or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 Volkl Gotama - Page 2

post #31 of 68
echoing what Sam just said.

while i have never skied the Goats in any configuration, i currently have retired 177 Karmas and 177 Mantras. Why? because both were way too short.

either that or after a season on 'em I realized i'm not a Volkl dude.

i have since replaced the Karmas with the 181 Blizzard Titan 9 and the Mantras with the 180 AK King Salmon, both skis that are much more to my liking.

but again, i think Sam's on the money. I constantly wished I'd gone longer on both the Karma and Mantra.

Live and learn (i'm digging the King Salmons way more anyway, so it all kinda worked out for the best).
post #32 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
Personally, I have never met somebody who owns fat skis who wants a shorter pair. I honestly don't recall anyone ever saying; "I wish they were shorter." Even in the trees, people like float and those skis that float are much easier to maneuver than shorter skis that sink just a millimeter more.
I own fat skis, and I wanted a shorter pair.

I had the 183 Sugar Daddies, which I found cumbersom in the deep, heavy chop I usually skied on Mt. Baker. They would've been bomber on wide open terrain. But, in Baker's short shots, with lots of trees, I found them clunky. For me, the ability to throw 'em around quick is a priority. So, I sold the 183's and bought 173's.

I haven't skied the goats, and would probably want them longer (The SD is a beefy beast - esp. in the middle).

As some have said, it depends upon terrain, preference, ski constructions and style.

At Whistler, you'll see guys (usually young ones) hauling down the hill making huge, Nobis-style turns. If that's your MO, go for 190 + planks.

I prefer rounder turns, and the surfing sensation one gets from slipping in an out of the pow.
post #33 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
I own fat skis, and I wanted a shorter pair.

I had the 183 Sugar Daddies, which I found cumbersom in the deep, heavy chop I usually skied on Mt. Baker. They would've been bomber on wide open terrain. But, in Baker's short shots, with lots of trees, I found them clunky. For me, the ability to throw 'em around quick is a priority. So, I sold the 183's and bought 173's.

I haven't skied the goats, and would probably want them longer (The SD is a beefy beast - esp. in the middle).

As some have said, it depends upon terrain, preference, ski constructions and style.

At Whistler, you'll see guys (usually young ones) hauling down the hill making huge, Nobis-style turns. If that's your MO, go for 190 + planks.

I prefer rounder turns, and the surfing sensation one gets from slipping in an out of the pow.
you buying the wrong ski for the job IMO. A Gotamas or Seth wil be much easier to ski trees on than your SDs.

I had the 173 SD and it was nimble but wouldnt float all that well and had a speed limit. The 183 Had no speed limit but constantly threw me head over heals and still didnt float that well. The 183 Gotama Float, is nimble in soft snow, and is stable at speed.
post #34 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
you buying the wrong ski for the job IMO. A Gotamas or Seth wil be much easier to ski trees on than your SDs.

I had the 173 SD and it was nimble but wouldnt float all that well and had a speed limit. The 183 Had no speed limit but constantly threw me head over heals and still didnt float that well. The 183 Gotama Float, is nimble in soft snow, and is stable at speed.
At this point, I'd probably go for the 183 Gotama's. They're the undisputed winner in deep snow. I haven't skied them, but everyone loves 'em.

I doubt I'd go for the the Seth's. Their flex feels soft as a noodle, and I've never liked K2's lack of edge-hold (compared to Atomic or Volkl).

A nice feature of the Sugar's is they plow through mank without a care, and they hold an edge when they have to.

I like float, but not too much (I wouldn't want Sanouk's). I like the sensation of surfing in and out of the fuff, not just hovering on top.

Hence, the SD's downside is less for me than it was for you. But, I agree, the 183 SD's were a bit beasty.

The 183 Gotama's are likely the ultimate tool.
post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
echoing what Sam just said.

while i have never skied the Goats in any configuration, i currently have retired 177 Karmas and 177 Mantras. Why? because both were way too short.

either that or after a season on 'em I realized i'm not a Volkl dude.

i have since replaced the Karmas with the 181 Blizzard Titan 9 and the Mantras with the 180 AK King Salmon, both skis that are much more to my liking.

but again, i think Sam's on the money. I constantly wished I'd gone longer on both the Karma and Mantra.

Live and learn (i'm digging the King Salmons way more anyway, so it all kinda worked out for the best).
Dookey - I have the 181 Titan 9 and am getting the 183 Gotama for next year. Where do you "draw the line" in snow conditions for using one over the other?

Sully
post #36 of 68
Captain Strat, my Scandinavian Brother!

You might have wanted to get on some Icelantics. They come in a 173 (the Shaman) and kill the tight trees (not so great in the wide open chop and death cookied, but man they LOVE to float in the ankle deep and deeper).



Sully, I actually haven't ridden my Titan 9's yet. I only demoed a pair of the 2005 piss greens (which were 82mm underfoot) in iced over spring conditions and they ripped. I dunno where I would draw the line. I usually take all my planks to the hill and figure it out. For example this past weekend I took out my Karmas. Rode 'em for two runs in ankle deep dust and re-confirmed that they are too short and too squirrely for my taste. Spent the rest of the day on my King Salmons, which are fastly becoming my go-to everyday all mountain ski.

I recently spent a week riding with some Epic heads in Colo and most of them were not riding anything wider than 88mm. There was one chicka on Bros and me on King Salmons and somebody on B3's and another on the femme version of the Karma and somebody on Scratch BC, but most were riding what I would consider to be narrow skis and they were ripping everything from nanky mank and slush to fresh powder, taters, and borderline boilerplate. I am becoming a firm believer that it really depends on your abilities.

That said, I'd probably use the T9 as an everyday ripper that will perform well on hardpack and minimal fresh dust. Save the Goat for those ankle deep + days. Of course there's that small faction who would say to just use the Goat every day.

post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
I like float, but not too much (I wouldn't want Sanouk's). I like the sensation of surfing in and out of the fuff, not just hovering on top.
Ummm.... the sanouk is not that much different than the Gotama when it comes to float. Gotama's got a slightly wider shovel, Sanouk has a slightly wider waist, Gotama's got a slightly wider tail. The things that make the Sanouk more of a specialty powder ski compared to the Gotama have little to do with it's waist width. And like I said a bazillion times before - no ski will have you "hovering on top"of powder. Also, no matter how anyone tries to defend them, short skis still suck.
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
And like I said a bazillion times before - no ski will have you "hovering on top"of powder. Also, no matter how anyone tries to defend them, short skis still suck.
You may dislike anything shorter than 190 (go for it), but wider skis ski differently.

Remember the old Atomic lunch tray's from the mid-90's? They floated like a barge.

I haven't skied recent iterations of the super-wides, but I've heard others make the same comment - too much float.

If you've had to say it a bazillion times, there must be a bazillion people who've disagreed with you.
post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
If you've had to say it a bazillion times, there must be a bazillion people who've disagreed with you.
ha ha ha ha
post #40 of 68
Captain Strato is looking at the wrong skis. Maneuverability in soft snow is determined by flex, not by length or sidecut. A 185 PR is extremely manueverable because when you roll it over in pow, the tip bends easily and takes off. Its why the Pontoon/Spatula/ARG are so maneuverable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
I doubt I'd go for the the Seth's. Their flex feels soft as a noodle, and I've never liked K2's lack of edge-hold (compared to Atomic or Volkl).

Ugh. Another one of those guys. What's the last time you actually skied a K2 Factory Team ski?
post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
Captain Strato is looking at the wrong skis. Maneuverability in soft snow is determined by flex, not by length or sidecut. A 185 PR is extremely manueverable because when you roll it over in pow, the tip bends easily and takes off. Its why the Pontoon/Spatula/ARG are so maneuverable.




Ugh. Another one of those guys. What's the last time you actually skied a K2 Factory Team ski?
agreed that the atomic "feels" like the it has more edge hold but the Seth is another ski that kills it in powder. I would by a Seth over every freeride atomic made they work better for someone like me. FYI The 179cm measures longer than the 183 Gotamas.

Strato the Gotamas wont plow though mank but it actually just kinda of stays right on top of it.

ON the SD front that was the only ski I ever skied on thinking man I would not or could not ski the Longer size and make it work for me. The Gotama I could easily ski the 190. the Round Flex is FTW!!!
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
Captain Strato is looking at the wrong skis. Maneuverability in soft snow is determined by flex, not by length or sidecut. A 185 PR is extremely manueverable because when you roll it over in pow, the tip bends easily and takes off. Its why the Pontoon/Spatula/ARG are so maneuverable.

Ugh. Another one of those guys. What's the last time you actually skied a K2 Factory Team ski?
I agree that soft skis work well when the snow is puffy. But, as soon as it gets gnarly, they're gone. Pontoon's, Seth's and PR's all flail on firm terrain (crud, crust, chickenheads, wind-swept fluted surface, etc.).

In some regions, you may be blessed with only soft fluff. Here in the PNW, it turns every shade of nasty.

Hence, the need for a pow ski with some oomph, body and edge. If you live in Utah, the Seth's and PR's are likely better skis. The Gotama's may exceed all in either location.

BTW, whats a K2 Factory Team ski - the ski only a factory team member receives?

Despite their popularity, you don't see K2's on the feet of many FIS racers. They're not bad skis, they just don't have talons.
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post

BTW, whats a K2 Factory Team ski - the ski only a factory team member receives?
The Freeride/freestyle skis. Most are sidewall construction and IMO the best skis K2 makes.

The Public Enemy, Seth, Made in AK are tehe sandwich then you have the silencer and the Fujative as the cap(made pretty much just for park)
post #44 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
I agree that soft skis work well when the snow is puffy. But, as soon as it gets gnarly, they're gone. Pontoon's, Seth's and PR's all flail on firm terrain (crud, crust, chickenheads, wind-swept fluted surface, etc.).

This is also why you probably want to have 2 wider skis in the quiver.


-1 for Gratuitous misuse of the term chickenhead.
-1 for using chickenhead and fluted surface in the same sentence.

:
post #45 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
I agree that soft skis work well when the snow is puffy. But, as soon as it gets gnarly, they're gone. Pontoon's, Seth's and PR's all flail on firm terrain (crud, crust, chickenheads, wind-swept fluted surface, etc.).

In some regions, you may be blessed with only soft fluff. Here in the PNW, it turns every shade of nasty.

Hence, the need for a pow ski with some oomph, body and edge. If you live in Utah, the Seth's and PR's are likely better skis. The Gotama's may exceed all in either location.

BTW, whats a K2 Factory Team ski - the ski only a factory team member receives?

Despite their popularity, you don't see K2's on the feet of many FIS racers. They're not bad skis, they just don't have talons.
You're so far off base that it doesn't even make sense trying to explain it to you.
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
You're so far off base that it doesn't even make sense trying to explain it to you.
And I appreciate it!
post #47 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
Strato the Gotamas wont plow though mank but it actually just kinda of stays right on top of it.
yes they do.
post #48 of 68
Lessenow...........

Children Ski on 176's
Ingrid Skis on 183's
I guess adult males of average stature need 190's
195 lb'ers like me should be on nothing less than 197's
Legendary (ITOM) skiers will need 204's

Yeah......................that sounds about right........:

SJ
Reply
post #49 of 68
Plowing through mank is mandatory here in PNW. Mt. Baker gets anywhere from 600 to 900 inches per year (no joke), and it's usually heavy and cut-up.

A friend of mine, Pousane, flies through the stuff on PR's. I take my hat off to him. If you're exceptionally nimble with great balance you can dance over and through the troughs like he does.

The rest of us rely on plowing through the crud, which only works with beefy skis - hence my preference for the Sugar Daddies.

I suspect the Goats would handle it well, as would Rossi Quads and Dynastar's big dogs.

70% is the skier, and 30% the skis.
post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
Plowing through mank is mandatory here in PNW. Mt. Baker gets anywhere from 600 to 900 inches per year (no joke), and it's usually heavy and cut-up.

A friend of mine, Pousane, flies through the stuff on PR's. I take my hat off to him. If you're exceptionally nimble with great balance you can dance over and through the troughs like he does.

The rest of us rely on plowing through the crud, which only works with beefy skis - hence my preference for the Sugar Daddies.

I suspect the Goats would handle it well, as would Rossi Quads and Dynastar's big dogs.

70% is the skier, and 30% the skis.
I ski at Alpy and this season that's just about to end, I only went up on weekends and only was inbounds, yet I barely had a day where it was really bad crud that was extremely cut up that I really felt like I needed a bigger/stiffer ski than my mojos. Most of the times when I faltered were on ice and moguls where I blame myself and try to work better, but I mean pretty much any wide stick will do the job of "plowing through crud". Anyways in the PNW I can usually find a place with either pow or very light crud not huge crud bumps.

Also I think it's more like 90/10, I mean the ski can make stuff MUCH more enjoyable but as long has you have some similar type skis it doesn't really make THAT huge of a difference. I mean if I had some new Atomics or something rather than my beat up to heck Mojos, I think I would still ski abou tthe same. The only change comes when you go to revolutionary shapes like reverse camber or huge skis.
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Lessenow...........

Children Ski on 176's
Ingrid Skis on 183's
I guess adult males of average stature need 190's
195 lb'ers like me should be on nothing less than 197's
Legendary (ITOM) skiers will need 204's

Yeah......................that sounds about right........:

SJ

SierraJim,

FYI, here's what HB Jr. was skiing his 176 Gotama's on this year. Although this picture is from last year (05-06) when he was on a 169 Karma, this year we skied the same lines (and more along the ridgeline) with him on the 176 Gotama's.

Notice not many trees and lots of wide open spaces. For him, skiing at Targhee , 125 lbs., 5' 4", Level 8 skier, the 176 Gotama's worked.





HB
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
If you've had to say it a bazillion times, there must be a bazillion people who've disagreed with you.
Well, I guess I could go with what a bazillion posters say on a forum that has the nickname of "Gapic" or I could go with my own personal experience.

And I guess I should have elaborated a bit on my "short skis suck" comment: Short skis are great for people who lack good powder technique and have to resort to muscling the ski around in powder. I guess that's why ski length is a "personal" choice - some people know how to ski, some are flailers.
post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarkinBanks View Post
SierraJim,

FYI, here's what HB Jr. was skiing his 176 Gotama's on this year. Although this picture is from last year (05-06) when he was on a 169 Karma, this year we skied the same lines (and more along the ridgeline) with him on the 176 Gotama's.

Notice not many trees and lots of wide open spaces. For him, skiing at Targhee , 125 lbs., 5' 4", Level 8 skier, the 176 Gotama's worked.

HB
Yo......HB

You will note that I never suggested that the 176's did not work for HB Jr. The suggestion from my post however, is that what he skis on (or what you or Ingrid skis on for that matter) has almost no bearing whatsoever upon what someone else should choose for themselves. If there were a logical extension starting from what HB Jr. skis on, then that silly scale that I posted might be valid (which it clearly isn't).

I loaned Sam my 183 Demos for the weekend in the hopes that he could get some sleep one way or another. Remember that his initial choice was based upon the fact the he skiied both sizes. He may well rethink his earlier decision and then again he may not. IAC, it'll be his judgement based upon what he thinks he can handle and not based upon a comparison to someone else who might well have different goals.

SJ
Reply
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Well, I guess I could go with what a bazillion posters say on a forum that has the nickname of "Gapic" or I could go with my own personal experience.

And I guess I should have elaborated a bit on my "short skis suck" comment: Short skis are great for people who lack good powder technique and have to resort to muscling the ski around in powder. I guess that's why ski length is a "personal" choice - some people know how to ski, some are flailers.
Jer - your undies are showing.
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Yo......HB

You will note that I never suggested that the 176's did not work for HB Jr. The suggestion from my post however, is that what he skis on (or what you or Ingrid skis on for that matter) has almost no bearing whatsoever upon what someone else should choose for themselves. If there were a logical extension starting from what HB Jr. skis on, then that silly scale that I posted might be valid (which it clearly isn't).


SJ

SJ, My bad. I didn't understand what you were trying to tell me.

Also, (after my first post - forgive me father for I have sinned) I think I was trying to make the same point you were.

Yes, based upon HB Jr. skiing a 176 Gotama we all should be on 197 Katana's or bigger.

HB
post #56 of 68

Final take on Gotama length

Jim at Sierra Ski and Snowboard was nice enough to let me borrow the 08 Gotamas in 183cm last weekend, to try one more time. It turned out to be one of the better powder days of the year on Sunday. I skied Sugarbowl Saturday and Alpine Meadows Sunday.
About me: been skiing 20+ years. 37yrs old. 5ft9in, 168 lbs. Decent shape. Pretty good skier-ski all terrain aggessively, no problem, carve on the groomers. Spend most time off trail.
Current skis: Pocket Rockets 175cm, K2 Apcache Crossfires, with Vist racing plate 167cm
Well, at the risk of facing eternal scorn and ridicule, I have to say I really did not like this ski in the longer length, even, and this really surprised me, in the powder. I enjoyed the 176cm ski a lot in most conditions, so the length is a big deal, apparently.
So here are my observations:
Groomers: did in fine, but take a looong time to come around. I remember the 176's as much more responsive and fun.
Hard Windbluffed crud (fun snow actually Saturday at Sugarbowl): Ok, but just too big to really enjoy the turns on this stuff. A narrower ski would've been easier and more fun, but it was fine.
Hard bumps: Here is where this ski really sucked for me. Just really hard to make some nice quick turns here. It felt like I had just way too long, heavy a ski to negociate these things. This sort of sealed the "not versatile" deal for me. I didn't try the 176 in these conditions, but negociating the nacent bumps at the top of West face off KT22 at Squaw to get powder leftovers was fine.
Powder: Aha, where these skis should rock my world, right? I was suprised not to like them much. Maybe people familiar with Pocket Rockets can chime in here, but I'm used to a ski that I can turn quickly. This seems to be important-every run at alpine was in tight terrain where I needed to make instantaneous turns around trees and obstacles. This seemed very hard to do. Big, ponderous, sluggish are the words that come to mind. Again, I remember enjoying the 176cm version just fine. They were bigger and stiffer than my pr's (which is the whole point) but easy to get to go where I needed.
They really seemed to slow me down as well, even just cruising through the powder. Has anyone else experienced this?

This experience shook me up a bit because I was very surprised not to find enjoyable in its primary conditions a ski everyone likes. That said, I'm looking forward to getting used to my Gotamas in the 176, as I know they're a great ski. The other thing that's become apparent through this demo process is what, for me anyway, a great ski the pocket rockets are. I can do amazing things on these skis-oh, five turns before this next tree, point it, throw them sideways before another tree, hit the gass again. And they make big bump runs in soft snow just so easy. I remember reading a long time ago an interview with the Salomon guys who developed the pr's and they said they purposely made them soft so you could feel the powder. I think that's very true, you do really feel the powder in a cool way on these things-very different than the bigger stiffer skis. Does that sound right to those of you who've skied on a lot of skis? You might say, well, why not just stick with the pocket rockets? Well, I want to progress with the sport too-bigger, faster, etc.
I thought it might be interesting to share my experience. I'm curious to hear what anyone thinks.
post #57 of 68
One more comment about the Gots:

I basically echo Samurai's comment on the length, don't go too short. The Gots however ski very short in general due to the fact that Völkl always overstates the length. The 183 is really a 179 straight whereas the 190 is really a 186. My old 190 Explosives are real 186 measured straight as well.

Point is avoid comparing apples to oranges since manufacturer's way of taking specs can differ significantly. Only really safe way is measure all specs yourself when fondling the skis in the shop. I too figured that out the hard way like some of you guys and gals - buying sticks I traded off again after skiing them just a few times.
post #58 of 68

Gotama 08 advice

Last posting this thread was a few months ago, hope one of you who knows this ski reads this. How long should I buy? I'm 6'3", 195lbs, 46 yrs, skiiing since 20s. I ski steep and deep whenever possible, but not as strong, young, or fearless as I wish. I don't own multiple pair, never had a pair this fat. Right now on 06 Karma which I like but want something bigger. I'm guessing 190 but is that too much ski? Also, binding advice? Emphasis on light and safety for may aging knees. Always liked Salomon but not averse to change. Thanks for any tips.
post #59 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by debidoson View Post
Last posting this thread was a few months ago, hope one of you who knows this ski reads this. How long should I buy? I'm 6'3", 195lbs, 46 yrs, skiiing since 20s. I ski steep and deep whenever possible, but not as strong, young, or fearless as I wish. I don't own multiple pair, never had a pair this fat. Right now on 06 Karma which I like but want something bigger. I'm guessing 190 but is that too much ski? Also, binding advice? Emphasis on light and safety for may aging knees. Always liked Salomon but not averse to change. Thanks for any tips.
Ten years younger, or ultra-fit, and I'd say go with 190 cm +.

But, where you are (close to where I am), I'd say 183 cm. It's all the girth and length you'll need, plus it's easier to muscle and noodle. Longer stuff is for guys pushing the limit.
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by debidoson View Post
Last posting this thread was a few months ago, hope one of you who knows this ski reads this. How long should I buy? I'm 6'3", 195lbs, 46 yrs, skiiing since 20s. I ski steep and deep whenever possible, but not as strong, young, or fearless as I wish. I don't own multiple pair, never had a pair this fat. Right now on 06 Karma which I like but want something bigger. I'm guessing 190 but is that too much ski? Also, binding advice? Emphasis on light and safety for may aging knees. Always liked Salomon but not averse to change. Thanks for any tips.
What size are the karmas? and also do you plan to keep them?

I would say 190cm if they will be powder only with tight places, and 183cm if they will be used more than just powder days.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews