EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help with all mountain/freeski/big mountain ski choice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help with all mountain/freeski/big mountain ski choice

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

Let me first say i am an Advanced/Expert skier who lives on the East Coast but takes frequent trips out west. I like the trees and ungroomed/off piste the most when west but still need to be able to carve when in the east on the groomers. If there is ever a huge dump of snow I'm gonna rent real wide skis so I dont want to worry about being able to ski in 5+ feet of snow. I am 5' 7' and 145 lbs and an aggressive skier.

 

I'm looking for a one quiver ski that can do basically everything that leans toward powder first then carving but useable in the park for when I'm feeling it. I've been using the Line Mastermind which I find a little too thin and park oriented, not able to carve on groomers and unable to float in powder.I originally thought of the Line Prophet 90 but am not sure if it is too stiff. The same problem is felt with the Volkl Bridge. The Armada ARV also seems to be too park oriented as with the Line Blend. So I'm stuck between a bunch of skis and would appreciate some input.  Thanks

 

And if there are any other skis I should look into that would be great

post #2 of 23

Welcome to Epic.  Are you looking for a twin tip?  If not there are several skis that I think might work for you.  I'm your height and weight and ski pretty much what you do, except the park, and I bought a pair of Nordica Steadfasts last year to be my daily driver and it is a great ski.  But, if you definitely want a twin tip, the Steadfast isn't your ski.

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 

yea im looking for a twin tip for its playfulness and versatility and stuff

post #4 of 23

You might want to consider either the Nordica Soul Rider(97mm) or El Paco(87mm).  I'll see if I can get Finndog in here since he has the Soul Rider. 

post #5 of 23

Welcome to EpicSki!  You might some useful ideas in this thread:

http://www.epicski.com/t/114958/purchasing-my-first-set-of-skis-twin-tip-need-advice

 

Look at the right column next to Post #1 for tags to info about relevant skis.

 

Have fun shopping!

post #6 of 23

In the West, there is no way a 80-90 something waist ski would be considered a good powder ski anymore.  My narrowest ski is 97 underfoot, my widest is over 125 underfoot.  If you want a good powder ski don't waste your money on a park ski with more or less powder performance.  Go with at least 100 mm underfoot, and look at a 'funshape' ski with tip rocker and some tail rocker (mimicking that twin feel), and go at least 10 cm longer than your current park skis.  Some obvious choices that still do decent on carving groomers that I have skied personally include the RMU Apostle, Armada JJ, Moment Night Train, etc.  Almost every ski manufacturer is making something like this now, I prefer to give my money to the little guys.  Seriously though, don't kid yourself, any 90 something waist twin tip is going to be worthless in powder compared to any rockered ski over 100 mm.  

post #7 of 23

The P-90 and Volkl Bridge are not exceptionally stiff skis but I would suggest something wider. In Tahoe, we tend to sell skis in the 95-105mm width range as daily drivers and skis in the 110 + range as being a little more specialized toward deeper snow. For example, I've lived and skied here in Tahoe for 35 years, I own a "powder" ski that is 113mm wide but the ski that lives in my car is a 98mm. It could easily be a little (+ or -) of that but it's more about the ski itself than a small width difference.

 

Given that you want a twin and you are light, I'd suggest the Line P-98, the Armada TST, or the Icelantic Nomad RKR. All are directional (all mountain) skis but with enough of a twin tail "kicktail" to be useful for switch landings.

 

SJ

post #8 of 23

Jim, its so bizarre to see you type the words Icelantic biggrin.gif  although, they are a good, fun ski. The RKR is 110 underfoot for clarification; not the 105 as listed unless they have changed the mold.

 

I am a little perplexed as to what you really want the core competency of this ski to excel in? 

 

So:

 

if you want a ski that will be more fun, less serious, decent float, good in soft snow still able to take in the park (but not a park ski) and not a whale on the groomed; in no specific order: my personal choices would be in the 98-105ish width

 

Soul rider (97)

TST

S3

Sickle

Ritual

Alibi

PB&J

Bridge

Fujas (this very well might be the best overall balance with a nod to the park)

post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post


if you want a ski that will be more fun, less serious, decent float, good in soft snow still able to take in the park (but not a park ski) and not a whale on the groomed; in no specific order: my personal choices would be in the 98-105ish width

 

Soul rider (97)

TST

S3

Sickle

Ritual

Alibi

PB&J

Bridge

Fujas (this very well might be the best overall balance with a nod to the park)


I second the S3 and the K2 Kung Fujas for your size and wants (playful, versatile).

Also consider Line Sir Francis Bacons (on the wider side, 108 waist I think).

I think that 95-105 range, give or take, is your target zone for waist width.

FWIW I'm similar to you - light weight, live east but ski west often, ski a bit of everything, like the play and versatility of mid-fat twins / freeride skis. I use Scott Dozer (11/12 model) and I love it. Heard this year's (12/13) is changed a bit, and not as good. But I love last years. For what you describe as your size, style and wants, I think you'd be happy with it also.

post #10 of 23

Read this: http://www.epicski.com/a/powder-skis-and-skier-size

 

90-100 mm should be plenty of width for a 145 pounder, even in powder.  My experience agrees with physicsman's article.  I also weigh 145 lbs. 

 

A couple of years ago I was at the top of a steep run with 16" fresh on top of dirt when the patrol dropped the rope.  I barely touched the bottom once or twice while my 2 buddies were constantly bouncing off the dirt.  We all had skis in the low to mid 90s.  One of the best runs of my life.  Finally an advantage to being small.

 

My needs (except park) are similar to yours and I bought Kastle FX 94s.  Haven't skied them yet.

post #11 of 23

...although he doesn't need more for moderate powder. I wish Epic would take that article down; its so past relevancy.  Take a 90mm ski into 6" and what happens?  Not the same with a 98 ski with some tip/tail rocker; result, the same result as when you were in the 16". big difference. The calculater only give you one side of the story.  You are not giving up anything by skiing the 98mm ski in soft snow but only gaining.  On the other side of the story (deeper powder) take a 145# guy and put him on a 110 ski in deep powder and you get an even more floaty, easy feel. Unless of course you prefer to be down in the snow and have to work the ski more. There are still some that prefer that and there's nothing wrong with it. 

post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the help i didnt realize these wider skis would still work on the groomers. thanks

post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoser565 View Post

Thanks for all the help i didnt realize these wider skis would still work on the groomers. thanks

 

I guarantee they do.  I skied almost an entire season, including teaching, on Icelantic Shamans, 110mm waist, traditional camber twin tip.  I can carve trenches with those babies on the groomers and the rebound coming out of a high speed turn is substantial.  I used them for everything, including bumps.

post #14 of 23

What mtcyclist said, and yes, not only work but rip!  icon14.gif  with the caveat that in the end you should ski what you are most comfortable with.  You may find that a 98-105 ski works or may prefer a less floaty 88-90 ski. In that range the Blizzard Bushwacker, Kendo are 2 great options. Even a Icellantic Pilgrim too! (90) 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoser565 View Post

Thanks for all the help i didnt realize these wider skis would still work on the groomers. thanks

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

 

I guarantee they do.  I skied almost an entire season, including teaching, on Icelantic Shamans, 110mm waist, traditional camber twin tip.  I can carve trenches with those babies on the groomers and the rebound coming out of a high speed turn is substantial.  I used them for everything, including bumps.

post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

Read this: http://www.epicski.com/a/powder-skis-and-skier-size

 

90-100 mm should be plenty of width for a 145 pounder, even in powder.  My experience agrees with physicsman's article.  I also weigh 145 lbs. 

 

Hmmm..... I found that article incredibly stupid. I'm 5'7 and 150 pounds and really enjoy my 188 cm 125mm in any kind of deep snow in any kind of terrain. Much more than my 100mm, 94mm and 65 mm waisted skis. Of course I've never experienced how it  feels to be a 6'4 300 pound skier, but I don't think small people have a larger disadvantage on wider skis than taller heavier people, so why should you choose to ski a 65 mm ski in powder just because you are small and light????

post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smear View Post

Hmmm..... I found that article incredibly stupid. I'm 5'7 and 150 pounds and really enjoy my 188 cm 125mm in any kind of deep snow in any kind of terrain. Much more than my 100mm, 94mm and 65 mm waisted skis. Of course I've never experienced how it  feels to be a 6'4 300 pound skier, but I don't think small people have a larger disadvantage on wider skis than taller heavier people, so why should you choose to ski a 65 mm ski in powder just because you are small and light????

your response was well-delivered, cogent, and intelligent, we welcome you.

post #17 of 23

Well, if I had to choose only width of skis for mostly offpiste in all conditions but also sometimes on piste, then I do agree that around 90-100 mm is a good compromise.
 

post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smear View Post

I'm 5'7 and 150 pounds and really enjoy my 188 cm 125mm in any kind of deep snow in any kind of terrain. Much more than my 100mm, 94mm and 65 mm waisted skis. Of course I've never experienced how it  feels to be a 6'4 300 pound skier, but I don't think small people have a larger disadvantage on wider skis than taller heavier people, so why should you choose to ski a 65 mm ski in powder just because you are small and light????

 

I suggested he consider the 90-100 mm range.  Didn't say anything about skiing 65s in powder.  I totally agree with your last sentence. 

 

While small people may not have a bigger disadvantage on fatter skis, smaller people are lucky in that they get more float in the 90-100 range than the 6'4 300 pounder will.  And the beautiful thing is that the 90-100 ski will be more versatile and hard snow friendly than a 110 or 125.  And the OP does want something "all-mountain" that can carve so he may be very well be happiest in the 90-100 range.  I'm his weight and that's been my experience.  Might as well get input from both sides of the width debate.


Edited by hirustler - 11/16/12 at 11:06am
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smear View Post

Hmmm..... I found that article incredibly stupid. I'm 5'7 and 150 pounds and really enjoy my 188 cm 125mm in any kind of deep snow in any kind of terrain. Much more than my 100mm, 94mm and 65 mm waisted skis. Of course I've never experienced how it  feels to be a 6'4 300 pound skier, but I don't think small people have a larger disadvantage on wider skis than taller heavier people, so why should you choose to ski a 65 mm ski in powder just because you are small and light????

 

Indeed, Which is why epic should archive and stop linking to it (it was linked on the front page last week). Gahhh!!!

post #20 of 23

yep, as I posted in #11, its past i's relevancy. It's a nice article that belongs in the Epic Museum so people can say "remember when"  

post #21 of 23
Kung Fujas all day for what u are talking about...versatile, buttery, semi-wide, twin tip...exactly what u are wanting no?
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hirustler View Post

Read this: http://www.epicski.com/a/powder-skis-and-skier-size

 

90-100 mm should be plenty of width for a 145 pounder, even in powder.  My experience agrees with physicsman's article.  I also weigh 145 lbs. 

 

A couple of years ago I was at the top of a steep run with 16" fresh on top of dirt when the patrol dropped the rope.  I barely touched the bottom once or twice while my 2 buddies were constantly bouncing off the dirt.  We all had skis in the low to mid 90s.  One of the best runs of my life.  Finally an advantage to being small.

 

My needs (except park) are similar to yours and I bought Kastle FX 94s.  Haven't skied them yet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

...although he doesn't need more for moderate powder. I wish Epic would take that article down; its so past relevancy.  Take a 90mm ski into 6" and what happens?  Not the same with a 98 ski with some tip/tail rocker; result, the same result as when you were in the 16". big difference. The calculater only give you one side of the story.  You are not giving up anything by skiing the 98mm ski in soft snow but only gaining.  On the other side of the story (deeper powder) take a 145# guy and put him on a 110 ski in deep powder and you get an even more floaty, easy feel. Unless of course you prefer to be down in the snow and have to work the ski more. There are still some that prefer that and there's nothing wrong with it. 

OMG I haven't seen that article in a while.  

That puts me somewhere between a 58mm and 68mm waisted ski for powder.  

eek.gif

post #23 of 23

The article in question is excerpted from a discussion in 2006. It may not be up-to-date, but as far as I know, the laws of physics have not changed although there's no doubt that technology has. I'd love for someone as qualified as Physicsman write an update to the article, but I rather doubt anyone can refute what he has written regarding the physics.  

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 › Help with all mountain/freeski/big mountain ski choice