or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Best East Coast all mountain bump ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best East Coast all mountain bump ski? - Page 2

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Ok, then apparently because Josh believes I am full of it, and therefore he won't offer an opinion on what is the better ski for a maze of trees, which when first opened is a couple of feet of fresh, and by the end of the day is packed down bumps with a few ammature-engineered kickers here and there

Wherever you're finding a couple of feet untracked in trees in Ontario, I'd like to be there
post #32 of 56

Not Volkl Kendo's..great overall but not in bumps

 

I ski a soft twin tip which is great for softer moguls but am looking for something with more edge hold

to be a better all mtn ski

 

The problem with all mountain skis is the tips are too wide for bumps ..that's why twin

tips are better.

 

try the AR7 and some other low 80's skis. I am going to demo some myself.

post #33 of 56
Thread Starter 
What is the widest you would recommend I'm the tips?
post #34 of 56

K2 Rictor 80mm the old one, or the new XTi 80mm, if it's bumps not pow and even in a little bit of pow they're nice flexing, these won't rocket you in the bumps.

post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Ok, then apparently because Josh believes I am full of it, and therefore he won't offer an opinion on what is the better ski for a maze of trees, which when first opened is a couple of feet of fresh, and by the end of the day is packed down bumps with a few ammature-engineered kickers here and there, given that speeds in the maze will be slow and speeds elsewhere on the hill can easily be kept below 40 mph. 

 

Bushwhacker, S3, other?

 

Does anyone else have an opinion?

That is what we call 'Tree Skiing', any thread addressing 'which ski for Tree Skiing' will give you a myriad of answers/opinions/preferences.

 

The key to deciding what is best for you is understanding the compromises that need to be made and then enjoying the ski you choose for what it is. A ski that excels in tight trees with softer snow will not ski all that well at higher speeds carving on hard snow. A shorter ski that handles firm groomers well might be fine when the trees are tracked out but become overwhelmed with more snow. A wide longer softer ski is too cumbersome for most skiers when the snow isn't soft. 

 

The reality for most is they are skiing tracked out paths through the woods that they 'discover' by following the beaten path of other skiers tracks relatively close to ski trails. What  they need is a decent all mountain ski that can handle crud and bumps... and more time on snow exploring so they can get to 'the goods' before everyone else, then a powder ski starts to make sense!

post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 

That is what we call 'Tree Skiing', any thread addressing 'which ski for Tree Skiing' will give you a myriad of answers/opinions/preferences.

 

The key to deciding what is best for you is understanding the compromises that need to be made and then enjoying the ski you choose for what it is. A ski that excels in tight trees with softer snow will not ski all that well at higher speeds carving on hard snow. A shorter ski that handles firm groomers well might be fine when the trees are tracked out but become overwhelmed with more snow. A wide longer softer ski is too cumbersome for most skiers when the snow isn't soft. 

 

The reality for most is they are skiing tracked out paths through the woods that they 'discover' by following the beaten path of other skiers tracks relatively close to ski trails. What  they need is a decent all mountain ski that can handle crud and bumps... and more time on snow exploring so they can get to 'the goods' before everyone else, then a powder ski starts to make sense!

Thumbs Up Thumbs Up Tradeoffs are a !@$#*&% aren't they? 

 

Incidentally, Ghost, Josh has a slew of video reviews of skis in the trees. While many are in less tracked out areas, he has good commentary about which skis work, why, or why not. Worth a search...

post #37 of 56

Never having been to the East Coast to ski, I can't specifically relate, but found the Kastle FX84 to be absolutely rock solid in FIRM Mary Jane bumps.   

 

Also, the Dynastar Outland 87?  Fischer Motive 86?  Those are 2 sweet and often overlooked versatile skis for bumps and any all-mountain condition.  

post #38 of 56

I don't know about the others, but the MX83 is great in the bumps.

post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

Never having been to the East Coast to ski, I can't specifically relate, but found the Kastle FX84 to be absolutely rock solid in FIRM Mary Jane bumps.   

 

Also, the Dynastar Outland 87?  Fischer Motive 86?  Those are 2 sweet and often overlooked versatile skis for bumps and any all-mountain condition.  

East coast skier here...I really like my outland 87 in spring conditions  but not on hardpack... 

post #40 of 56

Wide skis don't work for east coast bumps......

 

Why?

 

Because.....

 

1. Rarely are bumps powdery and spaced on the east coast so lift is not a necessity.......what usually happens is it snows somewhat dense snow, this gets skied off, packed out and the result is ice, space, bump......or drops off bumps formed by snowboarders who don't turn but go heelside and pile snow up that forms drops offs and flat spots. This type of skiing requires a quick edge grip at crucial moments, typically without any flow through a chopped up mogul run. Wide skis are of no advantage in this situation. Softer longitudinal flex with a torsionally stiff ski underfoot might work fine.

 

2. Wide skis lack quick edge changes and crucial grip required in the typical icy bump runs of the eastern skiing terrain. Lift is not the desire......edge grip is crucial along w/quick edge changes.

 

I think something that's longitudinally compliant, torsionally firm, softer tip to more firm tail (not too firm), and quick edge to edge is key. What ski that? You got me but one thing I know is that it's not wider than 80mm, and that's probably too wide for typical eastern bump skiing.

post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc1 View Post
 

Wide skis don't work for east coast bumps......

 

Why?

 

Because.....

 

1. Rarely are bumps powdery and spaced on the east coast so lift is not a necessity.......what usually happens is it snows somewhat dense snow, this gets skied off, packed out and the result is ice, space, bump......or drops off bumps formed by snowboarders who don't turn but go heelside and pile snow up that forms drops offs and flat spots. This type of skiing requires a quick edge grip at crucial moments, typically without any flow through a chopped up mogul run. Wide skis are of no advantage in this situation. Softer longitudinal flex with a torsionally stiff ski underfoot might work fine.

 

2. Wide skis lack quick edge changes and crucial grip required in the typical icy bump runs of the eastern skiing terrain. Lift is not the desire......edge grip is crucial along w/quick edge changes.

 

I think something that's longitudinally compliant, torsionally firm, softer tip to more firm tail (not too firm), and quick edge to edge is key. What ski that? You got me but one thing I know is that it's not wider than 80mm, and that's probably too wide for typical eastern bump skiing.

After a day at Stratton after the storm it was just bumps as far as the eye could see, I have to agree with this. 180 bushwackers did nothing for me. Switched them out for my 165cm k2 chargers at lunch and had a much better time of things.

post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc1 View Post
 

Wide skis don't work for east coast bumps......

 

Why?

 

Because.....

 

1. Rarely are bumps powdery and spaced on the east coast so lift is not a necessity.......what usually happens is it snows somewhat dense snow, this gets skied off, packed out and the result is ice, space, bump......or drops off bumps formed by snowboarders who don't turn but go heelside and pile snow up that forms drops offs and flat spots. This type of skiing requires a quick edge grip at crucial moments, typically without any flow through a chopped up mogul run. Wide skis are of no advantage in this situation. Softer longitudinal flex with a torsionally stiff ski underfoot might work fine.

 

2. Wide skis lack quick edge changes and crucial grip required in the typical icy bump runs of the eastern skiing terrain. Lift is not the desire......edge grip is crucial along w/quick edge changes.

 

I think something that's longitudinally compliant, torsionally firm, softer tip to more firm tail (not too firm), and quick edge to edge is key. What ski that? You got me but one thing I know is that it's not wider than 80mm, and that's probably too wide for typical eastern bump skiing.

I reconize this ski! It's the Dynastar speed course ti (2012 or 2013)!

post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikoras View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc1 View Post
 

Wide skis don't work for east coast bumps......

 

Why?

 

Because.....

 

1. Rarely are bumps powdery and spaced on the east coast so lift is not a necessity.......what usually happens is it snows somewhat dense snow, this gets skied off, packed out and the result is ice, space, bump......or drops off bumps formed by snowboarders who don't turn but go heelside and pile snow up that forms drops offs and flat spots. This type of skiing requires a quick edge grip at crucial moments, typically without any flow through a chopped up mogul run. Wide skis are of no advantage in this situation. Softer longitudinal flex with a torsionally stiff ski underfoot might work fine.

 

2. Wide skis lack quick edge changes and crucial grip required in the typical icy bump runs of the eastern skiing terrain. Lift is not the desire......edge grip is crucial along w/quick edge changes.

 

I think something that's longitudinally compliant, torsionally firm, softer tip to more firm tail (not too firm), and quick edge to edge is key. What ski that? You got me but one thing I know is that it's not wider than 80mm, and that's probably too wide for typical eastern bump skiing.

After a day at Stratton after the storm it was just bumps as far as the eye could see, I have to agree with this. 180 bushwackers did nothing for me. Switched them out for my 165cm k2 chargers at lunch and had a much better time of things.

 

Hmmm... was it the width or the softness of the Bushwackers that didn't work.   I'm wondering if a Brahma or Kendo would have gotten a better edge in the icy bumps for you?  

 

Also, length has a lot to do with it.  You'd be suprised how much quicker an 88 is at 170 vs. 180.

 

I still enjoy a Kendo at Mary Jane even if it hasn't snowed for a week or two.  The bumps get pretty hard, but I'm sure nothing like icy bumps on the east coast.   I normally ski a 177, but will switch to a 170 for those really firm conditions.  A data point for calibration: I'm just as happy skiing bumps on a 170 Kendo as a 170 AC30, but I don't like the width and stiffness of a 170 Mantra. 

post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

Hmmm... was it the width or the softness of the Bushwackers that didn't work.   I'm wondering if a Brahma or Kendo would have gotten a better edge in the icy bumps for you?  

 

Also, width has a lot to do with it.  You'd be suprised how much quicker an 88 is at 170 vs. 180.

 

I still enjoy a Kendo at Mary Jane even if it hasn't snowed for a week or two.  The bumps get pretty hard, but I'm sure nothing like icy bumps on the east coast.   I normally ski a 177, but will switch to a 170 for those really firm conditions.

A combo of width and length made me work much harder to get a good pivot in on the bushwackers. As cc1 said, the bumps are all irregularly spaced with some ice in between so it was all very reactive. Stiffness could have played a factor, but I found it wasn't so much edge hold as it was transitioning/initiating turns. I think the camber profile could have helped as well as it gives me a real spring pop out of and pivot on the side of a bump. The chargers also very much match the description of longitudinally soft but torsionally stiff with that whole carbon web thing.

post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

Hmmm... was it the width or the softness of the Bushwackers that didn't work.   I'm wondering if a Brahma or Kendo would have gotten a better edge in the icy bumps for you?  

 

Also, length has a lot to do with it.  You'd be suprised how much quicker an 88 is at 170 vs. 180.

 

I still enjoy a Kendo at Mary Jane even if it hasn't snowed for a week or two.  The bumps get pretty hard, but I'm sure nothing like icy bumps on the east coast.   I normally ski a 177, but will switch to a 170 for those really firm conditions.  A data point for calibration: I'm just as happy skiing bumps on a 170 Kendo as a 170 AC30, but I don't like the width and stiffness of a 170 Mantra. 

What gets better edge in icy bumps is a narrow a la repsonsive ski.....that turns quickly from edge to edge...........a sharp ski......that holds on ice......a torsionally rigid ski that holds on ice.........a longitudinally compliant ski.......which all depends on weight........

 

Stiffness does not necessarily equate to better edge grip, on the contrary a longitudinally softer ski bends and grips better on ice. Lots of ex WC racers can vouch to that concept. Refer back to the old days of the K2 VO Slalom w/the stiffness marked on the ski....many pairs in the shop were 2 or 3 digits more than the WC racers were using.

 

Kendo is waaaayyy too stiff.......dropping tips into firm bumps with a stiff ski just won't work and it's too wide for quick reactions needed for speed control in tight, firm bumps.

 

I find the shorter length wider skis are even stiffer for ex. a 170 vs. 177 Kendo the 170 is stiffer while the 177 has that additional length in tip and tail that that seems to soften up on the ends where the 170 just has the main crux of the ski no forgiveness.

post #46 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc1 View Post
 

What gets better edge in icy bumps is a narrow a la repsonsive ski.....that turns quickly from edge to edge...........a sharp ski......that holds on ice......a torsionally rigid ski that holds on ice.........a longitudinally compliant ski.......which all depends on weight........

 

Stiffness does not necessarily equate to better edge grip, on the contrary a longitudinally softer ski bends and grips better on ice. Lots of ex WC racers can vouch to that concept. Refer back to the old days of the K2 VO Slalom w/the stiffness marked on the ski....many pairs in the shop were 2 or 3 digits more than the WC racers were using.

 

Kendo is waaaayyy too stiff.......dropping tips into firm bumps with a stiff ski just won't work and it's too wide for quick reactions needed for speed control in tight, firm bumps.

 

I find the shorter length wider skis are even stiffer for ex. a 170 vs. 177 Kendo the 170 is stiffer while the 177 has that additional length in tip and tail that that seems to soften up on the ends where the 170 just has the main crux of the ski no forgiveness.

It depends for whom... I liked the Kendo a lot in bumps! But I'm 210 pounds...

post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc1 View Post
 

Wide skis don't work for east coast bumps......

 

Why?

 

Because.....

 

1. Rarely are bumps powdery and spaced on the east coast so lift is not a necessity.......what usually happens is it snows somewhat dense snow, this gets skied off, packed out and the result is ice, space, bump......or drops off bumps formed by snowboarders who don't turn but go heelside and pile snow up that forms drops offs and flat spots. This type of skiing requires a quick edge grip at crucial moments, typically without any flow through a chopped up mogul run. Wide skis are of no advantage in this situation. Softer longitudinal flex with a torsionally stiff ski underfoot might work fine.

 

2. Wide skis lack quick edge changes and crucial grip required in the typical icy bump runs of the eastern skiing terrain. Lift is not the desire......edge grip is crucial along w/quick edge changes.

 

I think something that's longitudinally compliant, torsionally firm, softer tip to more firm tail (not too firm), and quick edge to edge is key. What ski that? You got me but one thing I know is that it's not wider than 80mm, and that's probably too wide for typical eastern bump skiing.

Well...I've watched some very solid skiers who are members here rip east coast bumps on skis in the 88-98 range. Including in trees, where conditions tend to be more unforgiving when you miss a turn than the typical groomer bumps. I think we're conflating two points. The first is that if you zipper groomer bumps, or slither through the troughs, then you want something like a Hart F17. Or a Stockli AR. Narrow, modest sidecut, softer tail, etc. But if you use other styles that aren't so dependent on edge to edge, like pivoting or rolling around the shoulders or taking some air here and there, then a good bump ski isn't so much about width and edge to edge speed as it is about flex and rear ends. Most people here engage in magical thinking about fairly stiff rockered skis with even stiffer tails; they're great in bumps. Well, no. They cannot be. Because you can't bend a ski that stiff at the velocities bumps demand. Yes, rocker helps, but it isn't a replacement for a flexier design and softer tail that flows with the terrain. Stiff rocker, in this sense, becomes limiting. It gives you one curve to work with. Suggestion: Try a wider, moderate flex wider ski with a twin tail and a decently high early rise tip, and report back. Something like a Soul Rider or Sin 7 or a Prophet 90 or Fischer Big Stix 98. Or the new Soul 7, for that matter. OTOH, these skis won't carve as effortlessly as a stiff rocker, or smash crud, or feel planted at speed. Not macho skis.

 

So OP, be advised that these skis are deficient, compared to a stiff ski. Less versatile for the east. Yep. Truth. They're more specialized. But is that a negative? Depends. What's ironic to me is that many choose gear that's optimized for powder, even if it's rare, because that's what gives them their peak experience. And they deal with the ice and such. Or they choose a ski for the most common regional phenomenon, hardpack, and find a silver lining for other conditions. Yet how often do people here argue for optimizing gear specifically for bumps and trees, even though bumps are typically found alongside the hardback, or on black and double blacks, everywhere you can ski, and are faaarrrr more common than boot top pow. Which after two hours is mostly in the trees anyway? Guess no one has peak experiences in bumps or trees...:dunno 


Edited by beyond - 12/17/13 at 6:52pm
post #48 of 56
The original poster is 5 foot 6 and only 155 lb pounds he needs something he can bend. Remember, something's when a ski gets to their book end lengths, the flexes get disperportionate. Also in shorter lengths, try to avoid systems, they can be blocky under the foot along with reducing quickness in the bumps. Two skis that not been mentioned are the Head rev90, and Salomon q90 two nice playful skis that perform well in the bumps .
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Twins are the call for bumps, but if I had to chose between a so-so all mountain twin and a great all-mountain directional, I'd go with the latter.

 

For the east, IMO the Stockli Rotor 84 is the cream of the crop if you want an all-mountain twin, can carve surprisingly well, holds up at speed. New ones from a few years ago can be found cheap right now. After that, the twin list gets small. Volkl Wall is pretty good everywhere on the mountain. Bridge, some love, some don't, it's a little wide for groomer bumps. Nordies can be stiff for bumps IME, unless you go for a park ski, but YMMV.

 

Going to directionals, yeah, the Bushwacker would head my list, especially at your size. Can get nervous in chop at speed, but nothing a little more edge angle can't sure. The Kastle LX82 is also very nice, if you want smoother and a higher speed limit, or if you have some $, then the Kastle FX84 is superb in bumps, along with everywhere else. Prophets IME work well in bumps, very easy and supple, the 85 might be perfect. But not happy on ice. And for a more traditional feel, the Rossignol E83 will be very nice in bumps, everywhere else, but will have a speed limit.  The Dynastar Outland 80 or 87 would be another approach, they can be beefy at the longer lengths, but get raves for bumps and variable snow. Not ice skates. And Armada makes some very nice bump/park skis that hold up well everywhere, although not in the same league as Kastle or Blizzard. The AR7, for instance, seems popular back here among park rats who ski the whole mountain.

