Sport Today

Since Calside didn't include the relevant quote of the original question,
I did. If the Sal Super Force 9.2 2S is obsolete relative to the current
shaped ski craze, it should be available at a very low price, in which
case it could be a very good buy. Do you prefer to buy a new top-end
traditional ski for US $200-$300, already obsolete, or a top-end shaped
ski for $500-600 that will be obsolete in one year given how fast the
shaped skis are evolving? The claim that the newer shapes do a much better
job in practically all conditions begs a few questions. Measured by whom?
Compared with what? For what kind of skier? Many shaped skis are pretty
specialized, and there's huge variation on shape and performance, so it is
pretty risky to buy them without extensive testing. Well-known and
respected traditional skis are much easier to evaluate, because there's
much more of a track record. Some models, eg. the Rossi 7S I ski on, where
pretty much unchanged for quite a few years, so it is possible to get a
good average view of their strengths and weaknesses. The Sal SF 9.x series
also had a pretty strong track record.

Buying a late-model shaped ski now is a bit like buying a high-priced,
balky CD player when they first came out (I'm that old...). Good for
bragging about, but a risky investment. Of course the manufacturers (and
the magazines, which depend on equipment ads and market buzz) are pushing
the latest products, but there's no reason we should be so obliging unless
we have good evidence in favor of the new stuff for our particular needs.

I think I skiied a pair at Schweitzer - blue and silver, with a jagged
pattern in the shovels?
They felt like comfy old slippers after the shaped skis.
They were quite nimble and obedient, there was the suggestion of some
pop if you threw them into a turn, they tracked well at moderate speeds,
and were apparently good for moguls.
I didn't find them very exciting, though...

Ant

--
Anthea Kerrison


http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/1298/