• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Shorter Radius Carving Ski

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,553
Location
Behavioral sink


Zero answers provided other than NO.

I'm guessing they just didn't want to deal with identifying them properly, let alone matching them up to sheets, let alone making sure no civilian gets on a 10-19 binding.

What was highly unusual is that that went for Atomic only.

Plenty of Head, Fischer with ancient Tyrolias, Dynastar, Rossi with old PX series, even Volkls with older Markers, sold just fine.
 

Rdputnam515

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Posts
695
Location
Front Range, Colorado
I'm a mid 40s, 155 pound, aggressive carving midwest skier. I have a need in my quiver for a shorter radius carving ski. I'm seriously considering the Volkl Deacon 72 Master in the 173 length. Would it be a mistake to get the shorter length just for the smaller radius?

I'm open to other suggestions. I really enjoy a plate system. I've considered a FIS SL ski but think it'll be too one dimensional but I've never skied one so I'm not sure.
I am late 40s usually hang around 160-165 lbs (now around 173 from summer beer) and I ski the WRT ST as my carver. With a good tune the ski is fantastic and fun. It is very powerful but for an aggressive carver it will be a blast. I have found I can use it in a variety of situations and have really fallen in love with how it handles.
I would ski it though, if you can.
I chose this over everything I skied at demo day. Although they didn’t have any of the carver atómica I wanted to try and no Nordic’s Doberman either.
The reps told me “this is CO, so we brought skis people ski out here”
Wha? Bruhhhhhh……

eta: I am on the 172 but could definitely see the next size up (182) as a viable option as well. Although I am a little heavier than you
 
Last edited:

stevo

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 8, 2021
Posts
275
Location
The world is my oyster
I'm a mid 40s, 155 pound, aggressive carving midwest skier. I have a need in my quiver for a shorter radius carving ski. I'm seriously considering the Volkl Deacon 72 Master in the 173 length. Would it be a mistake to get the shorter length just for the smaller radius?

I'm open to other suggestions. I really enjoy a plate system. I've considered a FIS SL ski but think it'll be too one dimensional but I've never skied one so I'm not sure.

where do you mainly ski? west coast, east coast? midwest? Rockies?

demo until you find the right one, its worth the cost you will use it for years.

I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong answer and it totally depends on you. The SL skis have their advantages, but also disadvantages. I wouldn't call it totally one dimensional, but it's not all dimensional either. I personally like a sidecut around 15m to me that is the sweet spot and I can work shorter turns out of it, or longer turns at will that are all highly carved.

But anyway so much of it depends on you, how you ski, how you like to ski, the typical snow you ski on, etc. I think narrow it down to no less than 6 candidates and find a way to demo them all and for more then a couple runs each.
 

silverback

Talking a lot about less and less
Skier
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Posts
1,382
Location
Wasatch
I demoed the Stockli WRT in 172 length. My notes:

Wow. Very solid and hooked up feeling. Kind of like a slalom ski that wants to seek the fall line. Powerful edge hold, smooth but not the liquid metal smooth of other Stocki‘s I’ve skied. Comfortable in a variety of turn shapes. Off-piste and in bumps-the tails were pretty aggressive (tune?) and didn’t like to release or skid, handled rough snow well.
 

Rdputnam515

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Posts
695
Location
Front Range, Colorado
GF is very firm on 155 beeing better than 157 or 165, so I trust her on this!

our local hill is way more than that and she will ski them for hours, even a full day in springtime. I think key is beeing not fat, not old and not in poor physical shape :D

for me its such a workout, even the 165s. but Im older, fatter, and in worse shape then her (she gets paid to walk a LOT during workhours, I just sit still)

@KingGrump most high level athletes here are on the icon now, honestly I cant tell any diff, but.. Im a solid 2/10 when they are 10/10.. soo
Dang man, my 172s are enough work for my old office chair ridden legs!
165s would kill me!
 

Rdputnam515

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Posts
695
Location
Front Range, Colorado
I demoed the Stockli WRT in 172 length. My notes:

Wow. Very solid and hooked up feeling. Kind of like a slalom ski that wants to seek the fall line. Powerful edge hold, smooth but not the liquid metal smooth of other Stocki‘s I’ve skied. Comfortable in a variety of turn shapes. Off-piste and in bumps-the tails were pretty aggressive (tune?) and didn’t like to release or skid, handled rough snow well.
I had the tail issue too. They did NOT want to release at all. Took them to my tuner and he “fixed” them in 5 min. Now I love them.
Excellent hold and only release when asked.

I did like the Head Supershape and the Kaestle was ok
 

anders_nor

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Posts
2,575
Location
on snow
Dang man, my 172s are enough work for my old office chair ridden legs!
165s would kill me!
she's 9 years younger, and about 36KG lighter....(50kg last season)

and yes 165s kill me, I ski them for masters/practice, and maybe an hour with her or buddies , but them Im worn out. I'm down to 103.8KG this morning! we will see how the season goes..


I find WRT pros to be a hoot to ski, but never really tried them offpiste in bumps, just some minor stuff on ied out pistes
 

anders_nor

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Posts
2,575
Location
on snow
she just sent me this picture after I refferd some of what I wrote in the thread.

1700604413208.png
 

DocGKR

Stuck at work...
Skier
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Posts
1,627
Location
Palo Alto, California
As noted previously, for me, the 172 WRT-ST is a touch easier, more forgiving, and a bit less stable at speed than the 175 e.Race.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,485
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
GF is very firm on 155 beeing better than 157 or 165, so I trust her on this!

our local hill is way more than that and she will ski them for hours, even a full day in springtime. I think key is beeing not fat, not old and not in poor physical shape :D

for me its such a workout, even the 165s. but Im older, fatter, and in worse shape then her (she gets paid to walk a LOT during workhours, I just sit still)

@KingGrump most high level athletes here are on the icon now, honestly I cant tell any diff, but.. Im a solid 2/10 when they are 10/10.. soo
How does she feel about GS skis?
I find I can't really enjoy GS skis on a small hill, so I like to get on them when I have a chance on a larger hill. The SL skis's super power requires you to give up some of what makes a GS ski so good on a large hill, a 12-m radius 156 cm long ski requires giving up a little more than the 13-m 165, too much more imho, but that don't matter if our on a small hill anyway.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top