or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › should i get mantras / an all mountain ski to compliment my tigersharks?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

should i get mantras / an all mountain ski to compliment my tigersharks?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

So i love my tigersharks. Was thinking do i 1. try and upgrade them? 2. compliment them with a different type of ski? 

 

i have a 176 cm http://www.skinet.com/ski/gear/volkl-tigershark-12-2009 

 

I ski 25 days a year at whiteface NY Gore mountain NY belleayre NY. i love groomers and have no complaints about my tigersharks. I was wondering would a 2013 carver be alot better than these for the conditions i mostly see in the north east? I figured no. 

 

I also will average about 11 days out west. Big sky 8 days and then a week in the SLC area or denver (wherever i can find a relevant conference to make it work related) .  

 

I was thinking because i wont see much improvement in a 4 year newer ski for the groomers . maybe i should get an all mountain ski? 

 

 

I'm 6'2" and 220lbs. 

 

i was between the 177cm mantras and 184s. 

 

I hate moguls. enjoy glades and maybe wish my tigersharks had a smaller turning radius for glades. I also enjoy staying in the resort but cutting off trail when theres powder or fresh snow. We dont see much powder on the east. And i love nice groomed steeps and have no complaints with my tigersharks there. Would the mantras be a logical choice for me and should i do 177 or 184? I own a pair of icelantic park skis (170 cm) and they are awesome for the park but i hate how they dont hold an edge well on the steeps or even getting to the park in the icy northeast. 

post #2 of 16

Well, Mantras don't get a lot of love here, but they sound like a good fit for you if... Bumps, not their strength but you don't go that way. Crud, variable, and ice on groomers, their strength. Glades, fine as long as it's soft. OTOH, they're not a particularly good straight powder ski, and they prefer to go fast. So if you see this ski more for your trips out west, with occasional use as a chop/crud ski back here, then you might think about keeping your Tigersharks and also take a gander at the Rossignol Experience 98 and the Blizzard Bonafide. Both will be a bit more fun out west, in the sense of being less demanding and having better float. But if you see this ski as more about soft snow days on groomers back east, and you already like the Tigershark feel, Mantras will make you happy. I'd normally say 184 for someone your size, but you could go with 177 if you are thinking more about tight places. 

 

Others will chip in with their recs, so check back. 

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Well, Mantras don't get a lot of love here, but they sound like a good fit for you if... Bumps, not their strength but you don't go that way. Crud, variable, and ice on groomers, their strength. Glades, fine as long as it's soft. OTOH, they're not a particularly good straight powder ski, and they prefer to go fast. So if you see this ski more for your trips out west, with occasional use as a chop/crud ski back here, then you might think about keeping your Tigersharks and also take a gander at the Rossignol Experience 98 and the Blizzard Bonafide. Both will be a bit more fun out west, in the sense of being less demanding and having better float. But if you see this ski as more about soft snow days on groomers back east, and you already like the Tigershark feel, Mantras will make you happy. I'd normally say 184 for someone your size, but you could go with 177 if you are thinking more about tight places. 

Others will chip in with their recs, so check back. 

When
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Well, Mantras don't get a lot of love here, but they sound like a good fit for you if... Bumps, not their strength but you don't go that way. Crud, variable, and ice on groomers, their strength. Glades, fine as long as it's soft. OTOH, they're not a particularly good straight powder ski, and they prefer to go fast. So if you see this ski more for your trips out west, with occasional use as a chop/crud ski back here, then you might think about keeping your Tigersharks and also take a gander at the Rossignol Experience 98 and the Blizzard Bonafide. Both will be a bit more fun out west, in the sense of being less demanding and having better float. But if you see this ski as more about soft snow days on groomers back east, and you already like the Tigershark feel, Mantras will make you happy. I'd normally say 184 for someone your size, but you could go with 177 if you are thinking more about tight places. 

Others will chip in with their recs, so check back. 

When you say less demanding what do you mean ? Like lighter in weight so you won't get as tired fast ?

Also a good glade ski is what something with a small turning radius ?

But a big ski naturally can't have a small turning radius right ?
post #4 of 16
Beyond is dead on with his thoughts other than you need the Mantra in a 184 for your size. I will take a slightly different angle, if you are looking for one ski to do all this, I would suggest the Kendo, it will do everything you you are expecting the Mantra to do but the Mantra won't do everything the Kendo in 184 will do for you. Both will be fine for your western trips because with either one if you get powder you will want something bigger anyway. My non Volkl suggestion would be the Kastle MX88' that is the only ski in this category that you can ski in a size below a 180.
post #5 of 16
I'm your height/weight and have a pair of Mantras (2010, pre-rocker/rise) in I84. I've used them in Colorado, Japan and locally her in Oz. I love skiing them but can understand why some don't. I agree with everything that Beyond and Phil have said about them.
If you are adding to your quiver, I would be inclined to go with a wider ski that is better in the soft eg.Maybe a Katana rather than Mantra. If you want a do it all ski than maybe the Mantra or Kendo.
If I head back to the States ( we'll see where your dollar heads next year), I would most likely take my 109mm waisted Ninthwards rather than the Mantras.
If I had to get rid of my quiver and choose 1pair for everything, I would keep the Mantras but because I don't have to downsize the quiver, the Mantras will probably not get used again. Jack of all trades, master of none for a big bloke.
Cheers
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 
So to be clear for glades I want a shorter ski with a quicker turn radius and less flex so it takes less effort to turn quickly right ?

Part of what scares me in steeper glades is that I have to go too fast than I would like to on my tiger sharks . I feel like the length keeps me back where with my old AC10s I could weave tighter and keep my speed under control in glades .
post #7 of 16
It isn't so much the length of tht Tigershark but they were as stiff as I-beams, making they tough to ski in the bumps and trees. I find it curious that you hate moguls but love trees because eastern trees get bumped up a lot and are unlike mogul fields except with trees. You have some icelantic park skis...have you taken them into the trees? I think you should keep the Tigersharks and get a more compliment ski that has some soft snow attributes and that is not the Mantra nor the Kendo or Mx88 I mentioned earlier, so I will retract those suggestions (unless you want one ski to do most things marginally). In that mid 90's range, the Scott The Ski in the 185 would be a killer choice and you might actually find that moguls are not the devils bad acne. Other playful skis in that range that can still hold an edge on firmer conditions would be Kastle FX94 now with early rise and the Salomon quest 98. All of these skis should be skied in their mid 180's length for your size, any shorter you will over power them and they will wash out. I am sorry, but if you are having a problem with the length, it is not the ski and some time with a good instructor might help you and would be a good investment in yourself.
post #8 of 16

YES!  You should get an all mountain ski!  I'll further the Kendo recommendation.  It's basically a slightly narrower and slightly softer Mantra that hits a really big sweet spot for the right skier.  I'm a Kendo fanboy and love it for skiing everything with 6 inches or less, and they will be way better than your tigersharks on a powder day since it's as wide as the original fat skis anyway.  You might eventually want to add a powder ski for the 20% of powder days as well, or you could just demo on a pow day.

 

I ski trees all the time with the Kendo and it does great making quick turns unless you are skiing it too long.  The 184 Kendo will be great and turn quick for you.  I love the 177 at 5'11" 180lbs.

 

As others said, the problem with the Mantra is bumps.  It's too wide and stiff in bumps for most.  You can drive a school bus down an winding road if you need to, but it's not much fun.

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

It isn't so much the length of tht Tigershark but they were as stiff as I-beams, making they tough to ski in the bumps and trees. I find it curious that you hate moguls but love trees because eastern trees get bumped up a lot and are unlike mogul fields except with trees. You have some icelantic park skis...have you taken them into the trees? I think you should keep the Tigersharks and get a more compliment ski that has some soft snow attributes and that is not the Mantra nor the Kendo or Mx88 I mentioned earlier, so I will retract those suggestions (unless you want one ski to do most things marginally). In that mid 90's range, the Scott The Ski in the 185 would be a killer choice and you might actually find that moguls are not the devils bad acne. Other playful skis in that range that can still hold an edge on firmer conditions would be Kastle FX94 now with early rise and the Salomon quest 98. All of these skis should be skied in their mid 180's length for your size, any shorter you will over power them and they will wash out. I am sorry, but if you are having a problem with the length, it is not the ski and some time with a good instructor might help you and would be a good investment in yourself.

Yes I have I like the icelantic da nollies at 170 in the trees they just don't hold an edge well to get to the trees . And they wash out because the bindings are are mounted right in the middle . No complaints I mean I set them up as a park ski .

I always thought a shorter ski mean better for short turns that's why slalom and GS said what the min ski you could run . And you always wanted the smallest . But yeah the small icelantics are crap because I always wash the back end out so they are truly only for the park .

Also the moguls hear are really close together so are you sure a 185 would be able to get side to side quick enough ? Would the 5 extra cm change the turning radius much or does that not even matter as much for glades and moguls compared to a softer flex . I mean the turning radius is just the ratio or side cuts ....
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuik View Post

Yes I have I like the icelantic da nollies at 170 in the trees they just don't hold an edge well to get to the trees . And they wash out because the bindings are are mounted right in the middle . No complaints I mean I set them up as a park ski .

I always thought a shorter ski mean better for short turns that's why slalom and GS said what the min ski you could run . And you always wanted the smallest . But yeah the small icelantics are crap because I always wash the back end out so they are truly only for the park .

Also the moguls hear are really close together so are you sure a 185 would be able to get side to side quick enough ? Would the 5 extra cm change the turning radius much or does that not even matter as much for glades and moguls compared to a softer flex . I mean the turning radius is just the ratio or side cuts ....

I skied the east for 30 plus years and have a good idea how big the bumps are. A compliant 180something ski with a good turn radius will work well for your size..that and a few good lessons could do your skiing wonders. The Ski in the 185 has a great shape, that and along with it's early rise will be a blast for you in the bumps, trees and your trips west..
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I think you should keep the Tigersharks and get a more compliment ski that has some soft snow attributes and that is not the Mantra nor the Kendo or Mx88 I mentioned earlier, so I will retract those suggestions (unless you want one ski to do most things marginally). In that mid 90's range, the Scott The Ski in the 185 would be a killer choice and you might actually find that moguls are not the devils bad acne. Other playful skis in that range that can still hold an edge on firmer conditions would be Kastle FX94 now with early rise and the Salomon quest 98. 

 

I think Phil is onto something here.  The Kendo and similar skis in the 88-90 class are great for bumps, IF you know how to ski bumps.  If you are learning bumps, on the other hand, they are not very forgiving and can kick your butt if you get in the back seat.  The skis with stiffer tails, especially the Kendo, require you stay on top of your skis and will punish you if you don't.  This can be a nice reminder to stay forward, but I suspect it will just make most folks hate bumps more.  Maybe I should stop recommending these skis for bumps... hmmm.

 

Phil's The Ski recomendation sounds like an awesome all-mountain bump ski.  A couple others you might consider are the Volkl Bridge and Rossi Sin 7.  They are both twin tips that should be much better all-mountain skis than your Icelantics.

post #12 of 16

The best way to know how much improvement has been made since 2009 is to demo skis...

Why do you want smaller radius for glades? Yours already have small radius no? And no, you don't especially need small radius for glades,,, The skis I use are around 16 to 20 m... Glades are more about drifting than carving...

Kendos are nice skis but I would hesitate between 184 and 177...I owned the 177 and prefered it to the 184 for tight trees...but the 184 would be better for the west I guess...Also at 215 pounds, they are really nice in bumps too...

Another suggestions:

Nordica steadfast ( solid!), Elan 88 xti (nice carvers too), kastle mx78 (wicked edgegrip)  or fx84 (carve nicely and really nice flex for bumps and trees)...

post #13 of 16

Choices choices. 

 

You don't want a deep sidecut for glades. Better with a normal to shallow sidecut, which will make pivoting and drifting easier. Mogsie's advice there is fine, if anything I'd argue for a 20-25 m. 

 

You also don't want especially short at your size, since any fore-aft balance issues, which can happen in unpredictable terrain, will produce a face plant or back slap. Id' say 178-180 is an absolute lower limit for you. And 185 should be fine. Look at it this way: Those 5-6 cm you're worried about are roughly the length of your index finger from the tip to the middle joint. Ain't gonna make or brake your ability to get through trees or bumps, but will have a disproportionate effect on stability. What may be more relevant is swing weight. Look for skis with some attention to lighter fronts and backs. Many brands are thinking about this these days. 

 

OK, now about specific skis: Your narrative seems to be moving toward the trees as you post. So now agree with Phil on a lot of this. Retract the Mantra idea. More generally, if you're trying to get another feel, with more of an emphasis on fluidity in off-piste or bumps, not sure Kendos will be that different from a scaled up, far better executed Tigershark. And as much as I think MX88's are maybe still the best all mountain on the planet, their weakest terrain is tight trees. And their design is beginning to show its age. Put another way, killer wide carvers for big guys aren't going to eat up trees. 

 

Instead I'd take something like a Brahma, or Steadfast, if I wanted a similar kind of strong ski, but a slightly different skill set, more flexible off-piste.

 

If you want to think yet more about trees, like half your time, The Ski, from everything I've read, should be superb. That's it's point. Ditto for the FX94 if you want to invest some $$. 

 

But for a guy your size, 91-94 mm isn't going to produce a lot of float in actual powder. So if you are seeing yourself plundering glades, you might be thinking about something in the 100-110 range, maybe starting with the Soul 7, Sollie Quest 98, and Blizzard Peacemaker or Kabookie. They will still be able to handle all but the hardest hardpack - that's for your Tigersharks - but they'll really be happiest off the groomers. 

 

Point, being, it might help if you decided whether you were more pointing at west than east, and more at groomers or trees. Each of those places will get you a different set of recs. They're all excellent skis. But not equally good in all places. See the difference? 


Edited by beyond - 10/11/13 at 8:04pm
post #14 of 16

East... or west....East....or west....

It sure would be easier to decide....:dunno

For me, I'm still impress by the float a 88-90 mm ski can give you compare to a 68-72 mm...

From 80 to 90, you will have enough float for 95% of what you will do East and still be able to have fun in glades, tight trees and bumps...

Over that, you improve your float but at the expense of the ability of skiing bumps...

If you still want an east-west ski, a 98 mm is a good compromise...like the Hell and Back that can turn on a dime and is still ok in bumps, really nice in glades and tight trees...

 

About lenght...

All my skis (except my radical 9 sl) are around 175 to 178 cm... But at the end of last season, I bought a 184 cm fx84... and yes it felt a little more stable but those tiny little 6 cm felt more like a foot in bumps ( ok..there is a little exageration here...)... Amazing how I could feel these 6 cm...This was in thight bumps and every where else it was fine... maybe it is just that I'm so used to  a shorter lenght and after a couple of time, I'll be ok with it???

 

again...demo and compare... I'm looking foward to demo the Volkl rtm 81( didn't like the 84)  and the Brahma (didn't like the Bushwacker)...

post #15 of 16

OP - I ski where you ski.

 

I recently bought a pair of Kastle LX82 skis for family days and spring conditions.  My other skis are Head Magnums.  I find that I almost never use the Heads anymore, unless there has been no snow for a while and it is boilerplate.  The LX range from Kastle gets very little love here on epic but I find they are an excellent all mountain choice for the east.  Very competent carvers (wood core with 2 layers of titanal) but also soft enough flexing (cap instead of sidewall) to be GREAT in bumps where a true power carver can kick your butt if your technique is not up to snuff.  They're also pretty good in trees.  I'd recommend LX82 as a replacement ski for you or LX92 as a complimentary ski.

 

$0.02.

post #16 of 16
Thread Starter 

thanks all for the abudance of info. I think i am going for a compliment (something like scotts the ski, after i demo a few of the suggestions on here). 

 

Also will most demo places have the nicer pairs of skis like some of the kastles or say like a volkl v-werks 84 (not considering this) but some of the higher end models? I never really demoed skis before just impulse buyed which isnt really good. 

 

also does it pay to save a set of bindings? i have probally owned 7 pairs of volkls where the bindings always come with the ski. but i was going to sell my icelantics because i dont really use them. does it pay to sell them without the bindings (figured most people would remont them anyway). they would be a pair of 2012 marker griffin 110mm wide brakes. wasnt sure if bindings made much of a difference ?  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Choices choices. 

 

You don't want a deep sidecut for glades. Better with a normal to shallow sidecut, which will make pivoting and drifting easier. Mogsie's advice there is fine, if anything I'd argue for a 20-25 m. 

 

You also don't want especially short at your size, since any fore-aft balance issues, which can happen in unpredictable terrain, will produce a face plant or back slap. Id' say 178-180 is an absolute lower limit for you. And 185 should be fine. Look at it this way: Those 5-6 cm you're worried about are roughly the length of your index finger from the tip to the middle joint. Ain't gonna make or brake your ability to get through trees or bumps, but will have a disproportionate effect on stability. What may be more relevant is swing weight. Look for skis with some attention to lighter fronts and backs. Many brands are thinking about this these days. 

 

OK, now about specific skis: Your narrative seems to be moving toward the trees as you post. So now agree with Phil on a lot of this. Retract the Mantra idea. More generally, if you're trying to get another feel, with more of an emphasis on fluidity in off-piste or bumps, not sure Kendos will be that different from a scaled up, far better executed Tigershark. And as much as I think MX88's are maybe still the best all mountain on the planet, their weakest terrain is tight trees. And their design is beginning to show its age. Put another way, killer wide carvers for big guys aren't going to eat up trees. 

 

Instead I'd take something like a Brahma, or Steadfast, if I wanted a similar kind of strong ski, but a slightly different skill set, more flexible off-piste.

 

If you want to think yet more about trees, like half your time, The Ski, from everything I've read, should be superb. That's it's point. Ditto for the FX94 if you want to invest some $$. 

 

But for a guy your size, 91-94 mm isn't going to produce a lot of float in actual powder. So if you are seeing yourself plundering glades, you might be thinking about something in the 100-110 range, maybe starting with the Soul 7, Sollie Quest 98, and Blizzard Peacemaker or Kabookie. They will still be able to handle all but the hardest hardpack - that's for your Tigersharks - but they'll really be happiest off the groomers. 

 

Point, being, it might help if you decided whether you were more pointing at west than east, and more at groomers or trees. Each of those places will get you a different set of recs. They're all excellent skis. But not equally good in all places. See the difference? 

yeah definitely going to stay around the 90-94 mm underfoot because only taking 2 trips out west a year it doesnt pay  for met yet. 

 

so east first, with an forte towards glades. 

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 › should i get mantras / an all mountain ski to compliment my tigersharks?