or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Skis: difference in stiffness
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skis: difference in stiffness

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 



Could someone, please, explain to me the difference in stiffness between these skis( from the most stiff, to noodle level).


1. Rossi Super 7 (current)

2. Salomon Q 115

3. Atomic Automatic 117


Is Salomon the stiffest?


thank you

post #2 of 12

Oh oh. :D Well, anyway, I own the current Super 7 (so biased), and have briefly tried the Automatic 117. The 117 is a little stiffer, and a bit different in feel, livelier, flex pattern seemed more on/off, like stiffer in the middle 3/4 and softer at each end. But that's based on one run. Cannot speak to the Sollies. 

post #3 of 12

Q series sollies are definitely a stiffer ski , very minimal rocker on them... I pull them out for icy conditions in Utah .

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

Stiff to soft

Salomon Q 115 -> Atomic Automatic 117 -> Rossignol Super 7

post #5 of 12

Where would the Blizzard Bodacious fit in this sequence? I'm guessing on the stiffer end, but really want to know relative to the Atomic. I'm between the Super 7, Automatic, and Bodacious for next season. Hoping to get one on sale here soon! 

post #6 of 12
That's a weirdly broad list to be between. The Bodacious, from everything I've read or heard, is a very beefy, fairly demanding ski. Definitely on the stiff side of things. The Super 7 is at the other side of the spectrum; the Automatic prolly toward the middle. Doubt you'd be happy with all three.
post #7 of 12
The new bodacious is a much more accessible ski. It isn't particularly stiff, but IMHO, still one of the best performance 'big' skis out there. I'd also look at the Cham 117.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 

I was looking into new Blizzard Bodacious 185 but without testing could not do it. (it could be too stiff and too big ski for me). 

I was looking for the resort powder ski. So, I bough a Salomon Q 115 in 188 for the next season as a try out ski. It should be some middle of the ground between mellow S7 and rail Bodacious. I realized that Q115 is not exactly powder ski, but the ski which could do powder and what is left from it on the next day as well.

post #9 of 12
Anything 115 wide is exactly powder ski.smile.gif
post #10 of 12

I own the honeycomb Super 7 and the Auto 117, and have demoed the new Bodacious, not the old one.   The new one was not burly, but flexy/carvy and with a very gs carvy feel to it in ~3" of powder and later chop.   The tip, for me, deflected at speed in mixed conditions.   This is no reflection on the old, burly Bodacious, a ski I've only read about that's different.  At times I like to really roll up at relatively high angles and speeds on mixed snow groomers.  Many fat skis can do this, no problem.  Not the new Bodacious, w/o extra caution, for me.  


@markojp & @beyond

A number of ~115 skis are aimed more at crud stability than powder feel:  e.g. Line Influence 115, K2 Pettitor 120 (great ski), and, from what I've heard, not experienced, the Q 115.  A friend, for example, says the Q115 is stiffer, has less float and requires him to get back on his skis some in lower angle deep, whereas the Sollie Rocker2 122, its cousin, has no such problem (and is weighted more towards powder "skimming" than towards charging crud, where the Q 115 gets the nod, from what I've heard).   A ski right in the middle that I've tried (and own) is the Volkl V Werks Katana 112.  For me, it's good at both, a bit more so than the Pettitor, which charges crud a little more better than it floats.   


To me (~150 lbs., 5'10", good not elite), the difference between the two skis you mentioned I own, the Super 7 and the big Auto, is one of both performance and feel, and is dependent on where the Auto 117 is mounted.   Yes, the Super 7 has softer flex, but the Auto has a soft tail rather than center or tip, as near as I can tell.  The tail is also narrower than some fat skis.   The result is a ski that changes its performance with changing mount (Schizos, demos).  With both skis at zero, for instance, they behave very similarly in pure deep powder and carving groomers, but the Super 7 is lighter, quicker and more lively (but more work in crud), while the Auto comes alive in chop powder and crud bumps and with hero big mountain type turns - two bumps per turn, for instance, getting air along the way.  (It's the ski, not me! :))


But slide the 186 Auto 117s forward to +1 1/2, and they suddenly are quicker and more lively than the Super 7s (180 or 188), while still retaining a better ride in crud and chop conditions, for me.   I usually prefer the Auto at this setting, but like forward and back of this also, for specific feel and conditions.  


Forward at ~+2 to +2 1/2, the Auto becomes a surfy ski, no lie.  Fun in lots of pow.  A lot like the Armada JJ.  The farther forward you go with the mount here, the less stable the ski is in deep chop and crud:  at beyond +3 or so, you can actually get the ski to skip like a flat rock on a lake - or at least it feels like that - slightly skipping!   For me, this setting is fun at times, as long as I know I can easily get out of it.  

Edited by ski otter - 4/6/16 at 2:51pm
post #11 of 12

I haven't skied any of the skis on your list.


But I do own a pair of the 1gen 186 Bodacious.  I love it for roaring around the mountain.  Big and damp and stiff.  I like it so much I've decided to get the new 193 Bodacious as a pow ski.  THe 196 would be too much I think, but the new 193 sounds perfect.


I'm 5'11/195 BTW, and I mount almost everything with 916s.

post #12 of 12
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Anything 115 wide is exactly powder ski.smile.gif

Hmmm. Then why are so many skis in this range marketed as, and evaluated as, big mountain guns for charging chop and all soft snow? My impression - may be completely wrong here - is that the "Big Mountain" designation went through size inflation, went from 90's up to low 120's over the course of the last decade. Consider that the Dynastar Legend Pro, at what, 99 mm? was considered in its prime to be the definitive big mountain charger.


Then the XXL became the definitive "pillager." Fast forward to the various indie beefy 115-120's, ON3P, Armada, and Moment come to mind, not to mention Stockli and Head and Kastle, beloved not just by big guys but by anyone who felt that optimal powder skiing was taking air and then straight-lining to the bottom, often hanging on for dear life, followed by whoops of approval from brahs, repeat. (Have seen exactly this many times at Squaw or Vail, for instance, so...) The entire concept of laps, if you think on it, from local resorts to Jackson Hole, implies time constraints, the more pillaging and plundering the goods each hour the better, thus faster with stability = desirable. A 115 GS, basically, is perfect. 


Similarly, the first Bodacious was in no conceivable way a pure powder ski, unless you weighed 275. With less and less pure powder around, maybe this is makers' attempt to keep fat skis relevant to younger adults, not sure. But I'm old enough to have skied the Sanouk. True powder skis were and IMO are soft enough to flex in soft snow at moderate speeds. The width may be less relevant, more about whether your fav style is porpoising or banking. 


But OTOH, 115 GS skis can be a hoot. All depends on how you conceptualize soft snow. 

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 › Skis: difference in stiffness