Why do I Hate the Soul Rider?

[nay]

LOL, I took it to mean that center-mounted skis don't have as much of a "back seat" as traditional skis, because the front and rear of the ski are the same size and shape. So the consequences of getting "back" a bit in one's stance are fewer and milder on center-mounts.

And to some extent, getting "back" a bit in one's stance from a classic position is what we call "neutral", which also lends itself to skiing much more two-footed with a very narrow stance in soft snow.

My own belief is that this is where preference falls, noting I haven't skied the Soul Rider but do ski the Rocker2 100 as an all mountain ski. The 100 is conceptually similar although mounted at -5cm is a bit more traditional. Skis like the Rossi Soul 7 are recommended at -7 cm IIRC and so on. And I skied the Rocker2 92 at the "all mountain" position of -2cm - recommended was dead center. That ski had nothing if you tried to drive it from the tips, but the 100 will charge (at least in the 186 cm length).

These pics may help somewhat - it's a comparison of a 182 cm Rocker2 108 and 179 Blizzard Peacemaker (106mm width). The 108 recommended mount is -3cm, so it largely has to be skied from a centered stance. The Peacemaker is -6cm recommended and in this case mounted +1.

These would both be called "twin tips" (and the Blizzard looks much more like a traditional twin tip vs. a lot of low splay), although the tip designs are very different, the Peacemaker has a sheet of metal, and the 108 has quite a bit more early rise, or a shorter "running length". If one likes to ski more traditionally but wants this shape ski, the Peacemaker makes a lot more sense than the 108, which is basically a freeride powder ski (there is no metal edge at the tips). Alternatively, if you want to pop off of every little feature and pretty much rip everything two footed with the skis together, and you have exceptional centered (neutral) skiing balance, the 108 is a very nice pony.

My son who skies the 108 hates directional skis, and my other son who skis the Peacemakers really likes having moved to this shape ski (lots of soft snow, soft crud, soft groomers, not a lot of air), but still prefers a ski you can drive. I'd hazard a guess based on your other skis that the Peacemaker is a ski that you would like very much that is in this general category.

 

[Stephen]

@Stephen has the Soul Riders as his "go to" ski.

It is for sure my favorite ski. I have others that I like but the SR is definitely my comfort zone. I have more days on them than other skis combined I think. When I think of how to describe them I run into issues with the right words. They're great....really great.. ? They just tend to do what I ask them to. I'm 6'1" about 215 and I ski the 177s. Classic mount. Salomon sth13. They are defiantly my all over the mountain ski. Groomers, bumps, trees. I feel confident on them. Sometimes I'm hesitant to post about things because I still feel new to so much of this but the idea of the tails getting hung up made me immediately think of tuning issues. Seeing others mention that makes me feel like that has to be it. The SR has enough tail to help but not so much to punish you in my opinion. I've never though of them as catching. They are by far the easiest ski for me to spin on. To me, they are just downright playful. All of that being said, I don't think I would like the 185s. I think it would be too much ski to play around like I do on them.

 

[SallyCat]

Just took some measurements:

The center of my boot is +5cm from the all-mountain position and -2cm from the center mount mark.

With a true bar on the base, I can see a very distinct shaft of light across almost the entire width; there's maybe a half centimeter on each edge where the light stops. This is consistent along the entire length of the ski.

My measurement here lacked precision, but I didn't see any discernible difference in the heel height vs. the toe height. I measured both from the ski's topsheet and from the tabletop. Still, a shim would be interesting to try.

EDIT: My boots are Salomon X-Max 110s, if that matters.

 

[markojp]

LOL, I took it to mean that center-mounted skis don't have as much of a "back seat" as traditional skis, because the front and rear of the ski are the same size and shape. So the consequences of getting "back" a bit in one's stance are fewer and milder on center-mounts.

Actually, very very few skis are symetrical fire and aft. Center mounted twins rotate well around their fore/aft and lateral axis when in the air, on rails, etc... Personally, I think they free ski horribly... There's a never ending sensation of going over the handle bars in powder and a constant effort to keep the feet ahead of the CoM to ski the sweet spot. If rails, pipe, lots of switch, and air are your thing though, center mount, smile and roll!

 

[markojp]

Just took some measurements:

The center of my boot is +5cm from the all-mountain position and -2cm from the center mount mark.

With a true bar on the base, I can see a very distinct shaft of light across almost the entire width; there's maybe a half centimeter on each edge where the light stops.

EDIT: My boots are Salomon X-Max 110s, if that matters.

Yiiiikes! No wonder you're not in love with them.

 

[Josh Matta]

yeha +5 from all mountain seems WAY far forward.

 

[Josh Matta]

And to some extent, getting "back" a bit in one's stance from a classic position is what we call "neutral", which also lends itself to skiing much more two-footed with a very narrow stance in soft snow.

My own belief is that this is where preference falls, noting I haven't skied the Soul Rider but do ski the Rocker2 100 as an all mountain ski. The 100 is conceptually similar although mounted at -5cm is a bit more traditional. Skis like the Rossi Soul 7 are recommended at -7 cm IIRC and so on. And I skied the Rocker2 92 at the "all mountain" position of -2cm - recommended was dead center. That ski had nothing if you tried to drive it from the tips, but the 100 will charge (at least in the 186 cm length).

These pics may help somewhat - it's a comparison of a 182 cm Rocker2 108 and 179 Blizzard Peacemaker (106mm width). The 108 recommended mount is -3cm, so it largely has to be skied from a centered stance. The Peacemaker is -6cm recommended and in this case mounted +1.

These would both be called "twin tips" (and the Blizzard looks much more like a traditional twin tip vs. a lot of low splay), although the tip designs are very different, the Peacemaker has a sheet of metal, and the 108 has quite a bit more early rise, or a shorter "running length". If one likes to ski more traditionally but wants this shape ski, the Peacemaker makes a lot more sense than the 108, which is basically a freeride powder ski (there is no metal edge at the tips). Alternatively, if you want to pop off of every little feature and pretty much rip everything two footed with the skis together, and you have exceptional centered (neutral) skiing balance, the 108 is a very nice pony.

My son who skies the 108 hates directional skis, and my other son who skis the Peacemakers really likes having moved to this shape ski (lots of soft snow, soft crud, soft groomers, not a lot of air), but still prefers a ski you can drive. I'd hazard a guess based on your other skis that the Peacemaker is a ski that you would like very much that is in this general category.

View attachment 18878 View attachment 18879 View attachment 18880

why would you want to ski with your skis together?

 

[SallyCat]

yeha +5 from all mountain seems WAY far forward.

That's partly a move to a shorter BSL (316 to 305) but it also sounds like the shop originally mounted them about 4-ish cm forward? That seems like a helluva lot, especially since I wanted them not forward at all.

How bad are the bases?

And by the way, thank you, thank you, thank you all for your time and help. I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion and learning a ton. So glad I found this site!

 

[markojp]

God knows why the shop did what they did. The only explaination I can think of is that the salesperson is a park rat who doesn't know better and can't imagine someone else's narrative.

 

[Monique]

I was assuming +5 etc was a reference to the center, not the recommended mount point?

 

[markojp]

+5 foward of the aft 'classic' mount line. The attached photo shows the lines... 'center' is under the bindind wing. Classic is about 6cm aft.

 

[SallyCat]

Weirdly, it was done by a shop owner in his forties maybe, who's been around the business for a long time and came highly recommended from a number of experienced skiers. He does, though, strike me as the sort of person who "knows" certain things to be true (e.g., that women's bindings need to be mounted forward) and as @markojp so aptly says, "can't imagine someone else's narrative."

We were casually discussing boots once, and I said that I loved Superfeet in my hiking shoes but hated them in my ski boots. He assured me that I was wrong.

Honestly, there aren't that many good ski shops in my area and he's a decent, friendly guy and his staff are lovely, so I just chalked this stuff up to quirkiness. I'm less charmed at the moment.

 

[markojp]

FWIW, I have some superfeet trim to fits in a pair of tennis shoes. I like them. I wouldn't use them in ski boots either!

 

[cantunamunch]

Weirdly, it was done by a shop owner in his forties maybe, who's been around the business for a long time and came highly recommended from a number of experienced skiers. He does, though, strike me as the sort of person who "knows" certain things to be true (e.g., that women's bindings need to be mounted forward) and as @markojp so aptly says, "can't imagine someone else's narrative."

Categorization/Pigeonholing disease. Absolutely rampant in this sport. Womens' gear in particular.

We were casually discussing boots once, and I said that I loved Superfeet in my hiking shoes but hated them in my ski boots. He assured me that I was wrong.

I won't bore you with the story of the boot tech who insisted that Superfeet couldn't possibly be creating an abducted stance in my XCD boots, even after I showed him pictures of tracks with and tracks without.

so I just chalked this stuff up to quirkiness. I'm less charmed at the moment. .

At least 2 of the 5 shops near me have techs who would have put a true bar on the base and told you that they were railed, just as a matter of good business and even if you only asked them to do the binding. Sorry if that extends the moment.

 

[nay]

+5 foward of the aft 'classic' mount line. The attached photo shows the lines... 'center' is under the bindind wing. Classic is about 6cm aft.

Yikes, so it's like -1cm from true center? That would be a park mount for sure...

 

[nay]

why would you want to ski with your skis together?

 

[Monique]

View attachment 18888

Okay, I don't get it - what does that show?

 

[nay]

Okay, I don't get it - what does that show?

Skis together

 

[cantunamunch]

Okay, I don't get it - what does that show?

"How to use a forward mount?"
"Parky ski used in a parky manner with parky background?"
"And now for something completely bathetic?"
"Dropping cliffs on the toilet seat - why does my bum hurt?"

 

[Monique]

Skis together

Yes, but not why that would be necessary!