What's become of the all mountan ski? - Page 7

Anyone want to suck some of the testosterone out of this conversation and chime in on the distaff side?

 

I am sure I could find some models in each category that I really don't like and don't work well for me. Either not suited to my size, or have a mount point or a feel that I dislike.

When I say that there is not a huge difference between skis, I am speaking personally, (my quiver includes sultan 85, The One, and 112RP) the choice of ski on a particular day has come to matter less and less for typical resort conditions. The difference I still notice most is in efficiency in different conditions. How tired I am after skiing all day. There are also differences in feel and how aggressively I might ski a line depending on what skis I am on.  But in terms of performance, actually being able to ski any run in any conditions, they are increasingly interchangeable. This is a message that I think is often lost in the gear lust.

Well said and worth repeating.

 

Ok. All skis are the same.     

 

I get it! I've been enlightened. There's no difference at all between the Blizzard Bodacious and E98. p0=I can't wait to get some SG boards into the bumps! I get it now! Ok, thread done, category done. Mission accomplished. Anyone want to buy a pair of Rossi 7G's (207)... they'll rock anything. 

+1 The problem is that - at least for me - a real carver is very far from ideal on the several varieties of packed UNgroomed conditions that prevail here in the East, off trail. (Never mind what josh says.) The implicit assumption that such a ski can fill in on the "between"days when there's not a lot of new snow does not line up with my personal experience. (Yes, this is partly because new snow days are rare. They're very much the exception, not the rule.) Carvers are too stiff torsionally to be easy and fluid in bumps and trees. Meanwhile, most of tee 90-somethings are just too much ski for a typical day here, for the respond dawg enumerates. So if you want a racecarver, you also need an 80-something for all the days when arcs at speed aren't the primary order of the day for whatever re reasons.

+2! I was beginning to think that I was the only person out here with the very same opinion...or at least almost. I definitely don't want to be skiing on a "race carver" in skied out bumps and trees, especially skied out bumps IN trees. I won't say that Josh is wrong because I have not skied some of the 90+ mm skis that he reveres for those conditions such as the Blizzard One. On the other hand my Kastle BMX 98's some close. They are better than acceptable on hard groomed snow but a bit much in skied out bumpy trees. In fact I often wonder why others are so vehemently opposed to skis like the BMX 98 on hard (not rock hard ice) groomers they are also super stable at speeds that are anything less than irresponsible with other skiers around. Anyway, my point is that if you ski everywhere on any decent mountain in the East the least desirable ski is a true race carver. Heck...if the snow is even reasonably soft I would rather ski on my DPS 112's in bumpy trees than a race carver (blasphemy...I know).

BTW...I do own the Blizzard Supersonics, but they are relegated to groomer duty only and come out less often than the other 2 skis.

I have actually had more difficulty finding a mid 80's ski that I love than the other extremes. Maybe because they are the most compromised. So here is the question....

Scott, Phil, SJ and anyone else that has skied next year's crop of "all mountain" wonders: which od the Cham 87, Outland 87 and the new Blizzard magnums is the quickest and hence easiest in hard bumpy trees yet is grippier on hard groomers than the BMX 98 and at least as stable? I guess bump performance is the priority as by all logic they should all be better than my Kastles on fast groomers. Note: I tend to ski pretty close to the fall line, not big sweeping turns.

????????

Fair answer.

If it affects your answer, definitely not a skidder on the groomed but I do ski a flatter ski in bumps.

Which would you guesstimate has the least camber?

Is the Outland livelier than the Legend 85? I found that ski to be competent but kind of lifeless.

Thanks!

Will there be any early release Outlands available?

I was sad when they closed the local track at Renton. Longacres it was called and it was beautiful. Flame was my favorite Filly for a time. 

 

So much for the distaff side. but maybe the ladies have a point to make here as well . Not sure they like being labeled nags. Unless,of course, the horseshoe fits .

 

Edited by GarryZ - 2/23/12 at 7:37pm

Interesting thread and discussion.  Many people in this and other threads have pointed out, correctly, that people frequently do not choose the skis that are the best for the conditions in which they'll actually be skiing most of the time (for which the misleading nature of category designations such as "all mountain" is at least partly to blame).  As a counterpoint to this, however (and I know this is a bit of a digression from the thread topic), I would argue that sometimes the ski that is the best for the conditions and the skier's ability and style is not the best ski for that skier, and that a sub-optimal ski might actually be the best ski.  Confused yet?  Let me explain.

 

Everyone seems to focus on the % of time that any given skier will spend in various conditions, on various types of runs and at various speeds/turn shapes, etc.  What no one seems to do, however, is a weighted assessment of those percentages based on, for lack of a better term, enjoyment factor.  Take Skier A, for example, who spends 80% of his/her time on hardpack groomers making short to medium radius finesse turns at slow to medium speed.  The other 20% of his/her time is spent either off-piste or in power/crud/etc. or in the trees, making a broad variety of more aggressive turns at faster speeds.  I'm guessing most people would say that the ski that would perform the best for Skier A based on those criteria would be the one that is best suited for the 80% side of the equation, and that if Skier A chooses a ski that is clearly geared towards the 20% side of the equation, his/her choice would be criticized, if not derided.  What if, however, Skier A enjoys that 20% 10x more than he/she does the 80%?  In that case, a ski that is optimal for the 20% would, I think, be a much better choice for Skier A than a ski that is optimal for the 80%.

 

My personal situation is even more extreme than that of Skier A.  Due to a combination of relative infrequency of skiing and skiing with my young children, I probably spend 90% of my time skiing relatively slowly on groomed intermediate runs (last year it was mostly beginner runs, and hopefully next year it will be mostly more advanced runs depending on how quickly my kids progress).  The other 10% is spent skiing the steepest, gnarliest lines I can find with the most snow, and lapping those lines at high speed.  In terms of the skiing itself, that 10% eclipses the 90% by an immeasurable order of magnitude of enjoyment.  During the 90%, I derive my enjoyment from skiing with my family, from watching and teaching my kids, and while that enjoyment far eclipses the enjoyment of skiing solo during the 10%, it has very little to do with the actual skiing itself.  I've demoed a variety of skis, ranging from noodles, to playful carvers, to 100-110 twin tips to 110+ 2x4s, and I've found that ski choice has made a marginal difference in how much I enjoyed skiing during the 90% (notwithstanding that I did feel a substantial difference in terms of how the various skis performed), but a huge difference during the 10%.  By way of analogy, it's the same for me with my car.  I spend 95% of my time commuting to and from work and driving my family around, and 5% of my time storming curvy backroads.  No doubt a plush 4 door hybrid would be ideal for my usage, but no chance in hell that I would enjoy it more than my current teeth chattering  fire breathing beast of car. 

 

All of this seems perfectly obvious to me and yet I can't recall a single time that anyone selling or recommending skis to me has ever asked me any questions that would help them do this type of weighted assessment.  Am I alone or have I just been talking to the wrong people?

 

 

similar way to compare: do you buy a ski that solves the most difficult skiing problems you have (ie. crud basher biased), or the ski that you will have the most fun on (ie. soft powder biased)?   my take has always been that the easy stuff can be fun with most skis, the more difficult stuff is improved by special gear. 

That's assuming a pow ski can't be good at busting crud. A soft pow ski doesn't have to be a floppy noodle. We have just been lead to believe that by some of the last generation that WERE floppy, and a couple that still are like the S7.

Epkadoo, you lost me at hello. My head hurts now. 

^^^^^ Epkadoo is just saying what instructors or parents who teach their kids have known forever: You don't use a crush-mangle-and-obliterate-at-serious-speed ski for doing low to moderate speed work that involves a lot of maneuvering. So no Stockli DP's for him. But ecimmortal is more on target in that there are some skis now that can at least handle crud well without being steel beams. OTOH, do not agree with his take on the S7, and judging by the number of patrollers and instructors I see on them, others might not either. It's still a superb ski for a folks who do not define "handling crud" as using a ski that makes it insensate. 

beyond - that's actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying, but a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The common reaction to my usage %'s is exactly that - I shouldn't be on a stiff freight train of a ski. My point is that doesn't take into account the fact that even though I only spend 10% of my time in conditions that suit that kind of ski, I enjoy that 10% so much more from a pure skiing standpoint that it outweighs the other 90%. So for me, that freight train of a ski would be the better choice than an easy going cruiser.

Agree, it has to have a weighting factor.  Back in the day, years ago, you might occasionally see me skiing bumps on exhibition at Tremblant on Super-g skis.  I only had one pair of skis.  An SG is not the ideal bump ski, but what I really enjoyed was high speed skiing, and I was willing to put up with their poor suitability for bumps in order to reap the benefits of having the right ski for skiing at stupid fast speeds.  I also put up with their poor powder performance (way too stiff) in order to have something I could trust bombing steeps at insane speeds.

 

I wonder about the designation of all mountain being an 80 something waisted ski. All mountain to me means spending little time on the groomers but doing well when they have to . As a Western skier maybe all mountain means something different than a groomer focused ski  Change the title to narrow waisted skis we take in shallow powder and hard snow conditions ? 

I think the S7 could be a much better ski with some updated design. Obviously Rossi did too, hence the Squad 7. Though again we see a giant taking cues from the little guys. It would be nice to see them catch up in the QC department.

Thanks for your input Scott.

From what I am reading so far, it appears as thought of the new crop of 80 somethings, the Cham 87 is probably the least fun in firm bumps...so just trying to decide between the Outland and the Magnum 8.5 Ti as I am sure they are both more than competant enough on hard groomers for my purposes.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

BORING!!! Lazy GS turns on fat skis that can "hold an edge at speed".

 

FUN!!!! Fall line popping on a lively short radius ski that you can actually flex. 

 

This is the problem with weighting the 10% 10X higher than the 90%.

 

If I disliked groomers to begin with, and then had to ski a fat ski on groomers all the time, I would be down right miserable 90% of the time. I think I would probabbly develop a lot of bad habits as a result of using such a poor tool for the job that I am doing every day. 

I don't dislike groomers, but skiing them at moderate speeds doesn't get my juices flowing, regardless of what skis I'm on. And I'm not miserable on stiff fat planks on groomers by any stretch - for me there's just not that much of a delta between how much I enjoy skiing various skis on groomers with my family. I have a blast regardless because I'm with my family. And I dont understand the bad habits - using poor technique isn't going to make skiing stiff fat skis on groomers easier - it's going to make it harder.

Good point Ghost.  I use my stiff carvers out at Blue, even with the wife and kids, because I'm just playing around with them on the smaller stuff.  And like epkdadoo, I enjoy it because I'm with my family, and I love seeing them have fun at their much lower skill levels.  But if I want to open it up on my own for a few runs, even at Blue, then I need something that's gonna take me bombing down the runs.  Soft cruisers won't do that, so I don't even bother with such skis; it would be a waste, or perhaps even dangerous.

 

I suppose there's something to be said about quality of the experience, not just simply % of time spent on hard vs soft, or groomers vs deeper.  I enjoy the high speed GS stuff, and my 75mm underfoot planks eat that stuff up.  Will they take me through the bumps?  Not really well, which is fine because I'm not a bump lover.  On snow, that is. 

Know you do, respect that. But far as I know, Rossi's been tweaking the 7 every year. And don't agree about the Squad 7. Rossi's always had something like the Squad for guys who like to charge. Not to mention for the marketing guys. But y'know what? The "old" 7 will outsell it next year 2 to 1. And not because it's more appropriate for intermediates up or wusses. Seriously: I'm out here in Big Sky, and have seen some very good skiers on regular 7's, note that lot of folks out here spend major time in tight lines or trees, up to their knees in Montana smoke. Seems like half the patrollers wear them. So I asked one on the lift, why not something cooler? "Because it can do everything I need," he replied. Meaning, to me, that not all expert skiers always need or want a charger. "Better" is context dependent, no? You really truly think the Squad's gonna be better in steep trees than the straight 7? Or in major bumps, which tend to develop in/around trees or the lower parts of bowls? Or in the super light powder they get here? No, instead bet you truly think that the Squad's stability at speed and charging crud outweighs smaller tradeoffs in tight places. Which is perfectly reasonable, if that's how you weight your skiing day where you ski. Different strokes...