EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Member Gear Reviews  ›  2010 Review Pt 2: K2 Sidestash, Blizzard Atlas/Answer, Magnum and Supersonic, Elan 888, Dyna* 4x4,

2010 Review Pt 2: K2 Sidestash, Blizzard Atlas/Answer, Magnum and Supersonic, Elan 888, Dyna* 4x4,

#1
Rating: 0

2010 ski reviews

Conditions: slushy groomers, soft/slushy off-piste snow, somewhat firmer first thing in the morning, but quickly deteriorated;  soft bumps, poor visibility.  About me: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, normally a solid all-mountain skier (probably a low-level expert); recovering from a broken leg and therefore not 100% (mostly limited to groomers and not too threatening (to my leg) off-piste conditions. 

I tested a wide range of skis.  This was a tough day: any ski would have some sort of drawback, it just depends on what compromises you want to make.

Blizzard Magnum 8.1 Max 172cm
: first ski of the day; had the same race-like dampness and feel that is characteristic of the Magnum. This ski has 2 sheets of metal (instead of 1) but the flex is around the same, perhaps a little stiffer laterally.  It was relatively nimble and great in big turns at speed. It liked GS radius turns over slalom radius ones.  Took it into the really crappy soft off-piste snow, and it was too narrow to be fun out there.  Relatively forgiving, easy to stay in the sweet spot.

Blizzard Magnum 8.7 179cm
: same as above, 7cm longer, not as nimble, a bit more stable when flat on the snow, better high-speed crudbuster.  Not quite the carver the 172cm is, but still adequate, and it likes to run more.  I could ski either the 172 or 179, but would probably opt 172cm at my height and get a wider ski for deeper snow.  Even in this length, the 4x4 from Dynastar was easily as stable.

Blizzard Magnum 8.7 Max 174cm: same ski as the 2009, except for the wider IQ track.   Very predictable, in the soft snow, felt as solid as the 8.1, although slower onto edge.  Nice sweet spot, easy to initiate, solid at speed, still a little narrow for the off-piste conditions of the day (basically 8” of slush).   Quick enough for bumps, just a really nice all-around ski.  I have skied this on boilerplate recently, and it definitely gives up something to the narrower skis, but on much of the typical Western snow, holds just fine.  A very GS-feeling ski. 

Blizzard Titan Atlas 180cm: new ski, 94mm underfoot, similar profile to the Argos in terms of tip and tail rise.  Fairly stiff flex.  This will be a great 1-ski quiver for many people. It was the minimum width I would take into that off-piste junk: while it didn’t float, it allowed you enough float to release into the next turn.  It was pretty stiff and didn't do short turns well: a definite big-turn, higher speed ski.   In the super-slushy groomers, it wanted to slide a bit, but that was more of a function of the lousy snow, not an indication of edgehold.  I bet it would hold quite well on harder snow, just as long as you weren’t looking for it to hook up in a hurry.  It seems a bit of a “tweener” ski: Not really that sporty for aggressive skiing on groomers, not really that wide off-piste to really handle crappy snow, but a great choice if you only need one ski and don’t live in the East. 

Blizzard Answer IQ 180cm
: a new ski for this coming year, 110mm underfoot, tip riser, variable sidecut:  This ski was a real eye-opener.  Not only was it nearly as good as the Atlas when getting onto edge, but it made quick work of the junky off-piste snow.  You could ski it all day on a primarily new snow and crud day and really like it.  Also, it was quite nimble for what it was, and a pretty decent carver.  I couldn’t say that the other tip-rockered skis I tried were really even decent carvers.  For a primarily off-piste ski with stability and versatility, it would be a great choice.   Again, very GS, big turn in terms of feel and flex; not really a ski that liked to change edges quickly. It also didn’t like higher edge angles on groomers (I lost my trust in the ski, it wanted to slide) but who cares?   If you bought this ski to ski groomers, you are in idiot.  I liked it; not sure I would trade my Huge Trouble for it, but I thought it to be one of the best wide skis I have tried.   All of the above skis have a somewhat similar feel: fairly stiff, more GS-like rather than quick and energetic: must be a Blizzard design.  It could also be that I am a lightweight, but I do like the stability and sense of confidence that these skis give you.

Blizzard Supersonic IQ 174cm:  Unchanged for the coming year: 74mm underfoot, around a 15m radius in this size.  A completely different feeling ski: much lighter and more nimble. It wasn’t just the difference in sidecut: this ski likes to change edges, like to ski arc to arc in any size turn, and is very playful.  The sweet spot is fairly large, it is a great carver, and also very easy in the small bumps that were developing. Way too narrow for the lousy off-piste snow, but if you were limited to this ski, skiing bumps and firmer snow would be a whole lot of fun.  I really enjoyed it; and would consider it for a frontside ski.  There is no real speed limit, although it doesn’t have the brusier feel of the Nordica Mach 3 Power or even the Dynastar 4x4: not as much pop or the hefty race-like feel, but very fun, sporty, while still being stable.  Will be a nice ski for a lot of people.

Elan 888 177cm
: unchanged (except for graphic) for 2010.  88mm underfoot, 21m turn radius.   This is a standby ski for me, and for good reason. It has great stability, a relatively large sweet spot, nice damp feel but with some edgehold and power that isn’t always present on 88mm underfoot skis, and a fairly light, flickable feel without feeling as light as, say a Watea.   Still that bit more damp, GS race ski feel to it.  Not being super stiff, it does well in tighter terrain for someone my size, as well as runs at speed nearly as well as the stiffest skis.  No surprises here: as good of a 1-ski quiver that exists today, at least for someone my size.  An above-average ski on groomers (at least in big arcs); decent float, not grabby at all in crud, very predictable in soft snow.  If you can only own 1 ski, this is a superb choice.   I liked it as well as anything I tried.

K2 SideStash (181cm?)
: new ski for 2010, 108mm (ish) underfoot, tip rocker (5/15 or so), fairly stiff flex, laminate sidewall.  I tried this ski in all sorts of snow, really soft, crappy new snow w/rain, soft slushy bumps forming, and somewhat groomed stuff.  Overall, I was very impressed.  I thought it to be quite a bit more nimble than the Answer, a slightly softer ski that worked well for me. It floated well in the crap, was easy to ski, but didn’t really get nervous at speed: there was some beef to this ski.  On the slushy groomers, it was quick edge to edge if you were doing fast releases, but wasn’t confidence-inspiring in bigger GS arcs. You could engage the edge and set/release, but trying to arc out a turn on sidecut only felt very weird, due to the rocker and lack of tip engagement.  Off piste, this wasn’t any sort of an issues, and I could take this into bumps and do OK.  The Answer was a better (still not good) carver, but stiffer and a bit more work: the Sidestash may be the better choice for the lighter skier.  In cruddy snow, I felt as confident as I did all day, and would have thoroughly enjoyed it, had my leg not been killing me and hindering my releasing out of the old turn.  I think this is going to be a very popular ski for that person who wants a solid wide ski that isn’t too horrible on the harder conditions and that doesn’t make too many compromises.   Should target that Obsethed customer who wants a versatile soft snow ski w/o the park graphics, or anyone looking for a versatile soft snow ride: a very good ski. 

K2 Hardside 174cm: the replacement for the Outlaw, 98mm underfoot, tip rocker: this ski was a little stiffer, not as nimble, but still pretty good off-piste.  Definitely more float than the Atlas gave me, easier to initiate in crappy snow. Felt solid, although not as nimble, and a bit more glued to the snow, GS/damp.  Floated OK, not as good as the Sidestash, and wasn’t really much better anywhere else: a little stiff for bumps, not really a better carver (still has the tip rocker, which means aggressive edge angles just don’t hook up like on a regular cambered ski). If I was heavier and was overpowering the Sidestash, this may be an attractive option, but I think you get more float and all of the versatility out of the Sidestash, so why go narrower?  After giving it some thought, it seems that if I am skiing a ski in the 90’s, I probably prefer a traditionally cambered ski (like a Nordica Enforcer).  Rockered skis are pretty poor on groomers, and if I am getting a ski for deep snow, I want more float than 90-99mm gives me: 110mm at least is what I would look for, but if you need to go rockered and narrowered, it is worth checking out this ski. 

