or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is an 85mm and 95mm redundant; too close?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is an 85mm and 95mm redundant; too close? - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

I meant to type 85..which is still completely different than the 84 ;)

No problem and I am sure you a right. In my first reply I was more referring to the waist width (Except for the Supershape obviously!) similarity then the performance of the skis. My interpretation of Blitz first post was that he was more interested to validate skis width for different conditions.

 

Oh well.

 

 

post #32 of 44

Is an 85mm and 95mm redundant; too close?

 

Not if you don't already have an 85 and a 95 already.  Even then it depends on what else the difference are between skis of the same width.  Also depends on what else you have or plan to have beyond those two pairs of skis.

post #33 of 44

Just for fun, but one could easily own both a FireArrow 84 EDT and an 85 all mountain ski. 

post #34 of 44
Great example. A lot more to this than waist measurement. Even the same ski can ski very differently (entirely so) based on length. Using the FA example, a 176cm skis a lot differently than a 184cm.
I've also been thinking that another factor is just what the skier has been on. There are SO many good skis being made that most skiers replacing 5 year old skis with maybe 100 days of use would be delighted with any number of choices.
A friend on retail side is of the opinion that customers way overthink this, way over-research it, and then expect way too much in results....like a silver bullet!
Edited by Muleski - 11/7/15 at 6:19pm
post #35 of 44

So, I've given a lot of thought about this--and for me, I think the following is true (for how I ski):

1. Carving, FUN ski for groomers and "off to the side of the run" bumps, trees, whatever you find in your path. This I can see would be the "daily driver" especially with the lack of snow we've had over the last 4 years. I would see this in the 70's width and category.

 

2. All mountain fun, mid-high 90's width. For some new snow, days when it's snowing and sloppy on and off trail, and kind of like a "do it all ski".

 

3. 4" plus days, and days when it's soft off the run, where I'm more inclined to hit it hard and ski off the groomers. For this I like something in the 110ish category.

 

That said, this is what I'll be running this year:

1. Nordica FireArrow 74 (with plate to raise me up a little and provide leverage for groomer zoomers)

2. Stockli SR95

3. Stockli SR115

post #36 of 44

My quiver is kind of goofy being 88, 94, 103, 107 and 115 underfoot.  All of the skis are substantially different from one another to justify having.  So OP, yes, 85 and 95 can work in a quiver, as there is more to skis than just the waist size.

post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

How about sample quiver 3:

 

1. 115 -- Powder day

2. 95 -- Western daily driver / freshies on the EC

3. 80 -- EC daily carver

As much as it pains me to agree with Spindrift, I will. This is a reasonable quiver. I'm not that different statistically from the OP, find that a 115 soft snow ski makes nice sense for chop, heavy deep crud, manky snow. And for powder when it comes. A 105 just misses. Good for other stuff but a touch lacking float at moderate speeds in tighter terrain. Where I'd change this is drop the eastern DD to low/mid-70's. The geometry makes getting angles on ice and firm that much easier; grip isn't just about stiffness. 

post #38 of 44
I'm in MI and we have pretty hard snow as well. This is my plan, but open to change.

67mm full camber carvers (old)
88-90mm daily chargers (buying this year)
100-105mm daily soft snow for the west (buying next year)
post #39 of 44

Keep in mind the OP is in the east and is 160lbs.  Very different requirements compared to a 200+lb western skier.  I am firmly in agreement with those suggesting the narrower ski should be something below 80mm width like the Head Rally.  As to the others, I see more options.  

 

I am the same weight as the OP and ski Vermont and vacation in Colorado.  I only want to haul one pair of skis on the plane for the annual Colorado trip, so it has to be versatile.  For the last several years that has been a Fischer Motive 88.  When the time comes to replace that ski, it will probably be with something similar but maybe a hair wider.  

post #40 of 44

3 ski quiver for 160 lb "budding expert"

 

These should help you bud.

1. Hard snow ski(s) chose radius based on speed you like to ski Higher speed = choose higher radius:  Head Rebels i. SL 165 cm lenght 11.5 m radius; Fischer RC4 WC SC 166 cm lenght 13 m radius; Stockli Lazer SX 170 cm, 15.6 m turn radius; Head Worldcup Rebels i. Speed 180 cm length, 18 m radius

 

2. Eastern snowy days western not-so-snowy days ski Nordica Fire Arrow 84 EVO EDT, 176 cm length

 

I defer to those folk who have recently skied a lot of powder for the powder ski.

post #41 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

3 ski quiver for 160 lb "budding expert"

 

These should help you bud.

1. Hard snow ski(s) chose radius based on speed you like to ski Higher speed = choose higher radius:  Head Rebels i. SL 165 cm lenght 11.5 m radius; Fischer RC4 WC SC 166 cm lenght 13 m radius; Stockli Lazer SX 170 cm, 15.6 m turn radius; Head Worldcup Rebels i. Speed 180 cm length, 18 m radius

 

2. Eastern snowy days western not-so-snowy days ski Nordica Fire Arrow 84 EVO EDT, 176 cm length

 

I defer to those folk who have recently skied a lot of powder for the powder ski.

....eh, these suggestions seem oriented heavily towards carving groomed snow.  

 

I don't think you need to go quite that high towards the "race" line to get a good east coast hard snow ski. I've owned the Fischer RX-8,  the Dynastar Contact Cross, and the Kastle MX78 and they seem perfectly adequate for all but absolute bullet-proof (which I won't pay to ski on).

 

And personally, I cannot imagine suggesting a Nordica FireArrow for "snowy" days.  It's a carver, pure and simple.  Not particularly designed for fresh or even crud.  

post #42 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

How about sample quiver 3:

 

1. 115 -- Powder day

2. 95 -- Western daily driver / freshies on the EC

3. 80 -- EC daily carver

 

I rarely felt the need for any narrower ski than my Prophet 100 last year in Colorado...and it was a relatively low-snow season. Many I know have a daily driver out here around 110 -- but they are very off-piste oriented skiers. At your weight, a 115 powder ski would give you tons of float and not give up too much when things get rough. 

Pretty similar to my skis--76, 98, 117

 

20mm between skis seems about right to me--1) covers a wider range of snow conditions. 2) if your skis are too similar it's impossible to decide which ones to use.

 

Keep in mind that a narrow gap would be ok if the skis were different in other ways--a fairly soft, 5 point side cut ski with a lot of tip and tail rocker or full reverse camber will ski a lot different than a similar width stiffer, traditional sidecut, less rockered ski.

 

I'm not suggesting specific skis becasue 1) you didn't ask, and 2) I haven't skied all the skis on the market so I would be reduced to recommending what I ski, like most everyone else here, and 3) I don't know how you ski, how well you ski, size and age.


Edited by oldgoat - 9/17/15 at 4:16pm
post #43 of 44

To answer the original thread question IMO No.  It depends on what you want to spend your disposable income on.  Here is my quiver and I could give 2 shits if somebody on the internet tells me I am crazy for having so many skis.  Because they are either jealous or just want to cause a shit storm.  Bottom line is if you have the cash buy as many skis as you want.  Shit have a quiver of 20 if you want. It's your money.  Nothing wrong with spending money on something you enjoy

 

My quiver:

 

Kastle LX82 in 172

Kastle FX84 in 176

Kastle FX94 in 176

Blizzard Bonafide in 173

Kastle FX 104 in 174

Blizzard Cochise in 177

Atomic Automatic in 179

 

I am thinking of adding the Moment Bibby just for shits and giggles.  Who cares what anyone else thinks.  If it makes you happy buy as many skis as you can afford and won't lead to divorce.  LOL

post #44 of 44
I have and would get again;

Head Superspeed 67mm

Head Rev Pro 85 86mm

Line Supernatural 100mm

Arguably I could go a touch wider on the widest skis but they've worked so far and I don't feel I am missing anything.

The carvers get used when it's exclusively groomed snow skiing, the Rev Pros are the default ones, and the Supernaturals for powder days, travel and slack country touring.
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 › Is an 85mm and 95mm redundant; too close?