or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

k2 apache CHIEF Review

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
this is my other new alpine toy this year,
and it's great!

very playful and versatile for a BIG (98mm waist) ski.
It exceeded my expectations on hard snow, in breakable crust and it met my expectations in soft snow.

So, of the 100ish skis, this is my new favorite and is more versatile than most.


post #2 of 13
can you compare and contrast with other skis?
post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 
this is another one you're looking at, hey, Jim.
Compared to bigstix 106 that it replaced,
a bit softer, more playful flex and usuable sidecut, not quite as wide, but I think it's a great width for ski resort pow days.
compared to head 103, also softer and more fun at moderate speeds and in shorter turns.
Compared to skis in the 80's and 90's, I'd say it is still more of quiver ski.
Like today, I wouldn't have wanted to be carying all that ski around on the bulletproof snow and chattery bumps.

Are you looking for an everything ski or a soft snow ski?

post #4 of 13
Me on my 178 cm Dynastar Skicross 10 handle almost everything except deep heavy crud, mush/slush, and powder. I was thinking of only a deep powder ski but now I'm thinking of that and a crud Sierra ski cement ski. As the Dynastars are 68mm waist, I may become a glutton and break my 33 year habit of a 1 ski quiver and purchase a ski with waist in the upper 80mm-mid 90mm range and maybe >100mm for those huge powder and perhaps some heli days.

Next weekend Dec 3 and 4 and I plan to hit Squaw at 8am and start to demo quite a few models snow permitting.

PM sent
post #5 of 13
What size did you try/now own?
post #6 of 13
I bought myself a birthday present The Apache Chief in a 174. Garts hada one day only coupon for 25% off any item in the stor that made the chief $427.00 I pulled the tigger. Had them mounted with a Look P12 and wide brakes. Sat 11/27 it was dumping 8" of new at the base and more snow up top. In some places i was hitting over the boot to knee deep in wind loaded places. The Chief isn't a warrior Chief, This isn't a big mean nasty brut of a ski. this Chief is more of an explorer,dancer,a fun loving buddy! Make no mistake it isn't a toy this is the real deal fun with a nice refined feel for the snow. I hit some trees that were stll roped off but to tempting to pass up ( please forgive me) The 174 has a nice feel in trees. The Chief flet secure in the steeps of Jupitar bowl and McConkeys. they maybe a littel turn happy for some but I liked how they came around. For people getting into Steep and deep The chief makes a good choice, They hold and allow for good speed control. At 98 underfoot and a 126 shovel this ski loves the deep. It is not a crud buster, more like a crud player. livily quick and a pure joy in chopped up Powder. They had nice manners on the groomed and a lot of speed for such a wide ski. If i were going to have it on more groomed a littel lift under the binding would help it to hold on hard pack. In soft and deep snow who needs lift? I can't wait to get them into some real powder you know 24" or deeper.
post #7 of 13
Hey Utah49, what is your height/weight if you don't mind me asking? I'm considering this ski and am on the fence about size. Also can anyone compare this ski to a dynastar inspired?
post #8 of 13
might i recommend the 188?
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 
mine is a 181 and still playful,
in the 188 is becomes a little less versatile in tight spaces,
but the flex still makes it a great ski.
the k2 rep i got mine from started on a 188 (same length he skied the launcher in ) and then sold that and went down to the 181 in the chief.

good review utah,
i actually thought about the 174, but opted for the bigger one. it's big enough that it can skied pretty short. the speed you normally travel is the biggest calculation in my opinion.

post #10 of 13
I'm 5'8" and about 185 lbs. I thought about a 181. I'm sure it would be a blast in wide open bowls and faces. The 174 is fine in open spaces and vary nice in Powder stuffed tree stashes. There a couple of areas at PCMR, one The Black Forest The other is Cadillac Country. Both offer some nice powder shots in the trees. I wanted a ski for places like thoses, something that would not be locked into a turn. A ski that would have great float and responce. Since I am over 50 and never was Mr speedy on skis the shorter 174 works great. Other true powder skis that I can compair it to are the Rossi B3, The 2002 Chubb,Fischer BigStick85 and The Atomic SugarDaddy The Chubb is the best crud buster by far and has wonderful sence of security. For a skier getting into Powder for the first time it is great ski a bit heavy to be sure but that is one of the things that makes it so stable in chopped up conditions. The Chief is lighter and more responcive then the Chubb. The B3 is a nice powder ski but IMHO rather lifeless. The chief has more life. The Fischer is a true big mountain ski light responsive They love speed! They are not the best floater but they do have power and then some! I loved This ski I just don't the the energy to keep up with them like i use to have. The Bigstick requires that you pay attention or else. The Chief is just more user friendly but not as much a big mountain ski. The Sugardaddys I have skied had the plate. The new SugarDaddy seems to be a bit softer then the old SD The Old SDs tends to lock you into a turn shape and is stiff. The wide platform has great float but requires a lot of muscle. I liked the SD alot but felt that I wanted a more relaxed ride for my powder ski. i have not skied a dynastar in years. I can't say one way or another on any of thier skis.
post #11 of 13
Hmmm.. I ski a 178 inspired on most days and I'm getting to the point where I want more length. But I also ski on some 189 seth pistols and those are a little too long to do much more than bomb more open terrain.

I'm thinking that a 181 chief, with its flat tail, should ski longer than the 178 but still be pretty manuverable. So without the kick tail and being fatter in the waist it should be alot more stable, right? Also, it felt stiffer in the shop than the inspired did. Can anyone speak to that?
post #12 of 13
Splitting the difference should do the trick
post #13 of 13
I too just bought a pair of the Chiefs in a 181cm. Skied the 188cm at a shop demo day this week and thought they worked very well. Not overbearing for such a large ski. I opted for the 181cm so it would be more versatile. I am dropping a pair of M14 comp pistons on there and am hopping the plate will give me some versatitlity to lay out some carving on the ski as well. I liked that it allowed you to get ouf the turn quickly.

The 188cm were B1 bombers and I felt the 181 would be more versatile for the type of skiing I do (largelly resort bound) with a many a trek of the high traverse towards grouse rock.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews