New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

b5

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
when: nov30
where: silver star, bc
conditions: marginal - packed powder, some loose stuff. excellent quality, silky snow........temp = -7C
skis: b5 - 162cm - '05 model? - i think so........(they were rentals)
boots: rentals - crap - head something or other
me: level 9
age 54
5'11" 170lb

it was my 1st day out this year. the boots were not at all comfortable, not very well set up, and they were middle of the road recreational models

i was surprised - in spite of the lousy boots the b5's started to want to turn right away. kind of like no work required - just think turn and they turn.

but they are so very very heavy. as many reviewers state, this is neither here nor there for the most part when you are skiing, however riding a chairlift necessitates using the foot rest. if you don't, the b5's huge weight wants to pull your knees out of joint.

they were very stable and predictable in the cut-up stuff, but there is something about their weight, shape and build technology that left me feeling that they are just a bit - for lack of a better word - clunky. not alive enough. not enough rebound for my taste. lacking that little bit of nervousness and feedback transmission capability that i like in a ski...........OVERENGINEERED?

i was hoping they would carve as tight a circle as my WC SC 160's but they didn't. (granted they are a bit longer and have an 11m radius vs the WCSC's 10m)

the b5's do carve and hold and resist chatter and washout very well - as advertised.

i'm looking fwd to my 1st turns on my new top fuels, but that will have to wait a little while now that i'm back home here in the east.
post #2 of 23
Nice review; thanks for doing it. Interesting comparisons... were they the orange graphics or the gold (04/05 or 05/06)? Also note that the demo bindings are easily 2 lbs more than the regular bindings, and that makes a big difference (in my experience).
post #3 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
riding a chairlift necessitates using the foot rest. if you don't, the b5's huge weight wants to pull your knees out of joint.
A level 9 eh?
post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 
hehehe

level 9, level 8, expert, super expert...........whatever
is there an official certification center i can go to find out just what i am?
used to race when i was young
spent 16 yrs as a bum at whistler
do not use 'old technique'
the only type of skiing i do not do is hard icy bumps
favor short radius
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 

'05 or '06?

ssh

can't remember if they were orange or gold
post #6 of 23
A fair review. Regarding ski's weight - I don't notice it anymore (except when hoisting my B:5's from the lot).

Mt. Baker, where I ski most, has no lift footrests. I find I can ride all day without noticing any pull on my joints or muscles. Perhaps one gets used to it.

Regarding rebound and "clunky" - I understand your perspective if you're used to lighter skis, such as Dynastar or Rossis. These are also skis that'll have greater "feel" for the snow. A valid point.

However, if you bring the juice and load 'em up, I find the B:5's crank with plenty of pop. Personally, I prefer less "feel", because I dislike having terrain irregularities transferred to my teeth. Skis that do that always feel insubstantial to me.

I especially enjoy the B:5's in heavier, cut-up snow. As you mentioned, the tips don't get knocked around and they plow through everything.

Clearly, a lighter ski is more suitable for your tastes. Nice review!
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 

strato...

i spent 5 yrs ('90-'95) in bellingham, getting a music degree at wwu

does baker look any different these days?
post #8 of 23
Mt. Baker remains pretty much the same. I was in Iowa (don't ask) when you were here so I don't know if the lift or resort layout has changed much.

We still have no high-speed quads so I suspect things are largely the same - lots of heavy snow, some fog, and steep, narrow descents.

We often go to Silver Star. A great smaller resort. Nice charm, good skiing and low prices.

Enjoy the Top Fuels. I hear they're fabulous skis!
post #9 of 23

In search of an even better ski

A good review, Stelmar, and very to the points comments, Captain Strato.
I have been on B5s 125 days plus (28 this season already!) and have not found anything better one ski quiver the market yet. Yes, M11 felt livelier and wanted to be in the air more, but did not feel as solid under foot (after B5) in the crud. ST11 were VERY lively on the groomer and in the bumps, but not floaty enough in deeper powder. MEXs were floatier in the pow but not lively enough for me on the groomers. One run on Sugar Daddies was enough to know that they are not my skies. In Deep powder, big soft bumps and crud, I enjoyed K2 Apache Outlaw. They carved surprisingly well on the groomers as well with their 88mm waist! Volkl AC4s, that many like this year, WERE good, but only adequate compared with B5s. They had a typical Volkl ride that I personally do not care for. The only ski that felt right after B5s and answered the description of a "one ski quiver" was Nordica Top Fuel. It felt even more more forgiving in the tail. I will have to spend more time on it , though, to see if I can stay as fresh as after a whole day plus (with Keystone night skiing!) on my heavy(!) B5s. I really like how heavy they are - I do not have press them to the snow as hard- just stay in balance and compensate for the terrain drop! For the last week I have been skiing on a pair ( I picked up for a friend) with demo bindings and love the ski even more. I let the lifties at the gondola complain about the weight of the ski.

Time to go skiing...
post #10 of 23
A level 9 skier using rental boots:
post #11 of 23
oopps, I rather have the wrong skis with the right (custom) boots. Thanks for the review though.
post #12 of 23
Thread Starter 

rental boots

ok, i get it...........there are people out there trying to get a rise out of me

i'll bite this time

question: what is anyone - even all you level 10+'s like atown and ratherb - going to do when faced with the option of doing no skiing or renting equipment (incl. boots)?

personally, i'll take sore blistered feet and sub-par performance on a nice powdery day

(maybe it's because i'm such a wonderful 9-type-of skier that i can do such a good job with whatever)...................

now piss off!
post #13 of 23
If I go anywhere on business where skiing is nearby you can be damn sure I'll have my boots with me.



The demo bindings are ridiculous on the Atomics.
post #14 of 23
Thread Starter 
i was going to do just that but relied on a long range forecast that had no snow in it and decided to leave them at home. 40cm fell and i had to go skiing
post #15 of 23
Thread Starter 

demo bindings

so what you're saying is that with '06 bindings (non-demo) and '06 skis i'm going to notice a BIG weight reduction?
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
so what you're saying is that with '06 bindings (non-demo) and '06 skis i'm going to notice a BIG weight reduction?
Just the bindings make a difference not the ski.
post #17 of 23
Thread Starter 
so '06, '05 b5's (just the ski) are identical in construction?
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
ok, i get it...........there are people out there trying to get a rise out of me

i'll bite this time

question: what is anyone - even all you level 10+'s like atown and ratherb - going to do when faced with the option of doing no skiing or renting equipment (incl. boots)?

personally, i'll take sore blistered feet and sub-par performance on a nice powdery day

(maybe it's because i'm such a wonderful 9-type-of skier that i can do such a good job with whatever)...................

now piss off!
I like this dude, he thinks I'm a level 10+ skier: .
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
so what you're saying is that with '06 bindings (non-demo) and '06 skis i'm going to notice a BIG weight reduction?
The difference between a demo binding and the standard '06 Neox is more than 2lbs. With the standard binding, they are approximately the same weight as the Top Fuel.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
so '06, '05 b5's (just the ski) are identical in construction?
According to the local Atomic rep, there are differences. He says the '06 model uses a different polymer, and has slightly altered flex characteristics. Nothing major, just fine tuning.

Also, the '05 model apparently had an issue with bending (permanent), which was remedied in the '06 version.

Most importantly, the '06 version has MUCH cooler graphics: candy-apple red, metallic gold and white. Loverly.

Downside: high probability of theft.
post #21 of 23
Thread Starter 

strato or ssh.....

.....anybody ever tried a 152 b5?
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelmar
.....anybody ever tried a 152 b5?
My friend has 152's - just bought 'em and is giddy. He's an intermediate, 155 lbs.

I suggested the M:11's or M:10's. But, he demo'd the 162 cm B:5's, and it was over.

Even though the 162's were too long, and too stiff, I couldn't deter him. He felt supremely confident on them. I finally talked him into the 152's.

His skiing has improved immensely since the purchase.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
According to the local Atomic rep, there are differences. He says the '06 model uses a different polymer, and has slightly altered flex characteristics. Nothing major, just fine tuning.
FWIW, I feel a difference. I was putting it up to just being lighter, but this may be part of it, as well. I will do a "upon further review" thread, but want to be on them a few more times (twice so far)...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews