Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 11:25:59 GMT -7
Well...she could put her skis in your ski bag and you can schlep them around for her. "Porter!" (snap, snap) Happens to me all the time...sigh... As for waist difference, I guess a good full day demo would be the answer. Too bad you're not closer, or she could try my wife's SS Speeds and see if she gets along with them better than the Power One. I guess if increased stand height is a viable option, then a new ski bag and new bindings/plate are still cheaper than a new pair of skis. And she gets to keep the P-8's.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 11, 2014 12:06:32 GMT -7
Good Lord! I turn my back for a few minutes and 2 pages of stuff about me pops up!
Joking aside, after reading the comments above, I think I should stick to the demo plan. If no demo is possible, then I will let it go. The P8's are a fine ski and I enjoy them. If I get a chance to demo an under 70mm waist, then it's meant to be! (maybe). Thanks for all your thoughts and suggestions.
Lynn
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 11, 2014 14:47:29 GMT -7
Pick of the day Demo Kastle LX 72 - same width - perhaps different magic - may be more versitile
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Feb 11, 2014 18:08:19 GMT -7
And given the Kastle price structure, way more than I am willing to spend. (did I mention I need to replace my roof this coming year?) Every so often, I get caught up in the "new ski" vibe when I don't need one. I don't suppose any of you know about that feeling?
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Feb 11, 2014 19:54:24 GMT -7
Did I mention that we got Lynn's brand new 2014 Head Mya 8's for $250, courtesy of Svend and Sierra Trading Post and a malfunction of a Wintersteiger Laser tuning machine (or the operator).
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 12, 2014 11:38:13 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 12, 2014 11:51:47 GMT -7
I have to say that it is absolutely crazy that you can not find hardly ANYTHING with a waist less than 70. What happened to livin' in the 60's man! The front side carvers on the realskiers site are all 72 - 80mm and some are wider. Not saying they can't carve. But they are not as quick. I found when I had my RX8 that was 66mm it was noticably quicker. I also had to have my timing down better. It really shapened up my skiing.
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Feb 12, 2014 12:16:12 GMT -7
I have to say that it is absolutely crazy that you can not find hardly ANYTHING with a waist less than 70. What happened to livin' in the 60's man! The front side carvers on the realskiers site are all 72 - 80mm and some are wider. Not saying they can't carve. But they are not as quick. I found when I had my RX8 that was 66mm it was noticably quicker. I also had to have my timing down better. It really shapened up my skiing. Even harder is fnding a shop that is carrying any non-race narrow widths, even for manufacturers that have them. And, of course, further exacerbated if looking for woman specific models. Perry, what length did you have for your RX8? It still amazes me that even when a manufacturer has a really superior ski such as the SuperShape or the RX8, they will still change the name after two years. Chevrolet hasn't felt the need to change the name of the Corvette in the past few years -- even though it's gone through various iterations and capabilities, it is still called the Corvette and people have a pretty good idea what kind of car it is within the framework of current technology. Kudos to Kastle here, I guess. They've introduced a bewidlering array of models with their FX, MX,and LX terminology -- but someone that had a Kastle MX88 could buy a new MX88 and be pretty comfortable with what type of ski they are getting. Head recognized the cachet of the SuperShape name, but chose to preserve only the name and not the ski. They have taken the Super Shape name and used it extensively in their rental fleet (and those certainly aren't supershape skis, either in name or in dimension)!
|
|
|
Post by perry on Feb 12, 2014 12:43:49 GMT -7
I had 170cm and they had a definite speed limit for me. The 175 would have been better.
Agree, why not keep making a good model instead of "This is the new Rx8"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 13:47:53 GMT -7
Guys, this is an interesting conversation, and is pertinent to my upcoming ski choice also. As I've mentioned, I am looking for a replacement for my Nordica Mach 3 (72 mm), which are a bit chattery and plankish at times. So I have been focusing mostly in the mid-80's width range in order to help navigate the rough snow at our local hill (ie. it's a rare day when the groomers are smooth; there are so many skiers and boarders that it gets pushed around quickly). But I really don't need that width for float, as the snow is just uneven, not deep. What I need is a ski with a more even flex pattern and softer tip to absorb some of the terrain. And I need a longer ski -- 180+. Bottom line -- more stability and absorption, not more width. My few runs on Gary's son's Progressor 800's last week showed me how much fun a ski like that can be, and my search focus has now shifted to the narrower, sub-80mm models. They will have a much higher fun factor than an 85 or 88 mm board. OTOH, 66 mm is too narrow for here on most days, which is a shame as that is a fun width.
Sorry for the thread drift...thanks for letting me ramble.
|
|