EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bump and Tree Ski advice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bump and Tree Ski advice

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 

Hello All,

 

I am looking into getting a new pair of skis, with so many options out there I was hoping you guys could give me some advice so I can narrow down the selection of skis to demo. I have read a bunch of the thread with a similar topic and the number of suggestions are overwhelming so I was thinking maybe detailing my specifics might help.

 

I primarily ski at Santa Fe, NM and try to make a trip or two elsewhere each year. I would like a ski that does excels in bumps and trees. I have been working lately on becoming fluid in both these types of terrain. I am learning to ski instruct so the ski must also be able to handle the powder(when it is there) and groomers. I would like it to be twin tipped because I find myself skiing backward on occasion while instructing. I have heard good things about rocker and would definitely be up for trying rockered skis, but any and all suggestions are welcome. I was thinking probably are 95mm under foot give or take. I currently own and ski the Volkl AC30 and Icelantic Nomads.

 

Thanks a bunch guys! If any more information from me would be helpful in recommendations please don't hesitate to ask!

 

beercheer.gif

post #2 of 26

If you bump your width criteria up a few mm's (and let's be honest, a few mm's doesn't make a whole lot of difference difference), there are a metric ton of skis out there that could fit your bill.  I only say that because 98ish seems to be the magic width in the 90's these days, and there are a lot of options out there.

 

Some ideas on a good tree/bump ski from that range?

Rossi S3

Nordica Soul Rider

Fischer Big Stix 98

Dynastar Slicer

Elan 999

Blizzard Kabookie

Rossignol Scimitar

Line Prophet 98

 

Some of those are better than others, depending on your preferences and priorities, and there are others out there... but that's at least a starting point for you.

 

For better advice, you've probably gotta give more information if you can.  Do you like damp, lively, stiff, soft, etc... What are you skiing now, what don't you like about your current skis, what do you like about your current skis, what are you hoping for your new skis to do better?

post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 

First thanks for all the options. Also I have no problem changing the width, just put 95 out as a general ballpark, I would like the skis to get from edge to edge a bit quicker than my nomads.

 

To give more information, I am currently skiing on Volkl AC30s or Icelantic Nomads. I would like something that is softer than these, and I do like them to be lively. When I am skiing bumps/trees I like to make a variety of turns. Hop turns, a little zipper line, so I would like it to be versatile in the types of turns it can make(if that exists).I am hoping for my new skis to make a variety of turns and be lively and playful.

 

Hopefully that Helps, I guess I have never tried to put what I am looking for into words before.

 

Once again let me know if I can provide any more info, and Thank you for the advice.

post #4 of 26
Ok, cool. For lively and playful, a good starting point for you would probably be the first three on the list above. Again, there are other choices out there too, this is just a few ideas.

Oh, if you want to go a little narrower instead, another that I've been reading really good things about is the salomon rocker2 90, but I haven't skied that one myself.
post #5 of 26

Height/weight?

 

Sounds like you might be describing the Head Rock n' Roll, 94 underfoot, twin tip.  Dawgcatching might be speaking your language in post #77 of http://www.epicski.com/t/113945/best-all-terrain-ski-for-bumps

post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 

I am 5'11" 185lbs (low body fat, mostly muscle)
 

post #7 of 26

I ski the Fischer Watea 98 twin tip for bumps/trees/powder and it's everything you're looking for. It's a very lively, maneuverable ski and is also happy doing slightly oversized slalom turns on groomers. I bought the 2010 model on closeout in a 176 for $425 in April 2011 so if there are any around now I imagine they're quite cheap. It's also a very light ski. I ended up putting an AT setup on mine. I bought them as a one-ski-quiver in addition to my race skis and for the most part they have been everything I was looking for. Not as much stability at speed as I would like in the ideal one-ski-quiver but you say you're looking for a bump/tree/pow ski anyway and they're perfect for that.
 

EDIT: just saw your height/weight. You might find them a bit soft/short. I'm 5'10" and 160 lbs. You might also look into the Watea 94. It's a little longer and stiffer. There's also the Watea 101 I believe. The numbers correspond to the waist width, as you might have guessed.

post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin View Post

Height/weight?

Sounds like you might be describing the Head Rock n' Roll, 94 underfoot, twin tip.  Dawgcatching might be speaking your language in post #77 of http://www.epicski.com/t/113945/best-all-terrain-ski-for-bumps

Everything I read says the rock n roll is a great ski, but not sure it fits the lively and playful bill. I haven't skied it, so grain of salt, but I have skied other heads and head traditionally is not light and lively. The reviews I've read of the rock n roll so far don't contradict that. Just my $.02.
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FairToMiddlin View Post

Height/weight?

Sounds like you might be describing the Head Rock n' Roll, 94 underfoot, twin tip.  Dawgcatching might be speaking your language in post #77 of http://www.epicski.com/t/113945/best-all-terrain-ski-for-bumps

Everything I read says the rock n roll is a great ski, but not sure it fits the lively and playful bill. I haven't skied it, so grain of salt, but I have skied other heads and head traditionally is not light and lively. The reviews I've read of the rock n roll so far don't contradict that. Just my $.02.

 

Excellent point.  I own the RnR's big brother, the Inferno (104 underfoot).  For a ski without metal, it is damper than the usual glass genre, but not as damp as, say, my twin sheeted MX88s.  How to recommend the shades of gray, that is the question... th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 

Hmm I guess a few questions for you about how skis are described

 

Dampness- Ability to to absorb vibrations/reduce chatter when you are skiing at speed or perhaps smearing turns to speed check

Lively/Playful - I would describe that as energy to jump out of turns usually a lighter ski

 

Would these descriptions be correct?

 

In terms of stiffness how does that help/Hurt in the bumps as compared to groomers?

 

Thanks again guys, appreciate all the help.

post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeSki View Post

Hmm I guess a few questions for you about how skis are described

 

Dampness- Ability to to absorb vibrations/reduce chatter when you are skiing at speed or perhaps smearing turns to speed check

Lively/Playful - I would describe that as energy to jump out of turns usually a lighter ski

 

Would these descriptions be correct?

 

In terms of stiffness how does that help/Hurt in the bumps as compared to groomers?

 

Thanks again guys, appreciate all the help.

Uh oh, Ive seen this discussion before and it led to all out war with physicists weighing in on the effects of soft flex in bumps causing yadayadayada. Hopefully that wont happen again because it blew my mind and I still dont know the answer. I can just tell you that my Fischer Watea 94s have felt very comfortable in softer bumps but if your talkin icy VW bugs then you may want to check out those Hart skis (phoenix??? or that other one  I cant remember maybe F17). Harts maybe a little thin for tree powder but prolly good for tree packed powder few days after storm type stuff.

post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Uh oh, Ive seen this discussion before and it led to all out war with physicists weighing in on the effects of soft flex in bumps causing yadayadayada.

 

 

I am definitely skiing softer bumps typically, Do you perhaps have a link to that discussion??? (I like physics =P)

 

Also what difference am I going to see between something that is 105 underfoot vs. 98 underfoot.... any?
 

post #13 of 26

Sorry, i looked but cant find exactly which thread the argument was in. It was either in a mogul technique thread or a mogul ski thread so it makes it tough to find. The jist was some people like a stiffer ski and others like a softer flexing ski for bumps. Id say prob somewhere inbetween. I guess alot has to do with how you ski bumps attack or avoid? But... if they are soft bumps with no icy ruts then I think many skis will suffice...  even rockered fatties like the Atomic Automatic!!!!

post #14 of 26
Stiff tails make skiing bumps harder.
post #15 of 26

IME, at your size a 85-100 mm ski is a sweet spot for trees, while 78-85 is nice for a bump ski. Also, you may want a bit more length for trees than you would for bumps. Next, as ^^^^ says, you'll want a fairly progressive tail, ideally with some flip or rise. Stiff or poppy is undesirable. Finally, Taos, SE Colorado tends to get desert mountain snow, meaning dry and light, but spells between storms can mean major ice. So  I'd think about something that's fairly damp. And then teaching, huh? Candidates: Head REV85, Blizzard Bushwacker or 8.5 Ti, Kastle FX94, Dynastar Outland 87.

post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 

I appreciate all the advice guys. I am now going to try to narrow it down to 3 skis that I can go and demo.

 

I am definitely looking for the ski to be between 90-100mm. I would like it to be lively and playful, and fairly soft yet able to hold a decent edge on soft groomers.

Definitely interested in trying rocker on at least one of my demos.

 

Any suggestions on these qualifications are welcome and I will be doing research on the previous suggestions.

 

Thanks again!

post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeSki View Post

I am definitely looking for the ski to be between 90-100mm. I would like it to be lively and playful, and fairly soft yet able to hold a decent edge on soft groomers.

Definitely interested in trying rocker on at least one of my demos.

 

If you want 90-100mm, lively and playful with good edge grip, look at the Nordica Steadfast, 90mm, and the Nordica Hell and Back, 98mm.  Steadfast is my daily driver and it is a great ski.  The Hell and Back is just a wider version of the same ski.

post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 

OK guys an update.

 

So I got a chance to ski some rockered skis today (Fisher Watea, an older model I believe).

 

I am thinking that I would like this new pair of skis to be rockered or at least have and early rise tip and tail( not exactly sure if those are the same or not??) I think they will be a nice complement to my traditionally chambered skis.

 

Slowly but surely narrowing my search. Still looking for lively, playful, fairly soft, rockered and ability to hold a decent edge when necessary.

 

Hopefully this can help narrow my search a bit, so I can get it down to about 3 skis to demo =)

 

Thanks again guys for all the great advice!

post #19 of 26
Which watea, do you know? And what did you think of it? FWIW, just about anything you find in the 90's these days will have a little tip and tail rocker, some more than others.
post #20 of 26
Thread Starter 
They were the ones with the indent in the tip, kida like a boat hull i guess, im pretty sure they only made those one year.

they were the only rockered ski i have ever skied so it was pretty strange at first. They were a bunch of fun in the bumps though. I definitely want to try a couple other rockeds for comparison becuase the feeling was much different than I am used to.
post #21 of 26

Hi, Try the Salomon Rocker2 92. I recently demoed one for 4 days and loved it. It skis shorter so go for a long length. I used the 186cm and was perfect for bumps and all kinds of snow. It held great in harpack also ad slick, steep runs.. 

post #22 of 26

If you truly want a ski that excels at bumps/trees get something a bit shorter than you normally would. Maybe look at some of K2's all mountain stuff, iron maidens etc or find some older k2 public enemies or 1080 foils. Don't buy a supper fatty that's 190 cm long.  

post #23 of 26

The skis you currently own are flawed, IMO, for the mission of skiing Taos NM.  The Icelantics have too much sidecut, making them awkward to smear, which is how you ski most of the time on that kind of mountain, steep technical.  The AC4 is just too stiff in the tail for big, tight bumps.

 

What are your thoughts on your current quiver?  Lacking anywhere specifically?

 

I'd go into a ski shop and handle all the skis that are close to your specs. Look for differences in weight and flex. Your main decision will come down to whether you want a fairly traditional shape, or a current 5-point sidecut rockered ski.  

 

Also, if looking at fairly conventional all mountain skis, look for moderate sidecut, say in the 18m turn radius, and larger. Counter-intuitively, the smaller turn radius (around 15m and less) is not as easy to make smaller radius turns on, especially in tight, technical steeps or bumps. 5-point designs are somewhat different and don't follow this type of formula.

 

Size is critical; on a current model all mountain ski, go about to your forehead, no extra length needed. On a full rocker, same length as your height, roughly. Stability is way over-rated.

 

IMO, don't buy a ski from a company that makes a planky, coarse, chattery, or harsh ski. Not good for desert ice.

 

Last, lively and playful is YOUR responsibility! biggrin.gif

post #24 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuchosPixels View Post

Hi, Try the Salomon Rocker2 92. I recently demoed one for 4 days and loved it. It skis shorter so go for a long length. I used the 186cm and was perfect for bumps and all kinds of snow. It held great in harpack also ad slick, steep runs.. 

ohh another option to look into... so Many! I don't know how anyone chooses these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellykj View Post

If you truly want a ski that excels at bumps/trees get something a bit shorter than you normally would. Maybe look at some of K2's all mountain stuff, iron maidens etc or find some older k2 public enemies or 1080 foils. Don't buy a supper fatty that's 190 cm long.  

I can agree with that for sure, that one thing that is nice about rockers they feel so much shorter in bumps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

The skis you currently own are flawed, IMO, for the mission of skiing Taos NM.  The Icelantics have too much sidecut, making them awkward to smear, which is how you ski most of the time on that kind of mountain, steep technical.  The AC4 is just too stiff in the tail for big, tight bumps.

 

I definitely agree that my current skis are flawed! That is why I am looking for a new pair =).

 

What are your thoughts on your current quiver?  Lacking anywhere specifically?

 

To be honest you basically nailed in on the head in your first paragraph. Icelantics are a bit fat to get from edge to edge quick and awkward to smear, and the AC30s are too stiff.

 

I'd go into a ski shop and handle all the skis that are close to your specs. Look for differences in weight and flex. Your main decision will come down to whether you want a fairly traditional shape, or a current 5-point sidecut rockered ski.  

 

What would be the pros and cons between the traditional shape vs. a 5-point sidecut?

 

Also, if looking at fairly conventional all mountain skis, look for moderate sidecut, say in the 18m turn radius, and larger. Counter-intuitively, the smaller turn radius (around 15m and less) is not as easy to make smaller radius turns on, especially in tight, technical steeps or bumps. 5-point designs are somewhat different and don't follow this type of formula.

 

Size is critical; on a current model all mountain ski, go about to your forehead, no extra length needed. On a full rocker, same length as your height, roughly. Stability is way over-rated.

 

IMO, don't buy a ski from a company that makes a planky, coarse, chattery, or harsh ski. Not good for desert ice.

 

In your opinions which companies would fall into this category?

 

Last, lively and playful is YOUR responsibility! biggrin.gif

 

Hmm I like that!! and have no problem holding up my end of the deal! =)

post #25 of 26

Heck, I'd need a computer to organize all the variables....ah-hah, have one. wish I could run an algorithm. redface.gif every time I think of one model that solves the problem, one of the variables won't fit in.  It's a hard life being a theoretical mathematician/skier guy.

 

Instead of a well researched list I'm just going to fire off an advanced equation: Bump + Tree + teach + Taos = X

When X = no idea whatsoever (at this moment) though that will change.wink.gif

Because all the major brands make a ski that fits, and personal taste is the deciding factor. 

post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeSki View Post

 

 

I am definitely skiing softer bumps typically, Do you perhaps have a link to that discussion??? (I like physics =P)

 

Also what difference am I going to see between something that is 105 underfoot vs. 98 underfoot.... any?
 

Freeski, you may want to consider shoguns- fairly soft skilike most salomons, and it likes soft bumps- I sure have fun on mine in fresh snow!!  I think they are 100 underfoot-good all around ski for just about everything!

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 › Bump and Tree Ski advice