- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Posts
- 341
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Transitioning to shorter skis - shared experience?
Here is the description of the Hagan Offlimits, which the OP is considering:
- Are you looking for a special ski for special pursuits? The Off Limits is adept as an approach ski, ski board, variable conditions ski or for snow kiting. The new Off Limits is now enhanced with a lightweight wood core, 180 mm soft rocker and slightly modified shape. The 130 cm long, extra-wide Off Limits is an allrounder you can trust blindly — it is the choice of the "Blind Climber” Andy Holzer. This ski is sturdy, agile and drifts beautifully in powder. A little secret is how the exceptionally maneuverable Off Limits aids skiing steep, deep and tightly-tree'd slopes. More than a few people have great fun on the Off Limits in powder stashes that are too much work on longer skis. Those who have skied the Off Limits swear by it. For this ski, nothing is Off Limits.
Dimensions: 130-90-110 with 180mm soft tip rocker, poplar construction
One thing I might suggest would be a FIS SL. Before anyone goes off, they are very predictable, can be very easy to ski, stiff enough for the average skier to get good controllable speed. Recreational SL skis tend to be less predictable and while softer feel harder to ski. The key here is picking the right one as some are Uber stiff and others very pleasant.
Input here from @ScotsSkier (and any deal he may have) would be good.
PS When my daughter tried my Dynastars Omniglass SL (courtesy of SS) at the age of 11/12, she loved them on how easy they turned and carved it (she was a low intermediate at best) and it made her look better (appear to ski better) than she actually was.
Input here from @ScotsSkier (and any deal he may have) would be good.
PS When my daughter tried my Dynastars Omniglass SL (courtesy of SS) at the age of 11/12, she loved them on how easy they turned and carved it (she was a low intermediate at best) and it made her look better (appear to ski better) than she actually was.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,953
Lol. I recommend those too often.
The op wants more float and balancing forgiveness. Slaloms are damn fun in spring wet snow, but maintaining balance is a full time job -for someone with fully functioning lower legs/feet. There's a lot of fore/aft balancing moves one has to make. And you need speed which makes it more challenging.
Same with powder.
In general I agree though... But, a slalom's tail is relatively stiff. So, there is more stress placed on moving fore from a possible aft and its time sensitive. This is not good for the op.
Ironically, I find an fis sl easier to ski than most non fis slaloms. As long as it's not tuned at like .5 or less base/4 side. Though plenty free ski it at those angles. I prefer a less agressive tune for sideways sliding, moguls, half pipe, etc.
Recently I tried a Volkl non fis slalom at Abasin this May. (Tuned at <0.5 and 4)
My problem with it was the tip is too big and the front too soft. This causes too abrupt of a hook up when you push it and the tip cuts in. It's pretty disconcerting. Also, the tip is more deflected and sensitive than my Blizzard fis slalom which has a narrower tip and tends to blast through stuff. As does the Fischer with hole in tip fis slalom I got this spring, but on that the slush comes blasting through and hits your shins. (Kind of fun, like being on the bow of a small motorboat hitting waves. However several hours of that could get annoying, don't know yet)
So, ironically, I found the non fis slalom to be more dangerous in spring snow.
But anyway, I don't recommend it for the op. He needs a solid platform, not a bosu ball. Which is also why a super short ski is crazy.
Thread Starter
TS
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Posts
- 86
Hey - thanks for the slew of opinons and shared experiences. I'll have to figure out if the tradeoff of the wobbliness of shorrter skis is worth the spectacular turn-y ability of some of them. I've struggled with 160s, so I might look for a soft to medium flex ski in the 140s, or maybe no longer than 151/2/3, twintips, decent rocker on both ends. Interestingly, I've got a lot of response from a skiboard forum as well, though none mention that shortrer skis actually might make lack fo fore-aft control even worse -- it hnk this might apply to sub 100cm "true" skiboards. I am looking at something in between those and my current set up - hence my original post asking if people had opinions on theshorter versions of the Fischer Ranger 90 skis, and Ethan Toos and Atomic Punx III skis. At 155lbs, there is scope to try some of the large float "junior" skis too, IMO
@James after reading your post I re-read the OP’s post going to a wider ski with lower leg disabilies could be harmful as they cause extra loading through the leg.
I agree a moderate tune is required, but even as important ski brand is as well.
Nordic’s SLR’s (full race ski, not good for learning) stiff, unpredictable at high speeds, require lots of precise input, but rewards input with explosive energy.
Dynastar Omniglass (full race ski, ideal for learn), slightly softer, tame at high speeds, performs extremely well at all speeds and input levels. Extremely high controlled energy release. Pleasant in most snow conditions. Tame but no limits. This is why my 11/12 yr old loved the Omniglass (the Norica’s would have worked hard to kill her).
Little side note, which is faster, hard to say, Nordica energy release is awesome, however the Dynastar energy release is silky smooth. Between the two I would likely ski the Dynastar faster, more confidence to ski the run versus the Nordica and focusing on staying in control of the ski when pushing limits.
This is a few years back and I know skis have changed in build somewhat, so the best brand with certain characteristics are best described by someone who has access. Give the OP’s leg conditions, I would still consider it.
I agree a moderate tune is required, but even as important ski brand is as well.
Nordic’s SLR’s (full race ski, not good for learning) stiff, unpredictable at high speeds, require lots of precise input, but rewards input with explosive energy.
Dynastar Omniglass (full race ski, ideal for learn), slightly softer, tame at high speeds, performs extremely well at all speeds and input levels. Extremely high controlled energy release. Pleasant in most snow conditions. Tame but no limits. This is why my 11/12 yr old loved the Omniglass (the Norica’s would have worked hard to kill her).
Little side note, which is faster, hard to say, Nordica energy release is awesome, however the Dynastar energy release is silky smooth. Between the two I would likely ski the Dynastar faster, more confidence to ski the run versus the Nordica and focusing on staying in control of the ski when pushing limits.
This is a few years back and I know skis have changed in build somewhat, so the best brand with certain characteristics are best described by someone who has access. Give the OP’s leg conditions, I would still consider it.
Last edited:
I am going to suggest the Head Rebel i. slalom in a length of 160 cm, not the Head i. Slalom RD, but the one with the shorter radius.
With a little extra length you can use the snow to provide some stability and correction for your fore-aft balance errors. Yes your calves don't function correctly, but you can use your upper leg muscles and your hip muscles. Getting a ski that's too short or one with no tail will only have you going over the handle bars or being unable to recover from balance errors - instead of getting into the back seat and correcting you will sit back and find yourself on your adz because there is no back seat.
Because you are a self-described lower intermediate skier, I strongly suspect the reason you found shorter skis easier to ski is that you are not using proper technique, but instead pushing the skis around and overcoming them. If you go much shorter you will reach the point of diminishing returns. From what I have read there is no reason you cannot stay reasonably centered and tip the skis to turn. However, if you were to use that technique and that technique only, even the typical SL ski, let alone the typical all mountain ski would have you skiing way to fast for your abilities. The very short side cut radius of the Head i. Rebel Slalom will have you making short enough turns to control your speed (if you tip them, and maybe with the occasional hockey stop thrown in).
Good luck.
With a little extra length you can use the snow to provide some stability and correction for your fore-aft balance errors. Yes your calves don't function correctly, but you can use your upper leg muscles and your hip muscles. Getting a ski that's too short or one with no tail will only have you going over the handle bars or being unable to recover from balance errors - instead of getting into the back seat and correcting you will sit back and find yourself on your adz because there is no back seat.
Because you are a self-described lower intermediate skier, I strongly suspect the reason you found shorter skis easier to ski is that you are not using proper technique, but instead pushing the skis around and overcoming them. If you go much shorter you will reach the point of diminishing returns. From what I have read there is no reason you cannot stay reasonably centered and tip the skis to turn. However, if you were to use that technique and that technique only, even the typical SL ski, let alone the typical all mountain ski would have you skiing way to fast for your abilities. The very short side cut radius of the Head i. Rebel Slalom will have you making short enough turns to control your speed (if you tip them, and maybe with the occasional hockey stop thrown in).
Good luck.
@François Pugh But doesn’t the OP want something wider, for deeper snow? That’s the impression I got from his first post. And a slalom ski (FIS or not) requires pressuring the tips, which seems exactly what the difficulty is here, with limited dorsiflexion, etc.... there’s more to just tipping the ski. i used to own the non FIS Head Rebels SL ski in a short 155.....that ski still requires to be driven.
