I seem to prefer the "worse" version of a ski

[flbufl]

Yes, Titanal adds dampness to the skis. I have heard the reason is that the natural (vibration) frequency of metal is very different from the natural frequencies of other materials in the skis, e.g., wood, fiberglass.

Titanal definitely does not add longitudinal stiffness to the skis. You can think about how floppy a thin layer of metal is. And I even doubt if it adds any signficant torsional stiffness.

But one important aspect you mentioned is that, usually Titanal version of the skis are stiffer than their non-Titanal counterpart, not because of the metal, but the change of thickness of other materials in the skis (woodcore and fiberglass lamination.)

Also, Titanal itself come with different thickness, ranging from 0.2mm to 1.2mm for the ski industry. For all mountain skis, I personally like a pair with thin Titanal layers. Sadly, most ski manufactures never tell you the thickness of Titanal they use.

n general, skis with metal are torsionally stiffer. Metal doesn't make the ski stiffer longitudanally, but skis with metal are often long. stiffer for other reasons.

Some of the stiffest skis ever built, longitudinally, had no metal in them.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

@James , I hope by detuning the OP means 'softening' the sharpness of the edge. We do that all the time in the shop as the Scout will leave a ski much sharper than most people want, need or can handle. It only takes a few light passes from tip to tail to remove the overly sharp edge a fresh, new tune can have. Additional passes over the contact points and towards the tip or tail of the ski will also make the ski more forgiving.

This is what I meant and I'm pretty sure I was the first to use the word "detune" in the thread. Quite a few people (myself included) do not want the edge of skis outside the side cut to be overly sharp.

You are also completely correct about why I thought that the OP for the thread might prefer them with a less aggressive tune.

 

[James]

@James , I hope by detuning the OP means 'softening' the sharpness of the edge. We do that all the time in the shop as the Scout will leave a ski much sharper than most people want, need or can handle. It only takes a few light passes from tip to tail to remove the overly sharp edge a fresh, new tune can have. Additional passes over the contact points and towards the tip or tail of the ski will also make the ski more forgiving.

Yes, let's hope. We should just call that softening the edge, relieving the sharpness etc. Detune just gets ugly when people go to town. Park skis for rails are detuned underfoot.

Quite a few people (myself included) do not want the edge of skis outside the side cut to be overly sharp.

Don't know what you mean. Doug is talking about the part you ski with. Sidecut in this case. Non skiing edges at the very tip and tail should be round for safety.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Yes, let's hope. We should just call that softening the edge, relieving the sharpness etc. Detune just gets ugly when people go to town. Park skis for rails are detuned underfoot.

I'm not sure why you dislike the use of detune to mean intentionally dulling the edges of skis independent of the extent of the dulling.

Don't know what you mean. Doug is talking about the part you ski with. Sidecut in this case. Non skiing edges at the very tip and tail should be round for safety.

If you have the patience to read some of a 200+ page thread on ON3P skis at teton gravity research you will see a lot of people talking about aggressive detuning of skis beyond the contact point of a rocker line. If you want to read one specific page you can read posts (roughly) 4890 to 4910 where Scott talks about the tune he thinks his skis work best with. I am not sure if we are agreeing when you say tip and tail need to be detuned. We may well not be.

 

[TonyPlush]

The more I think about this, the more I'm killing myself over the decision.

For this gear noob, it seems to me like there's so many variables that it's almost impossible to compare two skis side by side. So I wonder if I led myself down a rabbit hole with this thread.

I started this thread because I thought I had just completed a direct comparison between the Atomic 85s and the Atomic 85 CTIs. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder about the variables:

1) I forgot that I skied the Vantage 85 skis in rental boots, which were 90 flex. (My usual boots are 100 flex)
2) The 85 rentals probably had a different tune than the 85 CTIs that I own.
3) The 85 rentals probably had different bindings than my 85 CTIs.

Between these three variables, I'm worried I'll drop $450 on a new setup for the Atomic 85s and... they'll ski not all that different from the Vantage 85 CTIs that I already own.

Am I totally overthinking this? Should I stop the analysis at "I had a fantastic day on the softer 85s, and a more flexible ski clearly suits my style better, so that's that?"

 

[KingGrump]

Am I totally overthinking this? Should I stop the analysis at "I had a fantastic day on the softer 85s, and a more flexible ski clearly suits my style better, so that's that?"

Yup.

Generally, I like to recommend softer skis for skier that still have to work on their technical skills. The softer skis are more forgiving. More tolerant of minor errors and way less punishing over all. The softer skis will help in the skill development process.
When you feel you can fold the ski at will. Then go buy a higher performance ski for the next part of your journey. The original softer pair will have done its job.

 

[Analisa]

Am I totally overthinking this? Should I stop the analysis at "I had a fantastic day on the softer 85s, and a more flexible ski clearly suits my style better, so that's that?"

Probably, unless there are major differences in the boots and bindings. Like, friends who demo a ski on inbounds gear and then mount a tiny tech touring binding and use fairly light boots can sometimes pick a ski that's a little too much once their powder transfer is diminished on touring gear. But the difference isn't usually super pronounced. I'd give it more thought if the rental boots don't fit nearly as well as the boots you own. Otherwise, the differences are going to be pretty nuanced.

Totally reasonable too. As a smaller woman, I absolutely loved a pair of Line Pandora/Sick Days that I've never heard a single other forum member mention in a positive light. Of the independent reviews I've read, they all tend to agree that it's a great option for your first "big mountain" ski and gets it's best reviews from shorter, lighter testers, progressing intermediate to advanced skiers, and was a great match for exploring off-piste. Described me to a T. I gained a lot of confidence on it. But I can see how a skier who already has a lot of confidence could find them lacking.

I guess another question that'll only complicate your decision - how often do you ski and how fast are you progressing? Do you feel like you're progressing on the CTIs or that getting the softer ski is important for unlocking proper technique?

 

[François Pugh]

The more I think about this, the more I'm killing myself over the decision.

For this gear noob, it seems to me like there's so many variables that it's almost impossible to compare two skis side by side. So I wonder if I led myself down a rabbit hole with this thread.

I started this thread because I thought I had just completed a direct comparison between the Atomic 85s and the Atomic 85 CTIs. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder about the variables:

1) I forgot that I skied the Vantage 85 skis in rental boots, which were 90 flex. (My usual boots are 100 flex)
2) The 85 rentals probably had a different tune than the 85 CTIs that I own.
3) The 85 rentals probably had different bindings than my 85 CTIs.

Between these three variables, I'm worried I'll drop $450 on a new setup for the Atomic 85s and... they'll ski not all that different from the Vantage 85 CTIs that I already own.

Am I totally overthinking this? Should I stop the analysis at "I had a fantastic day on the softer 85s, and a more flexible ski clearly suits my style better, so that's that?"

To use an analogy, consider the skis as tires.
If you did not find that the skis were letting you drift into the ditch as you tried to drive around a turn, the skis are good to go.
Also if the skis did not vibrate excessively as you sped down the hill, the skis are good to go.
On the other hand if you wanted to make a tighter turn at speed and the skis wouldn't do it, or if you found them unpleasantly vibrating out of control, you need the stiffer ski.

 

[TonyPlush]

Yup.

Generally, I like to recommend softer skis for skier that still have to work on their technical skills.

That's definitely me. I can ski most blacks offensively, but I've only got 5 ski seasons under my belt, and outside of one beginner lesson, I'm entirely self taught.

I'd give it more thought if the rental boots don't fit nearly as well as the boots you own. Otherwise, the differences are going to be pretty nuanced.

I guess another question that'll only complicate your decision - how often do you ski and how fast are you progressing? Do you feel like you're progressing on the CTIs or that getting the softer ski is important for unlocking proper technique?

The rental boots were far too loose (probably a full size too big) which I would guess would only make initiating turns harder.

That the 85 wood core with loose boots seemed to perform better than my 85 CTI with well-fitted boots seems to build the case even stronger for the wood core for me. I'd guess that the 85 wood core, with proper fitting boots, should be even better than I remember? (I don't know much about boots, so that's definitely a question, not a statement.)

I ski 8-12 days a year, almost entirely in 3-4 day trips to the Rockies. I've only had the CTIs for one season (8 days) so it's tough to gauge progression so far.

 

[TonyPlush]

On the other hand if you wanted to make a tighter turn at speed and the skis wouldn't do it, or if you found them unpleasantly vibrating out of control, you need the stiffer ski.

Comparing the CTIs to the wood cores, I actually noticed the lack of control most at slower speeds. It happened only occasionally, but I'd go to make a turn and it felt like the input wasn't received, the skis would seem to run away from me, and I'd lose confidence. I experienced it sporadically, but it was definitely a sensation that made me lose confidence in the tighter moguls and trees.

 

[Chris Axebiker]

No such thing as a “worse” model; only a model that’s best for you. Everyone has different preferences and styles, as do skis. Just because it’s lower in the model heirarchy doesn’t mean it’s any better or worse. Preferences vary, which is why so many skis exist in the first place!

 

[Guy in Shorts]

I often love the worse version of a ski and hate the mainstream loved version. Very common occurrence when you become an outlier.

 

[JohnnyG]

Car guys often say that's it's more rewarding to drive a slow car fast, than to drive a fast car slow. The same thing can be applied to skis for their fun factor.

 

[TonyPlush]

Welp, just pulled the trigger on the Atomic 85 wood cores. Wish me luck.

Anyone want to buy some nearly-new 173 cm Atomic Vantage 85 CTIs? Haha...

 

[Andy Mink]

Welp, just pulled the trigger on the Atomic 85 wood cores. Wish me luck.

Anyone want to buy some nearly-new 173 cm Atomic Vantage 85 CTIs? Haha...

Keep 'em! Nothing wrong with a quiver that overlaps some.

 

[TonyPlush]

Welp, just pulled the trigger on the Atomic 85 wood cores. Wish me luck.

Anyone want to buy some nearly-new 173 cm Atomic Vantage 85 CTIs? Haha...

UPDATE:

Took the new Atomic 85 (wood core) out to the local hill for the first time today. Complete with all 255 ft. of vertical, so no bumps or trees to test out.

That said, I started the day with the 85 CTIs with the goal of a direct comparison. The CTIs skied as I remembered. Great for carving but occasional times when they didn't transfer what my brain was thinking into the turn, and instead kept tracking straight or didn't turn as sharp as I wanted.

After an hour, I switched to the 85 wood cores.

First thing I noticed was how much lighter they were. Second thing I noticed was how much flex they had. During the first run I thought I didn't like this. During the second run I had the best run of the day.

From there it just kept getting better, and I felt like the 85 wood cores did EXACTLY what they were told. Compared to the titanium cores, I felt like I could put the wood cores wherever I wanted. They felt like an extension of my brain rather than skis on my feet. The titanium core probably had a little better edge hold at high speed turns, but the wood cores held their own, and they were so much easier to skid turn, swivel, and precision turn wherever I wanted them.

Long story short - I couldn't be happier. Feel like I've found my perfect skis (for now). And lesson learned, more expensive isn't always better.

Cheers, fellow pugskiers. Thanks to everyone who helped me pull the trigger.

PS - anyone want to buy some Vantage 85 CTIs with Marker 11 bindings? 8 total days on the mountain.

 

[TonyPlush]

UPDATE:

Took the new Atomic 85 (wood core) out to the local hill for the first time today. Complete with all 255 ft. of vertical, so no bumps or trees to test out.

That said, I started the day with the 85 CTIs with the goal of a direct comparison. The CTIs skied as I remembered. Great for carving but occasional times when they didn't transfer what my brain was thinking into the turn, and instead kept tracking straight or didn't turn as sharp as I wanted.

After an hour, I switched to the 85 wood cores.

First thing I noticed was how much lighter they were. Second thing I noticed was how much flex they had. During the first run I thought I didn't like this. During the second run I had the best run of the day.

From there it just kept getting better, and I felt like the 85 wood cores did EXACTLY what they were told. Compared to the titanium cores, I felt like I could put the wood cores wherever I wanted. They felt like an extension of my brain rather than skis on my feet. The titanium core probably had a little better edge hold at high speed turns, but the wood cores held their own, and they were so much easier to skid turn, swivel, and precision turn wherever I wanted them.

Long story short - I couldn't be happier. Feel like I've found my perfect skis (for now). And lesson learned, more expensive isn't always better.

Cheers, fellow pugskiers. Thanks to everyone who helped me pull the trigger.

PS - anyone want to buy some Vantage 85 CTIs with Marker 11 bindings? 8 total days on the mountain.

Quick follow up to this. Took the Vantage 85 wood cores to Jackson Hole for the past three days, and I absolutely loved them. I felt incredibly in control of every turn, and I was able to confidently ski the most advanced terrain I ever have. No doubt in my mind, I've found my skis!!!

 

[lrn2swim]

Quick follow up to this. Took the Vantage 85 wood cores to Jackson Hole for the past three days, and I absolutely loved them. I felt incredibly in control of every turn, and I was able to confidently ski the most advanced terrain I ever have. No doubt in my mind, I've found my skis!!!

Nice, good for you man. Makes sense you like the lighter, softer model better. For reference, I ski the 2017 CTI 85's in a 181 for my hardpack only days and I'm 6'0, 215 and have been skiing around 40 days a season for nearly 30 years. Love them, great balance between dampness, stability and pop while still being fairly light and easy to ski. I think they're about the right flex for me if not a little short maybe.