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 7

post #181 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

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.


true, great, can we have make-up sex now?   roflmao.gif

post #182 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

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.

 I'd agree, however, with the caveat that, unless you really know how to find untracked powder for a day or two, you really only get to enjoy that experience for the first couple hours on a powder day. Hence my thoughts that in a 2-ski quiver, a 105ish makes more sense (unless you don't mind switching skis).

post #183 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

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.

 

Having already said that I think a lot of skiers over-buy powder/deep snow skis in the misguided notion they will/do ski LOTS of powder.... I will nonetheless endorse davluri here. 

 

It may be about a lot more than width.  If you want to, or do, ski the deep about the same way you ski the non-deep, then a slightly narrower (let's say 105) ski might well make sense and be fine.  Certainly, realistically you don't give up much float in 10mm.  But it would seem that some of the dedicated big boys actually ski in different ways and afford different experiences.  And that right there might make them a legitimate purchase for someone who has the opportunity to use them and values those experiences. 

post #184 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl View Post

 I'd agree, however, with the caveat that, unless you really know how to find untracked powder for a day or two, you really only get to enjoy that experience for the first couple hours on a powder day. Hence my thoughts that in a 2-ski quiver, a 105ish makes more sense (unless you don't mind switching skis).


OK, true. I usually do switch skis on a powder day, like on a bluebird day, to ride the 97's in the partial skier pack of the afternoon.

If it's snowing hard all day, I'm skiing the 110's all day.

 

Thing is, some of the 5 point rocker designs are excellent in breakable crust and heavy crud as well as powder.

post #185 of 504

Some very interesting stuff (though I skipped over a few pages in the middle there.)  This could be relevant for me next season if the fiancee and I end up spending some time out West.

 

It sounds like people are sort of describing five broad types of skis:

 

<80mm -- hard snow specialty

80-90mm -- versatile with hard snow bias

90-100mm -- "all-mountain", at least for big mountains

100-110mm -- versatile with soft snow bias

>110mm -- soft snow specialty

 

(With some squishiness around the edges of those categories -- a very soft 98mm might really be more of a powder ski if it's totally useless on groomers, for instance.)

 

For a two-ski quiver in the West, you probably don't want a hard snow specialty ski.  So if you picked two, you'd probably end up with either:

 

  • an 80-90mm and a 100-110mm, and pick one for the day based on conditions (or switch halfway)
  • a 90-100mm "daily driver" and a >110mm that you only pull out on powder days

 

Otherwise you have too much overlap.

post #186 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


true, great, can we have make-up sex now?   roflmao.gif

 I'll donate the ptex candles

post #187 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

It sounds like people are sort of describing five broad types of skis:

<80mm -- hard snow specialty
80-90mm -- versatile with hard snow bias
90-100mm -- "all-mountain", at least for big mountains
100-110mm -- versatile with soft snow bias
>110mm -- soft snow specialty

(With some squishiness around the edges of those categories -- a very soft 98mm might really be more of a powder ski if it's totally useless on groomers, for instance.)

For a two-ski quiver in the West, you probably don't want a hard snow specialty ski.  So if you picked two, you'd probably end up with either:
  • an 80-90mm and a 100-110mm, and pick one for the day based on conditions (or switch halfway)
  • a 90-100mm "daily driver" and a >110mm that you only pull out on powder days

Pretty good synopsis about how I feel. However, you left one combination out (mine). If you tend to do backcountry or sidecountry or have a lot of stashes for days after the storm then I prefer an 80-90 and a 110+.
post #188 of 504

A search proves that true, perhaps the Kastle Mx88 188 & BMx 108 188 done! 

 

Back to Dynastar, they could build the Speed Course ti construction in a 88 to match a 18m sidecut without the plate and have a match to the Mx88. Gonna come down to some demo's this spring...

post #189 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoezephyr1 View Post

A search proves that true, perhaps the Kastle Mx88 188 & BMx 108 188 done! 

 

Back to Dynastar, they could build the Speed Course ti construction in a 88 to match a 18m sidecut without the plate and have a match to the Mx88. Gonna come down to some demo's this spring...

 

Oooh. I like that idea. A lot. They'd have to thin it down slightly to take into account the fact that a wider Course Ti would otherwise probably be a stiffer Course Ti, just because there's more material to bend. But I get what you're saying and I agree. (Said the guy whose Sultans have been appropriated by his teen.)

post #190 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


true, great, can we have make-up sex now?   roflmao.gif

Be sure to wax first.......wink.gif
post #191 of 504

Should I own 5 or ten pairs of skis?  What's the consensus!

post #192 of 504

as many as you want and enjoy skiing; I can own and use 4 pairs for sure.

post #193 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.      

I saw a lot of Cochise's at Squaw last week, and yeah, it was really firm snow.  My feeling is that most of those skiers probably only have one ski, they can make that ski work in whatever condition they ski it in, same as me.  Some of them were good skiers, some mediocre, but all skilled enough not to slide down Oly Lady on their butt.   With that said, I am pickier, and want at least a reasonably good ski for the job at hand, not something merely adequate.   I wouldn't have preferred to make my Scouts (Cochise w/o metal) work in those conditions. Sure, I have the strength and skill to get them up onto edge, but on that steep hardpack, navigating small bumps, riding a 108mm ski that is fairly stiffish with a pretty big rockered tip (lacking feedback), there are much, much better tools for the job.  At no point is a ski that big going to be a decent bump ski, and it takes more strength and skill to get the edge angle to hold on the steeps over a narrower ski.   Something in the 80's, not too aggressive, not too much sidecut, not too stiff in the tail, something comfortable in the fall line with a big sweet spot is ideal (like an Elan 888).  Something in the 90's with the same characteristics also gets the job done here (FX94, Rock n' Roll would be 2 candidates).  So, while I can understand the rationale behind having a ski like that as a person's only ski, for me at least, a quiver is much more rewarding.  I don't like to work too hard! 

post #194 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post


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.      
And I can pick a thee ski quiver that is better than your two ski one and a four that is better than a three... If I was to pick one ski for squaw (or alpine)I would say the Vagabond would be a consideration for me, if I was over 6', it would be a top contender. There was a time when a 98 wide ski was a powder ski (hell
, the Volkl snow ranger was 78 and THAT was a powder ski) and now it is a main ski for me at 5'10" 190' so why wouldn't a 107 be a daily driver for someone 6' 200?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

I saw a lot of Cochise's at Squaw last week, and yeah, it was really firm snow.  My feeling is that most of those skiers probably only have one ski, they can make that ski work in whatever condition they ski it in, same as me.  Some of them were good skiers, some mediocre, but all skilled enough not to slide down Oly Lady on their butt.   With that said, I am pickier, and want at least a reasonably good ski for the job at hand, not something merely adequate.   I wouldn't have preferred to make my Scouts (Cochise w/o metal) work in those conditions. Sure, I have the strength and skill to get them up onto edge, but on that steep hardpack, navigating small bumps, riding a 108mm ski that is fairly stiffish with a pretty big rockered tip (lacking feedback), there are much, much better tools for the job.  At no point is a ski that big going to be a decent bump ski, and it takes more strength and skill to get the edge angle to hold on the steeps over a narrower ski.   Something in the 80's, not too aggressive, not too much sidecut, not too stiff in the tail, something comfortable in the fall line with a big sweet spot is ideal (like an Elan 888).  Something in the 90's with the same characteristics also gets the job done here (FX94, Rock n' Roll would be 2 candidates).  So, while I can understand the rationale behind having a ski like that as a person's only ski, for me at least, a quiver is much more rewarding.  I don't like to work too hard! 
I think we agree, we like camber in a ski, right? After being out in the firm conditions the latter part of this week, yes we get firm conditions in Tahoe, I cannot see how or WHY anyone would want to be on a zero or reverse camber 105++ ski, they are work, they are not fun and quite frankly can be dangerous in these conditions.
post #195 of 504
Thread Starter 

As I stated in post #1, more skis are always better than less as long as they have sufficiently different characteristics in order to facilitate different conditions. However, not everyone is either tempermentally or financially inclined to acquire or manage a large quiver. So, when two skis seems about the max that one can manage, decisions need to be made about priorities.

Regardless of the choice at either end, you will accept compromises. As always that priority thing comes down to asking oneself questions like the following..............

 

Narrow end: Do you really want a "technical" ski vs a versatile one? Ie: Head Titan vs Nordica Steadfast? for example.

  • How many days do I see firm or hard snow a year?
  • What kind of feeling do I want on those conditions (do I want to manage the conditions or "ace" them?)
  • How competently can I ski 6" of snow? (do I really need "help" in those conditions)

 

Wide end: Do you want a "powder" ski vs a more versatile but still powder capable one? Ie: Rossi S7 vs Atomic Ritual for example.

  • How many days/season do I realistically expect to see more than say 12" of new snow.
  • How long does that snow depth tend to last on any given day before there isn't a fresh turn left on the hill?
  • How difficult is powder skiing for me anyway?
  • How many days after the storm do I want my wide ski to be a useful or maybe even optimal choice?

 

Naturally the choices of ski models are interrelated and each position of the 2SQ should be carefully considered against the other.

 

SJ

post #196 of 504

^^^^ Reality is, most resorts don't get more 6" at one storm most of the time. And outside of a handful of far west resorts I'd guess the mean fresh snowfall is closer to 3". (Not daily average, but actual overnight snowfall when it falls at all.) So disregarding marketing push toward fatter and fatter skis as cool, a great deal of the "powder ski" enthusiasm is not about needing float, it's about wanting to ride over light chop and crud the next day, rather than cut through it. Which in turn may be more a statement about average edge angles, leg strength, and balance than about specific skis. So I'd argue that there are two populations (at least) that comprise the two approaches to this 3" of new snow.

 

1) The lower edge angle devotes of a high 80's GS cut primary ski that sees a lot of duty on hardpack, not its optimal surface, and a 110+ "powder" ski that gets used to smush chop and heavy crud and everything "soft," regardless of depth. Which is usually minimal. Yesterday I saw a bunch of 110+ rockered skis on 1-2" of new snow. rolleyes.gif Almost speaks of desperation; "Hey new snow, I gotta use these bad boys." OTOH, those bad boys make crud or settled wet snow in trees feel like corduroy. So....

 

2) The higher edge angle devotes of a mid to high 70's SL/GS hybrid ski that sees that same duty on most lift served, and a high 90's to low 100's "sidebounds" ski that is aimed at all soft snow, most of it found in trees or by hiking. OTOH, when they must confront an actual dump, there's a lot of porpoising going on and breaks for early lunch with 20 oz coffees...

 

Point being, without channeling Bob Peters eek.gif, IMO people tend to clamor for skis that are on average too wide by 15 mm or so for the actual average snow conditions, and perhaps with the wrong flex pattern, given that climate change is producing more variability, more likelihood of storms followed by thaws, more "difficult" and quickly changing snow that asks for stiffer fronts, if not tails, even within the same day. 

 

I wonder if the move toward lower, milder rocker also reflects this tension between what we want to buy when we see hero films of Valdez, vs. what our local mountain looks like. It may also be behind the 90-something mm craze; IMO that's a nice compromise width band that can handle lower to moderate angle carving but also has enough float to navigate light fresh in trees and crud. Below that and float's a casualty, above that and carving makes the knees do a "no mas..."

post #197 of 504

Speaking only for myself, I love the 98's and similar for a daily ski rig.  Teaching yesterday, I did brushies, large tight bumps, steep crud, dust on crust, an icy face, and some nice groomers over 5 hours, then went out to clinic (white pass turns). Changing skis isn't an option. A 105-110 ski could replace my bigger ski (118), but of those I've skied to date, none have the range and versatility of the 98's. 

post #198 of 504

Blizzard Bonafied 187 carves, busts crud, is stable and floats.

post #199 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmartini View Post

Blizzard Bonafied 187 carves, busts crud, is stable and floats.

 

and so do the other lengths. Not my ski of choice, but certainly a popular one for many.

post #200 of 504

Call me crazy, but now that I'm accustomed to them, I'm using 116mm Moment Bibby Pros as my everyday ski. My Stockli Scot Schmidt Pros (91mm) are better on groomers, but that's it. The Bibbys are stiff enough to hold an edge on ice (and yes, I skied blue ice at Mt. Bachelor in early January), and the tail rocker means you can always release the tail in crud or in trees. They're plenty quick enough in small to medium-sized bumps (I don't search out big bumps and Mammoth doesn't usually get them), and I rarely ski groomers, so why not use the Bibbys every day unless it's really deep?

 

Yesterday, Mammoth reported just 4 inches in the morning, so I used the Bibbys again. A lot of people might have reached for something around 100mm (that's what I saw most often), but the snow report ended up being wrong and the upper mountain had 1-2 feet of powder. In those conditions, the 116mm Bibbys are way better than anything 95-105mm that I've ever tried. When it's just 4-8 inches of powder (what the lower mountain skied like yesterday), I feel the wider Bibbys are still far superior since you're much less likely to hit the firm base below, and even if you do, they're solid enough to hold it together for a firm turn or two.

 

I skied Bonafides pretty recently, and while the metal made for a less chattery ride on the ice, I didn't think they were all that much better than Bibbys on groomers. When I then skied ~3 inches on top of chunky ice in the trees (trust me, these were challenging conditions), the Bibbys were much better. The Bonafides (and I'm guessing other skis in that class) wanted to carve more and ended up getting hooky in the chunky ice. The Bibbys chattered a lot, but I never felt locked in a carve and therefore had much more control in the trees.

 

In my opinion, when skiing steep chutes or tight trees in crud, carving is not the best way to ski. I want edge hold and the ability to slarve my way down the slope as fast as possible without feeling like I'll hook a tip or tail. The Bibbys are the best ski I've yet tried for that (something like the Cochise may be better, though, on hard snow), and then when I find powder or have a surprise powder day, the Bibbys far outperform anything skinnier or less rockered.

post #201 of 504

^^ You're definitely not the first person I've heard say all of those good things about the Bibby's.  A lot of people really seem to LOVE that ski.

post #202 of 504
Skeez, do you mind sharing your details (hight and weight) and the length of the Bibby's you used. I have been considering the same ski. It does seem to have a strong following.
post #203 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmartini View Post

Blizzard Bonafied 187 carves, busts crud, is stable and floats.

+1 on first two, but the Bone is generally too stiff to properly float and turn in real powder.  It does not mean it cannot be done, jsut a real powder ski will do it better with way less effort. 

Bibby's: YMMV- I tried them and all but hated them- too stiff and one-dimensional for my tastes (or maybe it just was a bad day)...  BTW, its hard to believe that a 116mm ski will carve better than a <100mm ski; its not that it cannot be done, (I have seen a former racer get unbelievable angles and clean railroad tracks on the 118 Bodacious), but its gotta be harder

post #204 of 504

I like this thread and I am definitely moving to the 2 ski quiver.  I was planning on 3 skis but after some time on a 87mm waisted twin and reading and responding to the Brahma review, I think for me, this is the way to go.  I already have Mantras and have always liked them plus a racier volkl and was looking to add a 3rd wider powder ski.  But I changed my mind.

 

Since you're talking about the Bibby Pro I'll throw my 2 cents in.  Fun ski, demo'd it for three days last year at Alta and Snowbird and had a hard time leaving it behind.  Me, 45 years, 5'10" 165lbs, life long agressive skier...demo'd the 182cm.  Awesome ski, had all the conditions and it can handle them all well, carves trenches too.  I didn't buy it because, and to SJ points, how many days are really deep? and those day don't stay deep for long, they get crudded up quick and eventually skied out.  I had to be honest, I didn't really need the Bibby Pro even though I wanted it, it was super fun and very cool.

 

Bought the 105mm Atomic Coax instead as I likes it too and came at a smokin' deal.  Super fun ski for me, lighter then the Mantra with no metal, still rails and better soft snow.  The ski is great in deep snow for me as I am lighter and not slow.

 

Then this year I skied an 87mm Nordica "park all arounder" and had a blast and I even started to hate myself for thinking I may not need the Mantras anymore.  This 87mm waisted twinny was that fun on the groomers, moguls and crud while easy and no work to ski.  It was perfectly conceivable to me this 87 was totally fine on most days as long as I had the Coax too for fresh days, plus you can't have just one pair of skis.

 

Anyway, changed my view from you gotta have 3 to 2 pretty quickly.  The 98mm skis do put down a pretty good argument right there in the middle which does leave you to fill in the high and low mm waisted ends of the range...or do they I now thought. 

 

Anyway, selling some skis maybe and off to Alta/Snowbird next week where I will demo some skis 88ish and 105ish.  I loved the Bibby and because of that I am looking forward to demoing the 106 waisted Moment Belafonte.  I know they are quite different but the width is where I see myself. 

post #205 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post
BTW, its hard to believe that a 116mm ski will carve better than a <100mm ski; its not that it cannot be done, (I have seen a former racer get unbelievable angles and clean railroad tracks on the 118 Bodacious), but its gotta be harder

I agree, the racer may have been skiing off a fresh tune too. After my first real tune on my 108's I couldn't believe the difference in how they carved on groomers. But after about 3-4 days their performance level dropped a bit. Could still carve but definitely not as effortlessly as when they were very sharp.

post #206 of 504
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

^^^^ Reality is, most resorts don't get more 6" at one storm most of the time. And outside of a handful of far west resorts I'd guess the mean fresh snowfall is closer to 3". (Not daily average, but actual overnight snowfall when it falls at all.) So disregarding marketing push toward fatter and fatter skis as cool, a great deal of the "powder ski" enthusiasm is not about needing float, it's about wanting to ride over light chop and crud the next day, rather than cut through it. Which in turn may be more a statement about average edge angles, leg strength, and balance than about specific skis. So I'd argue that there are two populations (at least) that comprise the two approaches to this 3" of new snow.

 

1) The lower edge angle devotes of a high 80's GS cut primary ski that sees a lot of duty on hardpack, not its optimal surface, and a 110+ "powder" ski that gets used to smush chop and heavy crud and everything "soft," regardless of depth. Which is usually minimal. Yesterday I saw a bunch of 110+ rockered skis on 1-2" of new snow. rolleyes.gif Almost speaks of desperation; "Hey new snow, I gotta use these bad boys." OTOH, those bad boys make crud or settled wet snow in trees feel like corduroy. So....

 

2) The higher edge angle devotes of a mid to high 70's SL/GS hybrid ski that sees that same duty on most lift served, and a high 90's to low 100's "sidebounds" ski that is aimed at all soft snow, most of it found in trees or by hiking. OTOH, when they must confront an actual dump, there's a lot of porpoising going on and breaks for early lunch with 20 oz coffees...

 

Point being, without channeling Bob Peters eek.gif, IMO people tend to clamor for skis that are on average too wide by 15 mm or so for the actual average snow conditions, and perhaps with the wrong flex pattern, given that climate change is producing more variability, more likelihood of storms followed by thaws, more "difficult" and quickly changing snow that asks for stiffer fronts, if not tails, even within the same day. 

 

I wonder if the move toward lower, milder rocker also reflects this tension between what we want to buy when we see hero films of Valdez, vs. what our local mountain looks like. It may also be behind the 90-something mm craze; IMO that's a nice compromise width band that can handle lower to moderate angle carving but also has enough float to navigate light fresh in trees and crud. Below that and float's a casualty, above that and carving makes the knees do a "no mas..."

 

Much good here ^^^^^ but especially the highlighted part. First, the industry IS for sure starting to moderate rocker. It's not maybe gonna happen someday......it's happening right now (wellll...... next year). There's lots of reasons having to do with the reality vs. the fantasy etc. but, the fact is that several skis that may have had inappropriate amounts of rocker have stalled in sales. Some of those are being modified and those that aren't may have a relatively bleak future. Having said that, there is a big push for the 105"s upcoming but at least it's not toward 110+ or ++.

 

Of course skiing a 110+ ski in 2" of new is pretty dumb. I rode the lift today with two retired guys both skiing on S7's. Both looked down at my skis (Head Titans today) and commented that I was a lot better off with my skis than they were with theirs. It snowed maybe 3-4" Saturday night but that's all there's been for ~~ 2 weeks. There were a few spots where one could get in a turn in 4" of snow but FTMP these guys (pretty decent skiers) were pretty much flailing today. I skied Sunday AM when there was a bit more of that 4" dump available and was on a Blizzi Mag 8.5 and then again today on the Heads. In either case the 78-85mm skis were great (different of course but both really good). Skiing those conditions on my Bonafides would have been fine but just not as rewarding as the narrower skis over the last few days.

 

SJ

post #207 of 504

Well I think with new technology comes new consideration for someone who's paying attention.  IMO there are a lot of ways to look at it though, and your width range is obviously subject to regional, terrain and conditional considerations.  That said, four is probably the magic number for me.  It's got all your bases covered without making it a major decision to pick which pair or pairs to bring out.   

 

 

1) bump ski/hard snow skinny

2) daily driver workhorse midfat

3)  wideish charger compish ski

4)  wider light funshape pow ski

 

 

 

 

But that changes with the wind and new ski tech and I'm always willing to open my heart and home to stray fat skis.  :)  I do think that the #3 slot could easily house anything in the 105-110ish range though, and the new Worth Magics fill that spot for me most excellently with the BIlly Goats on uncut pow duty. 

post #208 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by seth153 View Post

Skeez, do you mind sharing your details (hight and weight) and the length of the Bibby's you used. I have been considering the same ski. It does seem to have a strong following.

I'm 5'11", 145 lbs. 22 years old, so likely stronger than most people of that weight, and my age also means that my knees/ankles don't get bothered by wide skis. I'm using 184cm Bibbys, and although I considered the 190s and I'm sure they'd be fine for me, the 184s are plenty stable for straightlines through choppy snow, so the added quickness of the shorter length means they're probably the right choice for me. 

 

Regarding their carving ability, I'll reiterate that they don't carve better than sub 100mm skis, but for me, they ski better off groomed slopes. I'm not trying to carve down a chute in crud, and then the additional width provides stability for straightlining runouts and the rocker gives me confidence that I won't bury or hook a tip at high speed.

 

EWA113 -- Regarding the Belafonte, I haven't tried it, but I believe it will ski totally different than the Bibby. I'm sure it's extremely stable making huge arcs in crud, but it's super stiff and you probably need to be really charging at all times to control the ski. The PB&J is marketed more as a smaller Bibby, although I've read in reviews that it's charging ability isn't quite equal.

post #209 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

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.

Stopped! :).   I do ski the im82 also in 183cm.  5'10 185lb, age 36. Strong intermediate.  The industry and everybody on this site tells me to get another ski in the 98-108 range, and I was looking for a softer, light weight soft snow/tree ski with mild tip rocker.  The tst might be too short as it has a ton of tip rocker ....maybe the jj or an S7.  I'm open to recommendations, of course....

 

i may just wait till next and try the new Rossi when it comes out.  The soul 7 I think....looks pretty promising.

post #210 of 504
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinVB View Post

Stopped! :).   I do ski the im82 also in 183cm.  5'10 185lb, age 36. Strong intermediate.  The industry and everybody on this site tells me to get another ski in the 98-108 range, and I was looking for a softer, light weight soft snow/tree ski with mild tip rocker.  The tst might be too short as it has a ton of tip rocker ....maybe the jj or an S7.  I'm open to recommendations, of course....

 

i may just wait till next and try the new Rossi when it comes out.  The soul 7 I think....looks pretty promising.

 

The Soul 7 may have promise for sure as will the Nordie Vagabond, possibly the Sollie R2 106 and others that I possibly haven't seen yet. However, that same promise is available right now with the Head Rev 105 and Atomic Ritual.

 

SJ

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.