I am looking for a comparison of these skis, and maybe a bit of a suggestion as to which one would work well for me. Unfortunately I won't be able to demo these before I need to buy so it will need to be an educated guess. There is also a cost/availability issue at play which is why I selected what I did, other than the Auto 102.
I am 6'2", 170 to 180 lbs through out the season, advanced skier (7 or 8 normally, if everything clicks I can ski like a 9). 20 to 25 days per year, mostly in Fernie (lots of snow but can be warm with freeze thaw cycles, rain, sun affect) but also ski Banff resorts a few times a year as well (mixed bag but colder, drier and bonier than Fernie). Dalbello Scorpion SR110, could use new liners.
I ski mostly off-piste, whatever happens to be the conditions although I stay on the groomers when there has been a bad refreeze or rain crust. I ski a lot of tight trees and long bump runs as well as more open trees and bowls when the snow is good. I do like skiing chutes and steeper stuff but I don't do it on low snow days very often anymore.
Skis I have skied:
Movement Goliath Sluff 184: about perfect other than it was mounted too far back due to hole conflicts. Sold, if it had room for an alpine mount I would have probably kept it and moved it to daily driver duty.
K2 Seth Vicious 179 (1st year with rocker): very fun in most conditions. Couldn't carve well, not enough edge length (or left...they were pretty beat when I got them). Skied very short in 2D snow, would have liked a bit more length. Tip was a bit hooky in refrozen crap. Loved the feel of the flex. Sold.
Salomon Shogun 182: really liked this ski for about two years. The last two years it has felt dead and hard to release the tails. Could be a bad tune, and the slight twisting of the tails. Could be I have transitioned to more finesse than power as when I really push them they feel good again. I still regularly open it up on groomers though. Has always felt too far forward of a mount. Daily Driver.
Rossi Avenger 82 carbon 177: I use these early season when only groomers are available and when I go to Nakiska. I like these in very few off-piste conditions.
Praxis GPO 187: (medium+ stiffness). Deep snow only.
I am looking for a ski to replace the Shogun and address what I don't like about it: tip feels short, tail is a bit too long and hard to release in lots of conditions making it a bit sluggish in tight trees with the trade off that it is pretty good in open areas. I think I would benefit from something a bit softer for skiing tight trees and bumps.
Can anybody give me comparisons to what I have skied, or between themselves?
Here are my concerns from what I have read (caveat - I have not demo'd any of these skis and have only fondled the Q98 and Sin 7)
Q98: not great edge hold. Maybe they are not top of the class but maybe they are better than what I have been skiing??? Maybe this is like an updated Shogun?
Sin 7: seem like they have a lot of rocker and very soft tip and tail. May ski like a longer Seth (rocker/camber profile is similar) so again I worry about edge hold but it seems good otherwise. Don't know about bump performance with the sidecut and wide tip and tail.
Auto 102: have not really read anything about this ski other than Philpug's steal and deals. My GPO is similar to the Auto 117 so I figured, why not consider a skinny version of I ski I like. No idea what the rocker/camber profile looks like or how stiff they are.
Cham 97: concerned with no twin or even small tail rocker as I do a fair amount of backwards sliding (not really switch skiing) in really tight trees. Worried about them maybe being too stiff. Tip seems really similar to the GPO.
Here is what I think would be a great shape:
130-100-120, 22-m radius, 300-mm tip rocker, 100-mm tail rocker with a half twin (like 4-cm total rise), 185-cm straight pull. Pretty much a Shogun with a bit of tip and tail taper that would necessarily shorten the sidecut section and drop the radius slightly, a longer total length and some small rocker in the tail.
Any thoughts (other than "You have gone off the deep end on this one")?