Lightest all-mountain ski

[Eleeski]

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).

Fair enough. But absolutely not for me!

Eric

 

[jack97]

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?

Sally Z12 and Axial3/SPX (Look/Rossi) are light bindings, all including the Marker royal families have elastic travel at the toe piece.

 

[Rod9301]

Just got a pair of Salomon mtn explore 95, and it's a great ski.

 

[jmeb]

Sally Z12 and Axial3/SPX (Look/Rossi) are light bindings, all including the Marker royal families have elastic travel at the toe piece.

All alpine bindings sold these days have elastic travel in the toe piece.

I'd personally stay away from the Z12 toe, though if you're a true lightweight skier its okay.

The Attack 13 is the same (or lower?) weight than most anything else, and is an incredibly reliable binding.

 

[Fuller]

remember the 'Perimeter weighting for stability' ads when the Thunderbolt and Z max came out.

That sounds a bit like the old Ford Mustang ads of the 80's "more road hugging weight"

 

[cantunamunch]

That sounds a bit like the old Ford Mustang ads of the 80's "more road hugging weight"

Doesn't it tho?

 

[everest8850]

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).

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'.

That’s because I’m just getting into touring, so while weight not a huge factor, having a light swing weight for my disabled lower legs would help on an all- mountain ski. Sure there are trade offs, but many AMskis are like 1.7-2kgs per ski(!!). Seems the Salomon Mtn 88 explore is an attempt to produce a touring-biased ski that can also ski on the frontside with extra dampening materials in the ski core

 

[jmeb]

I demo'd the Mtn explore 95. That was a sweet, versatile ski. If you're out west, it could be a nice option. The Head Kore is an even better inbounds ski, and still light enough to tour on.

You boot and binding weight is more important for touring IMHO than ski weight.

Are these likely to be double-duty (inbounds/out) skis? If so, you're gonna have a beefier touring binding. The Shift is likely to be a game changer in this regard. I've only played with it but felt solid before the dude dropped a big face and went mach-silly. Spent a day touring on the Tecton, which is a really good binding with an almost alpine feel.

 

[4ster]

http://store.goode.com/carbon-impact-88mm/ less than 1400 grams.
My experience with Goode skis is that they grip great on firm Snow and their construction is extremely durable.

I own a pair of Goode Wasatch (similar dimensions as the Fire) that I use for touring.

 

[jack97]

All alpine bindings sold these days have elastic travel in the toe piece.

I'd personally stay away from the Z12 toe, though if you're a true lightweight skier its okay.

ok, a slight hijack. I thought I saw older marker toe pieces for the beginner/intermediate where they have no elastic travel maybe they got phased out by now.

As for the Z12, they have been on my everyday bump ski for the past three seasons. Lately, I have been skipping across the troughs, learning pains are tuff on the body and probably equipment as well, for the latter no problems yet. BTW, I weigh ~ around 150 lbs at 5' 7" (and like taking long walks on the beach). The Z12 is a good value for cost, performance and weight if the skier's weight is on the lighter side. The SPX is more beefy, can take a lot of abuse and still feels solid like it's predecessor PX. My only irk with the SPX is that they changed the ramp angle for a more upright stance. I have opted for another Z12 to mount on my new bump skis and will most likely mount a SPX on a rocker if I ever decide to buy one.

 

[Doug Briggs]

All alpine bindings sold these days have elastic travel in the toe piece.

I'd personally stay away from the Z12 toe, though if you're a true lightweight skier its okay.

The Attack 13 is the same (or lower?) weight than most anything else, and is an incredibly reliable binding.

Inquiring minds want to know: why avoid the Z12?

 

[neonorchid]

Sally Z12 and Axial3/SPX (Look/Rossi) are light bindings, all including the Marker royal families have elastic travel at the toe piece.

I'm probabaly not stating this right but @Rick Howell's research taught us that some bindings have much more elasticity of which in some cases retention values (elasticity), are also more consistent across the individual bindings DIN setting range than others.

Quote from Epic Ski:

Height Length Din post 130

@ Dougo: Nothing in this thread deploys ANY "quantum physics". All of the above in this thread is based upon elementary 17th-century 'statics' explained by Isaac Newton in his classic book "The Principa", first published in 1699 ( available today by Promethetheus Books, ISBN # 0-87975-980-1) — which type of physics is utilized to design all public structures and bridges according to standard civil-engineering building and bridge codes (including even the amazing soccer stadium in downtown Stüttgart, Germany): None of this involves ANY "quantum physics". If in doubt about this brand of physics, then it may not be wise to enter any public structures or drive on (or under) bridges that meet standard building codes.



