Recommendations for Slalom Shaped but Softer Flexing short-radiused ski for aspiring technical skier

[Tim Hodgson]

See what he is doing with his tips here:

I need to learn that.
I want a ski that will reward me when I do it properly.

 

[markojp]

And you'll note he's not on a FIS SL, but a 14m iRace Pro. At a certain point, the archer is much more important than the arrow, and without exception, every company makes excellent arrows. You're severely overthinking this.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Are you still looking for my arrow in your shop?
Incl. iSL?, iRace Pro? or iRace?

 

[markojp]

Are you still looking for my arrow in your shop?
Incl. iSL?, iRace Pro? or iRace?

I've had a pair set aside. PM me your contact info and I'll get you pricing when I'm back in on Thursday.

(I don't have any of the others you mentioned, but a quick search online lead to some good deals on iRace and iRace Pros.)

 

[gwasson]

K2 Turbo Charger in a 165 would fit your description, and if there are any around they should be pretty cheap. The Disruption STi would also be good.

 

[D. Trenker]

"skiers who have runs named after them (not in epitaph)"

 

[Viking9]

Nice job on that Mark.

 

[Muleski]

I’m 5’10”, 215 lbs, age 66 and “OK with my skiing.” I had always had at least one pair of real-deal FIS SL’s, as my son was a sponsored athlete starting almost 20 years ago....and some made their way to me. Elan, Fischer, Nordica, and Head.

They were my super hard snow, short radius weapons of choice. And yes, they reward good skiing, and they sure want to be on edge, etc. And to be honest, they really are a one trick pony. For an older guy like me. Turn, turn, turn some more.

My son, now a coach, handed me a pair of skis a few years ago, and said give these a try. You’ll like them. 170cm Head i.Race with the real race plates and bindings. And he was right. I do a fair amount of mid week skiing, smaller hills. Perfect.

My main East Coast, old snow, skis are a pair of 180cm Head i.speed pro’s, the i.race, and a pair of SuperSpeed i.speed’s in a 177cm. That last pair is just a fun ski. Again, given to me with a few days of use. Doesn’t have the precision of the i.speed pro, not the same ski at all, but just fun and easy to pilot. More versatile, I guess.

I’d not overthink this. I don’t think the OP can go wrong with an i.race or i.race pro. I also think it “works” in either a 165 or 170. I’m delighted with a 170cm.

The good news? Hard to go wrong in this category. So many good skis. Like all of those Fischers! So many that I get easily confused!

And yes, newer current boots. A must.

 

[Tim Hodgson]

@Muleski you like the iRace (not pro) in 170cm?

How about the iSL rd?

Also, let's turn to boots. I have 2 year old Lange RS 130 197mm last.
They are more upright than I like for carving.
I prefer my older design new old stock Lange L10 Race 197mm last with more forward lean for carving.

So do all you guys and gals actually prefer a more upright stance in your boots for slalom carving?

Suggestions, comments appreciated.

 

[James]

So do all you guys and gals actually prefer a more upright stance in your boots for slalom carving?

No, I hate it for skiing. Doesn't work for me. I got out of Lange plugs because of that. I want more forward lean. Have you tried the liner shim?
If the older ones work better, use those. You can always get new liners.

If one is actually racing, you’d probably have a gs and a slalom boot. But you’d have to be pretty into Masters for that, though many are gear obsessed. Why else would Rossi put a $2600 GS ski with that front bar contraption in their catalog?

 

[markojp]

@Muleski you like the iRace (not pro) in 170cm?

How about the iSL rd?

Also, let's turn to boots. I have 2 year old Lange RS 130 197mm last.
They are more upright than I like for carving.
I prefer my older design new old stock Lange L10 Race 197mm last with more forward lean for carving.

So do all you guys and gals actually prefer a more upright stance in your boots for slalom carving?

Suggestions, comments appreciated.

The boot you're in will be fine. It bends easily. I know several technically sound skiers who ski them very well. My own preference is for abit more than the 12 degrees your boot has, but I'm confident if someone handed me an RS 130, I could modify it if needed. My own boots over the past 8 seasons (Raptor 140 and B3) more around 16 degrees. The new boot is supposed to be the same (WCR 3), but it does bend differently and feels a bit more upright. It's fun figuring it out, but in your case, just make sure the boot you already have is set up and aligned (lateral and fore/aft, footbed as and if needed) correctly. You'll be fine. I also agree with Muleski that the iRace Pro would be great for your mission and more versatile than an SL, but either way, keep in mind they're just tools to refine your skiing. (FWIW, I ski a 175 iRace Pro... if I were on the Blizzard program, without a doubt, I'd own a 174 HRC. )

 

[Noodler]

The boot you're in will be fine. It bends easily. I know several technically sound skiers who ski them very well. My own preference is for abit more than the 12 degrees your boot has, but I'm confident if someone handed me an RS 130, I could modify it if needed. My own boots over the past 8 seasons (Raptor 140 and B3) more around 16 degrees. The new boot is supposed to be the same (WCR 3), but it does bend differently and feels a bit more upright. It's fun figuring it out, but in your case, just make sure the boot you already have is set up and aligned (lateral and fore/aft, footbed as and if needed) correctly. You'll be fine. I also agree with Muleski that the iRace Pro would be great for your mission and more versatile than an SL, but either way, keep in mind they're just tools to refine your skiing. (FWIW, I ski a 175 iRace Pro... if I were on the Blizzard program, without a doubt, I'd own a 174 HRC. )

Just want to point out the there is no standard for the measurement of the published forward lean numbers from the manufacturers. Just like you cannot directly compare flex numbers from maker to maker, you also cannot compare forward lean.

 

[markojp]

Just want to point out the there is no standard for the measurement of the published forward lean numbers from the manufacturers. Just like you cannot directly compare flex numbers from maker to maker, you also cannot compare forward lean.

Absolutely correct as the published number doesn't and can't account for our anatomy inside the boot. Thanks for adding that!

 

[Tim Hodgson]

This forward lean vs upright stance boot thing is interesting.

I am pretty sure that I heard that Tom Gellie does not prefer a boot with an upright stance.

markojp, I also kinda wonder about the "bends easily" boot.

While it is my experience that the Lange RS 130 does bend easily, wouldn't I want to be able to be "front-side" heavy without having to bend the cuff of the boot which is in effect a spring just waiting to spring me back into the back seat?

In other words, don't I want to be able to access front-side heavy, neutral, and back-side heavy without pressuring the cuff at all?

 

[Tony S]

@Tim Hodgson you will feel SO much better about your setup after a few actual runs, a pause to watch the mountain birds, and a beer. This is not a jab; I'm totally serious. Well, maybe a little bit of a jab, but still serious. I speak as fellow gear-head!

 

[markojp]

This forward lean vs upright stance boot thing is interesting.

I am pretty sure that I heard that Tom Gellie does not prefer a boot with an upright stance.

markojp, I also kinda wonder about the "bends easily" boot.

While it is my experience that the Lange RS 130 does bend easily, wouldn't I want to be able to be "front-side" heavy without having to bend the cuff of the boot which is in effect a spring just waiting to spring me back into the back seat?

In other words, don't I want to be able to access front-side heavy, neutral, and back-side heavy without pressuring the cuff at all?

Bends easily... by design, the new RS boots are a bit softer in the front of the cuff than the previous iteration, but are much more progressive in flex than the older pre dual core boots. They still are laterally stiff. If you had an RX boot, sure, I'd say to look at a boot with a solid block sole, but that 's what you already have. I only know one person who skis this boot that really could use a stiffer boot, but he's much bigger than you or I. Boot flex is also about your own ankle mobility. Your boot fitter and training mentor should be able to help, and you have a number of good fitting resources around N. Lake Tahoe a la Jim at Starthaus who could help you evaluate where you are. Some will tell you to have boot quiver. I'm not really in that camp as you can't easily run into the lodge, especially now, and change boots. Find the best all arounder that you can and marry it. I also wouldn't take a lot of stock in the fact that some of the top tech skiers like Reilly ski in a 150 plug. He's a great skier working year round FULL TIME on the hill, but I doubt he's spending much time skiing chutes like you have at your local hill, or dealing with very steep, technical off piste terrain and a dense, maritime snowpack, then gone out for a carving session before lunch. We're general practitioners and triage folks, not surgeons at research institutes. If your RS 130 isn't impeding your skiing now, it won't with a dedicated carving ski. At some point in the future, sure, you might want to play with a different boot, but get your current feet under you and sorted out. Get Jim to look at your stance and alignment and show him some vid of your skiing. Yes, I'm a gear dork because of work, but rather than worry about the differences, i find it interesting to feel them and adjust as necessary. After that, If the old home base is still preferable in terms of skiing outcomes felt and objectively observed, I'll go back. FWIW, while I have race and carving skis, If I had to toss them all including the 99's and 118's and keep one, it'd be my Monster 88. The stuff Takuya's doing in his video could easily be done on a Monster 83 like the clip below.

 

[Tony S]

See what he is doing with his tips here:
View attachment 116522

I need to learn that.
I want a ski that will reward me when I do it properly. View attachment 116515

Finally got around to watching this video. Extremely fun skiing to watch. Got me itching to get out there.

Almost none of it is carving, much of it is bumps, and all or almost all of it takes place on what we here in New England would call soft snow. (Looks like spring corn.) If you showed me that video and asked me what ski I'd want to be on in those conditions on that terrain, I'd say, "Um, almost anything as long as it wasn't stupid wide (< 100mm)." I'm sure the Head that Yamada is on is great, but tons of other skis would be great in those conditions too.

I'm bringing this up because it seems to conflict somewhat with the premise of the thread:

I am looking for recommendations for a Slalom Shaped but Softer Flexing short-radiused ski to learn/improve my "technical skiing."
...
I am looking for something with a waist of 68mm or narrower in a 11m to 13m radius 165cm-170cm in length.
...
I need to be able to bend it on edge into a tight radius turn at a mere mortal skier / ski resort safe speeds but to generate sufficient centripetal force to allow me to incline my body fully against the outside ski for the technical skiing to which I aspire. Kinda like this (not a mere mortal):
...
If you are a technical skier or are an aspiring technical skier who has been down this road before me, your suggestions would be appreciated.

So my question is, when you talk about the "technical skiing" you are wanting to do, is it actually like what we are seeing in the Yamada video?

 

[markojp]

FWIW, if the boot is too soft, you'll be skiing quad dominant and squatty. Too stiff, and you'll be folding at the waist, ankles locked, and seat aft, and often diverging tips. Both outcomes are exhausting and will eventually lead you to the dreaded 'back and in'. The former is driving a car with worn out shocks, the latter, an F1 car off road.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....
In other words, don't I want to be able to access front-side heavy, neutral, and back-side heavy without pressuring the cuff at all?

Front-side heavy and back-side heavy are Tom Gellie's terms. The way he describes getting front-side heavy is to have solid contact on the front of the boot, weight focused under the foot at the back of the arch/front of the heel, and then extend at the hip. This will move feet back. It will also, if you were in the air or in the bumps, tilt the skis so that the tips go down and the tails go up. On a groomer it will drive the tip down or "pressure" the shovel. Tom calls this result "Tails to head" or something like that somewhere in that maze of material he is putting out.

So you'll definitely be "pressuring" the cuff. It will serve as a lever. You'll be levering the tips downward and the tails upward while extending and flexing at the hips. If you do it the way Tom describes.

 

[Noodler]

This forward lean vs upright stance boot thing is interesting.

I am pretty sure that I heard that Tom Gellie does not prefer a boot with an upright stance.

markojp, I also kinda wonder about the "bends easily" boot.

While it is my experience that the Lange RS 130 does bend easily, wouldn't I want to be able to be "front-side" heavy without having to bend the cuff of the boot which is in effect a spring just waiting to spring me back into the back seat?

In other words, don't I want to be able to access front-side heavy, neutral, and back-side heavy without pressuring the cuff at all?

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to your stance alignment. We all have different limb segment lengths, etc. that will result in a specific prescription that is mostly unique for you. The boot forward lean, ramp angle, and binding delta are all at play here.

I think @bud heishman is in your area (at least within driving distance). For the fore/aft stance (sagittal plane) go see Bud (and of course he can take care of the rest too).