Need help narrowing things down: all-mountain-fats - Page 2

ski weight: within reason, the wrong place to save weight. you need ski that performs well, with minimal compromise. the ski is what will keep you alive in the descent. Most top skndreasiers that ski extreme terrain (Andreas Fransson, Chris Davenport, Jon Morisson, etc) ski on Salomon, kastle and Blizzard skis, and not the lightest models.

perhaps you feel that at your skill level an the terrain you will ski, you don't need high performance skis? Let me assure you that almost any slope can be terrifying under the wrong conditions.

somewhat similar to choosing an ice axe: would you climb ice with a sub-pound ice axe?

binding: this is the place to save weight, and Dynafit is the only binding that is worth considering. with Fritschis, marker, whatever, you lift the binding at every step. With Dynafit, you only lift the boot. This makes a difference of a pound or so, which gets lifted about six inches per step, much more impact than the same weight in a ski, which stays on the snow when skining. And Dynafits ski well, certainly better than Fritschis.

i would save weight on poles, BD cf alpin an excellent choice. can save a pound of weght, which you lift at every step.

ski width: if you are an expert skier, you can get away with sub 100mm waisted skis. But why? most likely, you will encounter shitty snow conditions on every tour, and you can waste  lot more energy sescending on a skinny ski than on the up. And if you look at the best skiers, they all are on wider skis.

boots: Definitely get a stiff enough boot that will handle skiing on ice, with Dynafit fittings, even if you don't get the Dynafit bindings now. I use BD Factors, since I don't want to compromise, but I hear the Virus light is a good boot. And don't listen to people that will tell you that you can ski ice on a soft boot. You can, if it is consistent, and you know it's there. The problem is that sometimes ice is burried under a thi layer of snow, and you can go from powder to ice in a fraction of a second. Which is why you need a stiff, responsive boot.

You have so many opportunities to save weight, from clothes, pack, gloves, water (don't carry more than a liter, and keep adding snow as you drink- there you just saved 2.5 pounds!!), that you don't have to compromise your safety and the pleasure of skiing.

I'm sure I will get a lot of nit-picking replies, but i have done a lot of this, and talked to a lot of people that do it at a very high level, and  I learned the hard way too.

@Rod:  there certainly is a difference between extreme skiers, professional ski movie athletes, and helicopter assisted skiers and ski mountaineers, whom I define as people who climb mountains with muscle power with the goal of achieving the summit, using skis, crampons, and other tools, and skiing down.  There is a whole industry out there catering to ski mountaineers and people who like to tour in the alpine and they make very fine, very high-performing skis.  These companies include specialty companies like Dynafit (7 Summits, Baltoro, Mustagh Ata, Manaslu, Stoke) and companies offering skis for lift-assisted skiing and AT/Telemark as well, for example, Atomic, K2, Black Diamond, and  Kastle, which now offers its relatively lightweight TX87.  I have skied some of the PNW volcanos, and I know many people who have skied most of them and many of the Cascade peaks; most prefer lighter weight AT skis, and I have heard at least one owner complain that Davenport's favorite (FX94) is a little too heavy.  There is an old saying that a pound on the foot is like 10 in the pack; of course, a good AT skinner doesn't usually lift the whole ski (unless he/she is on the heavier binding; I have yet to see someone skinning up on Fritischi Freerides who wasn't lifting the whole ski LOL).

Certainly, there are lots of really buff young dudes out there climbing for steep descents that do use heavier gear, alpine skis with Dukes, but for the most part IMHE, they are more interested in extreme skiing than ski mountaineering or alpine touring.

So, to each his own, a craftsman is known by the tools he keeps, don't use a hammer for a screw driver ... it's all good.

Good shops in the Seattle area that I am familiar with are Marmot in Bellevue and ProGuide Service in North Bend.

I agree boot fit is paramount and as is suggested so often on this board in can be worthwhile to seek out a bootfitter; I used Jim Mates (Custom Boot Service in Seattle area); I've heard Marmot is good and that Sturtevants has a good fitter; ProGuide Service has two that have more than a decade of experience each.  Just make sure you get the experienced boot fitters at the last 3.

100+ would be nice for powder but totally unnecessary for corn; I actually prefer my 7 summits (80 mm waist) and my Snowwolfs (76 mm waist) over my Manaslus (95 waist)--but they all do really well (the first two have a much tighter turning radius than the last), as almost any ski does well in corn.

If you go 85-95 mm with a good fitting boot, I don't think you will find it a big jump; I had a little trepidation going from a series of 70-mm waists upwards, so I went 76-80-95-98-115; it was really easy going up to 95 & 98, could have done it in one jump easy.

+1 for Jim Mates for boot fitting in the Seattle area.

+2 on Jim Mates. Best around the PNW.

If price is no object: Check out the Kastle ski finder http://www.kaestle-ski.com/en/product-line/hardgoods/ski/product-finder/ to see what they would recommend in model, length, and width for the info you enter; I don't think they are listing the TX87 yet.  You can also send an email to DPS skis and see what they would recommend based on the info you provide.  Check out this very brief review of the new Dynafit Baltoro http://www.wildsnow.com/6579/testing-backcountry-skis/.  Then find a sale and buy the K2 Wayback http://www.evo.com/skis/k2-wayback.aspx?gclid=CKrrh-2Sva8CFQ6EhwodfU0Bvg#utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_campaign=child_EB-43355-1001_odd or Coomback http://www.evo.com/skis/k2-coomback.aspx?gclid=CMTjzfCTva8CFSMHRQodkj2Dww#utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_campaign=child_EB-43354-1001_odd or even the Kendo http://www.rei.com/product/824287/volkl-kendo-skis-mens-20112012; Evo is also in the Seattle Area; haven't visited their store but their on-line site is great.  Or search the various skis sites for used skis. LOL.

I still think a 100mm skis would be best. SOme of the new skis, Rossi 98 or Blizzard Bonafide, are great for groomers.

And while a 85-90 mm ski would be great on corn, I would still use a 100 mm ski on corn, for the days when you were not able to time the descent perfectly. Which is most of my backcountry days, I either end up too eraly, but most of the time, later than optimal, so I end up skiing 3-6 inches of wet corn snow on top of firm, at least for the bottom part of the descent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rod9301 

I still think a 100mm skis would be best. SOme of the new skis, Rossi 98 or Blizzard Bonafide, are great for groomers.

And while a 85-90 mm ski would be great on corn, I would still use a 100 mm ski on corn, for the days when you were not able to time the descent perfectly. Which is most of my backcountry days, I either end up too eraly, but most of the time, later than optimal, so I end up skiing 3-6 inches of wet corn snow on top of firm, at least for the bottom part of the descent.

If I had to have just one ski for front country, side country, and backcountry, I would probably go in the high 90s to very low 100s mm waist range as well;  most likely K2 Hardsides, BD Drift, or  Coombacks (haven't skied any of them); have heard a lot about DPS RP 112 Pures, but seems just a little wide for really firm-hard-icy snow, would like to try them;  I love my Manaslus but wouldn't want to use them on piste a lot, same for Stokes; would love to try an FX94.  Glad I don't have to stick with one ski; love my heavy skis lift served and my very light Dynafit 7 summits and Manaslus bc.

Oh, and G3 Zenoxides (105 mm, 7 lbs 2 oz) on sale for $400--I'd buy them and use them all over.

as far as ski shops, escecially BC and AT setups, consider ProSki Service in Seattle. Adam know his stuff.

I loved my 172cm Line Prophet 90s. They could make the quickest slalom style turns and held an excellent edge on hardpack. I have also skied the prophet flites and they are great as well. But for your size I would get lines prophet 98s or something like those. Also I really liked the Rossi  S3 I felt like they would be really great for touring. They have decent amount of rocker in the tip and tail so you will float in powder and crud but they also felt very nimble on the groomers. I hope this helps you in your search! 

I have no experience with the Nordica Burners, but I demoed the Blizzard Bushwacker, Line Prophet 90 and Nordica Steadfast.  It was not much of a contest really, the Steadfast was the clear winner.  The Steadfast is 90mm underfoot with early rise and camber.  It has great edge hold on groomers and is fairly light since it doesn't have a metal layer in it.  I ski bumps, trees, powder, steep chutes and of course groomers to get back to the lifts.  My 170cm Steadfasts are actually more nimble in the trees than my 161cm Icelantic Shamans, probably due to the early rise.  I found the Prophets very hooky in the steep chutes and the Steadfasts were incredibly reliable in the chutes.  I really can't say enough good about them.  As soon as I got them they became my daily drivers and will probably remain so for several years.  The only thing I never used them on was ice.

PLEASE, get a wider ski for Baker.

OK, you're now officially entering the "I-want-a-ski-that's-perfect-at-everything-somewhere-between-80-and-120 mm waist width" zone. There is no way out, and fewer and fewer thoughtful responses since a) you're overfishing the same hole, and b) you're asking us to chose from among oh, say 80% of all the skis on the market. 

Suggest this: Think hard about your priorities. Then go study up on what skis do. That is, what a 111 mm ski does better and worse than a 80 mm ski. Then realize that what you're asking is (to be tactful, this isn't TGR) unrealistic. NO ski will handle all the conditions you list decently. Maybe two out of three. But think about it: Midwest conditions ask for a grippy, solid carver that can handle bumps. AT asks for a very light, mid fat to mild fat ski that's probably a bit shorter than something you'd want for Colorado crud. It won't be super stabile at speed. And then, a Rocky Mt. vacation ski that will be happy on everything, everywhere, from blue runs to backcountry. 

So suck it up and make some choices. The most logical one is to accept the idea of two skis, one for the midwest, and another for AT and vacations. Latter will be a bit bouncy when conditions are heavy and stiff on lift served, unless you just get a normal 98 mm something and don't mind extra work going uphill. A close second most logical is one AT ski, and one in the high 80's for everything else. That will compromise your lift served skiing in the midwest, so model assumes that vacation AT is more important to you. 

Make a list reflecting these choices, go do some more homework, and get back to us with a short list. 

Critically ask yourself why any of the following skis wouldn't meet both your needs, equipped with Dynafit bindings and a good boot (or better a bc boot and a frontside/crossover boot):

Skis in the 80s: Dynafit Baltoro; Kastle TX87; K2 Wayback; Volkl Amaruq.

Skis in the 90s: BD Kilowatt, Dynafit Manaslu (new model), Kastle FX94, K2 Hardside, Volkl Nanuq.

Do you ski so aggressively and technically on piste such that any of these wouldn't be functional and fun?

Would any of these be anything but fun in powder, except perhaps on a bottomless 1% powder day in Utah?

Would any of these be light years ahead of what you have?  And, if you are like me, beyond your abilities to use to their limits?

Now, if you were into aggressive/competitive/high speed on piste on your home slopes, I'm sure you could pick up something like a used Aftershock pretty cheap and buy one of the 90s above for bc.

The nanuq and amaruq ski soft compared to their parent skis the kendo and mantra. Just remember that if you decide to go that route. IMO the kendo and mantra are significantly better skis and I would take the weight difference any day for the stability. Also I agree that high 80s up to 100 is what you should be looking at but don't be afraid of width and going up to 95 or 98. Some great carving skis are out there in that range, mantra, bonafide, etc... Also DPS is still the best way to go but I understand they are not cheap.

I can't even imagine taking my Mantras or S7s into the bc and climbing a couple of thousand feet--especially with a pseudo-alpine binding like a Fritschi or Marker Duke, Baron, or Tour.

I skied my Volkl Snowwolfs (76 cm waist) on Tuesday in frozen rain crust on water-saturated snow and at higher elevations a couple inches of new on top of the 12 feet of old, and had a blast on the way down!

Today I skied my Dynafit Manaslus at lower elevation in a foot of new condensed to a couple of inches of a top layer, on top of corn, and again I had a blast on the way down thru the trees, riding the knife-edge frozen ridges between the 4-foot deep tree wells and riding the surface sluffs while dodging the snow wheels ...

The only time I've not had fun with modern AT skis on the down was in bad trap crust and unpredictable breakable crust and I don't think my Mantras, S7s, or R:EX would have down any better than my Manaslus!  The Manaslus are a dream in powder, corn, dust on crust, sloppy spring snow, etc.  Just not the best on steep ice, where the Snowwolfs and 7 Summits do fine and which excel in early morning corn.

Of course, (1) I am an old man who enjoys the up as much as the down; (2) I don't confuse bc snow with the predictable, consistent groomed; and (3) I skied telemark on skinnier skis for a quarter of a century and had a ball--I did like it when waists grew to the 70s & 80s in width, tho; but tele can't match the new AT, light-weight 2-buckle boots (TLT5), tech bindings, and lightweight, high performance skis!

Iceinsanity, despite your disclaimer, am struck by how you don't seem willing to divulge your priorities, nor do you mention reading any reviews anywhere. A learning curve starts there. Seriously, why do you think it's appropriate to just keep picking our brains, like a bunch of private tutors, and not bothering to actually read reviews that have already been written by some very experienced skiers here? Or TGR? Or Real Skiers? The reviews, many of which are in the form of comparisons, will give you a lot of answers to questions you're asking right now. Once you have a foundation, you can come back with realistic questions about particular skis, or at least types of skis, and you'll get more useful responses than "I love my XXX's and they rock everywhere..."

Then you need to train a little harder. I see where you are coming from in stating that you enjoy the up as much as the down but when I got the chance to ski the mansalu it was one of my least favorite skis I have ever skied. I found it noodly and weak with almost no edge grip. But I'm also all about the actual skiing and I look for a ski that performs well on the down before I look at the weight. I've found a the perfect combination in the last few years with DPS skis. I still ski mainly on "pseudo-alpine bindings" most of the time with only the occasional use of my plums on long tours. The Mantra with dukes is in no way the lightest or most backcountry oriented ski, but it is a ski that will do everything ok and can work inbounds. It won't be as easy to haul up but it will ski better going down... especially considering the OP is over 200lbs.

^^^This. Go read some reviews and then out of the ones that sound acceptable go find the cheapest one you can. Spend the money you save on a gym membership or avi 1 class and that will do way more to improve your skiing.

are we done searching for unicorns.......