I still return to the type of ski like the DPS Wailer 99, the OP can go down to a 169, which will ski super short, like a mid 150’s or shorter ski. The Foundation construction brings the cost down. This ski does well with a centered stance, requires little to no tip pressure, and changes direction really easily.
Am I off on this?
I still return to the type of ski like the DPS Wailer 99, the OP can go down to a 169, which will ski super short, like a mid 150’s or shorter ski. The Foundation construction brings the cost down. This ski does well with a centered stance, requires little to no tip pressure, and changes direction really easily.
Am I off on this?
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,953
No. But the op's desire for a super short is just as bad. No, worse. A slalom ski is not a good choice here and I've skied them everywhere.
It applies to all of them.
There are several good reasons they might not mention it on skiboard forums, including
a) dedicated skiboarders simply don't make the same line choices long-edged skiers do - they don't have a long-line standard for comparison.
b) they go lower, in softer boots (deeper knee, hip and waist bend) - I'll bet no one who has responded in this thread skis trees in sub-70 flex boots let alone snowboard or climbing boots. Lower -> less overt wobble when the bases are flat, the bend in the knee is effectively providing caster.
c) they steal a move from skating and exaggerate front foot lead whenever they feel F/B unstable, especially in turns.
If getting low, speed skater low, and exaggerated front foot lead is something your body will let you do, then yes, by all means consider something in that length range.
Last edited:
Sorry, I missed the off-piste requirement. SL skis require skill off-piste. In fact any short radius ski will require more skill off-piste, but it's something the OP can build. However, considering the off-piste requirement, I would look for a wider ski, maybe Elan Ripstick 86 in a 160 cm length.
I would not go too short, nor go to something with a lot of tip and tail rocker; that would prevent the ski/snow interaction from helping him out with his fore-aft balance corrections.
P.S. Recreational sl skis turn just fine from a centred stance, without the need to apply a lot of pressure on the tips.
For what it's worth, I'll add this -- might be relevant and might not. My wife has been skiing 35+ yrs; pretty good skier -- very strong physically and very technical in her skiing style. She broke her back 9-10 yrs ago in a wreck with a horse. Recovered well, but the biggest lasting impact has been to her knees and calves. Those body parts are now very sensitive to physical stresses and strains, and they fatigue very quickly. From a snow-skiing standpoint, we've managed that by being a little more choosy than normal with boot selection and fit, as well as a lot of trial and error of different skis in various conditions to figure out what's going to work for her. Her trend over the past 5 - 8 yrs as we've figured things out is consistent with your intuition to go shorter with your skis -- her skis are now getting progressively shorter as that's what is working to prevent/minimize pain, manage the fatigue, and allow her to ski the way she likes to ski. At 5'10" and 165 lbs, she's skiing everything 10-15 cm shorter than she normally would. (Her current quiver includes Head Titans at 163, Blizzard Crushes at 170, and DPS 112's at 168.) Over the last 3 yrs, I've noticed her use of the Titans and DPS' have become a lot more "condition specific" as time has progressed (switching over to the more forgiving Blizzard Crushes more quickly as snow conditions become more mixed) and frankly, she skis them better now and with fewer negative physical impacts than the other skis. My guess is that we'll probably replace the Titans with something different this coming season -- first look will be at shorter forgiving performance skis with an emphasis on carving (something like DPS Uschi in a 158). Bottom line is I don't think going "short" is a bad idea in your case -- at some point you can hit a point of diminishing returns by going too short, but I think that will be pretty obvious if you hit that. That "too short" length will be different in some skis than others. It might take some trial and error on your part, but I'm pretty sure there are a handful of skis that will do what you want to do.
The DPS Wailer(or Yvette) 112's are a condition specific ski. I used to ski the Yvette 112 in powder but I prefer something 105 or under for most powder days. 112 would definitely be great for a really big dump.
The Titans are also somewhat condition specific. They make a great front side carving ski for skiers who want versatility but also who can stay on top of it. I'm betting that it wears her out with the health issues you're describing.
If you want something that is versatile, consider the DPS Uschi 82, or Dynastar Legend
Last edited:
Yep -- 3 winters ago, the Titans rewarded her skiing style and strength to the point that she rarely took them off with no ill effects, and now they've been relegated to a specific condition ski because of what's going on with her back and lower legs. It barely shows in her skiing, but does in terms of pain and fatigue feedback. I've skied DPS' Cassiar (brother to the Uschi) since they came out and am pretty confident the Uschi would be a great fit for her -- will make it a point to try the Dynastars if we run across a pair to demo.
Edit addition -- I also hope to pick up a pair of Head Super Joys for my daughter this summer. Will make it easy for my wife to try those as well as we continue playing the revolving game with skis.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,953
The Dynastar Legend series could have even less impact.
What her experience going shorter shows though is force coming back from the ski. Longer skis float better in soft snow, but as one moves through clumps or cut up powder, slush, etc, there's more force transmitted back to the skier. If one is sensitive to impacts in the back then you'd certainly feel it.
Op's issues are different.
Well, last season, I went to a demo day with no intent to buy. But I found the Armada ARV 96 to be so incredibly easy to turn, and gentle on my knee, that I ended up buying a pair. I normally ski 170 and agonized about buying the same length I demo'd, 163. In the end, I went with the 163. It has been a wonderful ski, although for me not quite enough float (read: my tips dive. Yes, this is a technique issue) in significant snow depth. A bit wider than you were thinking, but I believe there's also a mid-80s version.
First let’s define the issue, learn to ski and improve, not speed, trees and back country later, no lower leg strength.
Back to my 11/12yr old (at the time), definitely strong to crushing or flexing SL skis, secondly didn’t (and still doesn’t) have proper technique to ski them either. So why did work and like them???
Simple, she rolled them onto the edge (leaned left or right) and they carved. As she skied them she was forced (by the ski) to be in the correct position. Did she ski at Mach-Schnell speeds, HELL NO, just at beginner speeds.
In the OP’s case it is about learning a different set of muscles to control the ski and who cares if this is not how the book says to teach, it is about learning and understanding the correct motions, if the ski puts you there so be it.
At this point the OP need to learn, practice and ski. Will this be the future ski for what he wants likely not, but they will get him there and help him learn everything he needs to get there. It’s not about speed but control and learning the motions.
I would seriously suggest that the OP PM @ScotsSkier for his suggestion.
BTW I use my SL’s to practice my turns (GS) at extremely slow speeds because it lets you see and feel your errors with serious consequences.
Back to my 11/12yr old (at the time), definitely strong to crushing or flexing SL skis, secondly didn’t (and still doesn’t) have proper technique to ski them either. So why did work and like them???
Simple, she rolled them onto the edge (leaned left or right) and they carved. As she skied them she was forced (by the ski) to be in the correct position. Did she ski at Mach-Schnell speeds, HELL NO, just at beginner speeds.
In the OP’s case it is about learning a different set of muscles to control the ski and who cares if this is not how the book says to teach, it is about learning and understanding the correct motions, if the ski puts you there so be it.
At this point the OP need to learn, practice and ski. Will this be the future ski for what he wants likely not, but they will get him there and help him learn everything he needs to get there. It’s not about speed but control and learning the motions.
I would seriously suggest that the OP PM @ScotsSkier for his suggestion.
BTW I use my SL’s to practice my turns (GS) at extremely slow speeds because it lets you see and feel your errors with serious consequences.
Thread Starter
TS
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Posts
- 86
Good points. I would add that most of the opinions from the skiboard forums are from expert skiers who ski both conventional skis and a whole lot of different skiboards; and have experience shifting bindings to the classic 'centered' skiboard type position to more conventional rear setback type mountings; and with hard boots in normal releasable bindings. They've got some modded skis as well with rail bindings allowing the whole mount to be shifted to variou positions; so I got some interesting information as a result. But yes, getting low and 'skating' is not my intention...tks
Thread Starter
TS
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Posts
- 86
Bingo! No subsitute for time on snow, and yes, I've had to be a bit heretical,or at least open to many options owing to my disabilities. I realy like this forum as I've had such a slew of helpful posts here. The tone in PUGSKI is also so different from TGR - ok ok - the culture there is quite different ;-) I'll PM -- @ScotsSkier