EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Squaw Valley One Ski Quiver
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Squaw Valley One Ski Quiver - Page 2

post #31 of 54

Read your own words and what I was responding to, troll.  It's fine that you have an opinion.

post #32 of 54

bridge or Fujas icon14.gif

post #33 of 54

It also depends on the season.  If it is a big snow year, you may want bigger skis. Narrower skis are going to be much better in lean years, or between storm cycles.  Something ~100mm will give you great float until it gets pretty deep and still be versatile the rest of the time.  Something 90mm will give you less float (probably fine up to 8-12 inches or so) and more precision on firm bumps and skied out terrain. Something 110mm+ underfoot is going to be better in bigger days, and a bit bulky and sluggish the rest of the time.  I don't live at Squaw, but probably have 15-20 days on that mountain, and find myself skiing mostly skied-out steeps and bumps more often than fresh dumps.  The terrain there is so cool, that even if you haven't seen a storm in weeks, you can still have a great time if you have the right skis on your feet.  Seems like the locals all have a 2 ski quiver going: 85-100mm for off-piste firmer snow, and wide for deep days. Speaking as a lighter skier, I love having a "big" ski, but having a 100mm waisted ski floats just fine in all but the very biggest days.  With that width, they work really well the rest of the time, too, which is important to me: I don't want to struggle when Chute 75 is bumped out and firm.  I find that I can ski well (although a bit slower) in a dump on a bit narrower ski: Squaw has so much pitch that getting stuck with a narrower ski and no float just isn't that big of a deal.  I have never felt "held back" by lack of width in deeper snow.  But, I have real trouble skiing steep bumps on big 115mm+ skis, I am getting held back on a wide, and big rockered ski in bumps; skiing them there is more work than fun. 

 

Depends on your priorities.  FWIW, when things are skied out, I hardly see anyone skiing Chute 75 on big skis.  Obviously it can be done, but last trip, the only guy I saw in there on big skis was a park rat in JJ's, and he was in survival mode.  Most everyone else I saw seemed to have a Mantra-like ski on and a much easier time of it.  Maybe the park rat kid just wasn't a good skier though, it wasn't necessarily the skis, but having skied my big BMX128's in conditions like that, I can say they are far from ideal. 

post #34 of 54

It all depends on your priorities, really...  You can run a 100mm - all-mountain twin tip and be happy on all conditions (a-la Bridge or similar ski), or you can get a wider powder ski and just suffer through the lean snow days and enjoy the powder.  As Dawg said Squaw people tend to have a 2-ski quiver with a Mantra-like ski for an average day and a wide rockered powder ski (JJ, 112RP, Katana, S7, you name it)...  My quiver this season is Bonafide and 112RP, both of which are unsuited to the current Squaw conditions ;-)  

post #35 of 54

No ski is perfect for all conditions. That said, I'd pay more attention to white wizard than some others in this thread. Lots of folks on this forum have, what is to me, an incomprehensible hard snow bias.

 

True, fatter rockered skis ( aka modern ones ) will not rule icy hardpack. But for most skiers they will be equal or superior under virtually all other conditions. Ignoring budget for the moment - and looking at the info the OP provided, skis like JJs, Rocker 2s, Bent Chetlers, Praxis Jibs, Obsetheds, Sickles, etc., etc., etc, should most certainly be on the evaluation list. This class of ski is way more appropriate to the question posed than much of the initial list and follow on suggestions.

 

If you think 20 random days a year in Tahoe will yield 15 crappy ice days - then suggesting narrower carvier skis makes sense.

 

If you think it'll yield a few ice days, a few soft  (powder, corn, slush) days and a bunch in between, then it is IMO crazy not to go with a 105-ish to 120-ish twinned modern design.

 

Put another way, assuming a bell curve with very roughly even chances of ice vs soft snow, would you want to bias toward making ice days a bit better or great days epic. Ice more tolerable or enable a couple extra spic runs? For me, epic wins. Hands down. Honestly, on true ice days, I'm just as happy to take in the scenery for a few runs and then stack up espresso cups. True glaze ice bumps hold no fascination for me.

