Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2274 Location: Washoe Valley, Nevada
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject:
bbense wrote:
Quadzilla wrote:
Would be interesting to see how much if any growth dimensioinally a 190 Vector would have. I would guess the waist would probably grow to maybe 100 or so and probably some added girth to tip and tail as well.
That would ruin it for me. What I like about the vector is you get most of the crud benefits of a bigger ski w/o the extra width and weight. Making it just a bit longer would add enough extra float and stablity for even the deeper days w/o compromising the performance on regular days. It would also give you a longer arc on the harder stuff where you're most skiing on the center camber of the ski.
Quote:
But, maybe a old age thing but I am getting used to having a releasable binding on my feet for any serious skiing so that issue would need to be sorted out without compromising the light weight of the skis and not that interested in having another Dynafit kit.
Inserts allow me to switch between 7tm and Voile ( and even Dynafit with Dobish plates ). I know aaron thinks this is dumb, but it works for me.
- Booker C. Bense
Maybe having the ski grow a little dimensionally would actually make it better as opposed to adding underfoot camber or additionally material to the lay up. My call is a jump of 180 to 190 is a pretty good jump and in my case it would probably add unwanted torsion underfoot with my weight on it. So if it grew to 98 underfoot and a little tip and tail growth. It wouldn't add much weight and make it stiffer to handle the additional length. In my experience 98 to maybe 102 underfoot can still be a nimble ski, they only start getting planky at over 108. I have a pair of K2 Hardsides at 98 and it is a agile and fun resort ski. However it is too heavy for me as a BC stick. _________________ Just Say No To Groomed Snow
Joined: 09 May 2007 Posts: 202 Location: Les Granges (VS)
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:37 am Post subject:
Nick (AT) wrote:
_Uli wrote:
a) something like an indention in tail
Same complaint with my Chargers. But it is nothing that can't be fixed with a file or a Dremel.
Exactly! 'cause of the edges going around. At least for a model (like the Vector) which points mainly to those who do ski touring it would be very useful though.
I'm pretty happy with the Vectors in alpine conditions (although, for my taste, for teleskiing a rocker is not that useful; the inner ski, sometimes, is feeling pretty short). The only slight complaint is, that it does not behave so well on icey irregular snow (but that's related to the weight, imho, similar skis with a similar weight like the Zag Ubac behave very similarily. Always speaking of tele skiing! Now, i'm converted the Vectors and i'm curious how it will do with Dynafit bindings).
Joined: 09 May 2007 Posts: 202 Location: Les Granges (VS)
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:50 am Post subject:
Quadzilla wrote:
. . .
Maybe having the ski grow a little dimensionally would actually make it better as opposed to adding underfoot camber or additionally material to the lay up. My call is a jump of 180 to 190 is a pretty good jump and in my case it would probably add unwanted torsion underfoot with my weight on it. So if it grew to 98 underfoot and a little tip and tail growth. It wouldn't add much weight and make it stiffer to handle the additional length. In my experience 98 to maybe 102 underfoot can still be a nimble ski, they only start getting planky at over 108. I have a pair of K2 Hardsides at 98 and it is a agile and fun resort ski. However it is too heavy for me as a BC stick.
We're living, litterally, on different continent. Skiing things like this with not perfect powder (which then in reality nearly always is the case) a ski like the Hardside (which i know pretty well and i consider one of the best done of K2) is too large. Exactly here, in the steep, i love the Vector because underfoot they are relatively large but at the same time not so large in tip and tail. Their marvellous tip then compensates pretty will that the ski is not so large there. (Btw, i tried the Movement Pariah which is pretty close to the Vector for weight and dimensions but because of that it is more shaped in really steeps it behaves less well).
IMHO sure, but a larger Vector here in our conditions as a ski for ski touring would not be of so much interest.
Joined: 09 May 2007 Posts: 202 Location: Les Granges (VS)
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:49 am Post subject:
A small add-on:
Just to re-try if i didn't forget fixed heel skiing after 10 years free heel only (exception made for some Stöckli skitests) i put off the switchback fro the Vectors and mounted a Dynafit speed. Marvellous the lightweight now
As it comes to skiing: They behave pretty well and now, i understand why i read somewhere (WildMountain?) that early testers preferred them more as fixed heel than free heel. In fixed heel, even on hard packed pists, i don't see any disadvantage of the rocker. The tip is really fantastic assisting very well the gliding over that typical small springsnow slide balls. Complessively, an excellent allround touring ski for tecnical bindings!
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 7703 Location: Berkeley, CA /Tahoe
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:17 am Post subject:
Quadzilla wrote:
Maybe having the ski grow a little dimensionally would actually make it better as opposed to adding underfoot camber or additionally material to the lay up.
I would really like to see skis move in the opposite direction. Take all the interesting ideas from "fat" skis and apply the best of them to skis in the 85mm to 95mm waist skis. If you get the flex, length, camber and shape right, I'm convinced there is no reason for fatter skis other than as training sticks. If you keep the ski in that range, it is so much more versatile for other conditions.
Yes, there are 3 feet Sierra Cement days where 110+ waisted skis work amazing, but not that many...
FWIW, Hot wax the waxless base of the BC and then use a paper towel and iron to soak up excess wax. Makes a big difference in the speed.
Joined: 09 May 2007 Posts: 202 Location: Les Granges (VS)
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:44 am Post subject:
I second you Booker although your conditions seem pretty different from ours.
My - and that of many other good to excellent skiers - main problems with skis larger than let's say 95 at boot are:
a) when it comes to hike up icy steeps of more than 30/35° (and by force you have to use ski crampons): The larger the ski the more you have to angle out the downside foot to get grip on both sides.
b) the leverage in difficult really steep conditions (when you're forced to start the turn by a little sault from the hillside). The rebound is the bigger the larger is the ski. Now i think for this point not only counts the underfoot but also how large tip and tails are (and, as i underlined earlier, i think the Vector is nicely done to be relatively larger underfoot but relatively slim in tip and tail).
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2274 Location: Washoe Valley, Nevada
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject:
bbense wrote:
Quadzilla wrote:
Maybe having the ski grow a little dimensionally would actually make it better as opposed to adding underfoot camber or additionally material to the lay up.
I would really like to see skis move in the opposite direction. Take all the interesting ideas from "fat" skis and apply the best of them to skis in the 85mm to 95mm waist skis. If you get the flex, length, camber and shape right, I'm convinced there is no reason for fatter skis other than as training sticks. If you keep the ski in that range, it is so much more versatile for other conditions.
Yes, there are 3 feet Sierra Cement days where 110+ waisted skis work amazing, but not that many...
FWIW, Hot wax the waxless base of the BC and then use a paper towel and iron to soak up excess wax. Makes a big difference in the speed.
- Booker C. Bense
Well maybe your reference is the resort environment where even so there is powder days there is always a nice base underneath and most certainly a nice 90 mm ski can tear it up nicely even with my weight on it. I skied 12-18" last Fri on a 110 and my wife skied it on her 105's and we both wished we had brought our 98 and 88's respectively just for the fact the bigger skis did good at making long radius turns with massive power but once the snow got cut up a bit and the best snow was on the edges and in the tight trees, they were a lot more work and clumsy making short radius turns. However, in my environment skiing BC around East and South Tahoe there is a lot of wind and sun making the snow thick and crusty. For this there is nothing better than a 105-115 ski with a rockered tip to bust up the crust and make it skiable. Almost impossible to ski with a older trad ski 85-90. IMO. So maybe a "training ski" but there are a lot of very good skiers around here and they are on big lumber in the BC(resort too) _________________ Just Say No To Groomed Snow
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 Posts: 472 Location: anchorage
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject:
I just got the BCs in 170 length mounted with 3-pin hardwires and skied with t-2 ecos. I'm 180 lbs. and all my other skis are at least 185 cm. I wanted to try a shorter lighter ski for a change and figured if they were too short I would pass them along to my wife.
I tried them out on 20 minute tour with leather boots and the weight of the ski was not too much for the boots but because of the hard conditions I couldn't get an edge even doing p-turns( no surprise). I am optimistic that they will work w/ leather in soft powder.
Next I went to a south facing slope and switched to the t-2s. The snow surface was softening and I was pleased with the uphill performance. They climbed better than a well waxed ski and there was no drag from the scales in the wet snow.
The hills I was skiing were between 12 and 25 degrees, wide open and long with a couple inches of soft corn on a firm base. They were quick edge to edge for short radius turns and tracked well in longer gs type turns. Speed (a relative term) was not a problem.
The next day I put skins on and hit some slopes in the 30-35 degree range. The snow up high never got soft but it was carvable. I wished the skis carved better ( probably me) but the turns were smooth and stable.
I really liked these skis for the up and down. I never wished I had a smooth based more downhill oriented ski at any time. I never felt the need for more length either. It was important to stay centered though. Although I didn't buy these skis to use with skins, they skied well enough and were fun enough that they would be my go to ski for spring conditions in any terrain.
I would say that these are a high performance no-wax downhill ski that I would recomend to anyone. _________________ " good skiing is where you find it" Dickie
Finished the season skiing Alpine and Squaw this weekend. This ski is a keeper once I understood it. In hard conditions, I'd rather be on something else. In soft conditions, the short RL and rockered tip really shine, esp in the steeps. I was in slushy bumps all day yesterday and it was really a breeze. Roll the edges over, "squeeze that orange", then tele... seems like they were like scalpels at times. You can feel the rocker get the ski into a turn easily. Wide enough to push some short fast carves, but the width doesn't really make them excel at it. Find soft snow and it's smeary goodness. They're wide, but not too wide.
Yeah I had complaints about the softness of the topsheets (yeah they're still soft), but I just switch skis on each foot to wear out the opposite sides of the skis. I only paid $330 for them last season. Given the choice, I'd def do it again. Just have to break out the epoxy more often now.
Hard snow or mellow terrain, I'll be picking out another ski in the quiver. I have some rockered trad camber skis for next season to try. Looking forward to those.
Still - soft snow plus steep terrain, I'm reaching for the Vectors. Too much fun. _________________ Drive the cuff
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
