What happened to long radius charging skis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altacoup

Stated radius on skis is a joke. HL and fourfrnt are the only companies I know of with long radius skis. I own some blade optics and the stated radius is short but they certainly don’t ski like the stated radius nor do Salomon blanks.

---

So many skis have a multi radius sidecut these days. It's kind of impossible to label the radius with a single number.

At least in my experience, the biggest downside of a tight radius is that the ski would hook up and want to pull across the fall line. But that's mostly due to the radius at the tips and tails. On these multi radius skis that are tight-ish under foot but long radii at the tip and tail, they don't really ski anything like a traditional ski with a single, consistent radius, and they don't have the same issue with hooking up and fighting the fall line.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

So many skis have a multi radius sidecut these days. It's kind of impossible to label the radius with a single number.

At least in my experience, the biggest downside of a tight radius is that the ski would hook up and want to pull across the fall line. But that's mostly due to the radius at the tips and tails. On these multi radius skis that are tight-ish under foot but long radii at the tip and tail, they don't really ski anything like a traditional ski with a single, consistent radius, and they don't have the same issue with hooking up and fighting the fall line.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Accurately describes the ‘’23m’’ radius on the generation of 181 4FRNT Inthaynes I have. Believe they’re 2nd gen. I have a fully cambered pair of Salomon Pro Pipes with the same stated radius and they’re way more turny and locked into the radius.

People fail to understand a tight radius ski won't help them skid around tight stuff easier.

What happened? People don't buy them. Even half the people here that say they want them don't actually buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sessiøn

What happened? People don't buy them. Even half the people here that say they want them don't actually buy them.

---

It’s true. The Mpro108 people are talking about here has a 22m turn radius and while it can charge, it’s not like the skis of old OP is referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocximus

People fail to understand a tight radius ski won't help them skid around tight stuff easier.

---

If anything, a longer radius is easier to skid around in tight stuff. The straighter the ski, the easier it is to smear the ski sideways without the tip and tail catching.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I think that ^^ might depend on the design of the ski my pintail is really staight has but lotsa rocker & early rise is trying TO smear and turn smaller

my very straight FIS GS skis not wanting to turn at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sessiøn

What happened? People don't buy them. Even half the people here that say they want them don't actually buy them.

---

Not wrong.

Even my beloved Sender Squad is a 25m radius and very much a new school charger (though that also applies to the Head A-Star that the OP referenced) and hardly anyone bought it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sessiøn

What happened? People don't buy them. Even half the people here that say they want them don't actually buy them.

---

I did!
Hoarded quite a bit.
One can only hoard so much though

Chup, I got a 192 LP 105 in excellent shape I'm not using, let me know.

Cynically: Rocker ruined everything and should never be implemented on anything less than 100 underfoot, no one can carve a turn anymore, people are lazy and skiing is supposed to be hard.

Practically: Manufacturers recognize an aging core demographic that doesn't want a missile for everyday use; younger generation is focused on playfulness/park style; most of our generation that used to hate fuck the hill on 194 LPs are running on aftermarket knees; Jeremy Nobis is retired and the younger kids don't ski like that anymore.

TL;DR: There really isn't anyone that has any real influence that is pushing for big nasty skis anymore.

FWT is totally different now than it was fifteen years ago, and you can no longer be competitive on a 2x6. No other disciplines are pushing for anything like we all used to ski, and the drooling masses just want to have a good time.

Boots factor in to all of this very significantly as well. Less forward lean means the mount point moves forward, pressure shifts to the center of the ski, and you angulate less because you're not in attack position every second. So manufacturers build a tighter radius to get the ski from point A to point B with less input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX

Chup, I got a 192 LP 105 in excellent shape I'm not using, let me know.

Cynically: Rocker ruined everything and should never be implemented on anything less than 100 underfoot, no one can carve a turn anymore, people are lazy and skiing is supposed to be hard.

Practically: Manufacturers recognize an aging core demographic that doesn't want a missile for everyday use; younger generation is focused on playfulness/park style; most of our generation that used to hate fuck the hill on 194 LPs are running on aftermarket knees; Jeremy Nobis is retired and the younger kids don't ski like that anymore.

TL;DR: There really isn't anyone that has any real influence that is pushing for big nasty skis anymore.

FWT is totally different now than it was fifteen years ago, and you can no longer be competitive on a 2x6. No other disciplines are pushing for anything like we all used to ski, and the drooling masses just want to have a good time.

Boots factor in to all of this very significantly as well. Less forward lean means the mount point moves forward, pressure shifts to the center of the ski, and you angulate less because you're not in attack position every second. So manufacturers build a tighter radius to get the ski from point A to point B with less input.

---

Nailed it! And you make me feel older than I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk mo

Don't know anything about A Stars so figured I'd check if Blister had a review. Thanks AI!:

A "Head A-Star ski blister" refers to a blister on your foot caused by wearing a pair of Head A-Star skis, which are designed for powder skiing and often have a wider waist, potentially causing pressure points on your feet that lead to blisters, especially if your ski boots aren't properly fitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX

Jeremy Nobis is retired....

---

In a manner of speaking....

When all you wish to do is go down steep, chopped up pitches, there is nothing quite like a missile. These are the thirteens, and I'm not ashamed to say I did order the fl oneohfive oneninetwo version two. They'll kick so much ass.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e443bdd552.jpg

Sent fra min Pixel 8 Pro via Tapatalk

I only have one season on one HL ski. The RDimes. But I keep dropping into these threads to iterate that the HL build is what you're seeking. "Just buy it." Just go to the website, find the shape/profile that you want, and click buy. The core layup is beautiful. Poplar, bamboo, fuck metal, rubber, awesome sidewalls, surfy/carvy shapes, the right radius.

If I score a trip to NZ this summer (or is it winter?) I'll be tracking down an FL One O Five for the club fields. If I can't find it, the Dynastar MPro One O Eight is my backup plan. No ski in the history of my life has ever made the MPro my backup plan.

If I remember right, the a-star and 4frnt ehp’s are kinda clones of each other. I’ve hoarded enough ehp’s that I still ski em regularly. Stated radius is 40m. Low long rocker and flat cambered. The thing is a pivot machine in tight spaces!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZomblibulaX

Chup, I got a 192 LP 105 in excellent shape I'm not using, let me know.

Cynically: Rocker ruined everything and should never be implemented on anything less than 100 underfoot, no one can carve a turn anymore, people are lazy and skiing is supposed to be hard.

Practically: Manufacturers recognize an aging core demographic that doesn't want a missile for everyday use; younger generation is focused on playfulness/park style; most of our generation that used to hate fuck the hill on 194 LPs are running on aftermarket knees; Jeremy Nobis is retired and the younger kids don't ski like that anymore.

TL;DR: There really isn't anyone that has any real influence that is pushing for big nasty skis anymore.

FWT is totally different now than it was fifteen years ago, and you can no longer be competitive on a 2x6. No other disciplines are pushing for anything like we all used to ski, and the drooling masses just want to have a good time.

Boots factor in to all of this very significantly as well. Less forward lean means the mount point moves forward, pressure shifts to the center of the ski, and you angulate less because you're not in attack position every second. So manufacturers build a tighter radius to get the ski from point A to point B with less input.

---

That all makes a lot of sense and explains why the skis I like don't exist new, mostly.

I don't actually ski that fast through chopped up crap - but I like what I like, and it seems that the burly straighter skis are what I like.

I had a the original Dynastar LP in a 186, IIRC, and that ski was fun - - it was like a damp Explosiv. Never tried the 105. Hmm...

Hell, ski resorts are so crowded that there are not many places to let a charger ride. I blame the death of the charger on the high speed lift.

As a modern freeride ski the Blade Optic 114 can be pretty chargy. It has some metal, but is fairly soft. Long, flat section underfoot and a long radius. It is a ski that I find myself approaching traffic really quickly on, but can be shut down in a hurry.
The longer Moment Countach has a similar feel, but is a bit more turny and lighter. Still stiff enough to throttle down on.

As soft snow skis, the Hoji skis are missiles. Fuck I had a blast Monday on the big Ren. Not a charger, but man they go fast. A perfect example of a long radius ski that can drift and turn on a dime.

I really want the FL105. I'll have a few beers one night and order it.

Metal is not overrated, it’s just doesn’t sell. There is no substitute for power and torsional stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenB

Metal is not overrated, it’s just doesn’t sell. There is no substitute for power and torsional stability.

---

Umm… the vast majority of skis sold at retail (outside the boutiques like moment or on3p) have metal in them. K2, Rossi, Nordica, Dynastar, Armada, Head, etc.

The cambered Corvus (old generation) checks all of the boxes for me. It would punish poor form but would obliterate anything in its path. Is still my favorite ski.

@halliday I was chatting with Bird once at the loup and he said something along the lines of “they killed the Corvus when they took the camber out of it”. I wonder what he thinks of the new one.

FWIW I am firmly a younger generation of skier, and used to desire an easier going ski. Lots of ski lessons taught me the joy of givin’ er the beans, and now I want one of the skis that is mentioned in this thread. Borrowed a friends 2012ish Katana at JHMR last year, eye opening.

I agree though that faster lifts have increased on slope crowding, thus making missiles a little scarier to drive in the weekend crowds. BUT it seems like most days the queues aren’t as long thanks to those faster lifts. Doubled edged sword, eh?

Maybe the solution to shifting big company ski design back to more skill oriented skis is forcing everyone to take lessons like I did?

Maybe we should all be grateful that HL and 4frnt exist, accepting that the big spenders are cool with being bad at skiing, and therefore the conglomerates will make skis for them and not us?

Just because it’s my dream for four glorious turns down the King doesn’t mean it’s everyone’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some evolution data of “stated” side cut (in big boy length obviously)

XXL - 41m!
LP105 - 27m
MPro108 - 22m

OG Cochise - 28.5m
Carbon Tip Cochise - 28m
Carbon Tip Cochise v2 - 27m
Cochise 106 - 26m
Anomaly 102 - 22.5m

I feel like over the course of the evolution these skis got a 15% haircut in top end in shitfuck condition charging while gaining A LOT of capability throughout the rest of the mountain.

What does that really mean? The OG Cochise or LP105 was like a 3 turn ski down Chair 23 at Mammoth or Northbowl at Palisades… The new versions are what? A 4 turn ski? But in return they aren’t boat anchors in pow (OG Cochise was a fucking submarine) or ankle snappers in tight trees (LP105 with metal bindings is like 10lb per foot….)


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

Some evolution data of “stated” side cut (in big boy length obviously)

XXL - 41m!
LP105 - 27m
MPro108 - 22m

---

For whatever it's worth, if you plug the MPro108 into a ski radius calculator, it comes out at about 27.5m.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Practically: Manufacturers recognize an aging core demographic that doesn't want a missile for everyday use





prolly this my lotus have the date 2011 on them