New Skis ... Looking for Input or Recommendations

#1

Rating: 0

9/11/09 at 3:04pm

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Hello,

I am looking for a new set of skis this year and was hoping to get some recommendations from the community.

I am currently on some K2 Axis ModX in a 189 that I actually like for 75% of my skiing (which is mainly chasing after my little guys and zipping down groomers). For the other 25% I'd like to try something a bit wider.

I've been skiing for many years but missed from 1999 to 2006 (basically the entire shaped ski revolution). Prior to 1999 I was on various K2 models with my last pair being K2 Velocity in a 203. I am 6'2", 225, and confident on all in bounds terrain ... but really do not seek out bumps unless they find me.

Last year I tried a couple different Bluehouse skis (District 187 and MR 179) and much preferred the MR over the District, but I think I still prefer my current K2's over the MR.

I have a line on three different skis that all seem to fit the bill of an all mountain ski that will handle 99% of the skiing I will do ...

1) Dynastar Legend Mythic Rider in a 184
2) Dynastar Big Trouble in a 186
3) Nordica Hot Rod Afterburner in a 186

As you can tell I am on a budget and not really interested in this year's gear if I can get the same for less with last year's closeout. Of the three, are there any strong for or against recommendations? I am leaning towards the Big Troubles since they are quite a bit different than my K2's and would seem to expand my quiver while the MR's and AB's seem to be wider versions of what I currently have, but could be swayed to any of the three.

Thanks in advance for all the input.

drn92

#2

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 5:30am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Bump to the top for any input ...

Also, a friend is a big fan of the Apache Outlaw. How does this compare to the above skis?

Thanks, drn92

#3

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 6:43am

stevesmith7
offline

Joined: February 2002
Location: Monument,CO
Post Count: 844

On a budget and want a do anything ok ski. It's a broken record but K2 Public Enemy (or Extreme, same ski). Dirt cheap. Does nothing bad. Always around on sale cheap. DO a search.

#4

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 8:03am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Thanks ... I have searched here and TGR and the PE/Extreme seems to get quite good press. However, the longest length is a 179 which (to me) seems a little short. Plus, they are $299 this year for the old model, which is roughly the same as the above 4 mentioned skis, all of which (on paper) are higher end models for each respective company.

Appreciate the input.

drn92

#5

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 9:32am

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

Of the three that you are looking at, the BT is best off trail and in soft snow, the AB is the best on groomers and the MR is in the middle. If you plan on supplementing your current skis, the BT seems the best way to go.

While you won't hear a lot of frabba jabba about the BT, among those that know it, it is a highly respected all mountain twin and is among the very best in class for a combo of on trail/off trail work. We sell far more of them than we do the Extreme.

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

#6

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 9:42am

stevesmith7
offline

Joined: February 2002
Location: Monument,CO
Post Count: 844

You didn't mention your size but skis have gotten shorter while you were away, though the trend seems to be going the other way these days. For a 75% groomer ski something in the mid to high 180s would be considered too long for anyone not in the heavyweight camp. People are skiing longer skis in the pow, big mountain segments.

I'm 5-11, 190. 179 PEs worked fine for me. I've also owned the Afterburners you mentioned in 178 and would not have wanted longer. I haven't skied the MRs. BTs have been cheap since I first saw them. Seems like a similar ski to the PEs, but when I look around the PE has outsold the BT about 1000:1. It's probably getting late to find really cheap deals but you can do better than $300 for PEs flat.

I reread your post and I'm not sure what you're looking for. Skis have gotten better in 10 years, a lot better. There are a lot of mid 80s underfoot skis that are perfect for 75/25. Do you plan on keeping your K2s? Then you're looking for a 25/75 ski to go with them. I'd go wider than 80s. Something like a Watea 94. They were pretty cheap last spring, haven't looked recently.

#7

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 9:54am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

SierraJim,

Thanks for the reply and the insight on the BT. It was the one of the four I am considering that looked to provide the best expansion of my quiver ... leaving my K2's for the groomed days and days chasing the little guys and the BT's for my trips to UT and deeper days in CO.

Appreciate the insight!

drn92

#8

Rating: 0

9/13/09 at 9:58am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

stevesmith7,

Thanks for the second reply. I am 6'2", 225, so on the bigger side. I do plan on keeping my K2 Axis skis for the days when I am skiing strictly groomers or chasing my kids, so the ski I am looking for would augment that ski (and give me a quiver of 2). With the BT at 92 underfoot, and being a twin tip, it seems to have the least overlap with my current ski.

Again, I appreciate the insights!

drn92

#9

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 6:09pm

stevesmith7
offline

Joined: February 2002
Location: Monument,CO
Post Count: 844

Here's a great deal on a nice ski:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168168

#10

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 7:08pm

tromano
online

Joined: November 2004
Location: Logan, UT
Post Count: 1,974

The PE is a good ski and good everywhere for just about anything. I am about your size and find the 179 to be good for me most of the time. One thing about the ski that doesn't get mentioned much is that that i has a long rise tip which makes the ski really floaty. IT likes ot float in any situaion so you have to absorb alot in crud and inconsistent snow. It doesnt plow throug it goes over. It might be the best pow ski of the ones you mentioned beucase of that (not sure about the BT). But to be honest I would prefer it at 184, especially if it were my only big ski. The PE is more lively than most K2 skis.

Never skied the BT but I I can tell you that the difference in float between 92 and 85 width for a guy 225lbs is: not alot. All of those skis will functionally be pretty skinnny skis in the pow (work best with old school powder technique).

You would need to go to a soft flexing 105mm+ waist to really get a good floating ski at your size.

#11

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 8:29pm

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

tromano,

Thanks for the input. I think the Extreme comes in a 184 this year, but the cheapest I can find it is about $399 ... a bit too much for my budget. My K2 Axis are a whopping 70 underfoot, which is the widest I've ever been (except the Bluehouse's I demoed last year), so I think the BT at 92 is going to make a big difference.

Right now I am looking at the BT in a 186 with PX 12's for $350 to my door. Seems like a pretty good deal, although if I could get the Extreme in a 184 I'd probably go that way (big K2 fan).

I grew up in N Utah and fondly remember going to Beaver Mtn way back in the day.

Appreciate the input.

drn92

#12

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 8:32pm

tromano
online

Joined: November 2004
Location: Logan, UT
Post Count: 1,974

Hard to argue with the price. I guess the PE has become a victim of its own success. I bought mine because a friend recomended them when they were like $200 shipped.

#13

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 9:12pm

huhh
online

Joined: August 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Post Count: 94

Lots of good Prices at SierraSkis.

http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/price_200-400/skis_0.asp

#14

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 9:39pm

PasadenaProf
offline

Joined: August 2009
Post Count: 49

Dang -- K2 Xplorers in a 184 for $375 -- less than I paid just a few weeks ago.

Maybe that's not wide enough for what you want, but if you're a K2 fan...

#15

Rating: 0

9/15/09 at 6:12am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Shoot ... now you have me thinking (which may be a bad thing ...).

The Xplorers always get good reviews, and I also see the XWing Fury on there as well. Would either of those be too much of an overlap with my current skis? Of the two is the Xplorer the better choice?

drn92

#16

Rating: 0

9/15/09 at 8:22am

PasadenaProf
offline

Joined: August 2009
Post Count: 49

Other folks on here do a lot of demo'ing, which I don't get to. But like you, I'm a big guy and a K2 fan. I had been renting Recons for the past few years and decided to go wider this year.

#17

Rating: 0

9/15/09 at 8:39am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

PasadenaProf,

Thanks for the replies ... I do not get much of a chance to demo either so I am buying a bit on faith.

Looking at the site they have the Xplorer in a 184, the XWing Fury in a 184, and the XWing Hurricane in a 180. I am thinking the Hurricane might be a little too soft and light and that the Fury and Xplorer are more comparable to each other. Still doing some research but I think I am moving away from the Big Troubles ...

Another thought is that either the Xplorer or Fury might be a good addition this year and then a big powder ski the following season.

Appreciate the replies!

drn92

#18

Rating: 0

9/16/09 at 6:42pm

huhh
online

Joined: August 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Post Count: 94

If you were planning on buying at SierraSkis, i hope you did already. Since the prices just went back up. Was 70%, now it's only 50%.

#19

Rating: 0

9/16/09 at 7:41pm

liv2 ski
offline

Joined: April 2008
Location: Coronado
Post Count: 217

Quote:

Originally Posted by drn92

stevesmith7,

Thanks for the second reply. I am 6'2", 225, so on the bigger side. I do plan on keeping my K2 Axis skis for the days when I am skiing strictly groomers or chasing my kids, so the ski I am looking for would augment that ski (and give me a quiver of 2). With the BT at 92 underfoot, and being a twin tip, it seems to have the least overlap with my current ski.

Again, I appreciate the insights!

drn92

I have 184 Mythic Riders and I really like them in up to maybe 6" of fresh snow. After that I use Praxis Back Countrys at 105 under foot for 6"-12" of fresh. I weight 190lbs, so at your size, I really think you want a ski that is at least 105 underfoot and a 190 length.
Did you see the sale at http://on3pskis.com/?page_id=48 I think those Billy Goats in a 186 would rock your world. I have also read good things about Dynastar XXLs in a 187. I see those on Gear Swap at TGR every now and then. Sorry, no beta on the BTs.
Just my 2 cents.

Edited by liv2 ski - 9/16/09 at 7:55pm

#20

Rating: 0

9/16/09 at 9:18pm

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Too slow on the SierraSki site. Hopefully they will run it again!

Thanks, drn92

#21

Rating: 0

9/16/09 at 9:26pm

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried the Bluehouse Districts in a 187 last year and either they were too much ski for me or they were a bad choice. I liked the MR179's much better. I think a ski at 100+ is too limiting for 90%+ of my skiing.

Thanks, drn92

#22

Rating: 0

9/16/09 at 10:02pm

huhh
online

Joined: August 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Post Count: 94

You'll be happy with the Mythic Rider. That's my main ski right now for pretty much anything except pow more than 10" or so. The only downsides i see in the Mythic Rider is the Weight, which can be lowered if you don't go for the Fluid system or rail system. Also mounting flat will make it a softer ski which is nicer in the pow. Second is you need some speed before you can actually carve. Other than that, they are Super Stable at high speed, bust through crud like a bulldozer and can rail the groomers and power through the bumps...if you have strong legs. At 6'2" 225lbs you shouldn't have a problem.

You can always add another ski like a 100+mm for the pow days later.

#23

Rating: 0

9/19/09 at 12:04pm

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

One more question before I pull the trigger. Length ... I know that skis have gotten quite a bit shorter, but when I got on the Dynastar site they recommended a 189 in the Mythic Rider, which weems like a pretty big ski. I know they have a 178 and a 184, which would be the better length for me?

Thanks again for all the input.

drn92

#24

Rating: 0

9/19/09 at 12:48pm

huhh
online

Joined: August 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Post Count: 94

I wouldn't go with a 189 if you plan on skiing groomers 75% of the time. I'm on a 178cm, 6'0" 195lbs and it's definatly enough ski for me whether it be booking it down the groomers and skiing some fresh lines in 6-10" of pow. You might find that you are more stable on a 184 than a 178. If you plan on venturing off trail at all, definatly a 184. Even though a 178 would be enough for you.

Have you decided on binding? The mythic rider comes either flat or a fluid system. The fluid system give is a little more stiffness and it will help you go from edge to edge quicker because of the lift. You can mount really any binding on them though.

#25

Rating: 0

9/19/09 at 1:19pm

Bazzer
offline

Joined: December 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Post Count: 179

Hi dm92.

I've been on the MR 178 and am more than satisfied with them. Demoed them in that length and 172 and much preferred the longer pair. I'm 6' and 155 lbs. At 6' 2" 225, the shortest I'd consider would be the 184. With your size and skill set you should have no trouble rocking the 189.

Of course it would be great if you had the chance to do some demoing, but you may be able to grab a pair of last season's skis at a good price and not have the luxury of a test ride. Gut says that you'd be fine on the 184, but would love the 189.

Had my Mythics as a 1-ski quiver least season and rode them as hard as I can in Jackson, Vail, and Snowmass/Aspen Highlands. The only times that they did not perform flawlessly were all due entirely to operator error.

#26

Rating: 0

9/19/09 at 6:08pm

huhh
online

Joined: August 2006
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Post Count: 94

Personally i wouldn't want to ride around heavy 189cm Mythic Riders all day on the groomers. Maybe that's just me...

#27

Rating: 0

9/21/09 at 8:17am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

All,

Thanks for all the great input above ... I found a great deal on some K2's from last year and went that direction. On the way is a K2 Apache Recon in a 184 w/ bindings. While a bit narrower than most of the above skis, I think they will be more than adequate for 75%+ of my skiing and let me relegate the Axis's to the early season/chase the kids duty. If the snow is really good, I can always demo a fat ski.

Off to the gym so I can keep up this season ...

drn92

#28

Rating: 0

9/21/09 at 9:16am

SierraJim
offline

Joined: October 2005
Location: Tahoe
Post Count: 3,105

Quote:

Originally Posted by drn92

.

I am currently on some K2 Axis ModX in a 189 that I actually like for 75% of my skiing (which is mainly chasing after my little guys and zipping down groomers). For the other 25% I'd like to try something a bit wider.

I have a line on three different skis that all seem to fit the bill of an all mountain ski that will handle 99% of the skiing I will do ...

1) Dynastar Legend Mythic Rider in a 184
2) Dynastar Big Trouble in a 186
3) Nordica Hot Rod Afterburner in a 186

Thanks for all the great input above ... I found a great deal on some K2's from last year and went that direction. On the way is a K2 Apache Recon in a 184 w/ bindings. While a bit narrower than most of the above skis, I think they will be more than adequate for 75%+ of my skiing ............................

So...............................you had something that you liked for 75% of your skiing.

You wanted something to fill in the remaining 25%

You just bought something that you think will be good for the same 75% of your skiing in order to save money.

You're OK with spending more money to demo something wider.

Basically you bought what you already have.........cool...................

SJ

www.starthaus.com (Check out SH ski deals #2 in the special deals forum)

#29

Rating: 0

9/21/09 at 9:38am

drn92
offline

Joined: January 2009
Post Count: 31

Maybe not much logic ... but the Axis are definitely a few seasons old (maybe 2002?) and these are "new" (last season) and they will certainly outperform the Axis on a wider varitey of terrain, have better technology, and be a better all around ski. Besides, the number of really "deep" days where I would need a powder ski can probably be counted on one hand for the past fifteen years and maybe one more for the next 5 ...

So let's say that the Axis, for sake of discussion and upon further reflection, are great for 75% of the sking I currently do, but only 33% of the skiing I like to do. I now have a ski that is good for 95% of the skiing I actually do and 75% of the skiing I like to do, and if there is a 2' dump on a day I happen to be skiing I will demo a big fat powder ski if I do not like how the Recon's work. Of course, I grew up skiing in N. UT, where back in the day we would routinely ski 2' dumps on 205 GS boards ... so the Recon's might be just fine. Plus, I think they will outperform the wider boards and the twin tips I was looking at on the groomers.

But I certainly see your side of the decision ...

drn92

#30

Rating: 0

9/21/09 at 9:52am

PasadenaProf
offline

Joined: August 2009
Post Count: 49

The Recon is a great ski. I've skied powder on those and, while they're not going to float you, there is no such thing as a bad day in powder anyway.

In two years there will probably be a skinny-ski fad and all these 95-waist skis will be relegated to the hipsters' closets... ;-)

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Barking Bears Want

New Skis ... Looking for Input or Recommendations

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis