Best skis for Ice, Icy Conditions and Very hard packed snow

[Max Capacity]

OP, you seem to like Volkl's, why not get a Deacon 76 or Kendo. My Kendo's have been fine on ice, but I do my own tuning.

I haven't skied the Deacon 76.

Oh, sorry just reread your first post. Get one of the Racetigers. Have you searched the web for reviews on the skis your thinking of ?

 

[markojp]

I can't remember ever seeing an FIS-rated ski on the wall at a ski shop, or even their citizen cousins.

We have some FIS SL's, SG's, one DH, and some older FIS GS's.

 

[Doug Briggs]

FIS SL skis are a blast and not quite the death sentence predicted on here. If you want hard snow grip and can't open it up, this is where you'll find the most success. IMO...

I agree FIS SL's are the bomb for hard snow grip. The OP's self proclaimed back seat tendencies on small radius skis is my concern. The smaller the radius the less conducive to poor technique the ski will be.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Speed discussion:

 

[Philpug]

You should be getting Europa Cup starts. I have no doubt Darren Rhalves skis faster than pretty much anyone here pretty much all the time. I very much doubt he's skiing much over 40 if there's any traffic on the hill in front of him. But you're bigger so I'm sure you're faster. I wonder how he possibly managed to win the Hannenkam . I'm sorry, but the chest beating 'I go 70' BS just gets really old and boring.

I have skied with @Daron Rhalves on more than a few occasions. Actually, I should say that Daron has skied with me, no way can anyone here on the site ski with him..if he is "on". Mayyybe the only one here might have been @Doug Briggs in his prime.

 

[cantunamunch]

I agree FIS SL's are the bomb for hard snow grip. The OP's self proclaimed back seat tendencies on small radius skis is my concern. The smaller the radius the less conducive to poor technique the ski will be.

Interesting that you think so.

I've always thought small radius is more 'comfortable' for intermediates with lateral balance imprecision because they can find something to dynamic balance against sooner (for sooner read: at lower tipping angles), and at lower speeds.

 

[Tony Storaro]

but 60 sustained vs 60 average is wildely different

What do you mean 60 average?

That's A LOT man.

 

[anders_nor]

What do you mean 60 average?

That's A LOT man.

was supposed to read peak, vs average/sustained.

 

[Andy Mink]

I have skied with @Daron Rhalves on more than a few occasions. Actually, I should say that Daron has skied with me, no way can anyone here on the site ski with him..if he is "on". Mayyybe the only one here might have been @Doug Briggs in his prime.

Or, as @Justin Koski said when we skied behind (WAY behind) Daron earlier this season for a few runs at Squaw, "I didn't even see him go by".

 

[Tony Storaro]

Speed discussion:

I am happy when the wind makes a parachute out of my hood. Which happens at about 80 km/h. Anything above that is a bonus which happens just a couple of times a season. With the crowded slopes I ski, it is absolutely impossible to let 'em fly on a daily.

But I am still buying Head RD GS Pro Masters in 189 for next season, make no mistake about that.
I WILL hit 130 one day, sooner or later.

 

[4ster]

Three words. Point Five and Three.

 

[anders_nor]

You should be getting Europa Cup starts. I have no doubt Darren Rhalves skis faster than pretty much anyone here pretty much all the time. I very much doubt he's skiing much over 40 if there's any traffic on the hill in front of him. But you're bigger so I'm sure you're faster. I wonder how he possibly managed to win the Hannenkam . I'm sorry, but the chest beating 'I go 70' BS just gets really old and boring.

Nobody is saying 60-70 peaks while recreational skiiing, is the same as entering a corner at the speed top athleets do for for SG/DH, but thinking everybody here go 40mph max is naive and wrong.

 

[mdf]

I don't think that peak speeds above WC DH levels on short isolated steep bits are a priori impossible. It's not the same thing as a course with control gates, flat(er) sections, and the need to get all the way to the end of the run in one piece.

Of course my peak speed is nowhere near that fast.

edit - I did some numbers and they make 70 mph look implausible. You'd have to free-fall 3.2 seconds (without drag) to reach 70 mph. And that means a 165 foot drop. But still, short pitches are not the same thing as race courses.

 

[cantunamunch]

edit - I did some numbers and they make 70 mph look implausible. You'd have to free-fall 3.2 seconds (without drag) to reach 70 mph. And that means a 165 foot drop.

Yes.

But still, short pitches are not the same thing as race courses.

What do you mean here?

Are you making the case that sustained 30-40 with peaks to 70s is possible - in aero drag conditions- with full-steep pitches on otherwise moderate hills?

I have a healthy respect for aero drag - and short of a skin suit and fairings, sustained pitches are the only way to beat it.

 

[mdf]

What do you mean?
Are you making the case that sustained 30-40 with peaks to 70s is possible in drag conditions with full-steep pitches on otherwise moderate hills?

No, I'm saying it is undetermined. My main point is that saying "but WC racers don't go that fast" doesn't really refute the speed claims.

 

[cantunamunch]

No, I'm saying it is undetermined. My main point is that saying "but WC racers don't go that fast" doesn't really refute the speed claims.

Sounds like beginner and amateur level speed skier data, specifically within the acceleration zone, would be the place to look.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Interesting that you think so.

I've always thought small radius is more 'comfortable' for intermediates with lateral balance imprecision because they can find something to dynamic balance against sooner (for sooner read: at lower tipping angles), and at lower speeds.

What I am suggesting is that a high performance ski that desires to turn will more likely throw a less balanced rider than a less turny ski. I concur that the responses will educate a skier to the operation of a ski. It is why I introduce never-evers to skiing on my old 130 Rossi Cuts. The OP says he has back seat issues so I am warning of the issues that back seat and hyper-responsive skis may result in: jetting skis and phantom foot falls.

 

[cantunamunch]

The OP says he has back seat issues so I am warning of the issues that back seat and hyper-responsive skis may result in: jetting skis and phantom foot falls.

Sure, I get that. I guess the reason I was worrying at your comment like a broken tooth is that I associate those specific problems with front/back balance issues on longitudinally stiff skis. OP sounds like he's intending to avoid full-on stiffness for hardpack.

I was further wondering if you were also cautioning about a rotary trapping mechanism like happened with VSP/RR's and Bonni/QueenB's boot top fractures. Which happened with flexible short radius skis.

And that would be a very valid point indeed.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Sure, I get that. I guess the reason I was worrying at your comment like a broken tooth is that I associate those specific problems with front/back balance issues on longitudinally stiff skis. OP sounds like he's intending to avoid full-on stiffness for hardpack.

I was further wondering if you were also cautioning about a rotary trapping mechanism like happened with VSP/RR's and Bonni/QueenB's boot top fractures. Which happened with flexible short radius skis.

And that would be a very valid point indeed.

I think you are reading too much into my remarks. I just think back seat driving and hyper turny skis can lead to more time on the ground resulting in less rather then more edge grip.

 

[cantunamunch]

I think you are reading too much into my remarks.

Just keeping up with the "higher level".