depressed? buy new skis !! need advice...

I'm so depressed I'm missing the Noquemanon I'm going to buy some new skis.

I only have one pair of beat up classic skis (fischer circa 1998) and I need
some new ones....

Should I get the ROSSIGNOL's or FISCHERS ??????

I've read A LOT of good things about rossi classic skis - easy to hit wax
pocket, fast, and "big guns" use 'em.
But, I'm very partial to Fischer - never had a bad pair (slows pair) after 9
pairs purchased (mainly all skate though.)

ANY ADVICE??????
Objective advice.

I hate Atomic, don't even bother saying it.

JK

"I'm so depressed I'm missing the Noquemanon..."

Pneumonia in Gaylord ?! CRAP Well that's no better than pneumonia in
TC. (someday we'll actually meet at a race & it will click)

Hey ever heard of grandparents ! C'mon ! That's what God put them HERE
for !

I think I dodged a similar bullet w/ 6yr old having flu 1 wk ago 4yr
old having it 2 nites ago...I THINK I'm OK...

I got Atomic Beta's from Uncle Dick there in town and they are worth
mentioning ! About 3 yrs old. It took me and Telewacker both about 2
years to the point of nearly selling them before they started to come
alive for both of us, and now both us like them a lot. Interesting
this: we both got them stoneground, and then we both liked them a lot
better (LJ03 for me. Zach Caldwell said of the factory grind that it
had the most opportunity for improvement of them all). Here is the
noteable thing - the ride is so damped you swear you are creeping
along, like tonite ! But then you look over at the trees whipping by &
you see that you are going along well. So it's decieving about the
speed on these atomics (again 3 yrs old or 4 simply "beta" not beta
race 9 or any or beta modifier). My RCS's feel really fast, kind of
nervous really. I have waxed them both in the same & timed them on a 1k
loop back to back to back to back...and I have found that the RCS's ARE
faster by about 3 - 5 seconds / k on average. There is a price for
that, which is much less control. I tend to yardsale often on the RCS's
whereas the atomics feel much more stable. Also LJ03 grind on the
RCS's BTW. I'm bringing them both because I CANNOT decide which way to
go. My atomics have the traditional bridge, the fischers have the new
school hinged bridge, same pocket for hardwax or klister. I've heard
2nd hand that the rossi's have the same thing. My atomics tend to wear
the front and back of the wax pocket off, and the klister pocket is not
that much shorter. But the klister pocket does ride off the snow nicely
so they are fast klister skis, but the fischer bridge keeps the klister
off the snow too. Despite all that each is very different from the
other. For a long time I didn't think I was heavy enough for the
atomic, but now that I can weight shift, I can hook it up. Here's a
bottom line: the Fischer RCS Classic is a demanding ski, difficult to
stay on top of, not in the least forgiving either on downhills, nor of
incomplete weight transfer (like when yer lookin' for the finish line)
yet it's rewarding like a racing ski should be. The atomic is almost
as fast, & probably faster if you factor out wipeouts, and feels very
confidence inspiring, and is pretty easy to kick, and is forgiving of
incomplete weight shift. Hm, tough choice ! We'll miss ya this wknd JK.

delltodd wrote:

(...) There is a price for that, which is much less control. I tend
to yardsale often on the RCS's whereas the atomics feel much more
stable.

Hey thanks for the new word:-) "To be classified as a yard sale, a
crash must result in loss of skis, poles, goggles, and - in severe
cases - hat and gloves."

I=B4m curious, though. I know from bitter experience that a pair of
really good top of the top line skis can be too good for you, if your
technique isn=B4t perfect enough or your kick snappy and powerful enough
either on average or until the finish line - but my limited experience
doesn=B4t easily offer an explanation why such a pair should or could be
less stable downhill (to the extent that it results in more and/or
worse crashes or even "near-misses").

Aart from the fact that you=B4d perhaps be going faster downhill on such
a pair and approaching the limit of your motorical skills:-)

(Note that I don=B4t doubt your experience at all, I=B4m just wondering
about an explanation for it.)


Anders

Anders...
Hey thanks for the new word:-) "To be classified as a yard sale, a
crash must result in loss of skis, poles, goggles, and - in severe
cases - hat and gloves."

Sounds like you've yardsaled too ! Boy haven't we all. Perhaps in the
future we will say that we've Newelled ! I bet even Tobias
Freidrickssen felt bad for Newell wiping out with 11 meters left in the
sprint final on Wednesday.

I=B4m curious, though. I know from bitter experience that a pair of
really good top of the top line skis can be too good for you, if your
technique isn=B4t perfect enough or your kick snappy and powerful
enough
either on average or until the finish line -

Precisely, those Fischers are like 100 compression golf balls if you
know what I mean ! Those feel sweet when you are on your A-game, and
feel like rocks otherwise. These skis are definitely too good for me in
exactly the ways you describe.

but my limited experience
doesn=B4t easily offer an explanation why such a pair should or could
be
less stable downhill (to the extent that it results in more and/or
worse crashes or even "near-misses").

By contrast to the atomics, the RCS's are narrower overall. This may
have something to do with it. (???)

Aart from the fact that you=B4d perhaps be going faster downhill on
such
a pair and approaching the limit of your motorical skills:-)

Thanks for the new word ! I definitely approach the limit of my
motorical skills on the RCS's !

I just picked up a new pair of Atomic RC11's and I love them. I bought
them because I have stability problems on fast, twisty downhills and I
find they are like riding my skate skis or alpine skis, compared to
Madshus and Fischers. I managed to pull a slalom turn at high speed
down Penguin hill in Gatineau park where I would have been in the bush
on my Madshus, or even on my Fischer skate skis. Also, they are
lighter and a few cm shorter than the equivalent RCS skis I would have
bought. Haven't had a chance to really assess the speed, but falling
and landing on your poles tends to lose a bit more time than a few
seconds per km.
I wouldn't even think of using my old Madshus on a technical course any
more now that I have the Atomics, but if it was a flattish course with
lots of dp than I would use my older, longer skis. Lighter and shorter
really helps going up short steep hills, I've noticed.
I bought a pair of RS11s and RC11s this year, and the only thing I
noticed is that the bases looked rather dried out (white areas) when I
bought them, compared to the bases of the other brands.

Chris

32 degrees wrote:



I hate Atomic, don't even bother saying it.

JK

Hi,

Just wondering why you "hate Atomic". I have Fisher and Atomic skis
and my new Atomic RC10s work just fine.

Edgar

I wish I could try more skis. The differences sound like fun to
explore.

The control stories you guys tell remind me of the famous one (that I
probably read here) where the top Euro dude at the Birkie is prepping
his skis. He's metal-scraping away his grooves, leaving a plain flat
base, and a citizen skier asks him if they're faster that way. He says
something like "Yes, for me they're faster. For you, you'd end up in
the bushes."

That's the kind of skis I want! : ) Too much ski! THAT'S WHAT I WANT!
: ) What I'd give for that.

What I'd give for a real downhill. Oh yeah, bring em on!!!

We had some decent downhills on courses here in Michigan in the early
80's before liability concerns. The Corkscrew trail at Forbush was
jim-dandy. (Or whatever it was called: the name fit the trail: no
longer!) Some Stokely trails come close---less lawsuit worries up
there. But you need to run 'em backwards. Doing King Mt. backwards on
an icy day is JUST THE TICKET. Doing that first long multi-pitch
downhill on the Oly Trials trail at the Soo Finn club when it's icy is
a proper downhill, too, giving air on a pitch-change halfway down. Oh
yeah! Combine that with crazy skis and you'd have some real fun!

(Where's enough wood for me to knock on around here...?)

My bro and I are going to a local public trail soon and will be adding
a teeny little nifty new downhill section. There's a nice big valley
view that hasn't been exploited yet. We'll go out with a little handsaw
and loppers and find a route that only takes a little cleaning and
deadwood-pulling. We'll give this town a proper downhill (and uphill
return) for those interested. Mum's the word! New Paradigm lives!

"cpella" wrote in message
oups.com...
I just picked up a new pair of Atomic RC11's and I love them. I bought
them because I have stability problems on fast, twisty downhills and I
find they are like riding my skate skis or alpine skis, compared to
Madshus and Fischers. I

I just want to pipe in and say I've experienced the same thing on my RC11's
Really Super down hill control. The atomics actually feel better (as skis)
than the skate skis going around corners at speed. The overall control
might be better with the skating package because of the boots. But for the
first time on striding equipment, I almost feel bullet proof going downhill
around corners. Really, really fun and not a subtle difference.

I'm an alpine skier for over 40 years, XC tourer and telemarker for 30
years, groomed track striding and skating only for past 7 years or so, and
was once a competent Alpine skier and telemarker. I say this because unlike
a LOT of XC skiers (who are overall much faster than me, so I'm not putting
them down), I love the downhill parts and try to milk as much speed as my
aging legs and fitness will allow. I push as hard as I can going down hill
as opposed to a lot of skiers who try to survive. So I speak with - if not
authority - at least as one who kind of knows down hill performance and
loves good performance (again, given that I'm old and weak).

I also think my new Atomic RC11s climb a little better than my Madshus,
it's easier to get good kick. Could be a slight flex/camber issue, just a
little. Just straight on downhill glide, the Madshus almost always
out-glide my new RC-11s, but not a huge amount. I attribute this difference
to: the Madshus have been waxed 1 zillion times and their structure might
be a little more optimal for our typical conditions (cold and dry). The
RC-11's have improved greatly with waxing and skiing and the difference
could be moot now (haven't done side by side for a few weeks). But the
better climbing and more sure downhill performance more than make up for it.

But as my kid said when young: "Evewybody's differewent". So YMMV! Of
course!

"Camilo"wrote:
I just want to pipe in and say I've experienced the same thing on my
RC11's
Really Super down hill control. The atomics actually feel better (as
skis)
than the skate skis going around corners at speed. The overall control
might be better with the skating package because of the boots. But for
the
first time on striding equipment, I almost feel bullet proof going
downhill
around corners. Really, really fun and not a subtle difference.

I have to third this about the Atomics, both classic and skate. I have Beta
Race Classics, RS:11 and RC:11. They are definitely a lot more secure and
FUN! going down hills than my other skis. I'm going to look into getting a
good grind on the newer two though. My RS:11s feel really fast in some
conditions, but they were absolute dogs in the Tour of Anchorage 50k last
year with temps in the 20s F. Trains of people were whipping by and
disappearing in front of my on the downhills. I ended up skiing my 2nd
slowest skate 50K race ever despite being in decent shape. I have skied the
race faster when I really didn't know how to skate at all. I'm thinking it
was the grind (and maybe my wax job too), not the flex, because they are
sometimes fast and since someone mentioned that Zach Caldwell doesn't like
the stock grind much.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Anders wrote:

I=B4m curious, though. I know from bitter experience that a pair of
really good top of the top line skis can be too good for you, if your
technique isn=B4t perfect enough or your kick snappy and powerful enough
either on average or until the finish line - but my limited experience
doesn=B4t easily offer an explanation why such a pair should or could be
less stable downhill (to the extent that it results in more and/or
worse crashes or even "near-misses").

I have a pair of classic skis that was just like this when it was new.
I had a hard time getting them to kick well and they were terrifying
on the downhills. I found gaining 10 pounds helps quite a bit here. :-)

(Actually, for the record I gained 20 and then lost 10. Still trying to
drop the other 10.)

The other thing that helped a LOT was a lot of technique improvement.
For me, classic rollerskiing in low classic boots made a big improvement
in my technique. I understand this doesn't work for everyone.

For downhill control, I've found it helps a lot to use high boots, either
a combi boot or a skating boot with a reasonably flexible sole that you
can stride in. I still to this day choose boots to match the conditions.

-Mitch