EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Definition of an "All Mountain" Ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Definition of an "All Mountain" Ski - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I'm saying that most skis are effectively all-mountain skis in the hands of a skilled skier, regardless of their labels, and regardless of how we might classify the skis. An obvious exception (IMO) would be a rockered powder ski, which has a fairly narrow mission and is not something I would care to be carving on.

Out of my quiver of 4-5 skis, only one pair (my mid-fats) is officially designated in the all-mountain category by marketing speak, but I ski all of the skis as all-mountain boards. I can't see a reason why they wouldn't be considered all-mountain skis by most standards. Yes, I have to accept certain weaknesses to take the skis out of their target element, but it's not a serious compromise.

But that leads to an interesting question, sort of related to my IMO above. What skis are *not* capable of being all-mountain skis in the hands of a good skier? In other words, what ski has such a narrow focus that it's weaknesses outside that focus seriously detract from the ability to be an all-mountain ski?
I agree with SJ that the compromises are whats important. But for each mtn and for each person the compromises, skills, and opportunities they have are different. The performance you get out of a ski depends on your skills, the terrian, snow conditions, lots of factors. If you are an expert skier who can carve hard pack on a 110mm wide ski then you probably won't care about a skis inherent edge grip or hardpack abilities because you can ski groomers on it no matter what. Groomers are easy to ski so most advanced skiers people won't have a problem using something that is 110mm wide there unless its super bullet proof. This is the reason why for me the notion of an all mountain ski doesn't hold water. There are all mountain skiers, not all mountain skis.

I have a 3 ski quiver

-im103 which is a super stiff damp, straight ski I use for charging hard in a variety of conditions. Super stable at speed. Want to be driven hard in turns. Super in crud and setup snow. Good grip on piste. Straight and stiff, not horrible in bumps.

-Scott P4 Not a real charger ski but more of a fun and easy buttery soft snow ski. For pow days and a day or two after. Trees.

-K2 PE which I haven't mounted up yet. Basically a skinny ski for days when it hasn't snowed in a while but I don't want the challenge of the m103. Should be good on days when I am looking for bumps.

I can rip groomers on any of these assuming its not bullet proof. If its BP then the scotts lose out on the grip, but I can still work them. Bumps are doable but alot of work on the m103. Pretty good on the P4. and probably much more fun on the PE. In crud the m103 is clearly the destroyer. The P4 floats over heavier thicker cut up and crud easily. The PE I am curious to see how it does. On deep days the P4 is a super floater. I am heavy enough to flex the m103 but its still a bottom feeder in pow. The PE I have heard good things in pow and I want to see how it works. The shape of the PE is similar to my nordica beast (long lowrise tip) which I converted to my AT skis. But the PE is slightly narrower and slightly stiffer. I guess you could say they are all all mountain skis.

I think skis on the extremes of flex, running length (rockered skis have a VERY short effective edge), turn radius, width, will be much less versatile than ones that fall more in the middle.
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
-im103 which is a super stiff damp, straight ski
I want. :
post #33 of 41
Gregg, I think the 183 is the ski for you. They have the supermojo on sale at lvl9 but tis only the 193. I think its like $300 or so. A pair of 183s usually comes up on TGR every few months as well.
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I'm saying that most skis are effectively all-mountain skis in the hands of a skilled skier, regardless of their labels, and regardless of how we might classify the skis. An obvious exception (IMO) would be a rockered powder ski, which has a fairly narrow mission and is not something I would care to be carving on....

...But that leads to an interesting question, sort of related to my IMO above. What skis are *not* capable of being all-mountain skis in the hands of a good skier? In other words, what ski has such a narrow focus that it's weaknesses outside that focus seriously detract from the ability to be an all-mountain ski?
This week I skied four pair of skis.

175cm Fischer Progressor 117-70-100mm: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=63721
175cm Volkl Tigershark 12 124-79-108mm: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...532#post825532
183cm Head Monster 82 122-82-108mm
186cm Volant Spatula 120-125-115mm: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...422#post822422

Two are clearly midfats and are marketed as both on-piste and off-piste skis.

One is a specialized carving ski that is great in crud, but I would not waste my time using this ski in powder. the last in a reverse-camber/reverse-sidecut ski that I would not want to use on groomers any longer than necessary.

If I was limited to one pair it would have been the Head Monster. It can carve the packed powder as well as the Progressor, but is less fun to use on the groomers because of a slower edge-change and a GS turn bias. It can also ski crud and resort powder of moderate depth well, but it would not function well in bottomless snow and the guides at the snowcat operation would have not allowed me to use the ski in the back-country. too Narrow and too stiff, they would have insisted on me using their Salomon Guns.

I used the Spatula both in-bounds and in the back-country and it was great in soft snow. It was also dysfunctional on hard snow.

Soft snow and hard snow are fundamentally different to ski. I will always have a hardsnow ski that can ski crud, like the Progressor, Dynastar Contact 11 or one of the several good 69-72mm race carvers. I will also want a true soft snow ski.

The midfat is best used on those days when its soft part-of-the-day and very firm in the other part of the day. the rest of the time a skinny ski or fat ski is better.

Michael
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
Gregg, I think the 183 is the ski for you. They have the supermojo on sale at lvl9 but tis only the 193. I think its like $300 or so. A pair of 183s usually comes up on TGR every few months as well.
I know... It might be a leap I take next season. I don't ski out west enough to warrant that many fat skis. I'd like a ski that is just slightly beefier than my Stockli DPs. The Head would fill that gap nicely, but for skiing in NY it is completely impractical. I will stick with the 165 SL skis for now I suppose.
post #36 of 41

I ahve skied for years. Only own one pair of skis. If you are a good skiier you can pretty much ski on whatever is on your feet.

post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiiedforyears View Post

I ahve skied for years. Only own one pair of skis. If you are a good skiier you can pretty much ski on whatever is on your feet.



How long have you been spelling?

post #38 of 41

ROFL ROTF.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post



How long have you been spelling?



 

post #39 of 41

jsut for rfernecne sikiedforyares is not me.

post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

jsut for rfernecne sikiedforyares is not me.



Well played. icon14.gif

post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

jsut for rfernecne sikiedforyares is not me.



wink.gif

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 › Definition of an "All Mountain" Ski