Help Me Purchase: Race Skis/Carvers vs. All-Mountain

 

There are a ton of threads about the E88/E98 and Kastle MX88 including gear reviews with pages of comments, questions, etc... 

The site search box is at the top of the page... not trying to be rude at all, but it really will help.

 

How much do you weigh? In the case of the E98, it matters.

There are some nice frontside skis, that cross over for deeper snow. Look at Volkl Code, VWerks,Kendo, Fischer C-line http://www.fischersports.com/en/Alpine/C-LINE/Products. But all the brands have a ski in this group.

Welcome to Epic.   Good questions.   Read existing threads, there's a lot of discussion on these very topics.  Lots of opinions.

 

Race skis are great for racing.   If you're not racing, then you may find a good all-mountain ski will be very satisfying.  The performance on groomers can be excellent.  Not excellent for racing, but excellent enough for groomers and often good for off-piste as well.

 

How wide is wide?   That MX88 may seem really really wide, but everyone who has tried loves loves loves it.   I have tried both the Rossi Experience 88 and 98, preferred the 98 for most of the conditions I encounter. 

 

Rather than buy now, how about wait until you can demo a few pairs and see for yourself.  Nothing anyone can tell you, not a ski shop nor a well-informed Epic member (or even someone who is both), nor an ex-racer with all-mountain skis, will tell you as much as your own experiences when you ski them.

Go for consumer race skis or high level carvers under 75mm.  I have a similar background and have skied MX88s and the like.  MX88s are nice all-around skis but don't come anywhere near my Volkl Speedwall SLs, at least as far as carving goes.  The Volkls are around 68mm under foot.  There are many good options in this category, but ski shops probably won't carry them if they're not selling to the local beer league or Junior Race team.

 

That said, I do live on the East Coast.  In Utah I usually ski something in the 90s unless it hasn't snowed in a while.

 

Any chance you can get 2 pair of skis??

Carving soft groomers can be a little bit dangerous on race skis because you never know how dense the snow is. You're better off on the wider skis.

may be digging some deep trenches but dangerous please, what did we do way back in the day?

Very true Brad!

^^^ this bit here ^^^^

 

We weren't driving deep sidecut skis on soft groomers back in the day. These are hardpack skis. If you sink the waist of a short carver it will fold up, then launch you on your head. Carving ski maybe the first choice for mid-Atlantic skier, last choice for Colorado. The wider waists carve just fine if you can sink an inch or two into the snowpack. Race skis are only needed when edges penetrate millimeters, not inches.

Same thing some of us are still doing, skiing a long radius carving ski when we want to go fast, and learning the hard way that hard turns at high speeds in soft snow don't mix well with modern SL sidecut skis.

 

It depends what skis your looking at. Something like the E88 or E98, the rocker is added to improve the skis versatility, the ease of turn initiation could be said to be just an added bonus. As far as a lack of snap, not really in the E88, the rocker profile is so low, especially in the tail, that once you put it on edge the whole edge is down on the snow.
 

ishaw,

I'm from a race background as well so you're questions make a lot of sense. I'll only speak for the E98, but in general, it skis like a cheater GS ski (and holds very well on hard snow) that is much more versatile with the extra width. Personally, I don't feel the early rise at all, and the 'rise' in the tail is negligible to almost non existent compared to what's generally labelled as 'rocker'... most certainly nowhere near twin. 

Wider (say, up to mid nineties waist width)  moderately rockered skis will still carve, you just give up some  edge grip on the firm snow, and depending on the ski perhaps have to live with a longer turning radius. 

 

Rocker is great for preventing tip dive - those of us who learned to ski on firm stuff instinctually push our weight forward in response to  tricky conditions and this can cause you to go over the handlebars in deeper snow.  I had a pair of Mantras that I could never quite figure out how to keep from tip-diving. For groomed snow, rocker basically just reduces the effective length of the ski.

 

Short answer here is to try before you buy.  Try some variations and see what you think.  The answer for me was a pair of toned down race skis for the hard stuff (Dynastar Course Ti) and a pair of slightly rockered mid fat (85 mm waist Sultan Legends) for softer stuff.  If I lived somewhere that got more deep powder I'd probably go with something wider.

 

Note that both the Sultan and the Mantras that preceded them would carve railroad arcs on groomers as long as it wasn't bullet-proof boilerplate. Something in that vein would probably make a good daily driver for you in Colorado.

A lot of the racers up here go to Precision Ski in Frisco, CO.  I know they rent skis as well, but am not sure what they carry.  

 

Not sure if they are doing it this year, but previously, Breezes has done a season long demo program for a pretty good price (under $200)...I doubt they carry a ton of race skis, but they have multiple locations so it might be worth checking out.

 

In Silverthorne, Virgin Island typically has a pretty good selection of demos, but more of the all-mountain variety than races skis.  They did carry the 4x4 a few years back so hopefully they still have some harder snow carving type skis.

Similar background and we now spend 10 weeks a season in Breck, back home I ski the Volkl RT Speedwal SL but lately been skiing my kendos more and more especially at Breck. Vertical SW, race construction, camber underfoot, slight rocker on tip for more versatility, And easy turn initiation. Very versatile and still carves a nice turn on those soft groomers. I know they have these in numerous demo fleets. Try them I am sure you will love them.

Volkl Tigershark 11ft. 75mm underfoot.  Ice, crud, soft groomers and Northeast powder. They work very well. I use Volkl Gotamas for out west and occasionally here in the Northeast. 

Please please video yourself on a race ski on soft snow. it sounds like fun, Skied many short  carvers in all types of snow, granted wide skis give a much better ride in soft or deep snow but soft groomed snow you do not need to hammer them in each turn just get them on edge and 

I ski in Ontario, and prime condition is hardpack, ice and soft groomers.  I love blasting around on Dynastar Speed Course FIS ski's,  Just ease up on the drive into the turns a little for softer stuff.

 

I'd gladly recommend the Ti version of the ski  (though I have not skied it personally).

 

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

^^^^ This, although I'd add that there are some very nice non-rockered or very mildly front rockered (eg, "early rise) skis that are a bit wider, but will still give you a traditional feel and are fairly quick (obviously not racing ski quicker) edge to edge. Kastle MX78, for instance, would be a perfect "narrow" ski for a strong skier in Colorado IMO. As would the Head Titan, Blizzard 8.1 (last season's, not the new 8.0) or the Stockli XXL. The advantages to going a little wider are that they will handle the unplanned bit of crud, pow, or rough snow better, many skiers prefer a little width for real bumps - as opposed to competitive bump courses - and the skis mentioned still thrive at serious speeds and serious edge angles. 

 

Incidentally, it's interesting to me that the original rationale for rocker didn't emphasize turn initiation, it was to produce a powder "cheater" that could gain a longer running length and stability as it encountered deeper snow, keep a shorter, more maneuverable one when in light pow, and still ride up in crud or chop. So the narrative was about actual soft snow. A few seasons later, the marketing guys realized that what sold was the "easier" turn initiation for skiers who never really figured  out how to carve. And a few seasons after that, the emphasis shifted to how the rocker was "pre-bent," so you could carve groomers without having to worry about bending at higher edge angles. These days I rarely hear about the notion of a rockered ski getting "longer," apparently either not enough skiers are in over 6" of pow to matter. 

 

But SJ speaks the truth about most "marketing rocker." IMO for skis under 90 mm it's almost undetectable as long as they don't mess with the tail. If they do that, I have to kill them...

 

Where in ON do you have enough runway to let a pair of 27m FIS skis really go? Turn-turn-turn, done!

 

Since I ski mostly hard conditions on small hills, my choices for skis these days are Atomic D2 SL's for most days and a Elan 82XTi's for softer days, usually in the spring. The Elan's are still pretty good at carving but not the same stability as the Atomics at speed.

 

Except me.  Although I now know that the 188cm may be a bit of an outlier, and the raves are about the shorter variants.

 

Lots of other input here, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread (although it has been in others) is the role of rocker in three-dimensional (i.e., softer) snow.  

 

A large conventional shovel does not necessarily float.  It will track more emphatically and with more inertia than a smaller conventional shovel, but on its own, the camber will direct its force down, rather than up.  Unless you are moving at sufficient speed and applying sufficient force to decamber the tip -- which is harder to do in 3D snow, which does not exert the same resistance as 2D snow -- you will not experience more float.  That's why, all else being equal, conventionally shaped powder skis are built softer than their firm-snow-biased counterparts, to compensate for the tip-dive tendency.  Of course, that also means that those softer, conventionally shaped powder skis kinda suck on groomers, because they're not stiff enough to hold well (plus, their width compromises edge transitions and reduces efficiency of energy transfer to the edge).

 

I prefer to think of rocker as pre-decambering.  You start with a tip that's already going in the direction you want it to -- up, instead of down.  That means that you can make the whole ski stiffer without compromising float in the soft stuff.  And that stiffness means that, paradoxically, you also get a ski that performs significantly better on the hardpack than a conventional (soft) powder ski.  Not as well as a carver, of course, but a markedly more versatile ski.

 

The original theoretical basis for the whole idea is elucidated by Shane McConkey (RIP) in his classic screed, Mental Floss.  Bear in mind that Shane's thoughts continued to evolve, and his final signature ski combined some sidecut with reverse camber and a pintail.  But it's a great place to start understanding the concept.

Wow, this topic generated lots of responses.

 

I made a transition from old 205 cm slalom racing skis to a 101mm wide, 178 cm all mountain ski, Ullrs Chariot by Ski Logik. I also demo'd about a dozen shaped skis last season. To get right to the point, by the end of the season I bought a new pair of shaped slalom racing skis. I am an East Coast skier and a really big guy, 6'4"  250 lbs. I have to add I really like the 101mm ski, but its not a slalom racing ski and I missed that type of performance. For me, a torsionally stiff ski is a must, otherwise I don't get enough edge grip for carving at a reasonable speed.

 

If you can do two pairs, get a wide one (90-110 mm) and a narrow one (65-75). All of the skis mentioned above are very good. If you want a single pair for everything, knowing what I know now, I would buy one of the top 3 new skis for this year  "the class of the class, the Nordica FireArrow 84 EDT, Blizz M-Power and the Kastle MX83". These three will carve almost like a race ski and will be very good in soft, deeper snow. If your not my size, I think you will love any of these three. For me, I almost need the stiffness of the race ski for skiing on hard pack.

 

The 100mm wide ski eliminates any "snow snake" feeling in crud and mashed potato snow. They just cruise through anything. Its a lot of fun, but different from a race ski that you will make lots of carved turns with. Basically, I have found I ski the wide skis more GS style (wide, less freqent turns) and slalom skis with freqeunt short radius turns (ski the 5 ft edge of the trail with good snow).

 

I demo'd the Kastle RX-12 skis last year and felt they weren't as stiff as a race ski, and not as wide as an all mountain ski. In softer snow they carved well, on ice they had limited grip, but it might have been the ski's tune was limiting the grip. If they were going to be my only ski, I would have gone a little wider. The MX-78 or MX-83 would be good choices. I think the MX-88 gives up a little bit of performance on groomers, although I have not demo'd it, just the impression I got from others.

ZG,

 

Didn't mention I have the 23m version of the FIS 176 length .  Even 27m would be tighter than what I was skiing previous which was about 45 to 50m on 205's  (take a look at my photos white Blizzard RS's), No I'm not going to worry that they don't meet the current reg's. Just enjoying the performance.

 

Usually Blue, skied Mansfield once last season and Glen Eden a few times.  It is a blast to really crack them open and work them when no one is on the hill mid week. I have yet to find the upper limit.

 

If needed I can still get them do tight turns like my old straight ski's. 

 

G

If you are willing to spend the money, Kastle MX78 all the way.  They carve and grip nearly as well as a race ski, and are sooooo much more versatile.  As it has been said, I'm not sure that a race ski is even ideal for you if you are going to be strictly on soft Colorado groomers.  I say you give up the minimal amount of added grip of a race ski and get something that will rail the groomers just like a race ski but that also will be able to do many other things for you (crud, a little bumps, etc.).  Unless you're on Eastern boilerplate at times, I don't see much of a need for a race ski.    

I skied SL's more last year than I had in the previous ten.  But if I only had one pair, it surely wouldn't be a SL.