or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Which 90-100mm ski for hard snow grip, quickness + flotation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which 90-100mm ski for hard snow grip, quickness + flotation? - Page 3

post #61 of 78
Thread Starter 

UPDATE: 

 

Alright, after all this great input here's where I now stand in my hunt for skis.

 

I've decided I don't want or need a ski with a waist above 95mm, which leaves me looking at mostly 90mm skis with a few at 95 and in between the two.

 

I also decided I'd really like the ski to be rocker/camber/rocker for the sake of maneuverability since I ski a lot of very tight trees which also makes me a little unsure about jumping up to a longer ski.

 

I've been on 169s and am not sure what the difference will be like on a 176 or 177 (not going much higher than that).

 

Furthermore the ski will be used heavily in moguls of all types, mostly tight, firm, and oftentimes steep ones). I ski moguls with a very narrow stance so tip/tail width and shape is something I'm also somewhat concerned with. 

 

Again, I'm 5' 11'', light 125 lbs. but will be gaining, "ski hard or go home" advanced-expert coming from an all wood core, soft flex, 90 waist, 121 in the tip, 115 in the tail, at 169cm.

Ski was fun & easy to ski in moguls but it lacked power in any crud and at higher speeds/steeper terrain. Kind of felt like I was overpowering/skiing it into the group at times (if that makes sense). It was okay in deeper snow, not great.

 

So I want my next ski to be a clear step up and push me to improve, while still allowing me to crush bump lines and maneuver through tight woods without any trouble from the ski being too stiff.

 

Therefore, I'm looking for the ski to be stiffer, but not too stiff. I'm fine with metal in the core + non-metal cores that are still considered to to on the stiffer side. Ski should have decent float (not too hard since I'm light), and good edge hold is secondary to all, but I don't want a ski that is considered to have to have below average hold on hard snow and ice for its category. 

 

Here's the skis and their lengths (and prices) I've been most seriously considering:

 

- *New 2016 Atomic Vantage 90 CTi at 169 or 176 ($600)

- New 2016 Atomic Vantage 95 C at 170 or 178 ($500)

- *Used demo Kastle 2015 FX94 at 166 or 176 (good deals, end Aug. 10th) 

- 2015 Nordica NRGy 90 at 169 or 177 ($600)

- 2015 Atomic Theory (old Vantage 95 C) 95 at 168 or 177 ($380)

- *Line Supernatural 92 at 172 ($360)

 

*Honestly, right now I'm feeling strongly about the Vantage 90 CTi

*I know the FX94 is rocker/camber, but the deal is good enough that I just have to consider it xD

*I keep hearing mixed reviews and suggestions about the Supernatural 92 so people who have skied it - keep feeding me your thoughts on it!

 

I'm curious to hear any of your input on these ski/length options - Thanks!

post #62 of 78
If you haven't seen it already (or you're the seller), check out this craigslist ad. Line step up with a busted tail (epoxy that shit) or coreupt tj schiller, seller said that they are around 169. The step up should be medium stiffness and rocker/camber/rocker, I don't know about the coreupt.

Certainly cheap, if they were longer I'd own them already.
post #63 of 78
Hah, my LSD 95 has a busted tail too after only 1 day of skiing. Yes, I'll need to epoxy too but it might be a Line thing...
post #64 of 78

Whatever you buy, get the shorter length.   I think you'll be happier on the shorter version of any of those skis vs. the longer version of all of them.   Especially for bumps and tight trees, shorter is better.   

 

At 125lbs there is a decent chance you'll absolutely hate some of those longer skis.   I'm 180lbs and those longer skis are my all-mountain length. My bump skis are 170's.   It's miserable skiing bumps on skis that are too long.    Getting the right length is more important than getting the right ski.

post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by lott42 View Post

Hah, my LSD 95 has a busted tail too after only 1 day of skiing. Yes, I'll need to epoxy too but it might be a Line thing...

 

We have three pairs of Line skis in the family, and no such issue.

post #66 of 78

Sorry, sub-170 is too short for a growing 5'11" person... He already has a 169, but  that "was fun & easy to ski in moguls but it lacked power in any crud and at higher speeds/steeper terrain. Kind of felt like I was overpowering/skiing it into the group at times (if that makes sense). It was okay in deeper snow, not great." That's because 169 is too short for crud, speed, and deeper snow. 

 

Keep the short ski for bumps, and get a longer ski to do the other stuff. You don't need stiffness for all that, you need length. Because of your weight, you can't go too stiff yet. 

 

 

post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

Keep the short ski for bumps, and get a longer ski to do the other stuff. You don't need stiffness for all that, you need length. Because of your weight, you can't go too stiff yet. 

 

 

I agree on that point... yes, a quiver is really the answer for the OP!  :D

 

Do you think the OP could be happy on the 176 FX94 or 177 NRGy 90 at 125lbs?   I'm not familiar with the other skis, but those two really stood out as a length I'd be considering at 180lbs.   Maybe we can rule out a few of those skis for the OP?

 

That said, my general feeling is still if you can't demo it's better to err on the side of too short vs. too long.   Too short is less versatile but still skiable.  Too long can make everything difficult.  

post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post
 

 

I agree on that point... yes, a quiver is really the answer for the OP!  :D

 

Do you think the OP could be happy on the 176 FX94 or 177 NRGy 90 at 125lbs?   I'm not familiar with the other skis, but those two really stood out as a length I'd be considering at 180lbs.   Maybe we can rule out a few of those skis for the OP?

 

That said, my general feeling is still if you can't demo it's better to err on the side of too short vs. too long.   Too short is less versatile but still skiable.  Too long can make everything difficult.  

 

Yeah, you know I am always an advocate for longer but not-so-stiff skis for tall thin people. Like a 180 Bushwacker. 

post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Yeah, you know I am always an advocate for longer but not-so-stiff skis for tall thin people. Like a 180 Bushwacker. 

I agree. Short is a stability curse for tall thin types, who can't just go "tree trunk" and stabilize in crud and deeper conditions on a short ski. I say longest that is quick, not shortest that has some float.

My oldest son is 6' 130 lbs and skied a 172 cm LX82 last season in CO - he did well on this length, but it's short coming into next season. The problem here as I see it is how much value is placed on icy conditions grip. If this was a western discussion, there would be easy recommendations around quick, longer length, soft snow biased skis.

Whether that applies to northern VT for the desired ski features would narrow the list substantially I would think.
post #70 of 78
In terms of longer and more flexible, there's the Line prophet flight, $149 new on eBay.
http://m.ebay.com/itm/178-cm-Line-Prophet-Flite-all-mountain-skis-with-Rossignol-Axium-110-bindings-/391221427820?nav=SEARCH
post #71 of 78

The OP mentioned Line SN92.  What are people's opinion of it?  My daily driver is starting to de-lam a bit, so I'm starting to think about what it's replacement will be, and that's probably near the top of the potential list.

post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Bear View Post
 

The OP mentioned Line SN92.  What are people's opinion of it?  My daily driver is starting to de-lam a bit, so I'm starting to think about what it's replacement will be, and that's probably near the top of the potential list.

 

The Supernatural 92 and 100 are really good skis. The gumwall design keeps the ski smooth on the snow but doesn't make it feel neutered. As an east coast ski I would highly recommend the SN92. 


Edited by Philpug - 8/11/15 at 9:14am
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

The Supernatural 92 and 100 are really good skis. The gunwale design keeps the ski smooth on the snow but doesn't make it feel neutered. As an east coast ski I would highly recommend the SN92. 

Thanks. Maybe I'll get lucky with an end of year sale.
post #74 of 78

Hey @treebumpskivt have a look at my posts aimed at you in the wrong thread over here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/142237/nordica-el-capo-107mm-waist-vs-steadfast-90mm-waist#post_1903350

post #75 of 78

Another ski to throw in the mix... The Blizzard Regulator at 179cm.  They have rocker/camber/rocker and are 94 under foot.  True twin tip, so they are not directional chargers, and they also don't have any metal in them, but Blizzards tend to be pretty stiff / stable in nature anyways.

 

Full disclaimer: I have yet to actually ski these, but just picked up the 186 length this summer and I had pretty similar criteria as you (although I'm about 6'-0" 185)

post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by treebumpskivt View Post

UPDATE: 

Alright, after all this great input here's where I now stand in my hunt for skis.

I've decided I don't want or need a ski with a waist above 95mm, which leaves me looking at mostly 90mm skis with a few at 95 and in between the two.

I also decided I'd really like the ski to be rocker/camber/rocker for the sake of maneuverability since I ski a lot of very tight trees which also makes me a little unsure about jumping up to a longer ski.

I've been on 169s and am not sure what the difference will be like on a 176 or 177 (not going much higher than that).

Furthermore the ski will be used heavily in moguls of all types, mostly tight, firm, and oftentimes steep ones). I ski moguls with a very narrow stance so tip/tail width and shape is something I'm also somewhat concerned with. 

Again, I'm 5' 11'', light 125 lbs. but will be gaining, "ski hard or go home" advanced-expert coming from an all wood core, soft flex, 90 waist, 121 in the tip, 115 in the tail, at 169cm.
Ski was fun & easy to ski in moguls but it lacked power in any crud and at higher speeds/steeper terrain. Kind of felt like I was overpowering/skiing it into the group at times (if that makes sense). It was okay in deeper snow, not great.

So I want my next ski to be a clear step up and push me to improve, while still allowing me to crush bump lines and maneuver through tight woods without any trouble from the ski being too stiff.

Therefore, I'm looking for the ski to be stiffer, but not too stiff. I'm fine with metal in the core + non-metal cores that are still considered to to on the stiffer side. Ski should have decent float (not too hard since I'm light), and good edge hold is secondary to all, but I don't want a ski that is considered to have to have below average hold on hard snow and ice for its category. 

Here's the skis and their lengths (and prices) I've been most seriously considering:

- *New 2016 Atomic Vantage 90 CTi at 169 or 176 ($600)
- New 2016 Atomic Vantage 95 C at 170 or 178 ($500)
- *Used demo Kastle 2015 FX94 at 166 or 176 (good deals, end Aug. 10th) 
- 2015 Nordica NRGy 90 at 169 or 177 ($600)
- 2015 Atomic Theory (old Vantage 95 C) 95 at 168 or 177 ($380)
- *Line Supernatural 92 at 172 ($360)

*Honestly, right now I'm feeling strongly about the Vantage 90 CTi
*I know the FX94 is rocker/camber, but the deal is good enough that I just have to consider it xD
*I keep hearing mixed reviews and suggestions about the Supernatural 92 so people who have skied it - keep feeding me your thoughts on it!

I'm curious to hear any of your input on these ski/length options - Thanks!

Have you seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Do you like your powder "on the side?"
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

 

I agree on that point... yes, a quiver is really the answer for the OP!  biggrin.gif

Do you think the OP could be happy on the 176 FX94 or 177 NRGy 90 at 125lbs?   I'm not familiar with the other skis, but those two really stood out as a length I'd be considering at 180lbs.   Maybe we can rule out a few of those skis for the OP?

That said, my general feeling is still if you can't demo it's better to err on the side of too short vs. too long.   Too short is less versatile but still skiable.  Too long can make everything difficult.  

Yeah, you know I am always an advocate for longer but not-so-stiff skis for tall thin people. Like a 180 Bushwacker. 

Especially an 18yo who will always be tall but who may not stay quite so thin. I am close to the OP's weight but shorter (5' 7"). I was on the 169 nrgy 90 for my brief season last year. I can see him on the 177 in that ski because it is very compliant - a nice bump ski - and not at all hooky. Long enough to grow into but flexy enough to bend.
post #78 of 78

Has OP considered Head's late model offerings? Many are discontinued and available new for great prices:

 

Rev 90

Rev 98

Venturi 95

Rock'n'Roll 95 (tough to find new)

 

All have camber underfoot for hard snow grip. Some degree of rocker for easy turn initiation. Damp and not too stiff. ~16M turn radius so super nimble for a wide ski when tipped on edge. If mounted with an adjustable binding, fore aft position can be played with for different ski feel.

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 › Which 90-100mm ski for hard snow grip, quickness + flotation?