or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing. - Page 6

post #151 of 504

I very much agree with your assessments of the width ranges for the three ski quiver, although I would note that I've chosen to go to the higher end of the listed ranges (with the exception of the powder ski) for skiing in the West & Pacific Northwest.  The following quiver has worked extremely well for me:

 

Firm Snow - Volkl RTM 84 176cm (84mm waist)

Mixed Snow & General Purpose - Ski Logik Ullr's Chariot TT 178cm (101mm waist)

Powder - Rossignol Sickle 186cm (110mm waist)

 

I have found that this quiver works very nicely and that I spend the majority of my time on the Ullr's Chariot TT 178cm (101mm waist) and have found it to be extremely comfortable in all but the firmest snow conditions.  The fact that it has a 101mm waist is tempered by the fact that it is a traditionally cambered ski and as such performs very well in firm, mixed, and moderate powder conditions.

 

In fact, if I were to put together a two ski quiver, I actually think that I would drop the Volkl RTM 84 (84mm waist) and rely on the Ullr's Chariot TT (101mm waist) for my daily driver out west and rely on the Rossignol Sickle (110mm waist), which has gentle tip to tail rocker, for powder days.  I think that the fact that the sickle has continuous tip to tail rocker and isn't cambered underfoot really helps it perform well in the powder despite the fact that it is at the narrow end of the spectrum for a true powder ski by today's standards.

post #152 of 504

I'm curious to know if Dynastar has anything on the horizon for a skier who prefers a tradional race feel in a daily driver.  The Cham or Outback series that I have demo'd aren't even close to what I'm looking for.

 

 I'm currently using the 2011 Legend (Sultan) in a 184 for daily driver and like it a lot, and compliment it with the 2012 Pro Rider 105 in 192. 

 

(They stack up by listed dimensions as follows: Legand Sultan 94 132/94/118 R20; Legend Pro Rider 105 132/105/122 R27. With tip rocker, the 105 has nearly identical contact as the 94). 

 

I'd support Dynastar if they continued to produce the 2012 Pro Rider 105 in limited quantities as a "Legacy" product, and make a matching 88 to go along with it, say something like 128/88/118 R18 with the same energy and charicteristics of the PR105, maybe the same (very tiny) front rocker of the Legand 94.  That would be my perfect 2-ski Quiver!

post #153 of 504
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


I see a lot of women on the women's S7, lengths 168 and 178 (110mm) on a powder day. They are not missing a narrower powder ski from what I hear. I will continue to maintain that for the fat end of a 2 ski quiver, 110 to 120 is ideal if you intend to chase any powder at all with them.


The whole point of this is that the fat end of a 2SQ will be more useful if it is not a "powder ski" but rather is a powder capable ski with more broad range utility. Thus, it will be less ideal than the 110mm ski on the powder day (until at least 10:30) but will be an increasingly better choice from noon to 2:00 to the next day or the day after that. "Chase any powder at all" is a pretty broad statement because the ski that is ideal for 6" of snow is not necessarily the same as the ski that shines in 24" Is 6" really powder? who knows? One thing is for sure.......there are a lot more "small days" than there are "big days" and on "small days", a ski that is wider than the snow is deep is not really an advantage.

 

This is all about priorities as it always is. Those that prioritize the first 2 hours of a big day @ SVUSA may choose a wider ski as one end of their quiver. Of course, they figure out pretty quickly that they are not ideally set up for after lunch on day one let alone the day after or the rest of the week. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 98mm ski and then they are set for the next three-five days or so. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 85mm ski. And then their 75mm carvers a few days later.

 

Those are the folks that reside in the lift line @ KT and similar places. This thread is absolutely not about them. This is about the folks that want 2 skis as a max and place greater priority on the three-five days after the powder day and the days and weeks after that than they do on the first two hours of "Big Wednesday".

