or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Need help Choosing a 100-something replacement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need help Choosing a 100-something replacement.

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Hi, hope everyone had a great season. I'm replacing some 172cm line SFBs. I'm around 5'4"- 5'5" x 155lbs, 48yrs, skiing Northern NY and VT. The skis will be for very short hikes, and resort freshies, so weight is not a concern. They'll be mounted with some old Barons anyway. I liked the playfulness of the bacon, especially in the trees, but they got knocked around easily.

I'm thinking of the following:

Gotama 170
Vagabond 169
Quest 105 not sure what size.
Punisher 173
Rocker2 108 174

Basically anything with more backbone than the bacon, but still manageable at low speeds. I know these characteristics are inversely proportional. I have not skied many skis in this range.

I picked up a pair of 163 Kendos for groomers and dry spells. I'm thinking 15 to 20 mm wider is a good split for that ski.

Thanks for any opinions.
post #2 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwr1vwf View Post

Hi, hope everyone had a great season. I'm replacing some 172cm line SFBs. I'm around 5'4"- 5'5" x 155lbs, 48yrs, skiing Northern NY and VT. The skis will be for very short hikes, and resort freshies, so weight is not a concern. They'll be mounted with some old Barons anyway. I liked the playfulness of the bacon, especially in the trees, but they got knocked around easily.

I'm thinking of the following:

Gotama 170
Vagabond 169
Quest 105 not sure what size.
Punisher 173
Rocker2 108 174

Basically anything with more backbone than the bacon, but still manageable at low speeds. I know these characteristics are inversely proportional. I have not skied many skis in this range.

I picked up a pair of 163 Kendos for groomers and dry spells. I'm thinking 15 to 20 mm wider is a good split for that ski.

Thanks for any opinions.

You might add the new Enforcer to that list. I assume it's a demo list.
post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 
This is actually a buy list. I had spent the last half of the season deciding on either high 90s for a one ski quiver. Or, a mid 80s and high 100 something to low teens two ski approach.

By the time I decided on the two ski, all I was able to demo was the new bacon, patron, and the soul 7 I think. Out of those I liked the patron the best.

I demoed quit a few 98-100mm. Mantra, soul rider, enforcer, super natural, pinnacle 95. I liked the Mantra the best, and almost bought it. All great skis tho, which is impressive.

In the end I decided the 89mm kendo would be the most fun most of the time I guess. I need input from folks that have more experience with this low 105 - 112mm group of skis.

I also realize that some skis in the high 90s - 100, metal class, like the enforcer could also compliment an 89mm all mountain ski.
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwr1vwf View Post

This is actually a buy list. I had spent the last half of the season deciding on either high 90s for a one ski quiver. Or, a mid 80s and high 100 something to low teens two ski approach.

By the time I decided on the two ski, all I was able to demo was the new bacon, patron, and the soul 7 I think. Out of those I liked the patron the best.

I demoed quit a few 98-100mm. Mantra, soul rider, enforcer, super natural, pinnacle 95. I liked the Mantra the best, and almost bought it. All great skis tho, which is impressive.

In the end I decided the 89mm kendo would be the most fun most of the time I guess. I need input from folks that have more experience with this low 105 - 112mm group of skis.

I also realize that some skis in the high 90s - 100, metal class, like the enforcer could also compliment an 89mm all mountain ski.

The Enforcer is very much like the Patron in tip profile. If I were you, in any case, I would demo other skis on your list. Extrapolating isn't a great way to buy skis (I know from experience).
post #5 of 27

Volkl One Hundred Eight should be on the demo list.

post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
I had the 1 hundred 8 in my hands actually, but at the time i was fixated on 98 - 100mm class, so passed it to someone else. All that will be available to demo this year is 2016 models I'm guessing, and priced too high for me.

I need to stick to new old stock or mounted once.
post #7 of 27
Need a 185 Cochise? Unmounted? Fully prepped and ready to Mount? $400? smile.gif
post #8 of 27
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
The 185 would be a handfull for me, but thank you.
I do like speed sometimes tho.

Since I won't be able to demo, feed back from someone my size skiing this class would be very helpful.
post #10 of 27

I think the Vagabond is a great ski if you don't need a twin tip. 

post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I would love to try those. At that price, It would have to wow me.

I don't need a twin tip, they're are sometimes more manageable in the tight hardwood lines tho.

I'd also add the cham HM 107 166 or 175. They're probably the turniest of the bunch.

I'm curious about the latest version of the gotama. I can get a really good deal on some new 2012 170cm.

Thanks for the link tho.
post #12 of 27

It is a couple years old, you could make them an offer.  I have a pair in 178 and a pair in 190, they are great skis.  They are more of a "directional" ski.  Not enough o's in Smoooth.  The 178 is noticeably softer than the 190s, two very different animals.  The 166cm size is probably a rare sale so they might love to get rid of them, who knows.

 

The inserts make for a dual personality, one way the tails are torsionally stiffer which is nice on harder more open snow.  Swap feet and they come around more easily which works in softer snow or trees.  They are not great for backseat drivers, you have to ski them, but the tips are pretty soft. 

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

I think the Vagabond is a great ski if you don't need a twin tip. 

 

Start Haus has Vagabond blems for only $199 (!) but only in a 177:

http://starthaus.com/2014-nordica-vagabond-ski-blem.html

 

They also have the El Capo (Vagabond with metal) for $199, and it's available in a 169 for the OP:

http://starthaus.com/2014-nordica-el-capo-ski-blem.html

 

Also consider a Rossignol Sickle in a 174 or 171.  They are out there for ~$350.  I believe Blister has a review of the 174.

post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
I saw the 169 el capo at starthaus, I wish they had the vbond also. In theory I could have fun on the el capo by changing my style, and making a lot less turns. To go outside my perceived comfort zone of ski characteristics a demo would be mandatory. I too have learned the hard way.

I zeroed in on the gotama because I was so wowed by the mantra. For such a popular ski, there is not a whole lot of comparison of this outgoing latest version.

I suppose I could put this purchase off until after the holidays, and maybe try some more skis in this range.

I picked up some trekkers for my son, and was looking forward to some early season tours. That's the another reason for this summer purchase of an unmounted big mountain ski.
post #15 of 27
Level Nine has the Head Collective in a 171... $289.00

http://www.levelninesports.com/Head-2014-Collective-105-Skis
post #16 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Level Nine has the Head Collective in a 171... $289.00

http://www.levelninesports.com/Head-2014-Collective-105-Skis


Wow !  Thanks !  I will scope those out.  I actually saw a group of patrollers skiing those this year in VT. 

 

Anybody here have any time on them?

post #17 of 27
I've skied the 191. Pretty damp. Nice skis. Wasn't sure where the mounting point was, but it's easy to screw up.
post #18 of 27

I haven't skied the Collective 105 but by the reviews, it looks like a good fit.  Good looking graphics too.

 

STP has them too so, with the right coupon code combined with the 7% active junky cash back, you might do even better than the Levelnine price which is outstanding btw.

post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwr1vwf View Post
 

Anybody here have any time on them?

I have skied them, both 171 and 181.  Those ones at STP are previous '14 season, but graphics changes only so they'll ski same as the '15 ones I demo'd (and own).

 

LOVE the Collective!  I should mention I prefer a strong and damp ski, not light and playful.  Can handle decent speeds (181 is better, obviously), and hardpack quite well.  Soft stuff is its home zone though.  Quite turny (which I do like).  The 171 feels like a really wide slalom ski.  I laid it over on the 171 on some big blue groomers at Winter Park and had my knees almost dragging across the hill.  For a wide ski, they hold an edge exceptionally well (this coming from someone who uses a SL ski as a daily driver on true eastern ice).  They're just a bit heavy for their size, but they surprisingly don't feel heavy on the feet.  No metal, but very well damped.  Camber underfoot, early rise up front does mean a shorter running length, so in tight trees the 171 is wonderful (and decent in the bumps too, rather compliant).  The 181 is obviously not as nimble, but can hold faster speeds and bigger arcs on the groomers.  Fast speeds will get some chatter, but the ski itself stays very stable.

 

I demo'd about a dozen skis and as soon as I got on the Collective, I was hooting and had a blast.  Bought it on the spot.  For reference, I'm 6'2", 185lbs, Level 7ish, and didn't overpower the 171, but I wasn't going mach schnell speeds either.  If I wanted to open up the speed, the 181 should be sufficient.  If you're a rockstar (which I'm not), the 191 would be a metal-less freight train.

 

I went with demo bindings so I can them move forward/back, depending if I'm on groomers or in the trees.  They do respond VERY well to binding position, so you may want to consider that, depending on the intended use.

 

Edit: for the record, I also demo'd the Mantra and Gotama.  Mantra was about as fun as having concrete blocks attached to my feet, but I did like the Gotama.  However, while the Gotama was good, I found the Collective to be a much better version of the Gotama than Volkl made it!  Collective has camber, so it also held on the harder groomers better, held a line better, a bit less ponderous and more committed when you drove it into the turn.  Also Collective a bit more damp and smooth, a bit heavier as a result though.  Collective does NOT get knocked around in the crud, I was blasting through it with Finndog at Steamboat no problem (heck, I could ALMOST keep up with him, so I was impressed!) The Collective is very well behaved at slower speeds, I had my kids in tow and was off the gas, and they were easy to work and move around going slow.  Well mannered, as it were, but not what I'd characterize as "quick" underfoot when going slow though.

 

Edit again:  I also tried the Quest.  Opposite end of the "feel" spectrum from the Collective.  Quest is light and lively.  I'm sure it's a good ski for those who like that sort of thing, but I quickly realized it's not my thing.  Felt like I had popsicle sticks attached to my feet.  Not stable, couldn't drive them.  YMMV though.


Edited by Gunnerbob - 5/20/15 at 9:57am
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 

Gunner,

 

Thanks for that helpful feedback, especially the gotama comparison.  I'll be mounting them with barons, so that poses another very critical issue to work out.  I can adapt to find a sweet spot, but found mount point can be detrimental to a skis personality.  I'll seriously consider purchasing the collective with out trying them.  I thought they were a replacement for the rev, but see now they're not.  I had considered the rev 105.

post #21 of 27
Very different beast from the rev 105. The rev is your ski if you like making a lot of turns and are under #190. The collective is a good choice. When you're ready to mount, take and post a quick picture of the reference marks on the sidewall. When I see them, I'll recall the mounting point that our rep recommends. I like +1 from his recommendation. Again, If someone can post a picture for my decrepit brain pan...
post #22 of 27

OP...I've got a pair of Sickles in 174 with Attack 13 Demo bindings on them that I'll be selling.  Newer version of the attack 13 demos with the movable toe piece so fully adjustable so you can play with mount point.  Sickles are the blue ones just prior to the slight redesign.  Maybe 2012?  Only used three times.  The 174 in that ski come in at 106 underfoot.  If you wanted to go with the Barons I'd sell them flat to you for 100.00.


Edited by DMAS - 5/20/15 at 3:57pm
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAS View Post

OP...I've got a pair of Sickles in 174 with Attack 13 Demo bindings on them that I'll be selling.  Newer version of the attack 13 demos with the movable toe piece so fully adjustable so you can play with mount point.  Sickles are the blue ones just prior to the slight redesign.  Maybe 2012?  Only used three times.  The 174 in that ski come in at 106 underfoot.  If you wanted to go with the Barons I'd sell them flat to you for 100.00.

The Aattack, even the demo version, is a pretty sweet binding.
post #24 of 27
Thread Starter 
Dmas

I think I'll have to take you up on those sickles. Where did you have them mounted, and what is the bsl. I think the length will work, how big are you?

This ski I've also fondled a few times. I guess hand flexing is deceiving. I know reviews are subjective, but I was surprised by the consensus after I had chose the 2013 bacons, which felt more substantial, and had some camber. They are now remounted with sths and going to one of my kids to be used with the trekkers.

The sickles were also recommended to me by finndog about three or 4 yes back. I had just purchased my barons from him, and said now I need something to put them on.

Once again thanks to everyone for the info, advice and feedback.
Edited by vwr1vwf - 5/21/15 at 4:21am
post #25 of 27

306 bsl mounted on the line.  I'm 5'5" 160lbs, eastern skier.   I took  flyer on these skis based on the blister review.  Planned on using them as an east coast powder ski and a one ski quiver for trips out west. I loved the skis in eastern trees and bumps.  Powder  bumps they were an absolute blast.  Yeah the flex is a bit deceiving, they don't ski like noodles and can handle chop pretty well.  Had them out on a deep day though and was fighting tip dive even at -1.5 cm mount.  Really had to baby the tips on these skis in deep powder.  Sweet spot for me seems to be back on my heels.  Straight pull on them is something like 169cm and with the center mount there just does not seem to be enough tip out there for me.  I'm an old school directional skier though so it's probably just me preferring a more directional ride.  Get on blister there is a review of the 174 and if you look through the comments you will see lot's of discussion on sizing.  If you were interested in the bindings I'd let the skis with bindings go for 220 and that would include shipping.  If you want them flat then 100.  PM me and we can work out details if you are interested.

dave

post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 
The 172 bacon is 168.5cm straight pull, but is tapered and has a smaller radius, plus this seems to have a different flex. I've read the review a few times due to cross references of the bacon, the sickle seems to ski longer. The tip dive and deflection were my only complaints about the bacon. The tip dive was manageable, but the deflection was exhausting. How are they in that department? I tend to ski hips over my feet.
Edited by vwr1vwf - 5/21/15 at 11:35am
post #27 of 27

They are pretty stable, didn't get knocked around too much for me.  Not a directional charger but pretty good.  If you have been on soul 7's or Sollie Q98's, I found the Sickles far more stable than both of those skis.   They seem to handle uneven snow better when you have them on edge rather than bases flat.  Really easy to get on edge also the way the rocker profile is set up.

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 › Need help Choosing a 100-something replacement.