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

Erik Timmerman

So much better than a pro
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,302
At levels above L3, apparently they want to see you turn a high sidecut ski. @Erik Timmerman ?

Well, I won't claim to know what "they" want, but I do see a lot more of them skiing on longer radius skis than ten or fifteen years ago when everyone was on a 165 slalom.

I'm sure I said it somewhere earlier in this thread, but for the people that I am working with I'd suggest something in the 85mm zone. You really need to be able to look good in crud and bumps if you don't want to make your examiner sad.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,601
Location
PNW aka SEA
Lol. My point exactly. How absurd is that demographic? 1 guy.
Still skis great and is very versatile... for me.. so that's all that matters. :roflmao:
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
narrower skis are much easier to do tasks with precision, especially anything involving one ski skiing.
That was one of the two eyeopeners this weekend, on the Superspeeds (70). Compared to my 85’s, so easy to ski on one ski. The other was pain-in-S’s.
I'd suggest something in the 85mm zone. You really need to be able to look good in crud and bumps
Which is why I would hesitate using the Superspeeds and decided to get the HRC (76).

Earlier, I said I hadn’t decided whether or not to work for the L3. Guess I am. :)
 
Thread Starter
TS
geepers

geepers

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
May 12, 2018
Posts
4,256
Location
Wanaka, New Zealand
I have been toying with the idea of a 166-168 slalom ski. I've not skied a slalom-esque ski since the green Atomic ARC, circa 1987.

If and when you look into SL skis you may wish to check out the Elan SLX 165. I'm very similar weight and height to you and I found that ski so much fun.
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
I’ve now been on the 173 Firebird HRC’s (76 width) a few times. I’ve skied them in packed powder, hardpack, piles of man-made snow and in moguls. No crud yet. Here are my impressions. Bear in mind that I’m comparing them to my other skus, which are wider, 85 Blizzard Magnum Ti, 88 Brahmas, 84 RTM’s.

Railroad tracks: It’s like being on a Shinkansen. Fast yes, but sooo smooth a ride. Sure, a Shinkansen’s rails are laser welded and the cars have great suspension. But this is like being in the Green Car, the upgraded car, with computer controlled adaptive suspension.

Short turns: At a 15.5 radius, so easy to make short turns with a big carving component. And the tips engage so quickly. Great rebound.

Carving medium turns: So easy to lay on edge thanks to the narrower 76.

Moguls: Finally this past weekend. Terrific going slow. Going fast and straight, I’ve got to figure these skis out. I have an easier time of it on my Magnum Ti’s or Brahma’s.

Plowing from hardpack through fresh piles of manmade snow when carving medium turns, no problem at all. No deflection. Like the piles aren’t there.

Pivot slips: not a problem even doing them on shallow terrain, slipping slow.

Wedge Christie: I’m a poor judge.

Hoping to ski them in powder and crud. I’ll take them to CO with me in two weeks.
 

karlo

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
May 11, 2017
Posts
2,708
Location
NJ
Had the opportunity to ski the 76 HRC’s in skied-up wind affected mixed in with wind deposited and softer bumps, by Eastern standards. That crud? Did so as well with my 85’s. Both served well. the 85’s were definitely more forgiving. The HRC’s required greater precision and attention. I took out the HRC’s first, so it could be that, having “woken-up”, I was skiing more attentively when I put on the 85’s. Whatever the case, the narrower ski is the better choice for sure. The 76’s are so much quicker edge to edge and the Firebird HRC’s are much better carvers.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top