New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Demos-Skis for Bumps

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Intro: In this review, I'm focusing only on a skis ability to handle moguls and all of their variables. No mogul specific skis are included because of unavalibility. Skis were tried at three seperate demo sessions.the first at Crystal Mt. WA, last Dec. , the second at Snoqualmie Summit in March and the third, back at Crystal, also in March. The conditions for #1-packed powder and crud,#2 & 3-spring snow.

Purpose:[ Yes everything in life must have a purpose],To return a little something to the Epic Community.
Real purpose: All of these skis have been previously reviewed here, but with only casual mention to bump ability.

Bio And Bias: Off piste skier, black and double black,on non powder days that means some kind of bumps. I got to be a good bumper in the 70's on 205 slalom skis. I'm partial to quick, versatile skis with some rebound and a touch of forgiveness.I like skis a bit longer than typical for my size [5' !!", 170lb] 175 cm. Yes, I'm a Dinosaur. I'm looking for skis that turn back the clock.

Home mountain: Crystal Mt. Wa. days per yr. 30+

Skis that did not make the cut and soundbites:

Rossi B2- 175-damp and slow
Z9- 175-better, but the same style
Multix R11- 175- Nice idea but with long bars was a groomer. Short bars ,better but still to damp
Salomon Tornado -178-tip to light, crud bumps throw it around
Elan Speedwave 14 -178- a haulbutt groomer ski
Magfire 10 -176-arc machine but hard to change turn shape quickly
K2 Recon 174- crudbuster only
Volkl 5S 175- I wanted this ski to work out because of my SP9 and P20 days,but like the ss titanium it was just to much work. great on flatter terrain
Atomic B5- 172- small sweet spot
11B5 -176 bigger sweet spot ,not as lively
Metron 9-175 -underpowered
Head M78- 175 a very nice ski but had to finish the turns,It hung up a bit as it got to the fall line.
Xeon- 170 to forgiving no pop
Fischer RX9- not quick enough

The winners:

Dynastar Contact 11- I tried this ski in 172 and 178. Both were good in mixed snow conditions and bump shapes. a comfortable ski with a bit more of an all mountain feel e.g. regular crud,smother areas

Fischer RX8- 170- I tried this ski last spring, zipper line quick, enough flex to ride up and over ,enough rebound to hop from side face to side face. I would have bought this stick if I hadn't spent the whole ski buget on cat skiing

Fisher Progressor-175- quick enough, edgy,crud and slop made it unhappy, but if you can really pound the bumps this is your ski

Nordica Mach 3 [non power]-178- this ski did everything well. Noodle the troffs,up and over , zipper, even had enough tail to jet turn .[anybody else remember those]

Head SS Mag-170- Another winner, a bit more tail than the Nordica and a bit more racer heart but it put a smile on my face

Head SS Mag -175-I was surprised in the difference between this ski and the 170. This ski was much more race like it was work to stay with this ski

Head SS-170-Wow, this ski was making turns on the chair.It would turn though anything. Crud, spring piles,dead bodies. In big spaced moguls it would be saying- come on bud don't relax lets turn.The tail can wash out if you don't watch it.

Versatility:
1. Mach 3
2. Head SS Mag 170
3. Dynastar 11
3. RX 8
4. Head SS
5. head SS Mag 175
6.Progressor

All day ski:
1. SS
2. Mach 3
3. 11
4. RX 8
4. Mag 170
5. Mag 175
5. Progressor

Basher VS Noodler : [basher first]
1. Progressor
2. Mag 175
3. Rx8
4. Mach 3
5. Mag 170
6. 11
7. SS
post #2 of 27
I don't know what any of this post meant...

