Volkl AC50 in Powder?

pkerr

New member
All the reviews I have read rate this ski pretty high except in the "float" category. It's 85 under foot yet other skis of the same width or even narrower get rated higher. Can someone explain this to me?
Thanks
 

pkerr

New member
Admin":2149gjys said:
Personally I consider an 85mm-waisted ski to be a submarine.

Well yeah O.K. if you never ski in bounds and are a hip deep, back country, don't get out of bed unless there is at least a foot of fresh kind of skier, it would be.

But for the skiing I do and the amounts of powder I run into, what makes one 85'er better or worse than another?
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
pkerr":g2v09k48 said:
Admin":g2v09k48 said:
Personally I consider an 85mm-waisted ski to be a submarine.

Well yeah O.K. if you never ski in bounds and are a hip deep, back country, don't get out of bed unless there is at least a foot of fresh kind of skier, it would be.

Or if you're going to occasionally ski that foot of snow in-bounds on something groomed beneath the new snow, it will be the same submarine.

Simply stated, the 85mm waist just doesn't provide a sufficient platform to stand on and float. Now, that's not to say that it can't be done -- of course it can, we all did it for decades -- but why make things more difficult and unpleasant than they have to be?

Float in powder is a product of several factors, not the least of which is waist. You also have to consider the ski's flex (particularly in the forebody), shovel dimensions (to initiate the floatation), sidecut, etc. Keep in mind that a good groomer ski and a good powder ski are going to be on the opposite ends of the continuum, such that you won't find a ski that does both well.
 

pkerr

New member
Admin":3b9wwek7 said:
pkerr":3b9wwek7 said:
Admin":3b9wwek7 said:
Personally I consider an 85mm-waisted ski to be a submarine.

Well yeah O.K. if you never ski in bounds and are a hip deep, back country, don't get out of bed unless there is at least a foot of fresh kind of skier, it would be.

Or if you're going to occasionally ski that foot of snow in-bounds on something groomed beneath the new snow, it will be the same submarine.

Simply stated, the 85mm waist just doesn't provide a sufficient platform to stand on and float. Now, that's not to say that it can't be done -- of course it can, we all did it for decades -- but why make things more difficult and unpleasant than they have to be?

Float in powder is a product of several factors, not the least of which is waist. You also have to consider the ski's flex (particularly in the forebody), shovel dimensions (to initiate the floatation), sidecut, etc. Keep in mind that a good groomer ski and a good powder ski are going to be on the opposite ends of the continuum, such that you won't find a ski that does both well.
Thanks...
I don't get enough powder days (just luck into them when I do get them) to justify a specialty powder ski so I have to go with finding a good "all mountain" ski. Heck a few years ago 85 would be considered a fat boy. Now it's the new mid fat.
Thanks for the info.
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
If that's the case then don't worry about the floatation - just enjoy the AC50s and rent powder sticks when you happen to luck out.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
 

pkerr

New member
Admin":2uqj9949 said:
If that's the case then don't worry about the floatation - just enjoy the AC50s and rent powder sticks when you happen to luck out.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
Good point...
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
Heck a few years ago 85 would be considered a fat boy. Now it's the new mid fat.
When I bought my Volant Power's in 1999, they were the widest midfat at 73mm.

Keep in mind that a good groomer ski and a good powder ski are going to be on the opposite ends of the continuum, such that you won't find a ski that does both well.
Sound advice, and the reason most skiers should have at least 2 pair of skis.

rent powder sticks when you happen to luck out.
You're not always going to be in a location with enough time/availability to do that. I've learned the hard way over decades of ski vacations that powder shows up on its own schedule, not yours. So if you only ski powder sporadically I think it's important that at least one of your own skis should be an assist not an impediment in those conditions. A lot of the all-mountain skis have a wide versatility range. Both BobbyD and my son Adam use the 100+mm underfoot Gotama as an everyday ski. Not necessarily plugging that ski for someone with a different ability/location profile, just an example.
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
My everyday go-to ski is a 191 cm 135-108-124 stick, but remember that the OP lives in St Louis.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
mobile.png
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
remember that the OP lives in St Louis.
But if he skis a lot it's not unreasonable that he should have a carving ski in the 70's range underfoot plus an all-mountain ski in the 90's underfoot. If the latter ski has the other characteristics admin described it should serve the OP just fine in powder. Recall that my Chubbs (which still do fine in Baldy's not-the-easiest powder) are 110-90-100. I would recommend that the all mountain ski NOT have a lot of sidecut if powder is a priority for it.
 

