or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bonafide vs Influence 105
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bonafide vs Influence 105

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

This head-to-head comparison question seems not to have been discussed on this board.

 

From the reviews of the Bonafide that I've seen on EpicSki, it seems to be a ski that is very capable in nearly all conditions but puts a premium on the skier's ability and to a lesser extent, his weight. So in the right hands and skied properly, it can be an everyday ski that can handle groomers, crud, chop and some powder - basically everything but the deeper stuff. Also seems to not be the ski you'd want to take through the bumps unless you really want to charge.

 

The Influence 105 also seems to be a very capable do-it-all ski, but with a more relaxed, more forgiving personality that does not demand so much from the skier. It also seems to be a bit better at short radius turns. Like the Bonafide, it seems to be a good everyday ski for nearly everything except deeper powder but unlike the Bone, can do so more easily for skiers of lesser ability and is probably less demanding when navigating through the bumps.

 

Is this accurate? I'm interested in the comparison because my local shop has good deals on the 2014 version of each and I'm thinking that one of them can truly be my daily (really, only) ski. I'm a decent, reasonably aggressive but far from expert skier who can handle most runs except for the truly steep (or moderately steep and heavily moguled). Probably somewhere fall along the continuum from high intermediate to advanced, depending on terrain and conditions. I live in the east and will spend a few days at local hills, and an occasional weekend in NE, but am lucky enough to be able to get out west for a couple of weeks. My last ski was the P90, which was terrific but seemed more at home on the groomers, so with a greater bias toward western skiing - and the hope that I'll get to spend more time in the trees - a 98-105 mid-fat option seems about right.

post #2 of 6

You described the skis pretty good, tell us more about you and what you are looking for out of a ski. Also big you are, how aggressive, where you ski, ect...

post #3 of 6

Listen to Phil.  He is very knowledgable and knows his skis.  BTW Phil my wife was super stoked to get the Yumi's for her anniversary gift.  She can't wait to ski them. 

 

I owned both skis.  I still own the Bonafides.  I owned the Influence 105's back in 2012 in 179 and then owned the Bones last year in 180's.  I found the Influence skied way easier at 179 than the Bones in 180.  I loved my Influence's but I like to try a lot of different skis so I sold them.  I also sold my Bonafides in 180 because they were way to hard to ski at that length for me.  I am 5'6" and weigh 165 lbs.  The 179 Influence were not hard to ski at all in the 179 for me.  So then last year I bought a pair of Brahma's in 173 and loved them.  So I decided to get the Bones in 173.  However I bought them in the spring in a blowout sale so I haven't skied them yet.  However if they ski like the Brahma's in 173, which I heard they do, I'll be very stoked.  I guess it all comes down to your size and weight.  Just going off your ability, as you described it, I'd say the Influence might work better for you.  However if the Bonafide is something you might really want consider a shorter size than the Influence. 

 

Chuck

post #4 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

You described the skis pretty good, tell us more about you and what you are looking for out of a ski. Also big you are, how aggressive, where you ski, ect...


Size-wise, I'm right in between Darren Sproles and Shady McCoy (5'7", 192 lbs). That's the start and end of that comparison though. I do cycle quite a bit in the warmer months and from the thighs down, I'm almost ripped. Of course, things change dramatically from the navel northward. Compared to my 50-something peers, I'm fast and aggressive, which of course means I'm a slug compared to any real skier.

 

As I hinted in my original post, I tend toward the less challenging black trails but would like to step that up a bit. I've become reasonably proficient in the loose stuff - as long as it's not too steep. I like the glades but am still a bit tentative, especially when the trees are tight. Would like to get better at both. The parents of a high school buddy of mine owned a condo at Vail, so I got to ski there a lot in my younger days and now I'm lucky enough to be able to spend some time each season at some pretty awesome places. Big Sky/Moonlight in 2013, Alta/Bird/Park City last year and this year, will spend the first couple of weeks in Feb at JH/Grand Targhee. I won't be skiing Colbert's Couloir but look forward to spend time in what looks like some fabulous bowls and glades at both of the Teton resorts. My local is "the Alta of PA", Elk Mountain. I'm joking but even with the slowest lifts in the developed world, Elk can be a pretty pleasant place for a Pocono (actually, Endless Mountains) resort.

 

What I want is a competent all-around ski that has reasonably good manners but that can driven a little. I'm thinking that's the Influence, especially since I'm coming off of 179 cm Prophets but the Bonafide in 173 may work well too, especially since I can get complacent and usually respond well to a bit of prodding.

post #5 of 6

With most of your skiing at Elk, personally I would prefer to take a Bonafide down Tunkhannock or Seneca than a 105 waisted anything. Your not that big of a guy, you don't need that big of a ski. 

post #6 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

With most of your skiing at Elk, personally I would prefer to take a Bonafide down Tunkhannock or Seneca than a 105 waisted anything. Your not that big of a guy, you don't need that big of a ski. 


Great to see you're familiar with the queen of the Endless Mountains! I may however have inadvertently given the wrong impression of how often I get to ski Elk (perhaps 3 or 4 times a season) but your point is well taken. Even though if it takes something like 3 times as long to get back to the top as it does to ski down, there are some decent, if not very challenging, trails, the snowmaking and grooming are very good (its higher elevation helps) and best of all, it's remote enough that there's almost a real wait for the lifts. That the trails reflect so much Native American influence is yet another neat feature of the mountain.

 

For past several years, I have been able to ski about 6 - 8 days out west and this year will more than double that lower number at JH/GT. The plan is more ambitious for 2016, with the eventual goal of a month. I am planning to get up to MRG or Magic for some slope therapy (an extended weekend) in Jan and that kind of thing will hopefully be on the cards for next few years as well.

 

Thanks again for the suggestion and I'll post after I make my selection and hopefully also post my impressions of that selection a bit later on in the season. Skis in the 98-waist range don't sell very well here in SE PA, so I don't need to rush into anything.

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 › Bonafide vs Influence 105