 

Yeah, I know - this is not the week to pitch the wonders of deep maritime snow in Tahoe. But assuming these skis will be in play beyond the misery of the moment...

 

FWIW, I do not consider  skis like the JJ, 112RP, etc to be wide powder skis - more powder friendly or powder oriented all-around skis. There are many much wider true powder skis. Many of which are in evidence on true powder days at virtually any western hill.

post #36 of 54

If I had to have one ski only to ski Squaw it would look more like a Cochise rather than a JJ or Mantra. In reality, Squaw days are almost never deep in that ski-movie sense of skiing untracked powder fields.  Maybe for one or two runs if you are lucky.   So I would want a ski that is first and foremost good in cut-up snow on a powder day and in the cruddy snow a few days after.  Of course there are plenty of local guys who buy for the epic days and suffer through the rest.  I am with spindrift on what a wide powder ski is, and I really do not see a good reason to that kind of a true powder ski at Squaw, unless you can ski midweek .  Of course now the only ski you would want to own is a narrow, stiff and shapely race carver frown.gif.   

post #37 of 54

Iv'e been going to the tahoe area since 1972 and you should not get to caught up in some of these last few years of heavy snow falls.The tahoe resorts are typically freeze and thaw conditions ( except for kirkwood witch has the elevation snow pak and no lake thats why alot of locals will make that big drive ) and i couldn't imagine having just one fat ski for everyday.If you leave friday nite and come home on sundays your gonna see way more hard snow conditions and lots of comfortable sunny days.now if you live their and pick and choose;then thats a different story.In the old day's squaw was all about KT22 ,slick and steep at the start and giant moguls the rest of the way down;I would not want to error on the fat side.

post #38 of 54

To the OP...please for your own enjoyment, please disregard the fat ski zealots. You are on the right track for your decision. Worse (or best?) case scenario and you come up pn an Epic Powder day...DEMO a fat ski. But all the skis that you listed are better options that a 115mm+ powder biased ski for a daily driver for what YOU need. 

post #39 of 54

Phil beat me to it but hopefully the OP has already dialed out the insanity that has come up in the last several posts. Pay attention to Dawg who is not a local but is quite rational, Alex who skis at Squaw just as much as anyone, or even me who has about 700 days there. Maybe 3% of the Squaw die-hards ski on skis that fall in the extremes of the mix. The rest adopt a choice that manages the average conditions the best. An S7 or JJ ain't that ski.

 

SJ

post #40 of 54

Ironically I saw a guy a few days ago at Squaw with 190 Shiro's.  The conditions that day were about as bad as it gets with boilerplate ice, rocks, dirt, you name it.  I asked him how he liked them in those conditions and he said they were "awesome"....   Granted you can pretty much rock a blue groomer on just about anything, so it's not that surprising really.

 

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovethesteeps View Post

 190 Shiro's.  The conditions that day were about as bad as it gets with boilerplate ice, rocks, dirt, you name it.  I asked him how he liked them in those conditions and he said they were "awesome"....  

 


Well that settles it then.................................roflmao.gif

 

SJ

 

post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Phil beat me to it but hopefully the OP has already dialed out the insanity that has come up in the last several posts. Pay attention to Dawg who is not a local but is quite rational, Alex who skis at Squaw just as much as anyone, or even me who has about 700 days there. Maybe 3% of the Squaw die-hards ski on skis that fall in the extremes of the mix. The rest adopt a choice that manages the average conditions the best. An S7 or JJ ain't that ski.

 

SJ

 

SJ is entitled to his opinion. But is his opinion, not fact.

 

While he most certainly sees more of Tahoe than I do, I'll offer up a fact: throughout North America, there are well respected and credible shop owners, managers, techs, team athletes, designers and builders who choose modern fully rockered skis in the 105-ish to 120-ish range as daily drivers. Some choose even fatter skis. Some of these folks are even based in Tahoe. And it is worth noting that Tahoe is one of the epicenters of this disruptive technology shift.

 

These people would not consider an S7 or many of the others mentioned earlier to be "extreme". Soft snow biased? Many are. Extreme or lunatic fringe? Hardly.  Do some people skew toward the narrower end of the spectrum in places with firmer snow or a groomer bias? Sure. Insane or lunatic fringe? Not at all.

 

OP, do your research.  Claw through the signal to noise ratio at newschoolers (which actually has more activity from designers, builders, athletes, etc than here) and look at reviews at TGR as well.

 

Look hard at the analytical record of some of the posters on this thread. Then think about your real priorities and make up your mind. If your priorities and preferences are best served by a narrower ski - so be it. That can make sense. But choosing a fatter modern design can make just as much sense - probably more in a place with maritime snow. Do not be scared off from skis widely viewed as all-around tools because one or two opinions are voiced loudly. Evaluate all the readily available information and make up your own mind. (and try not to be swayed by smug snarky emoticons...)

post #43 of 54

I've only skied about a third of the skis on your list and am not an expert like Phil, Dawg and Jim but would lean to the Prophet 98's for what you are describing.  I have P100's which have a more turned up tail, if twins are important to you you might want to look for an older version.  Since you are not too big, you might have an easier time finding left overs in a smaller size.  I would consider a 165-172cm length. 

 

Not on your list but an Atomic Access might work well too.

 

 

post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

SJ is entitled to his opinion. But is his opinion, not fact.

 

 



Spin, with due respect, you seem to have even stronger opinions about ski width than most here. I'm glad you're happy on 115's for your daily driver. For fresh snow off piste I'm all on board with you. For periods of old, very tracked out, and re-frozen groomers, 115 wouldn't be my first choice. I get your passion. I got loads of crap from the purists for teleying on XXX's when they first came out. Yep, I was 'cheating' and 'couldn't ski' on regular skis. Just happened to have had regular skis as well, so I took them out on a powder day to prove a point. Indians and arrows as folks here say. But in the end, 90-105'ish, some rocker, and early rise will ski very nicely and with less effort in many conditions. Daily rides on this end? Alpine, 118 and 98 underfoot. Teley, 110, and 98 (touring). 

post #45 of 54

FWIW, my OSQ for Squaw for 3 years was the white Gotama - 105 mm.  Spent the last 2 years on 4FRNT CRJs (115-118mm) as a OSQ and have migrated to a 2 ski quiver.  IMO, a good Squaw OSQ can be found anywhere between ~90-115 mm, depending on preferences.  I like fatter skis For a OSQ but can see why a lot of folks think that 95mm provides decent enough float, especially smaller people. Lots of great choices.

 

My 2 skis this year are:  

180 98 mm Blizzard Bonafides (thanks PhilPug)

191 120mm ON3P Caylors

 

Will ski Bones most of time and Caylors if it ever freakin snows up there!

 

 

 

post #46 of 54

A fact that often gets overlooked:   riding crud in the Sierra, a very common condition, likely the most common, a wide ski will ride up over every uneven snow features, taking the skier for a bouncy, unstable ride.

 

a narrower ski (95 - 100), with some power, will cut and plow through many of those features of crud snow, delivering a smooth ride. this is the most commonly used width for a daily driver ski in Tahoe.

 

no way you can say that a wide ski, 115+, is going to provide comfort and stability in typical Sierra conditions.

 

yes, a young, very strong skier can absorb all that turbulence in their knees and back, but if you are older than 45, I suggest you will punish yourself and be in considerable discomfort riding a wide ski in crud conditions.

post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

A fact that often gets overlooked:   riding crud in the Sierra, a very common condition, likely the most common, a wide ski will ride up over every uneven snow features, taking the skier for a bouncy, unstable ride.

 

a narrower ski (95 - 100), with some power, will cut and plow through many of those features of crud snow, delivering a smooth ride. this is the most commonly used width for a daily driver ski in Tahoe.

 

no way you can say that a wide ski, 115+, is going to provide comfort and stability in typical Sierra conditions.

 

yes, a young, very strong skier can absorb all that turbulence in their knees and back, but if you are older than 45, I suggest you will punish yourself and be in considerable discomfort riding a wide ski in crud conditions.

 

Dude.  You have it completely backwards.  A 115 with rocker is WAY better in crud than a 100 non rocker.  You can absolutely bomb threw cut up crud snow on a JJ.  The narrower skis do tend to plow through which is why they are not as good as they can get hung up as you move different thicknesses.  A fat ski is WAY EASIER on the body in crud.  It flows much better.

 

BTW I'm 48yo
 

 

post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post



Spin, with due respect, you seem to have even stronger opinions about ski width than most here. I'm glad you're happy on 115's for your daily driver. For fresh snow off piste I'm all on board with you. For periods of old, very tracked out, and re-frozen groomers, 115 wouldn't be my first choice. I get your passion. I got loads of crap from the purists for teleying on XXX's when they first came out. Yep, I was 'cheating' and 'couldn't ski' on regular skis. Just happened to have had regular skis as well, so I took them out on a powder day to prove a point. Indians and arrows as folks here say. But in the end, 90-105'ish, some rocker, and early rise will ski very nicely and with less effort in many conditions. Daily rides on this end? Alpine, 118 and 98 underfoot. Teley, 110, and 98 (touring). 


I have to say that a huge amount of ski preference has to do with technique.  What we often fail to think about in these discussions is the skill level, aggressiveness, and also what one expects out of a ski.  Often, one person is talking apples, another oranges, and yet since no video is posted of who is doing the skiing, we have zero reference points.  One guy might be straightlining everything, one guy skiing technical bumps and short radius steeps, another cruising in the backseat, and the 4th only interested in stomping landings switch.  All different skiers, looking for different things in a ski. This really came to light recently in some testing we were doing.  Skiing mostly wide skis, but a few narrower ones, on what amounted to basically ice, on and off piste.  The skis were actually pretty similar at slower speeds, and less aggressive edge angles.  Where things got interesting (and went downhill for the wide skis) was when they were being pushed hard on hard snow; they tend to get unpredictable, loose, and lack confidence.  I had some video of me shot on the same pitch, different skis, and the actions of the skis are obvious, as is how I ski them.  With that said, I can see how some skiers wouldn't be pushing a ski that hard, looking to drive it and pop it out of the turn, and therefore getting much of a difference between models, even when an aggressive expert would see obvious differences in they way they perform.  Then there is the expert that is good enough to make any ski perform. One of my good friends is that guy (ex top level pro freeride competitor) but even he has his favorites (Mantra for hard and mixed snow, S7 for deep snow, pre 2009 Gotama for mixed stuff). He can make any ski look good.  This is the opposite of most skiers, who really don't push a ski hard enough to pull out the differences, and therefore don't find any ski inadequate, but the difference is the same.   Me, personally, I hate having a ski slide around on me. I prefer a ski that will allow for precise edge sets and pretty dynamic skiing on firm snow in my everyday ski. I need a ski that will allow me to improve in zipper-line bumps, so that I can learn to ski faster and more aggressively. I need a ski that will eat crud at speed, and also do pretty well at groomers at high edge angles.  I like to work on technique when up skiing, and become a better skier, so I need a responsive ski that allows for me to do balancing drills and skill building in various conditions.  Float isn't too important on my everyday ski, as it will be fine in "not too deep" snow, and I have wider skis for bigger days.  Not everyone skis that way, but at least people know where I am personally coming from.    

 

One really has to take suggestions with a grain of salt.  Unless you ski with them, or at least know how they ski, it is tough to say what a review is worth. It reminds me of several years ago, when I started mountain biking locally.  Everyone was pushing 6", heavy all-mountain bikes, even for our mellow technical terrain (there is no freeride to speak of locally).  Over time, skills improved, as did perception of what was a cool bike to own, and now, it is probably most common to see a short travel 29er, or hardtail/singlespeed 29er on the trails.  What changed?  The same guys who used to recommend the big bike now recommend the 29er.  Maybe people were just looking for a different experience, maybe people realized this would never be the North Shore, or they just started having a better time on the faster 29er. The point being a recommendation can be pretty suspect. 

 

 

post #49 of 54

Me?  I'm bringing Mojo 94s for early March.  Of course, I'm assuming it will snow between now and then  biggrin.gif

 

... if not I may buy a pair of grass skis.

post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

A fact that often gets overlooked:   riding crud in the Sierra, a very common condition, likely the most common, a wide ski will ride up over every uneven snow features, taking the skier for a bouncy, unstable ride.

 

a narrower ski (95 - 100), with some power, will cut and plow through many of those features of crud snow, delivering a smooth ride. this is the most commonly used width for a daily driver ski in Tahoe.

 

no way you can say that a wide ski, 115+, is going to provide comfort and stability in typical Sierra conditions.

 

yes, a young, very strong skier can absorb all that turbulence in their knees and back, but if you are older than 45, I suggest you will punish yourself and be in considerable discomfort riding a wide ski in crud conditions.


I don't know about Tahoe conditions, but I agree with Dav on this one.  With a heavy amount of snow recently at Stevens Pass, some of it heavy indeed, I took the opportunity to demo some skis yesterday.  There was a lot of cut up snow and nothing was really groomed, so good chance to see what would handle less than ideal conditions.  I took them all first on a blue run, then a steep cut up mogul and crud run, then onto the back side for variable off-piste conditions.

 

The Cochise was out, tried the Bonefides in a 187.   Ummmm....I'm 5'-10" and 140 lbs (age 49 if that matters), so not the length I would have tried, but the 180 was out.  Actually it was not too bad in 187.  Was able to turn pretty predictably, not super exciting at first, then realized I was overturning.  Actually cut up the crud pretty well and was able to work the moguls even in that length.  

 

Then, a Rossi S7 in a 178.  I'd have thought it would have been great.  I ended up not liking it.  It pivots nicely and did indeed float over everything, but it wanted to keep going fast, too fast for my comfort, given there was a lot of cut up bumps as well.  I would probably like it or love it in untracked pow, but I was working hard to keep it at the speed I wanted when the terrain got bumpy and or steep.  (OK, so maybe I can't ski and the S7's on cut up deep crud proves it).

 

I was hoping to demo the Watea 98; unfortunately that seems to be the one pair that has been "lost".  I did try the Watea 94, which I really liked.  Very light and quick, turns easily, totally rocks moguls, floats pretty well for my size and weight.  

 

So, for skied-out deep snow and crud, I liked the Bonefide and Watea way more than the S7.   I might like the Bonefide more if I'd tried the 180 length.      

 

That said, what I came away with is how much I like my K2 Outlaws which are 92 wide, very damp and hold a good edge on hardpack, wide enough to float for my height and weight, though a little heavy and damp for moguls (which by no means keeps me off the bumps).  If I were to add a ski I think I'd prefer the Watea 98 or 101.

 

Just my personal experience.

post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

SJ is entitled to his opinion. But is his opinion, not fact.

 


This reminds Star Trek where Spock is trying to put in the parameters for slingshotting around the sun from memory and Kirk comments that he trust Spock's guess's more than most peoples facts. Well, SJ's opinions have been more accurate than most peoples facts. 

 

Kirk: Mr. Spock, have you accounted for the variable mass of whales and water in your time re-entry program? 
Spock: Mr. Scott cannot give me exact figures, Admiral, so... I will make a guess. 
Kirk: A guess? You, Spock? That's extraordinary. 
Spock: [to Dr. McCoy] I don't think he understands. 
McCoy: No, Spock. He means that he feels safer about your guesses than most other people's facts. 
Spock: Then you're saying, 
[pause
Spock: It is a compliment? 
McCoy: It is. 
Spock: Ah. Then, I will try to make the best guess I can. 

 

 

post #52 of 54

If Sierra Jim is Spock, then who's Kirk?   I'm guessing Trekchick is Uhura. 

post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesiredUsername View Post

If Sierra Jim is Spock, then who's Kirk?   I'm guessing Trekchick is Uhura. 



I will be working on a variation for my Movie Quotes to Ski Quotes thread. 

post #54 of 54

"Fascinating"

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 › Squaw Valley One Ski Quiver