or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › From One Pair to a Quiver
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From One Pair to a Quiver

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I currently have one pair of all mountain skis (Line Sick Day 95 @ 179cm) and would like to transition to two pairs for obvious reasons. I've only been skiing 3 years but am now fairly obsessed, have had 2 private lessons, and ski about 12x per season. For the most part, I ski trails above my skill level, thanks to following family around (not sure if this is a helpful data point but thought I'd throw it out there). Undoubtedly, I struggle most in Pow / Tracked Pow / Crud (perhaps a personal issue, perhaps a new ski can help). Also, (to help avoid brand wars) I'm thinking of getting both pairs from either Rossi or Blizzard. So my questions are as follows:

- Based on the info above and stats below, should I nuke the Sick Days and go with one frontside-oriented and one powder-oriented? Or should I just add a Pow ski?
- Importantly what length, width underfoot, and rocker type should I be leaning towards for each respective ski type, when considering I'm 220lbs?

Height: 6'3"
Weight: 220
Level: Intermediate/Advanced
Location: Western U.S. (Squaw & Sugar Bowl)
Frequency of skiing: 6-8 groomed days + 3-4 days that are powder or 1-2 days after pow day.
Type of skiing: I attempt to ski aggressively, but that is probably mostly the gravity of my 220lbs... smile.gif
post #2 of 29

Transaction costs of moving between skis are high.  Why do you want to sell your sick days instead of buying a wider (or narrower) ski to go with them?  Do you feel like you're overpowering the ski (possible based on your height and weight) or something else?

 

FWIW I think conventional wisdom would probably be that a 95 underfoot ski is a pretty good daily driver width in Tahoe but a 179 cm ski is short for 6'3'' guy who weighs over 200 lbs unless it's a stiff groomer ski (and even then it's a touch short).  If you like your sick days on groomed terrain, why are you even considering switching to Rossi or Blizzard for something narrower?

post #3 of 29

What he said.  What is "brand wars?"  I currently own Atomic, Head, Nordica and ON3P skis and ski them all.  


Edited by mtcyclist - 3/31/16 at 7:01pm
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post
 

Transaction costs of moving between skis are high.  Why do you want to sell your sick days instead of buying a wider (or narrower) ski to go with them?  Do you feel like you're overpowering the ski (possible based on your height and weight) or something else?

 

FWIW I think conventional wisdom would probably be that a 95 underfoot ski is a pretty good daily driver width in Tahoe but a 179 cm ski is short for 6'3'' guy who weighs over 200 lbs unless it's a stiff groomer ski (and even then it's a touch short).  If you like your sick days on groomed terrain, why are you even considering switching to Rossi or Blizzard for something narrower?

 

Thanks for the reply. I don't have many reference points as the Sick Days are my first non-rental ski, but I can say for certain that as I begin to ski at higher speeds on steeper and rougher terrain, they start feeling less stable (I believe I've heard the term "chatter" used). So, I'm hoping to get a ski that feels more stable in crud and while charging down groomers.

 

My Sick Days have been a good everyday ski, but I'm wondering if something narrower and a bit longer would result in better performance on regular days as well as making for a more well rounded set of skis when considering added a pow ski? In terms of powder and crud on the sick day 95, I have work constantly not to get swamped (i.e. no floatation). Given this any thoughts on specifics? 

post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

What he said.  What is "brand wars?"  I currently own Atomic, Head, Nordica and ON3P skis and ski them all.  

People squabbling over their favorite brands. 

post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmy37 View Post
 

 

Thanks for the reply. I don't have many reference points as the Sick Days are my first non-rental ski, but I can say for certain that as I begin to ski at higher speeds on steeper and rougher terrain, they start feeling less stable (I believe I've heard the term "chatter" used). So, I'm hoping to get a ski that feels more stable in crud and while charging down groomers.

 

My Sick Days have been a good everyday ski, but I'm wondering if something narrower and a bit longer would result in better performance on regular days as well as making for a more well rounded set of skis when considering added a pow ski? In terms of powder and crud on the sick day 95, I have work constantly not to get swamped (i.e. no floatation). Given this any thoughts on specifics? 

 

I am a little bigger than you, 6'4", 245lbs, expert skier. For a powder ski, you will need a 125mm width and around 190 cm long. That will float you on top of the snow. Anything less will sink some depending on width. Sinking is not a bad thing, some people prefer it. I own a 143mm wide powder ski and a 101mm wide soft snow ski. The 101's sink about 21/2 feet in 3 feet of powder. They are stable and very skiable, though. The143's keep me in the top 1-2" of snow. The advantage is I can float in as little as 4" of snow with the 143's.

 

For a groomer ski, a 95 width is about right for you, but you want 185cm or longer. Something like a Rossi E100 in 185 ish length would be good. I would say dump you Sick days due to the short length. Something like the Blizzard Bonefide in 187  or the Nordica Enforcer in a similar lehgth would work. Lots of good skis and it will be hard to make a decision.

Good luck and ask more questions if needed.

post #7 of 29
Got it, you need longer skis and probably also stiffer ones then. More confident in length than stiffness as I've no experience with the sick days.

Might try a pair of motive 95s or bonafides as a replacement. Neither is narrower but both would be good replacements if you feel you've no more use for the sick days.

Look at either the longest or second longest length in both, ideally demo each size to see how they feel.

Could also keep the sick days and buy a wider, burlier ski for crud and all purpose charging. I doubt skis like that will offer you a ton of float. I'm only a bit smaller than you, but the difference between an 80s and 100s ski isn't huge for me without rocker, etc. helping the wider ski float. Skis that you'll be able to charge on probably have pretty minimal rocker.

If you want a new two ski quiver, I might try something in the 90s and something over 110 given your size and that you ski in the west. The bigger ski is pretty dependent upon skill level as I think stiff wide skis are as demanding, in their own way, as very technical carvers.

I doubt you need something narrower than the mid 90s, but am not familiar enough with Tahoe snow conditions or to be authoritative on that. If it were me I might buy a longer burlier ski in the mid 90s, then during my powder days demo some stuff to see what you like. If you really click with something easy to buy it later.

Also, I don't know what this says about skiers, but while there are people who really like individual brands there's not much fighting over what brands people like. There's a lot of fighting over brands people hate. Marker bindings come to mind, though the hate here is less strong than at some other skiing forums.

One guy here is single handed oh trying to destroy Kastle...heard he was going to kneecap Chris Davenport in the parking lot.

Edit: also Monsters. All above should be available for good prices now. Nichier brands people on here like a lot may be more expensive (fewer dealers blowing out of inventory) and are thus harder to recommend if you're buying blind without a ton of info.
post #8 of 29

I think you should get the Rossignols.

post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by viking9 View Post

I think you should get the Rossignols.

Can't tell if serious or sarcasm?
post #10 of 29

FWIW, skiing only 12 days, its hard to improve when skiing with a group.

 

When I finally decided I needed to improve my skiing, I found that skiing with friends held me back, because I didn't want to hold them up as I practiced. So I decided to take a morning well ok a few mornings and ski by myself so I could practice at my own pace without slowing anybody down.

That way I could stop when I did something wrong, regroup my thoughts and continue.

 

Take the time to work on what you were taught, it will make a huge difference.

post #11 of 29
If you keep the Lines, you could have a three ski quiver and extend your underfoot range even further.
post #12 of 29

my $0.02

one ski to replace your Line [Mantra 184 or Bonafide 187 or something between 180-190 with metal 90-100 mm under the foot]

to improve, I would take something in 70s underfoot with metal and R under 12-14m

for powder [in Tahoe area] 116-120 should be enough [snow is wet, dense -- aka cement] for CO or UT I would increase the width; length +5-10 mm to your height 

Good luck.

post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post
 

 

I am a little bigger than you, 6'4", 245lbs, expert skier. For a powder ski, you will need a 125mm width and around 190 cm long. That will float you on top of the snow. Anything less will sink some depending on width. Sinking is not a bad thing, some people prefer it. I own a 143mm wide powder ski and a 101mm wide soft snow ski. The 101's sink about 21/2 feet in 3 feet of powder. They are stable and very skiable, though. The143's keep me in the top 1-2" of snow. The advantage is I can float in as little as 4" of snow with the 143's.

 

For a groomer ski, a 95 width is about right for you, but you want 185cm or longer. Something like a Rossi E100 in 185 ish length would be good. I would say dump you Sick days due to the short length. Something like the Blizzard Bonefide in 187  or the Nordica Enforcer in a similar lehgth would work. Lots of good skis and it will be hard to make a decision.

Good luck and ask more questions if needed.

Great feedback, thanks! Seems like there are a lot of ~115mm and ~125mm options out there, between those two, so you think I'm definitely a 125mm+? Also, how important do you think the ski's turn radius is for my situation?  Lastly, any thoughts on bindings for either type of ski (whether the same or different) would also be helpful! 

post #14 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg S View Post
 

my $0.02

one ski to replace your Line [Mantra 184 or Bonafide 187 or something between 180-190 with metal 90-100 mm under the foot]

to improve, I would take something in 70s underfoot with metal and R under 12-14m

for powder [in Tahoe area] 116-120 should be enough [snow is wet, dense -- aka cement] for CO or UT I would increase the width; length +5-10 mm to your height 

Good luck.

Ok, great. So the Bonafide seems to be a common recc for me, that's great! For the powder ski being ~5mm narrower and ~5cm shorter for the Tahoe region vs CO/UT, what happens in wet snow that makes smaller better? Sorry for the Physics question! 

post #15 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 

FWIW, skiing only 12 days, its hard to improve when skiing with a group.

 

When I finally decided I needed to improve my skiing, I found that skiing with friends held me back, because I didn't want to hold them up as I practiced. So I decided to take a morning well ok a few mornings and ski by myself so I could practice at my own pace without slowing anybody down.

That way I could stop when I did something wrong, regroup my thoughts and continue.

 

Take the time to work on what you were taught, it will make a huge difference.

Thanks for the confirmation. I've been feeling this way for years. I guess I just need to say "see ya at lunch"! 

post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post

Got it, you need longer skis and probably also stiffer ones then. More confident in length than stiffness as I've no experience with the sick days.

Might try a pair of motive 95s or bonafides as a replacement. Neither is narrower but both would be good replacements if you feel you've no more use for the sick days.

Look at either the longest or second longest length in both, ideally demo each size to see how they feel.

Could also keep the sick days and buy a wider, burlier ski for crud and all purpose charging. I doubt skis like that will offer you a ton of float. I'm only a bit smaller than you, but the difference between an 80s and 100s ski isn't huge for me without rocker, etc. helping the wider ski float. Skis that you'll be able to charge on probably have pretty minimal rocker.

If you want a new two ski quiver, I might try something in the 90s and something over 110 given your size and that you ski in the west. The bigger ski is pretty dependent upon skill level as I think stiff wide skis are as demanding, in their own way, as very technical carvers.

I doubt you need something narrower than the mid 90s, but am not familiar enough with Tahoe snow conditions or to be authoritative on that. If it were me I might buy a longer burlier ski in the mid 90s, then during my powder days demo some stuff to see what you like. If you really click with something easy to buy it later.

Also, I don't know what this says about skiers, but while there are people who really like individual brands there's not much fighting over what brands people like. There's a lot of fighting over brands people hate. Marker bindings come to mind, though the hate here is less strong than at some other skiing forums.

One guy here is single handed oh trying to destroy Kastle...heard he was going to kneecap Chris Davenport in the parking lot.

Edit: also Monsters. All above should be available for good prices now. Nichier brands people on here like a lot may be more expensive (fewer dealers blowing out of inventory) and are thus harder to recommend if you're buying blind without a ton of info.

Ok, so I'll steer away from Marker bindings I guess! Any recc's on bindings for either of these ski types (if different)? 

 

Have you found there to be an inflection point in powder skis where they either totally float or don't (or perhaps there is a linear relationship between float and width)? I'm considering skis in the sizes or either Blizzard Spur vs Bodacious, thoughts? Notably I think the rocker/camber on these are slightly different. 

post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmy37 View Post
 

Thanks for the confirmation. I've been feeling this way for years. I guess I just need to say "see ya at lunch"! 


Your welcome. I've gotten to a point in my skiing where it's as easy as riding a bike down hill, all my turns take very little energy, not much effort to ski. I still think about what doing when I'm skiing, but now its all about the little movements that have a big impact on the ski.

 

Take the time for yourself.

post #18 of 29

either Blizzard Spur vs Bodacious -- neither is a beginner ski, both skis love open spaces (some people called them best ski for Alaska), in other words you might not have enough skills to drive these skis (try to demo them first). turning radius over 30 m is not easy.

 

my understanding (and I could be wrong) that in dense snow you sink less, so you could get away with smaller ski (on top, driving a smaller ski in dense snow is easier (like 117 vs 125 mm underfoot).

and last but not least, jumping from under 100 mm to over 120+ mm could be too much ski (could be not, you need to try before buy).

post #19 of 29
Skis offer float in proportion to surface area so it increases non-linearly with width. That said, what is really driving a sharp line in float isn't the ski, its typical conditions. Usually there are say 6 inches of fresh on top of a hard surface. If your ski offers enough float you sink only 4 inches you will feel like you're skiing in deeper snow. If your ski sinks 7 inches (or would sink 7 inches) you will feel like you're skiing on the crust (because you are!).

Agree big pow ski are maybe better to wait a bit for. They're hard to work in their own ways. Why the rush?
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmy37 View Post
 

Great feedback, thanks! Seems like there are a lot of ~115mm and ~125mm options out there, between those two, so you think I'm definitely a 125mm+? Also, how important do you think the ski's turn radius is for my situation?  Lastly, any thoughts on bindings for either type of ski (whether the same or different) would also be helpful! 

 

Float is a linear thing, a little narrower means a little more sinking.  The 125cm is for dry power. I do agree wet powder will be denser and not compact a much, so don't need a much width. I was told by a Lake Tahoe skier who is exactly my size that he sinks in the prevailing conditions with a 125cm ski. He doesn't sink to the bottom, but sinks some. Not to offend anyone, but unless you weigh close to someone, you have no idea what their experience is. A 150lb person could never ski on what I ski on, they would be too stiff and too wide. The float of a given ski varies with lenght, rocker, and other things.  The 125 is a general ball park. Decide how versatile a ski you want. 125+ is mainly for powder. 115-125 will work better in lower snow amounts. Just as important is how stiff a ski, soft means floaty but not great in crud, charger (stiff) means good in crud but not as floaty. I bought a really wide charger oriented type of ski and I like it. I don't do freestyle, for more freestyle you want softer.

 

The turn radius is not that big a deal. I like it on the small side, but I would suggest you get a typically one, like around 20m.

 

Bindings, Look Pivots are good, but pricey and different (turntable heel). I like the Salomon STH 13 and the Tyrollia Attack 13.  The Tyrollia's are very light which is nice. Most bindings do their job, so its mostly personal preference.

 

The bonafide or enforcer would be excellent choices for your narrow ski. I don't know about a powder ski, I have a Ski Logik Depth Hoar. The width doesn't seem to bother me (143mm) but it freaks out smaller people who hear the number. It sure floats me well and I think it skis fine.  I am a little surprised it skis so well, but in the end it is still a  ski made by a company that makes good  skis. 

post #21 of 29
Also, the anti-marker crow usually likes Looks. Reality to me is that it's not a big change.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post

Also, the anti-marker crow usually likes Looks. Reality to me is that it's not a big change.

Not true.  The anti-Marker "crowd" has very specific reasons for not liking some styles of Marker bindings, specifically the Royal Family bindings.  I have Marker race bindings on my Nordica Fire Arrows and they are work great, no complaints at all.  I've had Marker Griffon bindings on one pair of skis that I no longer own and I will never own another pair of like them, meaning Jester and Duke.  They are incredibly difficult to get back into in really soft snow and the smaller your boot the worse it gets.  I may also not be a fan of the Kingpin because people keep bring them into our shop, even though we aren't a Marker dealer, because of a broken flimsy plastic piece, that is make to look like carbon fiber but isn't.  Look makes good solid bindings, as does Salomon/Atomic and Tyrolia.  The Look Pivot is also difficult to get back into in really soft snow but maybe not as bad as the Marker Royal Family bindings.  I have no personal experience with the Pivot so I can't confirm it.  I prefer the Tyrolia AAAtack13 for just general skiing.

post #23 of 29
Wasn't intending to take a position on it, I am aware that there are valid reasons people dislike Marker bindings.

Sorry if I sounded dismissive. I am agnostic on bindings, as long as they go to at least 14. Tend to buy whatever is cheapest that goes to that DIN setting. Could be that in 5 years I will feel really dumb for having 2 Marker bindings, but to date haven't noticed a problem.

My sense was that even TGR had somewhat relented and thought the recent markers were ok.
post #24 of 29

binding:

STH2 13 or 16 (doesn't matter, cheaper is better)

Look Pivot or Rossi FKS are great, big 'NO' these binding are basically non-adjustable, so if for instance you want to give it to your friend with different boot size or you would go size bigger or smaller in your boots... RE-DRILL in most cases. Other than that, no other negative

Tyrollia is ok binding as well (more plastic that in above two).

With 200+ lbs if no jumps are in the future, I would not think hard... any binding with 13/14 din would do. 

post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg S View Post
 

binding:

STH2 13 or 16 (doesn't matter, cheaper is better)

Look Pivot or Rossi FKS are great, big 'NO' these binding are basically non-adjustable, so if for instance you want to give it to your friend with different boot size or you would go size bigger or smaller in your boots... RE-DRILL in most cases. Other than that, no other negative

Tyrollia is ok binding as well (more plastic that in above two).

With 200+ lbs if no jumps are in the future, I would not think hard... any binding with 13/14 din would do. 

I'm currently set at 8.5 and am satisfied. But if I decided to start jumping off small cliffs and other general off-piste jumping around (next season of course...), would I need to move the DIN up and if so how much would you suggest? 

post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post

Wasn't intending to take a position on it, I am aware that there are valid reasons people dislike Marker bindings.

Sorry if I sounded dismissive. I am agnostic on bindings, as long as they go to at least 14. Tend to buy whatever is cheapest that goes to that DIN setting. Could be that in 5 years I will feel really dumb for having 2 Marker bindings, but to date haven't noticed a problem.

My sense was that even TGR had somewhat relented and thought the recent markers were ok.

I'm currently on Salomon Z12 demo bindings (2013 season) they go to 12, but I'm at 8.5. How much difference will I notice going to a Look Pivot? If not much would it be worth putting those bindings on whatever new skis I get (all mountain or pow) to save $$? Also, similar to my comment above, are different skis or different bindings going to have a bigger effect when getting air via cliff drops, etc. I usually go around, but want to venture off one day! 

post #27 of 29

it is all mostly about premature releases... basically -  lateral elasticity, the more lateral elasticity of the binding then less DIN you could get away with.. safer (in my opinion). the less lateral elasticity is, then more din you would need to crack to stay in the binding, so when you would absolutely need to loose your skis, due to high din the ski would stay on.

In short: lateral elasticity is bigger, the binding is better... I think Look and maybe Salomon STH have one of the biggest in the market... but let other confirm or deny this.

 

example: I have know people who has for instance one binding with din 10 and another with din 8.5-9 (same person, same style of skiing)

post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmy37 View Post
 

I'm currently set at 8.5 and am satisfied. But if I decided to start jumping off small cliffs and other general off-piste jumping around (next season of course...), would I need to move the DIN up and if so how much would you suggest? 

I would not suggest to move your din up... if there are no unwanted releases, why worry, try it first, then think about it later

post #29 of 29

The DIN setting for the binding is obtained from a chart and is regulated by liability insurance. In theory, no one should tell you to set it higher than what the chart says for you. It should not change if you ski different conditions. If your skill level goes up, then the chart will read a different DIN.  In practice, you don't usually need to increase the DIN setting, especially if you read the chart at the highest skill level. Unless you race or compete, you really shouldn't go above the setting for the highest skill level. If you want to go higher, its really a personal choice.

 

If a shop will service your old bindings, then you can reuse them if you want. The Salomons and Tyrollia's are pretty user friendly.

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 › From One Pair to a Quiver