New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AC3 replacement???

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Since 2006, the AC3 has been my go to ski. In fact, until I got my S7s two years ago and a used set of SL race skis last year, they were my only skis. I'm looking to replace them with something that slots nicely in the middle. They still ski like they were intended to, but they are SO heavy, I'm growing tired of them. I'd like something a little more lively, still stable at speed, but it doesn't have to be bullet-proof like the AC3, and more compliant in the bumps. My AC3s are 170s. I'm 5'11", 170lbs. I'm considering a Blizzard Magnum 7.6 in 170 or 177. Basically it is a similar ski, but with no metal. I'm also considering a Nordica Sidecountry Burner in 178. Anyone skied either or both of these and have any input. I want a springy, not overly demanding ski that will do OK in the bumps, OK in GS turns and OK in trees. Thoughts?

 

Mike

post #2 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyemgh View Post a springy, not to demanding ski that will do OK in the bumps, OK in GS turns and OK in trees. Thoughts?

 

Mike


Why are you buying a 76mm wide ski if you want something ok in trees? We have moved on since 2006.

 

Sultan 94, Solly Sentinel, Volkl Kendo, stuff like that will fit the bill. http://www.epicski.com/t/92748/western-daily-drivers-in-the-90-100mm-range

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

I'm trying to do everything in the middle with one ski, when I know that might be tough. I know with the 7.6 I'd likely give up tree performance, but wondering if the carve of the Burner (or the Kendo or Bushwacker for that matter) will be sufficient on the groom. I'm trying to decide which end of the spectrum to give a little on or if I have to. I'll dig into the link. Thanks!

 

M

post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 

I read the 90-100 posts as well as another link on 80-100s, the real question is this, when someone posts that a 90 underfoot ski carves like a GS race ski, how close to true is that? If I can get a reasonably carving 90ish ski that will work in the crud, bumps trees and groom, there's no reason to go fatter because I have the S7s for new snow. If it will truly carve, there's no reason for a narrow ski in the realm of my AC3, like a Blizzard for instance. So, what's the verdict? Can something like the Nordica Steadfast, the Volkl Kendo, or the Blizzard Bushwacker really carve anything close to the AC3?

 

M

post #5 of 17

OY...........................!!!!!!!!

 

OK..........pursuant to the OP's request..........here's my FHO.

 

AC3 was a decent carver for it's day but has an outdated sidecut and technology. Carving ability is typically about two things, torsional stiffness and sidecut/overall flex balance.  A corrollary to those two things is modern technology which can provide dampening with little increase in weight or stiffness.

 

Relative to the AC3, most mid 80mm skis these days will provide at least similar carving capabilities. Most all of the current crop of mid 80's are better all around skis than than the AC3. Some will be a little hard snow biased such as the Blizzi Magnum series, others will be a little more mixed snow biased such as the Bush or the Nordica Steadfast.

 

Given your repeated emphasis on harder snow (ie: carving) capabilities, I'd suggest the Mag 8.7.

 

SJ

post #6 of 17

i found the sultan 85 is to be excellent carver and great in crud.

These can be had pretty cheap too.

 

post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks Jim!

 

M

post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks shoal, I'll add 'em to my list!

 

M

post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 

Based on what I'm digging up, the Legend 85 might be the best fit. I've got S7s for new snow and SL skis for crappy, you can only ski groom or go home days. It looks like the Legend would fit the everyday spot in the middle quite well.

 

M

post #10 of 17

The Legend 85 is equally capable to the Bush and the Steadfast.

 

SJ

post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 

Based on everything I'm reading [ read that NO first hand experience  ;-) ], the Bone doesn't seem to give anything up in high speed stability vs. the Bush, Steadfast or Legend 85 in exchange for the jump to 98mm. Since you have lots of time on them, would you concur or is that just hype?

 

M

post #12 of 17

I would stick with something in the 85-90mm class if you want an upgrade from the AC3 which still have the same sort of mission.

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyemgh View Post

Based on everything I'm reading [ read that NO first hand experience  ;-) ], the Bone doesn't seem to give anything up in high speed stability vs. the Bush, Steadfast or Legend 85 in exchange for the jump to 98mm. Since you have lots of time on them, would you concur or is that just hype?

 

M


 

The jump to 98mm does not automatically preclude high speed stability. It will however require higher edge angles to achieve that stability than the narrower skis will. But.................

 

WADR....you are starting to chase your tail here. First you started with a request to replace an AC3. The initial query was about the Mag 7.6 which would be a nice direct replacement. (narrow waist, hard snow bias) Then some wider skis with a mix of conditions biases........Mag 8.7, Bush, Legend crept into play. Now you are talking about a 98mm Bonafide. I think some focus is in order. There are plenty of skis to choose from that can deliver most of what you want. I do think however, that you need to decide what that is.

 

SJ

post #14 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:

I think some focus is in order.

 

SJ


How right you are. This exercise was really my way of doing that. Thinking out loud if you will.

 

In the end I've decided that I don't want to just update the AC3 per se, but to have an everyday ski with expanded off piste and crud/bump capabilities that is lighter than the AC3. I didn't want a ski that was terrible on the groom though. I have the S7s for dump days and Racetiger SL for pure carving, so it seems like the Bone will slot nicely in the middle as an everyday driver.

 

M

post #15 of 17
What type of snow do you ski? Where? Is it often snowy there (other than on powder days)?

If you are on a hard surface a lot there is something to be said for a skinny waisted ski, especially if you spend a lot of time getting the skis way up on edge. Sure you have a SL ski, but SL skis are limited to really only working well at SL speeds. On the other hand if even the groomers have soft snow on them, and it's often deeper than 6 inches, then there's no reason not get something like a Watea 101. (edit: that's the 2011 Watea 101, not the 2012 1010)
Edited by Ghost - 10/1/11 at 3:25pm
post #16 of 17
Thread Starter 

My home mountain is in Southern Oregon, but my son races, so I get to Tahoe and Mammoth as well as Northern Oregon if I travel with him. We rarely see periods where the snow is hard per se and I prefer not to ski then anyway. It happens when its warm and we're in a snow drought. The freeze/thaw cycle can result in pretty firm stuff. The only time it is a real problem is when we are low on base and they can't groom due to the snow loss. Usually we get fairly wet snow, but occasionally its light. All in all, we are fairly similar to Tahoe, not quite as wet as Hood.

 

M

post #17 of 17
If the snow is soft enough that your skis will sink into it when put on edge, then by all means go with the wider ski (like the 2011 Watea 101). Much wider than that and the skis are too biased for very soft deep snow (too soft) to make a high speed soft snow groomer zoomer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion