or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski advice for California ripper
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski advice for California ripper

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Hello-

 

I new here and was hoping i could get some help with ski recommendations for what i believe is a slightly unique situation.

 

My info:

5-10

160LBS

Advanced intermediate-Expert

Current ski.  2012 Atomic Smoke 164cm  I like my current skis i just feel a little more advanced skis would help me excel. Also my current skis are on their last leg after the last couple years of finding rocks in the low snow pack.

 

Normal day of skiing:

10% piste, just skiing to get where i need to go

40% steep trees/canyons

50% Bumps(Gunbarrel 25)

 

I am not looking for a one quiver ski. I think its unrealistic to have a ski that does well in the bumps and can cruise in 2' of California powder. I also don't think a bump ski fits the mold because of all the "big mountain" skiing that is done on a normal day.

 

What i am looking for is a ski that can do all the above and still keep up when there is 4-8" of powder

Budget $500 with bindings

Any help would be appreciated!

 

Thanks:D

post #2 of 17

Best of luck with that budget. 

 

I would hear all ski suggestions regardless of price in this thread, then look for used setups either on this site or TGR.

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

Good point!

 

 

For the sake of discussion please ignore the budget. I will figure that out after a ski is found.  Just need some help with they the type of skis i should be looking at.

 

Thanks again

post #4 of 17

First ski that comes to mind is the Blizzard Brahma, at 88 underfoot and a bit of rise in the tip and tail should work for you. 88 will be quick enough edge to edge down gun barrel and the little bit of rise in the tip and tail will also make it fun in the bumps. You are not that heavy so with will be wide enough for playing over in Killebrew and Mott Canyon trees in all be the deepest snow. Since you are a bumper, go with the Look Pivot12 or 14 Bindings, slow swing weight and allows the ski to bend naturally. 173cm should be fine for your weight, going from the 164 to the next size up 180 might be too big of a jump for you. 

post #5 of 17

+1 on the Bramah

also look at:

Line Supernatural 92

K2 Shreditor 92

Line Sick Day 95

K2 AMP Rictor 82 XTI

Atomic Nomad Blackeye TI

post #6 of 17

FWIW - 2nd Tracks Sports in  Salt Lake City is selling those in a one season used demos with bindings for under $400. They are on the web. I ran across them while looking for a used ski for a friend. I can't add anything else because I do not know the ski... nor have I seen you ski- grin! I think new they can be had w/o bindings for 500 bucks.

 

Ever thought of teaching skiing part time? It's a good way of getting a free season pass and a lot of free lessons. Plus you can get gear at pro discounts. I did it for 13 yrs. it was well worth it.

post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the help guys.

 

I see some wider skis have been recommended. I was always under the assumption a wider ski would be at a disadvantage in the bumps. Is there a number I should stay away from? 95mm+?

 

I also understand a ski for my applications listed will be a compromise in one if not all the disciplines.

 

Thanks

post #8 of 17
Brahma. Problem solved. Btw, I'm assuming you have good boots that fit.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mx417 View Post
 

Thanks for the help guys.

 

I see some wider skis have been recommended. I was always under the assumption a wider ski would be at a disadvantage in the bumps. Is there a number I should stay away from? 95mm+?

 

I also understand a ski for my applications listed will be a compromise in one if not all the disciplines.

 

Thanks

Your assumption is correct. 

post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 

my boots are "Salomon X MAX 120"  

 

I really like them

post #11 of 17

You might consider demo'ing skies before buying. A few years back I did that with six skies in one day picked out the three top and then skied all six again the next day again picking out three again. It was funny, the top two of the three were all different picks in the six the 3rd ski pick was the same both days. Maybe I should have bought that (the 3rd)ski, however I didn't. I finally bought a completely different ski from the one's I tested at the end of that same year. Snow conditions were different each day I suppose. It was the same terrain... off in the cliffs... bumps, crud, ungroomed and finally groomed. What I''m saying is take your time picking.

post #12 of 17
That would be painful to watch someone who (on epic) classifies themselves as "advanced intermediate-expert" making bump runs down gunbarrel.

Sorry, I'm grumpy. My knee hurts.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mx417 View Post

 

I was always under the assumption a wider ski would be at a disadvantage in the bumps. Is there a number I should stay away from? 95mm+?

 

 

I've come to realize it really depends on how one wants to ski bumps.  Through lots of experimenting I've found my personal max bump number is 90mm.   I ski better on my short 80mm skis in the bumps, but I'm fine with my 90mm normal length skis.   At 100mm I have to slow down.   On 110mm skis I have to really slow down and also take a different line unless there is significant powder.   There is good reason competitive bump skiers are on 68mm skis.

post #14 of 17

Hi all - I've been reading this thread with interest because I am in a similar position to the OP.  I moved from CO to CA this past year and live in LA.  I have some Nordica Patrons (177) and got those for CO conditions, and expect to use those now and then, especially if I travel (like to Mammoth).  But I've been looking around for some used skis in the 80-90mm waist width for skiing here in the LA area.  These would be skis primarily for this area, but I kind of want them to be interesting enough that they would be fun someplace like mammoth.

 

I have some skis on my list very similar to the ones from the OP, though I have also been looking at the Kastle mx88.

 

My question is: what range of length should I be looking at?  I've been looking mostly in the 160-170 length, but wonder if I should go up to 180?

I'm 6 foot, 140.  Advanced skier.  

post #15 of 17
I'm wondering where the Blizzard Bushwacker fits in. I've never skied the Brahma but I'm 5'8" 150 advanced skier and I like them(BW). They're good but not great.

In general, wouldn't the Brahma be good for a person adv/exp who has the weight(160 or more) and/or power to flex them??
post #16 of 17

I think I should add, I really don't know what type of skier I am. I ski advanced runs but I may not technically be an an "advanced" skier. I really just consider myself a skier who will ski most of the mtn and who will push himself but also have fun :o)

post #17 of 17

SteepandCheap has Look PX12 bindings for 112 or so at the moment, which is a decent binding for a pretty good price (and leaves you 390 or so for the skis).

 

I use a Head Rock n Roll for the type of skiing you're describing and really like it. I'm not sure if the Venturi 95 (the Rock n Roll's kind of replacement) is as good, but it can be found in your budget range if you look around.

 

Also check out the Evo.com outlet. They have some deals at the moment. You could get a Dynastar Cham 87 with bindings within your budget. I haven't skied it, but people seem to either love it or hate 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 › Ski advice for California ripper