...but then my nickname in college was slowhand so we're probably on opposite ends of the spectrum
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by quickfoot View Post
Head SS Mag-170- Another winner, a bit more tail than the Nordica and a bit more racer heart but it put a smile on my face

Head SS Mag -175-I was surprised in the difference between this ski and the 170. This ski was much more race like it was work to stay with this ski

Head SS-170-Wow, this ski was making turns on the chair.It would turn though anything. Crud, spring piles,dead bodies. In big spaced moguls it would be saying- come on bud don't relax lets turn.The tail can wash out if you don't watch it.
Are these '07/'08 skis? I don't see them on the Head web site.
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
Are these '07/'08 skis? I don't see them on the Head web site.
Yes they are.
post #5 of 27
the irony that you wanted a bump ski and didnt test out one all mountain twin tip.
post #6 of 27
Actually, that was surprisingly useful. Post more as you can.

ratings on the Dyna 11 more for the 172cm or 178cm?
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Actually, that was surprisingly useful. Post more as you can.

ratings on the Dyna 11 more for the 172cm or 178cm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
the irony that you wanted a bump ski and didnt test out one all mountain twin tip.
Its sort of useful. About as useful as skiing a bunch of slalom carving skis are rating them by their utility in deep powder or crud. All the skis he recommends have a ton of metal in them, ergo they will last maybe 20-40 days if you hit the bumps on a daily basis.

So true BWIPA, and the one ski that actually should be a pretty good bump ski (Rossi B2) didn't even make his 1st cut.
post #8 of 27
OTOH the ski type selected for review is the one I have a quiver of.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
It appears I need clarify a few things.

First, this thread was intended to have a very narrow focus. It is meant for skiers who think of a steep mogul run as a playfield and like quick skis.


Second, What I was doing with these demos is replacing my existing bumpski, a K2 Mod X, 107-70-97 in a 188cm length.[yes I can make a 188 cook in the bumps] This ski was purchased after another extensive demo hunt way back when. I demo alot. I also occasionally ski bumps on a Volant Soul, 109-72-99 in a 180 length, that i picked up cheep, and it has been surprisingly fun. This is a metal ski that I expect durability issues with.

Third,
All the skis he recommends have a ton of metal in them, ergo they will last maybe 20-40 days if you hit the bumps on a daily basis.

I make it a point to select skis with less metal in them. The K2 Mod X had a Pro model which was the same ski but with added metal. I did not include the Nordica Mach 3 Pro or the Head Supershape Speed, again both with added metal layers over the mach 3 and regular Head SS. For me it is not so much a durability issue as a performance one. More Metal= damp and stable, less metal= quick and agile.

Fourth,
the irony that you wanted a bump ski and didnt test out one all mountain twin tip.

I own one

Fifth,

So true BWIPA, and the one ski that actually should be a pretty good bump ski (Rossi B2) didn't even make his 1st cut.

My Brother skis this ski. He is 5'9'' 195# and skis it in a 175. We ski the same places. however, he is a slowfoot ,Im a quickfoot

Final note,
Next time i'll post this type of review under the Fat Skis Suck thread.
post #10 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Actually, that was surprisingly useful. Post more as you can.

ratings on the Dyna 11 more for the 172cm or 178cm?
The 172 had a higher fun factor in the bumps while the 178 was a bit more versatile in that it handled different size and shapes of bump better. the 178 was also a better all mountain ride. Me 5'11, 170#
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by quickfoot View Post
Second, What I was doing with these demos is replacing my existing bumpski, a K2 Mod X, 107-70-97 in a 188cm length.[yes I can make a 188 cook in the bumps] This ski was purchased after another extensive demo hunt way back when. I demo alot. I also occasionally ski bumps on a Volant Soul, 109-72-99 in a 180 length, that i picked up cheep, and it has been surprisingly fun. This is a metal ski that I expect durability issues with.
I was skiing a Metron B5 for most of the season and a Volkl 5* most of last season. When the spring bump season came round I got back on my 181CM K2 MODs. I had forgotten how great a bump ski they were. They are also alot more similar to a comp bump ski than a metron or any modern carving ski. Its surprising how when someone on epic talks about good bump skis how rarely the skis mentioned are actually good in bumps. Usually they seem to mean good for a carving ski. In reality a stiffer ski is harder to use in bumps. In reality more side cut is a crutch in the bumps.

Were any of the skis you reviewed good compared to your MODs?
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 
Were any of the skis you reviewed good compared to your MODs?[/quote]

It is tough to do a direct comparison, mostly because of stepping down 10 cm in length, however the ski that came the closest was the Nordica Mach 3. The Mod is very versatile, a touch forgiving but with enough rebound to keep it interesting. The Nordica had these same characteristics. In Dawgcatchings recent review of this ski he also comments on its versatility. This is the ski that I bought.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
In reality a stiffer ski is harder to use in bumps. In reality more side cut is a crutch in the bumps.
if they are nice and round then yes sidecut can matter alot, if they are choppy and all over the place. Longer and straighter is better.
post #14 of 27
I've found the Contact 11 to be surprisingly nice in bumps; suspect it's the ease of breaking the narrow tail loose. And maybe the lack of metal (only in the floating plate). But that big shovel doesn't make them exactly lightning quick.

FWIW, I can see the problem about the B2; it's not a short turner. But my old (04) B1's are still the best bump ski I know, although they don't hold up in many other categories. (Light pow's about it).
post #15 of 27
Hey quickfoot - I just wanted to say "thanks!" for a great thread. After spending the last XX number of years buying skis for my kids I may actually buy a new pair for myself. But for the first time I can remember I've completely lost track of what *good* skis are out there and I had been at the mercy of the "educated" opinions in ski shops.

The RX8 has been on my short-list and your post confirms what I've heard from other people. My only concern is for a ski's durablity and from what I've read the RX8 should be as durable as any ski out there...

Thanks again!!!
post #16 of 27
Great thread. I did something to clear my mind that I'm not nuts. I have the Rossi Z9's and was able to ski them proficiently in loose wide spaced bumps. However in the tight bumps, the tips tended to hook and throw me into a spin.

I guess I'm kind of an old school guy. I spent about 10 seasons on a pair of 203 Head SL's. I finally broke one, It didn't even come off. I wondered why is the tail catching. Some guy said 'look your ski is broke.' Sure enough, landed between two moguls, and guess the old guys couldn't handle it anymore.

I'm about an inch taller, 6'0" and 45# heavier, 215#. Should I go for these skis demoed in the longer lengths? Looking for something that skis moguls well, but also performs other places as well.
post #17 of 27
Still casting around? OK, here are some current skis that I or others think are very good in bumps, very different in other apps to fit other priorities (assuming you can figure them out in a rational order, and assuming this is still a thread focusing on bumps.):

Nordica Mach 3, OP. Hasn't gotten any worse. Versatile do everything carver that everyone loves. Not much float obviously.

Dynastar Contact 9's. Less pintail than the 11/10, softer, lighter, and I'm told even better in bumps and tight places. Quicker edge to edge than any ski you list, also the most forgiving, great grip at low to moderate speeds but a softer narrower tail for early release. And bindings are the best around for absorbing shocks instead of ejecting. Not for speed or crud, no way.

Stockli XL's. Short (like 164). Unorthodox choice, but Stocklis have less sidecut than most skis, are very happy to pivot, soft tail release, also rock on ice and in backside crud/chop, and you'll break before they do.

Head iM78. Semi-unorthodox, but I've been amazed how well Head makes stiff heavy skis dance through bumps. Get this short and save Mantras for the backside since they don't like ice, trust me.

Salomon Foils. Yes, that wide. Sollie twins are soft, light, balanced flex, always quick in bumps. And lighter skiers use them as all-mountains. Then you can go to the park or seek stashes. Not for speed or crud busting, so get them short and use Mantras/whatevers for those.

Line Prophet 80. Midway between the Foils and the Karmas/Walls in stiffness and mission, so does everything very well. Also cheap (you can find last year's for a song), and true twins (tail as high as tip, balanced flex), so very nice going switch in the park.

Public Enemies. Everyone who skis them says they kill bumps, as long as you don't get them too long. Which gets you into Mantra/whatever land anyway.

OP skis I would actually NOT recommmend: RX8's. Most entertaining carver ever, love 'em, but tails are too energetic, uh, carvey, for a serious bump ski. Head SS. Own 'em, most versatile carver in the universe, but too much shape, too turny, for a serious bump ski. Almost any of the Heads or Fischers you list, in fact. All are more about power carving than bumps, and that's a critical difference.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Still casting around? OK, here are some current skis that I or others think are very good in bumps, very different in other apps to fit other priorities (assuming you can figure them out in a rational order, and assuming this is still a thread focusing on bumps.):

Nice to see this thread still getting some action.
post #19 of 27

Bump...

I didn't even realize this started back in April. I thought I had searched the bump threads though and through. Good thread. Don't know how I missed it.
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnys Zoo View Post
Great thread. I did something to clear my mind that I'm not nuts. I have the Rossi Z9's and was able to ski them proficiently in loose wide spaced bumps. However in the tight bumps, the tips tended to hook and throw me into a spin.

I guess I'm kind of an old school guy. I spent about 10 seasons on a pair of 203 Head SL's. I finally broke one, It didn't even come off. I wondered why is the tail catching. Some guy said 'look your ski is broke.' Sure enough, landed between two moguls, and guess the old guys couldn't handle it anymore.

I'm about an inch taller, 6'0" and 45# heavier, 215#. Should I go for these skis demoed in the longer lengths? Looking for something that skis moguls well, but also performs other places as well.
You know, the ski length question is a tough one. There are just to many variables to just say yes go longer. How big are the bumps, how tightly spaced, how fast do you ski, how much time spent in the bumps. Also I am one of those short skis suck guys. Most ski shop rats would probably say go even shorter than I did. My advise would be to pick a ski such as the Dynastar and try multiple lengths and go from there.
post #21 of 27
I hate to throw the proverbial wrench in the spokes but... does anyone use a modern slalom race ski in the bumps?

I could get 2 for 1 on this deal. I don't plan on racing much. Probably 4 weekends at that most. But I do spend a lot of time in the bumps.
post #22 of 27
I have looking at the SS Magnums also in a 170cm and I am in a quandry about these or im88's.

Opinion?
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnys Zoo View Post
I hate to throw the proverbial wrench in the spokes but... does anyone use a modern slalom race ski in the bumps?

I could get 2 for 1 on this deal. I don't plan on racing much. Probably 4 weekends at that most. But I do spend a lot of time in the bumps.
I used my metron b5s in bumps a few days last year. The skis worked, but the stiffness was pretty wearing after a while. I really had to ski slow and rely on the side cut of the ski to make round turns. In that sense it might help to learn bumps. But I soon mound myself much more comfortable on a longer turning softer ski.
post #24 of 27
Have you tried an 05' Rossi B2. Soft, not a huge sidecut and a little wider than the B1. You can also find whatever length you want for cheap. I ski the east and if you keep em sharp they hold hard snow and ice just fine. The key is to freshen up the edge every time you go out. Also throw out the 1/1 bevel and go straight to 3/1.
post #25 of 27
repeat post.
post #26 of 27
Tromano speaks the truth. I've skied lotsa very stiff carvers/crosses/midfats in bumps, yes it can be done, even decently, but no it isn't a lot of fun after a while. And in theory this is a thread about OPTIMAL rec bump skis, not whether you can make a 207 Duke or a Atomic WC slalom work.

IMO, the flex pattern and tail design are far more important than the width. My old Pocket Rockets were amazing in big icy bumps, like in the trees at Vail/Blue Ski when it hasn't snowed in a week. Same day, my 6* sucked. Take the lesson and run with it...
post #27 of 27
quickfoot,
Very nice review. Thankyou for the time and effort. Keep up the good work!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews