I see that Lou over at Wildsnow finally let the horse out of the barn :-)
http://www.wildsnow.com/5292/la-sportiva-hi5-ski-review/comment-page-1/#comment-36675
Big help now as I really wanted the info a couple of months ago! I know Lou had the skis and wondered why he waited so long on the review. Likely out skiing. What was he thinking? Let me help make it a stampede of sorts.
If you follow this blog you know I hadn't skied much (as in none) for a decade or so. The climbing trip last winter to Chamonix was my cardiac jump start. The continued ski season (and terrible weather) here in the NW and with the resulting never ending snowit has allowed me to ski instead of ride my bike or rock climb.
Enjoying it actually. Getting togo back to several old spring ski haunts because of it.
I have been skiing on an assortment of old and new boards over the winter. Shaped, asymmetrical,super short, skinny, fat and in between. Lots of skis. They all generally turn left and right as required.My BD Aspects, Dyna Stokes and the Dyna Broad Peaks are missing from this picture. No huge surprises except one. And that one ski the Hi 5 has been an interesting education that continues.
I first saw the Hi5 at OR last winter and was more than a little skeptical ofthe newLa Sportiva Hi5 or La Sportiva in particular for skis. But I did want a pair of thoseall carbon race boots the STRATOS!Any way, hard to miss a bright green, giant ski that resembles a retro water ski more than snow ski.Or so I first thought. It was a ski that stood outin the ski racks at two "ski bars" and ridingthe trams in Chamonix over the winter. And of the La Sportiva Hi5sI did recognise, all seemed amazingly LOOONG in comparison to the other skisbeing toted around the valley.(from a distinct mental note taken back in March...and obvious ski/mtn gawds riding them)
![]()
![]()
Hugerocker on the tip of this ski. (well huge to me, the guy who had only skied one pair of rockered skis, these) a squared cut tailand a full 105mm wide at the waist. It is a 75/25 % rockered ski. My early production 188cms pair measure 135/105/125 mmand weight in at 8# 10oz.Light I thought for such a fat and long ski. But they will get lighter in the / production. The goal is 7#15oz for a pair of 188s. My skinny162cm Se7en Summits with arace binding weight 6# for the pair as a comparison, My 178cm BD Aspects are just over 7# with bindings.
The Hi5s are a good bit wider and longer than either with the resulting performance advantages.
In French here:
http://www.sportiva-fr.com/produits/catalogue7.php?id=74
- Longueur : 168 - 178 - 188
-Weight: 1.600gr - 1.700gr - 1.800gr - Poids : 1.600gr - 1.700gr - 1.800gr
- Construction: Sidewall Fusion - 75% Camber / Rocker 25%.Progressive sidecut Progressive sidecut
- Songs: ABS thermoplastic
- Core: Wood Light Karuba - Ame : bois de Karuba léger
- First layer: fiberglass tri-directional
- Second layer: carbon fiber bi-directional / fiberglass inserts
Almost nothing on the Net early on besides these:
Having been on the same hill, on those same days, lhave to admit I now really wanted to try thesefat boys out. But sadly, mine would show up in Apriland the closest I would come to a Cham pow day was a foot of nasty Cascade cement at Crystal that was doing point release slides under the lifts by the afternoon..
But that turned out to not be a bad thing. I wanted to get some skinning in on my lwt stuff but the new snow and avi danger made that problematic. So I stuck withthe Hi5s on the lifts all day. It seemed better than going home, as most did. The first steep I dropped into was 4 turns to the packed again. And I thought that was rather easy. Easier than expected for sure. Next drop I made 6 turns and was still not being pushed. Seemed too easy in the sloppy snow. Terrible snow to ski on but the kind of snow a good snow boarder loves So next time I dropped in the same place and did sixturns before the first tree. Holy shit! Are these really 188cm and 105cm wide? These will take some imagination and relearning what is possible was my thought that day.
Just say no to short skis ;)These are realskis!
No wonder the kidsin Cham were on head height or better skis lengths. These things turn like they are a150mm soft, skinny skis or a snow board. And maybe they are with that much rocker and flotation! What ever is going on here for technology, they sure are a hoot and super easy to ski on!
Check out the actual surface area being used on flat groundbetween my 162cm Se7en Summits and the Hi5 in a 188cm. That is SOME seriousrocker!
When you start looking at rockered skis you need to be really careful with the definition because the ski companies aren't. "Early rise", "semi rockered" and the other terms so easily bandied about generally aren't truly rockered skis. Real rockered skis, ski and turn like much shorter skis than their measured length would first indicate because there is less surface on the ground taking full weight.
When the tips of your skis set on the snow like the Hi5 obviously does, the ski is rockered. 410cm of rocker by my measure on the 188s. A quick example of the difference? A 173cm Stoke ski like a 188cm Hi5. If I cut hairs here, the 176 Aspect feels slower to turnthan thelongerand wider 188 Hi5. Most of that is rocker, some of it is the additional side cut of the Hi5. The pointis the Hi 5 turnslike a much shorter skis in my opinion. Surprizingly so and much to my personal enjoyment.
I hear fat skis are a little tough to edge. Big, stiff boots will solve part of that.
Fat skis are not suppose to like light weight boots. I took that test and like the Dynafit TLT Ps with these skis. And I generally ski the Ps without the tongue, as I was doing in the skiing comments above. Add the tongue and there is plenty of boot for the Stokes or the Hi5s in any length. But I haven't bothered adding the tongue. Might be the fact the Hi5 is so easy to ski and not the boots. It is a question yet unanswered to my satisfaction. But I have the technology to find that answer and will come back to it when I do. I like to think of the Hi5 as my Aspects with power steering and 4 wheel drive if that makes sense. Lower geared, and easier to drive in shitty snow.
The only other fat ski in my quiver is a pair of the new Dynafit Stokes. Goodski as well.But neither ski is really FAT by today's standards. Can't consider the BD Aspect as fat either.I wanted some serious rocker just to see what it was like to ski. Butif possible on a more traditional ski with some side cut. Dbl rockered skis seem a little extreme. But may be I am wrong there. Traditional you say? Well no tail rocker (unless you consider the last 2" of ski rockered" and thereasonableside cut seems almost traditionalthese days. The side cut isn't that far off between the Aspect and the Hi5.BTW I simply haven't noticed the square cut tail. When you sit back there is good support and edge there...like a decentGS ski. Looks a little weird a first but then so does this ski.That was amazingly easy toget over. And amazingly easy to set tail first in hard snow if it is required. The Hi5 numbers made it looklike a more "traditional" ski with some added rocker...OK a lot of rocker.
(all factory numbers..not my numbers)
Mustagh SL 187cm6lb 9oz 122-88-111
Aspect 186cm 7 lb 2 oz 130 / 90 / 117
Drift 186 cm7 lb 10 oz 138/ 100/ 123
Stoke 191cm 7 lb 14oz134 / 108 / 122
Hi5 188cm 7lb 15oz 135 / 105 / 125
Wailer HB 190cm 9lb 4oz 141/ 112 / 128
Megawatt 188cm 10 lb 1 oz 153-125-130
My pre production pair of Hi5s are a few oz.over at a measured 8# 7oz. La Sportiva missed the mark early on by 4oz per ski in a 188. Close enough from my perspective for what I am getting in added performance. I actually made a special trip to Marmot just to check my own numbers again when I started listingthe weight numbers on the Aspect and Stoke. Part of that is the HI5 is a little longer and a good bit wider. And the ski performance matches the Hi5's bigger numbers. Bottom line is I don't care about the weight on this ski (within reason) compared to my Aspects or Stokes.The Hi5shave proven themselves asmy go to, "Hero skis" any any kind of soft snow. If I need a hero ski that particular day I'll deal with the marginal extra weight on the uphill. (Thank Colin at La Sportiva for correctingthe production numbers on the skis being shippedas of Sept '11)
Ithink, if given thechoice, you'll find fewwilling to ski a non rockered 175 or 180cm ski where you can so easily ski the rockered 188 Hi5. The rocker makesthat much difference.I like skiing a little longer ski again.It wasan easy sale after just threeruns.
This is the most funall aroundski I have been on for junk snow. Short of ice and really hard groomers anyway. They aren't GS skis. There is a definite speed limit. These are my hero skis for junk snow. Ski just about anything,anywhere on these and feel awesome while doing it. Might even be able to give my boarding buddya run for the money inwind blown. Which says a lot. No way I would have believed that if the only place I hadskied them was on Chamonix pow. Might be the only ski I use for the down there next winter though. Rippingright out of the gateon the Midiis a dream I intend to make real with this board.
![]()
![]()
Bottom line? If you haven't skied a fat rocker ..you should ASAP. Hero skis, plain and simple.. With adecade off line...I needed a hero ski ;-)
I had a brownBrooks B66 S ("S" indicates the shorter, women's version) on my previously-owned Pashley Princess, which I rode for over a year. And I recently bought the same saddle for my vintage Gazelle.
I haveBrooks B72 saddles on two of my current bicycles: a brown one on my Royal H. mixte, and a black one on my Bella Ciao 3-speed. (I have also owned several vintage B72s, but will leave those out of this discussion).
[image compiled from brooksengland.com]
In terms of experiencing the saddles, the main differences are the springs, the shape, and the texture. The B66 has large springs that provide quite a bit of suspension. The texture of the saddle's surface is pebbled. And the edges - including the sides and the nose - are rounded. To me, these features make the B66 particularly comfortable on a bolt-upright, heavy city bicycle. The substantial springs provide excellent cushiness when most of my weight rests on the saddle. The pebbled texture keeps me from sliding around. And the rounded edges make it easier to slide off the bicycle when dismounting - which is convenient when making frequent stops in the city. On the other hand, when I try the B66 on sportier bicycles (with lower handlebars and steeper geometry), I find some of these comfort features distracting: The springs are too much and the pebbled texture is annoying when I am always shifting on the saddle.
In comparison to the B66, the B72 seems like a more versatile saddle to me. The B72's springs are tighter and smaller - still providing suspension, but not to the extent that it interferes with a more forward lean. The surface of the B72 is smooth and the edges are squarely tapered - which I find more comfortable for long distance cycling, during which I slide around on the saddle more, but get off the bike less frequently.
