EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › First Fat (fatter) Ski Advice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First Fat (fatter) Ski Advice

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

I am thinking about looking for a fatter more powder oriented ski to go along with my 2010 Dynastar Sultan 85.  I am 5" 11" 185 lbs.  Upper intermediate lower advanced skier.  We take a yearly trip to Aspen along with quite a bit of Midwest skiing.  The width I was thinking of looking for was in that 110 mm range.  I hear so much about the Blizzard Cochise and the Rossi S7's.  I have a few questions.  A lot of the reviews on this width of ski state that many can be a one ski quiver.  For someone that has never skied something this wide nor has ever skied a rockered ski of any sort.  What would someone recommend for a first ski in this class?  What ski in this class would be the most groomer oriented since the majority of my skiing would be here in the Midwest on groomers.  Would love to think I could get it out a little as the Sultans would be the first choice for skiing here in Wisconsin.  Don't want it to just sit until the out west trip.  How much will a rockered ski affect me?  Will it be easier to ski than my Sultan or more difficult? (conditions aside)

 

Thanks,

Brian

post #2 of 27

It seems that a 110 waisted ski would make a poor one ski quiver for Wisconsin.  Most people who advocate a single ski that wide are coming from Utah/Jackson Hole/thePNW. 

 

Overall, your Sultans will probably perform better the vast majority of days in WI.  Easier/harder to ski is a bit difficult to determine as what you're trying to do is important, but it will be harder to ski a fat ski well on hard snow. 

post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 

I am not going to get rid of the Sultans.  They will be the daily driver for Wisco.  Just have heard of people insinuating that some of the 110 mm wasted skis could be a "One Ski Quiver" for some.  Just wondering which ones may be best at the the groomers knowing that they are much more soft snow oriented.
 

post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

I am not going to get rid of the Sultans.  They will be the daily driver for Wisco.  Just have heard of people insinuating that some of the 110 mm wasted skis could be a "One Ski Quiver" for some.  Just wondering which ones may be best at the the groomers knowing that they are much more soft snow oriented.
 

 

In my experience, most people who advocate a 110 ski as a one ski quiver don't really mean that in the same sense that you do.  It's not that the ski handles groomers well enough to be a OSQ, it's that they spend so little time on groomers due to where and how they ski, that they don't put much emphasis on that.

 

Edit: That said, some skis in that range will obviously do better on groomers than others due to shape and rocker profile.  Are they good enough?  That's personal preference.  IMO, regardless of what ski in that range you ended up with, you probably wouldn't pull it out when you're in the midwest except on the very best days.  Although that does depend on where exactly we're talking about since some places do get more snow than others.  But, sounds like that would be your plan anyway based on your last post...

post #5 of 27

Your mention of the Cochise and S7 caught my eye. Aside from both being widish those skis are just about opposites. As the reviews rave, the Cochise is one of the most versatile skis out there in that size range and after spending all last season on mine I would agree. Good on everything except gray boilerplate. S7 is a good ski but not as versatile.  The Cochise would be a great ski for that trip west where you have no idea what you are going to get and you can even use it occasionally at home. Just roll it over and rip. 2 1/2 sheets of metal can't be wrong.

post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

In my experience, most people who advocate a 110 ski as a one ski quiver don't really mean that in the same sense that you do.  It's not that the ski handles groomers well enough to be a OSQ, it's that they spend so little time on groomers due to where and how they ski, that they don't put much emphasis on that.

 

Edit: That said, some skis in that range will obviously do better on groomers than others due to shape and rocker profile.  Are they good enough?  That's personal preference.  IMO, regardless of what ski in that range you ended up with, you probably wouldn't pull it out when you're in the midwest except on the very best days.  Although that does depend on where exactly we're talking about since some places do get more snow than others.  But, sounds like that would be your plan anyway based on your last post...

 

Yes, but I do see you on those 117 wide Concepts pretty regularly these days... wink.gif

post #7 of 27

+1 to what Castle Dave said.

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Yes, but I do see you on those 117 wide Concepts pretty regularly these days... wink.gif

 

Touché. 

 

However, I don't ski in Wisconsin, either. smile.gif

post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

I am not going to get rid of the Sultans.  They will be the daily driver for Wisco.  Just have heard of people insinuating that some of the 110 mm wasted skis could be a "One Ski Quiver" for some.  Just wondering which ones may be best at the the groomers knowing that they are much more soft snow oriented.
 

 

No one buys a 110mm waisted ski because they are good on groomers. If you primarily ski groomers  (and/or bumps) on trips west, I would say just bring the sultans. They are great front side ski "out west" and more than good enough for a few runs through the trees, and off trail in light crud and shallow powder as well. 

 

Going with a 110 "daily driver" makes sense if you spend about 90% of your time off the groomers and are skiing somewhere with lots of ungroomed terrain and lots of snowfall. 


Edited by tromano - 10/8/12 at 12:24pm
post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 

Ok I am not really getting what I had hoped here.  Except for Castle Dave's opinions.  I didn't think I was starting a thread on the philosophies on when to use an 85 mm ski vs. 110 mm ski.  What I was hoping for was brand names, models, and sizes to give some thought to.  As a I stated the Sultans will be the Sconnie ski of choice.  What I was hoping for was suggestions on what, if any, 110 mm skis you may suggest that may sway more toward the groomers than others relatively speaking.  A la Castle Dave and the Cochise suggestion.

 

thanks again for all that have replied.

post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

Ok I am not really getting what I had hoped here.  Except for Castle Dave's opinions.  I didn't think I was starting a thread on the philosophies on when to use an 85 mm ski vs. 110 mm ski.  What I was hoping for was brand names, models, and sizes to give some thought to.  As a I stated the Sultans will be the Sconnie ski of choice.  What I was hoping for was suggestions on what, if any, 110 mm skis you may suggest that may sway more toward the groomers than others relatively speaking.  A la Castle Dave and the Cochise suggestion.

 

thanks again for all that have replied.

 

Are you only interested in skiing groomers on your trip west? 

 

Givne what you asked for so far, Something like a Rossignol RC112,  Dynastar Legend Pro XXL (or the newer 105) or the head supermojo (was im103)  might be interesting to you. 


Edited by tromano - 10/8/12 at 1:31pm
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 

No No...since we don't get the powder experience too often in Wisconsin I am always crossing my finders to some soft snow.  The last trip we made to Aspen we got 13" one night.  Awesome stuff and the Sultans performed admirably, but I always wonder what a more powder oriented ski would have done for me.
 

post #13 of 27

Come on tromano, he wasn't so mean to you that you should trick him into showing up at a Wisconsin hill with the im103.  There could be carnage before he ever got it going fast enough to turn. smile.gif

 

Wiscoskier: I think the confusion is that you talk about a one ski quiver, you talk about using it in WI, and seem to want to prioritize carving performance.  A lot of people are questioning what the advantage of getting a ski to carve when you already have a capable carving ski and would instead suggest that you get something very different to diversify what you have.  Many of the wider skis that carve well like to do so at high speeds (like the ones that Tromano suggested above), and might not be ideal for anyone not wanting to go really fast all the time.

 

That being said, there are some skis that are supposed to have pretty good hard snow performance.  The Nordica Girish at 110 underfoot is supposed to be very versatile and pretty managable though it will charge if you ask it.

post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

No No...since we don't get the powder experience too often in Wisconsin I am always crossing my finders to some soft snow.  The last trip we made to Aspen we got 13" one night.  Awesome stuff and the Sultans performed admirably, but I always wonder what a more powder oriented ski would have done for me.
 


So just to be sure, you are asking for a pair of skis that are designed for powder, but serviceable in groomers just in case you don't get the powder you are hoping for when you are out west? Depends on how many days you get out west, you can always demo, probably a lot cheaper that way.

 

My recommendation is the Salomon Rocker2 (115 or 122), twin rocker, but with traditional camber.

post #15 of 27

Your concerns are versatility and transitioning to a rockered ski. I commented on versatilty and in a nutshell the Cochise is absolutely amazing.

Regarding rocker, in relation to other new design skis the Cochise has a moderate early rise and very moderate tail rise with no camber. The learning curve is zero. This moderate rise also means the entire edge engages when you roll it over and not just under your feet. One warning about the Cochise is you have to be able to actually ski; no back seat allowed. You need to drive the ski and it will reward you. Again- check the reiviews eg http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2011-2012-blizzard-cochise

post #16 of 27

I honestly think you'd much prefer something around 98 / 100mm if you're ever going to use them east of Colorado, and they'll still do great in powder compared to your sultans.  Maybe Blizzard Bonafide or Rossi Experience 98.  On the other hand, if you're looking for a ski really just to be used on trips out west, then you could go wider.

 

To give you perspective, the Cochise is my daily driver for Tahoe, but if I was headed to the midwest or east I'd probably leave them behind and take my Kendo's along (88mm).

post #17 of 27
Thread Starter 

What about the Nordica Unleashed Hell?
 

post #18 of 27
Thread Starter 

Yea I thought about that size range but didn't know if the benefits of +10mm would be worth it.  Maybe that along with the rocker will make it well worth it.  Bonafides would be at the top of the list.
 

post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

What about the Nordica Unleashed Hell?
 

 

I've skied the Patron, which is almost the same ski (at least based on SierraJim's reviews of them).  It's a very nice ski and very well mannered on groomers, for a ski of that width.  Very playful feeling in soft snow.  Probably fits what you're looking for very well.

post #20 of 27

I see you posted up on gregs Bones. To be perfectly honest, these would be great for you.  You are used to a narrower board, they are fairly stiff but are very versatile and really are about the closest thing to a all mountain (actually does almost everything well) ski out there. The bone will serve you well from crunchy AM's to 8" or so of powder to crud to groomers. They are plenty stable too and I think they are pretty good in bumps.   2 others that come to mind are the Rossi 98 and the Hell and back.  the Rossi is more groomer oriented.  my travel skis are bones and a 112RP. they cover everything and if its boiler plate, I'm off for the day. Length-wise, not sure if the 180 or the 187 would be better. I am 6' 167 and ski the 180 but ski the 112 in a 190

 

110 for an everyday ski is certainly doable but I think you have to have a skiing style that goes with that. If you are more race, hard snow oriented, I don't  think you will be happy with a ski that wide for everyday mixed conditions.  98 underfoot with the rockered tip (almost flat tail) will be more than adequate if you were OK with the sultans.  these will provide far more float. 

 

Cheers!


Edited by Finndog - 10/8/12 at 2:05pm
post #21 of 27

Ok, glad we cleared that up. Please ignore my earlier suggestions. Bonafide is a good ski to try, narrower than you wanted, but plenty of all mountain performance out west. 

 

If you want something more powder oriented but still good on groomers, 112RP is a good pick. 

post #22 of 27

Atomic Blog, bought them last year, absolutely amazing. I have skiied them on groomers, you have to be very aggressive and it falls into the category of more doable then enjoyable for long periods of time. No issues whatso ever with floating in powder, I am an East Coast skiier with 1-2 trips a year to Utah or Lake Tahoe where this is the only ski I bring. 

post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 

Re-opening a post from a while back... How would the Line Influence 105 fit in my initial post description? 

post #24 of 27

I thought you bought the Bonafide already?

post #25 of 27
Thread Starter 

Nope...Gone before I could get there. 
 

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiscoskier View Post

Re-opening a post from a while back... How would the Line Influence 105 fit in my initial post description? 

Going back to your initial post, and the fact that you were leaning toward the Bones, I think that the Inf105 would be a pretty good choice.  The Influence doesn't get a lot of love in these parts, but if you like a ski on the more damp side, I think that it is a great choice for what you are asking for (a wider, western ski with hard snow capability that would be usable on occasion in the Midwest).  It rides a lot like a Prophet 100, but it is more stable and damp - although wider it is a better hard pack ski than the P100.  It isn't a "groomer ski" per se, but it is surprisingly good on the groomers.  Really good, in fact.  Whether that is from the metal matrix or the sidewall under foot, I don't know - I am not an engineer.  I does work and it does have a higher speed limit than the P100s.  The Influence also has a more modern feeling ski in 3D conditions with a bit of early rise and slight tail rocker instead of the twin on the P100.  I liked it a lot and I think that it would be a great single ski to bring on a trip to CO.  As the owner of a P100, I thought that it was a great evolution of that concept - pushing the P100 in a direction that I appreciate, more stable, more damp.

 

For comparison, I think that it kind of slots in between the Bonafide and the Cochise.  It has qualities of both.  I also think that length of the ski matters.  I am roughly your size and I demo'd it at 179 - which I thought was the right length for what I would use it for (narrow ski of a two ski quiver in the west).  For me, the 179 was plenty of ski, nimble but sufficiently stable.  At 179, I felt like it was closer in feel and purpose to the Bonafide (180) than the Cochise (185).  I didn't ride 186 in the Influence, so I can't compare, but my guess is that sized up, I think that it might be boring and kind of dead (relative to something like a Cochise (185) or a Cham 107 (184)).  But at 179, the Influence 105 was better, quicker and more precise on groomers than the Cochise.  Overall, I absolutely loved the Cochise (185) lots, and I agree with the consensus that you can "rail it" on groomers as long as it isn't too slick (as Castle Dave says above, "roll it over and rip").  But the Cochise needs room to run to really shine on the groomers - it doesn't go edge to edge with tons of quickness and energy - and it you may run out of room (or get your pass pulled) if you try to really lay it down and open it up in Wisco.  Relative to the Cochise, at 179 the influence 105 felt much narrower than a delta of just 3mm under foot.  It also had way more "pop" than the Cochise - but don't get me wrong, the Influence 105 is far from the most energetic and lively ski on the wall.

 

At your size, stated ability level and intended purpose (take out west, use a bit in softer conditions in the Midwest), I think that 179 is the right length.  186 might be too much ski for that scenario.  179 would give you plenty of float on your trip to Aspen (especially relative to your Sultans) and if you were looking for a dedicated western powder ski, I'd look elsewhere - the new Inf115 or something soft like the S7 would be a better call for that. 

 

I really liked the Influence 105 and would happily own a pair as my daily driver in the PNW.  Dawgcatching has a review of it somewhere on epic that I think sums it up.  The Influence 105 is extremely well rounded.  A jack of all trades, but maybe not as exciting as some of the other skis in the category in any particular dimension.  But it is a really good ski for a skier who likes that feel.  And it capably covers a broad range of use, which is what a ski in this class should do. 

 

Given that it hasn't been loved like some others, and that it is in year 2 of production unchanged, the Influence 105 might be a strong candidate for a late spring closeout score.

post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

I honestly think you'd much prefer something around 98 / 100mm if you're ever going to use them east of Colorado, and they'll still do great in powder compared to your sultans.  Maybe Blizzard Bonafide or Rossi Experience 98.  On the other hand, if you're looking for a ski really just to be used on trips out west, then you could go wider.

 

To give you perspective, the Cochise is my daily driver for Tahoe, but if I was headed to the midwest or east I'd probably leave them behind and take my Kendo's along (88mm).

If I were taking a trip back east I'd take my ice skates or my golf clubs, not my skis. 

Another ski to consider would be the K2 Sidestash--handles groomers quite well. Still, if you're really set on using the ski occasionally in Wisconsin, I'd agree with the folks who are recommending something in the high 90's underfoot--like the Bonafide (which I haven't skied). In general a versatile wide ski will have rockered tip, some traditional camber under foot, and probably a non rockered tail. The will often be marketed as big mountain skis--implying that they can handle all kinds of snow and high speed. As opposed to a 'Powder" ski, which will often be softer and fully rockered. And while the perfect one ski quiver does not and never will exist, a wide ski with camber underfoot will generally be a lot more versatile than a stiff carver.  

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 › First Fat (fatter) Ski Advice