Never-the-less, Dougo, you raise an excellent point about your skiing-experience that clearly illuminates the fundamental confusion about the difference between "retention" and "release". They are not the same. The attached graph clearly shows that retention does NOT equal release among various brands of bindings, each of which brand offers a different type of forward release mechanism:







This graph was generated ( in concept ) by me while in engineering school in 1975 and repeated two weeks ago ( Oct 2012 ) with current bindings ( depicted in this graph ) here at my outdoor biomechanics lab in Stowe, Vermont.



Each brand of binding ( with its unique forward release mechanism ) is denoted by a circled-letter ( a — f ). Retention is measured in Joules. This is accomplished by utilizing a 23-pound mass hanging from a 14-foot pendulum-arm impacting the tip of a 'ski' at a point that's 90 cm forward of the projected-axis of the tibia at an impact-angle of 34° (the straight-line-vector of the impact passes-through the center-of-mass of a 50th-percentile male — near the center of the hip) after the pendulum-mass is raised-the-'released' from an initial 'starting-angle' that then causes pendulum to strike the 'ski' so that the heel of a given binding approaches its "retention-release boundary condition" (AND while also a static pre-load is simultaneously applied to the tip of the 'ski', in-line with the pendulum-impact). The counter-opposing inertia of the skier (and boot) is 'significant' ( I'll leave it at that for now ). The "retention-release boundary condition" is, in other words, defined by raising the pendulum-mass ( the 'bob' ) a certain amount of degrees ( let's take an example of 10° ); letting-go of the bob so that it impacts the tip of the 'ski'; then seeing whether the heel of the binding provides forward retention or not. If not, the pendulum is raised to 9° and the test is repeated. If there is forward retention at 9°, then the test is repeated again with the bob raised to an initial angle of 9.5° ..... to eventually repeat the test over-and-over to eventually converge upon the unique "retention-release boundary condition" that's unique for each binding's heel-mechanism. (( The accuracy of this pendulum retention test (that correlates to the same unique "retention-release boundary condition" found among various brands of bindings during two continuous season's of actual on-snow retention testing utilizing the so-called "Skiability Method" to 'rank-order' unique binding retention-characteristics found in various brands of bindings — whereby the same rank-order and the same quantitative-dispersion of retention is also uniquely and independently derived by this specific pendulum-retention-test) is within ± 0.25° for this unique pendulum-mass, pendulum length and static pre-load ( I'm not disclosing the quantity of the static pre-load: it's my 'trade-secret' that took 6-years to uncover during high-school and college ).



This graph can be utilized at least 2 ways:



If one starts by moving across the horizontal axis to select, for example, DIN 10 — one can see that, by then moving straight-up above 10, various bindings ( a — f ) offer various levels of retention ( indeed, a wide range of retention ). In this example, binding "a" provides ~34 Joules of retention, while binding "f" provides only ~10.5 Joules of retention. These differences are night and day. Different bindings supply Very Different levels of retention — depending upon their design, not ( obviously ) upon their release setting (the DIN-setting for each binding in this example is fixed at "10").



The other way this graph can be interpreted is by first selecting a certain amount of retention that one might encounter — let's say a forward impact of ~15 Joules. This level of impact could easily be imparted when a 50th-percentile male skiing at 40 mph enters a GS rut in a way that's not tangent ( obviously, the amount of 'non-tangency' is important ..... but let's keep this example simple ) to the arc of the rut, but which impact is well-below the visco-elastic limit of the tibia in the forward bending ("green-stick" fracture) mode ( the impulse is well below the injury threshold of a 50th-percentaile male's tibia during 'dynamic' forward loading where 'inertia is significant' ). This skiing example is actually a typical pre-release condition with a lousy binding set at a "chart recommended" DIN ). In this example, binding "f" must be set to release at DIN 13 to supply retention at its 'boundary condition' in the presence of this fixed-amount of impact ( ~15 Joules ), while binding "a" must only be set at DIN 6.5 to resist the same fixed impulse of ~15 Joules. ( Pls beware — quasi-static release, measured in daNm (sort-of "DIN", see many post above) is NOT the same thing as dynamic retention, measured in Joules. ) When interpreting this graph in this way, one can see that we are utilizing release ( DIN-values ) as Band-Aid brand adhesive strips to mask-over inherent design-deficiencies among some of the lousy forward release mechanisms found within of various brands of bindings ( e.g., brand "f" ).



Dougo might, for example, be skiing on binding "f" — and THAT might be why he needs to elevate his release settings in order to attempt to over-ride a lousy design in the forward retention mechanism that's unique to his specific binding brand ( it might not be, too, but in my experience — it probable is why he needs to elevate his release settings ). Perhaps, for example — Dougo must therefore elevate his release settings to attempt to compensate for a binding that supplies lousy retention. It's NOT Dougo's fault that each binding company does not indicate that specific 'off-sets' should or should-not be applied to each given type of binding design in order to provide an expected amount of retention.



(((( Pls note that the above differences in retention-capability ( shown in the above graph ) among various binding's forward retention-mechanisms are further amplified when skis are flexed !!! ))))



((( Of course, I cannot reveal which brand is which .... without causing a revolt throughout the entire ski industry. But THIS is why we must all realize that no two binding designs offer the same level of retention at any given level of release. A 'good' binding design is one that can be skied without pre-release at 'low' settings. Why ? Because if you don't have pre-release at a 'low' setting, then you can have it both ways — you can have 'proper' release AND 'proper' retention. "Proper" might equal 'expected'. This subject then becomes a matter of binding design, not release settings. Release is release. Retention is retention. Release does not 'necessarily' equal retention — especially with a lousy binding design. )))







Rick Howell

Stowe, Vermont

 

[jack97]

Inquiring minds want to know: why avoid the Z12?

What I read was the TI (titanium) Z12 had a problem with the heel piece, The metal that holds the ski brake tends to snap and won't hold the screw of the brake in place. I have the TI model on my regular bump ski which was my everyday ski, next season it's my rock ski. Never heard anything bad about the toe and the non TI heel. Keep in mind this binding is light and cheap so a lot of young park rats may have opted for this, so I don't factor equipment abuses like cracked plastic due to misses on park features.

 

[KingGrump]

Inquiring minds want to know: why avoid the Z12?

Don't have issues with the Z10/Z12 toe. We have experienced lateral cracking of the heel tracks immediately adjacent to the front set of mounting screws.

Mamie actually experienced the track breaking while skiing the Rasta chute at Snowbird. Subsequent examination of the other Z10/Z12 heel tracks on our other skis revealed similar conditions. We have since removed and discarded all the Z10/Z12 bindings from our skis.

@Philpug mentioned something about the bindings having issues on wider skis. Most of bindings we had issues with were on 88/90 mm skis. Might not be an issue with narrower skis.

 

[Ken_R]

I demoed a bunch of skis this year and the Head Kore 93 had the best "power to weight ratio" bar none. For the weight it was damp enough and versatile enough that I would happy to use it as my daily driver here in Colorado. Superb ski. I do own a pair of Black Crow Navis Freebird skis which I love (Dynafit At Bindings) but while they hold a great edge they are a bit skittish for daily resort use. All this said my daily driver for resort skiing is a pair of Head Monster 88 184cm skis. A pretty heavy and damp ski. So my comment on the Kore should hint at how awesome of an achievement that ski is for Head. Doesnt smooth out everything like the Monsters (most skis dont) but its good enough that I would use it daily no problem.

 

[4ster]

We have experienced lateral cracking of the heel tracks immediately adjacent to the front set of mounting screws.

I have had this (or similar) issue with the Rossi/Look Axial bindings going way back, like maybe 15 years. I am not even sure if they were called Axial back then? I admit that my bindings get an inordinate amount of use & abuse. I keep using them because I like where they put me on the ski & I don't believe I have ever had a pre-release or any issues with the toe piece.

 

[KingGrump]

I have had this (or similar) issue with the Rossi/Look Axial bindings going way back, like maybe 15 years. I am not even sure if they were called Axial back then? I admit that my bindings get an inordinate amount of use & abuse. I keep using them because I like where they put me on the ski & I don't believe I have ever had a pre-release or any issues with the toe piece.

Didn't realized the older Rossi/Look PX had a track issue. May have to go back and check the binding and see.

Had a pair on my 1st gen Mantra back in 2005. Rock solid binding. Also had a pair of the newer SPX on my last Kendo. No sign of pre-release after being on it for 110 days. They just do their job. Never noticed them. The PX/SPX bindings are not sexy but they are solid and get the job done.

I think I'll get a new pair for my new Kendo. They are dirt cheap too.

 

[everest8850]

I demoed a bunch of skis this year and the Head Kore 93 had the best "power to weight ratio" bar none. For the weight it was damp enough and versatile enough that I would happy to use it as my daily driver here in Colorado. Superb ski. ...

Thanks ken - that seems to be slowly emerging from various 3rd party reviews as well in terms of a light all-mountain ski that checks off most fo the boxes. Anything a couple of undred grams under 1.4 kilos in the 160-165 range is pretty good IMO. Skis are like tents. There's a trade off between the space-strength-weight equation and you can rarely have all three. it depends what tradeoff works for you. i dont see myself doing aggressive or fast skiing; so dampness is lower down on my priorities. With my disabled leg, i see easy turn initiation, swing weight and a medium flex in a 90:10 piste/BC mix to be my key elements when assessing the next buy.

 

[everest8850]

BTW - to address the thread 'hijack' on bindings, I have a pair of demo Solly Z12s that I took off my Solly Q90 skis because I wanted my Marker F12s on them. I have them back on again as I'm selling the 161cm Salomon skis, so I had a chance to weigh them. They're 1400grams each - which seems ridiculously heavy for a alpine/frontside binding! The Marker F12s are deadon a kilo and the work great on the frontside too!

 

[karlo]

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

If not having metal layers is an option, consider the Fischer Ranger 84, last produced for the 16/17 season.

https://issuu.com/snowsport_pl/docs/fischer_alpine_16_17

not sold in North America, still some to be had at a great price at some UK shops that will ship to the U.S. For example,

http://www.snowfit.co.uk/fischer-ranger-84.html

https://www.skibartlett.com/ski-equ...skis-c29/fischer-fischer-ranger-84-176cm-p666

My first time on them were as rentals in Argentina, with touring bindings. Rockered, but not severe. No tip flare, so skis very traditionally, which I like. (I find that the new and wider Rangers, also 16/17, with tip flare, like to pivot. I find them "squirrelly"). Wood core is milled (called AirTec), so very light. I skied on steep creme brulee crust and the ski just shattered it; ice was flying beside me with each turn. That was followed by a speedy traverse across an icy slope to get onto a softer snow. The ski held without a problem. Then up and over onto wind affected powder. It was an OMG experience. Maybe a 1000 vertical feet down, unchanging gradient, enveloped by powder and chunks of snow being thrown into the air. Ok, my love of the ski is in big part the terrain and conditions I experienced. But, it is super capable. I was also in deep powder and, yeah it doesn't float, but it sure carves a turn. The only time I had a tough time was on-piste, in very hard hardpack. Ok, ice.. They closed mogul runs because the mountain had frozen overnight. Going down what could have been an iced over GS course, the ski did not grip well. That previously mentioned icy traverse, that was just a fast traverse. Here, I was making turns at speed, Im no racer, and the edges didn't hold well. I'm sure a better skier would have finessed and made-do, but not me.
I've since purchased the ski and ski it on occasion at Whiteface (Iceface). Does great on hardpack at slower speeds.

Here is a comprehensive ski weight list from Evo: weight.

Nice resource. Wish more skis were on it.

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.

Yes! Exactly what I am looking for. A light ski with metal. "Best" I can find so far is the Fischer Ranger 90 Ti, 1600 g at 179. Metal layers and the AirTec But, it has that tip flare, a huge and early rocker; maybe nice for its wider brethren, but,, just not what I would want in a narrower ski. Alas, if only Fischer would make a Ranger 84 Ti. I would snap it up in a moment. In fact, there are some retailers advertising a Ranger 84 Ti. But, I can't find official literature on it, so I think these retailers have misunderstood the one of product.

I'm still looking for that light ski with metal layers, one that's perfect for me. So far, I think the closest one is the Brahma, a ski I love, at about 2000g for a 180. But, that is sure heavy for touring. Maybe my solution is to settle for the next length shorter. But, I lose stability, so maybe should just stay with the longer 184 Ranger 84.