or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Possible brain damage: I think I want to buy a pair of mogul skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Possible brain damage: I think I want to buy a pair of mogul skis - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Thread Starter 

I just pinged several promising cheap options on craigslist for "real" bump skis. Let's see if any ping back.  Not dismissing the idea of a more all-around ski, but if I can get something for < $200 ... 

post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

 

Question2: What are the characteristics that make the Bushwacker a good candidate?  Twin tip, I gather, though I don't think bump skis necessarily have that. Narrow waist. Not too aggressive a side cut (how do I determine this from marketing stats?). What sort of flex?

For the answer I'd defer to Dawgcatching's and Philpug's greater wisdom in the thread I referenced in post  #13 above. Funny how in 2014 we think of 88mm as a narrow waist.

post #33 of 41
Good bump skis are hardly one trick ponies. I've got several pair from different generations and they work just fine elsewhere.

My current favs are a pair of Volkl Dragon Slayers. Light, responsive, great edge hold and playful as hell.
Great fun at the smaller local hills.
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post

For the answer I'd defer to Dawgcatching's and Philpug's greater wisdom in the thread I referenced in post  #13 above. Funny how in 2014 we think of 88mm as a narrow waist.

 




Who thinks of 88mm as a narrow waist?


65mm is a narrow waist. Always was and still is.
post #35 of 41

As much as it pains me, will have to agree ^^^^. Although there are few skis made now under 66 mm, and those are almost entirely for some kind of racing. 

 

1) "Narrow waist" IMO refers to skis that are also called "frontside" or "carvers," and tend to be under the middle 70's. "All-Mountains" do not qualify. Racing skis per se need not qualify because their narrow waists are not their defining quality; flex and edge hold are. 

 

2) There is a reason that actual bump and freestyle competitors rock on skis like the F17 etc: You cannot get from edge to edge fast enough on an 88 mm to really zipper bumps, however nice it is in all other respects, and however great a skier you are (space for Josh to state that he can shame Olympic freestylers on his Patrons): ________________________________________________________. 

 

3) And judging by what I see on the slopes, bump skis can be pretty nice for other duties, as long as that doesn't involve much crud or soft snow. (Space for Rossi S to state that his bump skis eat a foot of fresh for lunch): __________________________________________________.

 

4) That all said, I'd have to be very invested in really attacking bumps, and have knees made of steel (not the replacement alloy) to spend even the price of a new binding on a pair of used dedicated bumpers, say as opposed to a narrow all-mountain with a forgiving tip and tail. This is more about how we ski bumps, IMO, than about simply wanted a nice bump ski. 

post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

4) That all said, I'd have to be very invested in really attacking bumps, and have knees made of steel (not the replacement alloy) to spend even the price of a new binding on a pair of used dedicated bumpers, say as opposed to a narrow all-mountain with a forgiving tip and tail. This is more about how we ski bumps, IMO, than about simply wanting a nice bump ski. 

 

That's the thing and, I think, the conclusion the OP is coming to: Are we talking about skis for 20 year old Olympic wannabees or middle aged and older bears who really enjoy the bumps for what they are? I, for one, enjoy the bumps because I can ski the same run over and over and have a totally different experience each time. The allure of groomers fades pretty quickly as the morning wears on. I also savor the discipline of trying to improve my technique each time out, in all aspects of my skiing, but particularly in the skills that are required to get closer and closer to the zipper line on each bump run. Is this a discussion about the best bump ski, or the best ski for an individual who wants to ski the bumps?

post #37 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoliu View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

 

4) That all said, I'd have to be very invested in really attacking bumps, and have knees made of steel (not the replacement alloy) to spend even the price of a new binding on a pair of used dedicated bumpers, say as opposed to a narrow all-mountain with a forgiving tip and tail. This is more about how we ski bumps, IMO, than about simply wanting a nice bump ski. 

 

That's the thing and, I think, the conclusion the OP is coming to: Are we talking about skis for 20 year old Olympic wannabees or middle aged and older bears who really enjoy the bumps for what they are? I, for one, enjoy the bumps because I can ski the same run over and over and have a totally different experience each time. The allure of groomers fades pretty quickly as the morning wears on. I also savor the discipline of trying to improve my technique each time out, in all aspects of my skiing, but particularly in the skills that are required to get closer and closer to the zipper line on each bump run. Is this a discussion about the best bump ski, or the best ski for an individual who wants to ski the bumps?

 

Hey! I'm only 36!  But no one would ever accuse me of being 20 again, either, and my bump technique involves a lot of meandering.  I am definitely an individual looking to ski the bumps, and I am enthralled by the idea of a "real" bump ski, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing for me. I suspect that a true competition bump ski would be about as appropriate for me as borrowing Lindsey Vonn's race skis while she's rehabbing her knee.  Are all these skis advertised for bumps true competition bump skis? Is that basically the only kind of bump ski that exists?

post #38 of 41
Thread Starter 

Hey guys,

Anyone familiar with the Icelantic SKNY series?

 

I've already enjoyed several Icelantic skis.  The Pilgrim SKNY sounds like what we've been discussing:

 

http://www.icelanticskis.com/ski_detail.cfm?categoryID=1&subCatID=4&productID=143

 

Quote:

The new SKNY series was developed as a tool for you to have just as much fun on the days without pow as those with.   We took our 4 original models and put them on a diet making them quicker edge to edge and to perform better on piste. 

 

The NEW Pilgrim SKNY has the same flex and sidecut radius as the regular Pilgrim, just skinnier.   We reduced the waist from 90mm to 75mm, creating a true carver that also excels in the bumps.  If you are looking for a ski that with traditional camber and a flat tail that can lay some trenches the Pilgrim SKNY is definitely the ski for you!

 

I could get in a 159 or 169 ... maybe 159 for the bump emphasis?

 

Does this look right to you?

 

(Why do I have a feeling saving money will not be the outcome of this discovery?)

post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

As much as it pains me, will have to agree ^^^^. Although there are few skis made now under 66 mm, and those are almost entirely for some kind of racing. 



 



1) "Narrow waist" IMO refers to skis that are also called "frontside" or "carvers," and tend to be under the middle 70's. "All-Mountains" do not qualify. Racing skis per se need not qualify because their narrow waists are not their defining quality; flex and edge hold are. 



 



2) There is a reason that actual bump and freestyle competitors rock on skis like the F17 etc: You cannot get from edge to edge fast enough on an 88 mm to really zipper bumps, however nice it is in all other respects, and however great a skier you are (space for Josh to state that he can shame Olympic freestylers on his Patrons): ________________________________________________________. 



 



3) And judging by what I see on the slopes, bump skis can be pretty nice for other duties, as long as that doesn't involve much crud or soft snow. (Space for Rossi S to state that his bump skis eat a foot of fresh for lunch): __________________________________________________.



 



4) That all said, I'd have to be very invested in really attacking bumps, and have knees made of steel (not the replacement alloy) to spend even the price of a new binding on a pair of used dedicated bumpers, say as opposed to a narrow all-mountain with a forgiving tip and tail. This is more about how we ski bumps, IMO, than about simply wanted a nice bump ski. 


 






Nope, not on my feet anyway. But for Northeast typical frontside, no troubles.
post #40 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by bumpfreaq View Post
 

One thing that I consider awesome is having a quiver of radically different skis.  I quite enjoy skiing the same run twice in a row, the first time on 173cm x 66mm and the next on 189cm x 118mm =)

 

 

I've been thinking it would be really interesting and somewhat instructive to shoot some video skiing the exact same bump line on radically different skis.  It might be a fun little exercise for a spring day at the Jane.   I'm game if you want to try it sometime... although mine are not as radically different at 170cm x 80mm and 181cm x 111mm.

post #41 of 41
Thread Starter 

I ended up buying The Ski.  Because yeah. Will report back on whether it turns me into a bump slayer (spoiler: probably not).

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 › Possible brain damage: I think I want to buy a pair of mogul skis