New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 Mt Rose Demo Day

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

Conditions:

AM - firm breakable crust off piste, on piste corn in the sun, some ice.

PM - spring slush

Chutes = closed. 

Overall not the best conditions to test skis, but still a lot of fun!

 

Height/Weight: Tall/ 210lbs

 

I took about 3 runs on each ski.

 

Ross E98 - 188

Overall I liked this ski.  I think it was mounted about +1 on my boot w/ the rental binding.  As a result, I don't think it was in the sweet spot. I noticed I was over rotating my turns a bit.  Conditions were still firm off piste, so it was manageable, but not outstanding.  Groomer grip was very good, even in scraped off ice areas.  Very stable, damp, all the things everyone else has already said. I could be happy on this ski during our normal juneuary winter conditions (i.e. firm).  Probably not the best spring or soft winter ski though.

 

Blizzard Bonifide - 187

After hearing all the hype on this ski, of course I had to try it.  It delivered.  Griped well on firm groomers, was outstanding in springy corn/slush.  Nice energy for a damp ski on groomers skiing short dynamic turns. Unfortunately, no steeps to try it on.  Did everything I asked of it wihtout complaints.  I think this is my next purchase!

 

Rossignol Soul 7 - 188

Was very interested in trying this ski, after reading some early reviews. First thing I noticed was the incredibly light weight for a larger ski.  This ski also delivers on all the promises:

Quick turns - check

Firm groomer grip - check

Off piste/crud - check

Light/quick - double check

 

This really is a one ski quiver, even more so than the bones.  I'm sure it would be a blast in powder.  The only fault I could find, if you can call it that, is this is not the smoothest/dampest ski.  If you want to bust through crud like a missle, other heavier skis will be better.  It was also rather loud on hard crusty snow, reminisent of my old red mantras.  Even though I really don't need another ski in this size range, its very temping...

 

Dynastar Cham 97 - 184

Another ski I wanted to try due to the polarizing nature of reviews.  I wasn't really expecting much from this ski.  Wow!  This thing really surprised me.  First off, the weight was quite noticable coming off the Soul 7.  Even though this is a shorter, narrower ski, the extra weight was quite apparent sitting on the lift.  Once in the snow, the weight went away, and I could make quick turns, in what ever shape I wanted.  Off piste, the Cham is a crud destroyer, due to the stiffness and metal.  Unlike older Legends, this ski was quite manuverable, and I felt like I could get into tight places at will.  Again, would have liked to try in some steeps.  Decent grip on groomers too.  I could be very happy with this ski 90% of the time.

 

Moment Bibby Pro - 190

Even though neither the conditions or terrain warranted a ski of this size, I was interested in trying based on so many good reviews.  This is a BIG ski, 120mm underfoot, heavy, and stiff.  By now conditions had deteriorated to all out spring slush.  My legs were tired, but the Bibby's has no problem pushing the slush around.  Tip and tail rocker makes this a very manuverable ski for its size.  This would be a fun big, mountain, powder, open terrain ski.  Too much for Rose in bounds, but still fun.

post #2 of 20

Nice reviews--I own the Bonafide and I think you would be happy with it.  Most larger people who ski it seem to like it.  It is such a popular ski and gets enough glowing reviews that some people like to knock it down a peg and others expect it to solve all their skiing problems.  It really is nothing more than a really solid ski.  For me, it could be a little quicker in tight spaces and deliver a little more of an exciting ride on groomers.  It my #1 choice as a travel ski. 

 

As for the Soul 7, I have not skied it but I was talking with the manager of a local ski shop over the weekend and he said it was the most popular ski among his group of testers.  He expects it to be a big winner for Rossignol.  He seemed to echo your assessment of the ski.  He is a bigger guy (like 6" 9") and really liked the Line Sick Day 110 FWIW.

post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 

It was a bit hard to critically judge skis in the conditions that day. However, i highly doubt i would regret either the bones or soul 7 as a purchase. My quiver is weak in the 88 to 98 range, so the soul 7 is overlap with cochise. I wanted to try the brahma, but ran out of time.

post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Smoovee View Post

Conditions:

AM - firm breakable crust off piste, on piste corn in the sun, some ice.

PM - spring slush

Chutes = closed. 

Overall not the best conditions to test skis, but still a lot of fun!

 

Height/Weight: Tall/ 210lbs

 

I took about 3 runs on each ski.

 

 

Blizzard Bonifide - 187

After hearing all the hype on this ski, of course I had to try it.  It delivered.  Griped well on firm groomers, was outstanding in springy corn/slush.  Nice energy for a damp ski on groomers skiing short dynamic turns. Unfortunately, no steeps to try it on.  Did everything I asked of it wihtout complaints.  I think this is my next purchase!

 

Rossignol Soul 7 - 188

Was very interested in trying this ski, after reading some early reviews. First thing I noticed was the incredibly light weight for a larger ski.  This ski also delivers on all the promises:

Quick turns - check

Firm groomer grip - check

Off piste/crud - check

Light/quick - double check

 

This really is a one ski quiver, even more so than the bones.  I'm sure it would be a blast in powder.  The only fault I could find, if you can call it that, is this is not the smoothest/dampest ski.  If you want to bust through crud like a missle, other heavier skis will be better.  It was also rather loud on hard crusty snow, reminisent of my old red mantras.  Even though I really don't need another ski in this size range, its very temping...

 

 

I guess I'm missing it on the Soul 7  have skied most of the line and even got the Super 7 out in some powder last year at Mammoth and they scared the living crap out of me. Seemed like the tails won't hold when I wanted them to, felt a lot like skiing on snow blades also thought the tip of the Soul got knocked around a lot by anything but the softest snow.

 

Now the Blizzards are another story, killer skis. 

post #5 of 20

^^^ Could you expand on the Super 7's? As in, have you skied any of the previous S7 versions, and besides the tails not holding (which they're not really designed to), could you talk about the feel, stability in front, and so on? Oh yeah, and your vitals, since IME that makes a big diff. Many thanks. 

post #6 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post

I guess I'm missing it on the Soul 7  have skied most of the line and even got the Super 7 out in some powder last year at Mammoth and they scared the living crap out of me. Seemed like the tails won't hold when I wanted them to, felt a lot like skiing on snow blades also thought the tip of the Soul got knocked around a lot by anything but the softest snow.

 

Now the Blizzards are another story, killer skis. 

Could just be my sking style, but I skied Mammy last March during a storm on my S7s and had probably my best day of the season! Theres something about that shape thats just magical in the trees. Also no stability issues unless Im really hauling.

post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

^^^ Could you expand on the Super 7's? As in, have you skied any of the previous S7 versions, and besides the tails not holding (which they're not really designed to), could you talk about the feel, stability in front, and so on? Oh yeah, and your vitals, since IME that makes a big diff. Many thanks. 

Vitals are 190 lbs 5'11", 46 yrs old, have lived in Tahoe 20 yrs and ski 50-80 days a year, (during a good year, this year and the last one don't count as good ski years) so make your own assumptions on my ability.

 

In my world the tip gets whacked off line by anything but the softest snow and the lack of hold in the tail is another issue. I don't like skis that don't have a tail, it is a part of the ski and I use it. I have skied other skis in this arena, like the Atomic Bectchetler and love it, have skied some DPS and though they were okay would never buy a pair, just don't like the Super 7 or that whole line really, sorry. I'm sure it works for many people just not for me. There is one thing I believe people are over looking, most any ski, kills it in the powder, however how will it ski on Mammoth wind packed or Tahoe crud? I have skied the 7, a couple of the Soul line over the last 2 years. 

post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 

So Ive narrowed it down to:

Bonafide $595

Cham 97 $560

E98 $599

In that general order, with Bobos demo pricing.

 

What do you think, go for the bones now or wait for a sale on the Cham?

post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Smoovee View Post

So Ive narrowed it down to:

Bonafide $595

Cham 97 $560

E98 $599

In that general order, with Bobos demo pricing.

 

What do you think, go for the bones now or wait for a sale on the Cham?

 

Bones, better ski then the Cham. 

post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post

 

Bones, better ski then the Cham. 

That's impossible to say. Therefore it's not true. Where do you come up with this stuff?

post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Smoovee View Post

So Ive narrowed it down to:

Bonafide $595

Cham 97 $560

E98 $599

In that general order, with Bobos demo pricing.

 

What do you think, go for the bones now or wait for a sale on the Cham?

 

Try the E98 in the 180. 

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

That's impossible to say. Therefore it's not true. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

No, it isn't impossible to say, having skied both skis, have you skied both skis Dave? If so then give your opinion, if not go back to protecting the powder stashes of Squaw that everyone knows about.

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

That's impossible to say. Therefore it's not true. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Not impossible to say, he just did. With the hidden premise that - like many of us - he's talking about his own experience on the ski when he says it's best. So some of us insert a "YMMV,"  others don't bother. He might add that the Bonafide has gotten vastly stronger reviews overall from the Entire Known Universe than the Cham 97. So maybe that's where he comes up with this stuff. 

 

Your argument prolly starts with different premise: That no one can say a ski is good or bad for someone else; everybody should experience the ski themselves. OK, in the abstract, perhaps true. If we have all season, and a fat bank account, to demo, and if we can find every ski we're interested in to demo. Which can be a challenge even if you do live near a major ski area.

 

Alternatively, forums like this exist to kill time we might waste at our jobs, or interacting with our friends and family, by asking people's advice on our OCD targets. This advice is by definition based on the poster's experiences and/or informed opinion. Which may be fulsome, or not. So I just posted a thread about ski bags. Saves me spending the next 23 years buying, trying, and discarding all possible ski bags to see which one works best for me. I cull through the responses, prolly pay more attention to the ones that say more than "it rocks," or from people who've actually owned bags, but all count for something.

 

Beats working. wink.gif

post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Not impossible to say, he just did. With the hidden premise that - like many of us - he's talking about his own experience on the ski when he says it's best. So some of us insert a "YMMV,"  others don't bother. He might add that the Bonafide has gotten vastly stronger reviews overall from the Entire Known Universe than the Cham 97. So maybe that's where he comes up with this stuff. 

 

Your argument prolly starts with different premise: That no one can say a ski is good or bad for someone else; everybody should experience the ski themselves. OK, in the abstract, perhaps true. If we have all season, and a fat bank account, to demo, and if we can find every ski we're interested in to demo. Which can be a challenge even if you do live near a major ski area.

 

Alternatively, forums like this exist to kill time we might waste at our jobs, or interacting with our friends and family, by asking people's advice on our OCD targets. This advice is by definition based on the poster's experiences and/or informed opinion. Which may be fulsome, or not. So I just posted a thread about ski bags. Saves me spending the next 23 years buying, trying, and discarding all possible ski bags to see which one works best for me. I cull through the responses, prolly pay more attention to the ones that say more than "it rocks," or from people who've actually owned bags, but all count for something.

 

Beats working. wink.gif

you see, that's the ignorance of the "entire known universe".  he didn't make a qualified statement, and you didn't make an intelligent one. 

post #15 of 20

And you're (as usual) being insulting when all you had to do is disagree. Or maybe you're trying to be witty insulting, can't tell. But let's assume that in your world, calling someone's argument "unintelligent" is normal. (You must get into some interesting situations in bars, but that's another story.) In your disagreement, you might have explained how some part of my statement - I think you're upset about EKU, which the caps signaled to be an exaggeration, but from now on, I'll also add emoticons when replying to you - was not intelligent. 'Specially given that term, which relates to measures of cognitive ability, doesn't seem relevant to whether my "statement" (argument? premise? sentence?) stands or falls. Eg, someone with an IQ of 70 could make a perfectly logical argument, and someone with an IQ of 170 could blow it. Or maybe it was Ske-Bum's failure to qualify the original claim, which I explained as about the culture of this place, but I guess it still bugs you. OK, assuming you mean my argument, trying to knock it down by saying it's unintelligent is (as usual) not clever, not incisive, just ad hominem. Or as they'd say at TGR, weak sauce. So at the end of the day, you've just made one of those unqualified and opaque statements that irritates you so much. Or maybe that was the point? th_dunno-1[1].gif


Carry on...

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

you see, that's the ignorance of the "entire known universe".  he didn't make a qualified statement, and you didn't make an intelligent one. 

 

You still didn't answer the question, have you skied both those skis? I'm guessing the answer is NO or you would have said something already, so therefore you are just being your normal self. Maybe the reason you won't answer is that you don't want to look dumber then you already do. Maybe I should have put into my post that I have skied both skis, but I didn't. 

post #17 of 20

Another fantastic thread brought to you by the great AME*.  smile.gif

 

 

* (American Male Ego)

post #18 of 20

Agreed, will try to get this mess back on track. Smoovee, any sense of whether the Soul 7's reactivity was related to your size? For instance, if you skied the old S7, was the Soul more stabile and/or damp? 

post #19 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Agreed, will try to get this mess back on track. Smoovee, any sense of whether the Soul 7's reactivity was related to your size? For instance, if you skied the old S7, was the Soul more stabile and/or damp? 

I own super 7s, the soul was a heck of a lot lighter (no surprise) less swing weight = quicker turns, easier on the knees\legs in general. One thing the super 7 has is dampness, the soul was lacking there. I suspect it could get pushed around in crud, but it was hard to tell with the snow conditions that day. I am one of the few who still like this ski, so if you dont like the S7, you probably wont like the soul either.

 

I would order the bones, but i cant quite bring myself to paying 6 bills for a flat ski. SO, im considering a killer deal on last years LP 105 in a 184. I figure if i liked the cham, the 105 will be similar in many respects, at least in the 184. My 193 cochise has the top end covered quite nicely!

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

And you're (as usual) being insulting when all you had to do is disagree. Or maybe you're trying to be witty insulting, can't tell. But let's assume that in your world, calling someone's argument "unintelligent" is normal. (You must get into some interesting situations in bars, but that's another story.) In your disagreement, you might have explained how some part of my statement - I think you're upset about EKU, which the caps signaled to be an exaggeration, but from now on, I'll also add emoticons when replying to you - was not intelligent. 'Specially given that term, which relates to measures of cognitive ability, doesn't seem relevant to whether my "statement" (argument? premise? sentence?) stands or falls. Eg, someone with an IQ of 70 could make a perfectly logical argument, and someone with an IQ of 170 could blow it. Or maybe it was Ske-Bum's failure to qualify the original claim, which I explained as about the culture of this place, but I guess it still bugs you. OK, assuming you mean my argument, trying to knock it down by saying it's unintelligent is (as usual) not clever, not incisive, just ad hominem. Or as they'd say at TGR, weak sauce. So at the end of the day, you've just made one of those unqualified and opaque statements that irritates you so much. Or maybe that was the point? th_dunno-1[1].gif


Carry on...

It is fundamental to skiing that a simple statement that one ski is "better" than another must be false, at least when they are both made by experienced designer/engineers. I'm not disagreeing with skibum's conclusion, but with the fact that such a measurement or set of characteristics even exists to make the value judgement to begin with. As I said, you can't make a statement like that; it's not credible.  And I stand by that because it is about the way comparisons are made.

 

I don't care much about the "culture", or the opinion of the "known universe" when it comes to comparing really good skis. Most of the known universe doesn't know dick.


bey, that was not insulting, it was a response to  your dismissive attitude and weak attempt at sarcasm. If it had been good sarcasm, I'd have applauded it for entertainment value. Look at the post you were sniding before you go off on one of your wordy dissertations.


Edited by davluri - 3/28/13 at 9:14am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews