or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

10 skis reviewed - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Steve - With the Afterburner coming in 170, 178 and 186 lengths, can you give some insight as to why you chose the shortest length?
post #32 of 59
Now that's what I call a review!!

That's what I call a review!!
post #33 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sullywhacker View Post
Steve - With the Afterburner coming in 170, 178 and 186 lengths, can you give some insight as to why you chose the shortest length?
I tried it and liked it...

I'm a pretty light guy (175lbs) and am used to skiing skis short these days. I took out the 170s this day and really liked the way they felt everywhere. Every pair of 178s that I had tried in the past (I didn't try the Afterburner in 178) I didn't really like, since they felt like they wanted to track longer turns and were tougher to ski in the bumps and chop. But, again, this is extrapolation, since I didn't try the Afterburner in that length.
post #34 of 59

ssh?

Have you tried the Fischer AMC 76's, and if so, how do they compare to both of the Salomons you tried?

Thanks,

PJS
post #35 of 59
Thread Starter 
PJS, I tried the 79, not the 76 (review here), and unfortunately did not like them at all; they seemed to get really tossed around. Of course, the dawg liked it (his review here), so certainly YMMV.

All of that said, the Salomons were much lighter feeling, but with a more solid feeling on the snow, as well. They didn't get kicked and deflected like the Fischer. I think the Fury is a very nice choice, and would personally move in that direction before the AMC line with Fischer. Interestingly, historically I have been a "Fischer guy" and haven't liked any Salomons before these because they were too damp.

Hope this helps...
post #36 of 59

Ssh..

Thanks, this does help.

PJS
post #37 of 59
FWIW, I owned the 05-06 AMC 76, demoed the Tornado recently, both at 170. IMO, ssh has it exactly right. Both are really light feeling, but the Sollies felt smoother, stronger, and easier to maneuver in most conditions. The AMC's were unholy good carving ice, but otherwise got knocked around more than I like.
post #38 of 59

Everyone

Thanks. This is the feedback I was looking for. It just re-confirms my own thoughts.

I am sure I would be happy with the AMC but the Tornado felt more sure, easier to turn, more stable and just as light.

PJS
post #39 of 59

Correct ski sizing

This is a great site, everyone.

I'm hoping you can give me some quick advice.

I'm just under 6', weigh about 225. I'm almost 39 and have been skiing since I was 5 so I would consider myself a moderately aggressive advanced/expert skier. I usually ski piste at moderate speeds but like to take a detour here and there, and enjoy a good wind burn.

I'm thinking about the Volkl AC3 or AC4 Unlimited, any of the Rossignol Zenith line, or the Salmon X Wing Fury in a 170-175cm.

Is this too short?
post #40 of 59
Think 175 to 180 and I think you will be happier. Also check out Fischer Watea 84 and Nordica Hot Rod Afterburner....the ski the author of this review bought.
post #41 of 59
Thread Starter 
macummings, at your size, I'd look at the long end of that spectrum.

Cirque is right, I really liked the Afterburner and bought it over the AC4. I've heard really good things about the new Volkls, but haven't skied them, yet. The Zenith is a smooth-skiing Rossi, so quite different from the others on the list.

Will you have the opportunity to demo them?
post #42 of 59
Cirquerider,

Why do you say 175 or 180. Do you think they'll be too squirrely at higher speeds?
post #43 of 59
SSV,

I'm trying to find a good deal from Ebay so I won't like be able to demo them. I can't be too picky yet (I have two young girls who won't be skiing for a while so I can't get up as much as I'd like) and the Zeniths I tried were excellent.
post #44 of 59
mac, I'm saying so because I'm your size and in those skis prefer the 178 lengths. Every one of those is an all mountain GS style ski. Its comfortable at speed and in longer radius turns. I have had the very short 168 - 170 skis and have moved back to longer sticks for the stability. If you were looking for very short radius carving skis, my advice might be different.

You might want to send a PM to a couple of our EpicSki sponsors Ptex1 and Dawgcatching to see what kind of deal they might have. Check the gear swap and you'll see their posts. The demo 178 Afterburners on Ebay, aren't too bad a deal, but they are saying 40 days of use. That's pretty high.
post #45 of 59
A slightly longer ski is not only more stable, but can be easier to be centered on. I skied 165 Fishcer RX8's for a while, then switched to 175's and find it easier to make clean carves, I don't get yanked through the turn as much if I'm not perfectly centered. And yes they are more stable.

No real disadvantage to me, I can still make short turns - maybe not quite as short, but short enough.

Me 5' 10 195lbs.
post #46 of 59
ssh, I have to say that your reviews can not possibly have any value. I mean how could they when you argue that the Metron (any Metron for that matter) skis well. I mean Metron's are, well, so old school. I'd expect to see them hanging on the walls next to those old wooden skis in the lodge...
Just kidding. Thanks for the fine reviews.


P.S. Now I understand why you mentioned the "old school" Metron. Your thread was started in Nov. 2006.
post #47 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macummings View Post
I'm trying to find a good deal from Ebay so I won't like be able to demo them. I can't be too picky yet (I have two young girls who won't be skiing for a while so I can't get up as much as I'd like) and the Zeniths I tried were excellent.
The Nordicas, Volkls, and Salomons will ski much different than the Rossis. If you like the feel of the Rossis, go with them. The others are more lively, with the Salomons the liveliest of the bunch (believe it or not).

That said, the more I've thought about it, the more the Salomons might be a nice ski for you, especially if you can find a good deal on them. They are lighter, a bit more energetic, but very stable nonetheless.
post #48 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostboy View Post
ssh, I have to say that your reviews can not possibly have any value. I mean how could they when you argue that the Metron (any Metron for that matter) skis well. I mean Metron's are, well, so old school. I'd expect to see them hanging on the walls next to those old wooden skis in the lodge...
Just kidding. Thanks for the fine reviews.


P.S. Now I understand why you mentioned the "old school" Metron. Your thread was started in Nov. 2006.


The Metrons were almost too easy to ski. Maybe they actually were too easy to ski. I have a number of friends who bought a few pairs last year to make sure they'd have them for a number of years into the future.

I think I'm learning more about skiing and being more active on these skis, but it was really easy to tip and turn on those Metrons!
post #49 of 59
I bought Jet Fuels this season as my one ski quiver. I have been skiing them for the last few days and really love them. They are so powerful it hard to believe it. Haven't had a chance to ski in the snow with them much. So I don't know how they will be in powder. I think they'll be fine. I'm 5'10" 165 pounds and am using the 170. I don't think that I need the extra stability from a 178 as the 170 seemed so strong. My second choice would have been the AC4. I know a few guys who used it as a single ski for the last couple of seasons.
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by macummings View Post
This is a great site, everyone.

I'm hoping you can give me some quick advice.

I'm just under 6', weigh about 225. I'm almost 39 and have been skiing since I was 5 so I would consider myself a moderately aggressive advanced/expert skier. I usually ski piste at moderate speeds but like to take a detour here and there, and enjoy a good wind burn.

I'm thinking about the Volkl AC3 or AC4 Unlimited, any of the Rossignol Zenith line, or the Salmon X Wing Fury in a 170-175cm.

Is this too short?
I did a review on this years 177cm Volkl AC40's last week. Would be a fantastic all around ski for someone your size/ability and the type of skiing you do. Do not go shorter on these. Can't compare them to the others you listed as I havn't skied them.
post #51 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetonpwdrjunkie View Post
I bought Jet Fuels this season as my one ski quiver. I have been skiing them for the last few days and really love them. They are so powerful it hard to believe it. Haven't had a chance to ski in the snow with them much. So I don't know how they will be in powder. I think they'll be fine. I'm 5'10" 165 pounds and am using the 170. I don't think that I need the extra stability from a 178 as the 170 seemed so strong. My second choice would have been the AC4. I know a few guys who used it as a single ski for the last couple of seasons.
It's a great ski, for sure. The Afterburner is the same ski without the metal. As a result, it's a bit more smooth in rough terrain, a bit lighter, and, from my perspective, even smoother and more fun in more different types of terrain (like bumps, for instance). If you get a chance, take the AB out for a spin and compare. I'd love to hear your thoughts...
post #52 of 59
mac, I have to agree, with your weight go with something in the 175 or more range. The Rossi Z9 you would get the 170 I think it is.

I'm 5'11" 195 and ski the Volkl's in 170cm, the Z9 I found the 162 more to my liking, the longer one was a slug at my weight.

My AC4's are almost 2 years old. I ski 65+ day's a season, these are my primary ski, thou I have 5 other skis a ski from time to time.

I was still running my AC4's at high speed this past Sunday, they must have over 80 day's on them. They still rip

Yea they could have a little more edge on the end of the day ice but with a little more ankle roll the hold ok.
post #53 of 59
I am a little surprised at the length that some of you are skiing on and now rethinking what length I should go with on the Atomic Crimson. I have been skiing on 177 G3 for 4 years, I am 5' 11" 162 lbs (level 8-9). I was thinking 176, but now thinking maybe 169??
post #54 of 59
Thread Starter 
DonT, you can likely ski either of those. IT really depends on your preference for stability and float v. quickness. What are your goals?
post #55 of 59
ssh, I like a little bit of everything, but if I had to choose, most of my time would be spent on off piste/crud/powder bumps. I am very aggressive and love to be on edge all the time! love to make fast GS turns on groomers, and every once in while some tight fast turns. I am leaning to the 176, I have a fear that the 169 will be too twitchy...I could be wrong with that assumption though!
post #56 of 59
Thread Starter 
I'd go with the longer ski, then, for sure. You might want to lean towards one with a bit more flex (less metal) to allow you to bend them more when you want to tighten the turns. FWIW, that's what I did.
post #57 of 59
Based on this thread and other research I bought a pair of Afterburners in 178 this year. Until last weekend I had only skied them on the manmade groomers where they exceeded my expectations. Well, Colorado finally got snow and I skied them in the new pow, crud, and lots of soft bumps. All I can say is my plans to have a quiver have gone out the window. I was really happy with their performance in the soft powder bumps we get so much of after a storm. No real issues in the crud either. Sure they're not as floaty at 84 as my 100 underfoot powder skis but they skied it just fine. For me they seem to do everything I want without any glaring flaws. I was enjoying the bumps so much I pretty well maxed out my early season legs. A good thing.

Steve
post #58 of 59
Thread Starter 


Steve, I have found that as I push 'em harder, they respond even more. They make some pretty tremendous arcs on hard snow and groomers, and then motor through nasty frozen crud, too. It's cool to hear that my experience is reflected in yours!
post #59 of 59
I agree with that. I've had them going pretty fast and I'm pretty sure their speed limit is higher than mine. I dropped straight down a steep groomed face the other day that has a big left turn at the bottom. As I was holding the turn I was thinking gee, my right leg feels like it has about four times the normal load on it right now. What I wasn't thinking was is this ski going to hold this arc?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews