or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fat skis that are stiff enough to ski on ice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fat skis that are stiff enough to ski on ice

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 

I am looking to upgrade my 2006 Rossignol Squads (105mm underfoot, 1.65 height) this off season and looking for 175-189cm at least 100mm underfoot and at least as stiff as my Rossi's so that they are rock solid at speed and can plough through crud, chopped up ice (early morning in spring) and slush/ice.

 

I ski ~40 days a year in Utah so being good in powder is important but they don't have to float (My Rossi's didn't and they are great in powder). I do like going fast on hard pack and icy slopes and some of the powder skis are too soft and chatter even at moderate speeds on groomer.

 

I was interested in the Dynastar legend pro xxl 1.84cm or maybe some of the Line all mountain skis (would welcome other suggestions), but want the ski to be as versatile as possible. I don't care how the ski performs on moguls as I ski them very slowly (not down the fall line) or Jumps/Park. As I am looking for a single ski I can use everyday, not just a powder day or big mountain ski.

 

 

Thanks for all you help.

David

post #2 of 30

Some that come to mind would be the Head Jerrys, or the Faction 3 Zeros(my choice)

Both are stiff and hold well on ice and crud. The Jerrys have a slight rockered tip and tail i believe. While the 3 Zeros have a more drastic rocker in the tip and tail(I was told by the rep that they were available full camber also).

The Jerrys are very heavy, while the 3 zeros are lighter and easier to handle.


I personally work at a shop and out of all the skis we had for demos these two were my favorites for an all around ski. I got fed up with k2 skis because of how soft they were and even the rossignol s7s were too soft for me. 


As far as the Dynastars i have no experience with them so i cant really be a help there

 

 

post #3 of 30

Look at 2009 Blizzard Titan Argos (the 101mm under foot). They are stiff from metal construction and hold on ice scary - at least they do on Maine ice....

post #4 of 30

Maine ice is a lot icier than Utah ice (or at least a lot more frequent)

post #5 of 30

If you want a ski from Line, the Motherships (discontinued) or next year's Influence 105 might be the way to go. The Prophet 115/Influence 115 would also be a good choice if you want more flotation.

post #6 of 30


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidB View Post

I am looking to upgrade my 2006 Rossignol Squads (105mm underfoot, 1.65 height) this off season and looking for 175-189cm at least 100mm underfoot and at least as stiff as my Rossi's so that they are rock solid at speed and can plough through crud, chopped up ice (early morning in spring) and slush/ice.

 

I ski ~40 days a year in Utah so being good in powder is important but they don't have to float (My Rossi's didn't and they are great in powder). I do like going fast on hard pack and icy slopes and some of the powder skis are too soft and chatter even at moderate speeds on groomer.

 

I was interested in the Dynastar legend pro xxl 1.84cm or maybe some of the Line all mountain skis (would welcome other suggestions), but want the ski to be as versatile as possible. I don't care how the ski performs on moguls as I ski them very slowly (not down the fall line) or Jumps/Park. As I am looking for a single ski I can use everyday, not just a powder day or big mountain ski.

 

 

Thanks for all you help.

David


 

Nothing is as good at skiing refrozen crud as the squads but the closest there is are these

 

Rossi RC112

Line P105 and P115

Blizzard Cochese

Kastle MX108

 

 

Honestly I would try to find a squad again it really is a special ski for what you are describing.

 

 

post #7 of 30

I ski the 194XXL's and the 187 MX108's.  Either one would work fine, but I don't think of either one as real stiff. The 108's are a little turnier.

I would probably also try the New 105 LP?

post #8 of 30

Contact ON3P and order some Viciks. They are 104 under foot and have a little tip rocker.  This year's model is on end of season sale and, if you talk to them and decide they are not stiff enough. you can pre-order some of next year's at the cheap pre-order price and they will make them as stiff as you want for no extra charge.  I have the current model, am a big guy, and had them add just a little extra carbon underfoot to beef up the hard snow performance.  They are an excellent powder ski, and also rail the hardpack. If you are not looking for a super fat double rocker ski, the Viciks are a great all-rounder for their size, and you can dial in the flex to your needs.

post #9 of 30

Another vote here for the Vicik.

 

Read my review here: http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/98258/review-2011-186-on3p-vicik

 

After about 20 days on these I have had some real good days. We went through a month of really bad conditions this spring, and the Vicik made everything fun. Solid ski that charges anything. The early rise doesn't chatter on hard pack. Also note: I'm about 220, and on the standard layup. My skiing style is more chargy than turny.

 

I'm adding another ON3P ski to my quiver this year as a daily driver, but the Vicik will still be my go to ski for harder days.

post #10 of 30

There are some good threads on this over at TGR. And have heard many good things about the Vicik ^^^^. IMO, the new Dynastar LP's (105 I think) particularly fit your bill, better than the XXL's, suggest the reviews here by Alexzn, others. I realize there are other candidates that are fatter and maybe even stiffer, but if you went to the trouble to emphasize that you don't need float and want to ski ice, not sure you're looking for a 115-something...

post #11 of 30

The B-Squad was produced as the Rossignol SC (Phantom?) 105 the following year or two. Dark green with the wing graphic. They were on Tramdock and related discount sites quite a bit.

post #12 of 30

Some of the big Nordica skis are good for this sort of thing.

post #13 of 30

Not quite 100mm, but the Volkl Mantra (96mm) performs well on hard pack.

post #14 of 30

Powder Cruise

 

I rocked my mid 90s atomic powder cruises around chamonix for a season back in '06, they were fantastic.  Still my lift access ski of choice (too heavy for daily backcountry use) as they will kill it in all conditions.  Stiff, torsionally rigid and straight enough to have fabulous edge control on steep ice, but still enough girth to dominate in powder.  One of the only reasons I ride the lifts these days is to ski on them, a fantastic ski.

post #15 of 30

  "rock solid at speed and can plough through crud, chopped up ice (early morning in spring) and slush/ice" made me think of how well my 195 Line Motherships did today in similar conditions.  Take a look at 185s if you can, although the 195s can really turn on firmer/icy snow and are a lot of fun for me in all conditions and all parts of the mountain.  Some complain of weight, but doesn't bother me

post #16 of 30

Can't speak for the recent rockered generation but the 2007-2009 Völkl Gotamas fit that bill nicely - they never let me down there.

 

PM Gear Lhasa Pows (Carbon version) are great here too and they are 112 underfoot, as good or even better than the elder Goats. One of the most versatile fat skis currently out on the market, could even be a one ski quiver at a powder resort.

post #17 of 30

Blizzard 185 Cochise.... You need metal in order for the ski to really perform on hard snow and have stability at speed.   You'd be hard pressed to find a ski that skis as well on hard snow, charges through variable conditions and crud, and surfs/planes in powder. 

 

 

 

post #18 of 30

That sure wasn't my experience on the Cochise. Great ski, but on ice I was just holding on 'til I could get back to the good stuff. The best fat ski I skied on ice this year was the Kastle FX104.

post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

That sure wasn't my experience on the Cochise. Great ski, but on ice I was just holding on 'til I could get back to the good stuff. The best fat ski I skied on ice this year was the Kastle FX104.


Everyone's opinion is different but my personal experience was the polar opposite. Granted I'm biased but I grew up racing, raced in college and can hold my own on a groomer and embrace hard snow. First runs on the Cochise were in Austria last December on what would remind me of really hard east coast conditions (I grew up in VT so I've skied plenty) and the thing knifed. Edge grip was phenomenal and the more edge angle you gave the ski and the harder you stood on it the shorter the radius got and there was absolutely no chatter. I have never skied a 100+mm ski that arced like that. I haven't skied a Kastle but I'm sure they're Awesome as everyone I know that is a good skier and has skied them absolutely raves about them. I wonder if the tune was shoddy on the Cochise you skied.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasatchback View Post

I wonder if the tune was shoddy on the Cochise you skied.


I don't think so. they were Whiteroom's skis and had just come out of the plastic. I will say though, I wasn't in love with the binding position. They needed more gas-pedal and they have it now. Anyway, I only skied one or two runs on them, but did ski some wicked ice during those runs. Didn't love it. I'm not saying the FX104 is the be all either. Just that it's the best fattie I skied on ice this year. That's not really what I ski on fatties for, so....

post #21 of 30

Don't overlook the new LegendPro 105. Super-solid, super damp, moderate rocker, so will be good in soft snow too.  Great ski for what you describe, and a lot more versatile than XXL (i.e. it will ski at speeds less than 30mph).   The older LPR is no slouch either.  

Have not been on the Cochise, so cannot provide any feedback there. 

post #22 of 30

Guys, any input on what holds well on hard stuff in slightly narrower version, like 92-95 mm? Any feel on the Watea 94?

post #23 of 30

 

Quote:
Guys, any input on what holds well on hard stuff in slightly narrower version, like 92-95 mm? Any feel on the Watea 94?

 

I was on Watea 94s on the Gathering day at Vail where the whole place was a block of ice.  (I was being optimistic and hoping it would soften up by midday.  It did not.)

 

They're acceptable, but far from ideal.  I don't have much to compare it to in those conditions, though.

 

I don't even like most 78mm skis on real ice.  On anything even remotely "wide" it's just gradations of "how much does this suck compared to my Fischer Progessors?"

post #24 of 30
David- Another comment: no current ski is as stiff as BSquads, so you likely will be disappointed in that department in anything you pick up. There are some great fat(tish) skis that you can ski every day though.
post #25 of 30
David- Another comment: no current ski is as stiff as BSquads, so you likely will be disappointed in that department in anything you pick up. There are some great fat(tish) skis that you can ski every day though.
post #26 of 30

the B-Squad was built completely differently in each length, the 165's had less metal, less weight, less stiffness than the 176 and the 186 and 194 (?) were ridiculous, lots of metal, dense wood core, very stiff. Not really practical for most people, even strong skiers, prob the stiffest ski made in their model year, well perhaps like the Legend Pro in the longer lengths. They made a few 165's in France (most built in Spain) that were built like the 176 and they were simply too stiff, for anyone that size. I  bet the 2010 Pro 112 is better than the Squad in all respects. Recall, one of the fastest skiers on the pro film tour, Hugo Harrison, rode the first B-Squad, light green, silver, white graphic. And that model had its origins in the very popular Bandit XXX .

 

Prickly, Stockli makes the Stormriders (and current models with new model names) in widths from 78 to 110 or so, which would have good edge hold.

post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

Prickly, Stockli makes the Stormriders (and current models with new model names) in widths from 78 to 110 or so, which would have good edge hold.



Yeah, but I can't buy a pair of Stoecklis AND maintain my reputation as a stingy SOB. Something's gotta give.

post #28 of 30

Stockli on Ebay can be a real steal..... previous year models of course, but that's what you need, and it'll protect your persona.

post #29 of 30

2012 K2 Sideshow....90mm underfoot, or 2012 K2 Hardside...98 underfoot:  both tend to go straight rather than turning, good GS feel

Both skis have sidewall construction with rocker tip and traditional tail (so no wash-out on hardpack).  Skiied the sideshow last wknd on Cascade concrete and held up like I am on training wheels.

post #30 of 30

To the OP- Can you explain how you are planning to move from 165 length to ~180 length?  Maybe the lack of edge hold in your B-Squads is becuase they were way too short?

 

If you are looking for a board-stiff fat charger ski, look at the Bluehouse Shoots.  They are cheap. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fat skis that are stiff enough to ski on ice