or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › backcountry/AT ski for primarily resort use?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

backcountry/AT ski for primarily resort use?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Hello, I had a question regarding some of these backcountry/AT versions of the same resort ski. For example, it looks like the Blizzard Scout is the backcountry/AT version of the Cochise, while the Volkl Nunataq is the backcountry/AT version of the Gotama.

 

I am curious why one wouldn't want to take advantage of the lighter weight of these backcountry/AT skis and use the primarily for resort use?

 

  • Is it a durability issue--will the ski simply break after a year or two from bumps/ice/etc? 
  • Or is it more of a performance issue--will the ski just be too soft?
  • Or something else?

 

Does anyone here use a backcountry/AT ski for primarily resort use? What do you think?

post #2 of 12

Scout is not really an AT Cochise:  at 2100 grams for a 107 wide ski; that's a pig in todays AT realm. it is softer and a better choice for mortals or those not skiing in big open environments. I love the cochise but it is more work to get it to turn quickly in tighter places (again, I am just an average guy) I did ski the scout and liked it as well. Blizz' is making some great ski's. 

 

Nunataq is similar to the goat. its lighter but not really any less stiff. I would ski this inbounds for sure but it does have a large TR, the vagabond (although the TR is a bit long, it turns easier), Rev 105, Sali 105 all come to mind as better inbound ski's.  I just picked up a pair for AT (1780 grams) and will give them a try inbounds especially for crudded up days. 

 

but sure you can ski an AT ski inbounds they are usually designed to be light weight for the up and more off-piste oriented.  


Edited by Finndog - 10/11/13 at 1:38pm
post #3 of 12

A lot of the "backcountry skis" like this are just a question of metal vs. no metal. Some skiers like metal skis with more dampening, better edge grip (variable) - it's a feel thing as much as anything else.

 

The "backcountry" versions are great in-bounds for skiers who prefer a light and lively feel over a heavier, damper ski.

 

Beyond the Scout/Cochise, Bonafide/Kabookie and and Gotama/Nunataq, Dynastar does this with the Cham/Cham HM line, but their is a bigger difference in flex (softer on the high mountain) and more of a weight difference.

 

Even so, many of our testers liked the HM line in-bounds based on their ski preferences.

post #4 of 12

the HM is going to outsell the regular by far IMHO. I think they should have just done a reboot on that ski and replaced the Cham with the HM version. 

post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the feedback. Very helpful. 

 

Finndog, how are the Nunataq's in the moguls? Does the wide TR prevent you from quick turns? Or does the light weight make up for this? 

 

Yeah, I saw the Nunataq is the store, and noticed it was half pound lighter per ski than the Soul 7. So that got me interested. I think I'd like something around 100 wide, but still quick for moguls and trees. Also looking at Armada TST, Salomon Q-105, Blizzard Peacemaker, and the Soul 7. I can't do anything with a big tail rocker. Decisions decisions. 

post #6 of 12
I'm not a mogul specialist all. I ski them when they get in the way but don't overthink them.
However, it is my understanding that mogul skis have very little sidecut, therefore much wider than normal turning radius.

I'm still on fully cambered skis myself at the moment so happy to be corrected but it is also my understanding that tail rocker/rise, like tip riocker, reduces running length which will make turning in tighter situations such as trees and moguls easier.

Happy to be corrected but my limited experience on rockered skis indicates that they are stupid easy to turn, even carve if they have a bit of camber underfoot.

P.s. one generally doesn't carve through moguls or trees.

If you are a lightweight skiier or don't ski at high speeds, lightweight skis are fine. However, If you are heavy, aggressive, and like to ski fast be wary. Lighter skis without metal can be overpowered.

Cheers
Edited by craigr - 10/12/13 at 7:32pm
post #7 of 12

Interesting that several G3 (known for BC equipment) skis have two layers of titanal aluminum, yet many in-bounds skis don't have any metal.

post #8 of 12

there are all kinds of moguls....

 

So if you are talking about soft powdery bumps a 107 ski should be fine, hard bumps? Not my choice of width. just a matter of real estate; wider skis are more ponderous than narrower skis think about navigating a crowded parking lot with a crew cab F-150 vs a compact car. BTW a true "mogul" ski is typically about 66 underfoot!

 

Sidecut: a ski with more sidecut (lower TR) will initiate and turn easier ( less effort) if you are using your edges and not just skiing them around. I prefer turnier skis.  

 

Around 100?  Wow, you are in the heart of the market. There are a ton of great skis in that 94-105 range. It really depends on your ability, conditions and where you are skiing. Check out Phils picks of value ski's; a ski that comes to mind getting a ton of buzz is the Sali Q98.  Although I didn't ski it, in speaking to others who have, its well-liked and a real bargain.  That goes for the Q105 as well. but there are others out there too like the Nordi Soul Rider at 97. I have that and love it in anything but harder bumps where the softer tail isn't there to support you but it rips soft groomers and soft bumps. I have skied that in pow and broken up to 8" or so.  Also look at Dawgcathing's review of skis too. There is a wealth of info here.  

 

THERE ARE A TON OF SKI's in that width, you just need to pick your favorite flavor.  

 

 

Nunataq; I bought this purely on recommendation and reviews. I wanted a versatile AT specific ski for soft snow conditions. I didn't buy it for inbounds necessarily.  

 

My 1-OH-something ski is a Head rev 105. I love this 16m TR ski. Its not a ski for everyone but those who get it, love it.  

post #9 of 12

What kind of back country terrain will you be skiing most of the time?  The Cochise (and presumably the Scout) loves to rip in open spaces, but if you're going to be mostly in the trees there are better (and lighter) options.

post #10 of 12

The thing I like best about the 'AT ski' models from the big brands is, it's a great way to sell more of the women's skis... yes, most of theses are simply re-badged women's models. You're buying women's skis.

 

 

 

of course, lighter and more playful skis are a pretty darn good idea for many people, not just women.

post #11 of 12

 

evil marketing genius's  brrooooo-haaa-hhaaaa      ski like a girl baby!  Thumbs Up

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

The thing I like best about the 'AT ski' models from the big brands is, it's a great way to sell more of the women's skis... yes, most of theses are simply re-badged women's models. You're buying women's skis.

 

 

 

of course, lighter and more playful skis are a pretty darn good idea for many people, not just women.

post #12 of 12

Whats so funny about light, quick and playful....

 

 

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 › backcountry/AT ski for primarily resort use?