Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 4/2/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!pagiven From: pagiven@drutx.UUCP (GivenP) Newsgroups: net.rec.ski Subject: re: wood core vs foam? Message-ID: <1481@drutx.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 11:35:17 EST Article-I.D.: drutx.1481 Posted: Mon Nov 26 11:35:17 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Nov-84 04:17:15 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 80 - Although this was written in response to the article by decvax!scorplx!frank, I thought it might be of general interest, thus this posting to the net. >From: frank@scorplx.UUCP (Frank Pavelski) >Subject: wood or foam core? > >][ > >I've been shopping around for my first set of skiis (sp?) for a week or >so now, and I am having trouble deciding what style of construction >would satisfy my needs. I've heard that a wood core with top and bottom >layer of steel is about the most durable type of ski you can buy but that >it isn't as flexible as a foam core. I'm only looking to spend about >$200-250 for the skiis and bindings. This pretty much rules out the >Omega construction that I've seen featured with Dynastar. Can anyone >tell me their opinion on such brands as Rossignol, Head, Fischer, K2 ? >Is the extra durability of a wood core worth the sacrifice of greater >flexibility. I'm a beginning to intermediate skier and will be hitting >some moggle (sp? again) trails this season. I'm 6 feet and 190 pounds >if this makes any difference. Also, how about some comments on what the >favorite binding is of all you USENET people out there. > > > Much thanks in advance, > > Frank Pavelski Wood core vs. foam core, steel vs glass, long cut vs. narrow cut, etc. etc., ad nauseum. The Madison Avenue types have to have something to fill those advertising pages in skiing magazines, don't they? I don't mean to be all that cynical, but the only thing that really counts in skis, is how do YOU like them. Over the years, I have found that only three things need be considered: 1. Price 2. Brand 3. Version To minimize price, try to find a discount outlet selling last year's brand new skis heavily discounted (expect to pay half list price or less). If they were good last year, they will be good this year. NEVER BUY USED EQUIPMENT. There is nothing worse than an old, worn out ski; they can look to be in great shape, but no telling how many times they have been flexed to the max and there- fore have lost a considerable amount of tension. BTW, the length of ski for you is 185 cm (or 190 cm if you are strong, athletic, like to ski fast, would like to race, or plan on improving). Always get the top of the line, competition ski in any of the BIG NAME brands. A partial list: Kneissl, Volkl, Fisher, K2, Atomic, Rossignol, Dynamic, Olin. I am particularly fond of K2 and Rossig- nol. Don't let the fact that you are an intermediate/beginner skier, sway you into buying less that the competition version. Those soft, forgiving skis will be good for one or two days at the outside, before you are ready for something better. The intermedi- ate versions WILL hold back your progress. Always get the Slalom version competition ski. Forget Giant Slalom (GS), or any other version (unless you are in to specialty racing events). Slalom skis can be designed using side cut, flex pattern, or both. My only advice on bindings is to go with BIG NAME brands. Look, Salomon, Tyrolia come to mind. Anti-friction pads are a must (I don't even think you can get bindings nowadays without them). Ten- sion settings should be set somewhere in the middle of their range when tightened enough to hold you in. BTW, spelling is "mogul," and "skis." Also "skier," "skied," "ski- ing," "skiable." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Given {ihnp4, houxe, stcvax!ihnp4}!drutx!pagiven AT&T Information Systems Laboratories 11900 N. Pecos, Rm 1B04, Denver 80234 (303)-538-4058 -----------------------------------------------------------------