EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Apache Chief compared to 4FRNT VCT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Apache Chief compared to 4FRNT VCT

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I have the dimensions and know that the K2 is 6mm narrower in waiste.
k2 :131/98/116
VCT: 129/104/121

The sizes avail to me are 182cm in the VCT vs 174/181 in the Chief. I have a 178cm dyn8k that seems a bit long too me, Maybe just my inexperience with that length.

I had made a purchase on a demo Gotama that I am returning cause I purchased the wrong, too short, size. So I have a credit and these 2 skis seem to fit the bill.

I plan on learning to ski more powder this season and that is the reason I went with the Gotama but didn't realize in time that a 168 was too short for me. Me 180lbs, 5'10" ski Tahoe area, mostly groomed at this point but wanting to go on to other heights. I have a Snoop daddy in a 174 that I like so far, having only skied it once late last year.

Anybody have any experience with these skis or better yet any opinions on which might suit me better? I know that there are a lot of skis on the market but I am commited (or should be to this retailer.

Oh, I have done the search thing on the skis and appreciate all that has been written about the Chief. Not so much on the 4rnt vct,

Thanks in advance for your input.
post #2 of 26
Thread Starter 
Bump, with edit, oh and I know one is a twin and as yet I don't ski backwards.
post #3 of 26
... and because one is a twin and the other measures long, they will have a similar effective edge.

It sounds like you're looking at this as a quiver ski, complimenting the Snoop Daddies. Anything else in the quiver? I would think that since you have an 88mm wide 174cm ski, you would be looking at using these for deeper days. If so, at 180 pounds, you might want to think about going a bit longer -- 179 K2 non-twin, mid-180s for others. You're going to use these for situations where you want to maximize float and stability.

I have not skied either of these, but the waist width isn't the only significant dimension. The K2 has noticeably more sidecut, and also more of a pintail.
post #4 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
... and because one is a twin and the other measures long, they will have a similar effective edge.

It sounds like you're looking at this as a quiver ski, complimenting the Snoop Daddies. Anything else in the quiver? I would think that since you have an 88mm wide 174cm ski, you would be looking at using these for deeper days. If so, at 180 pounds, you might want to think about going a bit longer -- 179 K2 non-twin, mid-180s for others. You're going to use these for situations where you want to maximize float and stability.

I have not skied either of these, but the waist width isn't the only significant dimension. The K2 has noticeably more sidecut, and also more of a pintail.
Yes this will be a "quiver ski", most likely used for deeper powder days. I have the snoops in a 174cm at 88mm waist, metron 9s at 74 mm waist which will most likely be used in early conditons and less snow, I also have 178 dyn 8000, but will probably sell as they feel a bit long on groomers and the snoops feel good. The K2 Chiefs are only avail in the 174 and 181cm. The 4frnt only in 182cm which as you say will probably feel shorter due to the twin tips. And yes I will want to maximize float and still be able to "control" manuever the ski.

Mark
post #5 of 26
If it were me, and based on my wife's love for her Phat Luvs, I'd go for the Chiefs in a 181.
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
If it were me, and based on my wife's love for her Phat Luvs, I'd go for the Chiefs in a 181.
Thanks.:
post #7 of 26
those 168 Gots would be perfect for your wife.

I think you would be happy on the K2's I think you would like the 174 better initaily but might grow out of them as the season progresses.

Have you looked at solomon PR or Guns in the mid 170's to 180 range?
post #8 of 26
To clarify the 181 suggestion, MTT is right that the 174s might feel more comfortable early on. If you didn't have the Snoops, I'd probably go for the 174s. But I figure you'll use the Snoops on shallower days, so you might as well maximize your float (and increase your turning radius) on the deep ones.
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
those 168 Gots would be perfect for your wife.

I think you would be happy on the K2's I think you would like the 174 better initaily but might grow out of them as the season progresses.

Have you looked at solomon PR or Guns in the mid 170's to 180 range?
Mike, The solly guns are an option from this retailer, unfortunately they only have them in 164cm and 188cm. Cheryl really doesn't like any off piste or powder, that being said the gots would be nice if I could get her to explore a bit, but alas she may be happy with cruising the groomers..

If I didn't have the snoops I would go with the 174cm Chiefs, I think that I'll like the snoops alot and will most likely go with the 181 Chief. Tommorrow morning at 9am will tell, the moment of truth.
post #10 of 26
I'm 6'1" 180 and I have the 182 VCT's and 183 Gots, I haven't tried the K2's. The VCT's ski like the Got's.... a little shorter feeling, more durable bases, float a little better in pow. The Got's do everything else.. edge grip, turn a little faster, more stable at high speeds a smidge better.
post #11 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmalloy View Post
I'm 6'1" 180 and I have the 182 VCT's and 183 Gots, I haven't tried the K2's. The VCT's ski like the Got's.... a little shorter feeling, more durable bases, float a little better in pow. The Got's do everything else.. edge grip, turn a little faster, more stable at high speeds a smidge better.
Thanks for this perspective. I was just thinking and said,"self", if you are leaning towards the Chiefs in a 181 why not the VCT in a 182 with a bit more width and perhaps better float? I reallt can't find too much on this site about the VCT, TGR has some posts and it seems some skiers have had durability issues. Haven't read much tho. What about the twin tip vs the Chiefs for someone who won't utilize the twin tip feature. Well I guess I might feel acrobatic some day:.
post #12 of 26
A wider waist is not the same as more width. The K2's tip is wider than the VCT's.

K2's 181 would be other ski companies' 185 or 186. Plus, the VCT is a twin, which shortens effective length. IMHO, twins are not terribly useful if you don't ski switch -- the portion of the ski that doesn't contact the snow is just dead weight and nominal length.
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
Thanks for this perspective. I was just thinking and said,"self", if you are leaning towards the Chiefs in a 181 why not the VCT in a 182 with a bit more width and perhaps better float? I reallt can't find too much on this site about the VCT, TGR has some posts and it seems some skiers have had durability issues. Haven't read much tho. What about the twin tip vs the Chiefs for someone who won't utilize the twin tip feature. Well I guess I might feel acrobatic some day:.

With no basis in fact, I would like to see you get the 4frnts.

Cool factor?::
post #14 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
A wider waist is not the same as more width. The K2's tip is wider than the VCT's.

K2's 181 would be other ski companies' 185 or 186. Plus, the VCT is a twin, which shortens effective length. IMHO, twins are not terribly useful if you don't ski switch -- the portion of the ski that doesn't contact the snow is just dead weight and nominal length.
Alpinedad, I am a bit perplexed by this , do you mean that the K2 181 will ski longer than other non-twin skis of the same length? Will the 181 "feel like a 185 or 186 or in powder will it have the same surface area on snow. Sorry to be so confused on this issue. Just a guess on my part but I am wondering if the Gotamas skiers all ski switch or not. I probably, most likely will never ski in the Park or do jumps by choice, well who knows about never?
post #15 of 26
I find that the twin or turned up rounded tail allows me to smear the ski better in soft snow. And in steep areas where I need to work the ski more I find a ski with a flat square tail will grab and I find myself making more up moves to insure that i have disengaged the tail of the ski.

All of my skis have rounded upturned tails now and I just feel smoother and more confident skiing them.

I rarely ski switch
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
Alpinedad, I am a bit perplexed by this , do you mean that the K2 181 will ski longer than other non-twin skis of the same length? Will the 181 "feel like a 185 or 186 or in powder will it have the same surface area on snow. Sorry to be so confused on this issue. Just a guess on my part but I am wondering if the Gotamas skiers all ski switch or not. I probably, most likely will never ski in the Park or do jumps by choice, well who knows about never?
Sorry for the confusion. There are two separate issues.

K2 vs. other companies: Most ski companies measure by putting a tape measure along the base of the ski, following every curve. K2 measures by placing the ski on a flat surface and measuring tip to tail on that surface, along a straight plane. The net result is that if you put a K2 ski and another manufacturer's ski of the same nominal length side by side, the K2 will typically be about 4cm longer in real life.

Twin vs non-twin: Because the upturned tail doesn't contact the snow, twins ski shorter for their nominal length than flat-tails. Many skis (including, IIRC, the Chief) have a slight "kick" to the tail, leaving them somewhere in between. The difference is particularly noticeable on edge on groomers, where the only point in contact with the snow is the edge. In softer snow, IMHO, it's much more dependent on tail shape.

You'll notice that many reviews of Gotamas suggest that they ski short for their nominal length. Part of the reason is presumably the twin.
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
Alpinedad, I am a bit perplexed by this , do you mean that the K2 181 will ski longer than other non-twin skis of the same length? Will the 181 "feel like a 185 or 186 or in powder will it have the same surface area on snow. Sorry to be so confused on this issue. Just a guess on my part but I am wondering if the Gotamas skiers all ski switch or not. I probably, most likely will never ski in the Park or do jumps by choice, well who knows about never?
I think Alpinedad is referring to the fact that K2 length measurements are different as compared with other brands. I think they measure the running length vs overall length , or something close to that.

If you put a 181 Chief back to back with a 183 Gotama you willl see the Chief is a longer ski.
post #18 of 26
Sorry AD:
I didn't know you had replied!
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama View Post
I think Alpinedad is referring to the fact that K2 length measurements are different as compared with other brands. I think they measure the running length vs overall length , or something close to that.

If you put a 181 Chief back to back with a 183 Gotama you willl see the Chief is a longer ski.
Following this logic then a 174 K2 chief would compare to a 178-179 flat tail ski? Interesting.
post #20 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
Sorry for the confusion. There are two separate issues.

K2 vs. other companies: Most ski companies measure by putting a tape measure along the base of the ski, following every curve. K2 measures by placing the ski on a flat surface and measuring tip to tail on that surface, along a straight plane. The net result is that if you put a K2 ski and another manufacturer's ski of the same nominal length side by side, the K2 will typically be about 4cm longer in real life.

Twin vs non-twin: Because the upturned tail doesn't contact the snow, twins ski shorter for their nominal length than flat-tails. Many skis (including, IIRC, the Chief) have a slight "kick" to the tail, leaving them somewhere in between. The difference is particularly noticeable on edge on groomers, where the only point in contact with the snow is the edge. In softer snow, IMHO, it's much more dependent on tail shape.

You'll notice that many reviews of Gotamas suggest that they ski short for their nominal length. Part of the reason is presumably the twin.
So Alpinedad, for the intended use, being a specialty pow ski, the shape of the tail being upturned as in twin or flat as in chief will affect the in pow performance. I won't plan on using this ski (whichever I choose) except in softer/deeper snow. Once I figure out the technique of course. Logically it would seem that in pow even several inches deep or say boot top deep, most of the skis base will be either in the snow or foating on top? I really don't speak from experience here as the last and first time I skied anything deeper than knee high was on my metrons and it was challenging at best. Thanks for the input, I have so much to learn about the finer points of skis.
post #21 of 26
love the Chief
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
Following this logic then a 174 K2 chief would compare to a 178-179 flat tail ski? Interesting.
More or less. It varies from ski to ski and manufacturer to manufacturer. But the net is that the contact patch of the 174 Chief is probably as big or bigger than the 181 VCT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkevenson View Post
So Alpinedad, for the intended use, being a specialty pow ski, the shape of the tail being upturned as in twin or flat as in chief will affect the in pow performance. I won't plan on using this ski (whichever I choose) except in softer/deeper snow. Once I figure out the technique of course. Logically it would seem that in pow even several inches deep or say boot top deep, most of the skis base will be either in the snow or foating on top? I really don't speak from experience here as the last and first time I skied anything deeper than knee high was on my metrons and it was challenging at best. Thanks for the input, I have so much to learn about the finer points of skis.
A few distinct points.

In deeper snow, the upturned tail will probably provide slightly more float than if the ski were just chopped off at the point where the rise starts, and considerably less float than if the ski extended out without a significant rise.

In normal soft snow circumstances, only the tip (if anything) would not be at least in contact with the snow, if not submerged.

Assuming that you're skiing at a resort, you will inevitably be skiing it at least some of the time in harder and shallower snow.
post #23 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiDork View Post
love the Chief
And the reason is.............
post #24 of 26
Couple more points on the VCT's and Goats, both are pretty darn light. Durability issues.... white topsheet Gots have paper thin bases, VCT's much better but not in the realm of super durable like Scott P4's. Topsheets, the VCT's tend to chip easily, topsheet edges chip and fray, this can be avoided by putting a bevel all the way around the topsheet with a file.
post #25 of 26

k2 chief in a 174cm

I just bought a K2 Chief this weekend in a 174cm length.
It stands just as tall as a 177cm Volkl Supersport.

Tom
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by t1henderson View Post
I just bought a K2 Chief this weekend in a 174cm length.
It stands just as tall as a 177cm Volkl Supersport.

Tom
Me too, thanks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Apache Chief compared to 4FRNT VCT