or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Desperately need help finding the right ski....PLEASE
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Desperately need help finding the right ski....PLEASE

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
I have been a lurker here for a couple days and you guys seem to know your stuff, so here is my situation:

I am 20 years of age, a student at the University of Washington (so I can't afford multiple pairs of skies). I am 5' 11" about 165 lbs. and for what it's worth consider myself an athletic advanced/expert skier. I've probably skied around 15-20 days a year since I was 3. I hate skiing moguls!! On the hard pack/groomed I love to ski quick slalom turns, but also enjoy some high speed carving. I've also started skiing a lot of steeps and backcountry powder over the last couple of years. Now this is where it gets weird, I own two pairs of skies right now, which I have skied on for the last 3 years. The 1st gen Stockli Stormrider 186 cm, and the Stockli Laser AX 186 cm. Why those skies you ask?, b/c my uncle is best freinds with a Stockli rep and I was given these skies for free .

The Laser Ax is nearly impossible for me to ski comfortably, I link three or four quick turns together and than the ski just throws me and I can't get back on top of it. The Stormrider also seems like it is just too much ski for me.

A friend of mine told me to take a look at the Volkl SuperSport 5 or 6, and Salomon Scream 10 Pilot Hot. I was thinking around 175, but after reading some of the posts on this board I was thinking I could even go 165. I'm hoping you guys could point me in the right direction with regards to skies and size. I have no brand preference whatsoever. Any info will be greatly appreciated. For those familiar with the PNW, I usually ski at Crystal and Alpental, but for this year I just bought a Seasons Pass to Stevens, and am hoping to get up at least 30 times this years.
post #2 of 32
You sound like you want alot from one pair of skis.

If you like the backcountry and can only afford one pair of skis I would not reccomend the Volkls.

You aren't going to find a ski that is great at both powder and quick and long turns on groomed runs.

Look for a midfat that can still be fun on the groomers and not horrible in powder.

Maybe something like the Atomic R:ex would be good to look at.
post #3 of 32
Go back to your Uncle and tell him to have DM give or sell you or whatever ..... a pair of SC's in about a 168. If you are getting them with a demo binding, make sure that you are correctly centered, that may solve part of the problem.

I had the same problem on the AX series and I was very critical of them the newer Stockli's ..... actually, it was more of a technique issue as I found later. For very fast turns on the groomers the SL's may be an option as would the Spirit Pro.

Even a pair of the 01 SC's would be worth chasing.
post #4 of 32
Just a couple of more choices to sweeten the pot:

Dynastar Intuitive 74 (175cm)
Head Monster i.M 75 Chip Super Railflex (170, 177 cm)

If your direction in skiing is more towards free skiing than racing/high speed groomer cruising, you might also want to seriously consider some of the twin tips too:
e.g. Salomon 1080, K2 Public Enemy, Armada AR5, Line (Skogen Sprang Pro, Mike Nick Pro, Darkside or FX, Maverick), Volkl V=Pro...

I would bet that at your age and location, the twin tips are gonna be in your future. I have to say that if I were your age living where you live, I'd try to get ahold of some Volkl Gotamas or Salomon Pocket Rockets mounted with some Fritschi Diamir Freeride bindings, pick up some skins and a decent pack, and figure out how to get into backcountry skiing and leave the groomed slopes to the masses. But that's me.

Also see Bandit Man's thoughts to Dresden4545 under the 'Consumer Gear Reviews' section, thread "Topic: A little help buying a new pair of skis."

Whatever you do, it sounds like you're gonna have a great season. Happy trails!

[ October 26, 2003, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: bearberry ]
post #5 of 32
The Head i.M 75 is a helluvua ski, but short turner? NAWT! It's almost the oppositite of the Dynastar Intuitiv 74 - which IS a shorter turner, but lacks the rock solid stability od the Head i.M 75.

If you go REEEEEEEEALLY FAST and ski lots on REEEEEALLY HARD snow, the Head i.M 75 is the one. Otherwise, you'd be happier with skis like the Intuitiv 74, Rossignol B2, or Salomon Scream 8 Pilot, all known for less labored short turns and off-piste capability.
post #6 of 32
I'm not so sure about that, Oboe - I've skied the Dynastar, but only skied with people skiing the Head. The Dynastar is quick, as you say, and also good on hard snow, but Peter Keelty rates the Head (Rail Flex version) as quicker than the Dynastar... Of course, length matters. The folks I've skied with who are on the Head are also very quick (way quicker than me) - and they are western skiers, i.e. generally experience softer conditions than we do here in the east.

