or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › which ski...so many to choose
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

which ski...so many to choose - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


Hi - Given that you seem to be mainly concerned with a ski for out west, don't agree with getting a narrower pair (in reality your perfect pairing would be 70- somethings and 90- somethings).

As far as a 98, it depends on the ski, regardless of price. Some 98's work better than others in soft snow, some are better for lighter skiers, some are for hauling in open bowls and some are more for trees. That said, still think this may boil down to luggage. If you are OK with taking two skis west, get a 105-110. If you aren't, get a 98-100 with some flex, then in a year or three trade your 85 for a 75. Done. ūüėČ

Beyond, I respect that you disagree with my opinion; however, your use of the phrase "in reality" seems a bit narrow-minded.  In reality, the OP might find pairing a mid60s ski with his Rev85 to be an excellent and fun combination for western trips while also being very practical and enjoyable for his ski days in the east.  Also, in reality, the OP might find your suggestion to be a more enjoyable and a better fit.

 

To the OP: I'd recommend that, on your first trip west this season, you take your Rev85s with you and also demo other skis.  If there is a big dump, try out a few pairs that are wider than your rev85s.  Compare and contrast.  If there are no big powder days, demo some sub 70mm, performance-oriented skis(SL cheaters). Try to find some soft stashes here and there just to see how you handle narrower skis in softer snow.  See how the narrow skis feel on hard snow compared to your Rev85s.  There is no status to be gained by being on fat skis, nor is any status gained being on narrow skis.  Ignore the hype, find out what brings you the most enjoyment*, then buy!

 

I suggested a narrower ski as a possibility because I know that, in reality, many excellent skiers, including skiers around your same height and weight, would prefer the pairing that I suggest rather than the pairing that Beyond suggests.  It is also true that many skiers of your proportions prefer a pairing similar to that which Beyond suggests.  Demo, demo, demo!

 

*If you are, like me, the kind of person who finds enjoyment in constantly improving your technique, then sub70mm skis are, IMO, a must in ones quiver.

post #32 of 59

Wow, another thread rival...

 

Still, I'm shocked to see anyone suggesting sub-70 "skis" for use in this context. Those are not skis. Those are ice skates. Maybe there are places all you get is ice - so fine in the context. But from my POV, I can't imagine a normal recreational skier spending much time on anything under 85 or so.  If I'm taking two pairs of skis someplace "west", I'm taking something in the 110-117 range and something 128-238 in case I get some good stuff or challenging soft stuff. If three pair, maybe something 100-ish zone too.

 

While I know I bias fat, the idea of normal people being encouraged to try skiing soft snow or powder on skis designed for *ice* is just not reasonable.


Edited by spindrift - 10/3/16 at 11:50am
post #33 of 59

Just give in to your inner consumer, and start buying!! Everyone else on this site has. One ski wont do it all, you have to acquire the quiver!  Its better to start sooner than later, you have some catching up to do! :D

post #34 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Wow, another thread rival...

Still, I'm shocked to see anyone suggesting sub-70 "skis" for use ni this context. Those are not skis. Those are ice skates. Maybe there are places all you get is ice - so fine in the context. But from my POV, I can't imagine a normal recreational skier spending much time on anything under 85 or so.  If I'm taking two pairs of skis someplace "west", I'm taking something in the 110-117 range and something 128-238 in case I get some good stuff or challenging soft stuff. If three pair, maybe something 100-ish zone too.

While I know I bias fat, the idea of normal people being encouraged to try skiing soft snow or powder on skis designed for *ice* is just not reasonable.

You don't understand it because you ski west. If you live in the northeast, a 66 begins to sound useful. Traveling, a mid-80s is fine (also useful at home), unless you get a dump, then you demo a wide ski.
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Wow, another thread rival...

Still, I'm shocked to see anyone suggesting sub-70 "skis" for use in this context. Those are not skis. Those are ice skates. Maybe there are places all you get is ice - so fine in the context. But from my POV, I can't imagine a normal recreational skier spending much time on anything under 85 or so.  If I'm taking two pairs of skis someplace "west", I'm taking something in the 110-117 range and something 128-238 in case I get some good stuff or challenging soft stuff. If three pair, maybe something 100-ish zone too.

While I know I bias fat, the idea of normal people being encouraged to try skiing soft snow or powder on skis designed for *ice* is just not reasonable.

