or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › My take on my Salomon XScream Series 2002 195 cm skis...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My take on my Salomon XScream Series 2002 195 cm skis...

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
... I posted a thread a little while ago about this. Some thought that despite my 6ft height and my 235 lbs, the skis were too big for me. I went to Ski Windham... for the first time (www.skiwinham.com) and I was very disappointed : . First off, the place was a grand ice trap... When the snow report "describes" the conditions as "frozen granular" it means, in politically correct terms, ICE, ICE , ICE… some packed powder here ‘n there. Secondly... my skis ARE too big. I don't get the same response when turning as I'm used with smaller size skis. I tried my best... On ice these skis are horrible despite the sharp edges and the impeccable condition of the skis.

Like I mentioned in my previous thread, I’m am intermediate skier. On a scale from 1 to 10… I’d give this a 4-5.

Now, I have a great pair of skis for sale… and a favor to ask you all . Please, help me pick a pair of skis for that I’m taking a trip to Banff at the end of this month and I really would like a new pair.

As always, I thank you all and look forward to your comments.

post #2 of 19
Hey Euclide,

I was disappointed to see all the responses to your last post supporting you in your purchase of a 195cm ski. I did not support you, and neither did WINK who wrote an excellent response (billions of dollars and years of experience go into the design of today's skis, which should not be ignored). Anyway, let me just copy my response to your last post - my recommendations still stand:

"As an intermediate, if you were to ski the Atomic SX:11 or a serious GS ski, then 180cm would probably kill your legs before noon. If you were to ski one of the modern slaloms longer than 170cm you would be working against the design of the ski and be unhappy. Since you ski in the East (NY right?) you don't need a fat soft ski. I would look at either one of the recreational slalom skis or a mid-fat (on the thinner rather than wider side). Some good slalom choices might be the Rossignol Viper S (slalom) or the Fischer Sceneo 400 [both of these in the 165 range]. If you like to go faster, you'll like a little bit longer ski for the stability. Some good choices might be the Atomic SX:9, Dynastar SkiCross 9, the Bandit X, or the K2 Axis X [these in the 175 range]. Whatever you do, demo several on the same day - you will feel a lot of differences between skis. Good luck."

We've all made mistakes in choosing equipment - part of the expense of this sport. Better luck this time -

"Ohio... Daddy, isn't that the state that you can never get out of?"
post #3 of 19
Thread Starter 

Thanks for your post... the only post so far
post #4 of 19
Hey, Eu,

I see at least 2 choices.

If you're an intermediate skier, why not an intermediate ski like the K2 Escape 5500, probably about a 181?

Or, you could try a slalom ski, as was suggested. Like an Atomic 9.16 or 9.12 in a 170?

Of the two, I would think the Escape 5500 or similar would be more fun for you in the long run. I think they'll be more forgiving. Plus, they cost a lot less than the "top of the line" skis.

It makes sense to use a ski that fits your ability and the conditions you ski in.

Have fun!
post #5 of 19
put simply, if you are a Level 4 or 5, you wouldn't have a clue on how to get your money's worth out of the X-Scream Series. that's why you thought it didn't have any rebound. I thought there was something fishy about your review.

at a Level 4 or 5, you should be on something like the Salomon Verse, the K2 Escape 4500, the Rossi Rebel.
post #6 of 19

If you ski primarily groomed trails with occasional trips off-trail, consider:

- Recreational short slaloms in the 170cm range such as the Atomic 9.12 (SL9). The wide tip helps a little with floatation, and they make even the mildest trail interesting. I free ski a lot on shorties.

- A good carving ski with a 16-18 meter radius, such as the Atomic 9.18 (C:9), in a 180cm length. Had a lot of fun on this one as well, and they won't beat you up for mistakes.

- A detuned skicross ski, such as the Atomic SX9, in a 170cm. A little wider waist than the others, so floatation should be improved with a slight decrease in edge quickness.

- A good ol' mid-fat ski, like the Atomic 9.22, in a 180cm. A very versatile ski category, but the tradeoff is that the wider waist reinforces flat ski skidding while it provides the extra float. The promise of a "do-anything" ski has made them the most popular category. Your X Screams fall in here, although a much shorter length would have been appropriate. A classic example of a "jack of all trades, master of none" ski.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Since none of us here have seen you ski, we really can't give you a really good recommendation of what to buy. You really need to figure out where you do most of your skiing and talk to several ski shops to get their model/size recommendations. If they start pushing skis longer than 180cm for you, chances are they are trying to unload the unpopular sizes. Demo a lot if that option is available to you. When you demo, don't be afraid to go short. Pick a category of ski and try several sizes/brands/models. But before all that, go to Peter Keelty's site and read all you can about different models and how to choose the right ski.
Good luck.
post #7 of 19
For once, Gonzo is right [img]smile.gif[/img]

You bit off way more than you can chew. Don't blame the skis, blame the pilot. The length alone was a big mistake.

For eastern conditions, you still want something that has some bite to it. I'd steer clear of the K2 Axis line because of this. They're great easy-skiing western skis, but I wouldn't want them in the east.

Look at something like a Volkl T50 4 star or one of those mid level Fischer Sceneo's. I don't know anything about that Atomic SX9, but its probably another great idea.

You really don't want one of the top of the line expert skis. They require a certain set of skills to appreciate. For example, the Volkl T50 5 star can be a handful sometimes. I think you'd be *much* better off with the 4 star model.

Finally, whatever you do, please demo. You will often really surprise yourself with what you truly like. And in your case, you really need to be trying different lengths as well. You probably want something around 178-180 in length in the "all-mountain slalom" skis and "skiercross" models. These 2 categories are definitely what you should be looking at if you do most of your skiing in the east.

Hope this helps, get out and demo. Oh yeah, and take a lesson or two, or three. The skis are designed to hold on ice given a proper turn. They aren't designed to skid all over the place. I've seen SOOOOOOO many heel pushers on T50's this year, it cracks me up. They go out and blow $800 on skis/bindings and don't have the first clue how they're used.

[ February 10, 2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Matter ]
post #8 of 19

If you rate yourself a 4-5, gee, that's pretty damn low on the skill level chart. You have no business being on a performance ski, although, the X-screams would be one of the more forgiving ones.

Sorry, but what you report has more to with your lack of technique than anything else. About 98% of people (1 of 50) I see on the hill are making skidded turns, on these modern shaped skis. Of the other 2% that are carving, maybe 10% are making good carved turns. Pretty sad, huh? There is no way you are making GS turns on the X-screams, or could make a carved slalom turn on shorter skis with more sidecut. So why would you need a slalom carver? You should have no problem making a short skidded turn on the x-screams, once you pick up some basic technique. Heck, I can make a short chop turn on my 218 cm DH skis. They just are not going to be light and whippy like some 170 cm rentals (although I consider the x-screams fairly light). If you are not comfortable with a ski with some swing weight, it means you are not using the ski to turn, but are forcing rotation. By all means get some short, light skis until your technique improves.

As far as ice goes - as a 4-5 skill level skier, you probably have never actually encountered ice before, and don't really know how to edge effectively on it. Also, while the edges might be sharp to the touch, they could have way to much base edge bevel, which will prevent them from holding on ice. Have them checked by a competent tuner.

I apologise for berating you.


[ February 10, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Red Sled ]
post #9 of 19

very well-said, even if it was tact-challenged! [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #10 of 19
I read this post differently than the others. I think he's saying that he's an intermediate skier, but he's rating the SKI as a 4-5 out of 10, not his ability.

"On a scale from 1 to 10… I’d give this a 4-5." (focusing on the word "this" ... maybe we need Bill Clinton to tell us what the word "this" means! )

Granted, his low score is probably due in part to the fact that as a 6' tall intermediate, this 195cm ski is over his head, both literally and figuratively.

I agree that shorter is better, especially with the short, icy runs in the east. I'm looking at some of the shorter, rec slalom skis for this terrain myself, coming down from a 180cm Atomic 9.18. My last demo was a 157 Dynastar Omeglass 64 (a short SL, but not a "rec" SL by any means). It was a blast, and it opened up my eyes to today's short skis. I'm trying to get on some Fischer Race SC &/or Sceneo 400s and one of the Volant Gravity's in the range of 160-170, among others, b4 I make my next purchase.
post #11 of 19
Thread Starter 
My God!!!

... a call night at the hospital and now this?! [img]smile.gif[/img] I love you all for taking the time to put in your two cents. I will take every bit of advice I was given…. and to clarify few things…

I am NOT a 4-5 level; I merely tried to describe my experience using numbers on a pre-set scale. Something like, after you have surgery and the doctor asks you how much pain you have on a scale from 1 to 10 [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] If my posting was “fishy” I beg forgiveness… I simply and honestly described how I felt using these skis. I’m pretty sure, like someone had said; it’s the driver who’s at fault here. I will refine my technique but NOT on a 195 long ski.

Again, I thank you so much for your advice. I find this place a wealth of info; too bad I didn't know about it BEFORE I made the purchase.

All the best,


[ February 11, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Euclide ]
post #12 of 19
So far you have commented on one ski. What other skis have you been on and for how long, so we can see where you are coming from.

post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 
I thought I’d list my “arsenal” but didn’t think it would make a difference. Anyway, I started skiing as a kid years ago in Europe (on vacation, on long wintry days, skiing was the only “cool” activity). Then I stopped for a good while. I lived in NY all my life… We skied mostly on Eastern slopes. In junior high I got as a present a Nordica boot, ski and binding system – I loved it.

I resumed my skiing adventure in 1996. For a while I rented and demoed equipment not knowing what exactly to buy – I always stayed within 170-185 range though. I’m a recreational skier and humbly considered myself a low intermediate – some think I could pass for a strong intermediate, given that I have the right skis on. Three years ago I decided to go ahead and purchase my own equipment. This is what I own so far:

K2 Magic (1999) 178 cm

I bought these used… I love them. They are a great beginner/intermediate ski. It's stable enough to rip big turns at speed but snappy enough to handle quick fall-line turns as well.

Atomic Beta Carvix 9.29 (99-00) 177 cm

Now, these I bought brand new and let me say, they’re great skis. They address pretty much the same category of skiers. They’re lively and easy carvers -- my kinda’ skis. I prefer them over my K2’s.
post #14 of 19
There you go. You are used to skiing on two very short, light (no metal too) and soft skis for your size. That atomic is particularly undersized, as you are very close to the bottom of it's size range (the longest available was 205). These skis should be very easy to pivot short skided turns on at slower speeds, but will be good at very little else.

When I say my 195 cm X-screams are "light", I mean it. My other freeskiing skis, a 192 cm Stockli Stormrider, is much heavier with more metal and has a plate on it. They don't like quick turns or bumps, but they rip GS turns and blast crud really well. I would also consider my powder skis, GS skis and 218 cm DH skis "beefier" than the x-screams. Your skis would be fairly similar to my 1st gen 177 Salomon 1080's, which I don't ususally ski on because they are too light and unstable at speed.

I guess it all comes down to perspective.


[ February 12, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Red Sled ]
post #15 of 19
Thread Starter 

On a humorous note, give me your 218 cm GS skis and slap a pair of wings on me while you’re at it then call me a plane… I can’t see myself on such long skis – not yet though. I learned a good lesson by trying something which was clearly out my league. [img]redface.gif[/img]
post #16 of 19
"I guess it all comes down to perspective."

218cm??? Kevin, does your perspective include a monthly Social Security check? Those are some of the longest boards left on the hill!
post #17 of 19

218 cm doesn't mean I'm old school. These are "new old stock" Volkl P30 DH skis, with a deflex. They are good at making huge carved turns and tucking, at 40 mph and up (way, way up). I can still make a short chop turn on them though. No bumps, please. They are considerably heavier than any other ski I've been on. Lots of swing weight. Yes, I freeski on them.

post #18 of 19
its a shame you got them so long, I got the 179's and I'm lovin em. Granted I'm just getting back into skiing and I suck, but they make me look like I know what I'm doing quite often.
post #19 of 19
Sorry ot hear of your pains... Lots of great responses above. With regards to getting rid of your boards b4 Banff. Try ebay or Outdoorreview.com. Lots of buyers and sellers in there.

I am just getting back into the sport. I got a fantastic set of 2 year old demos for 20% of the sell prices. No need to redrill. set em and go. It has given me a chance to see what I like in these new shapes, without risking $$$.

10 days on my new boards remind me what I love about the sport. Fantastic experiences, and fantastic people. To catch a powder day is like catching lightning in a bottle.
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 › My take on my Salomon XScream Series 2002 195 cm skis...