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

Super weird AT carving question...

Jim Grossman

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Posts
4
Location
Sun Valley
But I come to skitalk because you all just might have some ideas, while everybody else thinks I'm just damn crazy...

I love post-season 'corn carving.' And this year has been a banner harvest... I'm closing in on 100k vert.
1653239148001.jpeg


I'm super happy with my b/c setup; Technica Zero G Tour Pro boots (130 with spoilers) and Augment Free Tour 95 skis (180, 95 waist, 21 radius) and their ability to carve great GS turns...
1653238942703.jpeg


But I'm a certified 'carveaholic' and want to maximize my "arcs to uphill effort" ratio.

My go-to carving skis during season are Line Blades and Blizzard FIS Slalom skis. I have a pair of Waymakers and love the way both these skis carve tight radius in post-season conditions, but the weight...

So I'm thinking of stripping the plates off an old pair of slaloms and mounting a pair of AT bindings on them...

I should have mounted Shifts on my Blades but the concept was so new (two years ago) that I wanted to play with fore/aft placement on Blades so mounted demo bindings instead. I'm also thinking of getting new pair Blades with shifts and/or remounting old pair with AT bindings.

What do you all think? And what other options might I have...?

Specifically I'm wondering what aggressive sub 16m carving ski is the lightest? Let me know your ideas and thoughts... (Other than I should be a charter member of 'carveaholic's anonymous.')
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,426
If you put a pair of Strives on the Blades you could prob save most of a pound per ski. But then you need the Daymakers still.

Used to be popular to mount old race skis with tele. But those have some stack height. Taking a plate off a slalom puts you low on a skinny ski which is good for boot out, which can get dangerous to your health.

My DPS 99 (Alchemist) is 15m in the middle I believe for 184. Quite light in the carbon version- but it’s carbon. So in non 3-d snow it ain’t no damp slalom ski.(I wouldn’t argue with “ghastly”, but I’m a metal snob) If it’s arcing it’s fine, it’s the in between stuff.
Now it’s the 100.

Phil likes the current Dps Pagoda build.
The Pagoda Tour 94 C2 might be more carvey than the 100. If I was going Dps I’d call or write and have a chat as you have somewhat non usual desires to their surfy clientele.

You could look at Movement’s light skis. Again, they’re carbon. @SBrown has one.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
Personally I would never put touring bindings on race skis. In my mind it's just too much ski for that bindings and based on my experience, either with race skis or with touring bindings, I don't think there's touring binding that would hold what skiing race skis demands. But then again, we are all different in way of how we ski and what we want from skis.
 

slow-line-fast

Out on the slopes
Inactive
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Posts
932
Location
snow
What a great question, so nicely peculiar, you clearly have a happy zone and are trying to get the most out of that. Shifts on your old slaloms sans plate, with your AT boots you like for corn carving, might do it?

But I also wonder if you can rework the uphill, just throw your short-turn carving setup on the pack and walk up in hiking boots? Maybe with microspikes as needed. The transitions are probably equivalent, it really depends on your uphill path and conditions.

Act fast, the corn is melting
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,197
Location
NYC
Contrary to most of the "truth" posted on this forum about the "just right" ski for the specific condition. There are many "just right" skis for any condition. It all depends on the skill set of the skier involved.

In the good old days, the only skis available were long skinny sticks. We skied all type of snow on the same long skinny sticks. If we wanted to ski 3D snow, we had to ski a 3D turn to cope with it. We didn't had much of an alternative.
Then sometime around the end of the last millennium, huge advancement of snow making and grooming allowed resort to create trails with billiard table like smoothness. A slightly tilted 2D surface. About the same time frame, shape skis made their debut. Skier found they can easily now push their way down the hill without much effort or technique. But most skiers still had issues with 3D snow off piste.
Sometimes around the start of this century, ski manufacturers started to make skis wider to eliminate this off piste 3D snow issue. The ever wider skis floats the skiers to the top of snow so they can just push their skis from side to side down the hill the same way they do on the 2D groomed trails. Basically reducing the 3D powder to 2D snow surface they are so familiar with. Voilà, a whole generation of powder skiers are born without ever knowing the third dimension existed.
This reducing 3D to 2D thing worked really well for most snow conditions. So far 3D terrain (bumps) has resisted this simplification. That's why we often hear skier proclaimed that they are expert skiers except they don't do bumps. In the eternal wisdom of Josh, "It's not that you can't ski bumps..."

Most skiers turn shapes are 2D. It works fine until too many other Ds showed for the run. The key to having fun in 3D snow and 3D terrain is the ability to shaping a 3D turn.

