EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Underwhelmed by the New Models?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Underwhelmed by the New Models? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

psyched about the Blizz; 8.5ti and very intrigued with the Atlas Ritual.  DPS 112 rpc is also a very cool ski.

 

8.5 ti is one of the best skis I have demoed in a long time. Really like that ski. Not a fan of the wider flipcore skis I have tried. Don't like the feel in soft snow, but the narrow 8.5ti is great. I actually liked them better on that windy pow day at mt rose that day than the bone or the gunsmoke I had skied earlier in the day. Maybe I am just twisted. 


Edited by tromano - 9/10/12 at 8:47pm
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

 

I should have been more precise: is it worth spending $950 for 2013 skis when I can get new 2012 skis for $450? 

 

For the same ski? No.  If you want a new model on the other hand... 

post #33 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

FWIW, I went to a 8.5ti this season as I feel that for colorado no new, firmer days, the mid 80 ski offers a wide range of performance but is more accurate, quick and easier to ski in those conditions. I don't mind skiing on the Bones (for instance) but a 80 something is less stressful and just easier; in short a better match.  I think the mid 80 is the old 95-98 from the past 2 seasons in terms of being "hot". Its not that those skis are no longer relevant, its just that I think with the innovation in these 80 something skis, they are now so much more versatile for the intended conditions and skiers who were on the 95-105 range skis realized that those "worked: but wanted something a little narrower, less work, easier to work different TR and a little more appropriate.  

 

 

Finn -- or anybody -- I have a mid-80's ski: my Legend Sultan 85.  Just 2-3 years ago it was the favorite of the ski pundits.  Is the Blizzard 8.5ti that much better that it's worth trading up to?  Yes, yes, I know the real answer to this question: get out and demo it!  But, hey, it's only September, still in the 80's here, the Nats have a couple more weeks before they clinch the pennant, etc. 

 

So, has anyone skied both of these skis (the Bliz and the Dyn) in close enough temporal proximity to have an informed opinion?

post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

 

 

Finn -- or anybody -- I have a mid-80's ski: my Legend Sultan 85.  Just 2-3 years ago it was the favorite of the ski pundits.  Is the Blizzard 8.5ti that much better that it's worth trading up to?  Yes, yes, I know the real answer to this question: get out and demo it!  But, hey, it's only September, still in the 80's here, the Nats have a couple more weeks before they clinch the pennant, etc. 

 

So, has anyone skied both of these skis (the Bliz and the Dyn) in close enough temporal proximity to have an informed opinion?

Paging Phil or Jim to the courtesy phone. 

 

(I'm guessing they'll both say "yes" the 8.5 is worth the trade up, having been a fly on the wall during discussion about this ski)

post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

8.5 ti is one of the best skis I have demoed in a long time. Really like that ski. Not a fan of the wider flipcore skis I have tried. Don't like the feel in soft snow, but the narrow 8.5ti is great. I actually liked them better on that windy pow day at mt rose that day than the bone or the gunsmoke I had skied earlier in the day. Maybe I am just twisted. 

And just to confuse everything more, I thought the 8.5ti was really nice as well AND I love the Bodacious. Not shilling for B, but they're making some nice sticks these days.
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Paging Phil or Jim to the courtesy phone. 

 

(I'm guessing they'll both say "yes" the 8.5 is worth the trade up, having been a fly on the wall during discussion about this ski)

 

I sold the Sultan 85 after trying the 8.5ti. I was never in love with the sultans however so if you really love them the you probably have different ideas than I do.

post #37 of 57

I got 3 pair of new skis 2 years ago.  I might think about new skis in 2-3 years unless some major damage happens thus I don't really read ski reviews.....

 

I'll take deep and sustained snowfall for the season thoughicon14.gif

post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Paging Phil or Jim to the courtesy phone. 

 

(I'm guessing they'll both say "yes" the 8.5 is worth the trade up, having been a fly on the wall during discussion about this ski)

 

It comes down to what you want? The Sultan85 is a nice ski, not my favorite but a real nice ski, it is light and lively for a finesse skier, a stronger skier can overpower it pretty quickly. In steps the new Flip Core Magnum 8.5Ti, while the new ski is labeled a "Magnum", it is closer to the feel of a metal infused Bushwacker than the out going Magnum 8.7. The new 8.5 is much more of an all mountain ski than the 8.7was, that was more of a wide carver. What am I saying? The 8.5 is a great versatile ski, more powerful and versatile than the Sultan 85, if that is what you are looking for? go for it, you will be very happy. 

post #39 of 57

Sorry for being late for the dance but Phil nailed it. I don't know how you ski or your likes/dislike (other than long walks on the beach) and the sultan is a good ski, again, I only skied it a few runs and It didn't ring my bell but I know of some who absolutely love it. I want a ski that is more versitile in off-piste dry spells but still retains the strength for groomers. the 8.5 should fill that need.

post #40 of 57

Is there any consensus yet on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Outland 87 compared to the 85Ti? 

