Can we name names and lengths? Do you have video?
Mostly, because it's easier to adjust a short radius ski to a longer turn than vice versa.
It wasn't carved all the way, we know that. Maybe like this?I've never found carving a short radius turn with a "straight ski" to be difficult. It must have something to do with bending the knees. (five dollars please) ;-)
Never found the fa84 edt stiff. Once it flexed it reacted though and it wanted purpose. Had the 168.A Nordica Firearrow EDT84 or GSR EDT may say 18.5M or 19.5M on them and it's quite accurate, those skis like to make that shape and not much else, they are stiff and need to be driven with purpose.
I suspect strongly that a lot of what you are experiencing comes down to the pilot. Let me guess you still ski pretty much old school with feet locked together?
I can flex around and adjust on my GS skis and front side carvers much easier than my FIS SL Fischers.
I've spent a fair bit of time over a mile a minute on my Fischer SCs too. However, skiing them back to back with my old Super Gs I know there is a big difference. Go back and do that same turn on a good long radius ski. You will feel the difference.To each their own, I guess. I hit 62 mph on my Head SLs today at Sun Valley, coming across the "belly" of a perfect carved arc on lower Warm Springs.
Not sure what my exact turn radius was, but certainly MUCH larger than the stated value of the ski.
I've spent a fair bit of time over a mile a minute on my Fischer SCs too. However, skiing them back to back with my old Super Gs I know there is a big difference. Go back and do that same turn on a good long radius ski. You will feel the difference.
I am curious about using technique to adapt to the "limitations" of the ski's sidecut, though I wonder which end is "best" to approach it from (short turns on longer radius, or long turns on shorter radius). Input would definitely be appreciated on that.
Your old K2 Merlins pretty much suck. I had a pair maybe over 20 years ago. Yeah it's a shaped ski, but one of the first gens., and the design didn't live that long. A modern ski will blow that dog away in all respects. Get something in a 80-88 waist and >16m R - Look something in the 16-19m range.
Actually, Black Crow is doing what Philpug suggested, categorize turning radii to short, medium, long, etc.
I think the reason why Black Crows measures numbers to the 10th decimal is that they design each model of their skis to be length specific. You can see from the numbers below, different lengths of the same model, Camox, have the same waist width and turning radius, but slightly different tip and tail widths.
Other than the little light up gizmo, what changed, other than much more drastic side cuts? Any suggestions for a ski like you describe, for a 6'1" 230lb guy, that'll do great at holding an edge on midwest ice?
Plenty! Think ski construction. Torsional rigidity but yet longitudinal flexibility. Actually the side cuts have been toned down some sine the hay day of the shape skis. so thing refined shapes. I'm partial to the Kastle FX or MX line. The Head Monster 83 would be worth looking at.
Yeah I hear a lot of good things about Kastle skis. Even used, their prices make my eyes bug out a little... Wouldn't the Monster be a bit soft for an aggressive, high level skier?