If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
_ I answered this already last month. You really want the Fischer
Boundless in a waxable version. They are hard to find and relatively expensive, but you will love them. With leather boots? _ It's not that wide, 98/69/88. A bit wider than the K2 Extremes, but lengthwise it has a very similar flex and it won't noodle out after a couple seasons like the foam core extreme. Dave and Booker- (I'm the K2 Extreme guy). Your opinions are both very valuable to me. Booker, you certainly have a good idea suggesting Fischer BC skis. I think your suggestion might be mixed up, though. Dave, I agree that 10yr old leather boots might not be the best match for the Boundless. I wonder if Booker really means the Fischer Outttabounds? Doing some homework I uncovered the following shape facts: Ruby Mountain - (shape) 81-60-70, (shovel-tail to waist ratio) 1.35-1.17 K2 5500 (surmised to be the same as a K2 Extreme) - 86-64-75, 1.34-1.17 K2 Extreme (my skis) - 82-63-77, 1.30-1.22 Fischer Boundless (Booker's recommended Extreme sub) 98-69-88, 1.42-1.28 Fischer Outtabounds - 88-68-78, 1.29-1.14 The closest shape match to the Extreme is the Outtabounds. The ratios indicate the Boundless is "fat" relative to the Extreme. I don't like fat skis, plain and simple. The Ruby Mtn is just a skinny Extreme shapewise. And The K2 5500 is NOT anything like an Extreme. My one and only complaint about the Extreme is it tends to be tough to control in the heavy snow probably due to it's stiffness and my leather boot combo. From my reading of the scant info on the web, the Fischer's are a little more forgiving in the tails. I wonder if they might even be better than my Extremes in that regard. Can you guys comment on that? (Booker, I think the Extreme is a wood core ski. I broke a pair 15 years ago and remember wood splinters in the crack. It's a faint memory however so I can't be sure. After 10 years of use, the "noodling" is just starting.) My boots are a well broken-in pair of black leather Alico double buckle laced boot. I love them and a long day in these boots is not hard on my feet. (I can even drive with them on!) John Speth |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , John Speth wrote: _ I answered this already last month. You really want the Fischer Boundless in a waxable version. They are hard to find and relatively expensive, but you will love them. With leather boots? _ It's not that wide, 98/69/88. A bit wider than the K2 Extremes, but lengthwise it has a very similar flex and it won't noodle out after a couple seasons like the foam core extreme. Dave and Booker- (I'm the K2 Extreme guy). Your opinions are both very valuable to me. Booker, you certainly have a good idea suggesting Fischer BC skis. I think your suggestion might be mixed up, though. Dave, I agree that 10yr old leather boots might not be the best match for the Boundless. I wonder if Booker really means the Fischer Outttabounds? - - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the Outtabounds is an excellent ski, but has more camber for kick 'n' glide. Doing some homework I uncovered the following shape facts: Ruby Mountain - (shape) 81-60-70, (shovel-tail to waist ratio) 1.35-1.17 K2 5500 (surmised to be the same as a K2 Extreme) - 86-64-75, 1.34-1.17 K2 Extreme (my skis) - 82-63-77, 1.30-1.22 Fischer Boundless (Booker's recommended Extreme sub) 98-69-88, 1.42-1.28 Fischer Outtabounds - 88-68-78, 1.29-1.14 The closest shape match to the Extreme is the Outtabounds. The ratios indicate the Boundless is "fat" relative to the Extreme. I don't like fat skis, plain and simple. The Ruby Mtn is just a skinny Extreme shapewise. And The K2 5500 is NOT anything like an Extreme. _ What don't you like about "fat" skis? BTW, none of these skis is even vauguely considered mid-fat these days. I think it's a mistake to focus too much on width, the key is flex. Ski technology has improved since the K2 extreme era, back then a wide ski had to be pretty stiff to have the right torsion stiffness. (ie. snow ranger... ) My one and only complaint about the Extreme is it tends to be tough to control in the heavy snow probably due to it's stiffness and my leather boot combo. From my reading of the scant info on the web, the Fischer's are a little more forgiving in the tails. I wonder if they might even be better than my Extremes in that regard. Can you guys comment on that? _ In my biased opinion, the key to crud performance is width under the foot. Wide shovels may look useful in the mank, but it's width under the foot that counts. The only ski dimension I pay much attention to is width under foot. Anything much less than 70mm underfoot is going to be tough in heavy snow. (Booker, I think the Extreme is a wood core ski. I broke a pair 15 years ago and remember wood splinters in the crack. It's a faint memory however so I can't be sure. After 10 years of use, the "noodling" is just starting.) _ Well if they lasted that long, they probably are wood core. I only skied them a few days as rental alpine skis, but I remember them as being a round flexing detuned slalom ski pretty much like every other ski available back then. They all make decent tele skis, especially after they noodle out a bit. My Rossi DV9's are very similar and have a foam core. My boots are a well broken-in pair of black leather Alico double buckle laced boot. I love them and a long day in these boots is not hard on my feet. (I can even drive with them on!) _ I really think you'd like the Boundless, they have the round flex of your extremes, are lighter and snappier and will tour much better. IMHO, they are the best tour'n'turns compromise ski I've ever skiied. They might be a bit wide for icy east coast conditions, but out west I think they're great. At last check my ski count has reached double digits, if disaster occured and I had to have just one pair, the Boundless would be it. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQIADAmTWTAjn5N/lAQGwNwP/ZHM058uAoCSjRUoy5zw1bZuZR+SMS0+D 2nMaQD8KA0Wp+1j4cjXDgrq6aMEkKlY01RHeLs6wNMbl9KG+70 c7E32bZqtElaGs U2fjA8bOb4RtTQ6QUnP97yqLiYvE+7FMiSM6W8rsF7HP/H9C3Fpc25jqLIlF6GQV Ymozi8Ss0mo= =IKxJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
- - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the
Ok, I'll give them a closer look. Local tele ski shop has them for rent. _ What don't you like about "fat" skis? A few years ago I rented a pair of shaped skis to try out at a local ski area with alpine boots, etc. I'll admit they were fun. Before long I was literally skiing loops - they carved like a sharp knife. Then I gave them the speed test where they performed not the way I wanted them to. They wanted to turn but I didn't. No thanks for fat skis. But I have to wonder: How can you say that the spoon shaped Boundless skis (sorry for the exaggeration) aren't fat _for my leather boots_ when 10 years ago a similar size and shape would have been fat _for my leather boots_? My boots haven't changed in the 10 years I've owned them. Shouldn't my skis "match" my boot? My single #1 concern is that I'll buy Boundless skis and then find myself having to get new boots. I'm too cheap and lazy to do it. And I like the challenge of using the older equipment. double _ I really think you'd like the Boundless, they have the round flex of your extremes, are lighter and snappier and will tour much better. IMHO, they are the best tour'n'turns compromise ski I've ever skiied. They might be a bit wide for icy east coast conditions, but out west I think they're great. At last check my ski count has reached double digits, if disaster occured and I had to have just one pair, the Boundless would be it. It's worth a rental try. Thanks. One more question: Should I try a 189cm Boundless? My old skis are 190cm. John Speth. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article , John Speth wrote: - - No. The Boundless has the most "alpine-like" flex, the Ok, I'll give them a closer look. Local tele ski shop has them for rent. _ What don't you like about "fat" skis? A few years ago I rented a pair of shaped skis to try out at a local ski area with alpine boots, etc. I'll admit they were fun. Before long I was literally skiing loops - they carved like a sharp knife. Then I gave them the speed test where they performed not the way I wanted them to. They wanted to turn but I didn't. No thanks for fat skis. _ That was pretty typical of early shaped skis. They overdid it, that problem has more or less been solved at least on the high end. It's best to avoid the first few years of any radical gear change, more is better takes over and you get skis that are one dimensional. Like now I would avoid all the super fat skis out there ( greater than 90mm at the waist). There are some amazing all-around skis in the 80+ range. But I have to wonder: How can you say that the spoon shaped Boundless skis (sorry for the exaggeration) aren't fat _for my leather boots_ when 10 years ago a similar size and shape would have been fat _for my leather boots_? My boots haven't changed in the 10 years I've owned them. Shouldn't my skis "match" my boot? My single #1 concern is that I'll buy Boundless skis and then find myself having to get new boots. I'm too cheap and lazy to do it. And I like the challenge of using the older equipment. double _ Well, I ski them on even floppier boots and bindings. NNN/BC. I am a firm believer in skis matching boots and I think these will work fine with leather boots. Anybody that can tele K2 extremes with leather boots should be able to handle these skis. It's worth a rental try. Thanks. One more question: Should I try a 189cm Boundless? My old skis are 190cm. _ Most likely. They really aren't stiff enough to ski short, I was tempted to get less than 190, but I'm really glad the salesman talked me out of it. BTW, if you really don't like them after trying them, I came across a pair of Fischer Mustangs at the local ski shop, 83,63,7?. $69 for an unmounted pair. _ Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBQIMlGWTWTAjn5N/lAQGduQQAk3/+6hSo8GjYBMN5zUvl75fHyGwqpraH 7Et8PJ6rz/kspHBLUgdbn35YqHYEg6urCIF3WAwvJdY3xAKkoIaWo0NNgAHv EkfV YQroPH5cVI4Uvz51VG6FSmReV9XEj5NOHxcj2jlePr/w2SyqDcJ94jDea3Yb98xC lgcGdzixSfo= =Vv4F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|