or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Opinions on a few powder skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opinions on a few powder skis

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

I want to add a new ski to my quiver.  I live in the East, but go out west or to Europe yearly for a week.  My current everyday ski is a 2010 Dynastar Legend Mythic Rider in 178 cm.   I am happy with them.  they will last a few more years.   I use Naxo AT bindings and garmont Endorphin AT boots.

 

I am 5'9" and 180 pounds.  54 years old.  I am a level 9 skier, who skis more fluidly and methodically than agressively.  I like off piste terrain, glades and bowls,  I want a ski that will also be able to ski bumps and groomed snow when required.

 

 

 

I want a ski that is more soft snow oriented than the MR, although they have been totally adequate thus far.  

 

In an earlier thread, I sought endorsements for the 2013 Volkl Gotama as such a ski, but there were no recommendations.  

Here are a few more options based on what I can get my hands on at a decent price:

 

Coreupt the Slasher 2012 in either 179 or 187  (not sure which one would be right)

 

Ninthward RDS 2013 in 184 cm

 

Rossignol S3 in 186 cm.

 

Rossignol S7 in 186 cm

 

Volkl Mantra in 177 or 184

 

Can anyone with hands on experience recommend any one of these?

 

 

Which length would I be better off with?

post #2 of 19

I've only skied some of the skis on your list, so I'll only speak to those.

 

For a 180lb finesse skier, the mantra is a terrible powder and bump ski.  It's just too stiff.  I would not recommend that.

 

The S3 and S7 are both good soft snow skis with the S7 getting the nod in powder and the S3 getting the nod in bumps.  I personally find something as wide as the S7 to be a little unwieldy in bumps, but that's my preference.  Given that you have the MR's, the S7 is the better fat ski to add to your quiver, but it's certainly not going to be as good in bumps as the S3 is.  Neither one will be as good on hard pack as your MR's, but that's just a fact of life with soft snow oriented skis.

 

That's my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

post #3 of 19

What he said. Except that if you have a Mythic Rider, you don't need the S3. S7 pick of the litter for a finesse skier; easy to handle at sub-sonic speeds, surprisingly versatile. Can even carve and handle bumps, although prefers pivots and rolls in latter . Although at your height, you might like the 176 better for tight spaces, trees, that kind of thing. I've skied both lengths, owned the 186. I'm 6', 165. 

post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

[snip] S7 pick of the litter for a finesse skier; easy to handle at sub-sonic speeds, surprisingly versatile. Can even carve and handle bumps, although prefers pivots and rolls in latter . Although at your height, you might like the 176 better for tight spaces, trees, that kind of thing.[snip]

 

I dunno, Beyond. I skied the S7 (actually it was the women's S7, whatever that's really called) in a 178 - I think that was the length, not 176 - and it was perfect for me. And I'm not one of those people who likes to ski everything long. The OP has 45lbs and a couple inches on me. Seems like the 176/8 might not be enough ski??? Maybe the unisex model is beefier.

post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

I dunno, Beyond. I skied the S7 (actually it was the women's S7, whatever that's really called) in a 178 - I think that was the length, not 176 - and it was perfect for me. And I'm not one of those people who likes to ski everything long. The OP has 45lbs and a couple inches on me. Seems like the 176/8 might not be enough ski??? Maybe the unisex model is beefier.

 

The first year (or maybe two), they were 176 and 186, the next year they were 178 etc: same length, just different measuring method, or something.

post #6 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

 

For a 180lb finesse skier, the mantra is a terrible powder and bump ski.  It's just too stiff.  I would not recommend that.

 

 

Sorry, I meant to say Katana, not Mantra.  So, what about the Katana?

post #7 of 19

Katana's a scaled up Mantra without camber. As far as length, I'll explain my reasoning. I think that differences in what we like for length largely reflect what we want from it. At 176, the S7 is 1 cm above top of head for someone 5'9", super maneuverable for me at 6'. But it gets knocked around some in crud at speed. At 186/88, which is 11 cm above his head, it gives up some maneuverability for some stability when I use it. It's still 3 cm above my head. 

 

Now this is not to say that someone 5'7" couldn't ski it well and enjoy it. And yeah, I noticed it's rockered. But it is to say that it's a different ski  for someone when it's 11-14 cm above their head than when it's 1 cm.

 

This is also about where. The rocker thing that's always, always brought up like it's attorney boilerplate ("Warning: These ski short because they have rocker"), is only relevant when the ski's not covered in powder. When it is, its running length is its stated length, more or less. Which was the original intention of rocker, y'know, to allow a ski to be longer when we needed it to be. So if we want to use a rockered ski on softer groomers, or in light power/chop/crud, then yep, it skis really short. If we want to use a rockered ski in actual powder, enough that it'll sink in, then nope, it doesn't ski short. It'll plane easier. But that's not the same thing. So, OP, which do you want to use it for? 

 

Out. 

post #8 of 19

FWIW, a buddy is 5'9", 180, level 9, and really likes the Ninthward RDS.  He has the 178 size, because he likes shorter lengths, and bought them to replace his 176 Tokyo Nights Gotamas. 

 

He's told me that they're as good as the cambered Gotamas on firm snow, and have more float/swivel in softer snow. After skiing with him for ~9 days, including skiing trees/Hobacks in a 5-day 60" storm at Jackson Hole last year, and Vail's Back Bowls in variable conditions and about 1/2 a day on moguls on Birds of Prey at Beaver Creek this year, the RDSes look good, so the quality seems fine. He was skiing well and looked like he was having a great time on them on each trip.

 

The 184 RDSes were ~$229 at levelninesports.com last time I checked.

post #9 of 19

First, if you're traveling for a week a winter to the west or Euro-land, you may want to just consider renting/demoing while there. Between the infrequent use and the cost to take skis on the airlines, purchasing probably isn't very cost effective.

 

As for your question, you might want to consider the Super 7 rather than S7. It's a little beefier with the same shape. I have skied the S7 from three or four years ago and went with an S6 instead. Last year, I got the Super7 in a 188 and loved it. The S7 was just too....I don't know....easy? It didn't really give me any feedback when I skied it and felt like it was going to fold in half if I pressed it. The Super, OTOH is very responsive and provides the sense of loading it when you ride it hard.  This year's Super is garnering very high praise as a western deep snow ski. I would recommend that over the normal S7.

 

As for size, I'm 5'11, 185 lbs but don't know my numerical skier 'type'. Suffice it to say, I ski a LOT of western powder (check out our videos at  http://www.epicski.com/peak-travels for examples of what we ski. Good luck on your decision.

post #10 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post

First, if you're traveling for a week a winter to the west or Euro-land, you may want to just consider renting/demoing while there. Between the infrequent use and the cost to take skis on the airlines, purchasing probably isn't very cost effective.

 

 

My main issue with renting is that I ski in AT boots with Tech soles and rental skis with bindings that accept Tech soles are hard to come by.

 

OTOH, my boots allow me to interchange with DIN soles.  It is a pain in the b*****t, but could be done I guess.  It requires a screwdriver and about 10 minutes.

post #11 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

The rocker thing that's always, always brought up like it's attorney boilerplate ("Warning: These ski short because they have rocker"), is only relevant when the ski's not covered in powder. When it is, its running length is its stated length, more or less. Which was the original intention of rocker, y'know, to allow a ski to be longer when we needed it to be. So if we want to use a rockered ski on softer groomers, or in light power/chop/crud, then yep, it skis really short. If we want to use a rockered ski in actual powder, enough that it'll sink in, then nope, it doesn't ski short. It'll plane easier. But that's not the same thing. So, OP, which do you want to use it for? 

 

Out. 

As I mentioned, I have another ski that can handle pretty much most conditions.  So what I am looking for is a dedicated powder ski.  Does not hurt if it can actually do more.  And as we all know, there comes a time in the day, even on the best of days,  that all powder is skied out.

post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post
OTOH, my boots allow me to interchange with DIN soles.  It is a pain in the b*****t, but could be done I guess.  It requires a screwdriver and about 10 minutes.

 

Aw, it'll give you something to do on the plane....

post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 

I have done a bit more research and am also interested in the Atomic Blog.  I have spotted a 2012 Blog in 177 cm length, and a 2013 in 185cm.  I assume that other than the cosmetic, and the length, the two skis are the same.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  

 

Which one of the two would be the right length for me.  Again: 5'9, 180 pounds, Level 9 skier, 54 years old.

post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post

I have done a bit more research and am also interested in the Atomic Blog.  I have spotted a 2012 Blog in 177 cm length, and a 2013 in 185cm.  I assume that other than the cosmetic, and the length, the two skis are the same.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  

 

Which one of the two would be the right length for me.  Again: 5'9, 180 pounds, Level 9 skier, 54 years old.

 

I haven't skied the blog but have read some pretty positive stuff on it.  However I just chimed in to say that at your size and ability, the 185 is the 100% no-questions-asked right size IMO.

post #15 of 19
Thread Starter 

Finally, I have come across what looks like a good deal on the 2013 Blizzard Gunsmoke (186 cm).  I read a bit about it, and the reviewers do not seem to be unanimous. Some say that it gets tossed around in crud, and cannot carve on groomed runs.  OTOH, I also read that the actual production skis are stiffer in the tip and tail than the ones submitted to the ski media for testing at the end of 2012.  Does any one here have hands on experience with the Gunsmoke in that length?  

post #16 of 19

There are so many good skis out there.  Some are instantly easy for a person to ski while the next takes a lot more effort.  The later seems to be the consensus with the Gunsmoke.  http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2nd-look-2012-2013-blizzard-gunsmoke

Just looking at the dimensions and comments on the ski, I think I could make it work for me, but I would rather stick with my Atomic Automatics.  http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-atomic-automatic-193cm

Ooops, for you the 186 would be prefect.


Edited by liv2 ski - 9/7/13 at 3:35pm
post #17 of 19

"There are so many good skis out there."

 

Agreed.  Blister Reviews?  I've skied a few skies myself and I have a hard time agreeing with some of the Blister comments on skiis I've been on.  Disappointed in myself I let Blister sway my choices for so long.

 

Just saying my own experience.  Skis are like...well everyone has an opinion once you get on them...

 

My suggestion on the question would be forget about having a "all around ski" and get a decent big mtn Powder ski.

 

177/188cm some where is my though bein gof similar age and ability.  I geenrally ski 192 or so and really really like soem of the these guys aroudn 115 under foot and i na 180 +/-.

 

DPS 120

112RPC

Dynafit Huascaran

La Sportiva Hang 5

Praxis (any of the big mtn skis will likely do)

.

post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 
I ended up ordering the GUNSMOKE in 186 cm length from backcountry.com. I was also very tempted by the Super 7, but they could not ship Rossis to Canada. Probably has to do with some restriction in their distribution agreement with Rossignol.

I was torn between the 179 and 186, especially because the 186 was the longest available length in 2013, but I erred on the side of Floatation, and stability. Those things have so much rocker that I doubt the length will be a problem.

Now I just need to find a suitable binding. Thanks to all of the people who chimed in!
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post

I ended up ordering the GUNSMOKE in 186 cm length from backcountry.com. I was also very tempted by the Super 7, but they could not ship Rossis to Canada. Probably has to do with some restriction in their distribution agreement with Rossignol.

I was torn between the 179 and 186, especially because the 186 was the longest available length in 2013, but I erred on the side of Floatation, and stability. Those things have so much rocker that I doubt the length will be a problem.

Now I just need to find a suitable binding. Thanks to all of the people who chimed in!

 

You did the right thing going 186cm! Don't look back!

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 › Opinions on a few powder skis