Modern Tele Ski

[Montana St Alum]

I've attached a graphic showing the side profile of two skis, the Volkl Blaze 94 and the Blizzard Brahma 88.

If you look at the areas of the skis labeled 'rise', you can see that the Blaze 94 has a long area in which the bases of the skis are not touching each other, while the Brahma 88 has much less area in which the bases are not touching each other. I think that's the tip and tail 'rocker' or 'rise' of the skis.

My question is if you actually feel that long area of rise along the running length of the Blaze 94, especially if skiing telemark style.

Click on the photo to zoom in.

??

As rocker becomes a larger percentage of ski length, directional stability has a tendency to decrease. For me, that's good. For many, it may not be. I don't notice any "floppiness" as a result of more rocker until I get up to lots of rocker, on groomers, such as I have on Armada JJ's. But that was a very specialized powder-oriented ski. For something like the Volkl Blaze 94, I wouldn't expect it to be noticeable.

[Woodserson]

I've attached a graphic showing the side profile of two skis, the Volkl Blaze 94 and the Blizzard Brahma 88.

If you look at the areas of the skis labeled 'rise', you can see that the Blaze 94 has a long area in which the bases of the skis are not touching each other, while the Brahma 88 has much less area in which the bases are not touching each other. I think that's the tip and tail 'rocker' or 'rise' of the skis.

My question is if you actually feel that long area of rise along the running length of the Blaze 94, especially if skiing telemark style.

Click on the photo to zoom in.

??

Yes that Blaze has a significantly more rocker than the Kendo in this picture, and the camber hasn't even been depressed yet which will make it even more pronounced and deeper.
If you're skiing soft snow it'll be great, but it will be squirrelly on northeast inbound hardpack.

The Blaze is more of a backcountry oriented ski and I think this rocker on a narrow ski reflects that.

I wouldn't differentiate too much with telemark or alpine in this regard either

[rongon]

Well, that's good to hear, because I already have too many soft snow skis with lots of camber.

I have a pair of Dynastar Legend 96 in 178 length (2019 model) and a pair of Elan Ripstick 96 in 172 length (2021 model). Neither are the best ski ever, but they're both good, in different ways.

What I think I want is a hard snow carver, to use to get better at holding a carve in a telemark on resort hard pack, and maybe for early spring touring. I hear the Blizzard Brahma 88 is a great ski for that, and of course the Volkl Mantra. 2021 model Kastle FX96 HP (the one without metal)?

Anybody ski the Bishop Gonzo? Any of the Summit Cone skis?

[fisheater]

I have a Summit Cone Pariah, which I purchased as a Midwest resort ski. When shopping I didn’t like the fact it was 97 mm underfoot, but it seemed like there were a lot of skis I’ve read about that fat(fat to me). Fey Brothers recommended a 177 cm for me at 5’ 9”, 190 lbs. My shortest ski is my 187 cm Tindan, i really was thinking WTF! It has been a nice ski for me. The tail is a bit soft, and I’ve had a lot of fun riding on it. I really never rode a tail like I do on this ski. I’m surprised how quick I am edge to edge, I was expecting to work more, but I am pleased. I was in Vermont after a thaw, I arrived with temps in the teens. It was pretty firm. Edge hold was good, however I was deliberate when I was skiing those steeper Vermont black runs. I wasn’t skiing slow, pretty much on par with the speed of the good alpine skiers.
So I’m pleased with the ski. I would call it an all mountain ski, but I’m old, and that is what we called even flexing skis that weren’t as stiff as the racing skis so many skiers liked back then.
Fey Brothers has an 87 mm underfoot ski now, that was not available when I made my purchase.
I am skiing with an F-1 Race boot, and a Voile Transit on the most neutral setting. It feels pretty darned active to me!
I liked the Pariah enough to buy the lighter weight, scaled, backcountry version. That will be mostly a tourist ski for out east.

[Montana St Alum]

What I think I want is a hard snow carver, to use to get better at holding a carve in a telemark on resort hard pack, and maybe for early spring touring.

When I was (still am) trying to develop a good carved turn, part of the difficulty was that in a carve, the skis accelerate like crazy. The only way to slow down, without skidding, was to continue the turn to the point that I was across, rather than down, the hill.

So for carving specifically, I'd choose a ski with a turn radius of around 16m or less. Also, more than about 90mm underfoot so that the sides of the boots stay off the snow. And I think stiffer is generally better for that.

[Salto]

I think you're the first person I've seen mention Volkl Blaze 94 for telemark. I noticed that it has a long rise tip and tail, going deep toward the center of the ski. Do you feel this on snow? I've found that I don't like too deep tip and tail rocker for telemark, it makes the ski feel too short. Perhaps this is not an issue with the Blaze 94? May I ask you height/weight and what length you chose for Blaze 94?

Thanks.

Hey. I got the Blaze based on feedback from someone skiing the older volkl 90eight. I did not do much research on rise and found a cheap pair of the 94's (seem one can get them for $300-400) pretty easily.

The ski does ski short on hard pack but is very nimble and great in bumps and squiggling quick turns. They do have a feeling of being smeary under the feet, but that is when alpine turning, do not feel an negative while tele. I rarely feel they are squerly. The ski is not a speed daemon, but I don't like skiing with speed. Prefer turning. I use these as my everything ski from touring for turns to all resort. I'm 6'4" and 210 lbs on the 186 cm. The ski supports me just fine in all conditions.

[rongon]

Thanks everyone for the details on how these skis feel to you.

I figure the Elan Ripstick 96 172 cm I have is in the same ballpark as the Volkl Blaze 94, at least as far as what they're good at. It sounds like the Blaze 94 is on the quick turns, easy to smear side of things, which matches up with what the Ripstick 96 feels like to me. Very quick to turn, easy flexing but not a noodle. Not demanding, but also not built for high speed on hardpack. I have two friends on Blaze 94 with AT boots/bindings, and they do like the ski a lot.

I guess that means for easy turning, not too soft but not too stiff, both the Elan Ripstick 96 and Volkl Blaze 94 are valid choices for a 50/50 telemark ski.

For more hard snow-oriented skiing, I know the Blizzard Brahma 88 is a solid choice, since I have a friend who skis a pair of those with Voile Switchback X2 bindings and Scarpa T2eco boots. He's a really good skier, coming from alpine, and he says they carve really well. He's not afraid to maaaaake them turn.

I also have a pair of 2019 Dynastar Legend 96, and those are an interesting combination of quick turns (very short turn radius), stiffness for good hold on hardpack, lots of tip and tail taper for float and playfulness in soft snow, along with fairly deep rocker. I find it skis great in spring corn and does OK at surviving hardpacked, skied out paths through the trees. It's just meh at holding a carve on resort groomers, but I think it's not made for that. Due to the fairly deep rocker, deep tip and tail taper, and short turn radius, these should be sized longer. I'm 169.5 cm in height (er, shortness),180 lbs, and I like the 178 cm length. I have a pair of 2014 Dynastar Cham 97 High Mountain in 172 cm length and they're too short for me. They require short turns and slow speeds. Not happy at all on resort hardpack.

I had a pair of Voile Vector skis (not the BC version, the smooth-based ones) and those were pretty miserable in anything but soft snow. They're pretty soft, and they have a super-deep tip rocker that makes them ski really short. I was on a pair of 170s, and I really wish I had bought the 180s. I sold them off a few years ago.

So, being that I could find them for really cheap, I sprung for a pair of Kastle FX96 HP, 2021 year. I may have made a mistake, because some reviewers say it skis miserably, not a damp, race room stiff railer like Kastle is famous for, and not an easy turning, easy flexing, friendly ski either. Neither fish nor fowl. One reviewer complained that the tips are too soft and the tail too stiff, making them very hard to control in bumps and tight trees. On the other hand, there have been some good reviews, stating that they require the skier to stay forward and exert attentive control over the ski, which sounds like it would be a good tool to force me to ski more aggressively. Fortunately, I didn't have to pay anywhere near their $1100 list price (actually, less than a third of that ).

Is there some controversy over whether it's better to choose a ski that was designed specifically for telemark, like Bishop skis or Summit Cone skis?

Or Is any good alpine ski fine for telemark, as long as one chooses a ski with a smooth, even flex (no hinge-like flex points), as is so often written?

Also, what would be the advantage in alpine skiing for a ski with dramatic, hinge-like flex points? Wouldn't a smooth, even flex be better for any kind of downhill turning? Can anyone name an example of an alpine ski with a non-smooth, hinge-like flex pattern?

--

[Montana St Alum]

Is there some controversy over whether it's better to choose a ski that was designed specifically for telemark, like Bishop skis or Summit Cone skis?

Or Is any good alpine ski fine for telemark, as long as one chooses a ski with a smooth, even flex (no hinge-like flex points), as is so often written?

Also, what would be the advantage in alpine skiing for a ski with dramatic, hinge-like flex points? Wouldn't a smooth, even flex be better for any kind of downhill turning? Can anyone name an example of an alpine ski with a non-smooth, hinge-like flex pattern?

--

Much of this is personal preference and application.
I suspect that a telemark specific ski (or a beginner-intermediate alpine ski with soft, forgiving flex patterns) would be a better choice for softer flexing boots and a stiffer flexing ski, both longitudinally, and torsionally, would be a better choice on something like the new Tx Pro on Outlaw X bindings.

The only alpine ski I've skied that has that hinge-like flex you describe is the Armada JJ. That is absolutely magical in deeper snow, but that flex meets its limitation as it gets tracked up. The flex allows it to be easily deflected. For that, I prefer my stiffer and more evenly flexed Dynastar M-Cross 108's.

[Woodserson]

When I was (still am) trying to develop a good carved turn, part of the difficulty was that in a carve, the skis accelerate like crazy. The only way to slow down, without skidding, was to continue the turn to the point that I was across, rather than down, the hill.

So for carving specifically, I'd choose a ski with a turn radius of around 16m or less. Also, more than about 90mm underfoot so that the sides of the boots stay off the snow. And I think stiffer is generally better for that.

Agree with this 100%
What are you on right now MT? Still the Rossis?

[Montana St Alum]

When I was (still am) trying to develop a good carved turn, part of the difficulty was that in a carve, the skis accelerate like crazy. The only way to slow down, without skidding, was to continue the turn to the point that I was across, rather than down, the hill.

So for carving specifically, I'd choose a ski with a turn radius of around 16m or less. Also, more than about 90mm underfoot so that the sides of the boots stay off the snow. And I think stiffer is generally better for that.

Agree with this 100%
What are you on right now MT? Still the Rossis?

The Rossi EXP 84s were instrumental in dialing in my carve. They gave me confidence because they had such a tight turn radius. But once I began to break the code, they became too easy to overpower. A bit on the soft side, short and narrow underfoot, I decided to go a bit wider and stiffer for carving. I do have a pair of M-Cross 88s now that are great for carving. A bit wider underfoot, so the boots don't scrape and a crazy tight 12m turn radius. I'm still skiing my Rustler 9 and 10, though.