or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help needed from some pros on ski selection.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help needed from some pros on ski selection. - Page 2

post #31 of 44
It's all relative. I generally love how Nordicas ski ( and the better I ski the more I love them). It's just a reflection of the brand's character. My unscientific impression is that they don't reward lazy skiing as much. It's a good thing.
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Schweaty View Post
 

I'll give a look at real skiers (I subscribe)and see what they make of it.  Thanks

 

For my.02, their reviews are pretty weak. Highly driven by folks who do not get modern designs. The PNW was  one of the places that modern designs took root. For a reason IMO. OK, several reasons, but one of them being the snow.

 

Year after year, I keep hoping Realskiers will "get it". But it does not seem to be in their DNA.

post #33 of 44
What they do nicely though, is to group the 98's into a couple of basic categories. Their groupings are pretty much the same as you'll find in the advice given here. All ski reviews are lacking in one way or another as they're very subjective creatures. I'm sure most of us give higher stock to friends opinions on skis who we know are of similar weight and ability. And no offense at all Spin, but I don't recall you ever recommending a ski under 105 or so underfoot. That's your preference. Works for you, others MMV. No doubt you have good knowledge of those skis though.
post #34 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

What they do nicely though, is to group the 98's into a couple of basic categories. Their groupings are pretty much the same as you'll find in the advice given here. All ski reviews are lacking in one way or another as they're very subjective creatures. I'm sure most of us give higher stock to friends opinions on skis who we know are of similar weight and ability. And no offense at all Spin, but I don't recall you ever recommending a ski under 105 or so underfoot. That's your preference. Works for you, others MMV. No doubt you have good knowledge of those skis though.

 

Fair enough. Although, to be fair, for smaller people I have been known to suggest skis around 100 ;) 

 
In all seriousness though, I have nerded out to the extreme (for a "layperson") about the elements of rockered designs. And, honestly, IMO many of the benefits of those designs drop off as skis get much below 100. Certainly if you start to slide below 90. In a sense getting past that zone is the mirror image of just fattening up a conventional cambered ski to say 115 - while there may be some benefits in specific situations, more often than not, the design elements and the size of the ski start to work against each other. 
 
But that said, I give you your point. My bias runs to the "fat" end of things. Even compensating a bit for that bias, IMO the average skier under average conditions  is best served by "all around" modern skis in the 100-110 range. FWIW, my "daily drivers" will run 116 & 117 this year. And my good day skis up from there...
 
Obviously others differ in their perspectives.
post #35 of 44
100 - 2... 2mm(!) = 98 smile.gif
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

100 - 2... 2mm(!) = 98 smile.gif

 

Yes, but the points I raised were in the context of the Realskiers reviews -- not arguing against the category. Again, I have not found Realskiers to "get" the modern designs. Sort of for obvious reasons. They are arguably better in the narrower more traditional categories for sure. But still not where I trust their opinions. Maybe I'm just biased biased based on how off base their reviews generally are wrt the wider skis I tend to play with.

 

Still, I yield the point. :) 


Edited by spindrift - 9/22/13 at 6:05pm
post #37 of 44
Thread Starter 

Alex,

 

Thanks for the info.  Yeah, the more I think about my skiing the more I think intermediate with aspirations.  Well aspirations is a good thing. 

post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

 

For my.02, their reviews are pretty weak. Highly driven by folks who do not get modern designs. The PNW was  one of the places that modern designs took root. For a reason IMO. OK, several reasons, but one of them being the snow.

 

Year after year, I keep hoping Realskiers will "get it". But it does not seem to be in their DNA.

 

Hey Spin - God I love thread drift - did you check out last year when the H20 Kodiak was their top pick, mostly 5's? 120 mm waist, y'know, made by Praxis. Gave it bigger raves than Blister or anyone else. And they seem to be infatuated with SkiLogik, which is a lot smaller than most indies. And this year, they gave top marks to skis like the Bodacious, Super 7, Armada JJ, Skilogik Rock Star, well you get the idea.  

 
If you're peeved about their failure to adequately cover some worthwhile Indies - ON3P or Praxis per se have never been there, they gave limited and mediocre evals of Moment and DPS - can only agree. I wrote them about that two years ago, no reply, of course. But indies don't automatically translate as "modern design," unless you limit modern design to largely experimental shapes that sell weakly and are aimed at a comparatively few skiers. The reverse reverse shapes are always on sale after everything else is gone, and after all, the idea came from K2 and Volant. The Yeti and the Deathwish, well, let's see if they actually work, before we start giving them awards. And the new spoons from DPS may be waaay cool, but are not aimed at most skiers, according to DPS themselves. The skis that sell most at Moment, Praxis, ON3P are not cutting edge, but the reliable ones. The only exception I can see is the Billy Goat, and it's nowhere as revolutionary as the Yeti. 
 
Second, ignoring experimental designs doesn't translate as hostile to wide skis, or "not in the DNA," at least over the past several years, if you just look at the scores. It translates as "what do our readers care about?" 
 
I really believe that Real Skiers is pretty reliable for 4/5 of all skiers. If it's still a bit biased toward groomer skis, well, most skiers ski groomers exclusively. If it's still ignoring double dirty moustaches, maybe that's a service to its its audience. Would you like to estimate the jump in blown ACL's if significant numbers of people started skiing Praxis Powders? Or the number of intermediates who would be happiest on a 138 Lotus Spoon Pure 3? 
 
So let's get focused. It's simple. Forget DNA. You want them to review some ON3P's. Especially the Billy Goat. Period. I agree. Let's start a petition. 
post #39 of 44

I am focused. And that DNA does matter in terms of in how it influences the advice given. I'm still not impressed with Realskiers' analysis. Particularly their rather firm opinion that skis north of a hundred can not be all mountain skis. Among other reasons, it matters in this thread is because we are discussing skis for the Cascades. And there are few places in NA where someone skiing all over the mountain will ski more soft snow. So, just for fun,  I'll just throw the usual epicski "east coast is different" bit back in reverse. 

 

The PNW gets lots of snow. Lots of soft natural snow. The main WA areas average from about 400 to 600+ inches a year. Lots of powder, lots of wet snow, lots of upside down snow. And Spring skiing is slushy. What they have in common is "soft". In light of that, a near-200 pound skier in the PNW looking for an "all mountain" ski should most certainly consider "modern" skis at least to the 115 range as candidates (and the even modestly bold may well look to the 120s). You don't need to be a "young buck". You just need to know that for a moderate sacrifice on firm snow, you get a massive improvement in soft snow handling from a wider modern ski. In addition, a wider ski makes it vastly easier to get comfortable off piste in soft snow - which, as already noted,  the Cascades deliver in abundance in a typical year. And in soft snow, the edge to edge argument falls off quite quickly, as you are not leveraging the ski on a hard surface. 

 

The OP may well choose something in the 100 or narrower zone - for any number of reasons. Including basic personal preference. But for my .02, the choice should be based on a more robust view of ski behavior, categorization, and understanding of modern designs, than is offered at Realskiers. If you want to dig into each of those items you mentioned (and others) with respect to the Realskiers reviews & blog, maybe we should migrate that bit of dialog to the Realskiers thread? One thing I hope we agree on though - their readers deserve  to see meaningful reviews of some key skis from smaller players like Praxis, ON3P, DPS and even "bigger" entities like 4FRNT...

post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

I am focused. And that DNA does matter in terms of in how it influences the advice given. I'm still not impressed with Realskiers' analysis. Particularly their rather firm opinion that skis north of a hundred can not be all mountain skis. Among other reasons, it matters in this thread is because we are discussing skis for the Cascades. And there are few places in NA where someone skiing all over the mountain will ski more soft snow. So, just for fun,  I'll just throw the usual epicski "east coast is different" bit back in reverse. 

 

The PNW gets lots of snow. Lots of soft natural snow. The main WA areas average from about 400 to 600+ inches a year. Lots of powder, lots of wet snow, lots of upside down snow. And Spring skiing is slushy. What they have in common is "soft". In light of that, a near-200 pound skier in the PNW looking for an "all mountain" ski should most certainly consider "modern" skis at least to the 115 range as candidates (and the even modestly bold may well look to the 120s). You don't need to be a "young buck". You just need to know that for a moderate sacrifice on firm snow, you get a massive improvement in soft snow handling from a wider modern ski. In addition, a wider ski makes it vastly easier to get comfortable off piste in soft snow - which, as already noted,  the Cascades deliver in abundance in a typical year. And in soft snow, the edge to edge argument falls off quite quickly, as you are not leveraging the ski on a hard surface. 

 

The OP may well choose something in the 100 or narrower zone - for any number of reasons. Including basic personal preference. But for my .02, the choice should be based on a more robust view of ski behavior, categorization, and understanding of modern designs, than is offered at Realskiers. If you want to dig into each of those items you mentioned (and others) with respect to the Realskiers reviews & blog, maybe we should migrate that bit of dialog to the Realskiers thread? One thing I hope we agree on though - their readers deserve  to see meaningful reviews of some key skis from smaller players like Praxis, ON3P, DPS and even "bigger" entities like 4FRNT...

 

This entire post makes total sense to me from beginning to end - at least as much sense as it can make to someone who's never skied in the PNW. Here's hoping that equivalent posts from folks like me in the east will be read from a similar perspective.

post #41 of 44
And to add to the confusion, I'm perfectly happy on 98's for most days in the PNW and will be getting a pair of either 70 something's or low 80 somethings for the PNW. I do have a pair of 118 something's as well... Probably skied those about 20% of the total time on snow the past couple seasons, but a 115+ will never be my daily ski.
post #42 of 44
It's all biased. I'm perfectly happy on a pair of 85s in Canadian Rockies and I'm 200 lbs too. That really depends on OP's personal ski style. IMO there is no true 'all mountain skis', or any skis can be 'all mountain skis' because there are no skis that do everything very well (no skis can be 100% capable in soft snow and 100% capable in hard snow at the same time. Same for other characteristics.), and if you have the skills, any skis can be skied in any conditions (you may not be as happy but it is doable). I think what OP needs is to find out is his priority. And then you can have a few options. Pick a few characteristics of the skis that you think is the most useful or mostly used (and they should not contradict each other) to start (eg groomer and speed. If you pick soft snow and hard snow then what you need is magic).
post #43 of 44
To add to OP's comfort, I don't get into knee deep powder that often so I picked a narrower width, but when it happens, my skis are still skiable. They are submerged a bit but they are definitely not pain in the ass to ski.
post #44 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

...And there are few places in NA where someone skiing all over the mountain will ski more soft snow. So, just for fun,  I'll just throw the usual epicski "east coast is different" bit back in reverse. Truth that. 

 

...In light of that, a near-200 pound skier in the PNW looking for an "all mountain" ski should most certainly consider "modern" skis at least to the 115 range as candidates (and the even modestly bold may well look to the 120s). No problem here either. Is it the way Real Skiers categorizes "all mountain" that bugs you? Cuz there's another issue here: They - and other review sites - pretty much ignore differences in what terrain we choose, when we have a choice. Some of us choose to either ski soft, or not ski at all. If we're back here, that can translate to a lot of trees or OB. If we're in the NW, that can be 75% of the days, period. Others of us ski whatever's on the table that day and place. But if I'm a guy who fits the "soft for me" profile, then for sure a 115 could be an everyday ski (the "all mountain" rubric).

 

And maybe you're in the bellweather state; as climate keeps changing a lot more areas are going to see wetter and wetter snow. If they're lucky enough that it isn't rain. We may all need to study up on how skiers in the NW handle their mush. Maybe 115's with lots of rocker, or maybe something more like a Cochise. 

 

...But for my .02, the choice should be based on a more robust view of ski behavior, categorization, and understanding of modern designs, than is offered at Realskiers. Yeah, they may support a number of modern designs these days, but that's not the same as getting how people will use them. 

 

One thing I hope we agree on though - their readers deserve  to see meaningful reviews of some key skis from smaller players like Praxis, ON3P, DPS and even "bigger" entities like 4FRNT...Yep. Though the same can be said for most review sites including Epic. For instance, I've dinged Real Skiers for its Head carver fixation, or our deal with mid-fat Blizzards, but what's with Blister's fascination over Moment? I'd rather see more models from other indies reviewed there than a ninth look at the Bibby Pro. Oh well...

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 › Help needed from some pros on ski selection.