Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby B.Mulligan » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:10 am

Love the new look myself and they've doubled down on technical skis. Anyone else tried any of their recommended models?

Any thoughts on this seasons reviews? They completely changed their view of the head instinct power ti...anyone else ski that ski?
B.Mulligan
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:45 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby jbotti » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:28 am

Most of us have come to the conclusion years ago that if we don't know how someone skis then their review is pretty much worthless for us (PMTS skiers). Skis that work great for a skier that uses large amounts of active rotary often are terrible PMTS skis. There was a time when Realskiers was using HH as an important consultant but that has not been the case now for many years. In general I would say that for PMTS skiers the reviews are basically worthless.

As for the Head instinct series HH pretty much trashed that whole line when they first came out. So ask yourself do you want to listen to 3-5 skiers that likely aren't close to using PMTS technique or HH. The answer seems simple to me.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby B.Mulligan » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:16 pm

Well I'd HH of course. But I didn''t realize it was so different. Realskiers and Jackson Hogan seem to champion the sort of skis and skiing appreciated here. Actually, they champion Harald Harb and put him and his books, which are linked on the site, as the key to great instruction and technical skiing. From reading the site, I got the sense that they were all friends.

Anyway, they reviewed a larger number of technical and near race skis than I have seen anywhere else. Just wondering if anyone else saw the new reviews an had any thoughts on them or comparative reviews to share.
B.Mulligan
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:45 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby NoCleverName » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:22 pm

jbotti wrote:Most of us have come to the conclusion years ago that if we don't know how someone skis then their review is pretty much worthless for us (PMTS skiers). Skis that work great for a skier that uses large amounts of active rotary often are terrible PMTS skis.


I have never liked that characterization because the implication is that PMTS is a niche technique that only works with certain skis. My own take is that PMTS works with any ski but it can draw more performance from certain skis than any other technique can.
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby jbotti » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:14 pm

I really don't know how many times it needs to be said or for how long you will continue to feel the need to defend your purchase and stated enjoyment of the Head Titan but certain things are true whether you want to believe them or not. This is a simple fact: certain skis promote, encourage, reward particular movements. PERIOD end of discussion. You and anyone else can ski and whatever ski you like.

We try to keep a consistent message on gear in this forum so that those new to PMTS and just advancing with the movements can get the right information about gear. We are not interested in gear that will allow someone to perform PMTS movements. We are looking for gear that will actually help in that process, gear that quickly rewards the right movements (like tipping versus) active rotary.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby jbotti » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:21 pm

B.Mulligan wrote:Well I'd HH of course. But I didn''t realize it was so different. Realskiers and Jackson Hogan seem to champion the sort of skis and skiing appreciated here. Actually, they champion Harald Harb and put him and his books, which are linked on the site, as the key to great instruction and technical skiing. From reading the site, I got the sense that they were all friends.

Anyway, they reviewed a larger number of technical and near race skis than I have seen anywhere else. Just wondering if anyone else saw the new reviews an had any thoughts on them or comparative reviews to share.


Friends of course can disagree. RS made a decision about 5 years ago to base their reviews on the cards they send out (and receive back) from a good number of ski shops around the country. Reviews since that time have been way off from a PMTS perspective.
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby Max_501 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:35 pm

NoCleverName wrote:My own take is that PMTS works with any ski but it can draw more performance from certain skis than any other technique can.


If you hop on a reverse sidecut reverse cambered ski and use PMTS movements the ski will rail in the wrong direction and you'll fall on your face (I speak from experience). That is the extreme end of a ski that rewards rotary input. On the other end we have WC race skis which only come to life when all of the Essentials are dialed. There are thousands of skis in between these extremes. Why any PMTS skier would intentionally select a ski that is on the rotary side of the scale is a mystery to me.
User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby NoCleverName » Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:36 am

jbotti wrote:I really don't know how many times it needs to be said or for how long you will continue to feel the need to defend your purchase and stated enjoyment of the Head Titan


... but I currently ski (or will, when the snow arrives!) an i.Speed and before that the TT800. "PMTS" enough for you? The Titan is my "powder" ski, such as powder is in NE.

The comment further down about a reverse camber ski "not PMTS" would be true (and I actually deleted a line in my post specifically calling out "all skis except for reverse camber" because I had that in there more as a joke and thought even then that detracted from a serious discussion. BTW there is somebody on another forum who is an indie builder who seems to be trying out a reverse camber reverse sidecut design. What has the world come to?)

One wonders if the current FIS GS and SG skis would be considered "PMTS"; clearly these skis, driven by the "best skiers in the world" who by definition use PMTS, are not exactly what you would recommend to the average punter. So that's at one side of the scale of what's "PMTS" ... if you allow them to be called "PMTS". At the other end are the powder pontoon boats. No argument there: not "PMTS". I have no experience with them and can't say what would happen trying to pull a super phantom on the groomed!

What the maximum width of what's "PMTS" escapes definition especially since length plays as much a role as width. Are there "PMTS" lengths as well?

I've had the impression that the sweet spot for "PMTS" skis is sub-70 or at the most sub-72. Yes, the industry is pulling back from the recent wide-body fetish, but it seems to be settling in on a minimum more in the 76 range (@ 14-16m). Even the i.Speed has "fattened" to 68. I'm thinking that the classic "PMTS" ski may be harder and harder to find as we go forward. Time to stock up?
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby NoCleverName » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:31 am

But to stay on the thread for a moment ... :)

The text in the reviews is of little use with the normal flowery verbiage overflowing into wannabe poetic mash. The scorecards have a certain value in the sense you can judge the RELATIVE merits of one ski to another ... but not much in the absolute sense. I haven't really studied them too much to see what constitutes "high-end" from "intermediate" skis. I think one thing you can learn is if a ski is pretty much the same from one year to the next and thus get a deal.

The truly dismaying aspect is the shear number of model lines ... not so much each line has a bunch of skis. You wonder with that many models if anything gets the design attention to detail that it deserves. To boot, with that many models and only so much design time available ... could it be that whole categories small market skis might just disappear: like narrow technical skis, for instance?

For example, when my TT800's were biting the dust last year there were no i.Speeds at any of the shops I hit. Sure, there were supershapes but the smallest was the Ralley. And yes, there was the odd Rebel lying around; no way Jose! So to get one I had to special order this year's model. So now there's two or three more i.Speeds at the shop but only because I think he had to order one of each length just to get one. Dim prospects of selling the others. But maybe I'll be able to rip some decent turns and someone else will covet the yellow ski! I should get a commission. 8)

So I pay my 20 bucks to RS each year hoping that they more or less carry on the tradition from when they were a newsletter and are not beholden to the advertisers. Ski Mag sent the "review" issue to pretty much everyone in the world free of charge. I looked it over but I'm convinced that the "ski's of the year" or "editor's picks" or whatever are chosen on a yearly rotating basis.
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby Max_501 » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:40 am

NoCleverName wrote:BTW there is somebody on another forum who is an indie builder who seems to be trying out a reverse camber reverse sidecut design. What has the world come to?)


Production reverse camber reverse sidecut skis have available since 2001.

NoCleverName wrote:What the maximum width of what's "PMTS" escapes definition especially since length plays as much a role as width. Are there "PMTS" lengths as well?


For any skier there is probably a maximum length and width given their current skill level. As they become more proficient with the movements both measurements can increase.

NoCleverName wrote:I've had the impression that the sweet spot for "PMTS" skis is sub-70 or at the most sub-72.


72mm or less is a good target for learning, ripping groomers all day, racing, bumps, and light powder (say up to 6"). For deeper/heavier powder and heavy crud something wider may be more fun if you have the tipping skills to tip and hold the wider boards on edge. How wide depends on the conditions. I rarely ski anything over 95mm and we have deep heavy snow out here. If I'm bouncing back and forth between groomers and crud something around 80mm is a nice compromise.

In this ancient video I'm on a 170cm Supershape which was 66mm at the waist. At the end I'm skiing in chopped up pow.

User avatar
Max_501
 
Posts: 4124
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby NoCleverName » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:01 am

Max_501 wrote:
NoCleverName wrote:BTW there is somebody on another forum who is an indie builder who seems to be trying out a reverse camber reverse sidecut design. What has the world come to?)


Production reverse camber reverse sidecut skis have available since 2001.



Well, I guess the world came to it while I wasn't looking! :lol:

What else have I missed? :?
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby NoCleverName » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:10 am

Max_501 wrote:
In this ancient video I'm on a 170cm Supershape which was 66mm at the waist. At the end I'm skiing in chopped up pow.



Yes, these are conditions I have regularly taken the TT800's into ... without the flair, of course. :) But the capability is there in the ski.

Simple proof that the wide-body ski isn't a requirement ... unless you're a rotary skier.
User avatar
NoCleverName
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby Obrules15 » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:22 am

It seems as though the skilled PMTS practitioner uses a ski in such a way that they are progressively shortening the turn radius through a combination of movements which include progressive tipping. If that is the case does it mean that a soft ski with a very large turn radius would ski better (PMTS) than a very stiff slalom turn radius ski? Or that ww is less important than what happens when you tip the ski up on edge (my brain spasms when I think of a reverse sidecut ski on edge) because a wider ww takes more precision & power to tip, but still reacts in the same basic way, yet something with a narrow ww and an odd geometry would do way weird things when tipped.

I've been reading through old forum posts and it seems as though it's very difficult for most people to identify a good PMTS ski. Reading through Max_501's posts makes me think the primary problem is ski manufacturers don't publish the correct info. They don't list a "bendability" factor. I propose that we petition manufacturers to give us length, sidecut/geometry, ww, camber profile, and BENDABILITY for given skier weights. :D
Obrules15
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby jbotti » Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:11 am

It is difficult for some or even many to identify a good ski for PMTS but not for higher level PMTS coaches. Bendability, ski stiffness and torsional rigidity are all significant factors in finding good skis. A ski that bends easily but lacks torsional rigidity will not hold up well on hard snow when a good PMTS skiers bends it. Skis that are too stiff have many issues but in general they suck off piste unless you are making Super G turns. HH and Diana generally assume that the bulk of their students will either be a one or two ski quiver (yes some at 3-4 and some with many pairs but that is the minority) hence they want skis that will respond to tipping and arc well and support the creation of significant forces on and off piste AND still be soft enough to comfortably ski off piste in up to 10 or so inches of snow (which for the bulk of people is the most they ever end up skiing).
Balance: Essential in skiing and in life!
User avatar
jbotti
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:05 am

Re: Thoughts on this year's real skiers reviews

Postby njdiver85 » Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:37 am

What are some of the off-piste / up to 10" of snow skis considered to be better for PMTS, out of the current 2016 or 2017 crop of skis. So a 2nd ski for those that already have a Supershape Speed or similiar?
njdiver85
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:05 pm

Next

Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests