Opinions on Blizzard Quattro 8.4 Ti?

JTG4eva! wrote

TJ....for 2019 they added a 96, with a turning radius of 22.4 at 174cm.  Better, but I agree the Wrenegade is an outlier for what he’s looking for.  Still more freeride charger than versatile jib ski.

That's the one I compared to the Allplay.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

That's the one I compared to the Allplay.

Yeah, and still not a good comparison!

JTG4eva! wrote

For the record, I’ve only recommended the Marksman twice, to two people.

Do a search of the word "Marksman" in the forum. It's... Something.

But what about the radius?  Robin hood you know this shit.  Is it better for a high intermediate to have a shorter turning radius?  I think I know but don't know if I know.  

I reviewed them once, recommended them twice.  Half the time Marksman comes up in your search it’s probably a post like this one, where I’m fighting with the resident tool who has nothing better to do than give me shit!  All the searching you, frighteningly, do.....I thought you’d be better at interpreting the results!

tjf1967 wrote

But what about the radius?  Robin hood you know this shit.  Is it better for a high intermediate to have a shorter turning radius?  I think I know but don't know if I know.

Back before skis had rocker, some intermediates preferred skis with bigger turning radiuses because they weren't good at using their edges, and they didn't want to be "locked in" to a small turning radius.

Others had no ability to use their edges, and would just use rotational movements to make the skis turn in the direction they wanted to go. A skier like that would use the same technique with a shaped ski, a straight ski, or a 2x4 strapped to their foot.

Now, with tail rocker, the first problem doesn't exist as much and the second skier is unaffected.

Most skiers don't carve (that should be obvious), and even less skiers use only the turning radius of the ski. Even high end skiers aren't locked into the turning radius written on the ski (it can be lengthened by tilting the feet less, shortened by bending the ski more, wiped out by adding a skid in the middle, etc.).  

Turning radius is just a number based on a mathmatical formula that manufacturers give to specify whether a ski tipped on edge (at a certain angle) is more or less "turny". If people relied solely on the turning radius to ski, everyone on straight skis would run out of mountain before they made 10 turns.

Okay, saying that, does it matter too much if the radius is 18 or 22? Not to me. That 12 feet will almost never be relevant (only when making perfectly carved RR tracks turns on consistent pitch, really). It's probably even less relevant to an intermediate.

But, people have preferences, so the advice to demo a bunch of skis to see what this guy likes is probably the best advice in this thread.

Actually nm...

Cunningstunts wrote

Actually nm...

Hey, that was a good post.  Just because MC needed diarrhea of the mouth to say that shape, profile, construction, stiffness and skier style are all more important than turn radius doesn’t mean you have to hold your tongue!

After all, those things are the very reasons why the Wren96 and the Allplay, skis with similar width under foot, similar turn radius, and similar overall weight, ski so differently!

That said, a medium turning radius (in the 17 to 22 range) is generally what people look for in a park ski, or so I’ve read.

Well I think he actually got as much as needed to be known.

Seemed kind of long-winded too.  Look up how to calculate ski radius and you'll learn all sorts of things you don't need to know

It's the skier not the skis.

Get the cheapest skis and save your money for lessons. When the instructor can no longer keep up with you, get new skis.