pkerr

New member
I've got a 3 yr old pair of Recons (78 under foot). But I'm looking to go wider while still retaining the ability to hold an edge. Most of my skiing is on the hard pack here at out little hill. I get out west twice a year for about 6 days each trip. The Recons worked pretty well last year when we lucked into about 2 ft of new.
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
The Recons are my everyday ski and are very versatile. Last year at Snowbird I was on them during the storm day March 9, and by the afternoon enough powder had built up for me to get some flotation, certainly on anything with intermediate pitch. Next day at Alta with 22 inches new I demoed the K2 Obsethed, which are 102mm underfoot have a modest amount of rocker. On March 11 at Snowbird there was still fresh in Little Cloud/Bookends/Tigertail which had been closed the previous 2 days. I was on my Volkl Mantras 94mm underfoot for that one, fine in the open bowls but more work that I prefer in the trees.
 

icelanticskier

New member
85 is fine. i have one pair of skis and one pair only for all of my east/west, inbounds/bc and it works great for everything and i ski over 100 days a year. atomic rt 86
128-86-114. i love sidecut and a lot of it for everything including pow and steeps. my last skis were 140-105-130 and i have no less fun in the pow on my atomics, plus i get more face shots now! heck, my xc rig rips it in the pow.

rog
 

rfarren

New member
icelanticskier":1j5qcto3 said:
85 is fine. i have one pair of skis and one pair only for all of my east/west, inbounds/bc and it works great for everything and i ski over 100 days a year. atomic rt 86
128-86-114. i love sidecut and a lot of it for everything including pow and steeps. my last skis were 140-105-130 and i have no less fun in the pow on my atomics, plus i get more face shots now! heck, my xc rig rips it in the pow.

rog

I thought you were on the nomads?
 

icelanticskier

New member
rfarren":19xxokmu said:
icelanticskier":19xxokmu said:
85 is fine. i have one pair of skis and one pair only for all of my east/west, inbounds/bc and it works great for everything and i ski over 100 days a year. atomic rt 86
128-86-114. i love sidecut and a lot of it for everything including pow and steeps. my last skis were 140-105-130 and i have no less fun in the pow on my atomics, plus i get more face shots now! heck, my xc rig rips it in the pow.

rog

I thought you were on the nomads?

i was 2 seasons ago......here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A89G7SLbRkE

and on mt washington......here: http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w218 ... I_3862.flv

my atomics all last year.....here, on mt washington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7zMIFN ... ture=email

gonna ski on my atomics this season once again. my only ski quiver.

rog
 

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
Not gone to argue with ice's personal preferences, BUT his fitness and ability level are likely far above the average even for FTO, not to mention inquiries coming from St. Louis. The vast majority of skiers will find life is easier with at least 2 pair of skis.
i love sidecut and a lot of it for everything including pow and steeps.
Also personal preference. Recall from other threads that I have the late Shane McConkey on my side in this debate.
 

Bluebird Day

New member
I remember the old? Volkl Snow Ranger. That was considered the radical powder ski of the times (1990's). Now, anything under 100mm is considered a fence slat. I watched a great ski film-doc called Steep a few weeks ago and noted that some of the skiers featured in the film where skiing on skinny GS skis and Salomon rear entries and thought "how would these guys have skied that line on a pair of Dynastar Pro XXLs, etc.?". It's kind of like saying, "how would Ben Hogan play golf now with an oversized driver and perimeter weighted clubs?" What's the industry going to throw at us next? :brick:
 

Acidchrist

New member
It's not all about dimensions as admin said. Flex and camber really come into play, especially with the ac50. The 50 is a STIFF ski. lots of centrifugal force or just sheer weight needs to be applied to "decamber" that ski. When a ski is cambered, the tip and tail point DOWN, hence the submarine effect. It's easy to decamber that stiff ski on hard pack by simply laying'em over and skiing fast. That's why pow skis TYPICALLY are softer; they get in that decambered position quickly and easily. Sooooo, you can have a RELATIVELY fat or fatter ski like the Dynastar LP, which is around 100mm underfoot in fact behave like a submarine. Hey, it's a STIFF ski. A "real" volkl explosive (not the CMH type) will do the same thing...
 

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Acidchrist":1p0toq10 said:
A "real" volkl explosive (not the CMH type) will do the same thing...

Despite the Explosiv label, the CMH edition was disguised Mantra prototype.
 

pkerr

New member
Acidchrist":3g8tu5pv said:
It's not all about dimensions as admin said. Flex and camber really come into play, especially with the ac50. The 50 is a STIFF ski. lots of centrifugal force or just sheer weight needs to be applied to "decamber" that ski. When a ski is cambered, the tip and tail point DOWN, hence the submarine effect. It's easy to decamber that stiff ski on hard pack by simply laying'em over and skiing fast. That's why pow skis TYPICALLY are softer; they get in that decambered position quickly and easily. Sooooo, you can have a RELATIVELY fat or fatter ski like the Dynastar LP, which is around 100mm underfoot in fact behave like a submarine. Hey, it's a STIFF ski. A "real" volkl explosive (not the CMH type) will do the same thing...
Ahhhh.... much more clearer now as to why it's not JUST width.
Thanks!
 
Top