EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › All mountain ski advice (mine were stolen) (includes some demo impressions)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All mountain ski advice (mine were stolen) (includes some demo impressions)

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Alrighty so my skis were stolen this week and I am now in the market for new skis.  frown.gif  Guess I am going to make lemonade out of lemons.  biggrin.gif  wink.gif

 

My prior pair were atomic nomad smoke ti @ 164.  They were good, a little too choppy as I would outski them when I would really carve and rip the groomers up.

 

I am 5'11" and 230 pounds.  I ski anywhere from 20 - 40 days a year and plan to ski more in the future hopefully.  I ski aggressively all over the mountain and love the blacks as steep blues.  Double blacks are fun as well.  I am a big turn guy and love to lean over and take up the whole trail or sometimes rip out some shorter ones.  I am a huge fan of the corduroy.  I mainly ski 75% or even 80% on piste and the rest in the powder and crud.  Not a big bump guy however once in a while I get ambitious.

 

I demo'd a few skis the other day and here are some thoughts I had about them.  I have been recommended a bunch of different skis such as a Salomon sentinel, line prophet 90, Salomon xt 880, fischer watea, head titan, and a few more.  Below are the ones I got to ski.

 

I demo'd a dynastar outland 80 @ 165 and it was my favorite ski of the day, ripped the groomers, was super light and easy from edge to edge and never chopped or skipped.  Crud did not phase it either.

 

K2 impact @ 167 was 2nd favorite.  Couldn't rail it onto edge as fast as the outland but once you were dug in it would shoot you across the trail.  Was easier to ski the steeps and slide on more challenging slopes, however it felt bouncier in the crud and was a little less predictable.

 

3rd was very close behind which was a dynastar legend 94 @ 172.  Blast in the crud and on the steeps, much more work to get over on edge but still ripped surprisingly well.  Was still fairly light and maneuverable and definitely liked to go fast and I felt as though there was no way I could outski it.

 

4th favorite was a Salomon enduro lx800 @ 168 I believe.  Was nice however it felt heavier and was not as secure when on edge as the others.  Was a good all around ski though.

 

5th was an elan waveflex 16 @ ???.  Ski was ok in the crud, but was too stiff.  Too much work and not enough play.  Was hard to get on edge but performed like a race ski when you finally got it ripping on the groomed.

 

Least favorite was a volkl RTM 80 @ 171 which was just too heavy.  Was very hard to turn quickly and get on edge but it did rip fairly well when on edge.  Was fantastic in the crud but felt like too much of an old man ski for me.

 

 

I have been to a few shops and the dynastar outland 80 is sold out everywhere....

 

My local shop is recommending an atomic blackeye ti @ 167 for me currently.  They say it is a much more substantial ski than the smoke which is what I had before.  I was really pleased with atomic and my last pair.  I am wondering if the crimson ti is also a comparable ski and how much wider it skis.  I thought 94 underfoot was a little big.  I really want something that will blast the groomers, turn like a champ, and be able to ski crud and powder when it dumps once in a while.  Something that is really stable and can hold an edge on ice is also pretty important.  Pretty much a one ski quiver for the east.

 

If anyone could give me any advice on what might be a good fit for me I would greatly appreciate it considering I know some of you are crazy ski gear guru experts.  If you happened to read most of that I commend you.  Thanks in advance for everything - Matt.


Edited by mhoran89 - 2/24/12 at 9:53am
post #2 of 18
Thread Starter 

BUMPSKI.  Anyone have any thoughts?

post #3 of 18

If you really like the outland; get that and stop wasting time looking. I am sure you can find it on the internet or even from a seller on this site

Where in NY are you as I know a few places you could probably demo some other stuff if you want to buy locally depending on your location. I would also recommend trying the kendo or blizzard 8.7 given your size and preference for on-piste

post #4 of 18

Oh and I also recommend a ski lock   :) - just don't get one with the flimsy cables which can be basically yanked off- get a sturdy one such as a dalkine camlock they are about $25 bucks and well worth it

post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoastdad View Post

Oh and I also recommend a ski lock   :) - just don't get one with the flimsy cables which can be basically yanked off- get a sturdy one such as a dalkine camlock they are about $25 bucks and well worth it



Yea I usually put the two skis on different racks, however they were stolen from a hallway in a condo complex where I had been leaving them all week...redface.gif.  Next time they are coming into the room with me.

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoastdad View Post

If you really like the outland; get that and stop wasting time looking. I am sure you can find it on the internet or even from a seller on this site

Where in NY are you as I know a few places you could probably demo some other stuff if you want to buy locally depending on your location. I would also recommend trying the kendo or blizzard 8.7 given your size and preference for on-piste


I am currently in Troy, NY right outside Albany.  My local mountain is Stratton.

 

post #7 of 18

I would have expected at your weight you would have been placed at least 1 ski length up over the 165-170s and into more like the 175-ish range.  

But if you demoed and felt this length was holding up for your weight or even too stiff, then I guess it's fine (or you need to hit the gym and work on those leg muscles so you can really pound them into the snow).

 

Take a look at K2 rictor instead of impact.  The blackeye should also matches up against the rictor in terms of class both with 2layers of metal.

 

Also, there has been buzz of redesign of the 2013 blizzard magnum 8.5 and 8.0 (see reviews in reviews forum), but that will be next year and consequently probably not too discounted.  But that suggest discounts could be had on the 8.7 and 8.1 which was mentioned above (if you're ok knowing you're already "outdated" and there's a new version coming out).

 

As far as preparing skis for powder skiing, how many days do you really have the opportunity to do it?   Would it make more sense to not compromise on the groomer skis for your daily ski and the few days you have the opportunity to get dumps, rent out a pair of fatties?


Edited by raytseng - 2/24/12 at 6:33pm
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

I would think at your weight you might be placed 1 ski length up over the 165-170s and more like the 175-ish range.  

But if you demoed and felt ski is still holding up for your weight or even too stiff, then I guess it's fine (or you need to hit the gym and work on those leg muscles so you can really pound them into the snow).

 

Take a look at K2 rictor instead of impact.  The blackeye also matches up against the rictor in terms of class.

 

Also, there has been buzz of redesign of the 2013 blizzard magnum 8.5 and 8.0 (see reviews in reviews forum), but that will be next year and consequently probably not too discounted.  But that suggest discounts could be had on the 8.7 and 8.1 which was mentioned above (if you're ok knowing you're already "outdated" and there's a new version coming out).

 

As far as preparing skis for powder skiing, how many days do you really have the opportunity to do it?   Would it make more sense to not compromise on the groomer skis for your daily ski and the few days you have the opportunity to get dumps, rent out a pair of fatties?



Thanks for letting me know that the atomic blackeyes are comparable.  I really do not ski in the powder much but would like a ski that would work in a half foot or so when the east gets it.  When it actually dumps multiple feet I usually go to the local shop and get something more like 115 underfoot for the day for $25.

post #9 of 18

I think any of these new ski are designed to work for you in terms of 6" of powder which is their "all-mountain" classification.  I think they all have pretty wide shovel tip designs.

What I'm not sure about is whether that will work in your choice of ski length, since I think you are skiing lengths shorter than the average.  If you increase the length, then overall you're getting more surface area, and that gives you more float.  Maybe some experts will chime in.

post #10 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post

I think any of these new ski are designed to work for you in terms of 6" of powder which is their "all-mountain" classification.  I think they all have pretty wide shovel tip designs.

What I'm not sure about is whether that will work in your choice of ski length, since I think you are skiing lengths shorter than the average.  If you increase the length, then overall you're getting more surface area, and that gives you more float.  Maybe some experts will chime in.



I understand where you are coming from however when I skied anything around 170 or larger it felt a little long as well as the weight of the skis was more noticable.  I am more into quicker turns on the groomed.  My local shop said the blackeye in a 167 would be a really good candidate.

 

If anyone else thinks I should look at a little bit longer set of skis let me know.  Thanks again - Matt.

post #11 of 18

At 230 lbs you should be looking at 175+ cm long.

 

post #12 of 18

Yeah I am your height and weigh 150 and ski a kendo in 170 - you should definitely be at 170 or above. I am on the island so the shops i know where you can demo would be out of your way. definitely don't buy anything without trying first or you may suffer buyers remorse.

post #13 of 18

Outland 80 is a great ski. Check out the Blizzard Magnum 8.1: quite similar as well, also very good, bit more power.  Others I like in that range include the Kastle MX78.  After skiing the Kendo a lot, it isn't really my favorite ski. Too stiff, totally unlike the Outland, which is quite a supple ski.  I could see it being great for bigger guys, but my shins were killing me after a couple of runs.  

 

Yeah, that Elan Waveflex is pretty stiff. They did a better job on the new 88Xti.  I am not a fan of stiff skis either. 

post #14 of 18


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhoran89 View Post



I understand where you are coming from however when I skied anything around 170 or larger it felt a little long as well as the weight of the skis was more noticable.  I am more into quicker turns on the groomed.  My local shop said the blackeye in a 167 would be a really good candidate.  If you really want to make quicker turns, get yourself a slalom race ski or something along the lines of it.

 

If anyone else thinks I should look at a little bit longer set of skis let me know.  Thanks again - Matt.  Go longer.  Face it.  You are 230 pounds.  You have the mass to bend just about any ski.  Take advantage of it.  You are also 5'11".  You can use your height to leverage the ski.  If you are having problems bending and leveraging the ski, you are having a technical issue.  Do yourself a favor by taking a lesson.



 

post #15 of 18

I am a 5'11" 170 lb blue / black skier (i.e. nowhere near expert, but I get myself around) similar to what you describe yourself as, and I found the 174 cm 2012 Atomic Blackeye to be the perfect fit for me.  Some of that length is attributable to the "rocker technology," and it really does handle like a shorter ski - e.g. with an 82 mm waist, the 174 still has only a 16 m radius.  That said, you get the benefit of all that additional length at speed and in soft snow, which I really like.  I feel as though the sweet spot on the 174 cm Atomic Blackeye is a mile wide for me.  It's quite tolerant when I get knocked off balance a bit, which makes me wayyyyyyyyyy more confident now on the steeper runs and moguls than I was on a shorter ski.   I'm skiing with the new Fischer Vacuum 110 boots which also help a lot - they fit better and are stiffer than the old Nordica W10s that I was on, and I think that this helps when managing a ski longer than you are accustomed to.  On a side note, I did demo the K2 Rictor in 174 cm, and found them to have  many of the attributes of the Atomic Blackeye, but the Blackeye excelled in ease of turn initiation.  And once initiated, I had no problem getting them up on edge and keeping them there for perfectly carved turns.  Even though my prior skis were only 2 years old, I bought the 2012 Blackeyes immediately after getting a free demo with my season tune at the local shop.  Totally love them.

post #16 of 18

If the shop is recommending a 167 Atomic black eye Ti for you, and you have described your self and your "skiing as I am 5'11" and 230 pounds.  I ski anywhere from 20 - 40 days a year and plan to ski more in the future hopefully.  I ski aggressively all over the mountain and love the blacks as steep blues.  Double blacks are fun as well.  I am a big turn guy and love to lean over and take up the whole trail or sometimes rip out some shorter ones.  I am a huge fan of the corduroy.  I mainly ski 75% or even 80% on piste"  I can only assume the shop thought you were exagerating your abilities and exploits.  What you need for fast skiing and "carving it up" on steep in-bounds terrain is something closer to a GS race ski.  Atomic D2 Race GS.  However, since you seemed quite happy with the Nomad Smoke Tis in 164, the shop could be correct.  I would, however, suggest you get the 181 length in that Black Eye Ti.

post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

I would, however, suggest you get the 181 length in that Black Eye Ti.



Agreed.  As noted earlier, I ski the 174 and weigh 50 lbs less than the original poster.  Again, nowhere near expert.  At 230, you really might consider the 181.  I think (haven't checked myself, but that's what my ski shop told me when they checked the catalog) that the 181 is the next and only size up from the 174.  If you want to ski a shorter ski at your weight, you might have to go for a stiffer model, but I'm not really sure that a shorter stiffer ski would get you anything over a longer more flexible one.

 

post #18 of 18

Just for reference I'm 5'10  205 lbs and recently bought the Blackeyes in 167.  I described my skiing to the rep as Intermediate , not super aggressive but like some speed occasionally . Mostly blue runs but occasional blacks. I wanted something I could grow into.

I also mentioned I'll be spending a fair amount on the Greens in the next year or 2 as we get our kids (8,6, & 4) into skiing.  


Based on this description and my height and weight the rep was torn between 167 or 174 but leaned toward 167's

At an inch taller and 25 lbs heavier I'm sure my rep would have recommended 174 or larger even without describing myself as "Aggressive" so take that for what it's worth.

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 › All mountain ski advice (mine were stolen) (includes some demo impressions)