Author Topic: A Peter quote regarding wide skis that I had never considered.  (Read 1572 times)

brussell11

  • Guest
Thanks, all.  I'm really glad that there is a resource out there with 'real' skiers who you can trust.  It's so hard to cut through the BS in the magazines, and every ski shop you ask will give you a different answer.  Well, there are obviously GREAT ski shops, but they are becoming harder and harder to find! The best tool is to be prepared (I think there was another thread on this recently) and do your research, and you have certainly helped me do that. Now if only I knew something about boots...

Cheers.

Ben

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Well, now, since I am just graduating from the school of Gary and JB boot fitting, there is plenty of good info here. I have really learned a lot myself. I felt I knew something but in the past 2 months, I realized just howe much there is to know and that with a few good rules, you will be fine. Feel free to ask away. See my boot review on the Head rs96 in the boot section.

remember, don't buy the boot by mondo, buy it by the actual fit and the boot lenght
Buy them stiffer than you think you will want rather than softer
Find a master boot fitter at all cost, if not you are just wasting your cash.

Dawgcathing has the best prices AND great service.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739

Sort of confession time.  I basically have two skis, but I never lug them both around.  When skiing here in the East I only use the Head i.SL Chip (maybe 85% of the performance of the SuperShape, but more forgiving when I want to just ski with grandkids or daughter-in-law).

For trips west, I only take my iM77 Chips.  Same argument.  Much of the performance of the iM82, but overall more forgiving.  I won't deny that there is a different skiing experience available with powder specific super-wides, but it doesn't keep me from totally enjoying the skiing that I do and the iM77 is much better on hard snow than the mid-fats of 10 years ago.  It's not a slalom ski, but it's not a slouch (nor is the 82).

In a sense, I guess everything is a compromise, you just have to balance them and decide which ones are important to you.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Now if only I knew something about boots...

Cheers.

Ben

Uh-oh.? OK, I am a big believer in Harald Harb and those he has trained for fitting boots.? Below are some thoughts from him (Gary, correct me if I mess up).

1.? Boots, generally, are either lateral or rotary.? Rotary boots cause the foot to rotate as you apply edging pressure to the ski.? This has to do with the relative positions of the hinges and forward lean and "other stuff".? When I bought boots last year I was looking at a Lange ?? and the Head S12.? My static alignment was pretty good in both boots, but when I flexed forward in the Lange's I was out of alignment by 2 degrees.? When I flexed the Head the same way, I was still in alignment.? Anyway, it's more difficult to maintain good balance over your skis if your alignment over the ski changes as the boots flex.? I would have preferred the Head stance anyway, but it a validation of what Harald describes in his books (and he classifies Langes as rotary).

2.? There is a lot of description in Harald's book about people's misunderstanding of why Herman Maier (as an example of a strong skier) needs a boot with a stiff flex.? The common perception is that strong skiers can have a stiff boot because they are strong enough to flex it.? Harald says that the purpose of a boot is to provide leverage to help you get back into balance when you find yourself out of balance, and powerful skiers need a stiffer boot to push against to regain balance.? Nowadays, turning forces should be transmitted laterally through the boot to the entire edge of the ski and not by levering and flexing the forebody of the boot and twisting the leg/knee/foot.

3.? I have had a couple of boot fittings, but until I went to the Harb camp last December no one had ever noticed that I had "forefoot varus".? With my ankle in a neutral position, the ball of my foot was 3+ degrees 'high' (basically my foot was twisted).? When walking, I wore out the outside of my shoes but had adapted movements by collapsing the ankle to the inside (this is often also diagnosed as fallen arches).? In ski boots I couldn't make this adaptive move, and had trouble really getting pressure to the big toe pad.? My skiing balance improved overnight (and I had been places that had the machine with the "stand on the pad to measure pressure" and they showed nothing).

4. (this is my opinion, not from Harald's books) I hear lots of places talking about supporting the foot by adding padding under the arch.? The arch isn't a load bearing part of the foot, so I don't understand why they want to pad the arch to make it load bearing.? The load bearing surfaces are the heel and the forefoot.? My "guess" is that many people diagnosed as "fallen arches" really have some form of forefoot varus or valgus, especially if the ankle really collapses to the inside (the body's adaptive mechanism to get the forefoot down on the surface).

5. Gary taught me last year that a 1/2" dowel rod stuck in the boot is a much better way to measure shell space than by trying to stick your fingers behind the heel.

6. Don't be intimated by Gary, because I hear that even the really good skiers put their silk undies on one leg at a time.? ?:-*

"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Hey Jim...nice job brother...

Just think you ought to have a 2 ski carrier when you head out west....use the carvers to tear it up in the morning and the 77's to crush the piles later in the day...nice combo Jim!

Boots:
I had the very same experience with Lange boots...alignment off but self corrected in my Head RD80's. For me, that validated Harbs belief in ski boots.

Stiff and soft...really dependent on how much leverage one brings fore and aft too their ski. Too soft and? you can't get off the front of the boot, to firm and you can't get in a good "attack" position to get maximum flex and lateral power to the ski edges.

Sole Supports just made some new orthodics for my ski boots. The fitting process through a podiatrist friend of mine was both similar and different than Harolds methods. With the Sole Support orthodics I can feel even pressure under my arches but the weight distribution is even across the bottom of the foot. The arches are designed for their firmness based on the ability to flex your foot side to side and your weight. It appears in dry land experiments that ankle rotation is not limited? and is quick and feels precise. More so than the footbeds Harold made for me 4 years ago. On the snow first experiences will reveal more....

Ya like the dowel rod thingy huh....nice set up....got that from some boot fitters while visiting a friend in Chicago. The other thing is when trying on new boots, take out the liner,? take your socks off and place your feet in the boots. You skin can sense if that shell is anatomically shaped to your foot....a very good start. It will also show if there's too much movement in the forefoot and heel area. You should be able to feel the edges of the boot with just slight movement of the feet and it should be equal all around the foot.

As far as how I put on my silkies....well.... there's just some secrets that will remain secrets!

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
A couple of other nuggets of wisdom

flex is relative to not only stiffness, but also how upright you are in the boot. If you are already forward, then you don't have much leverage to flex and your foot/ankle can only flex forward so far.

Most side pins are within 1/2" from each other on the vast majority of boots today, I will not make that much of a difference, The Atomics, Nordicas are only 3/8" lower to the inside.

NEVER, NEVER buy a boot that is even the slightest bit too large or voluminous- ITS TOO BIG!

Buy a plug or semi-plug boot unless you are blessed with a generic foot.

If a boot is too soft, when flexed the cuff will push down on the instep, causing pain or disrupting the normal flex of the boot. Go Stiffer and soften later.

Gary

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2590
  • Location: Rochester, NY
Nice Nuggets Ron!

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Yes, they are...............

Hoontasan

  • Guest
Interesting thread. I want to go back to the discussion regarding higher speeds required to effectively turn a wider ski. It is interesting to note that when summarizing the IM82 Peter has described that ski's speed zone as 10, 30 and RACE. Doesn't this indicate that the ski can respond well at lower speeds and if so isn't this contrary to his general statement?

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Doesn't this indicate that the ski can respond well at lower speeds and if so isn't this contrary to his general statement?

Welcome to RealSkiers Hoontasin:

I don't think one implies the other.? At least in part, Peter is saying that a wider ski takes more effort to tip on edge than a narrower ski, and that getting this edge angle requires more speed (the part that I don't really understand). However, these comments are just abstract comparisons between wider and narrower skis.

The factor that most affects usability at various speeds is the flex of the ski.? Many skis that are designed for higher speeds are so stiff that it is really difficult to bend them (and therefore get them to turn) at lower speeds.? Many skis that have a softer flex and work well at lower speeds lose stability at higher speeds because they aren't stiff enough to deal with the snow surface irregularities at higher speeds.? The review characteristics you quoted just indicate that the iM82 isn't overly biased at either end of this spectrum.? It's neither too soft for high speed nor too stiff for low speed.? I think that probably means the ideal fit is Mother Bear's bed, but can also do just fine in Fathers big bed or Baby Bears little bed.

However, lest you be misled by looking at just ski speed characteristics, note that the iM82 doesn't have the green skier level icon that the iM72 has (and the iM72 has the same speed rating characteristics).  The iM82 can be skied slower, but it is suggested for Experts and Pros and requires a higher level of skier and more attention than the iM72 (as an example).
« Last Edit: November 04, 2006, 04:53:29 pm by jim-ratliff »
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Hoontasan

  • Guest
Jim,
Yes, skis with a softer flex will make it easier to turn at lower speeds. I suppose we can assume the iM82 is a tweener but it's still intriguing that it is rated as a one ski quiver for three levels of skier. It must be a great ski. One that I will have to demo and perhaps acquire. I've demoed the iM72 but found it's performance level to be low.

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Head Monster comparison
« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2006, 12:29:11 pm »
Hoontasan:

If the iM72 is a little too easy, then you will certainly like some of it's bigger brothers.? Note that Ron and Gary both ski the iM82, Michael really liked it (but bought spatulas) and jbotti may even have a pair (his may be 88's), while at 58 years old I decided the iM77 was better for me.? Here is a reveiw that we all believe is an excellent comparison, and several of us have bought skis from Scott (Dawgcatching).

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=35791

Note that, since Epic is open to the public I don't have any problem posting links to information over there.  Since RealSkiers is not publicly accessible, I would never post or copy information from this site, information that Peter feels is proprietary.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 12:31:04 pm by jim-ratliff »
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
This is a good link but I will point out one point I take issue with, I was speaking wth Scott a couple of weeks back about the comparison of quickness between the 77 and 82. Scott did not ski the 82 with the binding forward, he skied them neutral. he only skied them a couple of runs. I still take the position the 82 is quicker and more energetic. It turns very well on the hard pack. Regarding the issue of the slow speed, Mr.radcliff is correct, If you put a novice or intermediate on the 82, it would probably be difficult to handle, the 82 is not happy going slow however. its does so with a bit of an attitiude!

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Mr.?? radcliff  (I'm not very used to such titles)   :o

Ron, I agree with you, even though I have never skied the iM82.? I can't remember whether you demoed the iM77 or not.? The iM77 (at least the chip version) is very damp and I that's what I hear when Dawg talks about it as a little like a bull-dozer.? I can understand how a more lively ski (iM82) might feel quicker when the waist widths of the two are that close together (but I still remember the first time I skied the iM77 how surprised I was at how lively and quick they felt, especially compared to some 70mm waist K2 Axis X's I had been skiing).

To copy some of Dawg's review, "A bit less stable than the 172 iM82 (exactly what you would expect) but still isn't going to be outskied, even by aggressive experts. Heavier feel underfoot, similar quickness."? My bolding, but Scott certainly isn't claiming the 77 is a lot quicker (or any quicker) than the 82.? The other attraction to me was that "You can relax on the iM77 much more and be lazy if you prefer".? What you say about the 82 is consistent with the SuperShape and Head's laminate construction high-end skis.? They can be skied slow, but they can't be skied lazy.

But the real purpose behind the post is because it is all from one person that describes himself pretty well and does a good job of describing each ski from his point of view.? What Hoontasan needs to consider is which of those target skiers best describes him and how/where he wants to ski.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Ron

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2992
Agreed, i should have been more specific, the comment that I took umbrage with was the comment regarding the 77 being better to dodge skiers with, or something like that. To me, that meant it was more nimble and quick. However, your comment is correct and right on; especially regarding the fact that the 82 and SS cannot be lazily skied, that's for sure.