EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 98 MM ski for Jackson Hole? Dawgcatching, Starthaus guys, other gearheads, please advise.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

98 MM ski for Jackson Hole? Dawgcatching, Starthaus guys, other gearheads, please advise.

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

Here's my basic stats:

Weight fluxuates between 168-175.

Height: shade undo 6 feet.

Age 26

Years skied 24

Days skied: 34 this year (27 at Jackson Hole, 7 divided between Alta, Snowbird, Park City and Deer Valley)

Level: Expert

Current Skis: 167 Hart F17 Classic skis (64 mm underfoot), 176 Fischer Lunar moguls skis prior to that, and 186 Atomic Betacarve 7.26 before that.

Terrain Preferences: Steeps and chutes, with bumps, generally. Trees are also fun sometimes. Once in a while I'll just go unreasonably fast on groomers. To give you an idea of what I like to ski, here's a list (in no particular order) of my favorite terrain at Jackson- Tower 3 Chute, Casper Bowl, Rendevous, Expert Chutes, Alta Chutes, Moran Woods, Saratoga Bowl, Bird in the Hand, Hobacks (basically everything- this mountain is amazing).

Skiing style: Aggressive, ski down the fall line. Usually (when terrain permits) go at high speeds. In bumps (my strong suit) I ski the zipper line-- bounce of the sides of each bump with my shoulders down the hill. In open terrain I arc big gs turns.

 

As you might have guessed, my 64mm toothpicks are just not really reasonable in Jackson pow. I'm looking for a ski that floats in the deep stuff, yet still is quick enough in the bumps. A couple of candidates that I've assembled after looking at the all the reviews and comments on these forums: Line Prophet 98, Blizzard Bonafide, Blizzard Kabookie, Nordica Hell and Back. I recently demoed the bonafide and thought it was a pretty sweet ski- really easy to smear around in tight places. Dawgcatching seems to think there are better skis for handling bumps and trees, given the bonafides stiffness and weight. Others on this site and others have said that the bonafide has a hard snow bias. I thought it was pretty good in the bumps, trees and pow, but I haven't tested many skis and therefore have little to compare it to. Maybe there are all kinds of 98mm skis out there I'd like better. I notice that Dawgcatching opines that the ski is too stiff for him at 155 lbs but Phil seems to love it at 190 lbs. Being in the middle of that range at 170-175, and with a preference for bump, crud and pow performance over hard packed groomer performance, perhaps some of the other lighter, non-metal skis might be better? Or is the 15 pounds I have on Dawgcatching enough to make the difference, and the bonafide is, after all the best ski for me? Hard to say. Have not tested hardly any other skis in the 98mm range, except for the Kastle BMX 98, which I skied on a day with such shitty conditions as to invalidate the test. Plus $1000 is a lot for a pair of skis. I did test the Gotamas and Katanas by Volkl on new snow days and liked both of them. Probably fatter than I need my skis to be though.

So anyway-- best 98mm ski for ripping GS turns down the Casper Bowl, zipperlining the bumps in Laramie bowl, and ripping First Alta Chute, when its deep and when its not?

 

Great responses (Dawgcatching I'm looking at you) will be rewarded with haiku poems in the author's honor.

post #2 of 27

Wow. If you are choosing to ski a mogul ski as your every day ski (up to this point), you are probably a very good skier. Obviously with that said, you are pretty proficient in skiing bumps and honestly your ability has more to do with a ski being good in bumps than what the ski is capable of. Would I put the Bonafide/Kabookie twins at the top of my list? Yeah, it is the easy answer. Past that the Helen Bach/Enforcers are next then I wouldn't dismiss the Line Prophet 98 as a choice. You have the usual suspects in your list, it just a matter of choosing a pair and getting out and skiing them. 

post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Ippolito View Post

Here's my basic stats:

Weight fluxuates between 168-175.

Height: shade undo 6 feet.

Age 26

Years skied 24

Days skied: 34 this year (27 at Jackson Hole, 7 divided between Alta, Snowbird, Park City and Deer Valley)

Level: Expert

Current Skis: 167 Hart F17 Classic skis (64 mm underfoot), 176 Fischer Lunar moguls skis prior to that, and 186 Atomic Betacarve 7.26 before that.

Terrain Preferences: Steeps and chutes, with bumps, generally. Trees are also fun sometimes. Once in a while I'll just go unreasonably fast on groomers. To give you an idea of what I like to ski, here's a list (in no particular order) of my favorite terrain at Jackson- Tower 3 Chute, Casper Bowl, Rendevous, Expert Chutes, Alta Chutes, Moran Woods, Saratoga Bowl, Bird in the Hand, Hobacks (basically everything- this mountain is amazing).

Skiing style: Aggressive, ski down the fall line. Usually (when terrain permits) go at high speeds. In bumps (my strong suit) I ski the zipper line-- bounce of the sides of each bump with my shoulders down the hill. In open terrain I arc big gs turns.

 

As you might have guessed, my 64mm toothpicks are just not really reasonable in Jackson pow. I'm looking for a ski that floats in the deep stuff, yet still is quick enough in the bumps. A couple of candidates that I've assembled after looking at the all the reviews and comments on these forums: Line Prophet 98, Blizzard Bonafide, Blizzard Kabookie, Nordica Hell and Back. I recently demoed the bonafide and thought it was a pretty sweet ski- really easy to smear around in tight places. Dawgcatching seems to think there are better skis for handling bumps and trees, given the bonafides stiffness and weight. Others on this site and others have said that the bonafide has a hard snow bias. I thought it was pretty good in the bumps, trees and pow, but I haven't tested many skis and therefore have little to compare it to. Maybe there are all kinds of 98mm skis out there I'd like better. I notice that Dawgcatching opines that the ski is too stiff for him at 155 lbs but Phil seems to love it at 190 lbs. Being in the middle of that range at 170-175, and with a preference for bump, crud and pow performance over hard packed groomer performance, perhaps some of the other lighter, non-metal skis might be better? Or is the 15 pounds I have on Dawgcatching enough to make the difference, and the bonafide is, after all the best ski for me? Hard to say. Have not tested hardly any other skis in the 98mm range, except for the Kastle BMX 98, which I skied on a day with such shitty conditions as to invalidate the test. Plus $1000 is a lot for a pair of skis. I did test the Gotamas and Katanas by Volkl on new snow days and liked both of them. Probably fatter than I need my skis to be though.

So anyway-- best 98mm ski for ripping GS turns down the Casper Bowl, zipperlining the bumps in Laramie bowl, and ripping First Alta Chute, when its deep and when its not?

 

Great responses (Dawgcatching I'm looking at you) will be rewarded with haiku poems in the author's honor.

 

As you are essentially forcing me to post....my wife is Japanese and lights up every time she sees a Haiku.....

 

 

There are a bunch of great skis in this range, undoubtedly.  Some of this is splitting hairs.  I haven't skied the LP98 in awhile.  For bumps specifically, the best skis I have luck with that are responsive edge to edge, relatively light, fluid, and smooth, would be:

 

2012 Kastle FX94 (love this ski in bumps.  So smooth and easy)

Blizzard Kabookie (very direct, easy, predictable)

Head Rock n' Roll 95 (same as the Kabookie, basically)

Nordica Soul Rider (a little light, maybe a touch bouncy, easy to ski)

Rossi E98 (smooth, powerful, predictable)

Kastle BMX98 (a touch too much rocker in the tip, but solid underfoot and at the tail)

 

I do not care for the Bonafide or Hell n' Back in bumps at my weight (same goes w/trees, although they rip at speed in big arcs.  You are heavier, might be a different story)

 

All of these are different, all are very good in bumps though.  Direct, smooth, not punishing. 

 

For more of a GS, above-treeline sking, the list is a little different, in order of preference:

 

Volkl Mantra (no ski has more top end)

Blizzard Bonafide (a smidge more forgiving than the Mantra, mortals can't out ski it)

Kastle FX94 (best snow feel here, skis a little shorter)

Blizzard Kabookie (more manageable than the Bonafide, just as good of performance)

Nordica Hell n' Back (stout, stable, powerful, lots of ski)

Rossi E98 (softer, damp, stable, versatile)

Kastle BMX98 (super versatile, skis shorter than the listed length. If it were 182, it would be near the top). 

 

for quick skiing in the trees, the best skis I have found:

 

Elan 999 (I don't know if a quicker ski exists at this width.  Superb in trees)

Kastle FX94 (very quick, smooth, huge sweet spot)

Head Rock n' Roll 95 (almost an FX94, just uglier)

Kastle BMX98 (turns on a dime, superb versatility)

Blizzard Kabookie (super stable, will charge, you can also back off if desired)

 

I would add the new Stormrider 95 to this list (for all 3 types of terrain) as well as the Atomic Crimson TI and new Head REV 98, all available next year. 

 

Skis are getting so good, it is hard to say which is "the best". At this point, from what I have skied, the 2013/2014 FX94 from Kastle is the most versatile off-piste ski, in terms of what it will do, how smooth and easy it is, and how it handles chop snow.  It would be my "one" choice. There are plenty of others that are good too, at less than $1190 for a flat ski! 

 

If you can find a Head Inferno from 2011/2012, it might be just the ticket. The other option, slightly wider, is the Kastle FX104.  Superbly versatile, does all you want and more. 

post #4 of 27

Wow!

 

OK......reality check time. First off, you have skied a ski that you liked (Bonafide). For just a sec, ignore what everyone else says positive or negative. You are the guy that is buying them and you liked them.  For a moment, ignore the commentary of others. What Scott, Phil, (or I) like is probably more or less irrelevant to you.

 

So.....What did you not like about the Bonafide? If you don't have an answer to that then....case closed, buy them next fall when they are available again. OTH, if there is something that you didn't like or you wanted to be different then please share that with us and an alternate recommendation may be forthcoming. Until you can tell us what you didn't like about the Bone, all these alternative suggestions are more or less worthless.

 

FWIW............I think that ~~98mm is great place to be as an OSQ for a western skier. I have had a Bonafide, Enforcer or Hell & Back in that spot for over three years now. However, given what you have been on, it may be more width than truly necessary for you. In fact, it's entirely possible that a soft snow biased 88-90mm ski might be a better call for you.

 

IAC.....do not lose sleep over the fact that you liked a ski but someone else did not. (Unless of course you are expecting to buy a ski for them rather than yourself)

 

SJ

post #5 of 27

I'm 6', 165, can second Dawgcatching's thoughts on both Kastles, might add that while they seem to overlap a lot, actually rather different feels and somewhat different strengths. BMX98 is damper than the FX94,  tends to ride through rather than over a little more, not quite as grippy on hardpack (although neither lead the league there), bigger sweet spot. I have owned both, prefer the BMX for trees and soft snow, the FX for bumps and groomers. 

 

Cannot speak to other skis, but SJ has two really good suggestions; 1) what didn't the Bone do for you? I realize defining negatives is hard, but it might help you refine your search a bit. If this is really more about not wanting to fall in love with your first date, obviously you need to take a breath and demo. Or just realize love at first sight can happen and buy the Bones.

 

And 2) Have you thought about something a bit narrower? Given that you're used to a 64 mm ski, and apparently will still rock bumps on it, even an 88 will seem like a super fatty. IME, the range between high 80's and high 90's is mainly defined by a significant uptick in soft snow performance at the definite expense of edge efficiency. (Then there's another, even more pronounced, loss of carviness as the ski gets wider than the boot, eg, above 100 mm, and the feel from your leverage changes. If you're emphasizing a pivot through the bumps or soft snow freestyle smear mission, this won't matter so much. But if you want to foreground carving those GS-ish turns, and value that right now feeling of going from edge to edge, then you'd be happier on a mid to high 80's IMO. And if you ski them fast, like you seem to, they'll float as well as a high 90's on the feet of a more deliberate skier. Some nice ones you might check out would include the Outland 8.7, the Blizzard 8.5, and the Elan 888. If the speed-on-steeps is paramount, add in the Kastle MX88, Volkl Kendo, and the Stockli VXL, maybe subtract the 8.7. 

post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 Some nice ones you might check out would include the Outland 8.7, the Blizzard 8.5, and the Elan 888. If the speed-on-steeps is paramount, add in the Kastle MX88, Volkl Kendo, and the Stockli VXL, maybe subtract the 8.7. 

Is this "new math"?

post #7 of 27

smile.gif ^^^^ Only because model names of narrower skis now seem to need a bunch of extra stuff. Gotta have the "real" name, then the width, then the obligatory "Ti" or "Ca," then maybe a few extra  X's and R's if a binding's involved. Ski marketing types have been spending too much time reading automotive mags. 

post #8 of 27
Thread Starter 

Very impressed by the quick responses. I knew I could count on you guys.

 

Without further ado-

 

My one ski quiver
Moguls chutes bowls trees and pow

Will shred next winter

 

Phil- I'm not sure that picking a mogul ski makes me any better of a skier than anyone else. Just means I happen to like bumps more than the average bear. Thanks for the compliment though. At any rate, I wanted your opinion on the relative qualities of the P98 versus the Kabookie in bump performance and soft snow performance. Do you find that one or the other is quicker, lighter, easier to turn? You seem to be the only one here who has experience on the P98. Any other insights you might have between the two would be helpful.
 

Jim- I completely agree that under normal circumstances, picking a ski entirely based on other people's preferences doesn't make a ton of sense. However, my case might be somewhat unique insofar as (1) the number of skis in this category I was able to test was limited to just the bonafide and (2) I really have almost no experience in testing skis, making it difficult for me to compare and contrast. Did I have a blast on the Bonafides? Yes, yes I did. But then again I'd probably have a blast skiing anything at Jackson in good conditions. It's very likely that my skiing style, terrain preferences, height and weight etc make a different ski better. Ideally I'd demo others in the category before making a decision, but unfortunately that won't be possible.
 

Anyway, things that maybe I wasn't super thrilled with about the Bonafide... hmm. Definitely a lot heavier than what Im used to, but then again I ski a hart f17 in 167. So thats kinda just how life is when switching to a 98 mm in 180. My inability to really compare it to anything leads me to believe Im not qualified to answer that question.

 

Dawgcatching- Thanks for taking the time to amass such a detailed list. I notice that the Kabookie places in all three categories by your criteria. Given that its a lighter bonafide, and I liked the bonafide except for maybe its weight, this is probably vaulted into first place. I wanted to know, in your opinion, do I really have anything to worry about at my weight in terms of the kabookie being too soft? Do you reckon there'd be a downside in going for the kabookies over the bonafides? Also, is a more flexible ski generally better in bumps? My Harts RIP bumps. Are they flexible compared to other skis? (Please excuse the perhaps stupid question, as I'm not particularly knowledgable about ski characteristics).

Beyond- I had toyed with the idea of just upgrading to an 85- 90 mm but I figured that might not even be sufficient if it really dumps (which it does, frequently in JH). On a couple of legit pow days my brother, who has a similar skiing style, to me felt rather sinky on his Salamon Lords at 86mm underfoot. Also I tried the gotamas and katanas which are both significantly wider than 98 and they seemed perfectly fine in bumps. Not awesome, but no real problems. On the other hand, yeah maybe I should look at some 90 mm skis. Now this is getting complicated.

 

Let's narrow this down a little.
1) Toss out all Kastles for being too expensive.
2) Toss out anything that isn't good in bumps
 

You guys are awesome for responding so quickly and thoughtfully.

post #9 of 27

You may have to promise a sonnet to get further replies.

post #10 of 27

Rule of thumb... when you demo a ski you like a lot, don't over think things. Buy it, and call it good.

post #11 of 27

I disagree with SJ's notion of "if you didn't dislike anything about the Bones, then buy the Bones."  The fact of the matter is that there are probably lots of skis out there that he wouldn't dislike anything about, but you shouldn't buy a ski because you don't DISLIKE anything about it.  He might "like" everything about the ski, but not "love" anything about the ski.  In this scenario, everybody would just buy skis that are decent/ good at everything and great at nothing (or are decent/ good for the things that they are looking for).  He's only been on the Bones, he liked the Bones, but also is not head over heels in love with the Bones.  That's why he's posting on here, to see if there is possibly a ski out there that wouldn't just leave him content when heading back to the demo rack, but rather grinning ear to ear, and he wants people to chime in about what that ski may be (which ones to demo).  I agree that his impressions of the Bones are important, and that people tend to overcomplicate things when purchasing skis, but skis are an investment, and someone shouldn't just buy a pair because they don't dislike anything about them.  They should buy a pair of skis because they more or less "gotta have them" (speaking for people in situations of limited money).  

 

As for going narrower, I don't think there's much point in that.  Most of the 98's are great daily drivers for JH.  Just because he's used to a skinnier ski doesn't mean he should go skinny here.  The float of an 88 on a day with a lot of fresh snow will be an issue, both because of its width and because most 88's aren't designed to handle a bunch of fresh snow.  

post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 

Dawgcatching- I went and read one of your reviews of the Elan 999, in which you seem pretty impressed by it. Any reason you left it off your top 5 lists for bumps and above the tree-line GS? Also, was the ski you were reviewing the ALU or the non-ALU?

post #13 of 27

Lots of good advice.

 

Bumps seem to be a passion of yours, and IMO, 98's kind of blow in bumps. HAVING SKIED NEITHER, I'd choose the Magnum 8.5 or Experience 88 for you.  Jackson is so steep that you don't need the extra float on powder days, anyway!  Shoot, my best powder day there in two years was a day when I was "stuck" with a pair of only 80mm skis.

post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post
 The float of an 88 on a day with a lot of fresh snow will be an issue, both because of its width and because most 88's aren't designed to handle a bunch of fresh snow.  

I disagree.  I don't hesitate to ski an 88 (Apex) on a big pow day and I enjoy the 3D affect.   The OP has 15 lbs on me at most but after subtracting the weight of my hydration/ avalanche gear we are probably close.  I have fun on the fat smear boards but I have just as much fun getting the 3D in open areas.  In tight trees and at lower speeds obviously the wider boards are better.      

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Ippolito View Post

Dawgcatching- I went and read one of your reviews of the Elan 999, in which you seem pretty impressed by it. Any reason you left it off your top 5 lists for bumps and above the tree-line GS? Also, was the ski you were reviewing the ALU or the non-ALU?


Hi,

 

I think it was because the OP didn't mention it in his original list.  IMO, there is no better "wider" tree ski than the 999.  It isn't as good at big speed in funky snow though; the tip can over-bend.  Great at moderate speeds and in tighter terrain for skiing fast.

 

Here is sort of a "review" of that ski compared to the 1010/Bonafide/Scout:

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/119118/wide-vs-wider-skis-funky-snow-observations-elan-999-1010-blizzard-bonafide-scout

post #16 of 27

Rod, I can agree with you there.  My point was that a 98 is usually better suited to ski the deep stuff (in most cases), than 88's.  You can make it work for sure, and some people prefer "making it work."  But 98's are undoubtedly "designed" more for deeper snow in most cases (with skis like the Mantra being the exception).  If you don't mind making it work in the deeper stuff, or like the feel of an 88 in the deeper stuff, then an 88 is a really solid option.  There's just so many strong 98's out there and they will usually be quite a bit easier on the deep snow days.

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post

Rod, I can agree with you there.  My point was that a 98 is usually better suited to ski the deep stuff (in most cases), than 88's.  You can make it work for sure, and some people prefer "making it work."  But 98's are undoubtedly "designed" more for deeper snow in most cases (with skis like the Mantra being the exception).  If you don't mind making it work in the deeper stuff, or like the feel of an 88 in the deeper stuff, then an 88 is a really solid option.  There's just so many strong 98's out there and they will usually be quite a bit easier on the deep snow days.


Gotcha,  the OP did say "deep stuff".   I guess I got hung up on the "moguls", then again one of my favorite memories is of a bump run with 5-7 inches of fresh on top on a set of 110 waist skis.  That was so much fun I kept skiing that run over and over until I couldn't ski anymore.   

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post

Rod, I can agree with you there.  My point was that a 98 is usually better suited to ski the deep stuff (in most cases), than 88's.  You can make it work for sure, and some people prefer "making it work."  But 98's are undoubtedly "designed" more for deeper snow in most cases (with skis like the Mantra being the exception).  If you don't mind making it work in the deeper stuff, or like the feel of an 88 in the deeper stuff, then an 88 is a really solid option.  There's just so many strong 98's out there and they will usually be quite a bit easier on the deep snow days.

Agree! I can have fun with my mx88 in reasonably deep stuff  but it will be much more fun with my Hell & Back (98mm)!

post #19 of 27

As an addendum, I find 98-ish skis with some flex to be optimal for soft snow in trees. Still narrow enough to tip or pivot easily, can handle all but the tightest bumps, but enough float to get over most underworld traps. 

post #20 of 27

I'll throw in another vote for the Head Rock-n-Roll.  You're in your twenties so you can actually pull off the graphics.  It's a really nice ski in moguls (and being a touch narrower, quicker edge to edge).  Will it have as much float as the 98s?  No, but it sure has a heck of a lot more than your Harts!

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

I'll throw in another vote for the Head Rock-n-Roll.  You're in your twenties so you can actually pull off the graphics.  It's a really nice ski in moguls (and being a touch narrower, quicker edge to edge).  Will it have as much float as the 98s?  No, but it sure has a heck of a lot more than your Harts!


When I skied my pair back to back with 98's, the float was very similar. The Rock n' Roll has the same width tip as most of the other 98's with just a bit more sidecut. I certainly didn't notice any more or any less float than the other 98's I skied.

post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 

Though I like what many reviewers have said about the ski, the graphics on the Head Rock n Roll are just too disgusting. Not that I'm a huge graphics guy, but the top sheets on those skis look like Rob Zombie sneezed on them.

 

It might make sense to narrow down the question a little bit maybe to performance on a single run. Let's go with First Alta Chute at Jackson Hole. For those who don't know it, it starts off with an interesting double fall line usually covered in mid-sized bumps that I try to zipperline. It then gets real steep (45 degrees or more) and narrows down to a very tight choke point in the middle at its steepest point between a big rock on the left and some trees on the right. Usually in the middle, narrow section, (as so often happens in chutes) there are usually some big really weird looking, irregular, effed up moguls from people stopping and side slipping and skiing up the mountain instead of down. Those ones where if you let your skis get into the trough you literally end up pointing perpendicular or even slightly back up (don't you hate that). There's also a couple of little rocks in the middle of that spot. This really challenging middle narrow section requires a lot of pretty precise ski placement and quick smear turns and jump turns to avoid obstacles, stay out of those weird mogul trough trap things, and check speed. Once you're through the choke it opens up a lot and the bumps get a lot flatter and further apart, but stays nice and steep. Here you can open it up with wider turns, though the flattish bumps, steepness and plentiful snow usually preclude totally tipping your skis over on edge. The lower section right before the runout is flatter, but with tighter bumps. On the flattish groomed runout on the way to the lift you can go really fast if the spirit moves you.

 

Line Prophet 98 and Elan 999 ALU are both available at discount prices around the size I'm interested in (180ish). Anyone here skied both of them? Any strong opinions one way or the other of which of these puppies will do better on the above mentioned? Alternately I guess I could just wait and spend a few hundred bucks more for a pair of Kabookies or Bonafides when the new models come out.

Good suggestions will be duly rewarded with a limerick.

post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Ippolito View Post

Very impressed by the quick responses. I knew I could count on you guys.

 

Without further ado-

 

My one ski quiver
Moguls chutes bowls trees and pow

Will shred next winter

 

Phil- I'm not sure that picking a mogul ski makes me any better of a skier than anyone else. Just means I happen to like bumps more than the average bear. Thanks for the compliment though. At any rate, I wanted your opinion on the relative qualities of the P98 versus the Kabookie in bump performance and soft snow performance. Do you find that one or the other is quicker, lighter, easier to turn? You seem to be the only one here who has experience on the P98. Any other insights you might have between the two would be helpful.
 

 

Let's narrow this down a little.
1) Toss out all Kastles for being too expensive.
2) Toss out anything that isn't good in bumps
 

You guys are awesome for responding so quickly and thoughtfully.

Between the P98 and the Kabookie, and if it was just between these two skis to which I would choose to ski in moguls, it would be the Kabookie every day. Why? Funny you should ask. Three reasons...

 

Shape- The Kabookie has less tip and tail flair, less flair makes it less catchy in moguls

Rocker/Rise- The Kabookie has rise in both the tip AND tail, P98, just tip. The tail rise allows the ski to release in hte bumps better

Weight- The Kabookie is lighter, making it quicker

Bonus-Tip profile, the Kabookies gradual tip will enter the mogul face smoother than the shorter and more blunt tip of the P98.

 

Now, if you were looking for a 98 that was better as a charger, every thing I said, would be reversed. 

post #24 of 27

I saw you're on Hart F-17's and had to reply!  That's awesome.  I'd love to see you ripping up Jackson on your toothpicks and the looks on folks faces!   I skied F-17's for years, so thought I'd chime in with my 2 cents from a fellow bumper.

 

I'm guessing your challenge will be finding a ski you enjoy skiing a zipper line in the bumps.  That was mine.  They are just few and far between these days, and the fatter the ski get the less likely to do bumps well.  I'd agree with others that a 90 might be more to your liking.  That's why I ended up with the Kendo.   Here's my take on the Kendo in another thread:

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/118415/volkl-mantra-vs-kendo-vs-blizzard-bonafide-please-help#post_1559424

 

The Kendo might be for you if you like a stiffer ski (which I'd guess you do depending on which F-17 you are on).   There are plenty of softer 90ish skis if that's more your taste.  I've yet to find a 100 that skis the bumps well for a zipper line bump skier.  Anybody?  I'd love to hear about it if it's out there.

 

One other cheap option might be an old Volkl AC30.  I really enjoyed those in the bumps, steeps and all over the mountain.  I like the Kendo much better with the extra width for pow and crud, but prior to that the AC30 was my all mountain/bump ski.

post #25 of 27

The Hell & Back! Similar to the Kabookie but just a little bit stiffer and I think they are lighter... They carve really nicely for a 98, have nice edge grip, are quicker edge to edge than their little brother the Steadfast and can turn on a dime! They have rocker ( and have nice float) but we don't really feel it on hadpack. They are really nice in bumps and tight trees... and anywhere else! If I lived West, it would be my main ski!!!

If you want more infos:I ski it in 177, am 210 pounds, 6 feet and have equiped mine with the F12 marker bindings

post #26 of 27

The ultimate would be an updated Kastle MX98, which is rumored to return a year from now!  Not cheap, you mentioned to throw it out due to price. But if the FX104 fits you, pick that one up; they can be had relatively cheap, it is really close to the MX98. 

post #27 of 27
Thread Starter 

Just pulled the trigger on the Line P98 in 179. Kabookie was my first choice, but literally nobody has them in stock and I found the Line's for $469 with bindings included.

In the end, simple economics emerges victorious. Thanks for all the information and suggestions.

 

Happy skiing!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 98 MM ski for Jackson Hole? Dawgcatching, Starthaus guys, other gearheads, please advise.