 

There are some very nice true bump skis that are much narrower, but I assume you're looking for a do-all.

 

Twin tips: how about the Line Chronic?

post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

So OP, be advised that these skis are deficient, compared to a stiff ski. Less versatile for the east. Yep. Truth. They're more specialized. But is that a negative? Depends. What's ironic to me is that many choose gear that's optimized for powder, even if it's rare, because that's what gives them their peak experience. And they deal with the ice and such. Or they choose a ski for the most common regional phenomenon, hardpack, and find a silver lining for other conditions. Yet how often do people here argue for optimizing gear specifically for bumps and trees, even though bumps are typically found alongside the hardback, or on black and double blacks, everywhere you can ski, and are faaarrrr more common than boot top pow. Which after two hours is mostly in the trees anyway? Guess no one has peak experiences in bumps or trees...:dunno 

 

Great thought.  It's very interesting how many more powder skis are marketed and sold compared to skis optimized for the bumps and trees we see far more often.

 

This is one of my huge pet peeves.   Go to almost any ski manufacture website and they talk about how their skis perform in every condition but bumps.  Same with the ski magazine reviews.  I very much appreciate that many of the reviewers here talk about bump performance in their ski reviews.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Also in shorter lengths, try to avoid systems, they can be blocky under the foot along with reducing quickness in the bumps. 
 

Interesting.   I never though of why, but the 170 Kendo has a nicer, more even flex for bumps than the 170 AC30 with the binding system where you can notice the lack of flex underfoot.   Unfortunately, it doesn't seem there are many good sub-85 width all mountain skis sold without a binding system these days.

post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Well...I've watched some very solid skiers who are members here rip east coast bumps on skis in the 88-98 range. Including in trees, where conditions tend to be more unforgiving when you miss a turn than the typical groomer bumps. I think we're conflating two points. The first is that if you zipper groomer bumps, or slither through the troughs, then you want something like a Hart F17. Or a Stockli AR. Narrow, modest sidecut, softer tail, etc. But if you use other styles that aren't so dependent on edge to edge, like pivoting or rolling around the shoulders or taking some air here and there, then a good bump ski isn't so much about width and edge to edge speed as it is about flex and rear ends. 

 

What are groomer bumps?  Sounds like an oxymoron to me.  I've never heard that term before... probably showing my lack of east coast bump cred :) 

post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

What are groomer bumps?  Sounds like an oxymoron to me.  I've never heard that term before... probably showing my lack of east coast bump cred :) 

There are some groomers that can make perfect zipper line bumps. Hero bumps. 

post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

The original poster is 5 foot 6 and only 155 lb pounds he needs something he can bend. Remember, something's when a ski gets to their book end lengths, the flexes get disperportionate. Also in shorter lengths, try to avoid systems, they can be blocky under the foot along with reducing quickness in the bumps. Two skis that not been mentioned are the Head rev90, and Salomon q90 two nice playful skis that perform well in the bumps .

I'm not sure to fully understand what you mean... ( and we're just wednesday! :-))

post #54 of 56
If the skis offered in a 160 and 170 and 180 and 190 sometimes the 160 and 190 are disproportionate
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

What are groomer bumps?  Sounds like an oxymoron to me.  I've never heard that term before... probably showing my lack of east coast bump cred :) 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

There are some groomers that can make perfect zipper line bumps. Hero bumps. 

This ^^^^, also I've found increasingly that resorts groom one side of a blue-black or black, let the other side develop bumps however it wants. Even true doubles can see this; Outer Limits at Killington, for instance, will have a competition area with Phil's zipper lines, a "natural" area that is more irregular, up to and including Prius sized humps, and a central pathway that's groomed regularly. People cut in and out of the bumps, leading to all kinds of interesting close encounters. On narrower expert runs, there's less or lighter grooming, usually early in the season to build up a base, and then the bumps are just allowed to build up; Goat or National at Stowe come to mind.

 

But all these are still on-piste, still marked, lift-served runs that receive some grooming at some point, so I collectively call these "groomer bumps." If you're sidebounds or in the trees, or in a place that literally doesn't ever groom the run, then just bumps. 

post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

If the skis offered in a 160 and 170 and 180 and 190 sometimes the 160 and 190 are disproportionate

Thanks!

So that means that if I like a ski in 183 for his flex in bumps, I could be in trouble if I decided to buy the 178 without demoing...

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 › Best East Coast all mountain bump ski?