Dynastar 4x4 172cm
: basically unchanged for 2010: 15m radius, 75mm underfoot.   This ski is as good as frontside skis get.  It is the closest I have yet felt from a “carver” to a real race ski: it has the stability one would expect from a 180mm GS board, yet is more fun.  Rips up the groomers, any size arc; is relatively forgiving for this level of performance (be a good skier, no doubt), does quite well in softer snow, and is pretty decent in bumps.  I really couldn’t ask for more out of a ski.  It is a true Porsche 911 Turbo out of the crop of frontside skis: pretty darn high level of performance for what it is and what it costs.  Not for intermediates, or even advanced skiers who really don’t like to let the skis run: needs a skilled pilot and likes to ski fast.

Dynastar Sultan 85 172cm
: 16m radius, 85mm underfoot, supposedly based somewhat off the 4x4’s construction.  Unfortunatley, my leg was hurting to the point that I could barely initiate a turn, and I didn’t get useful feedback on this ski.  I will try again in a couple of weeks.

Conclusion: lots of great skis out there.   I really enjoyed the sub 90mm skis for frontside and all-around use, and the 105+mm skis for off-piste skiing.  The mid-range skis seem to make a lot of compromises, and these days, with what is available, a 2-ski quiver makes tons of sense: get something wide for soft snow days so you can really take advantage of that crappy snow or windpack that may otherwise be un-ski-able, and get a great frontside ski for when it hasn’t snowed in awhile and you are ripping up the groomers or hard off-piste conditions.  The right skis will make either of those days tons of fun; when they may be marginal otherwise.  We have all heard the people on the lift complaining “snow is too soft and mushy/too deep/too heavy” or “too icy”, but if you have the right skis, you may be saying “hey, that is a great day!”.   Living out West and not having a solid 2-ski quiver means you may be missing out on some really good conditions.  I could live with several of these skis, but would still say that the 4x4 and Huge Trouble are my 2 personal faves for narrow/wide.  YMWV.
 

Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0

Great reviews Dawg. How would the Blizzard gsr or supersonic front side skis compare to the Contact 4 x 4 for hardpack carving.

Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pud View Post

 

Great reviews Dawg. How would the Blizzard gsr or supersonic front side skis compare to the Contact 4 x 4 for hardpack carving.

 

I am hoping to get on the GSR this week, so I will report back.  Supersonic IQ is quite a bit softer, not quite as stable (still stable though) but has a lighter, more playful feel (somewhat similar to a beefed up RX8 might feel) rather than the damp, wood core, super power feel of the 4x4 or GSR.  It depends on what feel you like: the Supersonic is genuinely different in terms of feel than most of the power carvers on the market.

Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0

Scott,

 

Since I know it's a good reference ski for you and I (and many others) how does the Watea 94 (non boat hull) compare to the Atlas?

 

Thanks!

Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

2010 ski reviews


K2 SideStash (181cm?)
: new ski for 2010, 108mm (ish) underfoot, tip rocker (5/15 or so), fairly stiff flex, laminate sidewall.  I tried this ski in all sorts of snow, really soft, crappy new snow w/rain, soft slushy bumps forming, and somewhat groomed stuff.  Overall, I was very impressed.  I thought it to be quite a bit more nimble than the Answer, a slightly softer ski that worked well for me. It floated well in the crap, was easy to ski, but didn’t really get nervous at speed: there was some beef to this ski.  On the slushy groomers, it was quick edge to edge if you were doing fast releases, but wasn’t confidence-inspiring in bigger GS arcs. You could engage the edge and set/release, but trying to arc out a turn on sidecut only felt very weird, due to the rocker and lack of tip engagement.  Off piste, this wasn’t any sort of an issues, and I could take this into bumps and do OK.  The Answer was a better (still not good) carver, but stiffer and a bit more work: the Sidestash may be the better choice for the lighter skier.  In cruddy snow, I felt as confident as I did all day, and would have thoroughly enjoyed it, had my leg not been killing me and hindering my releasing out of the old turn.  I think this is going to be a very popular ski for that person who wants a solid wide ski that isn’t too horrible on the harder conditions and that doesn’t make too many compromises.   Should target that Obsethed customer who wants a versatile soft snow ski w/o the park graphics, or anyone looking for a versatile soft snow ride: a very good ski. 

K2 Hardside 174cm: the replacement for the Outlaw, 98mm underfoot, tip rocker: this ski was a little stiffer, not as nimble, but still pretty good off-piste.  Definitely more float than the Atlas gave me, easier to initiate in crappy snow. Felt solid, although not as nimble, and a bit more glued to the snow, GS/damp.  Floated OK, not as good as the Sidestash, and wasn’t really much better anywhere else: a little stiff for bumps, not really a better carver (still has the tip rocker, which means aggressive edge angles just don’t hook up like on a regular cambered ski). If I was heavier and was overpowering the Sidestash, this may be an attractive option, but I think you get more float and all of the versatility out of the Sidestash, so why go narrower?  After giving it some thought, it seems that if I am skiing a ski in the 90’s, I probably prefer a traditionally cambered ski (like a Nordica Enforcer).  Rockered skis are pretty poor on groomers, and if I am getting a ski for deep snow, I want more float than 90-99mm gives me: 110mm at least is what I would look for, but if you need to go rockered and narrowered, it is worth checking out this ski. 


 

 

The HARDSIDE is not really a replacement for the Outlaw at all. This ski is a totally different beast in so many respects. First of all, the only thing that would make them remotely close is the waist width Hardside is 98mm and Outlaw 92mm. The new Hardside is one of K2's new "Sidecountry" skis and designed to be real skis that will perform in the backcountry and still offer performance of the true alpine ski. NO Twin here...just a honest and authentic backcountry ski with a straight tail that also rips everywhere on the mountain. Hardside has 2 sheets of Titinal, ABS Sidewall and slight "Rocker" in the tip. I had a chance to ski the Hardside at Snowbasin Utah back in early Feb. on hard groomer conditions and let me tell you the HS just rips on the groomers. Hardside has regular camber and holds on the hard snow better than any ski I've ever tried in the category.....and that includes the Volk Mantra. The K2 guys told me the Mantra was the target ski they wanted to go head to head with when the designed the ski. For many people out there who want a strong expert level ski and never intend on skiing switch this ski will be a true winner.

Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cruddog View Post

 

 

 

The HARDSIDE is not really a replacement for the Outlaw at all. This ski is a totally different beast in so many respects. First of all, the only thing that would make them remotely close is the waist width Hardside is 98mm and Outlaw 92mm. The new Hardside is one of K2's new "Sidecountry" skis and designed to be real skis that will perform in the backcountry and still offer performance of the true alpine ski. NO Twin here...just a honest and authentic backcountry ski with a straight tail that also rips everywhere on the mountain. Hardside has 2 sheets of Titinal, ABS Sidewall and slight "Rocker" in the tip. I had a chance to ski the Hardside at Snowbasin Utah back in early Feb. on hard groomer conditions and let me tell you the HS just rips on the groomers. Hardside has regular camber and holds on the hard snow better than any ski I've ever tried in the category.....and that includes the Volk Mantra. The K2 guys told me the Mantra was the target ski they wanted to go head to head with when the designed the ski. For many people out there who want a strong expert level ski and never intend on skiing switch this ski will be a true winner.

 

Cool, thanks for the clarification.  I would need more time in better snow on the Hardside, but on comparison to the Atlas (similiar Mantra-type of ski skied at the same time) the Hardside had the edge in softer snow and ease of release (probably no doubt due to the tip rocker) and was a step behind in terms of tip engagement and of being driven with aggressive forward pressure (again, probably somewhat due to the tip shape).  It will be interesting to see what others think of it.  Personally, I haven't found a rockered tip ski I really enjoy on harder snow; It seems like the Enforcers, Argoses, MX98's, and Mantras (when not mounted with a super high AT binding) always impress me more than the tip-rockered Czar type skis, whereas tip rockers can have clear benefits in certain types of softer snow.  No big surprise there.    

Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0

can anyone point me to a link with info on the supersonic v. the 8.7/8.1.  I know the Sup. is a frontside carver...

Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbuzz View Post

 

can anyone point me to a link with info on the supersonic v. the 8.7/8.1.  I know the Sup. is a frontside carver...

 

What info are you looking for?  They are reviewed in the first post.

Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

 

 

What info are you looking for?  They are reviewed in the first post.

Dawg thanks for the reply. Basically having a tough time deciphering the recommended difference between the 8,1/7 series versus the supersonic.  Seems the supersonic is a total frontside. but what are the others. 70/30 50/50. I may just be daft anyway. LOL

 

In rebuilding the quiver, the modular aspect of the blizzard binding system intrigues as practical way to move from ski to ski

 

Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

...K2 SideStash (181cm?):   ...Sidestash may be the better choice [vs. the Answer] for the lighter skier....Should target that Obsethed customer who wants a versatile soft snow ski w/o the park graphics, or anyone looking for a versatile soft snow ride: a very good ski....
 

Dawg - any more definitive words of comparison between the SideStash and obSethed, and/or which might be better for lighter skier?

Export to Wiki
#11
Rating: 0


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

... It also didn’t like higher edge angles on groomers (I lost my trust in the ski, it wanted to slide) but who cares?   If you bought this ski to ski groomers, you are an idiot...
 


 


Edited by WILDCAT - 4/1/2009 at 07:20 pm
Export to Wiki
#12
Rating: 0


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

Dawg - any more definitive words of comparison between the SideStash and obSethed, and/or which might be better for lighter skier?


 

Oh I see the Rockered wheels are turning..... Good boy!!!!  Join the darkside..... :)

Be More Like Your Dog...
Export to Wiki
#13
Rating: 0


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 

Oh I see the Rockered wheels are turning..... Good boy!!!!  Join the darkside..... :)

After battling with the Goats last week I'm there....
 

Export to Wiki
#14
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

After battling with the Goats last week I'm there....
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 


 


 

Oh I see the Rockered wheels are turning..... Good boy!!!!  Join the darkside..... :)

 

No, I haven't skied them since. It would be great to get on a pair when I am closer to 100%, probably won't happen this year though.  

 

Finndog: I can't say that definitively rockers are better: from what I have skied, I just can't get there.  In comparison to the Huge Trouble, the flat camber seems to be just about perfect for the way I ski: it bends up very well in deep snow, but isn't bouncy in crud, doesn't get rattled whatsoever in speed. I think rockers have their place, but is there a rocker or tip rockered ski I would trade my Huge's for?  No, and I have skied at least 10.   Kevin, who is at least as solid of a skier as I, probably better, pretty much came to the same conclusion when demoing at Snowbasin. Although I like what rockers do in certain situations, I can't say that they exceed the Huge in even the deepest snow, and fall short elsewhere.  At the end of the day, it comes down to what makes me a better skier, and when the snow is deep, that ski is the Huge. 

Export to Wiki
#15
Rating: 0

Thanks Dawg, speaking of Rockers, I am thinking more deeper pow days. I skied the Obseth and loved it on untracked and broken, just didn't think it held on the "expert chutes" well at J-hole, but I think that was really pilot error and not being on the ski enough time. I have not skied the Huge's and would like to. For Ski-Ra and me, we are looking for quick maneuverable skis for Steamboat tight trees and areas. I am sure you know there's a pretty big difference between a pow skis that performs well in open bowls/terrain at high speeds vs. a ski that does better in tighter places at slower speeds; more technical stuff. Personally, A 185 or longer ski isn't a good size for me (at my level) in that kind of terrain.  We are both looking for that magic ski. So far, for me it's the Icelantic Nomad and I think the Nomad Soft will be even better.  I am not an expert so skis that work for you may not be so easy to work for me.

 

Here's a couple of vids of me skiing some open powder, maybe you have some thoughts on skis based on this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rlcpics/3352333234/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rlcpics/3407057248/


Edited by Finndog - 4/2/2009 at 01:23 pm
Be More Like Your Dog...
Export to Wiki
#16
Rating: 0

Nice review.

I skied the HardSide in 181 in March (I posted the ski tests in form of TR because I had so much fun skiing that day) but I've found it a bit too light for the type of snow I met.

Probably because of the AT bindings (Marker Duke) which were providing me a stronger leverage (higher from the snow) I felt the ski was a bit too unstable compared to the Coomba (in 181 too, but with jesters)

Of the two, the Coomba was my favourite, but I wonder what the impressions would have been, had both have had the same binding

Again , the combination Coomba/Jester and HardSide/Duke were of comparable weight, but I could feel that in one case the weight was spread homogenously on the whole ski, sign that the Coomba is heavier, while in the HS case, most of the weight was under my foot (due to the heavier Dukes) probably this too contributed to the feeling I received that the HS were "suffering" the terrain (tips weren't as easy to maintain on a course compared to the Coombas)

Una salus victis, nullam sperare salutem
Export to Wiki
#17
Rating: 1

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post

 

Nice review.

I skied the HardSide in 181 in March (I posted the ski tests in form of TR because I had so much fun skiing that day) but I've found it a bit too light for the type of snow I met.

Probably because of the AT bindings (Marker Duke) which were providing me a stronger leverage (higher from the snow) I felt the ski was a bit too unstable compared to the Coomba (in 181 too, but with jesters)

Of the two, the Coomba was my favourite, but I wonder what the impressions would have been, had both have had the same binding

Again , the combination Coomba/Jester and HardSide/Duke were of comparable weight, but I could feel that in one case the weight was spread homogenously on the whole ski, sign that the Coomba is heavier, while in the HS case, most of the weight was under my foot (due to the heavier Dukes) probably this too contributed to the feeling I received that the HS were "suffering" the terrain (tips weren't as easy to maintain on a course compared to the Coombas)

 

Had a similar experience on 2 other skis when skied with the Duke. the lift is so high that your leverage point changes and affects the way the ski handles.  It gave the ski more of an on-off aggressive feel, which I didn't care for.  I felt much more locked into an edge.  Both skis I thought skied better with a regular binding. The Duke seemed laterally stiff enough, but the 60mm rise is really tall when compared to a conventional binding.   

Export to Wiki
#18
Rating: 0

DAwg, just to be clear, I am not talking about reverse cam under foot. Just tip.tail rocker. The HB for instance is not a true reverse camber underfoot. just a 40/40 tip/tail rocker.

Be More Like Your Dog...
Export to Wiki
#19
Rating: 0

Dawg,

 

Do you have any more input on the Sultan 85?  I'm looking for a mid 80's-90's ski with a straighter profile that's stiff underfoot and progressively softer towards the tip and tails.  I hated the Mythic (just too stiff for short turns for me) so I hope it's more different than similar.  Only other ski I was considering was the Bliz Atlas but I'm sure there are others out there as well.

Export to Wiki
#20
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

DAwg, just to be clear, I am not talking about reverse cam under foot. Just tip.tail rocker. The HB for instance is not a true reverse camber underfoot. just a 40/40 tip/tail rocker.


Check out my review for the Elan 1010. For me, it is a hero ski.  Just soft in the tip, torsionally stiff, super versatile, couldn't really ask for more.  2 other skiers tried it (both Squaw locals who probably ski better than 99% of the people on this board) and both thought it among, if not the best, wide all-around ski they had yet tried.  23m radius, 111 underfoot, might just be up your alley if you want a versatile wide ride that is great in anything from 4 to 24" of new, plus a superb crud buster and very workable bump and ice ski if you end up on some less than ideal snow conditions. 

Export to Wiki
#21
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

Dawg,

 

Do you have any more input on the Sultan 85?  I'm looking for a mid 80's-90's ski with a straighter profile that's stiff underfoot and progressively softer towards the tip and tails.  I hated the Mythic (just too stiff for short turns for me) so I hope it's more different than similar.  Only other ski I was considering was the Bliz Atlas but I'm sure there are others out there as well.


No, sorry.  The rep hasn't come around with that ski. I did ski the Magnum 8.1 Max from Blizzard in 172, it might be my favorite narrower carver/frontside/all-around ski.  I liked it better than the 8.7.  

Export to Wiki
#22
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 


No, sorry.  The rep hasn't come around with that ski. I did ski the Magnum 8.1 Max from Blizzard in 172, it might be my favorite narrower carver/frontside/all-around ski.  I liked it better than the 8.7.  


I am really thinking about getting the 8.1 over the 8.7 next year and adding an Atlas to it for next year. Now, if I can figure a way to pack 4 pr. Blizzards  (along with Lola's Viva's and Eos's) and my PBR's and still be 50 lb for travel. 

Click. Point. Chute.  
Export to Wiki
#23
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 


Check out my review for the Elan 1010. For me, it is a hero ski.  Just soft in the tip, torsionally stiff, super versatile, couldn't really ask for more.  2 other skiers tried it (both Squaw locals who probably ski better than 99% of the people on this board) and both thought it among, if not the best, wide all-around ski they had yet tried.  23m radius, 111 underfoot, might just be up your alley if you want a versatile wide ride that is great in anything from 4 to 24" of new, plus a superb crud buster and very workable bump and ice ski if you end up on some less than ideal snow conditions. 


Scott....Given all of the above...do you think the 999 offers much advantage over the 1010 in "eastern" conditions: tight trees, bumps etc.? From pics that I have seen it appears as though the 999 has a flatter, square tail. Is this correct? Is one noticeably softer that the other?

Export to Wiki
#24
Rating: 0

Quick question about metal in the various Blizzards. The show pics I've seen of the Magnum 8.1 appear to show two versions, a "max" with orangish background/highlights, and a simple "8.1" that's greenish. Is this your info, and if so, does the greenish version retain one sheet of titanium vs. the "max's" two? Or does it go to carbon?

 

Similar question about the 8.7. I only see it in "max." Have they dropped this year's single metal version? 

 

And assume the various Titans remain Cronus, carbon, Atlas and Argos, one layer of titanium. Yes?

 

I ask all this because (retailers take note) some of us who are decent skiers can actually still prefer the less stiff/lighter weight versions, especially for softer snow, and dislike having either to settle for the thinner intermediate models or going for a really short length in the "regular" construction. (Think Elan 82 Ti being dropped for the XTi) Thanks.  

Export to Wiki
#25
Rating: 0

I think the 8.7 was always a double layer of metal, so it became a "max" on paper when that new marketing jargon was introduced for 2010....  Never was a single-layer version.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

Similar question about the 8.7. I only see it in "max." Have they dropped this year's single metal version? 

 

 

Export to Wiki
#26
Rating: 0

Helpful, 219. So it should ski roughly like this year's, cept for the wider binding. Now to find out about the others...


Edited by beyond - 4/13/2009 at 06:36 pm GMT
Export to Wiki
#27
Rating: 0

Maybe someone else can confirm for sure, as I can't find the info I had seen on the 1 vs. 2 layers anymore.... 

Export to Wiki
#28
Rating: 0

The "Max" refers to the wider IQ 51mm binding vs. the 37mm 

Click. Point. Chute.  
Export to Wiki
#29
Rating: 0

OK, more good info. So "max" has nothing to do with extra metal. Now about that mysterious greenish 8.1, not labeled "max," that's in all the pics from the trade shows. Is it a narrower binding? Takers?  

Export to Wiki
#30
Rating: 0

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

OK, more good info. So "max" has nothing to do with extra metal. Now about that mysterious greenish 8.1, not labeled "max," that's in all the pics from the trade shows. Is it a narrower binding? Takers?  

 

Not sure about that one. The new 2010 8.1 does have 2 sheets of metal, but it thinner and softer at the tip, it feels about the same flex-wise as the current ski.

Export to Wiki