or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Western One Ski Quiver for shorter / lighter guy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western One Ski Quiver for shorter / lighter guy.

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

Hello! I'm hoping that some of the knowledgeable folks on here might be able to help me select a few skis to demo this coming season. About me: 25, 5'7", 150, athletic, advanced but not expert skier who gets to enjoy 16-21 days a year in the mountains. I currently ski (and love, for nearly all eastern conditions) the Atomic Blackeye Ti at 167. Things I enjoy about my Atomics are their edge grip - they seem happier the harder the snow gets - and their easygoing personality. I've been making it out to Colorado more and more recently, including Winter Park / Mary Jane this past year (which was a great time, especially over on MJ). Since I may be moving out West for work soon, I was hoping to use my next trip out to WP / MJ this coming season to demo some western all-mountain skis. Ideally, I see myself skiing about 50% on groomers and 50% in the bowls / trees at a mountain like WP / MJ.

 

What would be 3-5 skis you recommend I try, and in what length? Why do you recommend them? I'm looking for a great Mary Jane ski! Thanks in advance.

 

EDIT: My Blackeyes were fantastic on the groomers out west, so I'm open-minded to the idea of a ski that compliments, rather than replaces my Atomics when I am out west and want to spend more of the day in the trees or bowls.

post #2 of 27
The 175 LP''s Bluesbrother has listed would complement what you have quite reasonably.
Edited by SHREDHEAD - 6/18/13 at 7:05am
post #3 of 27
some skis I would be looking to build a 2 skis quiver would be quest 105, cochise, rocker 108, sir francis bacon, vagabong, all in the mid/high 170s it really depends on what you are looking for in the skis since they are very different skis!
post #4 of 27

Glad you like Mary Jane!  The shop at the base of MJ has a pretty good selection of demos.  It might cost a few dollars more, but I always suggest demoing from a shop at the base.  That way you can swap out skis as many times as you like and try the same ski in multiple lengths.  I was chatting with the MJ shop manager and admiring his inventory at lunch one day and he said the record was 13 different skis demoed in a day!   

 

A few clarifying questions: you never mentioned bumps.  Usually bumps and Mary Jane go hand in hand.  Did you stay up high in the bowl and trees and somehow avoid the bumps, or just not mention them.  Do you see yourself skiing many bumps in additions to trees / bowls?  I ask because a Mary Jane ski usually has a very heavy emphasis on bumps, so that's an important consideration.   If you move, would it be to Colorado?  Also, what is the waist width of your current ski?   Finally... how did you find your current ski lacking at WP/MJ?

post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 

1) I really did enjoy the bumps at Mary Jane, but I was under the impression (maybe mistaken) that the wider the ski the more you sacrifice in terms of bump performance. My current skis, at 82 in width, seemed like a good bet for the bumps out at MJ.

 

2) If there's a ski out there that will do well in the bumps but also give me what I'm looking for in the trees and bowls, I'd love to hear about it / them!

 

3) My Blackeyes tended to start going submarine under the snow in the bowls and in the trees, and they just weren't as comfortable in situations where I wasn't riding the edges pretty hard.

 

4) If I move, it could be either Colorado or possibly Washington State.
 

post #6 of 27

Yes, an 82 is a great bump ski.  The wider you go, the more difficult it becomes to turn quickly in the bumps, so yep it's a trade-off.  What's nice is you are light enough a narrower ski will float better in powder, so you don't need to go as wide as someone heavier.  

 

Assuming you are happy with your 82 on days when it hasn't snowed for a while, a 88-105 would be a good second ski for soft bumps/trees/bowl.  Your best bet is to demo a couple in each size to find your personal preferences.  In addition to width, flex is key.  A stiff vs. soft ski at the same width will ski very differently, so spend a day swapping skis to find out what you like.

 

A medium flexing 88 is probably the best bump/trees/bowls ski for your weight, but that might be too close to your current ski for you.  So maybe you'll like a 94 or 98 better.  It really depends on what width you can be happy on in the bumps after the powder is tracked up, and how wide you need for pow.  Some folks go much wider, especially if you ski where you can swap skis easily (Mary Jane, A-basin, Loveland).

 

I'd be looking for: what's the narrowest ski you are happy on skiing powder?  Verses what's the widest ski you are happy on skiing bumps?  Demo a bunch of skis to figure that out.  

 

Here are a few recent threads to read through to get some ideas:

http://www.epicski.com/t/119833/best-bump-to-powder-to-bump-ski

http://www.epicski.com/t/120649/looking-for-an-all-mountain-ski-thats-decent-on-moguls

http://www.epicski.com/t/120363/88-vs-98-mm

 

And a couple older threads that compare a bunch of these skis:

http://www.epicski.com/a/2011-mid-fat-ski-reviews-by-dawgcatching

http://www.epicski.com/t/92748/western-daily-drivers-in-the-90-100mm-range

 

Anybody have links to updated 90-100 comparisons from the epicski brain trust?


Edited by tball - 6/18/13 at 8:41am
post #7 of 27

The most popular ski at the demo shop where I sometimes worked last season was the Rossignol S3. It seemed to appeal to the widest range of skier abilities and snow conditions and imo is ideally suited for a light weight skier who likes to make lots of turns.

 

Try the 168cm S3, but because it has lots of rocker and is very turny, also try the 178cm.

post #8 of 27

You should put the Blizzard Bonafide and Kabookie on your list, in the 173cm length.  I'm 5'9" and 150 and ski the 180cm bone.  At our weight, I'm not convinced we need to go over 100mm wide to get decent float.  I like to ski bumps, but wouldn't want to go wider than my 98mm Bones on bumps.  The reason I recommend the 173cm is that I sometimes find my 180s a bit stiff/clunky.

 

As the average size on this site is closer to 6' and 200lbs, be careful what advice you take.  One person to pay attention to is dawgcatching, as he's more our size.

post #9 of 27

I agree on the Bonafide. I have put many of customers your size on the 173. As far as the Kabookie, unless you are looking to save grams and you are partial to the color green it skis nearly identical. For me a dark horse value saver in this segment is the Salomon Quest 98 for coming to the market at $499 it is a killer deal. Splitting the difference at $599 is the new Rossignol Sin7, the newest and improved evolution of the S3. 

post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all of the replies! I just got off of watch (deployed military here, 7 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time), so I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to throw this out there. I'll edit this post with more thoughts in the morning. Some friends have recommended three skis to me and I thought I'd ask for an opinion on whether they are a good match. The skis are the Line Prophet 98, K2 Hardside, and Nordica Hell and Back.

post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gth842s View Post

Thanks for all of the replies! I just got off of watch (deployed military here, 7 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time), so I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to throw this out there. I'll edit this post with more thoughts in the morning. Some friends have recommended three skis to me and I thought I'd ask for an opinion on whether they are a good match. The skis are the Line Prophet 98, K2 Hardside, and Nordica Hell and Back.

All three are very good skis. Add another 20-30Lb on your frame and you will get more out of these but the skis mentioned above by me and others are better choices, not that the three you mentioned are bad, we jsut mentioned better ones..we could have mentioned these, they are on the short list for many skiers. 

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gth842s View Post

Thanks for all of the replies! I just got off of watch (deployed military here, 7 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time), so I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to throw this out there. I'll edit this post with more thoughts in the morning. Some friends have recommended three skis to me and I thought I'd ask for an opinion on whether they are a good match. The skis are the Line Prophet 98, K2 Hardside, and Nordica Hell and Back.
I'm about your size 5'5" / 150 and ski the Prophet 98@172cm and I love it, really easy to drive and it turns on a dime! It's a more soft snow oriented than a ski like the bonafide so the issue is that you won't be able to crush through crud with the P98, it will just flap around! It's a very good soft snow ski though, but again sometimes I wish it was a little stiffer!
post #13 of 27

i'm 5'9" and 150 lbs. my two favorite skis are the volkel bridge @ 163 and the rossi s3 @ 168. i've skied them both east and west. the bridge is slightly better on hardpack. the s3 is a better powder and wood ski. both are very good in moguls. i tried a friend's rossi s7 which are 110 underfoot and found them difficult in anything other then soft snow/powder conditions. the bridge and s3 are daily drivers. i would also like to respond the rash of "what kind of ski to buy?" posts lately. i have a few simple suggestions. first, you have to demo lots of skis so you can make an educated decision when a great buy pops up and you have to make a quick choice to pull the trigger. second, only you and your closest ski buddies know how you ski. online responders usually push their kind of ski for their kind of habits and terrain. third, advice and comparisons are only valid if the height and weight of the responder are close to yours. sometimes the bargain is so great it's worth taking a chance. you can usually recoup the money on resale on craig's list.
 

post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gth842s View Post

Thanks for all of the replies! I just got off of watch (deployed military here, 7 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time), so I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to throw this out there. I'll edit this post with more thoughts in the morning. Some friends have recommended three skis to me and I thought I'd ask for an opinion on whether they are a good match. The skis are the Line Prophet 98, K2 Hardside, and Nordica Hell and Back.
All three are very good skis. Add another 20-30Lb on your frame and you will get more out of these but the skis mentioned above by me and others are better choices, not that the three you mentioned are bad, we jsut mentioned better ones..we could have mentioned these, they are on the short list for many skiers. 

Listen to Phil. I am exactly your height, a few pounds lighter. More out less hated the hell and back except on groomers and at speed in crud. Atrocious for me in bumps. Too stiff, not playful. Also - side note - don't go too short on a rockered ski like the S3 others mentioned. 168 is not enough if you're already on a 167 fully cambered ski.
post #15 of 27

I'm 5'8" and 140#, advanced but also short of expert. I also love MJ/WP, though Mammoth is ostensibly my home mountain. Only last year did I really get a proper introduction to MJ's bumps through a Sunday Bob's Bump Jamboree clinic. One of the best day's instruction I've ever had. Back to the question at hand: a year ago I happened onto a great deal on a pair of demo Bushwackers in 173 cm. Love them in everything between true hardpack and powder exceeding boot top depth. Then, this past spring I happened onto an equally great deal on a pair of demo Bonafides, also 173 cm. I justify that purchase with the argument that I needed to fill the gap in my quiver between 88 mm and 107 mm. As far as I'm concerned, they are the same ski, only shifted slightly more toward the powder end of the spectrum.  The Bushwackers may be too close to your current 82 mm Atomics, so the Bonafides might be the better choice for you. I think they make the better everyday ride. Last year my travel quiver was Blizzard Supersonics (72mm) and Volkl Gotamas (the '11-'12 iteration). My teacher pointed out that the Supersonic's stiff tail was more punishing of less than stellar bump technique than I might want to put up with. Because I am developing a greater fondness for bumps than groomers/gates, next year my travel quiver will be the Bushwackers and the Gotamas. I see the Bonafides as being the skis I would travel with if I were forced at gunpoint to take only one pair. Of course, when I drive up to Mammoth, I can throw as many as 4 pairs into the back of the car. Life's good. cool.gif

post #16 of 27
Thread Starter 

Thanks to everyone for the inputs!

 

Here is my tentative 3 skis to try out this season, in no particular order:

 

1) Rossi Sin 7 at 172; seems to have a lot of what I'm looking for in a well reviewed and recommended package.

2) Bonafides, in 173. Consensus good choice by folks on here.

3) Salomon Quest 98 at 172, good value and similar to the Sin 7.

 

If those aren't available for some reason, I'll fall back on:

 

1) Line Sick Day 95 at 172.

2) K2 Annex 98 / HardSide at 170 or 177.

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gth842s View Post

Thanks to everyone for the inputs!

 

Here is my tentative 3 skis to try out this season, in no particular order:

 

1) Rossi Sin 7 at 172; seems to have a lot of what I'm looking for in a well reviewed and recommended package.

2) Bonafides, in 173. Consensus good choice by folks on here.

3) Salomon Quest 98 at 172, good value and similar to the Sin 7.

 

If those aren't available for some reason, I'll fall back on:

 

1) Line Sick Day 95 at 172.

2) K2 Annex 98 / HardSide at 170 or 177.


If you end up moving to the Pacific NW you should expand your search to the 105ish range of skis. There's not as many bumps and lots of off-piste skiing but snow is heavier than Colorado. So looking at the skis above try:

 

1) Rossi Soul 7

2) Blizzard Cochise/Scout

3) Salomon Quest/Rocker 10x.

post #18 of 27

1) DPS 112rp, 178cm

2) Line Prophet 98, 172cm

3) Blizzard Bushwacker 173cm

post #19 of 27

If you can get your hands on some, try the ON3P Vicik.  Blizzard Cochise could be a solid choice too.  

post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwjg View Post

1) DPS 112rp, 178cm

2) Line Prophet 98, 172cm

3) Blizzard Bushwacker 173cm

Wow, you are all over the place with these three. 

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

Wow, you are all over the place with these three. 

No kidding.
post #22 of 27
Thread Starter 

A question for Philpug but could be answered by anybody who has skied the Bonafides, Q 98, or Sin 7:

 

Could you please compare and contrast how these skis felt when you tested them? I saw your review of the Q 98 and that you recommended buying them before they sell out, how do they compare to the other two skis listed above?

 

A couple other questions:

 

1) I noticed that the Sin 7 lacks the 'air tip' being advertised in the soul 7. Is this a big deal? I feel like the Soul 7 most likely is too wide for my height / weight.

 

2) Am I right to be looking to demo all of these skis at around 172 cm?

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

Wow, you are all over the place with these three. 

 



Am I?

 

The OP wanted a list of a few skis to demo and all three of these do the "one-ski quiver for a lighter guy" job in much different ways.  I think starting with a list like that would help him narrow which direction he wants to go.  OTOH, many of the skis recommended like Bones & Cochise work better for bigger, stronger skiers. 

 

The OP did ask for a "why" which I didn't give.

 

Bushwhackers:  Narrower "all mountain" ski Super easy to ski and really versatile.  From bumps to carving trenches in the groomed to <12" of powder (think Colorado) and this ski does it all.  If you skied 50 days per year or were a top expert and wanted more of a "specialist" I might look elsewhere. 

 

Line Prophet 98:  Wider "all mountain" ski that is easy to bend.  One of the better 98's for lighter, finesse skiers.  Very few days where this wouldn't work well.

 

DPS 112rp:  Wider, more powder oriented "all mountain" ski that is stellar in the trees and deep snow.  Will still carve well, especially with those 25 year old knees.  Super playful and fun and he has a narrower ski if he wants something different, this ski would give him a much different experience which is kind of the point of having more than one pair.

 

Just my $.02.

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gth842s View Post

A question for Philpug but could be answered by anybody who has skied the Bonafides, Q 98, or Sin 7:

Could you please compare and contrast how these skis felt when you tested them? I saw your review of the Q 98 and that you recommended buying them before they sell out, how do they compare to the other two skis listed above?

A couple other questions:

1) I noticed that the Sin 7 lacks the 'air tip' being advertised in the soul 7. Is this a big deal? I feel like the Soul 7 most likely is too wide for my height / weight.

2) Am I right to be looking to demo all of these skis at around 172 cm?

Check out my reviews of the other two skis, they are also very favorable. As far as the Quest 98 selling out early, it is because it is a ski that will be looked over by many buyers and will not be carried at a whole lot of shops. The lack of air tip is not important in the Sin7, in fact for a 98mm ski that will see more mixed conditions than its 106 waisted big brother, I would rather not have it.

Between the difference between the 499 Quest, 599 Sin and 699 Bonafide, as you move up in price, you are gaining strength, refinement and power. The Bonafide hasn't been as critically acclaimed as it has been for nothing, it is very well the best 98mm ski since it hit the market.
post #25 of 27

OP I am not far off your size at 5'9 155lb and I absolutely love my atomic coaxs and was a big fan of the salomon shogun but I lost one backcountry frown.gif. The Coaxs are the ski I take with me when I can only have one pair. They aren't my favorite on true hard pack but otherwise they are fantastic. I have skied snow that was waist to chest deep and they had plenty of float.

 

As for length I wouldn't look at anything under 175 but that's just me. I own one pair under that length that are my slalom style ski. My average length for the last few years has been between 179-183.  

post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 

Sorry to bump this, but I have more or less decided to go with the Bonafides (and order them early so I can enjoy when I go out west this year). My thought process is that even if they are a little stiff, they'll be a ski I can grow into and that will challenge me to improve. I'll go with the 173s; does anyone recommend a particular binding?

post #27 of 27

I mounted mine with Look PX12's but you could probably mount anything with 100mm brakes on there and be fine.  There's been some good buzz on here lately about the Salomon STH Driver.  Figure out your DIN and try to be in the middle of the binding's range.

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 › Western One Ski Quiver for shorter / lighter guy.