or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for your opinion on what skis I should look at....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for your opinion on what skis I should look at....

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

You guys are never at a loss for opinions, so here we go!

 

I'm looking for a new ski for East coast only. 

Objective
- Ski loose, moveable powder, chop - 2nd, 3rd,4th tracks.  I almost never get out first.  Only had three legit floater days ever in the east; Love it!
- I do about 85% of my days in moderate-angle, slack-country woods or all natural marked trails..
- don't care about groomer performance, I've got skis for that.  
- don't want to get beat up in the woods bumps, prefer some forgiveness.

About Me
- Getting up in years.  Expect to have these into my 60's, which is pretty close.

- I don't have the power to muscle through runs any more.   Working on technical skiing.
- I'm in not-bad shape.  Lots of 4000-footer hiking in the summer.
- Comfortable skiing all trail ratings. 

- The only trail I can't handle these days is Paradise when hard-packed

- I LOVE Jay marked glades.  All of them.

- delighted if i can ski knee-deep.  Don't expect for any more in the east.  With 70's under foot today I just bottom out.
- Mid speed: No more hard charging, except on cruisers, and that's just speed.
- I have some 96 under foot Autuas.  Love that under foot; they are just waaaay too long.  Don't ask.   I'm also concerned that 96 may be too much for east coast skiing.
- I rent when I go out west.
- Would rather have a lighter ski
- I still crank them to DIN 7 and they release when I need them too.

- Love Volkls, but not a Volkl bigot!

5'8", 170 lb

Which sticks should I look at?

Thanks!

 

Bill
 


Edited by billskis - 12/17/12 at 2:16pm
post #2 of 17

Well, based on what you seem to want, I recommend you consider the Blizzard Bushwacker and Nordica Steadfast, 88 and 90mm respectively, both have early rise tip.  You may also want to consider the Elan 888(Apex), Salomon Rocker2 90 and Line Prophet 90.  I haven't skied the Elans or Salomons but I demoed the others last season and bought the Steadfast.  It is lightweight, quick, responsive, great edge grip and just plain fun to ski.  I liked a lot more than the others.  I'm 68, level 7 or 8 I guess, fairly aggressive and ski mostly off-piste - trees, bumps, powder.  The Steadfast is my daily driver.  But, not everybody likes the same thing so try to demo several.  And good luck.

post #3 of 17

I am also an east coast skier, about your age and size (+ 20lbs).  I would also suggest the Bushwacker.  I really liked it when I demo'd it last season.  A couple of other suggestions are Rossi E88 (baby bro to my E98's) and possibly the Volkl Kendo if you don't fid it too stiff.  If you were to ask a Volkl rep they might suggest the RTM84 but I am not completey sold on it though I do know a few who love it.

 

Good luck,

 

Rick G

post #4 of 17

I own both the steadfast and the kendo and I agree with Mtcyclist and rickg!

Both skis are very light but I prefer the performance of the Kendo on the hardpack and icy conditions ( almost a gs ski!). I bought the Steadfast because the only negative point to my kendo is when it snowed a lot ( more than a foot) , they tend to go submarine...So I bought the Steadfast because they are light and have a rocker...

But now, the Kendo too comes with a (much discret) rocker...

Tried the Bushwacker and loved it on new snow but not much in harder conditions...

post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys.  OK that's a good shopping list to start with.  I'll be trolling for demos starting in about two days.

I'm a northeast skier.

 

What does a lightweight ski bring to the table/what is it bad for?  When I'm in the woods, I'm much more mellow, don't really do a lot of fall line skiing.  I also find that stiff skis beat me up in the northeast.

 

I use an older, Volkl ski for my on-piste, GS blaster.  I don't really need another groomer ski with 70s under foot.

 

Thank you gurus, and Happy New Year!

post #6 of 17
A lightweight ski is more responsive, quicker to turn and quicker edge to edge than a heavier ski. Because they're easier to turn, you don't tire as quickly. The downside is that they aren't very good on boilerplate or ice, at least my Steadfasts aren't, they just aren't stiff enough.
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

A lightweight ski is more responsive, quicker to turn and quicker edge to edge than a heavier ski. Because they're easier to turn, you don't tire as quickly. The downside is that they aren't very good on boilerplate or ice, at least my Steadfasts aren't, they just aren't stiff enough.


Sounds like lightweight will be great for me, since I already have a frontside boilerplate pair.  Thanks!

post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 

Well, one more question.  How does a lighter weight ski perform on east coast powder?  Let's say 6-8" of un-groomed new snow.  Thanks again.

post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by billskis View Post

You guys are never at a loss for opinions, so here we go!

 

I'm looking for a new ski for East coast only. 

Objective
- Ski loose, moveable powder, chop - 2nd, 3rd,4th tracks.  I almost never get out first.  Only had three legit floater days ever in the east; Love it!
- I do about 85% of my days in moderate-angle, slack-country woods or all natural marked trails..
- don't care about groomer performance, I've got skis for that.  
- don't want to get beat up in the woods bumps, prefer some forgiveness.

About Me
- Getting up in years.  Expect to have these into my 60's, which is pretty close.

- I don't have the power to muscle through runs any more.   Working on technical skiing.
- I'm in not-bad shape.  Lots of 4000-footer hiking in the summer.
- Comfortable skiing all trail ratings. 

- The only trail I can't handle these days is Paradise when hard-packed

- I LOVE Jay marked glades.  All of them.

- delighted if i can ski knee-deep.  Don't expect for any more in the east.  With 70's under foot today I just bottom out.
 

 

Hey. I could have written almost all of your post and it would have been 90% accurate as applied to me and my needs. I have a hard snow ski. Need a natural terrain ski for when conditions are favorable. Coming off of a Dynastar Sultan 85 that I like very very much, but is on loan to my teenager this season, until he outgrows it. I am also close to your height (I'm 5' 7"), but you do have 30 - 35lbs on me. Finally, I've been doing a lot of east coast soft conditions skiing this winter so far.

 

The E88, Steadfast, and their ilk are very good skis, I'm sure. (I have THREE friends who have chosen the 88 as their one-ski quiver.) Consider, though, that their rocker is quite minimal - hold the Steadfasts base-to-base and you can barely detect it - and that they are fundamentally compromise skis for hard / soft conditions. With this in mind, you really owe it to yourself to try a true rockered ski in a width that will keep you up above all the twigs and what have you in the woods, and that will really buffer the impacts that choppy soft snow throws at you. The Rossi S3 is a good example of this type of ski, that is easy to find and affordable if you look. The Armada TST I ended up on this year seems to be working out very well for me. You can read my review of that ski, and even see a short video clip of me skiing it in the kind of conditions I think we are both talking about.

post #10 of 17

I don't agree that a lightweight ski will generally save you energy. It will, only if it's working well for you. If it is getting bounced around or not holding well you will waste more energy dealing with it. In some cases a damp ski will be more relaxing. If you get a chance, try the Outland 87 and the Rossi E88 with the group you demo.

post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

I don't agree that a lightweight ski will generally save you energy. It will, only if it's working well for you. If it is getting bounced around or not holding well you will waste more energy dealing with it. In some cases a damp ski will be more relaxing. If you get a chance, try the Outland 87 and the Rossi E88 with the group you demo.

 

Davluri, I agree with your point about the lightweight skis. Also agree that the Outland 87 would be a good ski to try.

 

The thing that I'm not quite on board with, that's reflected in your post and also in some of the others above, is the apparent assumption that a ski dedicated to off-piste soft snow conditions should be a ski in the 80 - 90 width range and have at least modest carving chops, just because the poster says he skis in the East. That's an ideal kind of ski for an eastern OSQ, I agree. But the OP is not looking for the one ski to do it all. He wants a dedicated off-piste ski. Read what he says:

 

 

Quote: billskis
Objective
- Ski loose, moveable powder, chop - 2nd, 3rd,4th tracks.  I almost never get out first.  Only had three legit floater days ever in the east; Love it!
- I do about 85% of my days in moderate-angle, slack-country woods or all natural marked trails..
- don't care about groomer performance, I've got skis for that.  
- don't want to get beat up in the woods bumps, prefer some forgiveness.

 

It's entirely possible that he'll like one of those mid-80s compromise skis that several are suggesting, and I agree that he should try them out. But I think it's doing him a disservice not to at least suggest that he try more of a lighthearted "fun-fatty" style ski as well. Personally I suspect such a ski might end up meeting his needs better, especially in the "don't want to get beat up" department.

post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 

Hey guys, OP here.  I'm lovin' this discussion.  I don't have a lot of "midfat" experience, but I do know that I skied some Atua 96's which I loved the 96 underfoot in the east off piste or in chop.  The sad part was that they were demos, far too long for me (186).

 

I'm definitely out to demo lots of your suggestions if I can find them.  While I'll certainly ask the shops their advice on underfoot, it's not clear whether I belong on the 80s or 90s underfoot.  I guess it all depends on the makeup of the ski itself?

 

Thanks!

post #13 of 17
You should be able to find an S3 demo pretty easily. Don't go too short because of your experience with the atuas. Things have progressed since then. 178cm minimum on the S3. If you hate it, it's probably not the right style of ski for you. If you like it, you might want to search out similar models. Also, if you're buying for soft snow, testing on groomers may not tell you what you really need to know. I understand and sympathize with the logistical challenges here; I'm an easterner too. smile.gif
post #14 of 17

i would recommend taking a look at the volkl bridge for your mission as well as maybe the saloman 2012-
 

post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

A lightweight ski is more responsive, quicker to turn and quicker edge to edge than a heavier ski. Because they're easier to turn, you don't tire as quickly. The downside is that they aren't very good on boilerplate or ice, at least my Steadfasts aren't, they just aren't stiff enough.

Maybe your Steadfast but mine have a good edge grip! In fact I was surprised by it! Maybe it's because here in Quebec, we really know ice and boilerplate...biggrin.gif

By the way, I bought mine after reading your review...;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Hey. I could have written almost all of your post and it would have been 90% accurate as applied to me and my needs. I have a hard snow ski. Need a natural terrain ski for when conditions are favorable. Coming off of a Dynastar Sultan 85 that I like very very much, but is on loan to my teenager this season, until he outgrows it. I am also close to your height (I'm 5' 7"), but you do have 30 - 35lbs on me. Finally, I've been doing a lot of east coast soft conditions skiing this winter so far.

 

The E88, Steadfast, and their ilk are very good skis, I'm sure. (I have THREE friends who have chosen the 88 as their one-ski quiver.) Consider, though, that their rocker is quite minimal - hold the Steadfasts base-to-base and you can barely detect it - and that they are fundamentally compromise skis for hard / soft conditions. With this in mind, you really owe it to yourself to try a true rockered ski in a width that will keep you up above all the twigs and what have you in the woods, and that will really buffer the impacts that choppy soft snow throws at you. The Rossi S3 is a good example of this type of ski, that is easy to find and affordable if you look. The Armada TST I ended up on this year seems to be working out very well for me. You can read my review of that ski, and even see a short video clip of me skiing it in the kind of conditions I think we are both talking about.

I would  not say that the rocker of the Steadfast is minimal...And when you ski them in fresh snow (up to 1 foot), you know that they're rocker

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

I don't agree that a lightweight ski will generally save you energy. It will, only if it's working well for you. If it is getting bounced around or not holding well you will waste more energy dealing with it. In some cases a damp ski will be more relaxing. If you get a chance, try the Outland 87 and the Rossi E88 with the group you demo.

I agree! The Steadfast is light and relaxing...The mx88 is a little less light but even more relaxing...

post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

Hey. I could have written almost all of your post and it would have been 90% accurate as applied to me and my needs. I have a hard snow ski. Need a natural terrain ski for when conditions are favorable. Coming off of a Dynastar Sultan 85 that I like very very much, but is on loan to my teenager this season, until he outgrows it. I am also close to your height (I'm 5' 7"), but you do have 30 - 35lbs on me. Finally, I've been doing a lot of east coast soft conditions skiing this winter so far.

 

The E88, Steadfast, and their ilk are very good skis, I'm sure. (I have THREE friends who have chosen the 88 as their one-ski quiver.) Consider, though, that their rocker is quite minimal - hold the Steadfasts base-to-base and you can barely detect it - and that they are fundamentally compromise skis for hard / soft conditions. With this in mind, you really owe it to yourself to try a true rockered ski in a width that will keep you up above all the twigs and what have you in the woods, and that will really buffer the impacts that choppy soft snow throws at you. The Rossi S3 is a good example of this type of ski, that is easy to find and affordable if you look. The Armada TST I ended up on this year seems to be working out very well for me. You can read my review of that ski, and even see a short video clip of me skiing it in the kind of conditions I think we are both talking about.

If you want, I'm selling my Sultan 85 2011 (178)...

post #17 of 17

Lots of great input and recommendations, but may be missing one criteria: 

 

You state you are looking for a long-term ski.  I believe most of the recommendations have construction suggesting shorter life span or, for the rocker, unknown life span.

 

Metal-layered skis, a la Kastle, may serve you much longer.  Even if your initial outlay is a little more, 240 days versus 40 to 60 days will be a greater value in the end.

 

I am not trying to be the expert like so many of those in Epic, but I invite comments on longevity. 

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 › Looking for your opinion on what skis I should look at....