EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Over-analyzing ski choices and making myself crazy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Over-analyzing ski choices and making myself crazy

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I am over-analyzing ski choices and making myself crazy!

I am a true intermediate. I like to ski at average speed. I am in no way a speed hound, nor desire to be. I ski 100% in the NE (Balleayre, Butternut, Catamount, etc..), so I need a ski that handles ice and hard-pack snow well. I enjoy medium radius turns. No moguls, but do enjoy catching a little air going over whoop-de-doos on the trails. I ski 90% on the blue groomers, 5% on the greens with the kids at the end of the day, and 5% on the easier blacks.

Problem is I have over-analyzed this to the point I do not know what I want anymore. So to make it easy, please recommend a "true" intermediate-advanced intermediate ski, either older model or 2006 model for me to buy. I do not have the opportunity to demo this season...all demo days are late January where I ski. I figure if amny people suggest a particular ski, that is what I SHO'ULD GET. The two local ski shops carry very different product lines and both bash the others stuff, so they are not a reliable source of information.

Thanks in advance,

Scott

PS - I am 5'9", 175 pounds, and in good condition. My goal is to have fun and to show up for fun on Monday
post #2 of 28
My advice -- find the cheapest pair of last year's skis you can with the right shape and flex. Given preference for medium turns, you probably want a 160-170 w/ about a 15m radius and a 64-69 mm waist. Medium flex. Shop talk is mostly BS - 'this ski will transform your on-mountain expereince, blah, blah blah'. Fact is there are very few real dogs out there.
post #3 of 28
There are a lot of intermediate skis that would work except for one condition: you want them to do well on ice. In my experience, the better skis for ice are usually more expensive, so definitely think of prior year models. You will need to keep them tuned if you want solid ice grip.
post #4 of 28
Dynastar omecarve 09 @ 165. nuff said.
post #5 of 28
I think I weighed in on another thread suggesting Dynastar carving skis - from my own experience on 02 Dynastar Speed SX in 170 cm, as a developing skier, same height and weight, also skiing Butternut and Catamount with my kids. Once at Butternut last year I rode up the hill with 2 instructors and a patroller, all on Dynastar Omecarves, I think the Omecarve 10's or 9's. There are very good deals on the Omecarve 9 and 8 at http://www.cupolosports.com/20dysk.html -- and I think they'll ship free if you mention you're an epicski member. If I were you I'd go with the 9 over the 8 -- my impression is like my 02, these are skis that you COULD ski fast but don't HAVE TO, and I bet the 9 would be better on ice. Either one in 165 cm.

(PS, if you're interested in my 02's in good condition at a very good price (170 cm) pm me, I'm local and would be glad to work something out).

EDIT -- while I blathered on, BigE said it clearly and quickly ...
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodro
My advice -- find the cheapest pair of last year's skis you can with the right shape and flex. Given preference for medium turns, you probably want a 160-170 w/ about a 15m radius and a 64-69 mm waist. Medium flex. Shop talk is mostly BS - 'this ski will transform your on-mountain expereince, blah, blah blah'. Fact is there are very few real dogs out there.
I agree (almost) completely...I would siggest something in the 69-74mm waste range.
post #7 of 28
FOR THOSE CONDITIONS LOOK AT ATOMIC SX 9. i HAVE THEM FOR THE WEST BUT REALLY THINK THAT THEY WOULD SUIT AND ARE BEING USED MORE FOR EASTERN STUFF.
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
I agree (almost) completely...I would siggest something in the 69-74mm waste range.
Yea, judgement call -- you would gain more stability at slight expense of quickness and edge control. So let's say 69mm exactly. And I agree w/ others that you don't want to cheap out (from original msrp) or buy a ski that is more setup for western and soft snow conditions. But AOTBE, flex will be a good indicator for that -- if you go one step up from a pure intermediate ski it should have the torsional stiffness for what you need and encourage you to grow. And keep those edges sharp - tune is prob more important than brand.

Only other difference is the 'feel' of the skis, and it is probably too early to have a sense of preference there. If you try different skis over the years you will begin to get an idea for what brand's feel you like.
post #9 of 28
Scott,

Fischer RX6 sounds like a fantastic fit for you (anyone agree with me on that?). You could probably find last years on the net which won't break your bank too much either (I imagine somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 to $500 with FX12 binding). They have a sidecut which sounds about right to you, and the Fischer RX series has great performance on hardpack and ice (I ski RX8s). 165 or 170 would probably work fine, 170 if you want longer turns...

-Craig
post #10 of 28
Yup. RX6 would be a great choice, and not overly expensive. The ski is unchanged from last season except for the cosmetics.

Jim
post #11 of 28
I would also look into the Head i.260C (last year it was the i.C160) or the i.280C (last year's i.C180). They're fairly similar, but the 280 has a tighter radius (by about 1m, so not a huge difference), and is a little stiffer, which might be better for your weight. Either way, I've never heard anyone who hasn't enjoyed skiing on them. They're a solid all around ski, and they hold quite well on ice.
post #12 of 28
mkevinson is right on. I live in Mass and my Eastern ski for all that you described is an Atomic SX:9. My carving on groomed slopes was lacking (due to spending too much time off the trails and out West) and these skis made me much better at it. They can ski fast when you need to but don't need to be driven hard and fast to be enjoyed. They made me a better carver and I was comfortable enough to trade up this year to a pair of Volkl 6*s that need a lot more effort to carve. Anyway, I still have the Atomics and they are in really great condition, so search this forum and the web about these skis and if you like what you see, I would cut you a really great deal on them...something like $225 with Atomic Race 4:12 bindings in a 170 length including shipping (They were $900+ new in 2004). It's either that or I am going to take 'em over to the Wachusett ski swap on Friday night. PM me if you're interested. I took great care of them - they look like they just came from the ski shop...

Edited to add: oh yeah, and they have a 65mm waist, I don't know what he's using them out West for... they are definately an Eastern carver!
post #13 of 28
Thread Starter 
senator-thank you for the offer. I currently have 160's. I might go to 165's, but 170's are just too long.

Thanks again for the input and the offer.

-Scott
post #14 of 28
Really? I am 5'7"/160lbs and the 170's sometimes feel short to me. But, now that I think about it, I have a friend who is 6'2"/225lbs and he skis on 170's too and loves 'em - it must be all about preference!
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by senator
mkevinson is right on. I live in Mass and my Eastern ski for all that you described is an Atomic SX:9. My carving on groomed slopes was lacking (due to spending too much time off the trails and out West) and these skis made me much better at it. They can ski fast when you need to but don't need to be driven hard and fast to be enjoyed. They made me a better carver and I was comfortable enough to trade up this year to a pair of Volkl 6*s that need a lot more effort to carve. Anyway, I still have the Atomics and they are in really great condition, so search this forum and the web about these skis and if you like what you see, I would cut you a really great deal on them...something like $225 with Atomic Race 4:12 bindings in a 170 length including shipping (They were $900+ new in 2004). It's either that or I am going to take 'em over to the Wachusett ski swap on Friday night. PM me if you're interested. I took great care of them - they look like they just came from the ski shop...

Edited to add: oh yeah, and they have a 65mm waist, I don't know what he's using them out West for... they are definately an Eastern carver!
Nice offer. You could probably find 2 year old demo skis a bit cheaper than that, but they would have been over the grinder several times by now. Again Nice offer should have been just what (MANY PEOPLE) are looking for.
post #16 of 28
But a 2 -3 year old pair of volkl AX3's. Great bite on ice, but not too much ski to have super fun on. Will hold it's own in powder but it shines on hard packed. Dynastars are ok for lighter skiers but not really the best on ice. Volkl or atomic have best hold on ice. End of story!
post #17 of 28
AX-3 is not a bad suggestion, very versatile - but resist temptation to go short on it. I skied G3 (its predecessor) in 163cm a couple of times (same ht / wt as you) and it really didn't feel right. (Though I'm very comfortable on 160 cm slalom ski or shorter, this was just different.)

OTOH re Atomic SX-9: I have a friend who's also a cautious skier, in his 40's, skis with kids, not a speed demon - he has these in 170 and says they feel like "too much" or too demanding a ski sometimes. He probably is 5' 11 / 180 lbs or so.

But now we're back to overanalyzing. I'd just jump on the SX-9 or the NEW Omecarve 9's at Cupolo's ($260 with Look Pivot 10's) and I bet you'll be happy.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ts01
OTOH re Atomic SX-9: I have a friend who's also a cautious skier, in his 40's, skis with kids, not a speed demon - he has these in 170 and says they feel like "too much" or too demanding a ski sometimes. He probably is 5' 11 / 180 lbs or so.
Yep, my guess is that the "9's" are ging to be too much ski.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig W
Scott,

Fischer RX6 sounds like a fantastic fit for you (anyone agree with me on that?). You could probably find last years on the net which won't break your bank too much either (I imagine somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 to $500 with FX12 binding). They have a sidecut which sounds about right to you, and the Fischer RX series has great performance on hardpack and ice (I ski RX8s). 165 or 170 would probably work fine, 170 if you want longer turns...

-Craig
Lots of good choices out there and I agree the RX6 is one of the best. I'm probably at about the same level and demoed them in 170 last year, liked them alot. Ended up with Elan S8s. Just liked the feel a little better than RX6s, but very close. Other skis I'd take a look at would be Elan S8 and S10s, Volkl 4*s, and Atomic SX7s. All in the 165-170 range. Don't think you'd go too far wrong with any of the above.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by RISkier
Lots of good choices out there and I agree the RX6 is one of the best. I'm probably at about the same level and demoed them in 170 last year, liked them alot. Ended up with Elan S8s. Just liked the feel a little better than RX6s, but very close. Other skis I'd take a look at would be Elan S8 and S10s, Volkl 4*s, and Atomic SX7s. All in the 165-170 range. Don't think you'd go too far wrong with any of the above.
4 stars are miserably awful on ice. My mom demoed them by mistake last year (shop told her they were 5 stars, what I told her to get, I wasn't there), and hated them. I moved the bindings and took them for a run to see what they were like. The edge-hold on ice was abysmal, even compared to my rock skis (Volkl Vectris from 2001? (guess)). I would not advocate those for anyone who even wants to think about gaining some carving confidence. RX6s are a better choice.
post #21 of 28
You have to be careful when judging ice hold on a demo; the last person to demonstrate them may have "tuned" them up with a gummi stone or taken too many rails on them. I had such an experience with a Elan SLX.

Without a demo, your best bet is RX6 or ElanS10. Though I haven't actually tried these, I'm extrapolating from their bigger brothers using technical descriptions. I'm not impressed with the lower levels of the Atomic SX line.If your a woman, try Atomic Balance 11.

If you get a chance to swap with someone on the hill here's a few suggestions:
Unless you weigh more than 180 lbs, demo a Solomon Equipe 10 SC, I know it's supposed to be a more advanced ski, but it really is extremely forgiving, and easy to make turn. Also in the solomon line, maybe an old solomon crossmax 10 (I seem to recall the name was the same as my boots); it has room to grow, but is still able to skid, swivel and do everything well if not excel at any one thing.
post #22 of 28
RX6 or RX8......the eight would do better in the east due to metal

nordica suv 12 or 14

fischer WC SC

find any of these in a used version in decent shape and you'll be set.
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 
Rusyt Guy - I tries calling you this afternoon - linew were busy all day. Will try again Thursday.

-Scott
post #24 of 28
You may want to go to :

realskiers.com

Pay your $$ and ask the question.

They do an excellent job testing skis, an give personal advise to members.
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
RX6 or RX8......the eight would do better in the east due to metal

nordica suv 12 or 14

fischer WC SC

find any of these in a used version in decent shape and you'll be set.
The WC SC might be a little too demanding for what he's looking for. It is a modified slalom stick, but it's still a slalom stick. It wouldn't be much fun if you couldn't cross-under carve. Only a demo will tell, it could be the thing to make him improve.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
The WC SC might be a little too demanding for what he's looking for. It is a modified slalom stick, but it's still a slalom stick. It wouldn't be much fun if you couldn't cross-under carve. Only a demo will tell, it could be the thing to make him improve.
i respectfully disagree.

i don't think how one manages pressure has much to do with enjoying the WC SC. i taught on the ski for two seasons and it does intermediate demos very nicely.

it is a recreational slalom ski
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Guy
i respectfully disagree.

i don't think how one manages pressure has much to do with enjoying the WC SC. i taught on the ski for two seasons and it does intermediate demos very nicely.

it is a recreational slalom ski
Are you talking about the 2004-2005 or the earlier one. Could you compare and contrast it to the rx8 (blatant self-interest )
post #28 of 28
the earlier. i used to rep Fischer and had a pair of the early skis with the 123mm tip. i tried a variety of lengths and in all honesty the sc and rx8 are really similar. the only difference is the turn radius.

i swapped skis with a client last year who had a new rx8. it seemed as though the current ski is "turnier" than the rx8 i remember.

fischer makes good skis. the rx8 is a good product.

i honestly prefer the speedmachine to the rx8 and the hot rod blows both away. if i skiied in the east on hard snow all the time i would use an rx8 or speedmachine.
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 › Over-analyzing ski choices and making myself crazy