EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Suggestions, Please
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Suggestions, Please

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

I am not up on the latest ski reviews so some suggestions would be helpful.

 

I'm looking for a ski that will excel on hardpack, with excellent edge hold, perform well in shallow powder and in spring conditions and  be at least acceptable in the bumps and crud.  I am not looking to use this ski in deeper powder and I'm not too concerned about high speed stability.  I want a ski in the mid-160s, with a waist of no more than 82 and preferably less with a sidecut that will yield a radius of 14.5m or less.  Oh yea, I don't want any rocker/reverse camber nonsense in this ski so that rules out all K2s like the Rictor, I think.

 

I weigh 165 lbs and am 5 ft. 9 in. tall.  I am a solid 7 level skier.

 

I am currently skiing a 167 Recon (119/78/105) 16 m radius.  I used to love this ski.  But as I've gotten better and conditions this year not so good with hardpack very common I find that I can not obtain adequate edge hold with this ski in these hardpack conditions unless using the ski to make long GS-type turns at speed. 

 

At first, I thought I must be messing up technically but after a few days of trying to finesse my movements I was still slip sliding away when I tried to tighten up my carved turns (my edges were razor sharp, btw).  So I rented a pair of 164cm Kastle LX82 (127/82/109) 14.5m.  The difference in performance on the hardpack was amazing with edge hold phenomenally better.  Not sure if this was due to much better torsional rigidity, more aggressive sidecut, softer longitudinal flex or some combination of all three.  But I now want to buy a ski like this that will perform similarly or better (I will also consider a very aggressive sidecut / radius even if it means the ski will be somewhat "high strung").  The Kastle was also great when things soften up and in deeper soft and heavy snow on the backside and in the bumps seemed at least as good at the Recons.

 

Any suggestions?

 

post #2 of 24

 

Hmmm, maybe the Kastle LX82 at 164cm...... 

post #3 of 24

The LX82 for sure, I'd also look into the Stockli Stormrider 78 in 166, and the Rossignol 82 Basalt in 170. I wouldn't be too concerned about the length being exactly mid-160's since a) at your size and level that's a bit short, and b) the exact length of a ski is less relevant than its running surface - which varies widely depending on the contact points - and its flex pattern. A shorter stiffer ski will ski much longer than a longer softer ski. And the latter, contrary to instinct, might be a lot better in bumps. Finally, it's going to be very difficult to find a ski with a waist in the 80's with a turn radius below 14.5. Those few that have it are not necessarily great skis for your mission, either. Again, in bumps or crud, a very deep sidecut can be a PITA. 

post #4 of 24
Thread Starter 

Thanks.

 

Yes, the rather expensive Kastle LX82 is on the list (sorry, thought that was obvious).  And maybe I'll get it if I can get a good price on it -- perhaps I'll buy the demo if it's priced right.  But I'd really like to see what else is out there.

 

And I'd be OK with a slightly longer ski, maybe up to 170, if it met my other requirements (but I'm not looking for more length in order to get more floatation).  Seems different companies measure their skis differently anyway such that my K2 Recons at 167 are 2 1/2 or more inches longer than the Kastles at 164 and the Recons never seemed too long to me.  Still, I really want to preserve the exceptional short turn hardpack carving experience that I am after.

post #5 of 24

I just skied the Rossi Avenger Basalt and the Blizzard Magnum 8.1 in conditions you describe.  I'm VERY close to you in size and skill/desires.  If I were buying skis (I'm not), I would buy either of these in a heartbeat.  Quick, solid, responsive to the point of being intuitive.

post #6 of 24

Atomic Blackeye too. So many good skis in that range. 

post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpsrfun View Post

 Oh yea, I don't want any rocker/reverse camber nonsense in this ski so that rules out all K2s like the Rictor, I think.

 

 

I'm not sure if I would agree with your choice here as you may be eliminating a lot of good skis.   You are right, there is a lot of nonsense, but in terms of marketing where there really isn't that much rocker in the ski even though they sticker the term on it like crazy.

 

You should give the Rictor a try as the direct replacement of your ski.  

The additional reasons why you should try it is that it's a couple years old plus it was cheap even new.  So you should be able to find it easily in just about every demo shop for not that much to demo.   And you should also be able to buy a used demo for not too much

 

If you tried it already and don't like it, then i'll shut my mouth. but don't knock it until you gave it a fair shake.

post #8 of 24
Thread Starter 

How about the Nordica (Doberman) Pro SL in 165 (120-67-103; 13m radius)  or perhaps the tamer and lighter Nordica (Doberman) Spitfire in 162 (122-72-105; 13m radius)?  I see that these integrated skis ain't cheap either.  I have to see if I can find any demos here in the Vail Valley.

 

(As to Rictors, I guess I'm now really looking for an SL ski so no Rictors with their back-mounted bindings due to shortened flat running surface caused by funny front quasi rocker thingy.  That said if I can try 'em for free, I will.)

post #9 of 24

Check Ebay and look up ASOGEAR (seller) clears out a local ski shop here on Ontario Canada, Great deals if you know what your looking for.

 

 

post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpsrfun View Post

How about the Nordica (Doberman) Pro SL in 165 (120-67-103; 13m radius)  or perhaps the tamer and lighter Nordica (Doberman) Spitfire in 162 (122-72-105; 13m radius?

Based on your previous posts you're all over the map now. First, the Spitfire is a stiff, for real carver. In what way does it satisfy your earlier stated needs? You may need to decide what your priorities are. Soft snow or bumps don't necessarily agree with carving up hardpack.
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Based on your previous posts you're all over the map now. First, the Spitfire is a stiff, for real carver. In what way does it satisfy your earlier stated needs? You may need to decide what your priorities are. Soft snow or bumps don't necessarily agree with carving up hardpack.


 

I'm "all over the map now?"  Really?

 

I don't think so.  You are just misinterpreting (misreading?) and, in your frustration, even becoming offensive.  You may want me to have more of an all-mountain ski such as the Stockli Stormrider 78 that you suggested (16m radius!), but that is not what I want.  I want something that goes further towards the SL type end of the spectrum than even the Kastle LX82 (14.5m radius) that I demoed.  I do not want a Recon replacement.  I want a high-energy ski with which to carve up the mountain including when really hardpack conditions exist.

 

Here's what I said in my post #4 which I would think would have made my "priorities" very clear " . . . I really want to preserve the exceptional short turn hardpack carving experience that I am after."

 

I think that everything I wrote from the beginning (e.g., regarding sidecut, short radius carved turns, exceptional edge hold on hardpack, etc.) suggests that I am looking for an SL or SL-type ski.  But as a practical matter I'd like one that is at least "acceptable" in soft snow and bumps because I don't want to be limited just to hardpack groomers when skiing with friends or when coming across these types of other conditions on the mountain.

 

BTW, it is my understanding that SL Pro is considered moderately stiff while the the Spitfire is a more flexible ski.  So, I'm thinking that the Spitfire will be better in other conditions but am wondering if it's too much of a compromise vs the heavier and stiffer SL Pro.

 

 

post #12 of 24

Try a hardcore SL ski WC line or if a little softer try the detuned version,  Alternately try the detuned version of the WC GS skis,  TI series in most brands, turning radius is usually about 16-17m, however some racers use them as a ONE ski does all type.

 

Might be worth the consideration.

 

Me personally, If your looking for the ride in rails feeling  and are willing to work with it, go for the WC skis, they are stiff but will reward the effort.  Detuned civillian version don't cut it for me as they tend to let down when you push them and disappoint.

 

Personal opinion only.  Otherwise choose what works best for you.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Try a hardcore SL ski WC line or if a little softer try the detuned version,  Alternately try the detuned version of the WC GS skis,  TI series in most brands, turning radius is usually about 16-17m, however some racers use them as a ONE ski does all type.

 

Might be worth the consideration.

 

Me personally, If your looking for the ride in rails feeling  and are willing to work with it, go for the WC skis, they are stiff but will reward the effort.  Detuned civillian version don't cut it for me as they tend to let down when you push them and disappoint.

 

Personal opinion only.  Otherwise choose what works best for you.

 

Enjoy.

 

 


*2.  Once you learn to ride them you will be surprised how much you can actually do on a good 165 Slalom.  There is a reason that almost every race coach uses them as their everyday ski

 

post #14 of 24

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpsrfun View Post

 

I'm "all over the map now?"  Really?

 

I don't think so.  You are just misinterpreting (misreading?) and, in your frustration, even becoming offensive.  You may want me to have more of an all-mountain ski such as the Stockli Stormrider 78 that you suggested (16m radius!), but that is not what I want.  I want something that goes further towards the SL type end of the spectrum than even the Kastle LX82 (14.5m radius) that I demoed.  I do not want a Recon replacement.  I want a high-energy ski with which to carve up the mountain including when really hardpack conditions exist.

 

Here's what I said in my post #4 which I would think would have made my "priorities" very clear " . . . I really want to preserve the exceptional short turn hardpack carving experience that I am after."

 

I think that everything I wrote from the beginning (e.g., regarding sidecut, short radius carved turns, exceptional edge hold on hardpack, etc.) suggests that I am looking for an SL or SL-type ski.  But as a practical matter I'd like one that is at least "acceptable" in soft snow and bumps because I don't want to be limited just to hardpack groomers when skiing with friends or when coming across these types of other conditions on the mountain.

 

BTW, it is my understanding that SL Pro is considered moderately stiff while the the Spitfire is a more flexible ski.  So, I'm thinking that the Spitfire will be better in other conditions but am wondering if it's too much of a compromise vs the heavier and stiffer SL Pro.

 

 


Speaking of becoming offensive.... you're asking the questions.  You might want to at least try and be civil in response. 

My momma always said you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

I'm done here.


 

 


Edited by tch - 3/16/12 at 8:56pm
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post


Me personally, If your looking for the ride in rails feeling  and are willing to work with it, go for the WC skis, they are stiff but will reward the effort.  Detuned civillian version don't cut it for me as they tend to let down when you push them and disappoint.

 

Personal opinion only.  Otherwise choose what works best for you.

 

Enjoy.

 

 


This is where I think I'm at, thanks. 

 

I'd rather err on the side of more performance / grip and this will not be my only set of skis anyway.  I would like to demo ski first but finding this type of ski as a traditional demo appears difficult (based on my phone calls today).  May just have to talk to some of the folks I know locally and see if I can line up a used pair or find someone willing to let me "demo" theirs.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post


*2.  Once you learn to ride them you will be surprised how much you can actually do on a good 165 Slalom.  There is a reason that almost every race coach uses them as their everyday ski

 



Very interesting (and reassuring).  Thanks.

post #16 of 24

You can come close to full race performance with a ski like the Dynastar Course Ti,  and still have a good hard snow performer that you can drive as hard as you want but is not 100% demanding. 

post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

You can come close to full race performance with a ski like the Dynastar Course Ti,  and still have a good hard snow performer that you can drive as hard as you want but is not 100% demanding. 



Or perhaps something like the Omeglass Ti? 

 

http://www.worldskitest.com/en/results/2011/men-race-slalom-201112/2-dynastar-omeglas-ti/

 

http://www.epicski.com/products/2011-dynastar-speed-omeglass-ti-ski

post #18 of 24

Thanks Phil,

 

Review of the Speed Course Ti, If I hadn't have bought the WC version (opportunitiy) I would have seriously considered the Ti's based on the review and reading the comparision.

 

http://www.sierradescents.com/reviews/skis/dynastar/course-ti.html

 

 

Review of the WC.

 

http://www.sierradescents.com/reviews/skis/dynastar/course-wc.html

 

You will find in other posts similar comments re the pure race skis and ti counter parts.

 

SL/GS personal preference depending on the skier (I think this debate has being going on since skiing was invented and the designation between the two styles have started).  I recently had the chance to ski a Elan SL ski (far from race stock), while quick turning whenit got up to speed zero edge hold.  In this case to be far it wasn't race stock adn if money was no object I'd have a set of WC SL's just to play on occasion.  That said I can still run tight high speed SL turns on my GS skis, lot of work with heavy leg action old school style. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #19 of 24

Based on how much the OP liked the LX 82, I'm surprised no one suggested the Kastle MX 78 in 168. Turn radius is slightly longer thar 14.5, but really not by much in 168. 

post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpsrfun View Post


 

I'm "all over the map now?"  Really?

 

I don't think so.  You are just misinterpreting (misreading?) and, in your frustration, even becoming offensive.  You may want me to have more of an all-mountain ski such as the Stockli Stormrider 78 that you suggested (16m radius!), but that is not what I want.  I want something that goes further towards the SL type end of the spectrum than even the Kastle LX82 (14.5m radius) that I demoed.  I do not want a Recon replacement.  I want a high-energy ski with which to carve up the mountain including when really hardpack conditions exist.

 

Here's what I said in my post #4 which I would think would have made my "priorities" very clear " . . . I really want to preserve the exceptional short turn hardpack carving experience that I am after."

 

I think that everything I wrote from the beginning (e.g., regarding sidecut, short radius carved turns, exceptional edge hold on hardpack, etc.) suggests that I am looking for an SL or SL-type ski.  But as a practical matter I'd like one that is at least "acceptable" in soft snow and bumps because I don't want to be limited just to hardpack groomers when skiing with friends or when coming across these types of other conditions on the mountain.

 

BTW, it is my understanding that SL Pro is considered moderately stiff while the the Spitfire is a more flexible ski.  So, I'm thinking that the Spitfire will be better in other conditions but am wondering if it's too much of a compromise vs the heavier and stiffer SL Pro.

 

 


Uh huh, and as far as everything you wrote from the beginning, here's your first post (my bold): "I'm looking for a ski that will excel on hardpack, with excellent edge hold, perform well in shallow powder and in spring conditions and  be at least acceptable in the bumps and crud." 

 

Moreover, the ski you said you liked a lot was a moderate flex 82 mm all-mountain. Your language: "The difference in performance on the hardpack was amazing with edge hold phenomenally better...The Kastle was also great when things soften up and in deeper soft and heavy snow on the backside and in the bumps seemed at least as good at the Recons." So yes, you have changed your stated focus on this. OTOH, if now you're all about grip and narrow SL carvers, plenty of great ones to choose from. Not sure you'll find them all that helpful in the conditions you liked the Kastle, but as you make it very clear, that's no longer an issue. 

 

FWIW, I didn't "want you to have" any particular ski; I could care less. Rather we here try to match what posters state which what skis are out there. The sum of what you were saying for most of this thread, even including the grip concern, fit better with a mid 70's to low 80's carver. You've now decided you want a SL ski, all good. BTW your concern with very deep sidecuts remains out of synch with which skis actually grip the best. (Try a WC GS if you want grip; this is why wide carvers in the 70's to low 80's can actually grip really really well.) Finally, saying you're "all over the map" is scarcely offensive on an online skiing forum with strong opinions. You want offensive, go try TGR. wink.gif

 

But we all have a right to lust after any ski we want. So to address your new question: There have been several good reviews of the Spitfire here. Cannot say about the SL Pro. But a really good skier like Sierra Jim who outweighs you by 25-30 lbs found the Spitfire all he needed on a hardened GS course in Colorado. In all honesty, there's a point where grip and turns are more about how good a skier you are than how much better one very grippy ski is than another very grippy ski. This is particularly true for recreational skiing on recreational slopes. 

post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 

Well, beyond, that was a helpful reply.  I will agree that as this discussion has evolved that I am now leaning more towards an SL ski (but that was what my original question was all about resolving -- I liked the LX 82's more than my Recons and I'd like even more of what I liked in them).

 

Ya know, what I think it boils down too is that I am grappling with the question of whether I should go with a true SL ski or whether I should go with a some sort of "detuned" version.  I definitely do not want a GS-type ski even if it might make arguably be a better all-around ski (that's not to say I wouldn't get one in the future, of course) -- right now, I want both better edge grip and a ski designed to carve short turns. 

 

Based upon the various replies above and other "research," I'm thinking that an SL ski, (such as the Nordica Dobermann SL Pro, the Dynastar Omeglass WC SL, or the Volkl Racetiger Speedwall SL) would be best even if this type of ski were less appropriate to use in other conditions.  I think I am the point where I've concluded that a one-ski quiver or even a two-ski quiver is just too much of a performance compromise.  I also know that I really enjoy making quick and super energetic short turns rather than cruising-type faster speed longer radius turns. 

 

post #22 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolskier View Post

Check Ebay and look up ASOGEAR (seller) clears out a local ski shop here on Ontario Canada, Great deals if you know what your looking for.



Great tip, oldschoolskier. With their current prices I may be able to get a pair now instead of waiting 'till the season ends. Thanks.
post #23 of 24

Funny thread!

 

It sounds to me like you're a burgeoning quiver skier.  Good for you.

 

My advice is to get yourself a 165 race stock SL ski.  If you enjoy being on your game they can be a fun and challenging all mountain ski, they'll give you that short turn fix like nothing else and you can get 'em cheap.

 

I also recommend some big fat rockered powder boards.  Something at least 110 under foot, with floppy tips and tails and a TR of 21 or under.  Use these as all mountain boards as well.  Going to extremes gives you great perspectiveicon14.gif

post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpfreaq View Post

Funny thread!

 

It sounds to me like you're a burgeoning quiver skier.  Good for you.

 

My advice is to get yourself a 165 race stock SL ski.  If you enjoy being on your game they can be a fun and challenging all mountain ski, they'll give you that short turn fix like nothing else and you can get 'em cheap.

 

I also recommend some big fat rockered powder boards.  Something at least 110 under foot, with floppy tips and tails and a TR of 21 or under.  Use these as all mountain boards as well.  Going to extremes gives you great perspectiveicon14.gif


 


Yes, I can see multiple skis in my future.

 

And, in connection to this thread, I'm pretty sure that the next pair will be the Volkl Racetiger Speedwall SL in 165. 

 

These are not true race stock (they are on Volkl's website and are sold retail to anyone) but have received excellent reviews and I've checked locally with some of the guys here -- they overwhelmingly like it best.  I'm going to get the 165s instead of going smaller as I think that the longer length will make them a bit more versatile and offer more support if, I mean when, I slip into the backseat.

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 › Ski Suggestions, Please