EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Nordica Steadfest vs Volkl Kendo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Steadfest vs Volkl Kendo

Poll Results: Kendo or Steadfest

 
  • 50% (2)
    Kendo
  • 50% (2)
    Steadfest
4 Total Votes  
post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

Looking to get a new pair of skis for myself, narrowed it down to these two and I wanted your opinions on each and what would work best for me. About me: 5'4", 110lbs, so lightweight, aggressive skier for my size, solid advanced. Looking for something that works well in almost all conditions, specifically in a few areas. Something that will work well in tight trees skied out and soft, and in bumps, both moderately hard and soft bumps, so something maneuverable basically. Next something good in crud, something that's aggressive and can plow through it, rather then stay on top and get bounced around. Lastly would be groomer performance, I know both have expectational edge hold, but I'm looking for the ski that will work best in quick turns, short radius, kind of brushed craved turns, I do GS now and again, but both are great for that so I have no worry. So I realize that one won't be perfect in all that I mentioned, just looking for which would work better then the other, importantly in the areas I mentioned.

 

So please leave a response recommending which ski and the size also!

 

Thank you.

post #2 of 16

Can't speak to the Volkl's but I LOVE my Nordica Steadfasts.  Bought them in late February and have skied groomed hard snow, groomed soft snow, 15" of Utah powder, 5" new wet spring snow and various cut up conditions.  I'd say it is one of the most versatile skis I have ever owned.  The early rise tip works well in powder and cut up snow.  Very stable on the run outs and they seem very quick for a 90mm waisted ski.  Don't do tight trees or bumps anymore but they are quick for their width.

 

I'm 6'2", 210 lbs. and went with the 186 and glad I did.  It just seems right although I have several pairs of skis in the 174-178 range.  I think you would want to go with the 170 or maybe 177 if you are used to longer skis.  The skis are light weight but do not get tip deflections in cut up snow.  Pretty amazing ride. 

 

Good luck!

post #3 of 16

i just wonder with the lighter weight wood cores if the lifespan of the skis is thereby shorter ie lose their camber quicker?...but then again many of us don't hang onto our skis more than a few yrs anyway, so....

 

op did you also consider other skis with good reviews, ie prophet 90,  kastle mx88 or lx92, etc?

post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 

Yes I've considered numerous skis, those included. The reason I'm deciding between these 2 is that I can get a good late season deal on either, about 40-50% off retail, and being a student the money factor is rather important.

 

I like your point about the ski life also, that's really my only concern with the Steadfest's is exactly what you've mentioned. It wouldn't seem physically possible for a thinner, lighter core to retain it's integrity and camber as long as something else (Kendo). And I want these skis to last me about 3 seasons. However it may by fine.

 

The MX88 would be really an ideal choice for what I want, but at the price... not really doable.

 

Thanks for the responses guys, keep em coming!

post #5 of 16

Where do you live? The Kendo is a GREAT ski for harder snow that will still perform well in deeper snow, but I would go wider for a West coast ski if its going to live off piste.

post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 

I live in Calgary, mainly ski Fernie, sometimes Sunshine, Lake Louise.

 

So yeah the majority of my skiing is off-piste, but it's definitely not always in fresh snow, a lot of the time it's skied out hard packed and bumps everywhere, lots of crud. At the same time it's a lot of soft, fresh snow also.

 

My only concern with going wider if it will lose some maneuverability in bumps and tighter trees, and wouldn't work as well when it gets packed.

post #7 of 16

Having skied a lot on both, it seems to me that the Steadfast is a notably better choice b/c it is significantly better in soft/mixed conditions and bumps. The only caveat might be that the shortest length available is a 170. If you have a desire for something shorter then the Steadfast is not for you. If a 170 sounds good....then go for it.

 

As far as core life, that is nothing to worry about. The composite segment is pretty small and besides it is a milled section of Isocore which is a fiberglass reinforced foam material. This is tough stuff and is very common among ski makers and has been for some time. Some great skis like the Legend Pro Rider and all the Blizzi "Flipcore" skis utilize this material in roughly the same manner.

 

SJ

post #8 of 16

+1 to SierraJim.

I love the Kendo. I basically learned how to ski on them, but if groomer performance is last on your list I would be looking to your other option. 

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys, how wide do you think you can go with a ski before you start to lose performance in bumps?

post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk94 View Post

I live in Calgary, mainly ski Fernie, sometimes Sunshine, Lake Louise.

 

So yeah the majority of my skiing is off-piste, but it's definitely not always in fresh snow, a lot of the time it's skied out hard packed and bumps everywhere, lots of crud. At the same time it's a lot of soft, fresh snow also.

 

My only concern with going wider if it will lose some maneuverability in bumps and tighter trees, and wouldn't work as well when it gets packed.



I think you should go wider. An increased rocker profile also helps with turns in tight trees, and quick pivots in moguls. Traditionalists will tell you that the slarve/pivot turn that a rockered ski has available is not good technique, but it works VERY well.

 

"Packed" from a west coast perspective is a lot different than skiing "snow" so hard you don't leave marks.  I really, really doubt you would see any problems with getting edge grip on a wider ski.

 

To put things in perspective, I ski Colorado at one of the areas that doesn't get a huge amount of snow, although low traffic, so it will usually snow during the week and still be there in the trees and the less-travelled areas on weekends. Groomed snow conditions are tyically pretty soft when it hasn't been snowing- it generally grooms into a 2" layer of loose snow.

 

I ski 95 waist Kung Fujas. On days where I expect to be skiing mostly ungroomed (instead of skiing groomed and venturing off for stuff I see in the trees, I take my 105 waist Obsethed.

 

I took the Kendo's out on a demo day, and they really really surprised me with how precise they were in hard snow (grromed). Zero speed limit, amazing edge precision and hold, they made you want to open it up from the first turn on them. However, going off piste (2 day old 6" snow soft but cut up, with a fairly hard base underneath with veriable terrain below) they got pushed around more than I like from a ski that I would normally use on that terrain.

 

My conclusion was that while I really liked them, I would only be using them on "no snow for a week and tons of sun" ski days when I mainly stuck to the groom. Considering that anybody with any decent skiing technique can run pretty much any ski down groomers and still have a good time, it didn't make sense for me to buy (unless I score them used for very cheap).

 

They are great skis, but I really see them more for an east-coaster who will be running hard snow most of the time, yet still wants something that will serve adequately when a storm rolls through.

 

post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk94 View Post

Thanks guys, how wide do you think you can go with a ski before you start to lose performance in bumps?



It depends more on how the ski is made than the width. Length matters more too. Both of my K2's are 189 in K2's measurement (which means they are really around 197 tip to tail), and that makes them longer than many moguls, so there is a pretty narrow window for maintaining a good zipper.

 

post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 

What do you believe is in this 'narrow window' as far as width.

 

 

What waist wide do you think I should be looking at then?


Edited by tsk94 - 4/6/12 at 11:33am
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk94 View Post

What do you believe is in this 'narrow window' as far as width.

 

 

What waist wide do you think I should be looking at then?


 I mean a longer ski has less margin for error when skiing a zipper line, because there is more ski to run into interference.

 

I think you should be looking at a ski in the 95-105 range, maybe even wider. Because you are light and short, and want to ski moguls, the 170 range is probably the right length ski.

 

I like K2's factory line (Kung Fujas, Obsethed) a lot, but it is certainly more of a jibby ski than the Volkl. On the Volkl line, the popular ski for the type of skiing you describe is the Gotama.  I've liked the several pairs of Gotamas that I've demoed over the years, but it doesn't have the razor-sharp feeling of the Kendos, and I like the K2 line more for skiing off piste- less precise, but much more foregiving and confidence inspiring.
 

But these are just my opinions, and Volkl sells a billion Gotamas a year bought by people who don't agree.

 

post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post


 I mean a longer ski has less margin for error when skiing a zipper line, because there is more ski to run into interference.

 

I think you should be looking at a ski in the 95-105 range, maybe even wider. Because you are light and short, and want to ski moguls, the 170 range is probably the right length ski.

 

I like K2's factory line (Kung Fujas, Obsethed) a lot, but it is certainly more of a jibby ski than the Volkl. On the Volkl line, the popular ski for the type of skiing you describe is the Gotama.  I've liked the several pairs of Gotamas that I've demoed over the years, but it doesn't have the razor-sharp feeling of the Kendos, and I like the K2 line more for skiing off piste- less precise, but much more foregiving and confidence inspiring.
 

But these are just my opinions, and Volkl sells a billion Gotamas a year bought by people who don't agree.

 




Ironically the Gotama is the one ski in the Volkl line which I wouldn't go for. To many inconsistent reviews with it honestly.

 

Been reading around the last little bit and came across a few ski's that are a bit wider that might work well. Moment PB&J, Volkl Brdige, ON3P Vicik, or Jeffery and 4FRNT Cody.

 

All are 95-108 underfoot, and either full rocker, or camber with tip and tail rocker. Might be what I'm looking for, not sure though.


Edited by tsk94 - 4/6/12 at 3:09pm
post #15 of 16

re '' Ironically the Gotama is the one ski in the Volkl line which I wouldn't go for.

To many inconsistent reviews with it honestly."

 

just remember what is a porsche 911 to one skier isn't to another, and vice versa.

you just have to go out there and demo as many as you can, taking each person's

experiences and reviews, however helpful, in the end with a grain of salt. it's your experience

on that ski that matters, not someone else's opinion.

 

sometimes, if not careful (and i'm guilty) we can all go a bit wonkers reading review after review trying to find the perfect ski.

 

post #16 of 16

At your weight, as long as the 170mm length isn't a problem and you have decent technique, the Steadfast will handle some pretty deep stuff.  I've had mine in about 20" and would willingly go much deeper than that.  I know a couple of instructors who also ski Steadfasts and they say they've skied 36-40" and the Steadfasts were great.


Edited by mtcyclist - 4/7/12 at 4:29pm
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 › Nordica Steadfest vs Volkl Kendo