Below is a pic of Grump crew's ski choice for spring slush at Mammoth, May 19, 2021.
P1.jpg
 

Zirbl

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Posts
1,010
Location
Austria, Italy
Interesting way to think about it, thanks. I call a slalom ski the "wrong" choice for what I'm personally capable of not because it's thin, but because with its shape, it easily gets pulled down paths I didn't intend, which entails risk I'm not happy to take. I probably am indeed trying to use the ski like I would on 2D snow, I'll see how I get on trying to create what a powder ski creates for you.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
@KingGrump I don't really agree with you about "There are many "just right" skis for any condition". Sure you can ski powder on race GS or SL skis. It has been done for ages, but at least for me nowadays, skiing is fun. Before it was profession, and I had to go out no matter what. Nowadays, it's fun, and skiing powder on race skis is not as much fun for me as it could be, so I pick "just right ski" for that that makes it more fun. When I go out for ice and gates, I also don't pick 100mm wide skis, even though it can be done, but it's way more fun on race skis. So at least for me it's not so much about if it can be done, as pretty much anything can be done, but about what makes more fun. And skiing with ski made for certain conditions is definitely more fun... for me at least :)
 

Cheizz

AKA Gigiski
Skier
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Posts
1,958
Location
The Netherlands
I agree with @Primoz entirely. That said, you can carve turn in corn on just about any ski, as long as you can bend it into the turn. Grip is never an issue...
 

Zirbl

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Posts
1,010
Location
Austria, Italy
@KingGrump I don't really agree with you about "There are many "just right" skis for any condition". Sure you can ski powder on race GS or SL skis. It has been done for ages, but at least for me nowadays, skiing is fun. Before it was profession, and I had to go out no matter what. Nowadays, it's fun, and skiing powder on race skis is not as much fun for me as it could be, so I pick "just right ski" for that that makes it more fun. When I go out for ice and gates, I also don't pick 100mm wide skis, even though it can be done, but it's way more fun on race skis. So at least for me it's not so much about if it can be done, as pretty much anything can be done, but about what makes more fun. And skiing with ski made for certain conditions is definitely more fun... for me at least :)
You could also argue that historically, straight narrow skis are a blip. Personally, I'd rather ski a softer, more forgiving ski in 3D snow because I can commit more and get less thrown by terrain changes I can't see if visibility is bad. Catching a high pile of heavy snow you didn't know was there on a slalom ski isn't very nice. But I read it rhetorically - I asked him about skiing FIS SLs in slush, and he told me how he conceptualises it.

Question for the ex-racers such as yourself - "I had to go out no matter what". I often see race clubs freeskiing on GS or SL skis in powder, sometimes in slush. They don't look like they're enjoying it, but I think well, if they can do it, it's a standard to aspire to. On the other hand, they won't have to race in stuff this deep. Presumably the idea is that training on such a ski in non-race conditions will make them better at using it in race conditions. But is that so? Or would they be better off using a more forgiving ski and playing with how they use their centre of mass while protecting their knees? That's the dilemma I face as an amateur, but I also wonder whether the coaches are really doing them a favour or being too zealous with overtraining.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,426
You could also argue that historically, straight narrow skis are a blip.
If you’re talking history…
That’s like saying dinosaurs were a blip. They existed for 165 million years. Humans have a way to go to match that. Maybe Elon Musk will be frozen in orbit and match it if someone’s around to retrieve him.

These new fangled skis still have a good 5 decades to go before sort of reaching parity with the old ones. Going off the millenium as the big turning point, which is pretty close. You might be able to lop a decade off if you count early adopters. Shape skis basically were first tested by Elan in 1992 in the US.

Dude, SL skis in slush are so much fun once you get it.


I often see race clubs freeskiing on GS or SL skis in powder, sometimes in slush. They don't look like they're enjoying it, but I think well, if they can do it, it's a standard to aspire to. On the other hand, they won't have to race in stuff this deep. Presumably the idea is that training on such a ski in non-race conditions will make them better at using it in race conditions. But is that so? Or would they be better off using a more forgiving ski and playing with how they use their centre of mass while protecting their knees? That's the dilemma I face as an amateur, but I also wonder whether the coaches are really doing them a favour or being too zealous with overtraining.
Yes, no, maybe That’s way too broad a brush. Are we talking kids with one or two pairs of skis?
In general, I think it’s better they have a non race skito do non race stuff with so they don’t trash the race skis. On the other hand, boosting jumps or skiing the half pipe on race skis is good.

Here at least, too many race kids miss out on spring skiing which is a great teacher, and fun.
 

Zirbl

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Posts
1,010
Location
Austria, Italy
These new fangled skis still have a good 5 decades to go before sort of reaching parity with the old ones. Going off the millenium as the big turning point, which is pretty close. You might be able to lop a decade off if you count early adopters. Shape skis basically were first tested by Elan in 1992 in the US.
You disagree that shaped skis predate what are generally called straight skis by over a century? https://skiinghistory.org/history/evolution-ski-shape

There were plenty of experiments before Elan brought them to the market. Reinhard Fischer recommended shaped skis for racing to the ÖSV, who didn't want to know. That was in 1975.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,615
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
FIS SL skis might be a little bit heavy for touring, but then again, if you're doing it for the exercise....
Also maybe longer would give you more float, if you encounter deeper softer snow.

As to history, sure we skied long (for float and for stability at speed) skinny skis, but we also had some choice. I often would ditch my SGs for some softer GS skis when skiing deep powder.
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
Question for the ex-racers such as yourself - "I had to go out no matter what". I often see race clubs freeskiing on GS or SL skis in powder, sometimes in slush. They don't look like they're enjoying it, but I think well, if they can do it, it's a standard to aspire to. On the other hand, they won't have to race in stuff this deep. Presumably the idea is that training on such a ski in non-race conditions will make them better at using it in race conditions. But is that so? Or would they be better off using a more forgiving ski and playing with how they use their centre of mass while protecting their knees? That's the dilemma I face as an amateur, but I also wonder whether the coaches are really doing them a favour or being too zealous with overtraining.
My racing was in xc skiing. Things are a bit different there, but still not all that much. With "I had to go out no matter what" I really meant exactly that. It's raining and it's +2c and you have 3h long roller ski session on program. You don't wait for nice weather but go out. Same goes for several hours long classic ski session at hurricane winds, snow storm and non existing track (and kick) on glacier 3000m above sea level. It's definitely not fun, but if you would be training only in nice weather, then it's just a hobby not real thing. And when you are actually paid to do this, it's really a job like any other, except this job was for me 24/7 not 8h/day with weekends off and 30 paid days of holidays through the year :ogbiggrin: Sometimes it was best job on World, sometimes it was shitiest job on world. But in general it was fun and I have absolutely no regrets for doing it that long.
For alpine (where it was just few years of being serviceman) things are similar, just slightly less brutal. In alpine there's plenty kids, and adults, that are just a bit too spoiled for my taste, and if conditions are not perfect, there's millions of excuses to change plans (result later on show it wasn't all that smart thing to do so). Sure, there's never going to be race in 50cm deep pow, but it's not just fresh snow that's normally reason to complain. Too soft snow, too bad visibility, too hard track etc etc. But thing is, you have plenty of chances to race in shit like that too, even if you are in top 5 guys on World. Leading after first run means, you will start with no.30 in second run, and at shitty weather and soft snow, track will be anything but great. If you were training in conditions like this, you will handle it. If your normal attitude was "oh it's bad, let's postpone these runs till tomorrow", you have slightly less chances to do that run properly.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,426
You disagree that shaped skis predate what are generally called straight skis by over a century? https://skiinghistory.org/history/evolution-ski-shape

There were plenty of experiments before Elan brought them to the market. Reinhard Fischer recommended shaped skis for racing to the ÖSV, who didn't want to know. That was in 1975.
Interesting article, thanks. I don’t get your point though. Skis have always had some sidecut, is 7mm of sidecut really that much? Go ahead and dig up some of those skis Stenmark and the Mahres used. The K2 710 and VO are stiff, straight boards. Seen in many fences these days. They will be very different.

We’ve sort of settled on the modern Norwegians as the archetypal ski, but how true is that? It’s way too narrow or deep snow and the much older ones found in glaciers are twice as fat.

Maybe reverse sidecut? Or both, hard to tell.
33BB17C6-5F78-4803-A6E0-BED325FEAC86.jpeg


The Altai region in Mongolia use pretty fat skis too, with skins attached to a middle section. The skiing is pretty bad by our standards though, sit way back and lean on a huge pole to make a turn. But they only have soft boots.

 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,197
Location
NYC
@KingGrump I don't really agree with you about "There are many "just right" skis for any condition". Sure you can ski powder on race GS or SL skis. It has been done for ages, but at least for me nowadays, skiing is fun. Before it was profession, and I had to go out no matter what. Nowadays, it's fun, and skiing powder on race skis is not as much fun for me as it could be, so I pick "just right ski" for that that makes it more fun. When I go out for ice and gates, I also don't pick 100mm wide skis, even though it can be done, but it's way more fun on race skis. So at least for me it's not so much about if it can be done, as pretty much anything can be done, but about what makes more fun. And skiing with ski made for certain conditions is definitely more fun... for me at least :)

Totally agree with you on the out for fun aspect. I don't race so fun is what I am here for.

Right now, I have 8 pairs of skis (mounted) in the back of my car. Thy range from 65 mm to 116 mm. I pull the pair that will put the biggest smile on my face for the day's condition. SL for powder days is definitely not my thing. OTOH, SL for spring slush is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. For steep big hard bumps, a all mountain ski with softer tips and tails is gold.

Spent the past 5 weeks spring skiing at Palisade Tahoe and Mammoth. Skied on a bunch of different skis. A mix of Kendo, Kenja, M5, M6, AX WRT-ST, few Lusti, FIS SL. The ski that put the biggest smile on my face was the FIS SL. Finished the last 6 days of the season on it.
 

Sponsor

Top