Bumps and Slide Brook - What skis?

[muddy_hollow]

Another ski season is coming near an end and I'm feeling goooood! I always enjoyed skiing when I was younger, but gave it up for a number of years for other priorities. I only came back to it a couple years back and more or less started over. This year was a good personal best for me, even skied the slide brook a couple times and even struck out with a friend to the church once. I really enjoy skiing the trees and bumps, but I'm still working on technique.

One problem I'm having is in the bumps linking turns with my skies tight together. I ski on volkl AC30s 177cm, but I'm wondering if they're a bit long. I'm just over 6 feet. Love these skis, good at high speeds and in powder.

I see others guys my height in the woods with the Dynastar legend XXLs super long and other guys with shorties 165s. It all depends on the skier, but for bumps and woods what do you guys ski?

Are shorter skies better?

[John Walden]

Team Dynastar is the way to go. You can start with the 8000, go up to the 8800 or Legend Pro series. They are all great in every condition Vt throws at you.

I am 6 ft.tall, ski 176cm. Perfect length for me.

[gone.skiing]

Length gives you high speed stability and float. You trade off maneuverability in tight spots and bumps. With current designs you do not need to go too long. I ski 187 XXL (6'/200) and have not found speed limit on the ski, just the skier.

I prefer XXL to Pro Rider, they are a little softer in the tip, at least the vintage I have and work for me better in the woods.

[Dawn Patrol]

Another ski season is coming near an end and I'm feeling goooood! I always enjoyed skiing when I was younger, but gave it up for a number of years for other priorities. I only came back to it a couple years back and more or less started over. This year was a good personal best for me, even skied the slide brook a couple times and even struck out with a friend to the church once. I really enjoy skiing the trees and bumps, but I'm still working on technique.

One problem I'm having is in the bumps linking turns with my skies tight together. I ski on volkl AC30s 177cm, but I'm wondering if they're a bit long. I'm just over 6 feet. Love these skis, good at high speeds and in powder.

I see others guys my height in the woods with the Dynastar legend XXLs super long and other guys with shorties 165s. It all depends on the skier, but for bumps and woods what do you guys ski?

Are shorter skies better?


I'd recommend going to a shop and demoing several different sizes to find out what you like. Some people like short skis (easier to turn) some people prefer long skis (more stable), also, the stiffness of a ski plays an important roll. Stiffer skis will be more stable at speed and cut crud, but softer skis will be easier to force, and handle nicer in pow. Either way there is a trade off, you just need to find where the compromise fits your skiing.

Also, I'd venture that weight and strength have more to do with ski size than height.

Personally, I'd say you have a pretty sweet set of skis, probably a little better on hardpack. They have a lot of teeth and are decently stiff, so I would imagine they could be a handful for someone just getting back into it, especially when trying to manhandle them in the bumps or trees.

edit: or you could just buy a whole quiver of skis and not worry about compromising.. Thats what I do! :D

[HowieT2]

I'm in ski buying mode also. I'm 5'10" 180 and would prefer a shorter ski (I think because I like the trees although I really don't know). Any recommendations besides the Dynatsars? On the bus back from slidebrook I always see people with skis from lesser known companies which intrigue me. Also, is there a good web site where I can compare skis by width/length

[mattlucas]

aren't the AC30s a glorified carving/all mountain board?

I'd compare them to my crappy all season tires: they basically get me from place to place but do nothing well and in difficult situations totally tank.

[Dawn Patrol]

aren't the AC30s a glorified carving/all mountain board?

I'd compare them to my crappy all season tires: they basically get me from place to place but do nothing well and in difficult situations totally tank.

Well... Generally I agree with your all season tire comparison, all mountain skis suck equally in most conditions. But I'd make a few exceptions, the ac30 is a pretty capable ski. Definitely more geared towards carving, but it can cut up crud like no ones business. I tad to stiff for my taste in bumps, and definitely more edge than you need on good days, but they'll hold on new england blue ice like few others (volkl's will that is).

To answer your post, yes, it is better to have pow skis, and bump skis and park skis and carving skis, just like it is better to have winter tires and summer tires. All season tires and all mountain skis are for those who can't/won't have both.

[Go Figure]

I would think at 6'+ on 177 and not able to ski bumps, your first move would be lessons. There are enough people in the woods and slide brook that can not turn already. At 6' you should step up and be on at least a 187 unless you just like to poke around in Eden. Just the way it is.

[mattlucas]

+1

[muddy_hollow]

..... They have a lot of teeth and are decently stiff, so I would imagine they could be a handful for someone just getting back into it, especially when trying to manhandle them in the bumps or trees.

edit: or you could just buy a whole quiver of skis and not worry about compromising.. Thats what I do! :D


How do you sneak the quiver past the wife? ;)

The AC30s are good all around skis. I've been very happy with them, but it's the manhandling on the bumps that really makes me work. Two other guys in our group have the same ski and they also seem to work harder getting the skis through the bumps. I am chalking most of it up to skill, but I see "less" skis fly through the bumps a bit easier. When I say less I mean less side-cut and seemingly more flexible.

For me it's all in the woods and bumps that I have to work these skies. This last big powder dump we had was excellent. The AC30s are wide on the front and floated well and I felt in control. They're good at high speeds and don't fall off to often after the jumps..... They're also good for chinese downhill.

I think I'll have to demo some others to see what works.


So what about the new Garmount AT boots? Anyone using them on the groomers and bumps? I've been chatting with a friend about them and the less weight option seems interesting. Wonder how well the control would be....

[HowieT2]

I would think at 6'+ on 177 and not able to ski bumps, your first move would be lessons. There are enough people in the woods and slide brook that can not turn already. At 6' you should step up and be on at least a 187 unless you just like to poke around in Eden. Just the way it is.

What is the advantage of having a longer ski in the woods as you are advocating? As I said, I'm in buying mode, and want to start trying out skis this weekend.

[freeheel_skier]

Howie,

go to http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141499

Click on the link http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=013088392104881963655%3Agoe34wkkkv8 aka jong search

type in the ski model and you will see tons of info

Most of the people on tgr are friendly and want to help....however, there are a few who are rough around the edges. That said, do a serch first then bumb the found thread. If that doesn't work ask the question. Many of the common tech questions have been asked and answered ad nauseam.

Hope this helps..... :wink:

ps read the psa too.....you don't want to get jonged :shock:

[HowieT2]

Howie,

go to http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141499

Click on the link http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=013088392104881963655%3Agoe34wkkkv8 aka jong search

type in the ski model and you will see tons of info

Most of the people on tgr are friendly and want to help....however, there are a few who are rough around the edges. That said, do a serch first then bumb the found thread. If that doesn't work ask the question. Many of the common tech questions have been asked and answered ad nauseam.

Hope this helps..... :wink:

ps read the psa too.....you don't want to get jonged :shock:

Thanks.

[Hawk]

I have to agree that you need to demo all kinds of skis to understand what works for you. There is no perfect ski for all contitions and everybody has a different style. There are tons of people at SB that swear by Dynastar but I am not one of them. The last Dynastar ski I owed was the Vertical. That ought to date me. :lol: I have found that K2 does an excellent job with splitting the difference. My experiences have also led me to park style skis. They usualy are a pretty good compromise of quick turning and durability. I've skied the Public Enemy for several years and they have never let me down. But that's me and you need to find out you. :wink:

[ski_it]

So what about the new Garmount AT boots? Anyone using them on the groomers and bumps? I've been chatting with a friend about them and the less weight option seems interesting. Wonder how well the control would be....

I have Garmont Axons, and I don't really use them at all for lift-served skiing. They are very stiff in the spectrum of AT boots, but they just aren't stiff enough for me to use for on-piste skiing, bumps, drops, etc. That probably says as much about my style of skiing as it does the boots, but I like a much stiffer boot when I'm skiing that stuff or hard-charging through the woods in-bounds. I'm in traditional alpine race boots for most of my days skiing at Sugarbush. The Garmonts are an excellent AT boot in my opinion; they provide great performance on the downhill in the soft snow, and they are a really comfortable boot uphill. I just don't think it makes sense to go with AT boots unless you are using them for alpine touring. Less weight is only important when you go uphill.

[skigal]

Isn't skiing with your skis close together "old school" unless you're doing competition style bumps? (for the young with happy knees)
:)

[Go Figure]

I would think at 6'+ on 177 and not able to ski bumps, your first move would be lessons. There are enough people in the woods and slide brook that can not turn already. At 6' you should step up and be on at least a 187 unless you just like to poke around in Eden. Just the way it is.

What is the advantage of having a longer ski in the woods as you are advocating? As I said, I'm in buying mode, and want to start trying out skis this weekend.
Big ski minimal sidecut: turns easier without hooking and allows You to jump and or bridge the choppy areas where all the little skis hack it up. Having mastered bumps on 210 slalom and 213 gs skis helps.Unfortunatley too many kids and unskilled 1 and 2 plankers have ruined the true woods skiing that existed before say 2000. Now the woods are full of cut traverses, bailouts and an annoying amount of surveyors tape. Heck the Slide Brook traverse is 4-5 times as wide as originaly cut and any weekend there are "skiers" swarming thru there who can not link turns at all. For the record 5' 7" nothing in quiver [14 pair] under 183.
end blog

[muddy_hollow]

Isn't skiing with your skis close together "old school" unless you're doing competition style bumps? (for the young with happy knees)
:)

Isn't that they way bumps are skied? Tight together, skis downhill, and steering with the tips?

As for knees, mine are out of warranty long ago....

[ahm]

Boots: I switched from Garmont Adrenalines to Black Diamond Factors and like the factor much better. Skis like an alpine boot and tours well. Toured great for a week in Rogers Pass. Toured great last week at Greylock following the Mon storm. My foot likes the overlap style due to a high instep and arch. The boot is quite stiff, I softened it up a bit and get's much stiffer when it is cold. Works great in the bumps

Skis: this season I am on the Volkl Mantra in a 184. I have the same setup for touring with a Fritschi. I love the ski. Works well for all types of skiing, very well. Skis fast and stable, but knifes through junk. Almost any ski skis powder well. For the quiver, I also have a XXX with a hard binding and a set with Fritschis. XXX was a bench mark ski for me. I also have a Stockli Stormrider Schmidt model (first year they made it and I like the ski very much, although it is quite stiff and has an almost dead feeling tip. FInally a set of Made'n AK's for deep and wind pack, but I rarely use them in the east.

All have said demo and that is the ticket. Do it during the week when you can test a bunch of skis over a couple days and you should be good to go.

Boutique skis: always be careful because they are hard to demo. I have a set of Prior Originals and they are way too soft. I have the quad glass build and although stiff by Prior standards just too soft for driving the tips in bumps. Stockli's are pretty "boutiquey" as well and rather stiff. Tough bump ski for most.

[007]

Another ski season is coming near an end and I'm feeling goooood! I always enjoyed skiing when I was younger, but gave it up for a number of years for other priorities. I only came back to it a couple years back and more or less started over. This year was a good personal best for me, even skied the slide brook a couple times and even struck out with a friend to the church once. I really enjoy skiing the trees and bumps, but I'm still working on technique.

One problem I'm having is in the bumps linking turns with my skies tight together. I ski on volkl AC30s 177cm, but I'm wondering if they're a bit long. I'm just over 6 feet. Love these skis, good at high speeds and in powder.

I see others guys my height in the woods with the Dynastar legend XXLs super long and other guys with shorties 165s. It all depends on the skier, but for bumps and woods what do you guys ski?

Are shorter skies better?

Barkbiter always told me, "fatter is better!". Just not certain if he meant skis, girls, harleys, softball bats, sushi rolls, or cuts of beef.....
Seriously, demo, demo, demo. Try the Mantras. Length = turning radius, so your own personal signature "style" of skiing, speed acceptance, stability, and control are going to determine a favorite for you, not necessarily the terrain or conditions. Push your limit (on piste) riding on longer - fatter boards for a day or two and see what happens when you go back to shorter. You might be surprised... Better fitting boots and a lesson or two with a good informative coach always helps too! Good luck!

[Dawn Patrol]

I'd stay away from AT boots unless you're using them with AT equipment for one reason, fit. AT boots are a niche product and therefore have to fit as many people as possible. Sure the Black Diamond Factor has a narrow heel, but the forefoot is giant... If you've never had a pair of boots fitted proper for you, do it, it'll change your skiing.

Skiing with your feet together in the bumps isn't 'old school' it's the right way to do it.

As far as the rest of the 'my skis are so long' d*ck waving going on in this thread, ski size does not indicate skier ability. *Shrug* whatever, you like long skis... Some people don't. Some people realize that sometimes long skis are better, and sometimes short skis are better, sometimes fat skis are better and sometimes not.

[freeheel_skier]

If you aren't sure....demo. Go to local shop and demo. If you buy and it doesn't work out the shop usually can fix it. Thats what makes loyal customers. When in doubt go shorter. That has always worked for me.
http://www.postimage.org/aV1iSg4J.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aV1iSg4J)

As for long skis.....and botique..... and heel is fixed....I like the bro 195 aka superbro(it's my billy baroo).....how's that for Cock-a-doodle-doo waving bra....touring with heel fixed I use the 183 stiffs. Tele Bro 179 is my daily driver.

Boots I like Garmont both ways.

[Go Figure]

I'd stay away from AT boots unless you're using them with AT equipment for one reason, fit. AT boots are a niche product and therefore have to fit as many people as possible. Sure the Black Diamond Factor has a narrow heel, but the forefoot is giant... If you've never had a pair of boots fitted proper for you, do it, it'll change your skiing.

Skiing with your feet together in the bumps isn't 'old school' it's the right way to do it.

As far as the rest of the 'my skis are so long' d*ck waving going on in this thread, ski size does not indicate skier ability. *Shrug* whatever, you like long skis... Some people don't. Some people realize that sometimes long skis are better, and sometimes short skis are better, sometimes fat skis are better and sometimes not.
You do not know what You are talking about, "niche product and therefore have to fit as many people as possible" . Different brands have a better fit for different types of feet, Scarpa = narrow, Garmont= wider. The new boots also have Intuition liners that are heat moldable and fit like a glove. I have custom footbeds and Intuition liners, My boots fit like a squish mitten.
As for the d*ck waving, wave away if You can or stand closer.

[muddy_hollow]

Loads of folks have been talking up the Mantras, even outside of this board.

I've seen Mantras onsale, online for as low as $330, but they're 2007. Most of the ones I see on the mountain are white, which I'm assuming are recent builds of the ski. Except for the graphic, what changes between years?

How would the mantras do in the bumps?

also, anyone using the Marker Dukes with the Mantras?

[ahm]

1. Mantras: Red Mantras were out during 05-06 and are 94 under the foot. The white Mantra, 07 - 08, are 96 under foot. The current black mantra is the 08 - 09 ski and are the same as the 07 - 08 ski dimension wise.
2. AT boots: DP has his ideas and I have my own. I was looking for one boot to both tour and alpine. It makes combination trips, something I do a lot of easier. I bring one pr of boots. That said, my Factors ski just like Alpine boots. They are stiff, responsive and fit as close to a race fit as any boot I have ever had. Boots are all about fit and if your foot fits that brand, than they'll work just fine. The Factor works great for me in the bumps and are not a niche product. They are the right choice (AT boots) for certain types of skiers. I went back and forth a couple times on my Langes and found I liked the Factor just as well if not better.
3. I use the Fritschi as I have used it for years. It is not however an Alpine binding. Can you ski bumps with it, sure. Is that what it is for, no. If skied hard it can be considered a one season binding. I use mine for touring, so they are rarely on for any alpine skiing, unless it is a "Win-dy" day at the bush and then they and the skins are with me. Enjoy finding the skis and set up that you are looking for!!
http://www.postimage.org/Pq1mujh9.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1mujh9)

[Dawn Patrol]

I'd stay away from AT boots unless you're using them with AT equipment for one reason, fit. AT boots are a niche product and therefore have to fit as many people as possible. Sure the Black Diamond Factor has a narrow heel, but the forefoot is giant... If you've never had a pair of boots fitted proper for you, do it, it'll change your skiing.

Skiing with your feet together in the bumps isn't 'old school' it's the right way to do it.

As far as the rest of the 'my skis are so long' d*ck waving going on in this thread, ski size does not indicate skier ability. *Shrug* whatever, you like long skis... Some people don't. Some people realize that sometimes long skis are better, and sometimes short skis are better, sometimes fat skis are better and sometimes not.
You do not know what You are talking about, "niche product and therefore have to fit as many people as possible" . Different brands have a better fit for different types of feet, Scarpa = narrow, Garmont= wider. The new boots also have Intuition liners that are heat moldable and fit like a glove. I have custom footbeds and Intuition liners, My boots fit like a squish mitten.
As for the d*ck waving, wave away if You can or stand closer. None of the AT boots have a narrow last. If you have a foot that needs what amounts to be a race shell to fit properly, none of the AT boots are going to cut it onpiste... As far as the intuitions go, they can fit as snug as can be, but if the shell isnt there, the fit wont last. There is a reason all good boot fitters do a shell fit...

[Hawk]

Loads of folks have been talking up the Mantras, even outside of this board.

I've seen Mantras onsale, online for as low as $330, but they're 2007. Most of the ones I see on the mountain are white, which I'm assuming are recent builds of the ski. Except for the graphic, what changes between years?

How would the mantras do in the bumps?

also, anyone using the Marker Dukes with the Mantras?

I can't speak about the Mantra's. I will say that if you are learning to ski bumps then you should not go with a fat long ski with little side cut. The people that are saying this are probably expert skiers that can muscle most skis into turning. If you want to learn proper freestyle type bump skiing then you will need a ski with a smaller turning radius which means some side cut. I like my bump skis to be a 17 meter turn radius or less. This will make it much easier. I would also advise you to try the mogul logic clinic. Babic is the master.

And believe it or not I strongly agree with DP that having your feet and knees together is the right way to ski bumps. I see a large amount of skiers with their long straight fat boards crashing down the hill going bump top to bump top. That is how most have to ski the bumps with that particular equipment. In my opinion it lacks style and puts a tremendous amount of stress on your back and knees. Angulation and absorption is the way. Smooth upper body.

Now that's what I'm talking about. :wink:

[Dawn Patrol]

ahm, that's great if te factors fit you. They are a burly ski boot and I like the boa idea. I'm just saying the probability that most people will fit it is pretty small. AT boots clearly are aimed at a niche market albeit a rapidly expanding one, but the fact remains, AT boot manufacturers don't have 3 or 4 different shells each for their AT boots, each manufacturer has 1 maybe 2 (shells not models) If they happen to fit, awesome I'm jealous. They also tnd o be less workable when it comes to grinding and expanding.

[skibum1321]

I have the 07/08 Mantras (the white ones) and I love them. They are great in pretty much anything and I have had no problems in the bumps. As for learning to do bumps on them - I don't really know how that would go, but I would assume that you would end up crossing your tips a lot.

[Yard Sale]

Recently, I have been thinking about expanding my quiver by acquiring a set of bump specific skis. I'm not a bump skier by any means, but I manage. My reasons are to improve on bumps and to really maximize fun on the spring corn bumps.

My research has led me to believe that I should be going 5-10 cm shorter than my all montain everyday set.

Commonly referenced bump skis I find online are Dynastar Twister, Head Mojo, K2 Mamba.

Does this make sense? Any advice?

Sinserely,

YS
Alpine Hack

[John Walden]

Demo, Demo, Demo.................

Go over to Mountainside and see Brook. He'll set you up real good. He's been taking care of my family for the last 20 years. Dave is also one of best boot guys in the Valley as well.

[lane meyer]

also, anyone using the Marker Dukes with the Mantras?

Marker Dukes rule. I've skied on Fritschi Freerides in the past and these were good for the bc but didn't feel that solid at high speeds, hammering bumps, etc. While the Dukes are a bit heavy in the bc and you need to take them off to release the heel, they are a downhill binding that you can take into the bc and feel just like any solid downhill binding when you're skiing. I have a pair on my Line Prophet 100's and love the setup.

[chuck]

+1 for Brooke @ Mountainside -

[muddy_hollow]

Dave has been fixing my skis for two season now. Quality of work is great and compared to other experiences, they do a better quality job.

Good to know about the Dukes. Evogear.com is running a 25% off their outlet prices this week and I picked up a pair of Dukes at a pretty reasonable price. I'll demo some skis and see what I can find next.

[freeheel_skier]

If you don't need the din setting that goes up to 16 the Marker Baron is slightly less and I think it is slightly lighter too.

[muddy_hollow]

If you don't need the din setting that goes up to 16 the Marker Baron is slightly less and I think it is slightly lighter too.

That raises a good question, how do you know if you are on the correct DIN? What's a good standard measurement to use?

[daevious]

If you don't need the din setting that goes up to 16 the Marker Baron is slightly less and I think it is slightly lighter too.

That raises a good question, how do you know if you are on the correct DIN? What's a good standard measurement to use?

The DIN setting is the standard. The setting depends on your height and/or weight, boot sole length, age, and style of skiing.

http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/naxo-mount/naxo_mount_5.html

The page is about Naxo bindings, but the DIN setting chart and the instructions below it are universal (for DIN-compliant bindings).

[RedneckMutha]

I like usin my Strats in all conditions! 210 CM I also got a pair of them Lang Comps with the yeller liner. The Red Neck can ski!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ahm]

using the real strato, which is the 102 or the newer 105. Also, the comp came with a white liner to start, sounds like yours are kinda new. Me, I got the Pro's with the blue liner, predating those fancy comps, and they got Jet Sticks on 'em!

[muddy_hollow]

Boots are just as complicated as which skis to use for AT. So far the Volkl Mantras and the Dynastar lines have been recommended for skis but what about boots?

Do you prefer to use Alpine boots for both resort and AT skiing? Or do you have a quiver of boots; one for resort and others for AT?


The Marker Dukes I ordered came in yesterday. What a burly binding that is, but surprised at how light it actually is.

[freeheel_skier]

Boots are just as complicated as which skis to use for AT. So far the Volkl Mantras and the Dynastar lines have been recommended for skis but what about boots?


AT

[ski_resort_observer]

using the real strato, which is the 102 or the newer 105. Also, the comp came with a white liner to start, sounds like yours are kinda new. Me, I got the Pro's with the blue liner, predating those fancy comps, and they got Jet Sticks on 'em!

I skied on my Rossi Strato's, 207cm, I bought in 1969 for many years which was before the 102's. They are the real Strato's. :D

[ahm]

By 1956, a new manager filled the shoes of Abel Rossignol. His name was Laurent Boix Vives. He began to focus on activities in the ski industry. In 1959, Rossignol designed a ski called the Allais 60. It won the downhill ski event at the 1960 Olympics in Squaw Valley. The popularity of Rossignol skis exploded.

By that point, it was time for skis to grow up and move to the next level. That's when the Rossignol Strato 102 was developed in 1965.

"Strato 102 skis were the first skis made with fiberglass and wood," says Pierre Langlois, a Rossignol representative. "It was the first ski that was easy to ski on. It brought a lot of new skiers on board. Rossi introduced the use of fiberglass in skis to make them lighter and more responsive."

The Strato ski became one of the greatest industrial achievements in the history of the ski industry. By 1972, Rossignol became the world's leading ski manufacturer with subsidiaries in several countries.

SRO: I seem to recall it a bit differently. I did a bit of digging and came up with this. Do you still have the ski. Sometimes names even on historical websites get changed around a bit. For instance, the ROC was actually the ROC 550 and the ST was the ST 650. That was the actual graphic on the ski as my brother had both pairs. I think if you keep looking, you'll realize it was indeed the Strato 102. But we'll both keep looking and see what we find.....................

[ski_resort_observer]

By 1956, a new manager filled the shoes of Abel Rossignol. His name was Laurent Boix Vives. He began to focus on activities in the ski industry. In 1959, Rossignol designed a ski called the Allais 60. It won the downhill ski event at the 1960 Olympics in Squaw Valley. The popularity of Rossignol skis exploded.

By that point, it was time for skis to grow up and move to the next level. That's when the Rossignol Strato 102 was developed in 1965.

"Strato 102 skis were the first skis made with fiberglass and wood," says Pierre Langlois, a Rossignol representative. "It was the first ski that was easy to ski on. It brought a lot of new skiers on board. Rossi introduced the use of fiberglass in skis to make them lighter and more responsive."

The Strato ski became one of the greatest industrial achievements in the history of the ski industry. By 1972, Rossignol became the world's leading ski manufacturer with subsidiaries in several countries.

SRO: I seem to recall it a bit differently. I did a bit of digging and came up with this. Do you still have the ski. Sometimes names even on historical websites get changed around a bit. For instance, the ROC was actually the ROC 550 and the ST was the ST 650. That was the actual graphic on the ski as my brother had both pairs. I think if you keep looking, you'll realize it was indeed the Strato 102. But we'll both keep looking and see what we find.....................

I am looking at them right now....they are just Strato's, the 102's came out a couple of years later. Saloman 444 bindings. I was a intern with the NSP at Gore then. My cousin was my sponsor. I actually was not looking to buy a Rossi as they had de-lamination problems but the new models had a rubber tip put in that year to fix that problem so my cousin took me down to the Rossi distribution center in Latham, NY It looked like a 1000 Rossi skis lined up in that warehouse so I picked out a perfectly matched pair. I haven't skied them much in the last 25 years but I did take them out in the spring last year. The white sticker I put on them when I got them says " it takes a Rossi to catch a Rossi".

http://forums.skimrv.com/albums/album33/strato.jpg :D

[Dawn Patrol]

If you don't need the din setting that goes up to 16 the Marker Baron is slightly less and I think it is slightly lighter too.

That raises a good question, how do you know if you are on the correct DIN? What's a good standard measurement to use?

The DIN setting is the standard. The setting depends on your height and/or weight, boot sole length, age, and style of skiing.

http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/naxo-mount/naxo_mount_5.html

The page is about Naxo bindings, but the DIN setting chart and the instructions below it are universal (for DIN-compliant bindings).

This is actually a more interesting topic than people give it credit for. True, there is a DIN standard for release, but as captain barbosa said, they're more just guidlines. At a certain point they don't make much sense. If you assume the DIN setting is there to release your ski before causing injury, factoring in BSL ofcourse makes sense, but the height and weight part starts to get tricky. By their logic, a heavier or taller person has stronger ligaments. I just don't know if there is any physiological evidence to back that up.

[ahm]

SRO, based on some more digging, I found that the 102 was released in 1966.

From the famous tricolour rooster logos emblazoned on their shark nose-shaped tips to their modestly flared tails, Rossignol's new 40/25 commemorative skis offer a tip of the tuque to Whistler's and Blackcomb's 40th and 25th anniversaries, respectively. The venerable French ski manufacturer custom-moulded 200 numbered pairs of this year's B2 all-mountain models. With graphics patterned after the café au lait-hued ones that graced Rossi's expert-rated Strato 102 line in 1966-the year...........

I think your stratos are newer than the original. But we'll keep looking................

[ski_resort_observer]

SRO, based on some more digging, I found that the 102 was released in 1966.

From the famous tricolour rooster logos emblazoned on their shark nose-shaped tips to their modestly flared tails, Rossignol's new 40/25 commemorative skis offer a tip of the tuque to Whistler's and Blackcomb's 40th and 25th anniversaries, respectively. The venerable French ski manufacturer custom-moulded 200 numbered pairs of this year's B2 all-mountain models. With graphics patterned after the café au lait-hued ones that graced Rossi's expert-rated Strato 102 line in 1966-the year...........

I think your stratos are newer than the original. But we'll keep looking................

Sounds good, day off so I need to get some errands done, want to get up to Mellon by 11. After these posts I started thinking about taking the Strato's out but I threw away the boots that are matched up last summer.

Please do some snow dancing!

[daevious]

... By their logic, a heavier or taller person has stronger ligaments. I just don't know if there is any physiological evidence to back that up.

RS Jones et al., Mechanical properties of the human anterior cruciate ligament, Clinical Biomechanics, Volume 10, Issue 7, October 1995, Pages 339-344

"...Ultimate failure load was found to have a significant correlation with bodyweight. "
http://tinyurl.com/dd3p9b

Now you know.

[Dawn Patrol]

... By their logic, a heavier or taller person has stronger ligaments. I just don't know if there is any physiological evidence to back that up.

RS Jones et al., Mechanical properties of the human anterior cruciate ligament, Clinical Biomechanics, Volume 10, Issue 7, October 1995, Pages 339-344

"...Ultimate failure load was found to have a significant correlation with bodyweight. "
http://tinyurl.com/dd3p9b

Now you know.

Thanks!!!! I could never find anything pointing to that.

Edit: Now what about height? I wonder if longer ligaments will tend to stretch instead of snap...

[Dawn Patrol]

I wish there was a higher sample in that study..

I am also wondering how much of a roll physical activity plays, are highly active people more likely to have stronger ligaments than couch potatoes... I'd think so, but can't justify it.

So many questions