EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's wrong with the skis you've got?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's wrong with the skis you've got? - Page 2

post #31 of 43


This is what's wrong with my current skis :( They are the best park skis out there though, 185 Volkl Walls w Jesters, super stable on landings, yet light and poppy enough to be fun on rails. If they don't warranty them, I'll probably just buy another pair.


Out of my other skis,


Fischer Progressor 9s, 170. Great skis, love them in almost everything other than the deepest powder. Unfortunately after 2 seasons they are really flat, so going to sell them for cheap and get another pair.


Volkl Chopsticks 185 w Rossi free 20s, Heavy skis, terrible for short turns on groomed, amazing in deep snow. Fantastic for switch landings/skiing in powder, yet their symmetrical nature makes them a little limited going forwards, tempted to get something a bit bigger and more directional, maybe the 195 AK JJs.

post #32 of 43

The only thing *really* wrong with my current skis is that they are about 1,000 miles away from the nearest snow :(


post #33 of 43


Originally Posted by jeff2010 View Post

The only thing *really* wrong with my current skis is that they are about 1,000 miles away from the nearest snow :(



post #34 of 43

My Hart BarHoppers are too soft.


My Hart Javelin GS are not symmetrically bent at the tip between the two skis.


My K2 Public Enemys aren't long enough (179...I'd prefer 184+)


No complaints about the Kneissl Fly Star other than the shop mismounted them and they are only slightly short at 183.

post #35 of 43
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post.


Ski reviews, but with a difference.  This time tell us what is wrong with your skis, not just buyers positively biased first impressions.  If you need help, just think how you would describe the ski to your significant other when justifying the need for another ski.wink.gif



I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with my skis but I do think that one pair is wrong for me:


Atomic Metron 11 B5 164cm 14M TR NEOX 4/12 - 2007 (?)

I've posted about them a couple times and I really like them unless there is ice.  I can't not get them to hold an edge on ice.  I do not have that issue on any of my other skis.  I'm willing to accept I have the deficiency but if there is any ice out, they stay in the rack. 


I keep thinking about selling them but I really need to get in the bumps and I think they would do very well in bumps and they've done me well instructing.  Since I'm coming off ACL reconstruction it would probably be good to start the season with a nice soft ski.


Atomic LT11 170cm 16M TR NEOX 4/12 - 2006 or 2007

These have been my go to ski for quite some time.  They're a cheater GS ski and have served me well.  After a slight mishap in the race course this past season (rode a rut, found out about rebound and went into the trees), one of the bases took a nasty gouge (I'm still not sure how I survived that crash with nothing more than a bruise on one arm from a sapling).  Had them repaired but I do believe they are now really nice rock skis.  The also have 3 seasons on them.  They will probably be my other early/late season ski.


Elan GSX 176 cm 21.2M TR Marker Pro Comp 12 and Piston Plate - 2003 (binders are 2009)

Though not FIS anymore (like that matters to me), these are real race skis (2003 model).  I'm not that big (5'7"/170#) so I consider these my "big boy" skis.  At the end of the my season (cut short on these skis), I was doing very well on these (for me) in NASTAR.  I was gaining on the fast guys; even the younger ones.  Though these skis are 2003, I found them in a local ski shop brans spanking new!  Still had the stickers on the bottom and no bindings had been mounted yet.  All that for only $99!  10% of current year brand new.


For me, the only down side is you have to stay focused the entire time skiing them.  They aren't fun skis outside of the gates.  They're great skis, but I wouldn't call them fun.  I didn't get to really use them until I used their sister skis - Elan SLX below.


Elan SLX 155 cm 11.5M TR Solomon 912 V-Tech Race plate - 2003

Mid January this past season I wasn't carving that well and felt that if I went to a smaller ski, it would come to me quicker and I could move back to my "big boy" skis.  It worked great!  In one of the instructor clinics they made me remove my goggles to make sure it was me because they couldn't believe I was skiing so well. 


These are the sister to the GSX and even the same year (2003) so they make a nice set.  The only draw back is they are 155cm and I wish they were 165cm.  The best part about these skis was getting them off craigslist for $50 with the bindings and race plate!  The bottoms aren't perfect but they ski nicely and hold a nice edge on ice.  I really like these skis but I can't race on them as they dig in too much and it seems to slow me down. 

AND both Elans match my boots (Kryptons) perfectly and everyone knows that makes you go faster.beercheer.gif


So, my skis don't really have anything wrong with them, but I am going to be getting something else for this coming season.  I want to get an SL Race Ski or another cheater GS ski in the 165-170 range.  Something that carves nicely and is long enough for NASTAR/Beer League.   I don't go in the trees (on purpose duck.gif) and we don't get enough powder to make me want to crossover to any of the early rise/rocker/fat stuff.  I might actually buy a current year ski ! eek.gif   Leaning towards another Atomic.  Maybe the SL D2 or something along those line.


I'm also thinking about starting the L2 process so I should probably weigh that in my decision.  Maybe something less for racing and more towards L2 th_dunno-1[1].gif.


Anyways.  Sure that is more than anyone wanted to know about my skis.






post #36 of 43
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

If you need help, just think how you would describe the ski to your significant other when justifying the need for another ski.wink.gif



Uhhm - I usually tell her they were cheap. I NEVER justify before I buy - for obvious reasons jk.gif


post #37 of 43
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

I have heard of de-lamination issues with the Sentinel. Salomon must know they have a problem. Perhaps you could have them replaced.


doubt it, they are going to be my trashing around skis.  i think it's turned me away from cap construction skis.  seems almost too easy for it to happen.


post #38 of 43

Blizzard Atlas - 1.  they are ugly; 2. Only 94mm at waist - too narrow for pow, too wide for groomers; 3.  No rocker or early rise - how can I possibly ski without this????  But... they seem to do most everything I want it to do, competently for me.  Really a good "Jack of all trades/Master of None" ski.  My fav,OSQ/everyday driver.   Need to spend more time on the Bonafide to see if it will fit the a similar niche for me.


Kastle MX88 - 1.  Boring graphics;  2. No rocker or early rise;  3.  Too narrow for crud/powder, too wide for groomers.  WHAT!?!?   This is still the best ski ever, IMO.  I haven't skiied anything for next year that is even close, even with all the rocker/early rise added.  This ski just rips.  The only real weakness here is that I have some demo bindings on them, and all my buddies, customers, and family always have them.  I definitely need to change this, so that only I get to play with them.


Fischer Progressor 1000+ - 1.  Narrow - only 78mm waist;  2. No rocker/early rise;  3.  Hmmm.... yea, that pretty much covers it.  Great versatile groomer zoomer.        


I need to jump on the rocker bandwagon, as I definitely see the benefit in crud/pow conditions.  However, I don't think that I need to go narrower than 100mm waist with this design.

post #39 of 43

From my active quiver


1.  Rossi S7 188:  As said by an earlier poster, it can get a little unstable at speed although I disagree with what he specifically said. I skied pretty fast on this ski and it never let me down in a big way.  It does need to be on edge and turning to feel stable.   Overall I really liked this ski and found it far more versatile than I ever expected.  It skis short and could be stiffer.  I might appreciate the super 188 with the metal.  I also took some heat from certain archaic PSIA types who told me that it's impossible to pressure the tips early in the turn on a rockered ski.  My response it to say try one and you will see that the "tip" of the ski isn't where you think it is.  This ski handles like a 150 something wide slalom ski on groomers.  It starts to ski longer as the snow gets deeper.  The ski responds well to good technique, but will support bad technique and can lead to sloppy skiing if a skier chooses to be undisciplined.


2.  Dynastar Contact Limited 172:  This ski is very good in a lot of conditions and is a great teaching tool.  I might like it in a longer length.  It could be a little bit more torsionally stiff for higher performance, but this would also make it more demanding.  This is a good ski on a powder day when you are dealing with people who want to blame their equipment.


3.  Line Blend 178 tele setup w Hammerhead binding:  Very nice versatile ski.  Could be a little less fat for teaching beginner and low intermediate tele lessons on.  Sometimes seems to lack some edge bite on hard pack.  Fairly new setup for me and I'm sure I will get more familiar with it given more days.


Secondary Quiver


4.  Volkl Gotoma 176 pre-rockered:  It was love at first demo with these skis.  I only skied them twice this past season and each time they felt short and soft.  Prior to this I thought that the ski was great in all conditions except Ice.  I may hike with them this summer as they are very light with a Titianium binding.  Basically this ski was replaced by the S7.


5.  Nordica Jet Fuel 170:  The first ski I bought on pro-deal and the first new ski I had in many years.  A giant step up in ski quality for me at the time and a decent one quiver ski.  I also got the new speed machine 130 boots that season.  This ski is very stiff with two sheets of metal.  Sort of OK in powder and a handful in bumps, but manageable.  I still patrol on this ski at Snow King and currently find the ramp angles weird.  I've had the ski tuned a few times and can't seem to get it to edge and "feel" right anymore.  Part of it is I'm currently using an old crappy pair of soft (80 flex) boots that I hate for patrol work.  Next year I'll be patrolling on the Speed Machine 130 and the ski should feel better.  I also don't think I like the integrated binding anymore.  I'm ready to ski this in a 178.  At the time I bought this ski I was having trouble doing certain drills like RR tracks.  Now the drills are easy because my technique is better and I can carve a longer ski cleanly.  I've skied the 178 in both the Jet Fuel and the Hell Cat and prefer it to the 170.


6.  Volkl Sumo 176 w Marker Duke:  Great ski in funky deep snow.  Binding and ski setup is very heavy.  Fun for short tours on Teton Pass when down is all I care about.  Skis great with the Speed Machine 130 boot in all conditions.  The Speed Machine sucks for skinning though.  I had a rough time using the Garmont Adreniline boot on Thanksgiving Day in deep windblown powder.  The Adreniline was fine on the same run two days earlier before the wind got to it.  This setup requires a beefy boot and overpowers the lighter boot.  The ski itself seems too fat for inbounds skiing.  I may sell these because I don't use them much.


7.  Atomic Januk 174 w Fritzie Pro:  Loved this setup using the Adrenaline boots in British Columbia.  Also good on Teton Pass.  Really dislike them inbounds.  Ski feels too light and chattery and the stack height seems high on any kind of firm snow.  I like the lightness of the setup for real touring (like in British Columbia) but like a ski with more mass for the downs.


8.  Atomic Tele Daddy 174 w G3 tele binding:  Same ski with a different topsheet from the Januk.  I took both of these to Fairy Meadows in British Columbia on a Heli-Touring trip and used the same skins.  I like this ski inbounds much better as a tele ski than with the Fritzie setup.  The ski still gets deflected a bit inbounds in cut up crud because of the foam core and lack of mass. I do like the lightness of it though.  The G3 binding is prone to ice balls forming under the feet.  Sometimes silicone spray or PAM helps when I remember to do it.

post #40 of 43

Ghost, love the thread- great concept!   




183 FAT carbon BROs-  Their biggest issue is also their strength- their lightness tends to get them deflected a bit in heavy, wet chop.  Other than that, I really can't think of any problems.



180 Moment Tahoes-  Their biggest weakness is their flex.  Very soft ski, and the recommended mount was way forward of where I'm used to so my resort boots manhandle them into micro turns.  They don't want to lock into a big arc like my other skis and tend to excell at nimble, agile moves, not big argessive lines.  Fun ski for sure but not a bomber per se, which has led to some interesting situations on big runouts and high speed bumps. 


I haven't skied my Praxis Pows yet, but I'll let you know what its shortcomings are as soon as I do. 




Again, Great thread Ghost.  Love it! 

post #41 of 43

Dynastar Contact 4x4 178 - They don't like fresh snow all that much.


Line Prophet 100 186 - They don't like ice and hardpack all that much.


Fischer RX8 175 - Too soft for me. They're so dead that it feels like skiing with a plastic knife. However, they like the sketchy early and late season New England conditions, and don't mind eating a rock or two here and there.



post #42 of 43

1.)  Nordica AfterBurners 178.  Great versatile ski for eastern biased skiers.  They are HEAVY!  Also, the system bindings suck.  They've let me down with premature ejections in the Cirque at Snowbird trying to keep up with Buswacker and on RedLine at Magic trying to keep up with Liv4Ski.  Damn brake didn't stop the ski either and I had to ski most of RedLine on one ski.  I've had the bindings checked multiple times at considerable cost and they still pre-release.  I just can't ski aggressively on them because I don't trust the bindings.  They also have a fairly low upper speed limit and chatter unmercifully at high speeds.  Now that Nordica sells their successor as a flat ski, I might just have to get some.  Unfortunately, they would overlap with the replacements I bought last year (see 4. below).


2.) Dynamic VR17 SL 173.  I bought these because they were $45 and I liked the throwback graphics and historical importance of the ski.  Too soft to be a true slalom ski.  Too sitff to be a good bump ski.  They're very light and agile so I use them in the trees when we haven't had much new snow lately.  Unfortunately, the plate requires Atomic bindings...


3.) Scott Punisher 191.  I actually like these skis quite a lot but not sure why.  They're too long to ski in the trees.  They're too narrow (90mm) to ski primarily in powder.  Thye get hammered around in crud.  They actually carve pretty well on soft groomed snow but don't mistake them for slalom skis when it's hard.  I skied these at Jackson Hole this year in all conditions and although they weren't great at any one thing (re-frozen crud on Hobacks, wind buff in Rendezvous, afternoon mank in Casper Bowl, heavy powder in Woolsey Woods, etc) they were pretty good for a 1-ski trip.  I just don't feel confident on them.


4.) Dynastar Sultan 85 178.  The first time I skied on these, I thought I was having a stroke.  I couldn't make them turn.  I took them straight out of the box and went skiing.  Trouble was, there was an unbelievable factory burr.  I took them to Snow Wizards at Magic and Dick just shook his head and asked, "You tried to ski on these?"  I only got out on them once more last year after Dick fixed hem, so the jury is still out.  Seemed pretty versatile, if a little on the vanilla side.  Time will tell as they will be my primary eastern ski this year.

post #43 of 43

63 years old, 6 ft. 170lb.


Dynastar 4800 114/74/102 172 length. Good all around ski but always one size too short for me. These will be replaced by my son's 4x4's on the days he is not skiing next year.


Salomon Scrambler custom 124/85/115 172 length. My first wider ski . Very good every day ski out west. I even enjoy them in soft bumps. This followed the Pocket Rocket but was evidently not popular and only lasted one season.


Blizzard "The One"130/98/122 177 length My wide ski purchased in February 2011 after problems keeping up with the pack on a powder day with my Customs. We skied two more weeks after buying wider skis. We had a little fresh snow on and off all 14 days and I never found a day I preferred my more narrow skis. I'm sure I'll still ski something in the 75-85 range on the "hasn't snowed in a while" times but overall I can not fault THE ONEs.

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 › What's wrong with the skis you've got?