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

Is there any consensus yet on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Outland 87 compared to the 85Ti? 

 

I really like the construction and shape of the Outland 87, it is the same construction as the Rossi Experience 88 but the shape in not so turn oriented with a more gradual tip and tail profile. I think so. I think the shortcoming of the Outland87, which I really like as a ski, is the binding system, it is heavy and inefficient, I also question the mount point, it feels too far forward. If you stand the 87 next to it's brothers the 80 and the 80 Pro, you will see that the mount is significantly forward. When i was demoing the ski last season, I fooled the binding by moving it back about 2.5cm and felt the ski skied much better. I would have preferred the ski be offered flat so I could mount the Kiwi Pivot14 which is a better binding and would allow the ski to ski better plus it would look awesome on it. The Magnum 85Ti IS a stronger ski and that is reflected in price point ($749 flat vs. $899 w/ binding). 

post #42 of 57

Phil, I have a question about the 8.7 construction: Rossignol site just says "wood-fiberglass" for the E88. Dynastar website only sez basalt/kevlar for 8.0, seems to indicate variously either all wood or wood/titanal or nothing at all for 8.7 (as with any typical French constructed website, hard to know for sure). But other accounts say same construction as the 8.0. What say you? I ask because I'm a big Kevlar fan, very few modern skis use it. 

 

And we both know you need to just seize the 8.7, show it what a back room drill looks like, and it'll recant. Or you can put down the drill, wring your hands together menacingly, put the Pivot mount diagram over the plate, align, and go do Your Terrible Work. Cackle a bit, it helps make the ski stay steady. Bonus points if you have a small Van der Graaf in the background to spark as you drill, lab coat optional.

post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Phil, I have a question about the 8.7 construction: Rossignol site just says "wood-fiberglass" for the E88. Dynastar website only sez basalt/kevlar for 8.0, seems to indicate variously either all wood or wood/titanal or nothing at all for 8.7 (as with any typical French constructed website, hard to know for sure). But other accounts say same construction as the 8.0. What say you? I ask because I'm a big Kevlar fan, very few modern skis use it. 

 

And we both know you need to just seize the 8.7, show it what a back room drill looks like, and it'll recant. Or you can put down the drill, wring your hands together menacingly, put the Pivot mount diagram over the plate, align, and go do Your Terrible Work. Cackle a bit, it helps make the ski stay steady. Bonus points if you have a small Van der Graaf in the background to spark as you drill, lab coat optional.

 

You mention 8.7 construction, are you referring to the previously mentioned Blizzard Magnum 8.7 or the Outland 87? Regarding the Basalt. both the Outland87 and Experience 88 DO have Basalt, I will have to delve deeper on the Kevlar content. 

 

Don't get me wrong on mounting Kiwi's on the Outland..I am very tempted (as was SierraJim) but I already have some of the PX systems that I took off off the Rossignol 4Sk Replica's that I have no use for. As much as I like having extra bindings around, these are very low on the priority list. 

post #44 of 57

Sorry, meant the Outland 87. Idiot fingers. Far more helpful even without Kevlar info then either company's sites. Yeah, I hear you about excess bindings. IMO it's the extra hardware no one wants more than the remount. So the burning question is why did Look come out with the great Kiwi color that seems like a perfect match to the Outland 87 trim, then not offer same? 

post #45 of 57

My $.02....fat skis are not good skis for old fat guys.  My Dad (6'2", 290 lbs 63 years old) got a set of K2 Coombas a couple years ago...only 102mm under foot I think, and he despises them on hardpack.  Sure it's a proven ski and most of us on here could probably make it work...but most of us aren't 60+ years old and overweight.  I realized after he got them, that it is safer for him to stick to skinnier skis, for the sake of not blowing out his knees and ankles.  Which are weaker than yours and mine.  I've watched him try and stop and just skis turns on them and he skips all over the place out of control.  He doesn't have the strength any more to control them.  And he is ex ski patrol too!

 

I think there is still plenty market for sub 90 mm skis.  In fact my new set for this year is 87.  2 year old Dynastar 6th Sense Distorters I picked up for $175 on ebay.  I'll still be using my 120mm Boomerangs on pow days but thats it.

post #46 of 57

General thoughts............................

 

The Mag 8.5 Ti is an absolutely great ski with a very stable smooth feel and plenty of grip for a western guy when skied in the 181 size. Unlike the prior Mag 8.7, the 174 Mag 8.5 Ti is simply too short.  The Outland 87 is pretty different despite the dimensional similarities. The 178 Outland was more nimble and flexible in turn shape. In fact, I'd say that the Outland has more different turn shapes hiding in it's wallet than most any other ski in this class. However, it is a tad less grippy and stable than the Magnum. I am fairly sensitive to binding position and personally didn't feel that the Outland was much outta whack. OTH, if it were, the system binding makes this very easy to dial into whack. However, I'd also love to see an Outland 87 flat b/c it just begs for that pivot 14. The combo is soooooo GREEN y'know. It is easy to make the case that the Outland is among the most versatile of the crazy 88's and maybe just a little easier going than the Mag 8.5 Ti. 

 

Mary-Ann?.................Ginger?

 

SJ

post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Mary-Ann?.................Ginger?

 

SJ

 

Best threadjack ever; strong move, Jim.  

 

+1 for Mary-Ann popcorn.gif

post #48 of 57

I would argue "fat" is no good for old guys but hey, that's just me

Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

My $.02....fat skis are not good skis for old fat guys.  My Dad (6'2", 290 lbs 63 years old) got a set of K2 Coombas a couple years ago...only 102mm under foot I think, and he despises them on hardpack.  Sure it's a proven ski and most of us on here could probably make it work...but most of us aren't 60+ years old and overweight.  I realized after he got them, that it is safer for him to stick to skinnier skis, for the sake of not blowing out his knees and ankles.  Which are weaker than yours and mine.  I've watched him try and stop and just skis turns on them and he skips all over the place out of control.  He doesn't have the strength any more to control them.  And he is ex ski patrol too!

 

I think there is still plenty market for sub 90 mm skis.  In fact my new set for this year is 87.  2 year old Dynastar 6th Sense Distorters I picked up for $175 on ebay.  I'll still be using my 120mm Boomerangs on pow days but thats it.

post #49 of 57
 
 
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

FWIW, I went to a 8.5ti this season as I feel that for colorado no new, firmer days, the mid 80 ski offers a wide range of performance but is more accurate, quick and easier to ski in those conditions. I don't mind skiing on the Bones (for instance) but a 80 something is less stressful and just easier; in short a better match.  I think the mid 80 is the old 95-98 from the past 2 seasons in terms of being "hot". Its not that those skis are no longer relevant, its just that I think with the innovation in these 80 something skis, they are now so much more versatile for the intended conditions and skiers who were on the 95-105 range skis realized that those "worked: but wanted something a little narrower, less work, easier to work different TR and a little more appropriate.  

 

Nailed it. icon14.gif

 

I also skied the new Blizzard 8.1 and 8.5 and really enjoyed those skis, but I ended up pulling the trigger on a pair of the 2012 Scott Neo skis.  I know the shape well (it's identical to my beloved Scott Crusade) and they added two layers of metal with a narrower waist width of 83mm.  Although I "tried" to make the Crusade a daily driver for me in Colorado, last season's abysmal snowfall left me on mid-70s skis on most days.  I'm thinking that in an average CO snowfall season something between the mid-80s to mid-90s is what would be most called for.

 
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin View Post

 

Best threadjack ever; strong move, Jim.  

 

+1 for Mary-Ann popcorn.gif

 

Why choose? Three way FTW!

 

I mean, y'all know I'm all about the quiver.

post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

I would argue "fat" is no good for old guys but hey, that's just me

 

That's more common knowledge than an argument...but since we live in America...more often than not, old guys are fat.

post #52 of 57

sad..... btw- its wasn't intended to be mean or hurtful

post #53 of 57

I R not hurt?  Thurs just a lot of overweight peoples here.  And Weight + Weak Joints and muscles = no like fat skis

post #54 of 57

ok so this ones a little mean biggrin.gif  lose the weight. 

post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

General thoughts............................

 

 

 

Mary-Ann?.................Ginger?

 

SJ

 

Yo Momma likes Ginger! :)

post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yo Momma View Post

 

Yo Momma likes Ginger! :)


 Nahhhhh.........M/A all the way and twice on Sunday.

 

SJ

post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


 Nahhhhh.........M/A all the way and twice on Sunday.

 

SJ

 

That explains why you are usually off on Sunday. Racing cars? obviously not. 

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 › Underwhelmed by the New Models?