 

The point of that little rant is that the KT liftline @ Squaw Valley is not the mainstream ski world. Sometime take a walk down Sunset or Rodeo in LA on a nice summer afternoon. Look around at what you see. That sight bears about as much resemblance to the real world as the KT liftline on a powder day.

 

SJ

post #154 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


Sounds like neither of you was wishing for a 108mm. Hey, I saw you guys. Pretty sure that was Dawg  skiing a line I skied on Slot, 2nd pitch to skier's left. You have a long flexion at the end of high speed turns that are pretty close to the fall line, right?  Ha!  Have some great runs today.

 

Alex, Interesting. I always disliked the Gotama in the worst way. Soft, lousy tail, bindings pull out, structural failures, good for nothing except small pow dumps. So, there it is. And in my entire skiing posse, a group of many different types of skier, no one skis a 105ish for a daily driver.

Yup, that was us!  Look for us tomorrow, I am sure we will be lapping Headwall again if it is turning!  Got to get long/short if I am trying to stay in the fall line around here, gotta bleed that energy from the steep pitch! 

 

Wade was on his MX98's (he loves those skis, they are really feathery with 100+ days on them).  Today I skied the 888; it was just about perfect, but I could have used a ski with a softer tip, especially in the big, fast bumps.  I was actually thinking that a REV 85 or REV 90 would be pretty money for current snow at Squaw.  Nice soft tip for absorbing and redirecting at the bottom of the turn, solid underfoot, fair amount of sidecut for carving out troughs.  

post #155 of 504

To follow up on what Jim said. Part of post-storm powder-chasing, at least where I ski, involves climbing, skidding, traversing, billygoating and just kind of descending through sketchy snow and terrain to access something good. A ski that's only good for powder is NOT what I want on an access descent like that, not unless I'm roped or something. Those "true" powder skis are all-day boards for heli and cat only, in my book (unless you live somewhere where you can ski all day during a storm, which I don't).

post #156 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoezephyr1 View Post

I'm curious to know if Dynastar has anything on the horizon for a skier who prefers a tradional race feel in a daily driver.  The Cham or Outback series that I have demo'd aren't even close to what I'm looking for.

 

 

They do, in the upcoming 'Chrome' series (and a new Course Ti) , but they are under 80mm underfoot. I think is was mentioned here but 85-100mm skis that are fully cambered are getting less and less and in the single digits in offerings. 

post #157 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


The whole point of this is that the fat end of a 2SQ will be more useful if it is not a "powder ski" but rather is a powder capable ski with more broad range utility. Thus, it will be less ideal than the 110mm ski on the powder day (until at least 10:30) but will be an increasingly better choice from noon to 2:00 to the next day or the day after that. "Chase any powder at all" is a pretty broad statement because the ski that is ideal for 6" of snow is not necessarily the same as the ski that shines in 24" Is 6" really powder? who knows? One thing is for sure.......there are a lot more "small days" than there are "big days" and on "small days", a ski that is wider than the snow is deep is not really an advantage.

 

This is all about priorities as it always is. Those that prioritize the first 2 hours of a big day @ SVUSA may choose a wider ski as one end of their quiver. Of course, they figure out pretty quickly that they are not ideally set up for after lunch on day one let alone the day after or the rest of the week. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 98mm ski and then they are set for the next three-five days or so. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 85mm ski. And then their 75mm carvers a few days later.

 

Those are the folks that reside in the lift line @ KT and similar places. This thread is absolutely not about them. This is about the folks that want 2 skis as a max and place greater priority on the three-five days after the powder day and the days and weeks after that than they do on the first two hours of "Big Wednesday".

 

The point of that little rant is that the KT liftline @ Squaw Valley is not the mainstream ski world. Sometime take a walk down Sunset or Rodeo in LA on a nice summer afternoon. Look around at what you see. That sight bears about as much resemblance to the real world as the KT liftline on a powder day.

 

SJ

I agree the 105mm is good for 2 hoursroflmao.gif, then your 98mm is the ski for the first afternoon and roughly the end of the week, and jumping on powder 2" to 10" where ya' find it. So I still see 95mm and 110 - 115mm, and the 105 utterly useless, except of course for that 2 hours after the snow falls, and only if it's less than 12".  I see very little trekking back and forth with a 95mm daily driver. And with several skis like Geisha and Shogun in the class, it's good for the intermediate skier.

 

edit: I see what you're saying about Rodeo Avenue actually. But from that I don't infer the same thing. A 110 or 115 2nd quiver ski at the wide end, is just as much advantage to an intermediate powder skier as an expert powder skier. 


Edited by davluri - 1/24/13 at 7:45am
post #158 of 504

except in places where a 6" storm will provide fresh for a couple of days if the temps hold..... The 105 makes good sense. I do think you have to establish a cut off point as to that line of powder vs. versitile soft tool.   For instance, is 107 a powder tool or a soft snow ski?  Its arbitrary and only relevant to the skier. I kind of use 103-5 as my cut off but of course it depends on more than just width.  

post #159 of 504

It still comes down to where you ski.  I ski at Kicking Horse, and have several skis in my quiver.

 

192 Elan m777 (88)

189 4frnt Turbo (108)

186 4frnt EHP (116)

186 4frnt Renegade (122)

 

I've spent all of three days on the 777s in the last four seasons.  IMO, that's the useless ski in the group.  If it hasn't snowed lately I ski the Turbos.  If I missed the storm, I ski the EHPs.  If it's a pow day, I ski the Renegade.

 

I've also got an SL ski in the closet, but they haven't been skied at all.  Ever.

post #160 of 504

Honestly this thread has come down to squabbling about 7mm. I ski a 105 pretty much almost as a daily driver. The platform just feels good to me. It has a turn radius I enjoy 90% of the time, and it has metal in it. Pretty much everything I was looking for in a daily driver. I'm also 220, and have legs like a tree trunk. I can barely feel the difference that 7mm makes.

 

If a similar ski had been available in 98mm for the price I paid then I would probably be on that.

 

I think with the dialing back of waist widths in pow ski's, we are dialing back on DD's. I think 98 is the hot number from a retailers perspective because 2 digits are less scary to novices and luddites. A good example of this is the Prophet 100 going to a Prophet 98.

 

Though one thing...while we are arguing over 7 mm of difference. There are very few brands that actually measure true on anything.

 

At this point I don't let the number dictate a whole lot in my ski buying. Now I just flop the ski down on the ground and stand on it to see if it is close to what I'm looking for.

post #161 of 504

This is exactly what I mean! 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

except in places where a 6" storm will provide fresh for a couple of days if the temps hold.....

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post

It still comes down to where you ski.  .

post #162 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


The whole point of this is that the fat end of a 2SQ will be more useful if it is not a "powder ski" but rather is a powder capable ski with more broad range utility. Thus, it will be less ideal than the 110mm ski on the powder day (until at least 10:30) but will be an increasingly better choice from noon to 2:00 to the next day or the day after that. "Chase any powder at all" is a pretty broad statement because the ski that is ideal for 6" of snow is not necessarily the same as the ski that shines in 24" Is 6" really powder? who knows? One thing is for sure.......there are a lot more "small days" than there are "big days" and on "small days", a ski that is wider than the snow is deep is not really an advantage.

 

This is all about priorities as it always is. Those that prioritize the first 2 hours of a big day @ SVUSA may choose a wider ski as one end of their quiver. Of course, they figure out pretty quickly that they are not ideally set up for after lunch on day one let alone the day after or the rest of the week. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 98mm ski and then they are set for the next three-five days or so. So then what? Then they troop back to the locker room and get their 85mm ski. And then their 75mm carvers a few days later.

 

Those are the folks that reside in the lift line @ KT and similar places. This thread is absolutely not about them. This is about the folks that want 2 skis as a max and place greater priority on the three-five days after the powder day and the days and weeks after that than they do on the first two hours of "Big Wednesday".

 

The point of that little rant is that the KT liftline @ Squaw Valley is not the mainstream ski world. Sometime take a walk down Sunset or Rodeo in LA on a nice summer afternoon. Look around at what you see. That sight bears about as much resemblance to the real world as the KT liftline on a powder day.

 

SJ


Aha moment: the 2 ski quiver is for:  1) Powder  yahoo.gif   and  2) everything else + daily driver.  IMO, and where I live.  It's really a philosophical question about the value of the pure moment.

post #163 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


I see a lot of women on the women's S7, lengths 168 and 178 (110mm) on a powder day. They are not missing a narrower powder ski from what I hear. I will continue to maintain that for the fat end of a 2 ski quiver, 110 to 120 is ideal if you intend to chase any powder at all with them.

 

sorry we missed you out there Davluri,

 

I saw you heading down toward the saddle w/ a couple sv instructors as we were about to come by and say hi, but we were heading to the west face 2nd alt.

 

I believe I understand your highly opinionated stance, but I have to disagree for me and my wife (115lbs, hated the s7 as much as I hated did)

 

I haven't skied a 110 plus ski i wanted to stay on. too much leverage, too slow, annoying, too lose.

 

for my skiing, and I love and "chase" powder, 98 to 100 mm is great. I honestly believe that us mortals who don't spend hours every day in the gym will come to realize that skis closer to the width of our boot work better and we can hold them up on edge in a variety of conditions much better.

 

110, I had one I liked, but as I skied a 108, I liked it better, then I skied a 105 and I liked that better, go figure.

 

you ski squaw, where the mortals think they need to ski the same skis as the heroes, so reality gets messed up imo. 

 

see you on the hill, haven't been skiing SV as much, teaching a bit at northstar recently.

 

cheers,

holiday

post #164 of 504

first post hi  to all:

 

I am an old West coast Skier 4 quiver  Blizzard Bodacoius 186 for deep snow  Gotama no rocker 181 soft snow  Mx 88 188 for daily driver  no speed limit with these  Atomic beta race .9 170 for hard back.  Thinking getting a pair of Elan 777 in 177 for bumps and tight spaces what does anybody think of that Idea never skiis them?

 

John

post #165 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post

 

sorry we missed you out there Davluri,

 

I saw you heading down toward the saddle w/ a couple sv instructors as we were about to come by and say hi, but we were heading to the west face 2nd alt.

 

I believe I understand your highly opinionated stance, but I have to disagree for me and my wife (115lbs, hated the s7 as much as I hated did)

 

I haven't skied a 110 plus ski i wanted to stay on. too much leverage, too slow, annoying, too lose.

 

for my skiing, and I love and "chase" powder, 98 to 100 mm is great. I honestly believe that us mortals who don't spend hours every day in the gym will come to realize that skis closer to the width of our boot work better and we can hold them up on edge in a variety of conditions much better.

 

110, I had one I liked, but as I skied a 108, I liked it better, then I skied a 105 and I liked that better, go figure.

 

you ski squaw, where the mortals think they need to ski the same skis as the heroes, so reality gets messed up imo. 

 

see you on the hill, haven't been skiing SV as much, teaching a bit at northstar recently.

 

cheers,

holiday

So true and So sad. The responsibility of being emulated weighs heavily upon my soul.  biggrin.gif

 

 

The math on that for me is about 100 days on the 97's and maybe 20 days on the 110's, but they are a good 20 days.

post #166 of 504

I think the biggest difference is not width, it's stiffness and the amount or rocker (especially in the tail).  On those criteria, the 105's are still very different from the 110+ powder skis, although in the past year I am seeing some convergence.  

post #167 of 504

davluri - for all of your contention about the 105 - 108 skis you still haven't answered my question of which recent models you've actually skied besides the Gotama.  What's funny is, I have a 115 ski in my quiver also but at Squaw I'm less likely to bring it out unless it's really going to be deep.  A few weeks ago after about 6" or so the night before I was there with both skis in the back of my car and reached for my 108's specifically because they perform better when things get tracked out after 45 minutes.  Skis in this range are *particularly* suited for a place like Squaw.

post #168 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinVB View Post

I like what I'm reading, lots of great opinions and ideas out there. As far as skis go, It seems there are minimalist's, every snow day covered, and folks somewhere in between for what folks want out there on the hill. As a one ski owner, head im82, I've been really happy with it for years now. If one feels they are missing out on something, they will purchase something to fill that void.

This said, the marketing departments have the better of me and now I'm wanting a 100ish soft snow ski. Lots of choices for sure....but I'm stubborn and will probably wait to hear about the great skis coming out next year...or if the TST goes on sale for $199 this year, them it's a done deal...

Anywho, happy skiing!
Kevin

Stop right there!  If you currently like the Monster 82 (which was my ski for five years in the 183 length), you surely won't like the TST's.  Their stiffness in the middle and tail are fine, their edge grip is fine, but, unlike the Monsters they are totally un-damp, and they have a lot of tip rocker, which you may not like.   (I strongly prefer just a little tip rocker.)

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

How well you are able to ski is related to how hard you are willing to fall.

post #169 of 504

J-t, thanks for asking. I have never skied a 105 to 108, except to demo the despicable Gotama and a few Indies.  I only ski my own skis and have lacked interest in buying anything in the category.  I think I said, agreeing with you, that for every day I get on the 110's, I get 10 to 20 on the 97. I'd just say that the 97mm is fine in powder of all sorts, I just like a powder ski for big days (of which I have had one this year so far).  When I'm not sure how the snow will evolve, I always grab the 97. I have no "contention" about any waist number. I think a 97 is the ultimate crud buster, and that's the hardest condition I ski, so I have a ski for it.

 

We should have a running tally. just post up the ski width you feel would have been ideal for the ski day that just transpired.

today = 97mm    


Edited by davluri - 1/24/13 at 10:22pm
post #170 of 504

For me...If I was going with a 2 ski quiver, a 105ish would be in there, along with a 88ish ski. Three ski, a 80ish, 98 and a 115ish. So much depends on the size of the skier, DavLuri's needs are different from other normal size skiers. 

post #171 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

For me...If I was going with a 2 ski quiver, a 105ish would be in there, along with a 88ish ski. Three ski, a 80ish, 98 and a 115ish. So much depends on the size of the skier, DavLuri's needs are different from other normal size skiers. 

I think the politically correct word there is average.  redface.gif  Scientifically speaking I think the cut off is around 4'10".  And I tower over those dudes.

post #172 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

 

We should have a running tally. just post up the ski width you feel would have been ideal for the ski day that just transpired.

today = 97mm    

Water skis.

But seriously--I was on my 78mm groomer skis today (only went out to test the new boot liners and the Apaches were already in my car) wishing I had brought the Sidestashes (108). But I'm sure a rockered-tip 97 would have been fine.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that the 98's and 105's tend to be similarly built--rockered tip, cambered midsection, and moderately stiff to stiff--although obviously there are exceptions. Seems to me rocker, camber vs reverse camber, and stiffness have more to do with whether  a ski is versatile or powder-specific than does width. Of course you're not going to find a soft, reverse camber 75mm ski or a stiff, fully cambered 115.

post #173 of 504
Thread Starter 

Phil just recapped the 2ski vs. 3 ski layout very nicely. Here is why we tend to think this way. I have lived and skied in Tahoe for 35 years (brief interlude of 4 yrs in Stowe) If I were to characterize average conditions over that period it would be something sorta like this.............

 

  • (1) 10% = Truly deep new snow. (Deep meaning over ~~ 12" or so)
  • (2) 40% = Shallow new, (say 6" or so) or day after, after or after. Total mix including leftovers plus some pretty firm stuff here and there.
  • (3) 50% = The real world of "ain't snowed lately".

 

If we can have three or four or more skis, we can have something that's near perfect for everything. If not, we compromise. Given what we have right now and what we see coming, the more versatile of the 105's can compromise well between # 1 & 2 and the good 88's can compromise nicely between #2 & 3. That's more or less what you want when you take the 2 ski approach. So......for a moment, ignore the models as these are just examples..................

 

What I have now for a 3SQ.

 

Blizz Mag 8.5.......................(85mm - hard snow bias)

Blizz Bonafide......................(98mm ya know this one)

Nordica Helldorado................(113mm mixed/soft bias)

 

IF I were to own just two next year, it might be something like this..........

 

Blizz Brahma........................(88mm mixed/hard bias)

Nordica Vagabond.................(107mm soft/mixed bias)

 

I doubt very seriously that the 2SQ would have me ever staying home b/c I didn't have the poifect ski.

 

 

SJ

post #174 of 504

I keep threatening myself with a one-ski approach. Wonder if I could really pull it off. 

post #175 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Phil just recapped the 2ski vs. 3 ski layout very nicely. Here is why we tend to think this way. I have lived and skied in Tahoe for 35 years (brief interlude of 4 yrs in Stowe) If I were to characterize average conditions over that period it would be something sorta like this.............

 

  • (1) 10% = Truly deep new snow. (Deep meaning over ~~ 12" or so)
  • (2) 40% = Shallow new, (say 6" or so) or day after, after or after. Total mix including leftovers plus some pretty firm stuff here and there.
  • (3) 50% = The real world of "ain't snowed lately".

 

If we can have three or four or more skis, we can have something that's near perfect for everything. If not, we compromise. Given what we have right now and what we see coming, the more versatile of the 105's can compromise well between # 1 & 2 and the good 88's can compromise nicely between #2 & 3. That's more or less what you want when you take the 2 ski approach. So......for a moment, ignore the models as these are just examples..................

 

What I have now for a 3SQ.

 

Blizz Mag 8.5.......................(85mm - hard snow bias)

Blizz Bonafide......................(98mm ya know this one)

Nordica Helldorado................(113mm mixed/soft bias)

 

IF I were to own just two next year, it might be something like this..........

 

Blizz Brahma........................(88mm mixed/hard bias)

Nordica Vagabond.................(107mm soft/mixed bias)

 

I doubt very seriously that the 2SQ would have me ever staying home b/c I didn't have the poifect ski.

 

 

SJ

 

Your two ski quiver looks very similar to what I would have for next year...if I was to have two..just two but since I like those two so much (I am half way there...Willy, if you are reading this, we will be talking wink.gif), they might be embedded in a 5 ski quiver...the best three ski and two ski combination.

 

3-Red

2-Blue

 

Nordica FireArrow 84 (84)

Blizzard Brahma (88)

Blizzard Bonafide (98)

Nordica Vagabond (107)

Blizzard Gunsmoke (113)

 

I wouldn't hesitate adding a pure technical ski like a Dynastar Course Ti either. 

post #176 of 504

Well, setting aside the fact that everyone is trying to defend his/her own quiver, a lot of people I know go with the 3-ski quiver and just omit the hard snow ski.  This is what Davluri does, this is what I do (shameless defense of my own choice), etc.   The problem is that 105s are really a one-ski quiver, that makes a 110+ ski fairly redundant.  I recently met a guy (a very good skier) who told me that he got a Cochise and sold every other ski he owns.  

 

I tend to agree a lot with Davluri's argument on this topic, with a two-ski quiver you compromise all around, with the two wider parts of a three ski quiver you compromise only on the hard snow end, which is an acceptable trade for a lot of people.  I have a suspicion that the proliferation of the 105s has something to do with the success of the Cochise, which may have been a one-off thing.  The thought that the cambered Bonafide was indeed a more sensible ski than the flat-cambered Cochise got drowned in all the awards noise.  Maybe the new 105s won't be so lucky.

 

Anyway, I just posted a review of the Vagabond- a fantastic ski and a great candidate for a one-ski quiver at Squaw.  The problem is that I already have two skis that are arguably better at what they do than the Vagabond.      

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

davluri - for all of your contention about the 105 - 108 skis you still haven't answered my question of which recent models you've actually skied besides the Gotama.  What's funny is, I have a 115 ski in my quiver also but at Squaw I'm less likely to bring it out unless it's really going to be deep.  A few weeks ago after about 6" or so the night before I was there with both skis in the back of my car and reached for my 108's specifically because they perform better when things get tracked out after 45 minutes.  Skis in this range are *particularly* suited for a place like Squaw.

post #177 of 504

This is kinda' out there. If you have a widest ski in the 110 to 120mm range, you have a ski that behaves totally differently than your 97mm daily driver. It skis differently. It has different technical advantages. It makes terrain more accessible. It gives one a range of speeds and turns. You can do weird stuff in deep snow, just for the heck of it. So when you go out on the 120ish, you are going to have a different experience, in terms of how you ski, because of the ski, in a positive sense, not just trying to cope with deep soft snow. 

 

If 105 is your wide ski, you just ski a little higher in soft and cut fresh snow and have a little less problem with it than an 88mm and no other appreciable difference. It's practicality to an extreme.  And I think Alex has something there with the Cochise single handedly driving the class.

 

No coincidence that Jim skied the Gotama and has had luck with the 105's. I disliked the Gotama (after a 1 hr demo) and won't ski the 105'.

 

Example: If you are down to having sex only one out of 10 days, Jim's chart, you still want to have a few candles and some massage oil around. biggrin.gif

post #178 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Well, setting aside the fact that everyone is trying to defend his/her own quiver, a lot of people I know go with the 3-ski quiver and just omit the hard snow ski.  This is what Davluri does, this is what I do (shameless defense of my own choice), etc.   The problem is that 105s are really a one-ski quiver, that makes a 110+ ski fairly redundant.  I recently met a guy (a very good skier) who told me that he got a Cochise and sold every other ski he owns.  

 

I tend to agree a lot with Davluri's argument on this topic, with a two-ski quiver you compromise all around, with the two wider parts of a three ski quiver you compromise only on the hard snow end, which is an acceptable trade for a lot of people.  I have a suspicion that the proliferation of the 105s has something to do with the success of the Cochise, which may have been a one-off thing.  The thought that the cambered Bonafide was indeed a more sensible ski than the flat-cambered Cochise got drowned in all the awards noise.  Maybe the new 105s won't be so lucky.

 

Anyway, I just posted a review of the Vagabond- a fantastic ski and a great candidate for a one-ski quiver at Squaw.  The problem is that I already have two skis that are arguably better at what they do than the Vagabond.      


a 105 making a 110 plus redundant is assuming that they are the same construction, shape, profile etc.

post #179 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


a 105 making a 110 plus redundant is assuming that they are the same construction, shape, profile etc.
But usually they are not, that's the whole point....
post #180 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

And I think Alex has something there with the Cochise single handedly driving the class.

 

And since the Cochise is my 108 ski, that's where I'm coming from.  So perhaps while you are over generalizing this class in one direction, I'm over-generalizing in the other direction as far as versatility is concerned because I like the Cochise on groomers as much or more than the 98-100mm skis I've demoed (the Nordica Enforcer was close, though).  I don't feel like there's a compromise on the firm side because when it gets really firm I'll just use my 88mm ski anyway.  I do agree that when 108 was my widest ski, deeper days left me wanting more, which is why I added a wider ski with a softer flex.  We're really in agreement overall and just quibbling over several mm's in the middle.

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 › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.