New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eastern Powder Hound

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I ski in the North East. Finally skied on a Mid Fat (Apache Recons) and would never go back. These have become my every day ski. Now I am looking for something wider for powder and soft bumps in tight trees. I am a good skier, 5'10" and 200 lbs. Are Salomon 1080 Guns really to soft, will head Mojo 90's turn quick enough and be good in bumps? What else does anyone suggest?
post #2 of 26
I am 5'9 175-180. I am constantly in the woods if snow is there. I ski Pocket Rockets in 175 and love em. They are actually fun on groomers as long as the snow is not too crunchy. They actually became my all mountain ski and made my give up on my Rossi Bandit XX's. This year a picked up a Sl cut race ski for the hard days to complement them. If I were you I would also consider the seth Viscious's. My second or third day on the PR's was 2 feet of pow at Mad River. I immediately realized a fatter ski is in my future, the Seth's are a bit fatter. They come in 179 I believe and I question if you would overpower the 175 PR's.

Alfonse
post #3 of 26
Welcome to epicski. You're one of the few people here that have realised that fat skis work great on the east coast.

First thing is that I would like to stress is the importance of having a good rock ski if you're going to ski pow on the EC. Some of the best pow falls in the early or late season when there is a thin base, and it doesn't get tracked out as fast. If you are cool with destroying a new pair of skis, good for you, but I'm not. I would suggest a used older fat ski with a good pair of bindings, 80mm to 95 mm waist. Preferably a sidewall construction. For me it's a pair of 188 dynastar intuitiv (flame) bigs with 997's. While it may be hard to keep a good edge on them, they need to have a good base structure for glide - you can put a rilled crosshatch structure on with the side of a file. You should be able to pickup a good fat rock ski setup on ebay for like $150-$200.

As for the powder boards, there are plenty of good choices out there. Picking one that is good in bumps but will still hold up to a beating in the trees, well, that's a little harder. The head Im103 183cm, Stockli DP 186cm, or Volkl Mantra 184cm would be very solid skis for you, but no good in the bumps - too stiff! I would avoid the PR/GUN at you size because it's going to be a tad soft even in a 185, and will wear out fast (not to mention edge compressions). I'll go with alfonse on this one, the 179 Seth V could be a good pick. Perhaps also the 183 volkl Gotama? Maybe the Elan M999?

I would alos suggest solid, lightweight bindings - Look p18's.
post #4 of 26
May I suggest Line Mothership Flites or titinuims, in 172 or 182 lenght depending on your usage. The Flites are kinda of soft but wont wear out like the Foam Core skis. I got to try out the 172 Flites last year and they were really sweet in the glades. If i was out west and skiing bowls I would for sure go with the Ti in 182, as the 172 were not stable at speed. Also let me piont out that I ma 5'10 and 165 so I much lighter than you, and my new everyday ski this year is more than likely going to be 175 M-EX with my B5 taking over on icey/ not as fast days. The M-Exs I tried were much much more fun at speed than the B5s. I jsut need to get deal now on a set.

Long story short give Line Fat skis a chance I was impressed by how they skied.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
Welcome to epicski. You're one of the few people here that have realised that fat skis work great on the east coast.

First thing is that I would like to stress is the importance of having a good rock ski if you're going to ski pow on the EC. Some of the best pow falls in the early or late season when there is a thin base, and it doesn't get tracked out as fast. If you are cool with destroying a new pair of skis, good for you, but I'm not. I would suggest a used older fat ski with a good pair of bindings, 80mm to 95 mm waist. Preferably a sidewall construction. For me it's a pair of 188 dynastar intuitiv (flame) bigs with 997's. While it may be hard to keep a good edge on them, they need to have a good base structure for glide - you can put a rilled crosshatch structure on with the side of a file. You should be able to pickup a good fat rock ski setup on ebay for like $150-$200.

As for the powder boards, there are plenty of good choices out there. Picking one that is good in bumps but will still hold up to a beating in the trees, well, that's a little harder. The head Im103 183cm, Stockli DP 186cm, or Volkl Mantra 184cm would be very solid skis for you, but no good in the bumps - too stiff! I would avoid the PR/GUN at you size because it's going to be a tad soft even in a 185, and will wear out fast (not to mention edge compressions). I'll go with alfonse on this one, the 179 Seth V could be a good pick. Perhaps also the 183 volkl Gotama? Maybe the Elan M999?

I would alos suggest solid, lightweight bindings - Look p18's.
You know, I've shadowed most of your posts-I think I've come to really appreciate your skiing gear philosophy (if not always the manner in which it's deliver-oh well, everyone has their own rhetorical style)-a good skiing buddy of mine spent every day in the east last season on Dynastar 8800-and he skis far tighter and faster lines than I can on Killington's bumpiest terrain.

I'm thinking about taking the fatter ski plunge in the upcoming weeks-have you tried the The Stockli Dps in a shorter length (184)--I'm pretty sure I don't ski quite at your speed or level-but I wondered if going 10cm shorter in that ski significantly raised it's all-east use factor. If not-do you have any love for the k2 outlaw (another fatter ski contender)?

Anyway, H-star-aside from your occassional hubristic vitriol, I got to say I really appreciate your dissenting, and apparently learned, opinion on ski gear. Keep up the good work.

Liam
post #6 of 26
He is the reasons I gave the 175 cm M-ex a try this year, and surprise surprise I liked them more than my owns B5s even here in icey PA. The edge hold is great on hardpack, and they flat out demolish rough, cruddy terrain at speed. I jsut need to hope they come on steep and cheap again.
post #7 of 26
HS,

Your dissenting attitude I appreciate and views on gear are quite novel and enjoyable. Occasionally your attitude chafes me but its a small price to pay, for a contrarian opinion.

I concur with you on getting some older tree/powder skiis as I thrash the hell out of 'em on rocks here in the Sierras. Can you help us out and give us some picks you like on 2-4 year old powder/crud skiis you like? What about easier turning ones for the trees? I am looking at some Inspired by Nobis Dynastars for the next go round.

I'll throw in another vote for avoiding the PR's. I am only 140 pounds and those things flopped around on me so much in the crud I thought they were bent. A negative for me would also be the foam core. Not as much durability over the long haul. They do work well in nice, light, soft, snow. But once it gets cut up and turns into crud they lose their appeal, even for this bantamwieght. but YMMV. Cheers.

Thanks in advance
post #8 of 26
Wow, thanks guys for the positive comments. I know I'm a dikk sometimes and come off as bragging or arrogant, but I really don't care. I'm opinionated but always open minded. I've been doing the ski gear thing for a while and learned a long time ago that you can't put too much stock in what the industry line is or what is conventional wisdom. The best thing to do is be observant, pay attention to detail, keep an open mind and try different things.
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam
You know, I've shadowed most of your posts-I think I've come to really appreciate your skiing gear philosophy (if not always the manner in which it's deliver-oh well, everyone has their own rhetorical style)-a good skiing buddy of mine spent every day in the east last season on Dynastar 8800-and he skis far tighter and faster lines than I can on Killington's bumpiest terrain.

I'm thinking about taking the fatter ski plunge in the upcoming weeks-have you tried the The Stockli Dps in a shorter length (184)--I'm pretty sure I don't ski quite at your speed or level-but I wondered if going 10cm shorter in that ski significantly raised it's all-east use factor. If not-do you have any love for the k2 outlaw (another fatter ski contender)?
Dynastar makes great fatties if you prefer a lighter feel, most of thier boards are foam with wood stringers. I never used to like them until I got the bigs, and they took some getting used to (also had to mount them -1cm). My housemate skis 189 inspired and is the same size as me, they work fine and hold up to abuse.

I haven't skied the shorter DP's, just the 201 'roids that I have which are virtually the same thing. I almost bought the 186cm ss/dp (last years) this year as my all around ski, before I saw the Head im88. The DP's would have been good, but I think a little too stiff and beefy. If you weigh 200lb they will be fine, but at 180lb they may be a little much for me all day, and not as fun. Stockli's aren't super stiff like volkls, but they are pretty heavy and damp. I can't really comment on the new 184, 94 wide DP, but for an agressive skier around that weight range (180-200), I think it would be pretty good.

I haven't liked a pair of K2's yet, I'm just not a fan of torsion box skis (that includes volkls). I think they have a very dead (not damp) snow feel.
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by team ftb
HS,

Your dissenting attitude I appreciate and views on gear are quite novel and enjoyable. Occasionally your attitude chafes me but its a small price to pay, for a contrarian opinion.

I concur with you on getting some older tree/powder skiis as I thrash the hell out of 'em on rocks here in the Sierras. Can you help us out and give us some picks you like on 2-4 year old powder/crud skiis you like? What about easier turning ones for the trees? I am looking at some Inspired by Nobis Dynastars for the next go round.

I'll throw in another vote for avoiding the PR's. I am only 140 pounds and those things flopped around on me so much in the crud I thought they were bent. A negative for me would also be the foam core. Not as much durability over the long haul. They do work well in nice, light, soft, snow. But once it gets cut up and turns into crud they lose their appeal, even for this bantamwieght. but YMMV. Cheers.

Thanks in advance
The inspired are pretty good, as mentioned above. They are sidewall construction underfoot which improves durablity. Light and quick too for their size.

Any wood core sidewall construction ski will typically be pretty durable. My housemate just bought my old xtra hots (foam/cap) and put a big edge compression in them first day out...not the best rock ski.

I'm sort of drawing a blank here on older rock ski candidates.... but there are alot out there.
post #11 of 26
Welcome to epic ski uncleneil.
The East Coast is my stomping grounds to. Gore is my home mtn. I put in a ton of time at sugarbush and MadRiver Glen as well the BC in the high peaks region of the adk park and mount mansfield area.

The Dynastar Legend 8000, 116/81/102. Vertical sidewalls, ski comes flat, and is perfect for an experienced agressive skier. They eat up ice like its not there, move through crud like it's warm butter, and have plenty of float on powder days. Very quick and responsive ski in the tight trees here to. I love this ski on everything but the deepest pow. For that I ride the pocket rockets (soft snow only). From what my ski shop guy is telling me the ten eighty gun is the pocket rocket with a stiffer flex pattern to handle harder snow a little better. I have never rode them though.
Worth looking at the Volkl Mantras as well !
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the replies. Does anyone have any direct experience with the head Mojo 90's. Some people have described them as a snappier, beefier, torsionaly stiffer ski in the mold of the Pocket Rockets.

"Huckingfellers", why do think the Legend 8000's would be better than the Recon's I already have for the trees?

I never thought the Volk Mantra's would be bad in bumps. Where I ski, Jay, and the Eastern Townships (Quebec) there are always bumps in the trees.

So, any other ideas?

Never thought about "rock skis" for the trees, but sounds like a great idea. No a necessity!
post #13 of 26
I figure for the east a fat ski almost can't get too fat. Reason being that our biggest dumps aren't all that big, bases don't get that deep and so on. A fatter ski keeps you up and hopefully out of the rocks and the ankle tangling shrubbery. I ski the Karma and the Gotama, and tried to get a pair of Sumos for this year. Also, I do prefer the softer skis for the tighter trees. I love the PR/Gun I' even like it in the 165 size and I weigh 200 lbs. I'd want it bigger and stiffer if I lived in Tahoe, but for snaking through tight trees, it's just right. I also say ditto to HS's Rock Ski comments. I am about to "demote" the old Goats and either get a new pair, or a 185 Supercharger Blower. That way my skins will fit on both pairs.

you know what we always say around here.... demo.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by team ftb
I concur with you on getting some older tree/powder skiis as I thrash the hell out of 'em on rocks here in the Sierras. Can you help us out and give us some picks you like on 2-4 year old powder/crud skiis you like? What about easier turning ones for the trees? I am looking at some Inspired by Nobis Dynastars for the next go round.
Here's a great list to check out:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=41028

Plenty of good options in there.
post #15 of 26
Posted by HighwayStar:

Quote:
"Here's a great list to check out:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=41028

Plenty of good options in ther"
Ask and you shall receive. Awesome link, thanks.
post #16 of 26
This is an embarassing question--what's tthe relative advantages of a stiff vs Soft ski for fatties--my basic knowledge of physics says its float vs. Stability--is that it?
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncleneil
"Huckingfellers", why do think the Legend 8000's would be better than the Recon's I already have for the trees?
I dont think they would be better. I dont have any idea because I never rode the Recons. I am just saying the 8000's tear shit up in any type of snow except for bottomless blower snow. They are light and very quick skis. They love to be pushed hard as you can and they take love every minute of it!
post #18 of 26
what side edge and base edge angles are you guys using with fat skis 80-95mm waist in the east? I was wondering if putting .75 base and 3 side on fat skis would be beneficial for busting through fluff and then creating some high edge angles to hold on ice. At times when I go to killington I wished I had a bigger fat or midfat ski in my quiver but wondered if it would hold an edge once I reached the ice sections. Last year some one blew past me on some thing fat and was working the skis pretty well in some deep slush while my volkl g31's were digging my grave.
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the replies! But let's try to narrow this down a little.

-Legend 8000's sound liek a great ski but too similiar to my Recon's.
-PR's/Guns probably are too soft for me?
-Mantra's a little wider than I expected (Thast's OK) but are they to really too stiff for bump's. Are they quick enough for really tight trees?
-No one had anything to say about the Public Enemy (2006)
-And finally does no one have an opinion on the Mojo 90's which on paper (specs& magazine reviews) seem like they might be perfect?

Maybe I am asking for too much, but some closure would be nice!
post #20 of 26

Mojo 90

I just picked up a pair of Mojos this year to replace a pair of broken Pocket rockets. I'll report back with my impressions on saturday. As far as the Pocket Rockets, there a lot of fun in the trees but just aren't durable enough to bang around in the trees in the NE IMHO. I had 10 days or so on mine skiing 18in of fresh at Jay, happened to look down and noticed the front of the ski was broken in front of the binding and I'm a pretty small guy 5'6" 140#. Maybe a defective pair but if you look around there is a history of this kind of breakage on the PRs. I did get a warranty pair but I'm a little leary about riding on the things.

good luck,
wayne
post #21 of 26
184 mantra's would be great, they are light so they should be pretty quick, but they are a bit stiff. They should be ok in bumps.

I would suggest staying over a 90mm waist, somewhere between 90 and 105mm.
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhearnest
what side edge and base edge angles are you guys using with fat skis 80-95mm waist in the east? I was wondering if putting .75 base and 3 side on fat skis would be beneficial for busting through fluff and then creating some high edge angles to hold on ice. At times when I go to killington I wished I had a bigger fat or midfat ski in my quiver but wondered if it would hold an edge once I reached the ice sections. Last year some one blew past me on some thing fat and was working the skis pretty well in some deep slush while my volkl g31's were digging my grave.
That's a very, very agressive tune for a midfat ski. I've had some 185 xtra hot's and 195 ak launchers tuned like that, and they carve on anything. However, they can be very chattery in non-carved short turns, because the edge does not want to let go of the snow.

The im88's I'm on came from the factory with a 4/1 tune. Yes, a 4 degree base bevel and 1 degree side. I know how to measure bevels, that's what actually on them. I think my M:Ex's are around 3/3. I would suggest trying a true 2/3 bevel, this should give good grip when edged agressively, but they should still be smearable in short turns.
post #23 of 26
What length are you riding the IM88's at? I'm a 190lb level 9 skier who spends most of the year on the east coast in the trees, and I'm looking at those skis. 175 seems a little short, but I'm not sure if the 186 is too long. any info on how they ski?

Thanks in advance.
post #24 of 26
I should also mention that I spend a couple weeks a year in Jackson, WY, but I'm not quite sure I should be buying a ski with the criteria that they perform as I want in both areas. I guess that is what a quiver is for.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
What length are you riding the IM88's at? I'm a 190lb level 9 skier who spends most of the year on the east coast in the trees, and I'm looking at those skis. 175 seems a little short, but I'm not sure if the 186 is too long. any info on how they ski?

Thanks in advance.
I'm 6'1, 180 lb, and am on them in a 186. My housemate weighs 160lb and has them in a 175. I've had no problems skiing them in bumps, and I think they'll be fine the trees. They're mounted flat with look p18's, so that saves considerable weight, I'm used skiing on lifted race stock salomons which are about 1.5lb heavier.
post #26 of 26
Nice thanks, what do you think of them?

I used to ski on Race Sock Rossi's with plates. so I know where you're coming from. This will be my first foray into fatter skis (I ski volkl supersport t50's everywhere, including waist deep presently, but I sort of executed them on Mount Washington in October)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews