or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Salomon midfats vs Salomon (and other) fatties?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salomon midfats vs Salomon (and other) fatties?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I'm soliciting opinions on some Salomon skis from those who *know*...

For various reasons, I've skiied - and enjoyed - quite a few Sollies over the years. My first were Force9 2S skis which, in spite of their approx 200 cm length, were both zippy and energetic, stable at higher speeds, and suprisingly quick. Lots of rebound energy. Next came a pair of what Salomon called 'Demo' Prolinks - shorter (190 cm or so)- the first of their partially 'shaped' skis - more damped, smooth turning and powerful with still enough 'energy' to be enjoyable.

These were followed up, maybe 3 odd years ago, by the best Salomons I've ever skied - X-Scream 9's (188 cm) which had all the better charateristics of previous Sollies - surprisingly nimble for relatively heavy skis, tons of rebound energy - as well as being insanely easy to maneuver (just "think" turn and they start turning - of course, these are fully 'shaped' skis with plenty of sidecut) - and also being the first skis I ever skied consistently which truly merited the term 'all mountain' - they are very skiable in crud and heavy wet powder (which we get plenty of out in Oregon, where I live and ski).

But now I'm on the verge of giving the X-Scream 9's to my son (who loves them) - which means its replacement time. And I'd prefer for simplicity's sake (hah!) to find just one ski which can do nearly everything I want it to...

Back when I bought the X-Scream 9's, they were considered chunky midfats - with a waist of around 67 if I'm not mistaken! These days, that almost qualifies them as skinny skis - while midfats and fats seem to have gained a lot of waist...

So my question is: do I search around for another (newer) pair of X-Scream 9's (which are quite hard to find: a lot more shops sold the X-Scream Series than the 9's, and finding them, either new or lightly used, is surprisingly difficult) .... OR do I replace them with something else?

The leading candidate for replacement is Salomon Supermountains (equally hard to find), with a wider waist (78) but a lot of both softness (forgiving qualities) and traditional Salomon Zippy energy. Other candidates include Pocket Rockets (intriguing for a number of reasons....but I'm afraid they may be terrible bump and hardback skis) ... or possibly (a stretch) Volkl G3's or Vertigo Motions (both of which are stiffer skis and, in spite of their many attributes, might not be quite the ticket). I've also heard nothing but raves for the newer K2 Axis XP's (as well as the skis that preceded them, both the Mod X Pros ... and the slightly softer Mod X 7/8).

Then, of course, there are other factors, including price and aesthetics. New skis cost so damn much that I would mind buying used boards in great shape; but if I had to buy skis based merely on a cool look... K2 Public Enemies would have to be at the top of the list, with Seth Pistols and Volant Machetes right behind.

I should also mention I'm around 5' 11", 180 pounds, an advanced all-mountain skier who spends maybe 70 % on groomed and 30 % off....though I could see that percentage changing if I finally got some killer fat powder boards. In terms of skiing style, I tend to favor finesse over power .... but short zippy slalom skis just don't work in deep crud so I need a good compromise here.

So....since this board is filled with smart,knowledgeable and opinionated skiers.... give me some feedback.

-- Miguel :
post #2 of 29
Miguel, bear in mind that "everything is relative" - and whatever pair of skis you buy, you will notice its characteristics relative to the skis you've been using before.

You're right about waist sizes - they have become wider, and these days a midfat generally starts at waist width of 70 mm. I have both the Rossignol Bandit X [70 mm waist] and the Bandit XX [74 mm waist]. I actually consider the X to be my narrow-waisted skis. Both would be good bets for you to consider, and if you can demo both the X and the XX, you'll experience the difference that another 4 mm of waist width can make.

I'm 5'8" and weigh 150 pounds, an average intermediate skier. All my "regular" skis are 170 cm long. Sometimes I can handle conditions, sometimes I get this wierd cramp beween my ears and feel flumoxed.

In my experience, the XX has been a lot of help in unpacked and potentially difficult snow conditions, while the X has been much more nimble and easier to ski and has discernably better edge grip. Rossi sells the X for 80% on piste and 20% off piste, while they bill the XX as being for 50% on and 50% of piste.

If you've been reading here a bit, you just KNOW you'll get a lot of other recommendations. These, the X and the XX Bandits, are mine, and it can't hurt to try them out. You probably could get by on 177 cm length, and I'm sure you would not need more than the 184 cm length.

Good hunting!
post #3 of 29
Miguel, you may want to check out Peter Keelty's site:
http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/. His advice is excellent.
post #4 of 29
I agree! Peter's site is great! I'm a paying member, and it's worth it. Being a supporting member of EpicSki is also worth it.

Keep this in mind, though: You are the one who will end up owning the skis, and you are the one who will - or might not - be satisfied with what you've bought. This site and Peter's site are extremely useful, but in the end, trying out skis is the final test.

As an example: In addition to his usual reviews, Peter has a section reviewing "mid-season entries". Among those, he suggests that the Head i.M Chip Monster 75 is in the running for "ski of the year". Based on that, I tried that model at a trade show. Wow! That was a really thrilling ride! . . .but . . . not the ski for me. I think I would be happy riding that at great speed, but miserable trying to unravel bumps or those narrow, winding eastern trails. The point, again, is: DEMO!
post #5 of 29
Be sure to demo the Pocket Rocket. You will be amazed at what it can do on hardpack. Also, next years Scream Hot and Extra Hot look like really fun skis. They share the construction of the PR, but with thinner dimensions. Thin being relative as the Extra Hot has an 82 or so millimeter waist.
post #6 of 29
the 1080's are a lot of fun too, once you get used to the center mount they've got a waist of 80 really fun everywhere
post #7 of 29
I've heard that the 1080 has durability problems, especially with a foam core......causing it to break more easily than wood cores
post #8 of 29
If your still thinking of the SuperMountains I have a pair of 186 SuperMountains with about 30 days use on them. They are in vary good condition mounted with Salomon propluse bindings. I'll let them go for $250.00. I've seen a lot of the scream 9s at Gart sports here in Park City. Buy my Super Mountains and wait until Garts has their Snigrab sale in the early fall and you will have a two ski Salomon quiver for about the price of one ski. Just something to think about.
post #9 of 29
First off, epic and I have radically different opinions of the Pocket Rocket on hardpack. I wouldn't go there. Loved it in the soft, deep, steep, and crud, but that's it.

1080 foam core: old wives' tale . I think it has a lot more to do with how the 1080's being used. Big air, big landings. This ski gets pushed and punished like no other because if its light weight (courtesy of the foam) and associated newschool stigma. The foam core race skis seem to hold up just fine by me.

What to check out? Salomon Scream 10 Pilot, Crossmax 9, and Teneighty (181). Atomic 11.20, Rossignol XX and B2, and Volkl G4.
post #10 of 29
Miguel, check out the new Scream 10 Pilot Hot 110/75/100 and the extra hot 116/82/108. I have skied both of them (in the 185) and lean toward the extra hot, but I spend a fair amount of time off piste. They are a step up from the X-Screams. The Crossmax 9 is also a fun ski.
The Scream 10 Pilots come in 185/175/165/155 in the hot and 175/185/165 in the extra hot.
post #11 of 29
I ordered a pair of SuperMountains from Rogue Ski Shop for skiing the heavy powder & crud of Mt. Ashland a few years ago, but due to a new job I ended up moving from Ashland to Bozeman, Montana where the SuperMountains went from my powder ski to my everyday ski. I have really enjoyed the SuperMountains and think they are a good all-around ski but not a good Mt. Ashland all-around ski due to its mediocre performance on hard pack and poor performance on ice.

I now own some Pocket Rockets as does my son who has a pass at Mt. Ashland. The PRs are fun skis and ideal for skiing the trees & chutes in the Bowl but not ideal for packed conditions. While I enjoy them on the packed snow of Montana I found they felt sluggish and heavy carving the packed snow on Mt. Ashland. I recommended them to a couple friends for fat sks for Mt. Ashland and they love them for powder & crud but not packed conditions.

About the only ski in this years Salomon line that might fit your needs is the 1080. They are good in powder & crud, fun on packed snow and adequate on hardpack and moguls. They aren't good on ice and their soft flex makes them jittery at high speeds. Next year's 'Hot' line from Salomon might be a better option but they are going to be spendy.

I hesitate to recommend the Bandit XX for Mt. Ashland. Due to El Nino we had some heavy, Siskiyou style powder in Montana this year and I skied my Bandit XX a couple of those days. I found the forward mounting of the bindings caused the tips to dive in heavy powder unless I radically adjusted my stance (something I prefer not to do). On the other hand, they were great in heavy crud, hard pack & moderate ice.

I haven't skied the K2 XP but a couple people I trust have and think its great ski for Mt. Ashland.
post #12 of 29
Miguel, in my opinion the difference between the X-Scream and the Hot is that the Hot has better edge grip and feels more responsive than the Screamer. Last year's Scream 10 Pilot was the first ski I liked in the Pilot Series. Last year's Scream 10 is 108/70/101 the hot is 110/75/100 and is built with Space Frame const.
One of my friends who is a very strong skier spent a day on the Scream 8 Pilot 110/75/100 and liked it. He commented that if he were skiing a lot faster or really pushing the ski he would prefer to be on the 10.
post #13 of 29

[ April 29, 2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Lucky ]
post #14 of 29
Miguel -

If you are focusing on Mt. Bachelor the SuperMountains is an ideal ski. Problem is they discontinued that model two seasons ago. The 1080 is the recommended replacement according to a friend who stocks Salomons at his shop. Personally, I would buy the 1080s if I mainly skied Mt. Bachelor but I hesitate to recommend to you without trying them first since they ski very different than the X-Screams.

Another skis I would look into is the Volkl G4.

By the way, may I ask what ATF stands for....the only ATF I know is Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms.
post #15 of 29
Geez! There is a lot of misguided information being thrown around. Miguel, it sounds like you want "the perfect" skis without demoing or spending the cash for newer models. I laugh at all the Supermountain references thrown out here. I agree that is was a great ski, but it is foam and does break down after a season or so of hard skiing...not to mention that they were 11/78/100...not that fat by current standards. The new Scream models with Spaceframe ought to be much like the SM, but with spaceframe, which should give a bit more body and strength to the ski.

Also, Miguel, you said you spend 70% on the groomed and 30% in the softer stuff. You were right on with the G3 or a like ski. The XP might be a nice fit, but the raves of others do not equate to the perfect fit for all. I adore my Pistols, but I also spend 90% of the time in pow and crud. I think you get the idea.

Regarding the 1080 from this season...It is a great park ski and a decent all-mtn. performer. For the record, mine delammed after 20-days. I had other skis to ride, but I would have been pretty upset if these were my only sticks. Some factual information to consider.

Last, Rio...I have to bag a little on your post. How can you recommend a 1080 and G4 to the same skier in one post?! Not skis anywhere in the same galaxy as far as feel and performance.

To echo the constant truth that has already been shared... DEMO and decide on your on favorite to rave about.

[ April 29, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Bandit Man ]
post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Wow. Excellent - and as usual, widely varied - responses.

I have a few specific responses - and more questions....

I'm obviously going to have to demo some Rossi Bandit XX's - or B2's - although I must confess that, for whatever reasons in the past, every time I've gone out and skiied Rossignol skis which people were raving about or recommended highly, I haven't been impressed. But I'm willing to keep an open mind...

The newer Salomon Scream Pilot Hot sounds pricey...but intriguing. Lucky, you said you've skied it and think it's a "step up from the X-Screams". Could you be a little more specific?

Also, I may be in the minorty, but I enjoyed the extra softness (forgivingness?) of the X-Scream 9 instead of the normal X-Screams. Do you think the same distinction holds true between the newer Salomon Scream Pilot Hots (formerly Scream Pilot 10) - and the (supposedly) softer Scream Pilot 8's? I've heard some people say that the two skis are identical....except for the fact that the Scream Pilot 8's are softer (and cheaper) than the 'Hots'? (Theoretically, the newer 'Hots' are a little wider than the current Pilot 10's - is that right?)

Rio, I appreciate the Mt. Ashland references, since it's my 'home' mountain - though I get over to Bachelor whenever I can. Mt A tends to get a lot of heavy wet powder and/or crud days - or at least we have done so over the last few seasons - which was one of the primary reasons I was originally considering going a little fatter (Supermountains instead of the relatively skinny 67 waisted X Scream 9's).

I'm going to have to try the XP's as well.

Thanx for all the feedback so far.

Miguel :
post #17 of 29
Bandit Man -

There is some logic to my throwing in the G4. Where Miguel lives there aren't many ski shops and only one real ski shop. The G4 has been extremely popular at the local ski shop for people that mainly ski at Mt. Bachelor. The G4 has great edge hold for a fatter ski, is stable at speed and has good powder/crud performance. I think it would be a better choice than the G3 for where he skis because the strengths of the G3 over the G4 (quicker turning, better ice performance...) are not as important.

As for the 1080 & G4 being different, they definitely are, but both are in the 80s in waist width which is a step up in width from his XScream 9s but not as radical a step as Pocket Rockets, Seth Pistols, BC Scratches.... Both offer a good mix of carving and off-piste performance but they do ski differently and definitely need to be demoed before buying.

As for the 1080's durability, I have heard stories about them delaminating but not from anyone I know. I assume that's because because the people I know that have them use them for everyday skiing and not park skis.
post #18 of 29
Maybe not the best ski out there, but the best ski around for the money is the K2 Enemy. Widely available for around $199-$250, durable wood core, 107/78/102 (????), it's a do anything ski. If you're skiing wet gloppy snow (PNW) get something FAT (115-120/85-90'ish). I highly reccomend the Enemy's though, much more of a ski than the 1080's but it may not be available next year. It also makes a great tele ski, wood core is the way to go. Salomon is #1 because they are a marketing machine not because they make the best skis. Volkl's are very nice too, but pricey.
post #19 of 29
Thread Starter 
More good answer....more food for thought.

BanditMan, I agree with your adage of always DEMO first - but on the other hand, there are some times and occasions when one can't. Example: Salomon SuperMountains - which haven't been made for several years now, and which are impossible to 'Demo' in stores (only way to Demo them would be to borrow a friend's...but none of my friends ski them). They are an interesting case in point because during their heyday - a few years back - tons and tons of skiers swore chapter and verse that the SuperMountains were the BEST ski they had ever skied, in spite of being at the time primarily intended as a fatter off piste board. These days you can't pick up SuperMountains new anywhere but there are one or two folks selling some excellent lightly used ones for attractive prices. So....it gives a person pause for thought. But you are right: buying a ski you haven't skied - even in a length you haven't skied - can make for some unpleasant and unwanted surprises...

Just out of curiosity - what exactly IS the new Salomon Spaceframe construction - what does it do, and how does it change a skis handling characteristics? Has anyone actually skied Spaceframe vs non Spaceframe similar models?

Rio - I find your suggestins intriguing... but my instinct tells me that when I finally get out and try the Volkl G4's, I'll probably find them a little too stiff for my personal skiing preference. Wasn't the precursor to the G4 (either the G40 or G41?) slightly softer, or am I mistaken here?

And, Rio, to answer your other question: ATF stands for the initials of my name. A is my middle initial and TF is Tejada-Flores, my last name. But I always get a kick out of the resemblance to Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.

Lastly but leastly no one seems to be fond of Volants. I heard a bunch of rave reviews on the Volant midfat of a few years back - the Machete McG - whose overall dimesnions were slightly fatter than the X-Screams...but whose fanatical users claimed a lot of the same handling characteristics that I've enjoyed in my X-Scream 9's (edge hold, energy, crud/powder performance, laughably easy turn initiation). The classic rap on Volants is that (possibly because of the metal) they're too 'heavy' but I hear that's changing too....

Thanx for the opinions.

Miguel :
post #20 of 29
You're already on the right ski.

That's the first ski I ever owned, and after countless demo's, still my fave. The only thing they don't do well is run straight.

I'm a sollie fan, and a fan of the pilot system as well.

Try the AK Rockets, and the 1080's.

If I had the cash, I'd make up a 5 pair quiver that would do just about everything one would need it to, all Salomon.
post #21 of 29
Hey Miguel,

If you want a 194, I can get you new supermountains for a steal.

Re. your other options: My general experience has been that a stiffer ski is a better choice for the (ungroomed) kind of snow we get around here. Noodly skis get tossed around, make you lose confidence, bad news. I have also been surprised to realize how much waist you can add without sacrificing too much groomer performance. They're not so much fun in bumps, of course, but the confidence and subsequent boost in enjoyment you will find skiing stiff skis in crud and choppy cement will outweigh the loss of edge to edge quickness, in my opinion. this is the wrong forum to spout this, but I think in another season or two most everyone will be on 85-ish waists for an all around resort ski.

My rec.'s to demo--if you can-- 186 Head im85, 190 volkl v-pro (essentially a softer version of g4). I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I used to ski force 9s also, loved 'em, but you know.....

Good luck!
post #22 of 29
I'm in a similar situation to u Miguel,

6'0 175. I've been recommended by some to try the V-Pro on 180, not 190.

190 could be a bit long if u're spending a lot of time on the groomed.
post #23 of 29
Originally posted by MiguelATF:

Just out of curiosity - what exactly IS the new Salomon Spaceframe construction - what does it do, and how does it change a skis handling characteristics? Has anyone actually skied Spaceframe vs non Spaceframe similar models?

Spaceframe allows Salomon to chisel out a precise ski shape from a block of PU foam. The shape is determined by the the desired performance characteristics for each centimetre along the ski's length. Since the foam density is controlled, they can turn out a more consistent product. The Lab's dabbling in blended materials with wood cores and foam surrounds but this is expensive and for specialized and prototypical products only.

All I can say about Spaceframe (based on the Teneighty and Pocket Rocket) is that it's noticeably lighter and squeakier.
post #24 of 29
Miguel -

Sorry to hear you don't work for the ATF; probably for the better. With all the heavily armed survivalists, meth cookers and pot growers in the hills of Southern Oregon it would be a challenging job.

As for the G4, it is the successor to the G40 & G41. Because of its stiffness and girth you can ski it short which is one reason many people like the ski. I would recommend trying it in a 178 length.
post #25 of 29
Let's see...

You like the X-Scream 9 that has been around for at least 4 years and consider buying another pair. Next, you think of moving on to a Supermountain, although it is newer than the Scream 9, but discontinued. I know...two years from now you will be fishing around about the Pocket Rocket, wanting to know if it is as good of a power board as the masses claim. I can see one theme...you blew a season's worth of demoing some great current gear and are left to a long summer of debating the opinions of others. For shame! [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #26 of 29
Originally posted by MiguelATF:
...And, Rio, to answer your other question: ATF stands for the initials of my name. A is my middle initial and TF is Tejada-Flores, my last name...
I'm surprised nobody else picked up on this: Any relation to Lito (with the same last name)?

Tom / PM
post #27 of 29
I am looking for a ski for my wife 5ft. 115lbs. advanced but not expert skier and am considering the Salomon 1080 in 161cm. This is for crud and powder mainly (we ski the Canadian Rockies) but she would like a ski that can handle hardpack as well. Is this a reasonable choice? The 1080 is mainly promoted as a park ski but from some of the posts it appears to have some all mountain traits. Advice needed.
post #28 of 29
Personally, I do not like the 1080 outside of the park. The ski is stiff underfoot, but soft at the tips and tails. When turning, you can feel the ski bite right in front of your toe, but it's like the tip isn't even there. This is more anoying in softsnow than hardsnow. I also found the Scratch FS to ski this way.
post #29 of 29
If you're going to be in the Bend area, I saw a new pair of Supermountains at Bend Ski & Board a few weeks ago. Not sure about size or price though. If I had to guess, I'd say they were in the 170-180 range. Give them a call 541-389-4667.
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 › Salomon midfats vs Salomon (and other) fatties?