it's not all the same. It also depends what the core is they bond to. The original Kastle Fx84 had two thin sheets. It wasn't a super damp ski, kind of light damp, nor was it stiff or burly. It certainly did not eat up crud. Didn't have very good edge hold, but It had excellent snow feel. Loved that ski despite serious faults.

The Fx95hp of recent vintage is completely different. I'm not sure what the metal sheet configuration is. It's not particularly damp. Snow feel is vague. I found it noisy in an annoying way on icy wet crystalline snow. It's a better resort performer than the old fx84 but I'll take the old one.

The old Stockli VXL (09,10?) was a very well done damp tank. We did ski it with a Vist quicklock plate on it, the setup was heavy like a race ski. Really nice though, and fun, not dead.

The Kastle Mx83 navigated dampness, quickness, liveliness about as well as has been done. The big problem was sizing. The 173 was a great ski, just somewhat short. The 183 likely too big, never tried it.

Never liked the feel of the Atomic non laminated skis like their beta tubes. Didn't like the sound either.

Then there's Stockli's baby seal skin feel. Some of them really feel like they have it. It is somewhat unique.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
The old Stockli VXL (09,10?) was a very well done damp tank. We did ski it with a Vist quicklock plate on it, the setup was heavy like a race ski. Really nice though, and fun, not dead..

The Stockli Snake and Snake BC of that vintage is what I picture OP looking for as optimal. Softer and more compliant than the VXL, feels like it is soft enough to vibrate like crazy but all the vibrations are low-frequency and controllable, like a hammock for your feet. The subsequent Stormrider TTs were a little bit like that, but you had to look for it.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Can he handle the graphics? That was a low point in Stockli graphics.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
Can he handle the graphics? That was a low point in Stockli graphics.

Oh come on. Like there is a single person out there who doesn't love neon cobras mating with grey battleships, with thorns deer antlers and barbed wire for highlights? The things you say. :nono:

Metal comes in different thickness sheets, it's not all the same.

Case in point - woven steel sheet:

https://www.pugski.com/threads/mr95-grand-touring-build-5-days-of-discovery.13612/
 
Last edited:

Jersey Skier

aka RatherPlayThanWork or Gary
Skier
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,956
Location
Metuchen, NJ
I've taken the liberty of cutting out a response from another thread. It addresses something that I've often thought about, which is the "feel" of skis.

Quote: "If I’m looking for something light and lively with lots of energy, I lean towards Fischer and Dynastar. If you like something not quite as lively but damper at speed I think of Head and maybe Blizzard."

Here's the question/wonder/discussion point: I really like damper, solid skis -- I think. I'm 64 and have bad knees, so I don't want a ski that is light, "boingy", tossed around. I bought my Kastle MX78's b/c they were supposed to be one of the dampest, skis around. But...I also have a pair of Fischer Motive 95's, and I LOVE them and have never felt they were too light, insubstantial, "boingy". So is the characteristic quoted above wrong? Do I maybe not like damp skis as much as I think? Is there really a "Brand" feel that cuts across all offerings (for instance, I've never bonded w/Salomon skis b/c two demos convinced me they made skis too light)? Are the words folks using not precise enough or perhaps not as agreed-upon as I think? Besides the obvious "different reactions from different folks" answer, is there any answer to these questions?

I have similar taste in skis. I really liked the MX78's except the tails would kick my ass in the bumps. Stockli AX78's solved that issue, though I still suck in the bumps. Motive 95 is probably my all time favorite ski that just clicked with me from the first turn. I still consider buying another pair on Ebay for when mine die.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top