Going Narrower for the First Time Ever

I've come to know Vin at Whiteroom Skis by doing some SEO for him. I'm looking for a new pair of skis and he is going to build them for me.

One thing I appreciate is being able to express what I am after to someone who understands ski design and hear his input on dimensions. Unfortunately this season has conspired to keep me from finally getting to Smuggs, so he hasn't seen me ski.

I love my Daily Breads (171, 132 98 116), but I find that I am really tired by mid-afternoon skiing them.  I accept that I am an old teledude, but I'm hoping with something a little turnier that I might be able to run with the big dogs for a few more runs.

Had some PMs with freeheeln, he feels that a little narrower (95) will make a difference. Vin thinks tail rocker will help too.  This will be the first ski I ever bought that is narrower than the one before.

I love riding on a fatter ski as the compromise seems small for the potential gain when there is new snow. So the goal is to be as fat as is practical with a more turny ski.

This is draft #2, would like to hear what people think about this ski, especially if you have seen me ski (gasp) or are a tree and groomer skier at Gore.  Looks like I'm going with it but thought I would throw it out there.

That ski looks very similar to my NRGY 90's, which I like a lot, but they ski was just to soft for me. This year I was on my 84 Pros, I'd forgotten how much I truly love that ski. I'm with you. Unless it's a POW day I'll be on my 84's.

I love riding on a fatter ski as the compromise seems small for the potential gain when there is new snow. So the goal is to be as fat as is practical with a more turny ski


What you are looking for is a shorter TURNING RADIUS not necessarily a skinnier ski.   You can have a 100 mm ski under foot that is more turny than and 84mm.    Look at something with a 14 to 16 turning radius, now you are getting into a turny ski.    The Nordica enforces are turny.  The bonafied are close to the same width but 33% less turny.  I watched a guy ( one of the best skiers I know) test drive both the skis.  I was right behind him for 2300 vert on each.  I could see the Enforcers linking turns while the Bonafied did more of a smear job.  It was amazing to see.  To me it looked obvious which ski was better.  He like the Bonafied better.  Said they felt more stable.  Guess because they were not as turny.  He looked more in control on the Enforcers.  

I was on my 84's almost all year.  Trenching turns is so much fun.  I watch others skidding turns and just don't see the appeal.  Whenever I am skidding it is usually to dump speed.  Skidders on the hill looks like skidders in your underwear.  Yucky

I find those 84's hard to skid --- but it certainly can be done ---- seems like all they want to do is hook up and go

So I just switched from my 2012 K2 Sideshows (174, 132-90-115, 20m turning radius) to a pair of K2 Annex 98's (177, 131-98-119, 22m turning radius).  Skied 'em twice so far, Saturday at Gore and Sunday at Jay, spring conditions.

Never skied anything that fat, and it's taking some adjustment.  They're noticeably heavier than my Sideshows (obviously there's more ski there).  The tail is a bit stiffer, and that's forcing me to carve more and skid less.  Not sure if that's a good thing for telemark or not, at least at my level.  They just feel more grabby in the tail, and that has thrown me a couple times, resulting in a nice slider on Rumor and a crash skiing the trees at Jay (admittedly in quite variable conditions).  Overall it's still a reasonably soft ski, so I think I'm going to end up liking it.  Maybe should have gone for the 170's instead of 177's...

Harv, getting back to your question, I think turning radius and overall stiffness will be more important than a couple mils underfoot.  What's the turning radius of the skis you're considering compared to what you're on now?  Ditto flex.

I wouldn't be sure where to begin to discuss ski specs with a tele skier... there must be substantial differences regarding performance, right? Maybe someone that is a pro at both disciplines like MC2 can chime in and enlighten me on the differences.

Looks like almost no camber on that ski, is that helpful for you? I still don't know about those weird tip designs with the widest part being so much closer to the boot than traditional shapes. Never skied on a ski like that. I imagine that makes for a smaller radius without having to cut down on tip width? No idea how that type of thing skis.

I like the idea of custom spec'ing a ski but that begs the question of why ask for input from other skiers? If you are getting a ski customized to your preferences, than what other skiers think should matter less than nothing and only serves to introduce other people's preferences instead of your own. I'd imagine the guy building the ski has infinitely more knowledge having built and skied on tons of his own designs (assuming he has?)?

A bit rich for me as I wreck skis too fast to pay that much (I average 3 years per ski, milking em') and I wouldn't want to buy a ski just to baby it. But receiving a discount for work in trade is pretty sweet. I dig ti.

Harvey wrote

This is draft #2, would like to hear what people think about this ski,

I'm not fond of the graphics

Asking river because I don't know.  I don't know radius number for one thing. What is short medium long?

How does rocker affect radius.  How much? Does camber matter?

Can't seem to find out the radius of my daily breads.  One of the worth guys guessed 16.  

The 98s vin drew have a 17.3 radius.  That number would mean I need to go narrower if my DBs really are 16.

"that's what she said"

I remember my first time...

tjf1967 wrote

Look at something with a 14 to 16 turning radius, now you are getting into a turny ski.

Missed this the first time thx. Need to know what my daily breads are. If they are already 16, then I may have to chok this up to operator error.

All I can say is that the wide the ski the wider the stance on the hard and I have always felt that you need to work a little harder to get the same edge angles and therefore the same edge hold as a narrower ski. At my age I find a slalom race ski is a lot of fun but wears you out and a fat powder ski although a lot of fun in the pow and less effort is actually more work on the hard if you want to go after edge hold but a mid fat in the 78 to 90 range is a good overall ski. The ski I had out in Tahoe this year was 84 under foot and except in the untracked baked mank was perfect.

Adk Jeff wrote

So I just switched from my 2012 K2 Sideshows (174, 132-90-115, 20m turning radius) to a pair of K2 Annex 98's (177, 131-98-119, 22m turning radius).  Skied 'em twice so far, Saturday at Gore and Sunday at Jay, spring conditions.

Never skied anything that fat, and it's taking some adjustment.  They're noticeably heavier than my Sideshows (obviously there's more ski there).  The tail is a bit stiffer, and that's forcing me to carve more and skid less.  Not sure if that's a good thing for telemark or not, at least at my level.  They just feel more grabby in the tail, and that has thrown me a couple times, resulting in a nice slider on Rumor and a crash skiing the trees at Jay (admittedly in quite variable conditions).

I got in on that evo.com K2 Annex deal, too because I needed cheap alpine skis. I went with the 184.

I agree that they are a lot of ski. Too much ski for the east, really. Between the beefy dimensions, damp (dead) feeling, and stiff tail, these skis are not what I was expecting. It's not the 98 underfoot that gets me (I got Head Monster 98s that are fine) and it's not the radius (similar to Heads), it's the overall stiffness and construction that doesn't really fit my ski style. The Annexes seem to be for making big turns on wide open western faces, not shimmying through trees in the east.

Harv, I say since you already have the Worths filling out the "fatter" part of your quiver, you should design something in the 85-90mm waist width range, soft for Tele, almost full camber with little bit of tip rise, and around 15-17m radius in whatever length you want.

mattchuck2 wrote

Harv, I say since you already have the Worths filling out the "fatter" part of your quiver, you should design something in the 85-90mm waist width range, soft for Tele, almost full camber with little bit of tip rise, and around 15-17m radius in whatever length you want.

Wow MC thanks.

Questions:

How much camber is full camber and what is the effect of it?  What does more do vs less?

Why a little bit of tip rise and no tail?  (Worth's are like that). Vin seems to feel that the tail rocker will make it easier to turn.

One thing about playing off the Worth's vs replacing them, they have been punished on thin cover etc.  Also it seems like whenever I get a new ski that is all I use, quiver or one.

The ultimate goal is to fight old age a bit and try to keep up with you hosers a little easier.

<quote author="mattchuck2">

Adk Jeff wrote

Harv, I say since you already have the Worths filling out the "fatter" part of your quiver, you should design something in the 85-90mm waist width range, soft for Tele, almost full camber with little bit of tip rise, and around 15-17m radius in whatever length you want.

+1

mattchuck2 wrote

I agree that they are a lot of ski. Too much ski for the east, really. Between the beefy dimensions, damp (dead) feeling, and stiff tail, these skis are not what I was expecting. It's not the 98 underfoot that gets me (I got Head Monster 98s that are fine) and it's not the radius (similar to Heads), it's the overall stiffness and construction that doesn't really fit my ski style. The Annexes seem to be for making big turns on wide open western faces, not shimmying through trees in the east.

Funny thing is the reviews I read all made them sound much lighter, snappier, easier to turn.  Might actually turn out to be a pretty good Whiteface ski though.

mattchuck2 wrote

Harv, I say since you already have the Worths filling out the "fatter" part of your quiver, you should design something in the 85-90mm waist width range, soft for Tele, almost full camber with little bit of tip rise, and around 15-17m radius in whatever length you want.

Pretty much agree. I ski 98 underfoot, 17 radius, early rise tip, full camber back to the tail. Wood core, no metal. Lose a little grip on the firm, but turny on all the rest. No quiver,  daiy driver. Wasn't looking to go so wide, but at $300 couldn't be that choosy. Love them they rip. Seems like turning radius is the most overlooked dimension not as fashionable. I'll take curvy over a fat waist any day.

Harvey wrote

The ultimate goal is to fight old age a bit and try to keep up with you hosers a little easier.

Your a young pup, well maybe middle aged but not close to old. Matt is right, go about 85, I would go turn radius of 15 and a little on the soft side. I have watched you ski from the lift and you do not need a stiff ski.

I ski with a lot of folks who ski fast, I find the reason they ski fast is because they really don't know how to turn or use their edges. So don't get bought into that inferiority thing because you didn't get down the hill first, enjoy each turn as if each turn will be your last.