or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's become of the all mountan ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's become of the all mountan ski? - Page 6

post #151 of 227

I skied today on my Elan 1010s in what was probably the best snow I've seen so far this year in the Seattle area, 12-14" to start, with another 4-5" throughout the day. The Elans are terrific in conditions like this and the spouse on her Blizzard "The One" was keeping right up. The struggle (as always) was to keep up with our buddy on his 200cm, early '90s straight sticks. There really is no substitute for ability.

 

Stay centered my friends

post #152 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver8 View Post

I agree that the phrase "all mountain" is more of a marketing tool targeted at the largest segment of the ski purchasing market.  they think they ski "everything" but don't really know what everything is.  they just need a ski that is easy to manage and can ski most on piste conditions.  enter the "all mountain" tool.  IMO, not a relevant category for those of us who have 4+ skis in the quiver.



Agreed. I don't think we're talking at all about the 4+ pairs of skis quiver king or queen. We're talking about a good 90% ski for the 1 or 2 pair ski using public. 

post #153 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

And I'm in complete 100% agreement with you on everything you said in your post. You've got no argument from me. And no, I don't like my 118's(alpine) or 110's(teley) at all if it isn't substantially 3D on the hill for the same reasons you mention. And no, I don't consider any of my fat skis an 'all mountain daily driver'.  No doubt there are people choosing their daily driver in the best spirit of wishful thinking and marketing driven fantasies, but I didn't really think that's what this thread was about. Unfortunately, there's too much focus on what's wrong with people/gear/skis/conditions/etc... rather than what's right if we're trying to address the OP's retail research question. 

I hear you.

My tendency to observe what's wrong with a scenario is always motivated by how to improve things. Criticism for pale negativity's sake isn't productive at all. It's possible I should have started a new thread examining activity vs business, but I saw some commentary in this one that suggested confusing those two concepts, so I posted here.

In any case, I think it's always smart to review gear questions with an eye toward who's arguing what, and from what perspective/book of financial interests. Ski makers and sellers tend to have an interest in selling more stuff, and when economies are panicked the long-term view often is lost. A long-term view of a ski maker/seller should be focused on what negatives could arise from putting Person Z on the wrong ski now. A short-term view is just happy to sell another pair of skis.
post #154 of 227

What I'm really bummed about is recovering from pneumonia when it's dumping up on the mtn. hissyfit.gif

post #155 of 227
Yeah that sucks! Heal fast!
post #156 of 227
Thread Starter 

For those that might have forgotten to read the OP, or have chosen to misinterpret it, allow me to clarify. There were no questions asked other than rhetorical ones. To review, the OP was about the current (today) and future (next season) status and development of this category of skis (roughly 94-99mm or so). There was another thread detailing the same about some narrower categories and there will be yet another speaking of a group of wider (100-110mm) ones.

 

I restate again what it is about at the risk of boring those who want to decide for themselves, or you, or me......what it is really about. This is about the general level and status of development of this category of ski. I'm not talking about hard snow carvers or even versatile frontsiders nor am I talking about flop-noodle powder skis here. I'm talking about 94-99mm "all mountain" skis with the western skier or at least western conditions firmly in the forefront of the discussion.

 

I'm bringing these observations to light because in fact, 80% of the people that walk into our relatively extensive (95 retail models + race) ski room are asking for.........guess what............"all mountain skis". I seems useful to me to explain what the ski industry is providing here. For those that wish to debate the category cool.........but that's what the folks that make 'em are calling it. For those that want to state what is wrong with the category, also cool but I'll remind ya'll that there are other categories out there that will fullfill all your wildest fantasies.

 

For those that somehow want to think, suggest or accuse that this thread is something other than what it has been clearly stated as...............get over yourselves.

 

SJ

post #157 of 227

In this category, adding to what Dawg and Jim have said, I select the all mountain ski for its ability to handle the difficult conditions: crud and ice and high speed. This determined by shape, construction, and length. Any good 90 - 100mm ski that can do these things well,  will do the other stuff (powder, corn, groom, bumps, trees, slow speeds) admirably or adequately. And you are prepared for whatever (sweet or sketch) comes your way. A good all mountain ski is confidence inspiring.

 

 


Edited by davluri - 2/19/12 at 8:34am
post #158 of 227

Our OldFartzSkiers of Colorado group also considers Mary Jane our "home mountain," but we spend a lot of time in the bumps and glades at CuMtn too. This past season has seen a lot of new skis showing up in the group with Mantras being the currently favored model ... at least among the more senior members ... ages 71, 72 and 76. Also in our group the Dynastar Legend 85, Solomon Lord, and now the Line Phophet 90. Every guy seems to love his particular choice as the best compromise for bumps, powder, and trees..... with as little groomed cruising as possible. So...... are we in the All Mountain category? Or do we tend slightly toward Big Mountain as we favor the more obscure runs off the Eagle Wind lift, as well as Needles Eye, Boiler, Trestle, etc. 

post #159 of 227

No argument here- I agree this is probably the most relevant ski category for 75%+ of all people at a resort on a given weekend.  I actually own a pair of skis in this category a part of a larger quiver, but I will likely get rid of them this summer. 

 

On topic, I think this category is very relevant for the OEMs for all the reasons you and others state and for that reason is not going anywhere any time soon.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

For those that might have forgotten to read the OP, or have chosen to misinterpret it, allow me to clarify. There were no questions asked other than rhetorical ones. To review, the OP was about the current (today) and future (next season) status and development of this category of skis (roughly 94-99mm or so). There was another thread detailing the same about some narrower categories and there will be yet another speaking of a group of wider (100-110mm) ones.

 

I restate again what it is about at the risk of boring those who want to decide for themselves, or you, or me......what it is really about. This is about the general level and status of development of this category of ski. I'm not talking about hard snow carvers or even versatile frontsiders nor am I talking about flop-noodle powder skis here. I'm talking about 94-99mm "all mountain" skis with the western skier or at least western conditions firmly in the forefront of the discussion.

 

I'm bringing these observations to light because in fact, 80% of the people that walk into our relatively extensive (95 retail models + race) ski room are asking for.........guess what............"all mountain skis". I seems useful to me to explain what the ski industry is providing here. For those that wish to debate the category cool.........but that's what the folks that make 'em are calling it. For those that want to state what is wrong with the category, also cool but I'll remind ya'll that there are other categories out there that will fullfill all your wildest fantasies.

 

For those that somehow want to think, suggest or accuse that this thread is something other than what it has been clearly stated as...............get over yourselves.

 

SJ



 

post #160 of 227

I think the designation Big Mountain infers big drops and high speed. Your posse is good with the 85-100mm waist.  Cool how you all picked different skis, except the Mantra crowd (who should try some French all mountain's IMO)

post #161 of 227


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver8 View Post

No argument here- I agree this is probably the most relevant ski category for 75%+ of all people at a resort on a given weekend. 


I think one open question, and this is being debated on this thread, the frontside thread and even gear reviews is this:  are mid 80's skis getting good enough to make more sense for most all mountain resort skiers, suggesting that rather than gravitating to 94-99 as the center of a 3 ski quiver, how many people will be more realistically suited to mid 80 + a powder ski in a two ski quiver?  

 

And are the manufacturers realizing this, hence all the focus on those two categories this year?

 

post #162 of 227
Hah, yes. I find these threads interesting and helpful as well. I was simply replying that I have no delusions about my skiing ability. Of course, I just started last year at 42yrs old. Don't plan on stopping. I love having a hobby that's exciting, and that I can work on improving on for the rest of my life.
I enjoy the threads on gear too, as I am a gear head in any sport/hobby I pursue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

Hey, me too!!! But I do suck a lot less than I did not that long ago at least in part because the good information one can glean out of these threads helped me select gear that has really accelerated my growth.
The weight and flex specific detail has been particularly useful - us tall and thin guys seem to have a particular balancing act in the length/flex category and more is better in terms of info.
Dawg, you say that you have a good idea what skis would be good for you if you skied Colorado vs. PNW. Please share if you want to, as you are going to do a better job of translating than I am and the level of detail your reviews are providing is an excellent benchmark.
post #163 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
 I'm talking about 94-99mm "all mountain" skis with the western skier or at least western conditions firmly in the forefront of the discussion.

 

 

 

SJ



Hi Jim,

 

I would agree, and would beef up the width range a bit.  We were skiing at the Snowbasin demo the other day, in typical all-mountain conditions (a few inches of fresh, skied off trees, hardpack and bumps) and I found myself liking a bit narrower skis better.  Experience 88 178cm was more fun than the E98 180cm; Elan 888 more fun than the 999; Dynastar Outland 87 was more fun than the Cham 97, but FX94 was more fun than the MX88.   I am only 150lbs, but Kevin is a bigger guy, and his "ski of the test" was the MX88, said it ripped in any condition he could throw at it.  2nd place for him (tied) was the E98, 888, and Hell n' Back, so width was all over the place there.  I do think that an all-mountain width really depends not only on size and local mountain, but how one likes to ski. 

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #164 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Hi Jim,

 

I would agree, and would beef up the width range a bit.  We were skiing at the Snowbasin demo the other day, in typical all-mountain conditions (a few inches of fresh, skied off trees, hardpack and bumps) and I found myself liking a bit narrower skis better.  Experience 88 178cm was more fun than the E98 180cm; Elan 888 more fun than the 999; Dynastar Outland 87 was more fun than the Cham 97, but FX94 was more fun than the MX88.   I am only 150lbs, but Kevin is a bigger guy, and his "ski of the test" was the MX88, said it ripped in any condition he could throw at it.  2nd place for him (tied) was the E98, 888, and Hell n' Back, so width was all over the place there.  I do think that an all-mountain width really depends not only on size and local mountain, but how one likes to ski. 


It's not a surprise that you'd like the 178 E88 better than the E98, especially in a 180 at your weight. Most folks I know who like the E98 and ski the 180 are all 195 - 215 lbs. No offense, but the 180 is probably too long for a 150lb skier even with your ability. Regarding these two skis specifically, I think your preference is about ski construction more than width. Even on our staff among equal ability, there's a pretty direct correlation between body weight and choosing the E88 or E98. The metal, or lack of it, IMHO makes more difference than the width.

 

post #165 of 227

Even those of us with extensive quivers still want to have THAT ski - the one that you take when you're not sure what you're going to run up against and for those trips where you can only have a single pair of skis (oh perish the thought! eek.gif).

 

I went out today on the ZAG Slap - a flat camber, full tail and tip rocker, 110mm underfoot ski in less than ideal conditions.  I felt comfortable ripping that ski pretty much everywhere on the mountain, but I really don't want that much width in the moguls.  So that's why I'm so interested in "scaled down" versions of these skis - something in the 98mm range that's still a fun shape (and no - I didn't like the Armada TST at all - I just don't like the feel of their construction).  I almost pulled the trigger on the Nordica Soul Rider, but I'm one of those skiers that can't get past having those graphics staring up at me continually.  I'm very interested in the new Dynastar Cham 97, but I'm a very suspicious of the tail on that ski.  I've found that I prefer more tail. wink.gif

post #166 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


It's not a surprise that you'd like the 178 E88 better than the E98, especially in a 180 at your weight. Most folks I know who like the E98 and ski the 180 are all 195 - 215 lbs. No offense, but the 180 is probably too long for a 150lb skier even with your ability. Regarding these two skis specifically, I think your preference is about ski construction more than width. Even on our staff among equal ability, there's a pretty direct correlation between body weight and choosing the E88 or E98. The metal, or lack of it, IMHO makes more difference than the width.

 

yeah, the 98 in 180cm felt about 10% or more stiffer than the 88.  Kevin (who is 195) was ripping on both the E88 and 98. I was skiing really well on the 88, but the 98 was pushing me around a bit. I can ski low 180cm skis in that width, but they usually are on the softer side.   The E88 is a great ski, as was the 98. I am just a bit in between sizes there.

 


 

 

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #167 of 227

Perhaps there are no all mountain skis, just all mountain skiers. I have a Sultan 85, Blizzard One, and 112RP in my active quiver as far as I can tell they are all all mountain skis. I ski the whole mountain on each in any conditions.

 

I think most daily driver skis are really all kind of the same in terms of performance. The difference is in feel and in letting you ski the line a certain way. I have never seen anyone who knows how to ski say "I can't ski this line, I wish I had brought a different all mountain ski today." Maybe newbies trying to buy a turn, I am sure I said something like that 5 years ago. But the nature of all mountain skiing there is so much involved that you can't just buy a single turn, you need a whole tool kit to ski it well. So I don't think that there are any best all mountain ski, or optimal set of compromises, its both personal (what you bring to the table as a skier)  and situational (what risks and opportunities the mountain provides).

 

That is why words like "game changer" have no place in the discussion of all mountains skis. The game changer is actually learning how to ski, or maybe boots that actually fit right, its not buying an optimal all mountain ski. And thinking that this will magically make you a better all mountain skier, it won't. The same cannot be said for powder or carving skis however...

 

I think reviews for powder skis and carvers are generally meaningful because most people are looking for some specific things and generally attacking the terrain the same way and the skis are designed specifically to assist in that. For all mountain skis, the ski has to do 100 different things well. When reading reviews, its all over the map in terms of what the person expects the ski to do, what the skier is trying to do, what terrain is like, what the snow is like, what compromises the skier wants to make, etc... We talk about performance in crud... Well there are 1000 different types of crud. We talk about performance in bumps, but all moguls are different. What compromise do I want to make today?

 


Edited by tromano - 2/19/12 at 8:53pm
post #168 of 227

^^^^ Amen. 

post #169 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Perhaps there are no all mountain skis, just all mountain skiers. I have a Sultan 85, Blizzard One, and 112RP in my active quiver as far as I can tell they are all all mountain skis. I ski the whole mountain on each in any conditions.



And really, you have no preferences and you put equal days on each pair in a given season? I mean I can pull out my old 1992 7G' s and ski the whole mountain in any condition as well, but it's certainly not the ski I'd prefer. And you're telling us that if it hasn't snowed for three weeks that those 112RP'S are the ones going in the car? Sure, they could, but the 7G's might be better. smile.gif  The question is, if you had to toss two of the three, which would you keep? I think that's what the thread is about, not what actually can be skied.

 

But I agree, the "game changer" thing is silly. 

post #170 of 227
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Perhaps there are no all mountain skis, just all mountain skiers. I have a Sultan 85, Blizzard One, and 112RP in my active quiver as far as I can tell they are all all mountain skis. I ski the whole mountain on each in any conditions.

 

I think most daily driver skis are really all kind of the same in terms of performance. The difference is in feel and in letting you ski the line a certain way. I have never seen anyone who knows how to ski say "I can't ski this line, I wish I had brought a different all mountain ski today." Maybe newbies trying to buy a turn, I am sure I said something like that 5 years ago. But the nature of all mountain skiing there is so much involved that you can't just buy a single turn, you need a whole tool kit to ski it well. So I don't think that there are any best all mountain ski, or optimal set of compromises, its both personal (what you bring to the table as a skier)  and situational (what risks and opportunities the mountain provides).

 

That is why words like "game changer" have no place in the discussion of all mountains skis. The game changer is actually learning how to ski, or maybe boots that actually fit right, its not buying an optimal all mountain ski. And thinking that this will magically make you a better all mountain skier, it won't. The same cannot be said for powder or carving skis however...

 

I think reviews for powder skis and carvers are generally meaningful because most people are looking for some specific things and generally attacking the terrain the same way and the skis are designed specifically to assist in that. For all mountain skis, the ski has to do 100 different things well. When reading reviews, its all over the map in terms of what the person expects the ski to do, what the skier is trying to do, what terrain is like, what the snow is like, what compromises the skier wants to make, etc... We talk about performance in crud... Well there are 1000 different types of crud. We talk about performance in bumps, but all moguls are different. What compromise do I want to make today?

 




There are a couple thoughts here that are good but my opinion is that this is (FTMP) pretty off base.

 

When you look at the spectrum of AM skis under discussion here the differences are indeed feel and letting you ski a line a certain way. OK, I buy that.....but that's the difference in models in any category not just this one. Differences in feel across the broad spectrum of skis in the 94-99mm class are just as dramatic as they are in the other two categories. If you count skis in the mid 80's as all mountain, then the spread gets even wider. For example.............

 

Carvers: What is the diff between a Head Magnum and a Dynstar Course Ti? (Not much) How about a Course Ti and a K2 Rictor? (quite a bit)

 

Powder; What's the Diff between a Nordica Patron and a Sollie R2? (Not much) How About an Atomic Atlas and a Rossi S7 (big difference)

 

All Mtn: What's the diff between a Rossi Exp 98 and K2 Hardside? (not much) How about a Volkl Mantra and a Rossi S3? (big difference) Then, into the all mountain mix you throw a Sollie BBR, a Dynastar Cham 97, a Fischer Watea 98, a Blizzard Bonafide, and a Nordica H&B and your differences are all over the place.

 

Now.....can they all do more or less the same stuff?......sure, of course, just like all the other categories. However, because they ARE so different, some will work better than others for one skier or another due to size, style and preferences. But......if all these different styles, technologies and shapes seem the same, (really?) well then, there ya go.

 

I mean heck, in order to really find some significant differences that are worth the bandwidth for discussion, we could all go back to debating the vast differences between 13.1m and 13.7m turn radius carvers or possibly the enormous differences in capabilities of Rossi S7's and Armada JJ's.

 

SJ

post #171 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

Even those of us with extensive quivers still want to have THAT ski - the one that you take when you're not sure what you're going to run up against and for those trips where you can only have a single pair of skis (oh perish the thought! eek.gif).

 

I went out today on the ZAG Slap - a flat camber, full tail and tip rocker, 110mm underfoot ski in less than ideal conditions.  I felt comfortable ripping that ski pretty much everywhere on the mountain, but I really don't want that much width in the moguls.  So that's why I'm so interested in "scaled down" versions of these skis - something in the 98mm range that's still a fun shape (and no - I didn't like the Armada TST at all - I just don't like the feel of their construction).  I almost pulled the trigger on the Nordica Soul Rider, but I'm one of those skiers that can't get past having those graphics staring up at me continually.  I'm very interested in the new Dynastar Cham 97, but I'm a very suspicious of the tail on that ski.  I've found that I prefer more tail. wink.gif


Being that your in CO, it should be possible for you to demo some Movement skis.  In particular, I am thinking the Source is a ski you would like instead of the Cham.  I have the 185 and love it for days where I think conditions may be more firm, but then I luck into a pow stash and it floats there with no problem and I am a 210lbs guy this season.  I also have some 183 TSTs and really liked them a lot for soft days where I am counting on some pow on the mountain.  So far the construction has been money on them, but Movement is the best constructed skis I have ever owned.  Also, they don't weight a ton like my Dynastar skis and have more pop or life in them.

 

post #172 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post



And really, you have no preferences and you put equal days on each pair in a given season? I mean I can pull out my old 1992 7G' s and ski the whole mountain in any condition as well, but it's certainly not the ski I'd prefer. And you're telling us that if it hasn't snowed for three weeks that those 112RP'S are the ones going in the car? Sure, they could, but the 7G's might be better. smile.gif  The question is, if you had to toss two of the three, which would you keep? I think that's what the thread is about, not what actually can be skied.

 

But I agree, the "game changer" thing is silly. 

Did you read the rest of my post? I think you will find an answer if you do...  its both personal and situational...
 

There is no right answer, it depends on what I want and what the mountain is doing. If I just want to ski around with  a minimum of fuss then your suggestions seem appropriate.

 


Edited by tromano - 2/20/12 at 7:57am
post #173 of 227

^^^^ Indeed I did. The problem with this thread is that we're all pretty much up to our necks in the sport. A lot of us have multiple pairs of skis to choose from on a given day, but what this really should focus on is the 5-15, maybe even more, days per year skier who's got other things going on in life (kids in school, etc...) and isn't going to fill their garage full of gear for themselves for a variety of well thought out reasons. This skier is very comfortable on blue terrain in a wide range of conditions. He/she pushes themselves in tougher terrain if the conditions are decent or on a destination ski vacation with a terrain check list. This is the vast majority of the skiing public. We aren't, and in a sense, the whole point of SJ's post isn't about 'us' at all. Ok, I think I'm out of this one. Bigger fish to fry, and the pneumonia's on the mend! A couple more days and skis will be strapped on again!

post #174 of 227

In my mind the all mountain ski with the masses in mind is probably in that 85 waist range (for western areas) given it makes skiing average conditions on piste here way easier.


 

In terms of skiers (aka not people who "go skiing"), who generally operated with quivers, I still like the 85ish ski which people are classifying as all mountain here.  For me its a 4 ski quiver with an FIS slalom ski (rarely used), a mid-80's ski I consider a front side firm snow ski, an daily driver 110 ski, and a pure pow ski at 125.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


 


I think one open question, and this is being debated on this thread, the frontside thread and even gear reviews is this:  are mid 80's skis getting good enough to make more sense for most all mountain resort skiers, suggesting that rather than gravitating to 94-99 as the center of a 3 ski quiver, how many people will be more realistically suited to mid 80 + a powder ski in a two ski quiver?  

 

And are the manufacturers realizing this, hence all the focus on those two categories this year?

 



 

post #175 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


 


I think one open question, and this is being debated on this thread, the frontside thread and even gear reviews is this:  are mid 80's skis getting good enough to make more sense for most all mountain resort skiers, suggesting that rather than gravitating to 94-99 as the center of a 3 ski quiver, how many people will be more realistically suited to mid 80 + a powder ski in a two ski quiver?  

 

And are the manufacturers realizing this, hence all the focus on those two categories this year?

 

That is typically my argument.  At least those of us who like to work on bumps, technical skills and learn to ski them aggressively.  Much rather would do that on a narrower, more technical ski, than a wider ski. For lazy cruising, a big wide ski with a large sweet spot may be better. 
 

 

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
post #176 of 227

I contend that the mid-80s ski just doesn't buy you enough surface area to make a sufficient difference when conditions are deeper.  And I make that contention no matter where you're skiing.  I personally don't believe that there's that much difference in edge-to-edge quickness between a mid-80 and a mid-90 ski.  However, if you go much beyond mid-90 there's a definite drop off in performance on hard pack (at least IME).  The big plus though is that for most adults the mid-90 ski really does make a significant difference in deeper snow.  Sure the mid-80 is better than a ski in the 70s, but it just doesn't get me all the way there as an all-mountain ski that can handle conditions when you find that secret stash of deeper snow.

 

Some of you may recall an old thread about the 70s skis being the lost waist width.  I've updated my opinion and my thinking is more along the lines of the 3 ski quiver:

  1. The 60-70s carver (although some take this width up into the low 80s)
  2. The 90s (maybe low 100s) all-mountain ski
  3. The 110s+ dedicated deep snow ski

 

Depending on where you live and your financial situation you might decide to drop out skinny ski or the fat ski and go with a 2 ski quiver.

 

So the update to my thinking is that the 80s ski is now the lost waist width for me., but of course YMMV. smile.gif

post #177 of 227

First, a bow to the contributors to this thread: you all make good points and the quality of the observations make them worthwhile reading.  Second, I agree that it's interesting to know about the skiing backgrounds of each commentator* but we usually get enough flavor from the post to get some grasp on their proficiency.  To return to the original topic, what makes a great one-ski, all-mountain ski naturally depends on both the mountain and the skier.  The best equipment recommendations come from those who have an in-depth knowledge of the available skis, the skier and the runs he/ski lives on. In targeting 98-waisted skis I am specifically referring to western US skiing by people who truly ski in all conditions rather than pretending to. I presume a high skill level because I'd rather err on that side of the ability equation: a better ski rarely harms a less skilled skier, but a poser ski, paid for with hard-earned dollars, is a real bummer for the skilled pilot. Do I think it's a better idea to have a quiver?  You bet, and I'm thankful it's a luxury I've been able to indulge since I joined Salomon in 1978, which now feels as though it were 1878.  

 

*My first experience with formal ski testing was at Salomon during initial research on their ski, to be followed by stints at Snow Country, Scott, Head, SKI and spot duty for a half-dozen other brands. When I arrive at Snowbird in a couple of weeks to test for SKI I will have more than 25 years of formal ski testing under my belt, from test director to product manager to designer to rank-and-file tester. None of this obliges anyone to agree with me, of course, but it does imply that I've logged many miles on thousands of skis and spent many more hours understanding them and occasionally guiding their development. It's a pleasure to share some of that experience with you all. 

post #178 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Perhaps there are no all mountain skis, just all mountain skiers.

 

 



Well put

post #179 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I contend that the mid-80s ski just doesn't buy you enough surface area to make a sufficient difference when conditions are deeper.  And I make that contention no matter where you're skiing.  I personally don't believe that there's that much difference in edge-to-edge quickness between a mid-80 and a mid-90 ski.  However, if you go much beyond mid-90 there's a definite drop off in performance on hard pack (at least IME).  The big plus though is that for most adults the mid-90 ski really does make a significant difference in deeper snow.  Sure the mid-80 is better than a ski in the 70s, but it just doesn't get me all the way there as an all-mountain ski that can handle conditions when you find that secret stash of deeper snow.

 

Some of you may recall an old thread about the 70s skis being the lost waist width.  I've updated my opinion and my thinking is more along the lines of the 3 ski quiver:

  1. The 60-70s carver (although some take this width up into the low 80s)
  2. The 90s (maybe low 100s) all-mountain ski
  3. The 110s+ dedicated deep snow ski

 

Depending on where you live and your financial situation you might decide to drop out skinny ski or the fat ski and go with a 2 ski quiver.

 

So the update to my thinking is that the 80s ski is now the lost waist width for me., but of course YMMV. smile.gif


Good perspective. One other point that has occurred to me is the discussion of waist width as a stand alone dimension. My 82's have a 127mm shovel. The new Wailer 99 is something like a 118mm shovel, but it is obviously a completely different design. When you have radically different shapes emerging, can waist width really be considered the category defining metric?
post #180 of 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I contend that the mid-80s ski just doesn't buy you enough surface area to make a sufficient difference when conditions are deeper.  And I make that contention no matter where you're skiing.  I personally don't believe that there's that much difference in edge-to-edge quickness between a mid-80 and a mid-90 ski.  However, if you go much beyond mid-90 there's a definite drop off in performance on hard pack (at least IME).  The big plus though is that for most adults the mid-90 ski really does make a significant difference in deeper snow.  Sure the mid-80 is better than a ski in the 70s, but it just doesn't get me all the way there as an all-mountain ski that can handle conditions when you find that secret stash of deeper snow.

 

Some of you may recall an old thread about the 70s skis being the lost waist width.  I've updated my opinion and my thinking is more along the lines of the 3 ski quiver:

  1. The 60-70s carver (although some take this width up into the low 80s)
  2. The 90s (maybe low 100s) all-mountain ski
  3. The 110s+ dedicated deep snow ski

 

Depending on where you live and your financial situation you might decide to drop out skinny ski or the fat ski and go with a 2 ski quiver.

 

So the update to my thinking is that the 80s ski is now the lost waist width for me., but of course YMMV. smile.gif


Good points, but why worry about float if we are talking about a quiver with a wide component that has plenty of float?  Let me put it this way: I would rather own a Kastle MX88/BMX108 (or in your case, a Stockli VXL/DPS 112RP) quiver than a Kastle BMX98/BMX108 quiver. Maybe I am just an outlier, but those good 80's skis approach perfection on firmer snow that most 90mm+ skis can't match. It is something I really appreciate, personally. 

 

Full selection of 2015 skis available right now from Dawgcatching.com.  PM for current deals and discount codes: save up to 25% on mid-season deals. 

Reply
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 become of the all mountan ski?