Haskell, Patrick [[log in to unmask]] writes:
>> The Black Diamond Crossbow has an avid following amongst AT skiers
for
>> skis in that width range. It's THE go-to ski for a lot of
B.C./Alberta
>> backcountry AT-skiers. It's pretty good on everything
>> 'ceptin' skritchy
>> skratch. It's soft enough that a lot of big-boys DON'T like it, but
>> plenty of 125lb ripper-chicas seem happy with the 163cm
>> length. (I know,
>> a lot of 5'2" folks are gonna think that's LONG, but it it ain't,
>> particularly with that ski.)
>
>Funny; every review I've seen of the Crossbow indicates that they are
>quite stiff and require a good deal of attention and agression to get
>the most out of them. They also have an assymetric sidecut that makes
>them extra carvey and responsive to edge technique. They sounds like a
>ski that will very quickly take you for a ride if you get in the
>backseat. While plenty stiff, their sidecut, foam core and liveliness
>likely keep them from being the damp, burly snowplows that "bigboy"
>rippers prefer.
Cm for cm they're not as stiff as the 10EX/REX/TMEX/TMX/(whatever
they're callin' it this week). My skinny 150lb ssa can drive my fatssa
brother's 187s sin-problema- they're even fun, whereas the 184cm TMEX
feels a bit like a brick to me unless I'm goin' 35mph+. It's not a
softy, to be sure, but the 163 isn't gonna spank any "...small, not
quite 5'2", though powerfully built" moderate-to-ripper alpine skier.
I've never tried to ski 'em sub 15mph, like skiin' with kids or
something- they'd probably feel pretty crappy for goin' SUPER slow.
While they're on the stiffer side for a tele-specific ski, they ain't no
King Kong Krusher in alpine mode- they're fairly middle-of-the road.
Mayhaps you've only read telemark reviews on that ski (given that it's
marketed as a tele stick)? They're right in there with the older alpine
K2 Explorer or Flight-X, flexwise, but ~6mm wider. I teled the 183cm
Flight-X, could have skied the 173 OK, but the 163 would have been
pretty skittery. But for her, the 163 would be about like the 183 for
me- not for the timid, but if she's a strong skier who doesn't dawdle
and can let 'em run from time to time, not bad. That's where I'd expect
the 163cm Crossbow to be.
Also, I don’t think they have an asymmetric sidecut, it just LOOKS like
it with all of the other asymmetry like that wacko torsion bow and the
straight sidewall one side, canted sidewall on the other. There's
definitely a "left" and "right" to that ski! (And mount 'em in the
lateral center relative to the bases, not the topskins, eh!?!)
>> There are also some deals out there on the 153cm Teledaddy too, but
>> that's a freaky-fat ski (99mm waist)- much better for the truly deep
>> than groomers, but stiff enough torsionally that a lot of
>> peops find it
>> tolerable.
>
>Teledaddies are also on the stiff side - not uberburly like heavier
wood
>core rides like the Explosiv or the Head/Fischer 10cm wide models, but
>certainly very stable due to their girth.
Yeah, Teledaddys are stiff enough alright, which is why they're even
worth mentioning. If her MCLs can stand it, she can ski 'em on the
hardpack too, and the fact that they're showing up cheap in the shorty
sizes makes 'em interesting, if only as a quiver-ski.
BTW: Anybody think they might want a pretty-good 191cm 10EX on the
cheap???(Unmounted, drilled for Diamirs size L.) Backchannel me. They're
definitely right-priced for anyone big enough to handle 'em.
dana
_____________ ________ __
__ /________ ________ ___
__( ________ __山スキー!_
___\ ________ ________ __
____) ______ __________ _
___/ ______ ___________ _
__( o ____ __________ __
__ \(|\.____ _______ ____
___`\>/______ ____ ______
____ \` ______ __ _______
______`________ _ _______
_______________ __ ______
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
|