In any case, I wouldn't buy any of these skis, but would embrace Bandit Man's thoughts to Dresden4545 under the 'Consumer Gear Reviews' section, thread "Topic: A little help buying a new pair of skis." But then this probably isn't what our boy is after as you underline.
post #7 of 32
well, sonn your going to have every ski and manufacturer on the market recomended(probably becasue there isn't that much of a difference, I think that it is more about personal taste)But I would recomend Atomic, Probably the R9 or R11, they are good skis with lots of power. They are good doing corderoy as well as off the trail, They really stink on moguls, but are great at every thing else.

BoB
post #8 of 32
I'm willing to bet you're not an English major. Plural of ski is skis. Plural of sky is skies.

A mid fat for certain. 70ish millimeter to 80ish millimeter waist width and a 20m give or take a few meters turn radius.

But why do you only want a right ski?
post #9 of 32
I'm a Fischer skis kind of guy so I would say look at the Fischer WC SC or RX-8. Fischer skis are very well made, durable and tend towards a light and smooth feel (although most have wood cores and often metal so they are not that light when you are carrying them from the parking lot .) Rusty Guy who posts here reps for Fischer can explain their individual virtues as can others who ski Fischer's and comment here. There's also the Fischer Big Stix 8.6 and 7.6 which have a new carbon fiber core and are oriented more for off the groomed skiing. See www.fischerskis.com

Of course, many other folks here have their own personal favorites. You can also use the search feature to read the ski reviews posted in the Epic Ski gear review forum. A lot of ski models are returning this year largely unchanged from last season except for the graphics.

You may want to also check out Ski Canada magazine. You should be able to find it at Borders or Barnes and Noble in Seattle. Ski Canada seems to have the most objective and useful magazine reviews. Based on your description of yourself and the skiing you like to do, I would look for something around 160-170cm.

If you are able to, I would strongly recommend that that you drive out to Mt. Pilchuck Sports in Everett, WA. They carry Atomic, Dynastar, Head, K-2, Line, Salomon, Volkl as well as Fischer skis. I believe they also have a demo program. Most ski shops and REI don't carry nearly as wide a selection. Plus, the staff knows their ski lines and are very helpful.

A lot of the fun of buying new skis is the search. Good luck. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ October 26, 2003, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Lostboy ]
post #10 of 32
I would go with the advice above. If you want a ski that is good at powder and short slalom type turns you should look at the Elan Mantis 662. I believe that it has the most sidecut of any ski of its same width... this would also allow you to ski a 168cm length, which is a nice ompromise between the 165 and 175 you were considering before. I don't know right off hand what they turn at but id o know that it is significantly less than most skis of its size. It has similar construction to the Stormrider, but probabaly isnt quite as stiff. If the Mantis looks like too much ski for you give the Rossi B2 a good look, or any other ski with around a 75mm waist. The B2 is quite soft as midfats go, and probably turny as well, but i have no skied it so i cant comment. The B2 also comes in a 170 i think (or somehting close to it). The only reason i shy away from the Salomon Xtra Hot is because of the price... it is a rediculously expensive ski, unless you can proform or shopform one. I think the Volkl 724 Pro is also a good ski to look at despite comments that were made above. I have never skied it, but i think it is a quality midfat ski... Other skis out there may excell in some areas and not be as good in other areas, but it is worth a look. It won't turn as tight as the Elan 662s though.
Good luck
Later
GREG
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by bearberry:
I'm not so sure about that, Oboe - I've skied the Dynastar, but only skied with people skiing the Head. The Dynastar is quick, as you say, and also good on hard snow, but Peter Keelty rates the Head (Rail Flex version) as quicker than the Dynastar...
Because of Peter Keelty's rave reviews, I skied the Head 75 as soon as the on-snow demos allowed. On hard snow at speed, it was the rock-solidest ski I've experienced - but QUICK?! uh-uh. Although I really enjoyed testing that ski, I eventually bought the Head i.M 70 Monster which is discernably much quicker.

To say that length-for-length the Head i.M 75 Monster is quicker than the Dynastar Intuitive 74 is just plain not accurate. Try them yourself, then I'll be interested in your take on it. Of course, there could be some semantics at work here - in other words, can we distinguish between "quickness" and "short turn quickness"? The 75 is no short turner.
post #12 of 32
My advice to you is don't be in a rush to buy. As you have probably noticed there are a lot of choices out there and most of the recommendations have been good ones, but in all honesty there are really no bad skis. I have been apart of the demo-days for the Ski Press and Ski Canada and the unfortunate truth is that none of the testers ski like you or me. As you mentioned you felt the two skis weren't for you, and unfortunately that is the crappy thing about skis, it is all about the feel of the ski interpreted by the skier. So this season make it your goal to demo as many skis as you can and try them in different lengths. It sounds like you are in the right zone for lengths but from experience I would say go with the longest size you can that still feels comfortable, because what feels quick on the hard pack will sometimes feel twitchy in the backcountry. Either way you will have a great time finding out what you want

Ski ya later,
Frick
post #13 of 32
I would worry more about my boots before the skis; pretty much any ski will do something good as long as the boot fits ... with a good fit you can understand and work with the design of most any ski ...
if you are desperate for the perfect ski then I would say boot problems exist. No ski is perfect for everything but most handle 75% of conditions without getting you into trouble.
post #14 of 32
At 165lbs. I wouldn't go any longer than a 170. For the conditions you're going to be skiing, you'll need a midfat. Most of the midfats out there are not snappy short turners. That said, of the ones I've tried, if I could only have one pair to do everything, the Atomic R.11 would be at the top of my list. You might want to shop around for a leftover pair from last season, as I'm not sure that this years model is an improvement on the previous one. Peter Keelty's site, techsupportforskiers.com, claims the Head iM75 Chip is the ski to have if you can only have one this season. I have a brand new pair in my closet just waiting for some snow to try them out on, so I'll have to let you know later. I wouldn't really call the Volkl Supersports a midfat. It skis more like a slightly wider waisted slalom type carving ski. Snappy to be sure, but I'll bet that they sink like a stone in deeper snow. The new Fischer RX8 intrigues me, but I haven't had the chance to try them yet. I think though, like the Volkl Supersports with a fairly narrow waist and a lot of sidecut, that you're probably going to wish that you had something else on a powder day.
post #15 of 32
Salomon Scream Pilot 8.

Check it out.
post #16 of 32
Oboe,

You very eloquently said what I was thinking.
post #17 of 32
And to further assist you in your search...
Check out http://footloosesports.com They have the best online reviews of skis and boots that I have seen. Their 2003-04 gear reviews are now up for skis and boots.

[ October 26, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Lostboy ]
post #18 of 32
I am about your size. Get something 180-190cm and 85-95mm underfoot.
post #19 of 32
Hmm...desperate...lurker...Stormriders...speed...6 stars...can't handle...system overload...breaking up Cap'n...need help...send more Pilsner Urquell...
I'll have to get back to this later...
post #20 of 32
If you are heading out into the deep, please, do not go less than a 175cm. Otherwise, well, I will see you when the snow melts. Everyone has made some great recommendations on skis but it is really up to you, the buyer, to make a final desicion. Ski on a few and decide yourself. I think the B2, Intuitiv, and Fischer's are a great bet and should be your three top contenders. Try them all out early season and see how you like them. Also keep in mind that most posters are east coasters and have not skied the heavy stuff as much as you have which is why I think everyone is pushing the shorties.
post #21 of 32
I think its easy to get too stressed about this.

I would of thought that pretty much any midfat of 170-175 would be absolutely fine for you. You'll find small differences between them and may want to choose between a slightly stiffer groomer friendly model (like Atomic R11) or a slightly softer more off-piste ski (say R9 type) but to be honest you'd be fine with either.

Don't waste time worrying about whether you are on exactly the best ski just enjoy! Don't worry about only having one pair of skis, I think there is a satisfaction in skiing well and having fun in all conditions without having to reach for another tool. And I'm no more than a strong advanced skier.

By the way, I'm a little concerned that you are a young "athletic advanced/expert" skier but hate skiing bumps - its the profile of someone who should love bumps. Keep playing with them, they're an acquired taste! Don't believe people who tell you that midfats like the R9 are useless for moguls. They may not be optimal but I find them easier than the skinny 200cm slalom skis that I used to use (which were quicker edge to edge but had much more swing weight).

just a few thoughts

J
post #22 of 32
UW_Skier
Don't let those guys from out east tell you get on too short a ski. For PNW glop (I'm from Stevens Pass), you should be on a 175-180 cm ski, with about a 70mm waist. Now don't get too stiff a ski like those stocklis were. Any of the skis on this page should work well for you.

http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/m...no1/Prvw23.htm

The previous page is Skier cross skis and the next page is fat skis reviews. Some of those skis may work also but the skis in 70mm waist catagory are the best compromise. A slight turned up tail is probably something you will want. Stevens Pass has a great terrain park and half pipe. We have the Pipe dragon from the SLC olympics.

For a 2 ski quiver I would get a skier cross ski (high performance all-terrain cross as Ski Press calls it) and a fat 85mm waist) ski.

[ October 28, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: NordtheBarbarian ]
post #23 of 32
I can't speak to products other than Fischer because I haven't been on the others. In our line I would suggest;

Two options;

#1 RX8 175cm

#2 FX 8.6 170cm

I have access to both via retailers at a price well below what you'll see at any shop. Send me a p.m. if I can help.
post #24 of 32
I can't recomend any particular ski, but I can tell you than you're not going to get EVERYTHING you want from one ski because of the types of terrain you ski. You're going to want to go for a midfat in appropriate length. It won't be terrible in pow, but it's not gonna rip the frontside either. I'm of the opinion that most skis in a given category are created relatively equal. Some excel at some things others excel at other things. As the motto of the bears goes: Demo! That's pretty much the only way to find a ski that truly fits your style.
post #25 of 32
My home mountain is Crystal Mountain and have skied Alpental & Stevens Pass since 1967. I ski the Atomic R11 in a 180cm & I am usually between 178 & 185lbs. I have skied the 190cm & it is an absolute tank. The R11 skis long for it's length. I just sold my R11 from last season and am buying a new pair of 180cm R11 Beta-Puls this week. I have been told the new ski is a little more "User-Friendly" but retains it's stability and supurb edge grip at speed. I find the last years model to be great in crud and Pow. Also find it to be fine in the bumps.

As others have suggested above, You can't go wrong with the R11 in a 170cm. The ski does it all!

I have let a few of my friends ski on my skis and 3 of them bought a pair before the next weekend.

My younger son who is a J3 racer, skis on the 160cm for his freeskiing ski. He has had a pair for the last two seasons and just now weighs about 153 lbs. He loves 'em & skis the whole mountain on them. Although, he skis the whole mountain on his race skis too. (Youth is wasted on the young!)

If you'd like to discuss it further, email me at Atomicman52@comcast.net

[ October 28, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Atomicman ]
post #26 of 32
I ski on the new R11s in a 170 and I am 5'7" 175.

I was always told how stiff it is and that it is an expert only ski but I demoed it and loved it.

I have no comparison over the old ones but I can also give you my input on the ski if you need it.
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by Scalce:
I ski on the new R11s in a 170 and I am 5'7" 175.

I was always told how stiff it is and that it is an expert only ski but I demoed it and loved it.

I have no comparison over the old ones but I can also give you my input on the ski if you need it.
Well put!
post #28 of 32
I just don't get why the atomic freeride skis are so stiff. My friends 184 R EX are stiffer than my 180 Head race stock GS skis. The R EX stiffer than the 183 Atomic 10.22 Race stocks too.

Scalce
I'm suggesting a slightly longer (175-180) and softer ski than the 170 Atomic R11. UW_skier is taller and not as stocky at you, so he could use a little more fore-aft balance platform. And what's up with the price tag on the R11 Suggested retail $875. The Head iM70 is retail $650, Dynastar Inuitiv 71 $700,K2 Axis X $625, Volant machete Soul $650.

I would also recommend some skis that don't require atomic bindings! Yikes!
post #29 of 32
> ... I just don't get why the atomic freeride skis are so stiff...

Short answer: They've got a "crud ski for heros" reputation to live up to.

Under the dash answer: If you are pulling G's in a fast turn in irregular soft snow and you go over a spot where the center of your ski is momentarily unsupported, if your ski is too soft (for your weight and G's), your ski will practically fold in two (if only for a moment). That will cause your turn radius to decrease, which will cause the G's to increase, which will cause the folding to increase, etc., all leading to a very bumpy and not very pleasant or controllable ride. On stiff boards, your weight is spread out over a longer fore-aft distance on soft snow, and irregularities such as I described above don't perturb your path as much. At slower speeds and low to non-existent G's (ie, fat skis for lower level skiers), the undesirable positive feedback mechanism described above doesn't exist, so you can make these skis soft so that less experienced riders can whip them around on a dime and not feel this sort of instability (if they remain in their speed range).

OTOH, hard snow skis only need to be firm enough to apply enough weight to the tip and tail to cause them to dig in, carve, and start to guide you "around the corner". In contrast to a soft snow ski, the tip and tail of a hard snow ski have to support only a much smaller fraction of your full weight.

Tom / PM

PS - BTW, if you think R-ex's are stiff, check out a 188 Volkl G4 or older Stockli Asteroid. They will let you experience the true meaning of stiff [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img] .

[ October 28, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: PhysicsMan ]
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally posted by NordtheBarbarian:

Scalce
I'm suggesting a slightly longer (175-180) and softer ski than the 170 Atomic R11. UW_skier is taller and not as stocky at you, so he could use a little more fore-aft balance platform. And what's up with the price tag on the R11 Suggested retail $875. The Head iM70 is retail $650, Dynastar Inuitiv 71 $700,K2 Axis X $625, Volant machete Soul $650.

I would also recommend some skis that don't require atomic bindings! Yikes!
I totally agree about the length for him. I just wanted to show what size I ski on so he can go longer.

I have never had an issue with the Atomic bindings except that I had a ski not release in a bad fall last year and I snapped my ACL and sliced my side open at Cannon.

Since the ski was pinned under my back and side the binding didn't have enough torque to release me and pop goes my knee.

So as far as prereleases go, I have never had any.

I can't wait to jump back on my R11's and rip this year if it ever snows out here.
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 › Desperately need help finding the right ski....PLEASE