Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    1,169

    Am I over thinking ski weight?

    Looking to get a new pair of skis as the previous model year deals sweeten. I'm looking for something bigger and badder for in bounds. I have my eyes on the bodacious but am scared of the weight. They are over a pound heavier per ski than my current skis (RMU Apostle). I demoed a pair of meier big hoss last year and they felt much lighter and livelier at almost a pound lighter. I get that a fatter ski that can soak up everything I can throw at it is gonna weigh more but how much of a difference in your opinion does a half or full pound really make? To complicate matters they'll be mounted tele. I feel like if I was mounting them for alpine it wouldn't matter as much. Is my back county side just being a pussy or are there any good skis that have a high speed limit in the 110-115 under foot range that won't cost me as much in the weight department?

    I wish I can say they'll only be used for mach loony runs down wide open bowls with nothing but pow for miles but I live in Colorado so after about 8:30am that ship has sailed leaving me to get creative in trees and the occasional bump run where I think weight will be more noticeable.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,952
    In a heavy inbounds charging ski, the only time you should notice the weight is when your feet are dangling from the chair. If you notice it while skiing, you're a beater.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    20,197
    Sack up & do it

    Then post a TR from the base clinic

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    My heaviest tele touring skis (annex 108) weigh almost as much as the bodacious. Add in axls and T1s and I'm sitting at ~ 22 lbs.

    Yes, you're being a pussy.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,243
    Long ago when I was a pinner I liked heavy boards. Go for it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
    To complicate matters they'll be mounted tele.
    The other pertinent question is what boots/binding? I'm assuming since you are skiing apostles you have a beefy boot/binding to match.....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW -> MSO
    Posts
    7,889
    Don't be a pussy.

    Heavy boards are inherently stable and make great tele boards... F=m*a. Smooth out the jitters, make em track, and enjoy the beefy full suspension DH ride.

    Fave setup I had (only tele shit I still have)... 183cm Head 103 w/ Hammerheads.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by 3PinGrin View Post
    The other pertinent question is what boots/binding? I'm assuming since you are skiing apostles you have a beefy boot/binding to match.....
    Axl and T-Race. Won't need the axl for these boards but I'm too cheap to buy new bindings, though the Bishops intrigue me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SE Idaho
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
    Axl and T-Race. Won't need the axl for these boards but I'm too cheap to buy new bindings, though the Bishops intrigue me.
    I have never skied bishops. All my non-touring stuff is NTN freeride which I love for lift serve due to step in, brakes, release, and edge control. Obviously requires a boot upgrade though. I reverted back to 75mm for touring for the time being which is a longer story than I will go into here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Don't be a pussy.

    Heavy boards are inherently stable and make great tele boards... F=m*a. Smooth out the jitters, make em track, and enjoy the beefy full suspension DH ride.

    Fave setup I had (only tele shit I still have)... 183cm Head 103 w/ Hammerheads.
    Nooooooooooo. Norseman Teles????

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    18,583
    light is rite

    but weight is great
    watch out for snakes

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW -> MSO
    Posts
    7,889
    Quote Originally Posted by aevergreene View Post
    Nooooooooooo. Norseman Teles????
    Once or twice a year, just to remind myself that it's stupid. If I could ski every day again, I'd do it more.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,302
    Quote Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
    they'll be mounted tele.
    Well you won't have any control anyway then, so it doesn't matter.

    But srsly when I used to tele I skied metal skis all the time.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    12,479
    Physics still rules and if you want to charge in bounds skis with more mass haul ass.
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    you see a tie dye disc in there?
    Posts
    4,652
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    In a heavy inbounds charging ski, the only time you should notice the weight is when your feet are dangling from the chair. If you notice it while skiing, you're a beater.
    this is poetry

    edit: tech talk jong

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
    Looking to get a new pair of skis as the previous model year deals sweeten. I'm looking for something bigger and badder for in bounds. I have my eyes on the bodacious but am scared of the weight. They are over a pound heavier per ski than my current skis (RMU Apostle). I demoed a pair of meier big hoss last year and they felt much lighter and livelier at almost a pound lighter. I get that a fatter ski that can soak up everything I can throw at it is gonna weigh more but how much of a difference in your opinion does a half or full pound really make? To complicate matters they'll be mounted tele. I feel like if I was mounting them for alpine it wouldn't matter as much. Is my back county side just being a pussy or are there any good skis that have a high speed limit in the 110-115 under foot range that won't cost me as much in the weight department?

    I wish I can say they'll only be used for mach loony runs down wide open bowls with nothing but pow for miles but I live in Colorado so after about 8:30am that ship has sailed leaving me to get creative in trees and the occasional bump run where I think weight will be more noticeable.
    Since you supplied ZERO DETAILS about your ski length and your size, I can only guess. RMU Apostle pair in 195cm is 8.4lb, 185cm is 7.7lb - that is silly light. Most typical midfat all mountain skis in their longest size (around 187 - 193 cm), with either metal or a heavy wood core are around 10lb. If they are particularly wide, or use a heavy wood core with metal, they can get up to 11-12 lb.

    I'm about 220lb and typically ski a 10lb ski with a 5lb look/rossi turntable. A 9lb ski with a turntable feels lighter, and even lighter with a plastic binding. I've also got plenty of skis in the 11 to 12 lb range, either with turntables, or with 6.5lb salomon metal bindings. Those feel very noticeably heavier. I've also got some elan mantis m777 192's with vist GS plates, risers and metal salomons, those clock in around 20lb for the setup.

    I ski 11-12 lb, 191cm powder skis with turntables in tight eastern woods all the time, they are are just fine, I don't have any problem with the weight. I do prefer a 9lb ski in packed snow trees and bumps, it's much easier to just bounce off stuff and be light on your feet.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    22,462
    The only time it really matters is when you go for the grab
    Heavy skis/bindings inbounds aren't so bad. In fact, they're probably better for charging. Especially tracked out, heavy snow.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Golden
    Posts
    3,379
    Old Bishop Bombers on old Hippy Stinx. Weigh in at about 47# per. If clamping them on after skiing something softer and lighter, one must simply remember that they don't turn as quickly as you may want in steeps and trees...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,836
    Only notice the weight of my skis when I'm being a pussy and not skiing fast enough.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier View Post
    Only notice the weight of my skis when I'm being a pussy and not skiing fast enough.
    This

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    big boots/bigger longer skis/big bindings I noticed more strain on the knees at the beginning of the season but then I got used to it and the normal stuff was a breeze
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Depends. Are they the Tech Talk JONG special edition?
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian Sanders View Post
    Since you supplied ZERO DETAILS about your ski length and your size, I can only guess. RMU Apostle pair in 195cm is 8.4lb, 185cm is 7.7lb - that is silly light. Most typical midfat all mountain skis in their longest size (around 187 - 193 cm), with either metal or a heavy wood core are around 10lb. If they are particularly wide, or use a heavy wood core with metal, they can get up to 11-12 lb.

    I'm about 220lb and typically ski a 10lb ski with a 5lb look/rossi turntable. A 9lb ski with a turntable feels lighter, and even lighter with a plastic binding. I've also got plenty of skis in the 11 to 12 lb range, either with turntables, or with 6.5lb salomon metal bindings. Those feel very noticeably heavier. I've also got some elan mantis m777 192's with vist GS plates, risers and metal salomons, those clock in around 20lb for the setup.

    I ski 11-12 lb, 191cm powder skis with turntables in tight eastern woods all the time, they are are just fine, I don't have any problem with the weight. I do prefer a 9lb ski in packed snow trees and bumps, it's much easier to just bounce off stuff and be light on your feet.
    Didn't think it was that relevant but about 190lbs, 6', skiing 185s. Older Apostles so a little heavier but not much.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    30,885
    thats ^^not too big at 160lb I usually wear a 185 and i do have some softer 190's

    but for Tele I would think twice about getting something too badass

    General consensus on the RMU's is that pretty much any ski will be >
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
    Didn't think it was that relevant but about 190lbs, 6', skiing 185s. Older Apostles so a little heavier but not much.
    You should be fine on any ski 8lb to 9.5lb, as long as your tele boots and bindings don't suck. Keep in mind flex and mounting point also contribute to how difficult a ski is to maneuver.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •