Associate
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 1,763
- Location
- Hokkaido
While ski technology has improved and bad skis don't really exist, what you say is not really true. Skis are a tool, they have been optimized for specific tasks, and as they say, you need the beast tool r the job.
This is highly with the differences between dedicated powder skis and say slalom race skis. Completely spite design goals. The chambers, the narrow waist, the large asymmetry with a narrow waist, stiffness etc, are diametrically opposed. Slalom skis are stiff, short, narrow waisted, have a strong positive chamber (on a flat floor the tips and tails touch the ground, the waist is I'm the air forming an arch). Dedicated powder skis are longer, are soft (especially at the front), the waists are fat, and on some powder skis the waists are the fattest parts of the skis, the chamber is minimal or even negative (rocketed skis with the waist sitting on the floor and the tips and tails pointing up I to the air).
Completely opposite skis designed for totally posits conditions. The best World Cup skier would come last with any powder ski, even the best powder skiers will have less fun with a slalom skieven if they get down the mountain.
Hence why I said most skis. It's pretty stupid to then pick two skis from complete opposite ends of the spectrum. Of course a slalom ski is going to carve better than a powder ski. Was that ever up for debate?



