Lightest all-mountain ski

Discussion in 'Hardgoods: Skis, Bindings, Poles, and More' started by everest8850, Jun 14, 2018.

Tags:
  1. everest8850

    everest8850 Booting up Skier

    Joined:
    May 6, 2018
    Posts:
    39
    the do it all ski. Commonly
    Known as the ‘all-mountain’ ski. Which models are the lightest? Something that’s under 1400 grams in the 160cm range, 85-90mm underfoot...with a turn radius under 15m. Superlight dedicated skimo skis don’t count
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  2. cantunamunch

    cantunamunch Meh Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Posts:
    5,553
    Careful here - you're setting a loose performance standard and a strict weight standard.

    This leaves the door wide open to posters who claim any skimo superlight is actually an all mountain ski since they are (good enough/silly enough/macho enough, pick your flavour) to use it everywhere.
     
  3. 1chris5

    1chris5 Getting on the lift Skier

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Posts:
    307
    Location:
    Chester Springs, PA
    Here is a comprehensive ski weight list from Evo: weight.
     
  4. Jim McDonald

    Jim McDonald My Sunset View Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2015
    Posts:
    1,040
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Based on the 2018 weights in that chart:
    162 KORE 93 [171 1562g] seems a likely candidate (I demo'd a 180 and could happily own one)

    sorry, didn't notice the radius
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    Tricia and everest8850 like this.
  5. everest8850

    everest8850 Booting up Skier

    Joined:
    May 6, 2018
    Posts:
    39
    Just tightened up the specs .. thanks cantunamunch
     


  6. jmeb

    jmeb Stereotypical Front Range Weekend Warrior Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Posts:
    1,652
    Location:
    Colorado
    Lightest all mountain ski is most certainly going to be a touring ski of some kind. Many uber-lightweigh touring skis can rip the whole mountain, but will never be as damp as a resort specific ski.

    Agree with @Jim McDonald the Kore is in the running for a resort ski. Less weight than that and you're pretty squarely in the the "touring" category. For a touring ski -- there are tons. And many that most resort skiers won't find the top end of. Salomon mtn explore 88 would be ~1200g / ski. Blizzards Zero G 85 similar and stiffer at ~1000g per ski. The 85 is an impressive, though very traditional ski. The Salomon mtn is far more easy going and willing to make a variety of turn shapes while still having a decent top end for more skiers.

    Personally, if I had to go to one ski for aboslutely everything (touring and inbounds), I could be happy on my 1600g 182 Praxis Yetis -- though I'd probably knock of the flex stiffness a bit. Keith would probably make you a set in 162 that'd weight south of 1400g.

    Don't get hung up on radius. Most every manufacturer measures differently, and while its a general guide, without knowing a skis taper length, how the sidecut is shaped, and rocker profile, it doesn't tell you the whole story of how quick it can turn. My 34m radius skis are far easier to pivot quickly in trees than my 18m radius ones.

    tl;dr: Tell us more about how and where you ski if you want a useful recommendation. Otherwise you can get stupid light, even in the 85-90mm category.
     
    cantunamunch likes this.
  7. Doug Briggs

    Doug Briggs Making fresh tracks Pugski Ski Tester Industry Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Posts:
    2,524
    Location:
    Breckenridge, CO
    I find reported radius a good determining factor for how a ski will ski. While comparing an 18m GS cheater ski and an 18 m recreational ski like a K2 Pinnacle will reveal significant differences, the difference between the same K2 and say a Fischer Ranger will be much smaller. They'll ski differently, but the radius information will show a ski that will yield the same general turn characteristics.

    I am curious, @everest8850 , why the focus on lightweight? You don't mention touring where weight is a significant issue for the 'up'.
     
    everest8850 and SkiSpeed like this.
  8. Jilly

    Jilly Lead Cougar Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Posts:
    2,501
    Location:
    Belleville, Ontario,/ Mont Tremblant, Quebec
    I believe this is the member with the leg problem.
     
    everest8850 and Doug Briggs like this.
  9. Eleeski

    Eleeski Out on the slopes Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Posts:
    1,301
    Location:
    San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
    Light skis rock!

    Weight is an important factor in ski performance - but not the most important. Length is pretty critical. I'm not sure that specifying width is all that useful. Radius makes sense and the biggest benefits from a light ski will happen in tighter turns. What are "Superlight dedicated skimo skis"?

    My all around skis are Goode 74. Featherweight! They are a few years old but still rock. Fantastic in bumps. Great in anything soft (spring, crud, packed powder and even if the day turns to powder). Fun for tricks. They aren't great on ice unless the edges are race sharp. They float and wiggle at really high speeds - but that could be my lack of skills/comfort going really fast.

    I also have Praxis Backcountries. Quite light. Fantastic in powder. Great in anything soft. Surprisingly decent on ice. OK in the bumps. I still suck going fast. Between me and my kids, they go out almost everyday.

    My Praxis Yetis (quite light) aren't as all around comfortable. Great in powder and OK elsewhere so they do go out when I'm optimistic. But I am planning for a new pair of Backcountries.

    My Head Super Joys were a little underwhelming. They are big skis, area wise. Still light but not as light as my others. Great in powder and trees but I really didn't bond with them elsewhere. Some of the other Head Joy skis were extremely light but I haven't tried them - yet.

    I use really light bindings to keep the overall weight down. Marker Schizio Squires on the wide skis and Head Railflex light for anything skinny enough. I run DINs around 7. And light boots (Full tilt Maryjane). Light breakfast?

    I do have some heavy skis. They do those heavy ski things well. Cruise lazily around the groomers, hold on the ice and maybe wiggle less at high speeds (except my heaviest skis are SL race skis which do like to turn). Some of the skis I've demoed do like to go fast - even if I don't. But honestly, the best days are days out on something that I can turn quickly and don't wear me out. And don't stress my shoulder getting off the slopes.

    I'm getting older, weaker and slower. Light skis are just less load on me. This lets me ski longer and more aggressively. Maybe not faster but speed is getting more dangerous as my bones get more brittle. In bumps or weird stuff, less weight is magic. Weight is certainly not the only factor in ski performance - but it certainly is one factor.

    Eric
     
    skibum4ever, laine and Pequenita like this.
  10. Doug Briggs

    Doug Briggs Making fresh tracks Pugski Ski Tester Industry Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Posts:
    2,524
    Location:
    Breckenridge, CO
    I have not been impressed with the hard snow performance of light skis. Light skis I've tried have tended to not engage and hold well. Part of it is the weight, but also part of it is what is left out to get the light weight. Metal. Metal dampens and improves a ski's hard snow performance.

    To get a lighter set up, consider lighter bindings and boots, too.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    karlo, surfsnowgirl and markojp like this.
  11. cantunamunch

    cantunamunch Meh Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Posts:
    5,553
    Talking of Goode and leaving out metal, I wonder how much a pair of 160cm Chubbs would have weighed, without the binding.
     
    skibum4ever and Doug Briggs like this.
  12. Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two wheels. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    16,815
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    I agree with 'Tuna, becareful what you ask for. For every benefit there is a cost.
     
  13. jmeb

    jmeb Stereotypical Front Range Weekend Warrior Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Posts:
    1,652
    Location:
    Colorado
    That's interesting since Yeti's are just scaled down Backcountries with a bit of oscillation in the side cut. Yeti's are a softer flex stock though, so maybe that's it? Or maybe Backcountry's aren't UL core stock?
     
  14. Doug Briggs

    Doug Briggs Making fresh tracks Pugski Ski Tester Industry Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Posts:
    2,524
    Location:
    Breckenridge, CO
    Are there scales that go that high?
     
    skibum4ever likes this.
  15. cantunamunch

    cantunamunch Meh Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Posts:
    5,553
    :P

    I was actually thinking they would have been surprisingly *light* - what with the non-structural honecomb core and the extra thin profile.
     
  16. Doug Briggs

    Doug Briggs Making fresh tracks Pugski Ski Tester Industry Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Posts:
    2,524
    Location:
    Breckenridge, CO
    I have some Chubbs. I'll pull the bindings and see. That steel was pretty thick though. You burn through a bit just mounting a set of bindings on them.
     
  17. Philpug

    Philpug Enjoying being back on two wheels. Admin Pugski Ski Tester

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Posts:
    16,815
    Location:
    Reno, eNVy
    Actually Volant's weren't that much heavier than skis of their generation..it was their swing weight that made them feel combersome. Most skis in the 90's were thiker in the center than the Volant's with more material and lighter at the extremities, the Volants were heavy at the tip and tail too.
     
  18. cantunamunch

    cantunamunch Meh Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Posts:
    5,553
    The swing weight feel to me seemed at least partly intentional and definitely made for good marketing copy - remember the 'Perimeter weighting for stability' ads when the Thunderbolt and Z max came out.
     
  19. Eleeski

    Eleeski Out on the slopes Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2015
    Posts:
    1,301
    Location:
    San Diego / skis at Squaw Valley
    I don't know any of the design parameters. Lifting them feels pretty close in weight. Close to the same size and width without measuring them. Same bindings but I did experiment with the Yeti placement more - they ended up a bit further forward to work the best. Noticeable difference in feel between the two skis. The Backcountries are much quicker with a lighter but more stable feel. Big difference on ice - the Backcountries are actually good on ice despite having a lot more days (the Tahoe Snow Lab tune really helped them).

    Both my Praxis skis are short (175 ish) so there can be differences in how the length feels relative to yours. But, I demoed the 185ish Backcountries and found them similar to the shorter ones I bought. Try the Backcountries if you get a chance - I love them!

    Swing weight is as much a feel as an actual weight thing. I've skied some reasonably physically light skis that feel incredibly sluggish and stable. And some skis that try to rip my legs off on the chairlift are remarkably nimble. Whatever, I hate swing weight. What were they thinking?

    Eric
     
  20. cantunamunch

    cantunamunch Meh Skier

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Posts:
    5,553
    That people who dislike 'wobbly' skis would find the concept comforting?

    There is demonstrable popular support for the concept even today, as witness the reviews for Adrian Floreani's https://floskis.com/collections/all systems, which take the concept about as far as it will go.

    (And yes, I did notice that the Floski with the Flosystem taken off reads directly on what OP says he wants).
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice

We respect your privacy. your information is safe and will never be shared