or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Trying to Decide on a All Mtn/Powder Ski [Colorado]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trying to Decide on a All Mtn/Powder Ski [Colorado]

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi, Im looking to get on a new pair of sticks and don't know what I should look at. I'm living in Colorado and primarily skiing the summit resorts. I have been skiing my hole life and am pretty confident in my skiing ability (Love jumping cliffs and charging big lines). I have never skied a early rise or rockered ski and am a little nervous about how such a ski would hold an edge on the harder stuff. I understand that modern skis are super specialized and I'm not going to get a one ski quiver killer. I'm hoping to get something that will be able to float nicely in the powder and handle tight turns in the trees but still be able to haul ass back to the chair. How fat of a ski should I be looking at? What are the detractions of having tail rocker. I'm 6'1 around 185-95lbs. 

 

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

post #2 of 13

Wow..where to start. First lets get the 'Welcome to Epicski' out of the way, so welcome to Epicski. Now..Lets take a look at some options for you. From the way you described your needs is you are looking for skis that lean towards the power side of the finesse/power scale. Since you are asking about powder too, I think a ski that is in the One-Oh-Something segment, by that I am referring to a ski that is between 100-109mm underfoot. Next you car concerned about tail rocker (or rise) so I will suggest skis with either minimal rise or some taper, now it sounds like you prefer camber underfoot so I will not suggest flat or full rocker skis which can be greasy on firm snow when you are on the way back to the lift. 

 

Skis on my short list (but not limited to):

 

Blizzard Cochise: New and improved for 2015, now with camber!

Nordica El Capo: Smooth, compliant and makes a nice round turn, deals can be had on 2014 Blems

Salomon Q-Lab 104: Fun and playful like you would expect from Salomon but like the green color that it is, the Q-Lab has an inner Hulk.

Line Supernatural 108: A new design from Line, and their best design to date

Stockli Stormrider 107: the money is no object option. Like a divorce, they are expensive, why? because they are worth it. 

post #3 of 13

I'mma toss out the Blizzard Peacemaker as an option.

It's a rockered twin tip, 104mm under foot with a 21 radius.

light and playful.

longest length is a 186, which is what I ski it in and I'm 5'11", 165. 

if you go this route, just mount the ski at least 2 cm in front of the line.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-blizzard-peacemaker

post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 

Ok great to hear the feedback...Would you then say that a ski over 110 under foot, up into the 115 120 range is going to be rather un-skiable on the groomers. I have an additional pair of carving skis for the lean days. I have been looking at skis like the Icelantic Shaman and Gypsy, Armada JJ, Atomic Automatic, and Rossi Super 7s...

post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Bob View Post
 

Ok great to hear the feedback...Would you then say that a ski over 110 under foot, up into the 115 120 range is going to be rather un-skiable on the groomers. I have an additional pair of carving skis for the lean days. I have been looking at skis like the Icelantic Shaman and Gypsy, Armada JJ, Atomic Automatic, and Rossi Super 7s...

Once you get over 115mm, IMHO it is a 10-15% not an 70-80% ski that I would classify as "all mountain/Powder". If the skis that you just mentioned, I would say the Automatic (even at 117mm) would be my choice but I would still stay closer to the 110mm range. 

post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Bob View Post
 

Ok great to hear the feedback...Would you then say that a ski over 110 under foot, up into the 115 120 range is going to be rather un-skiable on the groomers. I have an additional pair of carving skis for the lean days. I have been looking at skis like the Icelantic Shaman and Gypsy, Armada JJ, Atomic Automatic, and Rossi Super 7s...

 

Very little is un-skiable on groomers, but 120mm skis are not designed for great groomer performance. Do you  just want to make it to the next lap of terrain, or do you really care about skiing the groomer part for fun?

 

I have the Gypsy. I love it, but I tend to take it out when I know it's going to snow all day. My everyday ski is the Line Sick Day 110. It is pretty fun on groomers, but not like a narrower ski would be.

post #7 of 13
Add a Kastle FX 104 and maybe a Head Collective to the mix (up?).
post #8 of 13

You should consider going to the Demo Day at Loveland this Saturday.  Obviously not much of the mountain is open and its not going to be a powder day, but you'd be able to see how a bunch of different skis actually feel underfoot.  You get a lift ticket, lunch, drinks, and unlimited demos.

 

http://www.skiloveland.com/events/november.aspx

post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

Once you get over 115mm, IMHO it is a 10-15% not an 70-80% ski that I would classify as "all mountain/Powder". If the skis that you just mentioned, I would say the Automatic (even at 117mm) would be my choice but I would still stay closer to the 110mm range. 


I'm more in line with the skis mentioned by the OP. Though there are two sort of distinct flavors mixed in. A couple bidirectional and some one direction. Though all would ski forward well enough... 

 

Floating "nicely" in the powder - especially low water content powder - speaks to a ski decently in excess of 110. I'd view the wide Automatic, Super 7, etc. as the narrow end of the discussion. Personally, I'd use my trusty Praxis GPOs for this (very roughly similar dimensions to those two). But getting into the realm of Bent Chetlers would be sensible too. All of these will hold an edge well enough. In soft snow, all are more nimble in trees than narrower or less rockered skis.

 

I'd personally avoid the Shaman, or anything else without a modern rocker profile, for this purpose.  Makes it dated and more work for less nimbleness IMO. (I used to ski it fwiw) Though YMMV.

post #10 of 13
OP, I'd say for a everyday ski something in the 90-95mm or even 88-89mm for a powder ski go over 115mm waist.

I'm a volkl guy, east coast. love my Kendo's on the firm snow and for every day. I also picked up 2011/2012 volkl shiro's last March, 119 waist, awesome in the spring crud, can't wait to get them in deep snow.



Big thing, how do your boots fit ?
post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 


I'm more in line with the skis mentioned by the OP. Though there are two sort of distinct flavors mixed in. A couple bidirectional and some one direction. Though all would ski forward well enough... 

 

Floating "nicely" in the powder - especially low water content powder - speaks to a ski decently in excess of 110. I'd view the wide Automatic, Super 7, etc. as the narrow end of the discussion. Personally, I'd use my trusty Praxis GPOs for this (very roughly similar dimensions to those two). But getting into the realm of Bent Chetlers would be sensible too. All of these will hold an edge well enough. In soft snow, all are more nimble in trees than narrower or less rockered skis.

 

I'd personally avoid the Shaman, or anything else without a modern rocker profile, for this purpose.  Makes it dated and more work for less nimbleness IMO. (I used to ski it fwiw) Though YMMV.

The Shaman has an early rise tip but a traditional tail. Would you not consider this more of a bridge between being able to hold an edge and float/crud stomper?

post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta Bob View Post
 

The Shaman has an early rise tip but a traditional tail. Would you not consider this more of a bridge between being able to hold an edge and float/crud stomper?

 

Looking at the Icelantic website ( http://www.icelanticskis.com/ski_detail.cfm?pid=282 ) it looks like the Shaman is as I remember it - a big tip, but not early rise. YMMV, but I just do not see a use for a non-rockered ski in powder. Yes, the wide tip and dramatic tip to tail taper make for better powder handling than more typical conventionally cambered and sidecut skis. But IMO it is not even on the playing field compared to current rockered designs in powder. Also, in the relatively shorter length I skied, I found the dramatic tip to tail taper made the ski feel kind of weird on firm snow as the front of the ski was pretty kicked up. I'd much rather ski a rockered 5 point type design. Just my .02....

post #13 of 13
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 › Trying to Decide on a All Mtn/Powder Ski [Colorado]