Nah, I just checked my ice skates. They are nowhere near 66mm wide.

Despite living in NC, I do all of my skiing in Utah(and keep my skis there) and some in Colorado. Just because you find it unreasonable doesn't mean it isn't possible and even desirable and fun to ski on 66mm wide skis in most conditions I've encountered in the areas I mentioned earlier. I clearly acknowledged that many people like wider skis. For me, a mid80s ski suits me fine in the deepest days I've encountered in the areas of Alta that I mentioned earlier. I sold my 94mm skis because they weren't necessary for me on Alta powder days. I've demoed up to 115ish.

I do the wider ski advocates the courtesy of not discounting their choice in skis, and I expect the same in return. If one cannot fathom using a 66mm waist ski(with tips of about 120mm) in soft snow doesn't mean it can't be done or isn't fun. And yes, they are fun on hardpack that westerners try to call ice.

If one cannot acknowledge that an 84mm ski is plenty for me, a 160lb skier, in deep snow, then maybe they should try it and figure out how to make it work. And no, I am not muscling the skis or hopping to turn. I just flex, the ski tips rise, then some magic/voodoo/dark arts happens, and voila, I'm in the next turn. Plenty of float. Oh, and no rocker, these are full camber with a softer tip.

I still think the OP should try a sub 70mm ski, but hey, it's a free country.
post #36 of 59
Thread Starter 

Thanks again for replies!....I don't want to take 2 pair w/me out west... I guess I was asking if the 98's would be a good "1 ski" choice... Though I may be able to negotiate real icy hard pack better with a thinner ski, I dont really feel handicapped with the 85's, except in worst conditions, then I dont really want to be there anyway.. So I guess the better question, (may start new thread?) would be...anyone with any experience or has test  driven the revs in 98 mm? Again, its just seems like a DEAL for 300, no?

post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCski View Post


I do the wider ski advocates the courtesy of not discounting their choice in skis, and I expect the same in return. If one cannot fathom using a 66mm waist ski(with tips of about 120mm) in soft snow doesn't mean it can't be done or isn't fun.

 

 

It does not mean it can't be done. Nor does it mean that someone can't  find it fun for some definition of "fun". What does mean is that it is ridiculous to ski a sub-70 ski on anything other than ice. Skiing a soft groomer on a 66 mm ski is *at least* as silly as skiing it on my 138 mm r/r skis. I'll do it to get from point A to Point B. Or maybe on a lark. But I'm not going to suggest anyone asking for gear advice do it as a matter of course. And for sure, skiing powder on a sub-66 ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a r/r ski. It flies in the face of the design of the ski.

post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by phumb View Post
 

Thanks again for replies!....I don't want to take 2 pair w/me out west... I guess I was asking if the 98's would be a good "1 ski" choice... Though I may be able to negotiate real icy hard pack better with a thinner ski, I dont really feel handicapped with the 85's, except in worst conditions, then I dont really want to be there anyway.. So I guess the better question, (may start new thread?) would be...anyone with any experience or has test  driven the revs in 98 mm? Again, its just seems like a DEAL for 300, no?


I think a whole lot of folks would agree that a 100--ish ski is a reasonable thing for a "one pair" trip in many places. Lots of personal preference is baked into that though. 

post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

It does not mean it can't be done. Nor does it mean that someone can't  find it fun for some definition of "fun". What does mean is that it is ridiculous to ski a sub-70 ski on anything other than ice. Skiing a soft groomer on a 66 mm ski is *at least* as silly as skiing it on my 138 mm r/r skis. I'll do it to get from point A to Point B. Or maybe on a lark. But I'm not going to suggest anyone asking for gear advice do it as a matter of course. And for sure, skiing powder on a sub-66 ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a r/r ski. It flies in the face of the design of the ski.

I would disagree, but I would rather not try to convince you because you like what you like and don't seem to understand how versatile a performance-oriented sub 70mm ski can be. It has a lot to do with ones balance and the input one gives the ski. I think I might have an idea why you might have a bias toward wider skis because I have spent some time on skis from mid 90s to 115ish. For me (and I keep saying "for me" while also not telling you or even thinking that what you like is "ridiculous"), a slalom cheater, an 84mm full camber with softened tips, and a rock ski cover my needs for where I ski, which I've already elaborated on in a previous post. I would certainly disagree that skiing soft/fresh (I don't believe I ever said deep powder) snow on my 66mm ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a wide ski. My personal experience is that my narrow skis provide a wider range of versatility than my skis with an 84mm waist.

I think it's great that you enjoy wider skis, but I also think that not understanding and therefore calling another's preference "ridiculous" is uncalled for. I hope you have a great season, Spindrift!

(Spindrift, are you affiliated in any way with any ski makers/manufacturers and/or retailers?)
post #40 of 59
OP: Often skis are a "deal" because they didn't sell well initially. The Head Rev 98 got meh responses, as I recall. Not a bad ski, not a good ski. And in all honesty, $300 for a 3 year old model that didn't sell is not a great deal. If you are really wanting a 100-ish model for out west, suggest looking for last season's Fischer Ranger 98, or a Supernatural, or even a Soul Rider if you enjoy trees and bumps.

As far as the < 70 mm debate, welcome to Epic. ūüėŹ I own several skis under 70 mm that I use for racing. But there are plenty of daily drivers for firm in the 70's that have all the hold you'll want, yet are more supple on bumps and at lower speeds than racing skis. Blizzard, Stockli, Kastle, Head, and Fischer all make models in the 70-75 range that fit your needs. So do several models I can think of in the 75-80 range.

My argument also is predicated on the notion that in our era of seriously groomed snow, you'll want your eastern everyday firm snow ski to be fun when the man-made is still soft, and even when it's getting pushed into piles of crud.

(Space for obligatory rejoined by folks who ski their SL's in deep powder and love it.) ūüėĄ
post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post


My argument also is predicated on the notion that in our era of seriously groomed snow, you'll want your eastern everyday firm snow ski to be fun when the man-made is still soft, and even when it's getting pushed into piles of crud.

 

The piles of crud bit is what makes the FX 84 an everyday ski for me.

post #42 of 59
I think that people who haven't owned the Rev 85 tend to undestimate how versatile it is. It's got a fairly wide shovel, though the "early rise" is pretty minimal and not a factor IMHO. That said, it's got a great flex pattern and can hold an edge nicely when tuned 1/3. I've skied it in all kind of PNW crud and bumps when it's too much trouble (always a judgement call) to head back to the car to switch out to a wider ski (such as my Rev 105's). Utah snow is, I think, more forgiving than PNW snow and I'm guessing CO snow is, too. You would be fine with the Rev 85 in most conditions. Unless it snow 3-5" or more. Not that the Rev 85 can't handle a few inches of snow, but 3+" days are when it's really fun to have a wider ski. A 100cm wide would be OK, but 105 to 110 is for me the range that gives me some capabilities the Rev 85 doesn't have.

As far as wider Rev's, like the 98 or 105, not everyone who likes the Rev 85 likes the Rev 98 or 105. If I were doing it all over again, I probably would have gotten the Collective at 105 for better flex pattern and tail for soft snow and crud.

That said, the Monster series has replaced the Revs. If you want a Rev you aren't going to be able to demo them, but you can pick a pair up on a deal and it may be worth taking a chance.
post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCski View Post


I would disagree, but I would rather not try to convince you because you like what you like and don't seem to understand how versatile a performance-oriented sub 70mm ski can be. It has a lot to do with ones balance and the input one gives the ski. I think I might have an idea why you might have a bias toward wider skis because I have spent some time on skis from mid 90s to 115ish. For me (and I keep saying "for me" while also not telling you or even thinking that what you like is "ridiculous"), a slalom cheater, an 84mm full camber with softened tips, and a rock ski cover my needs for where I ski, which I've already elaborated on in a previous post. I would certainly disagree that skiing soft/fresh (I don't believe I ever said deep powder) snow on my 66mm ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a wide ski. My personal experience is that my narrow skis provide a wider range of versatility than my skis with an 84mm waist.

I think it's great that you enjoy wider skis, but I also think that not understanding and therefore calling another's preference "ridiculous" is uncalled for. I hope you have a great season, Spindrift!

(Spindrift, are you affiliated in any way with any ski makers/manufacturers and/or retailers?)


Very politic of you. But mechanically incorrect. It is a fact that your 66 SL skis are optimized for ice.  And it is a fact that my  r/r powder skis are optimized for powder/soft snow. The mechanics of this is reasonably well understood. So yeah - "ridiculous" is IMO a very reasonable way to describe any proposition that a particular ski is well suited for use in exactly the opposite of the conditions is optimized for. If you enjoy making a SL ski do what it is not intended to do - by all means have fun. Now and again I'll push my convex base r/r skis that way for grins. Or because they happen to be in my feet when things have degraded.  But suggesting that relative newbs to the space spend time discovering the hard way what is quite well known with respect to ski design seems less than kind -- and that is putting it pretty charitably.

post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by phumb View Post

OK, I just read the 5 questions...but first, thanks for your replies!
1-I ski in the northeast, NY & VT...I'm hoping to go west soon but not sure if its worth taking skiis there, or just renting....
2- mostly ski groomed and hard packed/ice...maybe learn bumps in the future, just not yet..
3-maybe 20 days a year on slopes..Just got back into skiing a few(4-5) years ago and haven't had 10 days/yr yet, but hoping!
4- I say an honest intermediate, maybe a little more, I can ski non bumpy blacks, and "survive", but not ski, the doubles
5- 5'10" 210 lbs, and guessing an "all purpose" ski for now....I currently use 5 yr old 173 cm k2's from sports authority, cant remember model

part of my worry is I recently rented a pair of skis from local pro shop and had absolutely the worst experience, for some reason, I wanted to lean back instead of forward, front and rear edges were catching, my legs were burnt out after 2 runs, thought I'd go down for sure if I stayed using them...they were kinda moving back and forth as I was going straight downhill, not sure what the problem was, to sharp edges? bad surface on bottom of ski?...It sucked!...rented another pair at the mountain, all was good!...thanks again for any help!

This is an old thread but I'll answer it anyway. You've been given lots of erroneous advice.

1) You live/ski the northeast and are "hoping" to go west. Get skis for where you ski, not where you're "hoping" to ski....... worry about what to use out west when/if you get there and rent.

2-3) Mostly groomed/hard pack/ice........you don't need or want a 100mm ski, or a 90, or really anything more than 80mm wide. Lots of wide skis will carve a nice trench, IF you've learned to get a ski on edge. Getting a wide ski on edge is more work than a narrower ski, takes more pressure, and isn't as quick. Most people who're on wide skis don't or can't get them up on edge....every day on the hill we see people on wide skis skidding around. Silly to be on something like that in the conditions you ski. For the amount of time you ski I seriously doubt you get a ski up on edge.

4) I'd guess a black back there wouldn't be black out west.

5) At your weight and height, you could get something much better than what you're on.

For your conditions, you want skis that'll hold, and the edging skills to make them hold. I'd recommend something 75mm wide or less and at your weight at least 180cm or longer. If you go west they'll work just fine much of the time. Lots of people seem to think it's all powder all the time out here, it's not. Go to any western mountain and there'll be plenty of wonderful groomers to cruise. Mountains vary, but the blues will probably be like blacks back there. I'm 180lbs and use 183-188cm gs skis on groomed, none are even 70mm wide. They work great and are tons of fun. The people I ski with are also mostly on gs race skis, except for slalom ski days, and powder days which aren't that often. On powder days or in chopped up crud, we go wider. Many of us have at least 10pr skis. Buy your skis for your conditions.
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utahski View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phumb View Post

OK, I just read the 5 questions...but first, thanks for your replies!
1-I ski in the northeast, NY & VT...I'm hoping to go west soon but not sure if its worth taking skiis there, or just renting....
2- mostly ski groomed and hard packed/ice...maybe learn bumps in the future, just not yet..
3-maybe 20 days a year on slopes..Just got back into skiing a few(4-5) years ago and haven't had 10 days/yr yet, but hoping!
4- I say an honest intermediate, maybe a little more, I can ski non bumpy blacks, and "survive", but not ski, the doubles
5- 5'10" 210 lbs, and guessing an "all purpose" ski for now....I currently use 5 yr old 173 cm k2's from sports authority, cant remember model

part of my worry is I recently rented a pair of skis from local pro shop and had absolutely the worst experience, for some reason, I wanted to lean back instead of forward, front and rear edges were catching, my legs were burnt out after 2 runs, thought I'd go down for sure if I stayed using them...they were kinda moving back and forth as I was going straight downhill, not sure what the problem was, to sharp edges? bad surface on bottom of ski?...It sucked!...rented another pair at the mountain, all was good!...thanks again for any help!

This is an old thread but I'll answer it anyway. You've been given lots of erroneous advice.

1) You live/ski the northeast and are "hoping" to go west. Get skis for where you ski, not where you're "hoping" to ski....... worry about what to use out west when/if you get there and rent.

2-3) Mostly groomed/hard pack/ice........you don't need or want a 100mm ski, or a 90, or really anything more than 80mm wide. Lots of wide skis will carve a nice trench, IF you've learned to get a ski on edge. Getting a wide ski on edge is more work than a narrower ski, takes more pressure, and isn't as quick. Most people who're on wide skis don't or can't get them up on edge....every day on the hill we see people on wide skis skidding around. Silly to be on something like that in the conditions you ski. For the amount of time you ski I seriously doubt you get a ski up on edge.

4) I'd guess a black back there wouldn't be black out west.

5) At your weight and height, you could get something much better than what you're on.

For your conditions, you want skis that'll hold, and the edging skills to make them hold. I'd recommend something 75mm wide or less and at your weight at least 180cm or longer. If you go west they'll work just fine much of the time. Lots of people seem to think it's all powder all the time out here, it's not. Go to any western mountain and there'll be plenty of wonderful groomers to cruise. Mountains vary, but the blues will probably be like blacks back there. I'm 180lbs and use 183-188cm gs skis on groomed, none are even 70mm wide. They work great and are tons of fun. The people I ski with are also mostly on gs race skis, except for slalom ski days, and powder days which aren't that often. On powder days or in chopped up crud, we go wider. Many of us have at least 10pr skis. Buy your skis for your conditions.


I think this is valid ‚ÄĒ contrary notes to the contrary. ¬†You want to be happy most of the time. I'm happy most of the time skiing groomers on an 84 ‚ÄĒ and they're good for a wide range of conditions, including west in 4" or less of fresh.¬†

post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post


Very politic of you. But mechanically incorrect. It is a fact that your 66 SL skis are optimized for ice.  And it is a fact that my  r/r powder skis are optimized for powder/soft snow. The mechanics of this is reasonably well understood. So yeah - "ridiculous" is IMO a very reasonable way to describe any proposition that a particular ski is well suited for use in exactly the opposite of the conditions is optimized for. If you enjoy making a SL ski do what it is not intended to do - by all means have fun. Now and again I'll push my convex base r/r skis that way for grins. Or because they happen to be in my feet when things have degraded.  But suggesting that relative newbs to the space spend time discovering the hard way what is quite well known with respect to ski design seems less than kind -- and that is putting it pretty charitably.
Then why is it that my optimized-for-ice SL skis, while great on hard snow and ice, are also just as fun in softer snow, and generally more-so than my optimized-for-softer-snow 84mm wide skis? Once things get really deep, then yes, my 84s are great, but the wider skis I've tried(and owned) just left me wanting to go back to my 84s. th_dunno-1[1].gif
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

What does mean is that it is ridiculous to ski a sub-70 ski on anything other than ice. Skiing a soft groomer on a 66 mm ski is *at least* as silly as skiing it on my 138 mm r/r skis. I'll do it to get from point A to Point B. Or maybe on a lark. But I'm not going to suggest anyone asking for gear advice do it as a matter of course. And for sure, skiing powder on a sub-66 ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a r/r ski. It flies in the face of the design of the ski.

Sub-70- no go good on anything but ice and "silly" on soft groomers. Don't know your skill level, but you really couldn't be more wrong. Funny.........myself and the other masters skiers have skis of all type and are on gs race skis the majority of days, they're simply the best medicine for any kind of groomer. I ski with a couple guys who like fis slaloms in powder to about 6-8". Horrors! We very seldom have ice here except in spring. I have 10pr gs skis all less than 70mm wide, all ski a bit different, all are excellent. Funny being in the lift line and seeing so many visitors on wide skis when there hasn't been snow for weeks. They don't ski for diddly, go out and skid around, very extremely seldom can they get on edge. A few times on the lift we've been asked what our narrow (gs race) skis were. One guy thought they were old straight skis and strongly suggested we try shaped skis, that we'd " really like them" and that it would make a huge difference. We just played along. Later saw him on a run, he was a terrible skier.

For what the OP lists as his conditions - he didn't mention powder - a 70-75mm ski would work very well. A 100mm ski in those conditions really is ridiculous.
post #48 of 59

If you ski the north east, I suggest you listen carefully to folks who have experience skiing a range of skis in the north east, and take what people skiing in Washington DC say with a grain of salt.  The conditions on west coast groomers (and off-piste too) are different than they are in the north east, and different skis are optimal in either location.

 

There is nothing wrong with skiing an 85 mm wide ski in the north east, but you will have a lot more fun with a sub-70 mm ski, once you get used to it.  It's fun to drive a big limousine too, but it's no sports car.  If most of your roads resemble a race track, you'll have more fun driving a sports car. 

 

The difficulty experienced by many skiing "narrow" SL skis in deeper cut up crud conditions is most likely more due to the short turn radius (13 m or less) than the width.  Both my SL and my Volant Machette ski are narrow, but comparing the two, the Machette is like pressing the easy button, due to the turn radius being much larger.  

post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utahski View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

What does mean is that it is ridiculous to ski a sub-70 ski on anything other than ice. Skiing a soft groomer on a 66 mm ski is *at least* as silly as skiing it on my 138 mm r/r skis. I'll do it to get from point A to Point B. Or maybe on a lark. But I'm not going to suggest anyone asking for gear advice do it as a matter of course. And for sure, skiing powder on a sub-66 ski is the exact mirror image of skiing ice on a r/r ski. It flies in the face of the design of the ski.

Sub-70- no go good on anything but ice and "silly" on soft groomers. Don't know your skill level, but you really couldn't be more wrong. Funny.........myself and the other masters skiers have skis of all type and are on gs race skis the majority of days, they're simply the best medicine for any kind of groomer. I ski with a couple guys who like fis slaloms in powder to about 6-8". Horrors! We very seldom have ice here except in spring. I have 10pr gs skis all less than 70mm wide, all ski a bit different, all are excellent. Funny being in the lift line and seeing so many visitors on wide skis when there hasn't been snow for weeks. They don't ski for diddly, go out and skid around, very extremely seldom can they get on edge. A few times on the lift we've been asked what our narrow (gs race) skis were. One guy thought they were old straight skis and strongly suggested we try shaped skis, that we'd " really like them" and that it would make a huge difference. We just played along. Later saw him on a run, he was a terrible skier.

For what the OP lists as his conditions - he didn't mention powder - a 70-75mm ski would work very well. A 100mm ski in those conditions really is ridiculous.

And a few 70-75 powder skis you would recommend?
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

And a few 70-75 powder skis you would recommend?
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

And a few 70-75 powder skis you would recommend?

None.
post #52 of 59
Thread Starter 

Desired, Great response and exactly what type of info i'm looking for!... I'm extremely happy with the Rev 85's!..like I said, I dont feel compromised when using them in the east...or the west. BUT I haven't had any REAL powder either... My thought was, I have several hobbies...I have lots of gear for all of them... I'm into skiing now more than the other hobbies, I have 1 pair of skis! I can totally justify buying another! Since I';m happy with the 85's, I was thinking the rev 98's may be a better choice to bring out west.  For 300 I thought I couldn't go wrong. You are probably right in that I may find a better "all purpose western ski"...so which?  Original thought process was bring the 85's, if there is a good dump, just rent...now I'm wanting to buy new, just trying to figure whats the best option... Again, thanks all for the replies!!

post #53 of 59
One aspect I love about the Rev's for front-side all-mountain is the sidecut, the 105 has a tight turning radius for a ski of that width. The only down side is it makes the ski a little too turny in deeper snow and crud. It's easy to overturn in powder, so some adjustments are needed or you'll get really tired. The Collective has the same sidecut as the Rev 105 but the tail releases more easily.

I understand the desire to collect toys, umm, tools for your hobby. At $300 you can't go wrong, but you also can't go wrong applying that $300 to demo rentals on powder days to better figure out how to spend your hobby budget. Still, the Rev 98 would probably make for a better quiver of one for the western US than the 85.
post #54 of 59
Thread Starter 

Thats again desired...one more positive reply on the 98's and I'll pull the trigger!

post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 


I think a whole lot of folks would agree that a 100--ish ski is a reasonable thing for a "one pair" trip in many places. Lots of personal preference is baked into that though. 


Yep, I have skis from 88 to 117 underfoot and the Atomic Vantage 100 cti skis are the travel pair.  They do everything well.

post #56 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post
 


Yep, I have skis from 88 to 117 underfoot and the Atomic Vantage 100 cti skis are the travel pair.  They do everything well.

any knowledge of the 98 revs?

post #57 of 59

Quote:

Originally Posted by levy1 View Post


And a few 70-75 powder skis you would recommend?

 

The Blizzard Latigos are a touch wider at 78 but they have some camber and turn easily, with a a relatively short radius. They're also well damped and capable at speed. I've found them to be quite decent on eastern hardpack and really nice on groomed snow. They are wider in the tip (119?) with some tip (and tail) rocker, so they are also fun in modest amounts of new or loose snow.

 

I ski the manmade stuff at home in the Poconos on the Latigos but also bring them out west for a couple of weeks each year. Bonafides were my go to skis for a while, and of course I wouldn't think of heading west without them, but I probably spend a bit more slope time on the Latigos.

 

Given the Latigo's versatility and attractive price point, not to mention its handsome graphics, it's a bit surprising to me that they aren't more popular.

post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

And a few 70-75 powder skis you would recommend?

 

Useful to recall that in the late 90's, Volkl Snow Rangers (79 mm) were winning "Ski of the Year" for their powder performance. Not advocating a return to The Good Old Days, as much as reminding that soft snow design used to be more about flex than float. That held true even for more recent - and much fatter - skis like the Sanouk. I owned Rangers, can attest to their backside chops. Or you might consider Rossi Bandit X's (69 mm) through the later B1's (74 mm), which were really fun in typical resort powder, meaning 2-4 inches of fresh in the am. And a legendary bump ski when the fresh was done. Wish I had kept my B1's. :( 

 

Modern fats, IMO, are not designed for powder in terms of that flex. Rocker and lots of width allow stiff bodies that don't have to flex in powder to surface, while making them more stabile at speed on firmer surfaces. That doesn't make them better in powder (sorry Shane), nor worse, just different; a different technology necessitating a different style of skiing. We surf them in the top few inches of a soft surface. And they smooth out chop nicely.

 

Put another way, I'd argue, their impact has been akin to the standard nose that 80% of all women want when they go to the surgeon: Modern technology has allowed us to more standardize the skiing experience, move to a more universal canon of what it should feel like. More hours of our days can be spent experiencing similar corduroy-ish feeling surfaces, regardless of what's under our skis. Big Mountain skis, regardless of how big our own mountain, allow the ski to do the heavy lifting, iron out any untidy mistakes we make by not using the whole edge. Or almost any of it. Which is great; more smiles and more terrain for less effort, fewer lessons.

 

I'd just add, though (cynicism alert) that it's the ski industry that may have the most smiles. Forty years ago, when skiing was even more of a niche sport, we truly could own one ski that did it all because skis didn't vary that much. You could buy a SL or a GS. It didn't much matter because going off piste was more a sign of specialized deviancy than normative Coolness. Twenty years ago, you might think about a 70-something if you saw yourself mainly living for powder. But the lifts moved so slowly, and the powder was far enough from the trail, that you might get 6 runs in a day. Thumbs Down

 

Now we've all seen the light, and know that any accomplished skier has to at least plan for a quiver; including some fatties for those Valdez days and some mid fats for chop, and something in the low 100's for the occasional foray over the back. I and others here advise new posters that No Ski Does It All; I wonder if what we're really saying is that the day is past when we had to adapt our style to multiple conditions, and the outcome was dicey, variable. At the price of lift tickets, we resist rolling dice. We want that standardized nose, that experience produced by a ski that'll help iron almost any conditions, any technical errors, into smoothness. (I certainly do, I have seen the light! :yahoo:)

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot we're all way too sophisticated to have our desires driven by the market instead of the other way around. I certainly am.  :rolleyes

 

Now back to the regularly schedule brouhaha about how you're an idiot if you ski (fill in the width) in (fill in the condition)...;) 


Edited by beyond - 10/13/16 at 12:54am
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by graham418 View Post
 

Just give in to your inner consumer, and start buying!! Everyone else on this site has. One ski wont do it all, you have to acquire the quiver!  Its better to start sooner than later, you have some catching up to do! :D

I totally agree! But don't loose it...

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 › which ski...so many to choose