2017-18 Gear Teasers

[Tricia]

Dimensions

As much as I wanted to get on the Big Joy, I think the segment was just too narrow for it to be successful. I see the rounding but I'm just to sure how much that would affect performance.

The more I think about it the more I want to get on the Wild Joy. How do we get one in the Pugski demo fleet?

I'm sure we'll get some to demo at some point. Hoping to get some Head Demos for the Mother's day week. We'll see if its possible to get one before then. As for the tip profile, I'm not sure what it will do either. Maybe its performance or maybe its cosmetic

90mm is a VERY good move. The more skis I ski, the more days I ski (almost daily) the more I realize that anything over 90mm wide is overkill, particularly on my knees. It also "torques my boots", which essentially makes them feel like they don't fit.

I agree with you. I'm excited to try it

 

[Tricia]

Some of what's new with the Tecnica Women's Boot Line
#women2women

 

[neonorchid]

I'm astonished that a major company would allow a display to go out with so many typos and spelling mistakes. This wasn't some random tweet flung out into the world, it was a considered marketing spiel that should have been written, checked and signed off within some department or other. I'm not up to speed on how these displays get created and distributed, but I'd assume it's centrally coordinated (in some manner) to get a consistent message out into the market and to gain some economies of scale.

Not to beat a old horse to death but let's face it, that SIA display was never intended to be seen by the general public, i.e., retail consumers.

It just falls in line with the rest of their QC.

I wasn't aware of QC problems with their Alpine skis or bindings. On the other hand, the "multiple", BC-NNN, BC X6 and BC X10 cross country boots that I tried last season had a heel cup that was put together terrible with several issues.

 

[cantunamunch]

.
better integration!.

So....easier to ski, in a Cauchy sort of way?

 

[cantunamunch]

Remember this when you go to set up your first touring rig.

90mm is a VERY good move. The more skis I ski, the more days I ski (almost daily) the more I realize that anything over 90mm wide is overkill, particularly on my knees. It also "torques my boots", which essentially makes them feel like they don't fit.

 

[Sierrajim]

90mm is a VERY good move. The more skis I ski, the more days I ski (almost daily) the more I realize that anything over 90mm wide is overkill, particularly on my knees. It also "torques my boots", which essentially makes them feel like they don't fit.

Some years ago, the go-to width for a 50/50 type of ski was 98mm. Then, some manufacturers started adding a couple mm to their 98's in order to sort themselves out from everyone else and thus, for at least a minute or two, 100 was the "new 98" Now, it seems that knocking down the rocker some and narrowing the ski a bit, seems to be the current marketing thinking. Many of the really new skis hitting the incoming market such as the Head Kore 93 and Dynastar Legend 96 will share those traits. Also, the "look how light it is" trend seems to have abated at least a bit. While the Head Kore is light, the light materials are in the middle of the ski rather than the extremities. Opinions vary of course but many experienced testers have mentioned that they don't care for really light skis in rough conditions. I tend to agree and for example, have really never understood the attraction for really light skis such as Souls 7's as OSQ's. I'm interested to see if Head has mitigated the flapppity feel of some of those skis with the Kore series.

SJ

 

[markojp]

The 93 didn't feel floppy at all on piste. I need to ski them longer than 180 off piste to see how much light is too light.

 

[Brian Finch]

Some of what's new with the Tecnica Women's Boot Line
#women2women
View attachment 18802 View attachment 18803

My wife would never be caught dead in those..... really demeaning.

 

[Monique]

My wife would never be caught dead in those..... really demeaning.

??? What did I miss? I'm usually the first to find some way for anything to be offensive, but I don't see it.

 

[Monique]

But I'm wary of the cold toes reputation of the Vacuum line of boots.

FWIW, I have very cold feet. I got the Vacuum RC Pro this season - replaced the stock liners with my Intuitions, and my tootsies have been happy. I can't speak to the stock liners - Intuitions work so well for me that once we decided they wouldn't hurt my flex, I just kept 'em.

 

[Drahtguy Kevin]

The 93 didn't feel floppy at all on piste. I need to ski them longer than 180 off piste to see how much light is too light.

He didn't say floppy. He said flappity. There is a difference. I think...

 

[markojp]

They weren't flappity either.

 

[AmyPJ]

Some years ago, the go-to width for a 50/50 type of ski was 98mm. Then, some manufacturers started adding a couple mm to their 98's in order to sort themselves out from everyone else and thus, for at least a minute or two, 100 was the "new 98" Now, it seems that knocking down the rocker some and narrowing the ski a bit, seems to be the current marketing thinking. Many of the really new skis hitting the incoming market such as the Head Kore 93 and Dynastar Legend 96 will share those traits. Also, the "look how light it is" trend seems to have abated at least a bit. While the Head Kore is light, the light materials are in the middle of the ski rather than the extremities. Opinions vary of course but many experienced testers have mentioned that they don't care for really light skis in rough conditions. I tend to agree and for example, have really never understood the attraction for really light skis such as Souls 7's as OSQ's. I'm interested to see if Head has mitigated the flapppity feel of some of those skis with the Kore series.

SJ

I agree, don't love my Santa Anas in rough conditions, they do get deflected too much, particularly because I'm pretty light.
Maybe one of the reasons the Motive 95 was a well-like ski is because it's a very functional width??

 

[cantunamunch]

??? What did I miss? I'm usually the first to find some way for anything to be offensive, but I don't see it.

I'm guessing it's about the women to women caption directly under the square of the angular velocity.

 

[Sierrajim]

I agree, don't love my Santa Anas in rough conditions, they do get deflected too much, particularly because I'm pretty light.
Maybe one of the reasons the Motive 95 was a well-like ski is because it's a very functional width??

That's a really good question. I suspect that the Motive had some followers not b/c of the width alone but because of the balance of characteristics (including the width) Oftentimes the overall character of a ski can't be properly defined by individual characteristics but more by the sum of all of them. Sometimes there just isn't one thing that is the determinant.

SJ

 

[Sierrajim]

The 93 didn't feel floppy at all on piste. I need to ski them longer than 180 off piste to see how much light is too light.

I don't disagree completely but I do have a little caveat to throw in here. IMO, if your "normal" size is say a 180ish ski, and you have to ski a particular model in a 189 in order for it to not feel flappppity (or floppppity), then I'd make the conclusion that in fact, it IS too light.

sj

 

[cantunamunch]

I don't disagree completely but I do have a little caveat to throw in here. IMO, if your "normal" size is say a 180ish ski, and you have to ski a particular model in a 189 in order for it to not feel flappppity (or floppppity), then I'd make the conclusion that in fact, it IS too light.

sj

Interesting, mostly b/c flap/flop is a property I would actually expect to worsen in a longer length.

 

[markojp]

I don't disagree completely but I do have a little caveat to throw in here. IMO, if your "normal" size is say a 180ish ski, and you have to ski a particular model in a 189 in order for it to not feel flappppity (or floppppity), then I'd make the conclusion that in fact, it IS too light.

sj

For reference, current skis are 184 monster 88 &98's , 180 iSpeed Pro, 186 v1.0 Bodacious. There's good light (Katana V-Werks) and bad light (Soul 7). Just hoping to see the light of this whole light thing.

 

[markojp]

Interesting, mostly b/c flap/flop is a property I would actually expect to worsen in a longer length.

Not at all... best example in recent experience I can think of is the difference in a 177 and 184 Rev 85 Pro. The 177 was skittish and squirrelly 'fun'. The 184 was a lovely daily workhorse do it all ski that was rock solid at speed. There are a number of great skis that ski entirely differently in different lengths. Another that comes to mind, 182 vs 186 Blizzard WRC. Both great, but very different.

 

[Tricia]

My wife would never be caught dead in those..... really demeaning.