low-mid-width carving ski with a race plate

[tomahawkins]

If I were to describe the general feel I associate with Head skis (it's not there on every they put out, but enough for me to say it's a brand feel), I'd say they have a buttery flex combined with torsional stability and excellent grip that feels like forward slicing through the arc, as opposed to slow hugging. Pretty close in feeling to a Rossi FIS SL in that respect, but less trampoline-like, and a slicier feeling when the edge engages at the tip. Subjective as anything, I know, but what I'm basically saying is that if you like a Rossi FIS SL, I wouldn't write off Head skis.
Caveat: it's a long time since I was on a wide one.

What is torsional stability and how does one feel it?

 

[cantunamunch]

What is torsional stability and how does one feel it?

If your edge is holding consistently, you ARE feeling it.

If you want to not feel it, take a sharp-edged beginner-intermediate ski out on a frozen hardpack day and try to do instructor turns

 

[Zirbl]

What is torsional stability and how does one feel it?

If your edge is holding consistently, you ARE feeling it.

If you want to not feel it, take a sharp-edged beginner-intermediate ski out on a frozen hardpack day and try to do instructor turns

That. Though I'd extend it to some supposedly high-end carvers too.

Regarding what it is, I can't tell if you were questioning the ability to feel it, or genuinely wondering what it is.

 

[cantunamunch]

That. Though I'd extend it to some supposedly high-end carvers too.

It made sense as a modifier to 'buttery feel' - in the park ski sense of 'butter', i.e. absolutely not torsionally stiff.

 

[Zirbl]

It made sense as a modifier to 'buttery feel' - in the park ski sense of 'butter', i.e. absolutely not torsionally stiff.

Yeah, I meant they bend easily but don't unwind on you.

 

[andrzej]

If I were to describe the general feel I associate with Head skis (it's not there on every they put out, but enough for me to say it's a brand feel), I'd say they have a buttery flex combined with torsional stability and excellent grip that feels like forward slicing through the arc, as opposed to slow hugging. Pretty close in feeling to a Rossi FIS SL in that respect, but less trampoline-like, and a slicier feeling when the edge engages at the tip. Subjective as anything, I know, but what I'm basically saying is that if you like a Rossi FIS SL, I wouldn't write off Head skis.
Caveat: it's a long time since I was on a wide one.

I love Rossi FIS SL. But they are great (like all FIS SL, I suspect) only on groomed snow. For a wider range of conditions, I need something a bit wider. I will check out the Head skis, if I get a chance.

 

[andrzej]

@Zirbl , what a great description!

For me in demoing, consistently my own preferences for shorter turns were for the Deacons over the Curvs.
The Curvs felt heavier and slightly less responsive, just slightly, as a result - while the extra weight feeling,
seemingly for added stability at speed, just felt unnecessary, given that the Deacons, etc. felt just as stable.

I think I liked the Deacons over the Rossi near race skis, but it was close. The Rossis felt more natural, but with less bite.

But also, I've just gotten used to the FIS SLs, so for short turns, except in powder/crud, trees, uniform bumps,
that's where I'm going to go, as I experience those FIS skis as natural, easy, no problem, not demanding.
Just familiar, doing a lot of the work for me. And tops.

Aggressive, neutral feel, and precision driving forward: that's what I feel with the Heads.
With the Rossis, it's more a smooth, progressive flex, on the money: and dialed in.
(And with the Atomics, it's being quicker, more excitement, a hair better at quick change and stivots,
and dialed in more at quickest reactive response.
But I've yet to find an Atomic near race ski or wider frontside ski I've liked much, whereas at times I've liked
the Head near race skis better than their FIS versions - or at least as much.)

Which Deacons are you talking about?

 

[KingGrump]

But they are great (like all FIS SL, I suspect) only on groomed snow.

Your suspicion would be incorrect.

 

[Paul Lutes]

Your suspicion would be incorrect.

.... Unless it's groomed bottomless slop

 

[Roman]

I don’t feel it’s justified to create a separate thread for my questions, so I would rather revamp this one that seems to be close enough to the matter.

Can anyone elaborate on trade-offs I will have to consider between a carver with and without a plate?

I am replacing my Fischer The Curv DTX with a shorter radius Fischer SC and debating between regular non-plated and Pro plated versions in size 165. I am an advanced but far from an expert skier, 6’ and 190 lbs. The ski will be the narrowest ski in a three-ski quiver (RC One 86 GT, Ranger 96) to be exclusively used on goat trails on the East Coast.

 

[François Pugh]

You certainly have the weight for the plate. I would say you need to decide:
If you will ski fast on hard snow get the plate;
If you ski slowly through softer snow skip the plate and maybe size up; and,
The ski won't know if you are an expert or not; it will only know what forces you put on it or (the forces you) need to make your turns at the speed you're going and bend accordingly.

 

[Roman]

You certainly have the weight for the plate. I would say you need to decide:
If you will ski fast on hard snow get the plate;
If you ski slowly through softer snow skip the plate and maybe size up; and,
The ski won't know if you are an expert or not; it will only know what forces you put on it or (the forces you) need to make your turns at the speed you're going and bend accordingly.

Thank you for your input. I will use the skis on firm snow. These have been the general theme of the winters locally :-( I am not a speed demon. It seems to be a tie

 

[François Pugh]

How often do you ski tight trees or moguls? They would want a softer ski.

 

[Roman]

How often do you ski tight trees or moguls? They would want a softer ski.

It is supposed to be quite rare with these skis. I'll likely be on another pair from my quiver.

 

[François Pugh]

Yup, for you it looks like a tie.

The best ski for someone your weight, who knows what to do with a ski, for having fun on hard snow on smaller hills or more crowded hills where high speed (GS race or speed event speeds) is not condoned would be a FIS SL. The SC with plate is already a step down from that, albeit not a huge step. However, if you are not already leaving two thin non-smeared tracks behind you in the snow or cuts in the ice, a softer ski that encourages you to tip it and bend it is the best ski to help you learn how to do that. Please believe me, once you learn to do that well, it is tons of fun. Looking at your current quiver, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you would be better off without the plate, but it's only my guess. Yes, you might out grow it sooner, but if you do, you will have a (good) better excuse to buy that FIS SL.

 

[Roman]

Yup, for you it looks like a tie.

The best ski for someone your weight, who knows what to do with a ski, for having fun on hard snow on smaller hills or more crowded hills where high speed (GS race or speed event speeds) is not condoned would be a FIS SL. The SC with plate is already a step down from that, albeit not a huge step). However, if you are not already leaving two thin non-smeared tracks behind you in the snow or cuts in the ice, a softer ski that encourages you to tip it and bend it is the best ski to help you learn how to do that. Please believe me, once you learn to do that well, it is tons of fun. Looking at your current quiver, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you would be better off without the plate, but it's only my guess. Yes, you might out grow it sooner, but if you do, you will have a (good) better excuse to buy that FIS SL.

Makes sense. I’m likely err on the softer side

 

[tomahawkins]

I don’t feel it’s justified to create a separate thread for my questions, so I would rather revamp this one that seems to be close enough to the matter.

Can anyone elaborate on trade-offs I will have to consider between a carver with and without a plate?

I am replacing my Fischer The Curv DTX with a shorter radius Fischer SC and debating between regular non-plated and Pro plated versions in size 165. I am an advanced but far from an expert skier, 6’ and 190 lbs. The ski will be the narrowest ski in a three-ski quiver (RC One 86 GT, Ranger 96) to be exclusively used on goat trails on the East Coast.

I think you will find very few people who have actually tested the same ski with and without a plate. My only data point is skiing my Head eRace Pros (180) with the WCR plate with FF16s and without the plate with Protector PR 13s. The stack height was the same. Skiing it, I couldn't tell the difference. We like to think plates are manly; they make a ski stronger and more powerful. But in the case of the Head eRace Pros, the skis got stiffer without the plate. The plate and the matching FreeFlex bindings allowed better flex of the ski, where as the Protector Twin PR Base inhibited the flex, but the difference was insignificant. In the real world of normal skiers -- not WC athletes -- plates only serve as a binding lift and not much else. But sure, slap on a plate if it makes you feel like a better skier. High DIN bindings are also good at helping us inflate our egos.