or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Perfect 2 Ski Quiver- Recommendations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Perfect 2 Ski Quiver- Recommendations

post #1 of 71
Thread Starter 
I have read and re-read many of the forums here and elsewhere, but am having trouble deciding on a two ski quiver that will be versatile, fun and help me to improve in some of my weaker areas (big/tight/iced moguls, tight/technical trees, wet/heavy powder on flatter slopes/trees where some float is needed to keep moving).

I would like my newer/soft/deep snow ski to be nimble enough to handle tighter trees but with enough guts and stability to not hook up or get deflected in wet/heavy/windblown powder or crud. This ski will be used mainly resort off piste, tracked powder, crud and soft moguls. I may get into some bc this spring, so am considering putting a touring binding for which I am happy to get recommendations/input.

My other ski would be used roughly equally on groomers (including ice/hardpack), moguls, skied out off piste and park. I would like something that is as good as possible for moguls (all types) while still being decent on hardpack and capable of beginner level park stuff including trying to improve my switch riding.

ME- 6' 3'' (190cm), 190 pounds (86 kilo), moderately agressive level 8 (advanced to expert), 40 yrs old. Skied every year as a teenager, but boarded for 3 years, and didn't make it to the mountains some other years as an adult. Skied 1 day in 05-06, 18 days in 06-07 and getting out about 3 days a week this season living in the French Alps. Next year, my home area is likely to be either in Tahoe or Eldora- the only Colorado resort East of the continental divide which can get dumped on, but can also be windy and icy with man made snow.

Current set-up is Salomon Scream Hot 10 P (185 cm, 110-75-100, r= 22.1 with integrated pilot bindings) and Salomon x-wave 8 boots (90 flex, 30.5/345 mm). This is the first "newer" ski that I have owned and like them well enough, but think there are better offerings available for me. Boots are comfortable and fit reasonable well, although I wish they still fit as snugly as when I first got them.

I haven't demoed anything since the '04-05 season, so I can't really tell you my impressions or preferences of the current skis, but previously felt the Rossi B2 & B3 (or maybe it was Bandit) was not very inspiring as I tend to like a ski with a bit of rebound.

Thanks in advance for the help...Matt
post #2 of 71
As for the first ski, I think you should consider Völkl Mantra.. About the other ski - it is very difficult to have a ski that is good on groomers and in the park.. So I don't know what to recommend there..
Sounds like you should be looking for a 3 ski quiver instead..

(btw. rossi b2 & b3 = rossi bandit b2 & rossi bandit b3 - if you weren't just thinking about the b1?
post #3 of 71
Hi Matt,

This is a bit difficult, mostly because the better mogul & hard pack skis are skinny, and twin tips are good in the park and powder but are less than ideal on firm snow.

I would consider the 178cm Dynastar Limited (also known as the Contact 11) for moguls & firm groomers; this ski can also ski crud and boot-top deep powder easily. This is a great mogul ski IMO.

My review of the Dynastar can be read here: http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=48768 & http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=51234

I would use a 190cm Volkl Gotama for deeper powder and riding switch.

These should cover all conditions very well, but the Gotama will feel big in the park. You might add a K2 Public Enemy if park skiing becomes more important.

Michael
post #4 of 71
I agree with the Mantra and Gotama for ski #1 and would also check out the Nordica Enforcer.

Your second ski is the tough one to decifer. You will have to sacrifice performance somewhere.

I look forward to hearing what that ski is.......
post #5 of 71
just bought my two ski quiver. similar purpose as you but no park and a little less agressive as I am will to give up the stiffness for the veratility

watea 94
dynastar 8000
post #6 of 71
1) k2 public enemy (179)- groomers, hard bumps, tight trees, and park

2) volkl gotama (190)- deep powder, crud busting, softer bumps, and wider trees
post #7 of 71
Thread Starter 

Contact 11/Unlimited length

Thanks for the input so far...

Regarding the Contact 11/Limited, Michael, you said in one of your links:
"Yes, I think the 172cm is the way to go unless your supersized (like me) and skiing big western resorts. For eastern skiing, the 172cm for sure."

While I have a few inches on you, you have 35 lbs on me and it sounds like you are a stronger skier as the only time my elbows touch the ground is when the rest of my body is there also. While I certainly enjoy ripping some longer turns from time to time, I tend to feel that I am getting my moneys worth when I make more turns as opposed to fewer. However, I don't want to go too short that the ski loses stability.

Are you still of the opinion that I should go 178 as opposed to 172? Also, have you ever skied the Contact 10 (same dimensions) or Contact 9 (same 122 tip & 102 tail, but at 68, 4 mm less in waist with a shorter radius?

Matt
post #8 of 71
Hi Matt,

Nice reply

You could easily go either way. The 172cm length will be stable at all-but-insane speeds and will be quick. A friend of mine is your size and has used both. He is a ski shop manager who skis all the skis and the Contact 11 (now Ltd) was his choice. He purchased the 172cm. I would not consider the Contact 10 or 9. The 9 in not in the same performance range. the 10 is the same ski with a softer composite plate. You will lose some higher speed stability with that model; not good if you select the 172cm size.

For higher speeds, on wide open runs, a ski like the Gotama will give you all stability anyone would ever need. I like having a skinny & quick ski and a fat & stable ski as a pair.

What I want to know is how I can go from living in the Alps to Tahoe or Colorado. I would be happy to call any of those places home; even if only for a few months!

Cheers,

Michael
post #9 of 71
gotamas work pretty well in all those condtions, except maybe park. 190 might be long for tight trees. you can subtract 10 cm from it's stated length, owing to the huge twin tip. i'm on 183s and i barely notice the difference in length between those and my 165 rx8s.
post #10 of 71
Lots of trade offs to be made here. If you really want something that shines on the powder end - look at things like the Pontoon or Praxis.

At least in my neck of the woods, a Mantra would not qualify as a powder ski. As has been mentioned before by some, even a Gotama would probably not rate as a full on "powder ski". Maybe these wold be described as "powder capable" or "powder oriented" or even "all mountain" in a pretty literal sense... but neither will hold a candle to a true powder or deep snow specialist in that kind of environment. So you need to decide what you mean by "powder ski" & if you want that end of the quiver to be "perfect" in the intended environment vs very good, but more of a generalist ala Mantra, Gotama, Watea, etc., etc. Or, if are serious about off piste crud, even think about current generation of true big mountain crud busters if your needs are inclined that way. Not my kind of ski, but...

Also, regarding the Gotama - it is a rather unidirectional ski. Look at that giant long front end and not-full twin. I can't imagine anyone wanting to ride it switch as a regular thing. Likewise, it makes no sense as a park ski.

FWIW regarding the switch thing, my kids think Hell Bents are the easiest thing on the planet to ski switch. They also love them in powder and on any groomer that is not true hardpack. However, IMO they are not as just plain easy in powder as the Pontoon or Praxis though...
post #11 of 71
There are many compromises to be considered here. Probably the most important is...which ski do you plan to have as your "primary"???

Is it the first ski mentioned? Or the second?

IIWY I'd choose the second ski as my everyday and my choices for that are either the Volkl Bridge (very good all mountain, good soft snow, fair in park) or the Dynastar Big Trouble (Good all mountain, very good soft snow, very good park)

Then you could choose something very wide and/or rockered (etc) as your powder ski.

OTH....if the wider ski is to be your "primary" then the rockered (etc) ski does not make much sense. ITC, you'd be better off with a wide but conventional ski....(there are literally dozens of good ones)

Then, you would choose a somewhat narrower TT ski like a PE or TM or any of the myriads of good skis in that range.

SJ
post #12 of 71
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the well thought out responses...I was thinking that my primary ski would really depend on the type of weather we get with both skis likely getting a decent amount of use.

Doubt I would go with a super fat (over 105 mm) or non-traditional powder only ski as I do ok in the deep stuff on my 75 mm waist skis as long as it is not too heavy or the pitch is too flat. As we are likely heading back to the States this summer (wife's idea, not mine), I don't really want to buy a ski here that I may only get to use a few times, unless it is something I can pick up very cheap. In fact, I may end up only getting 1 new pair now and wait on the second pair until this summer/fall.

Got a bit more to add, but see an auction ending soon on the Dynastar Big Troubles and want to research this a bit more. The PE sounds interesting although I am not sure that the soft snow performance would make it the only ski I purchase this season...btw, what is the TM? Should probably know, but have researched the fatter powder oriented skis rather than the TT park/all mountain skis.

Does anyone have an opinion as to which twin tip ski is best in harder/icier moguls while still being good carving hard snow and adequate for a beginner in the park?

Also, The 06/07 Fischer Atua was marketed similarly to the Dynastar Big Trouble (BC jib ski). 186 is the only length in the Atua and the lenth I see up for auction in the BT...how do these compare for handling powder, crud and tight trees? I saw one thread (http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53350) on this a while back, but wanted to know if anyone had additiional thoughts. Would something like the railflex binding make either of this skis more versatile, or would it sacrafice too much either in the powder or park?

I am also intrigued by the Mythic Rider, which a friend really likes as a go everywhere ski. I realize that it doesn't allow much in the was of the park (slightly raised tail, but no TT), but is this more what I might be looking for in a mostly off piste, do everything in variable snow (on the same decent) ski than either the Atua, BT, Mantra or Gotama? Although this is my first season in the French Alps, I would equate the snow to be similar to Tahoe (powder can be light, heavy or wind blown) with the exception that I don't think the Alps get as big a dumps as often/quickly as Tahoe and the groomed runs being packed a bit harder.

Which off piste/soft variable snow skis might be best suited to an AT binding in case I get into some BC touring this spring and how will this affect the skis resort use performance?

Thanks,
Matt
post #13 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukc View Post
1) k2 public enemy (179)- groomers, hard bumps, tight trees, and park

2) volkl gotama (190)- deep powder, crud busting, softer bumps, and wider trees
Bingo. YOu could also try:

1. somethign around 80-95mm that is nice for every day front side skiing.


2. something 100-120 that works as a backside ski.

I would avoid a super specialized reverse / rockered ski in a 2ski quiver. Especially since in EU you can be passing through so many different snow conditions in 1 run.
post #14 of 71
Thread Starter 
Interesting list...and I think tromano and I were typing about avoiding super fat/non-traditional shape at about the same time. With 6+ K of verticle possible on one run here, you don't want to be too specialized. One of the locals I ski with here uses a Legend 8000 (79 mm waist) as his alpine ski and he rocks at everything off piste.

Have they improved the top sheet in the newer K2 PEs as I read that they had a lot of problems with way too much top sheet chipping on previous years.

I was thinking about getting the soft snow/off piste ski first, but at 85 mm under foot, the PE is a step up from my current 75 mm ski and not that much thinner than the 88-105 mm skis that I have been thinking about. I realize waist width is not the only determinant of how a ski will handle powder and crud, but do you think the PE will better or worse in these areas over my current Salomon Scream Hot 10 Ps (110-75-100)?

The one issue I have with the PE/Goat list is that I need to be able to do tight trees off piste. It seems like our typical off piste day is 4-12 inches of new to 3 day old snow that can be of any weight. When it is storming or there is too high an avalanche risk up higher, we tend to stay down in the tight trees. With this in mind, I think the Fischer Atuas (which I may have a line on a decent priced pair) or Mythic Riders might be a better off piste alternative. Another local that I ski with really likes the Mythic Riders he just got. Although I haven't seen how well he handles them through the trees, I do know that he rips them in the tracked powder/crud and seems to carve a good turn on the groomers.
post #15 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
Interesting list...and I think tromano and I were typing about avoiding super fat/non-traditional shape at about the same time. With 6+ K of verticle possible on one run here, you don't want to be too specialized. One of the locals I ski with here uses a Legend 8000 (79 mm waist) as his alpine ski and he rocks at everything off piste.

Have they improved the top sheet in the newer K2 PEs as I read that they had a lot of problems with way too much top sheet chipping on previous years.

I was thinking about getting the soft snow/off piste ski first, but at 85 mm under foot, the PE is a step up from my current 75 mm ski and not that much thinner than the 88-105 mm skis that I have been thinking about. I realize waist width is not the only determinant of how a ski will handle powder and crud, but do you think the PE will better or worse in these areas over my current Salomon Scream Hot 10 Ps (110-75-100)?

The one issue I have with the PE/Goat list is that I need to be able to do tight trees off piste. It seems like our typical off piste day is 4-12 inches of new to 3 day old snow that can be of any weight. When it is storming or there is too high an avalanche risk up higher, we tend to stay down in the tight trees. With this in mind, I think the Fischer Atuas (which I may have a line on a decent priced pair) or Mythic Riders might be a better off piste alternative. Another local that I ski with really likes the Mythic Riders he just got. Although I haven't seen how well he handles them through the trees, I do know that he rips them in the tracked powder/crud and seems to carve a good turn on the groomers.
Tight trees really sort of call for a pretty specialized ski. Typically you want something fat and floaty, but in a short length.

I think a 179 PE would be perfect for your typical off piste day. PE is a very capable all mountain twin. It skis pow really well for its size, but I think responds better to more old school pow technique. In crud its good, but not great. The ski is fairly stiff, kind of light, damp, and kind of turny. In some cases it tends to get thrown around a bit more than some other skis in my quiver (im103 for instance). I think a head IM88 would give more stability as a crud ski. The PE rocks bumps very well too.
post #16 of 71
Thread Starter 
Thanks...if the PE is good in bumps, it sounds like it is an option I should consider, although I am having trouble locating a decent deal here in France.

Would putting something like a railflex binding on it make it more versatile for both park and powder? What other suitable bindings offer the option to switch mount position without redrilling?
post #17 of 71
Thread Starter 

Bridge, Big Trouble, Mythic Rider & Public Enemy

SJ,

You consider the Bridge to be better "all-mountain" and the BT to be better in soft snow and said in another thread:

"the Bridge is not a true twin. The tail is a short twin and is also pretty stiff for park use.

You have some good suggestions from Tromano already and I'll add one more....the Dynastar Big Trouble. The BT is a full twin and is substantially softer in the tip and tail than the Bridge while still being quite stiff and grippy underfoot. Within it's width range, the Bridge is a very good all mountain ski but the BT is better in soft snow."

What exactly do you mean by all-mountain? I assume that you include groomers, but what else?

Does anyone have opinions as to which ski you think would do better in the following:
crud
Firm bumps
tight trees
coral reefs

and how do both of these skis compare to the Public Enemy & Mythic Rider in the above categories?

Thanks,
Matt
post #18 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
Thanks...if the PE is good in bumps, it sounds like it is an option I should consider, although I am having trouble locating a decent deal here in France.

Would putting something like a railflex binding on it make it more versatile for both park and powder? What other suitable bindings offer the option to switch mount position without redrilling?
i think a railflex would make it worse for both, they are heavy and add a lot of stand height. just wait until you see them on SAC for $180.00 and buy 2 pair.
post #19 of 71
Thread Starter 
Just looked at the steep and deep website for the first time, but couldn't tell if they ship to France?? Don't really want two of the same ski in any case...any other binding systems that allow for some easy adjustement with fewer downsides?
post #20 of 71
oh, sorry, didn't realize you were in france. some stuff they ship internationally, some they can't due to restrictions imposed by the manufacturers. i don't think they can ship k2 overseas. too bad, they're cheap over here, as they are marketed to gangsta-ass park rat types who don't have a lot of money. pretty much all system bindings or demo bindings are going to have the same drawbacks. here's a pair on ebay for $250.00:

http://cgi.ebay.fr/K2-Public-Enemy-A...d=p1638 .m122

i think that says it's $40 to ship them to france, but my french is, uh, how do you say... de la merde.
post #21 of 71
Matt:

The BT has a true TT configuration and is quite soft in the tail, and about medium in the tip. The BT stands apart from park specific skis in that it is quite firm and grippy under the foot. The very solid mid section and fairly straight shape makes it a great crud and soft snow ski. However, the softer tail feels a tad vague on firmer stuff.

The Bridge has a more traditional, even flex pattern and quite a bit of shape. It is also fairly firm overall. This makes it a good carver (for a TT) and it has good enough grip for most conditions. The Bridge feels very nimble for a ski of this width. OTH, the Bridge does not have as park friendly shape or flex as the BT.

Both are great skis.....just a little different.

FWIW: I skied the Bridge yesterday along with 2 other skis in this general width category. The snow was mid-boot to mid calf and was mostly very light for Kalifornia. When I got the binding position figured out it was very good and a super fun ski. However, in the patches where the snow was heavier and wind blown, the Bridge was the least solid of the batch.

SJ
post #22 of 71

Best two quiver skis

Nordica speed machines 170L

Nordca Hellcats 178L

Does anyone else have any input on the new Hellcats?
post #23 of 71
Thread Starter 
Thanks SJ...as we do get some heavy, windblown stuff over here and the Bridge would probably be more expensive for me than the BT, I think I am going to steer clear of it.

Hopefully I will be able to make it up to Val d'Isere next week to demo some stuff I am having trouble locating in Bourg Saint Maurice (although there are still some shops here on the Les Arc mountain that I haven't made it into yet)

You meant Dynastar Trouble Maker, when you said TM, right? Does anyone have opinions on how this compares to the K2 Public Enemy?

Not very familar with Nordica and don't think that they are readily available in France, but the Hot Rot Hellcats might be a good waist (90 mm) with a shorter radius (18 in 178) that could handle a variety of conditions here in Les Arcs if it is as good in powder as their website says

Target

Made for expert all-mountain skiers, the new HELLCAT is an amazing powder ski with a perfect sidecut to permit quick turns on fresh and packed snow.

Thanks,
Matt
post #24 of 71
Thread Starter 
I demoed the Dynastar BT yesterday and this is definitely a ski that I would still consider, although I think I want to try to demo a few others for comparision.

See http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=65650 for my complete review.

If I was to get the BT, I think that I would likely try to pair it with a thinner, quick turning ski along the lines of the Contacts (Limited or 9) or something like the Fischer RX8...does anyone have any opinions about the current RX8 Fire and how it compares to the older RX8s?

I realize that the Contact and RXs would not be useful in the park, but think that I could use still use the BTs on some of the days I would go to the park (i.e. when there is no fresh snow) and the SL boards that is good in bumps would let me mix up my skiing more than if I got a second set of twin tips.

Alternatively, I am still considering getting something like the K2 PE if I can come across a good deal and then see how this handles various conditions before making another purchase.

Talking to and seeing what some of the AT guys are doing here, it seems like I want to get something relatively thin (<80 mm under foot), light and versatile for touring as most of the day is spent climbing up, not skiing down. Are any good all mountain park boards that are thinner than the PE for me to consider if I see a good deal on them?

Thanks for the help so far and for any additional suggestions you can make.

Matt
post #25 of 71
This may amount to a bit of a hijack. but it is a relevant one. Can somebody please explain how, in the year 2008 the following:

Quote:
newer/soft/deep snow ski to be nimble enough to handle tighter trees but with enough guts and stability to not hook up or get deflected in wet/heavy/windblown powder or crud. This ski will be used mainly resort off piste, tracked powder, crud and soft moguls.
leads to the list of skis being discussed? To me the above reads almost like a personals ad for a rockered +/- 120 waisted ski. Especially in the context of a quiver.

And even if you are not emotionally ready to move that direction, most of the skis being discussed for the "powder" end of the spectrum strike me as falling very short of the mark set above.

Why the gulf?
post #26 of 71
Quote:
If I was to get the BT, I think that I would likely try to pair it with a thinner, quick turning ski along the lines of the Contacts (Limited or 9) or something like the Fischer RX8...does anyone have any opinions about the current RX8 Fire and how it compares to the older RX8s?
Matt:

That's a little different mix than what you first asked for but for all that, it is not a bad call.

FWIW: I spent yesterday @ Squaw Valley on a pr of Atomic Sugar Daddies/183 and a BT/186. Conditions were much as you described with mid boot to occasional patches of mid calf to knee. We skied a lot of varied off trail terrain/trees, gullies etc and of course a few groomers to navigate the mountain. In all cases except the groomers, the BT was easier and more fun. The extra width of the Sugars made no difference to either of us. Given what it is, the BT was not bad at all on the groomers. The SD is however, one of the best wider skis on packed snow so it will outshine a lot of things in that condition.

SJ
post #27 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
This may amount to a bit of a hijack. but it is a relevant one. Can somebody please explain how, in the year 2008 the following:

leads to the list of skis being discussed? To me the above reads almost like a personals ad for a rockered +/- 120 waisted ski. Especially in the context of a quiver.

And even if you are not emotionally ready to move that direction, most of the skis being discussed for the "powder" end of the spectrum strike me as falling very short of the mark set above.

Why the gulf?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
The one issue I have with the PE/Goat list is that I need to be able to do tight trees off piste. It seems like our typical off piste day is 4-12 inches of new to 3 day old snow that can be of any weight. When it is storming or there is too high an avalanche risk up higher, we tend to stay down in the tight trees. With this in mind, I think the Fischer Atuas (which I may have a line on a decent priced pair) or Mythic Riders might be a better off piste alternative. Another local that I ski with really likes the Mythic Riders he just got. Although I haven't seen how well he handles them through the trees, I do know that he rips them in the tracked powder/crud and seems to carve a good turn on the groomers.
The guy specifically says, his typical off piste day is 4-12 inches of fresh every few days. He also specifically said he doesn't want a Reverse / reverse ski because his mountains are 1500 - 2000 meters from top to base. Which a person skiing will traverse very many different snow conditions in one run.

Additionally the quiver is 2 skis not a 5 ski quiver.

"This ski will be used mainly resort off piste, tracked powder, crud and soft moguls." The does not IMO scream revers/reverse 120mm+ wide ski. To me that says 100mmish beefy damp ski for charging. I.E. and LP, supermojo, maybe a goat, somethign like that. Maybe even an IM88 on the narrow side or an atomic thug on the wide side.
post #28 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
The guy specifically says, his typical off piste day is 4-12 inches of fresh every few days. He also specifically said he doesn't want a Reverse / reverse ski because his mountains are 1500 - 2000 meters from top to base. Which a person skiing will traverse very many different snow conditions in one run.

Additionally the quiver is 2 skis not a 5 ski quiver.

"This ski will be used mainly resort off piste, tracked powder, crud and soft moguls." The does not IMO scream revers/reverse 120mm+ wide ski. To me that says 100mmish beefy damp ski for charging. I.E. and LP, supermojo, maybe a goat, somethign like that. Maybe even an IM88 on the narrow side or an atomic thug on the wide side.
I read the post quite carefully. And my puzzlement remains. In fact it grows.

Have you ever skied a reverse ski of any flavor in 4 inches of fresh? Of slush? On soft groomers? Ever done any traverses on a full reverse or a "hybrid" sidecut? Ever compared a goat head to head with a reverse ski in the trees? Or deep manky slush? Ever done more than one confusing "demo" run on a reverse ski? Spent any significant time on groomers with a "reverse" ski? IMO nothing said here should disqualify a funshape ski.

Every ski gives up something somewhere - and funshapes are not immune to this law of nature. And there are times when I've taken them out & gone "oops". But I do not understand why compromising one side of the spectrum is somehow "specialized" and compromising (arguably more) on the other is somehow viewed as more versatile. Why does a powder slayer get DQ'd because it gives up a similar amount in crust or ice vs what a big mountain ski gives up in the powder (soft stuff of a variety of consistencies actually)?

Maybe I'm somehow not comprehending the description of conditions because they mean something different in Europe? Maybe there is some inevitability of hard crunchy nasty snow - and most people would implicitly rather compromise the powder & tree performance end than the crust and ice end? ? But then why ask about a "powder" end of a 2 ski quiver? Or about a "nimble in the trees" side of a quiver? Or, specifically, a "wet/heavy powder on flatter slopes/trees where some float is needed to keep moving" ski -- which as I said is almost like writing ad copy for a Pontoon. And, unless someone is massively athletic and talented and experienced (enough that asking for advice here is a giant waste of time) the original description strikes me as an "anti-ad" for a burly stiff crud buster ski that will send most of us over the bars or punish us in other ways if we are careless in those conditions...

I'm not knocking the skis mentioned. Most just strike me as being far closer to the non-powder specialist part of a 2 ski quiver. And maybe given personal preferences, they are great choices. What eludes me is the lack of correlation, IMO, between stated goals and the set of skis everyone, including the OP, is gravitating toward.

Note - I'm a pretty average skier. So maybe my POV is skewed by the fact that when I look for a "quiver" ski, I want a ski that will offer me the most help possible in the "target" environment...
post #29 of 71
Thread Starter 
Spindrift & Tomsano- Thanks for the lively discussion (and to SJ for sticking with me and provding your valuable input as well). I apoligize in advance if it doesn't seem like I know what I want, but the more I learn, the more questions I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Have you ever skied a reverse ski of any flavor in 4 inches of fresh? Of slush? On soft groomers? Ever done any traverses on a full reverse or a "hybrid" sidecut? Ever compared a goat head to head with a reverse ski in the trees? Or deep manky slush? Ever done more than one confusing "demo" run on a reverse ski? Spent any significant time on groomers with a "reverse" ski? IMO nothing said here should disqualify a funshape ski.

Every ski gives up something somewhere - and funshapes are not immune to this law of nature. And there are times when I've taken them out & gone "oops". But I do not understand why compromising one side of the spectrum is somehow "specialized" and compromising (arguably more) on the other is somehow viewed as more versatile. Why does a powder slayer get DQ'd because it gives up a similar amount in crust or ice vs what a big mountain ski gives up in the powder (soft stuff of a variety of consistencies actually)?

Maybe I'm somehow not comprehending the description of conditions because they mean something different in Europe? Maybe there is some inevitability of hard crunchy nasty snow - and most people would implicitly rather compromise the powder & tree performance end than the crust and ice end? ? But then why ask about a "powder" end of a 2 ski quiver? Or about a "nimble in the trees" side of a quiver? Or, specifically, a "wet/heavy powder on flatter slopes/trees where some float is needed to keep moving" ski -- which as I said is almost like writing ad copy for a Pontoon. And, unless someone is massively athletic and talented and experienced (enough that asking for advice here is a giant waste of time) the original description strikes me as an "anti-ad" for a burly stiff crud buster ski that will send most of us over the bars or punish us in other ways if we are careless in those conditions...

I'm not knocking the skis mentioned. Most just strike me as being far closer to the non-powder specialist part of a 2 ski quiver. And maybe given personal preferences, they are great choices. What eludes me is the lack of correlation, IMO, between stated goals and the set of skis everyone, including the OP, is gravitating toward.

Note - I'm a pretty average skier. So maybe my POV is skewed by the fact that when I look for a "quiver" ski, I want a ski that will offer me the most help possible in the "target" environment...
I have never skied a non-traditional shaped ski, so maybe I dismissed them too quickly...The more I look at this, the more I realize that while upgrading to a 2 ski quiver should give me some more performance/versatility, many compromises still have to be made (especially considering the variety of conditions that I can experience in one day, or even one decent). I agree with Spindrifts logic that a ski on one end of the spectrum should not automatically be dismissed without looking at the benefits vs tradeoffs. However, I do not want to purchase a ski this year in France unless I will likely want to use it as a first choice a minimum of 6 to 10 days the rest of the season (although I do realize the amount of use a ski like the Pontoon gets will depend on the amount of new snow which is very hard to forecast).

While I suspect that I will still opt not to get a non-traditional ski this year, I think it is worth further investigation.

To get a better idea of the type of skier I am, it might help to take a look at some of my other posts, including the review of the BT that I did on Thursday. http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=65650

There are a couple of things that I would like to highlight that may make it easier to figure out what I need/want:
40 yrs old, 6' 3'', 190#s, level 8(?), reasonably athletic for my age, but no superstar.
Consider off piste, steeps and moguls to be my strong suit compared to level 7s and low 8s, but but don't think I outshine them on flat pistes.
Comfortable in mid to light weight powder of almost any commonly found depth having skied 2-3 weeks per year in Utah as a teenager and Tahoe in more recent years.
See the advantages of skiing on top of powder/crud, but like the feeling of skiing in the powder and busting through the crud, except in heavier snow conditions which make this style harder to handle.
Feel my Scream Hots are workable in most conditions, but would like a 2 ski quiver that provides better edge grip for hard snow, make hard/icy moguls as doable as possible, some chance to learn to ride switch (and hopefully land a 180), and better performance in wet heavy snow with the ability to navagate some tighter trees.
I have no real chance to change skis mid-day and I don't know in advance where I will be skiing when I go out with the very good mid-20 year old locals that are on the basketball team that I practice with in Bourg St. Maurice.

Les Arcs goes from about 10,500 ft (3200 m) down to 4 K (1200 m), so a variety of conditions can be encountered. While I don't expect many long icy runs on a new snow day, a limited amount of time will be spent on groomers which can be hard pack after a wet snow.

One of the more enjoyable runs I did this year was with about 8'' of the heaviest, wettest snow you can imagine on top of a steep piste of well formed, mid to large size moguls. I could never have zipper lined the sections that I did without the wet snow slowing me down to a manageable speed.

I felt most out of my element this year after having skied 3 days in a row and practiced basketball the night before going out into some tighter spots with good skiers. While I could never have made the jump turns through heavy powder around trees and rocks look as easy as one of the guys did on his Legend 8000s, I felt that I was slower reacting than normal and about 2 seconds late for everything. One of my limitations as a basketball player (especially since tearing my achillies) and as a skier has been the inability to get very high off the ground. While a lighter, springier ski might help me with this, I suspect that I will have more success with a quick turning ski that allows me to pivot more in these spots.

I have a few questions to ask about the performance of the rockered skis in various situations, but need to take my 4 year old out for some fresh air...

Thanks for all the input,
Matt
post #30 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
I read the post quite carefully. And my puzzlement remains. In fact it grows.

Have you ever skied a reverse ski of any flavor in 4 inches of fresh? Of slush? On soft groomers? Ever done any traverses on a full reverse or a "hybrid" sidecut? Ever compared a goat head to head with a reverse ski in the trees? Or deep manky slush? Ever done more than one confusing "demo" run on a reverse ski? Spent any significant time on groomers with a "reverse" ski? IMO nothing said here should disqualify a funshape ski.

Every ski gives up something somewhere - and funshapes are not immune to this law of nature. And there are times when I've taken them out & gone "oops". But I do not understand why compromising one side of the spectrum is somehow "specialized" and compromising (arguably more) on the other is somehow viewed as more versatile. Why does a powder slayer get DQ'd because it gives up a similar amount in crust or ice vs what a big mountain ski gives up in the powder (soft stuff of a variety of consistencies actually)?

Maybe I'm somehow not comprehending the description of conditions because they mean something different in Europe? Maybe there is some inevitability of hard crunchy nasty snow - and most people would implicitly rather compromise the powder & tree performance end than the crust and ice end? ? But then why ask about a "powder" end of a 2 ski quiver? Or about a "nimble in the trees" side of a quiver? Or, specifically, a "wet/heavy powder on flatter slopes/trees where some float is needed to keep moving" ski -- which as I said is almost like writing ad copy for a Pontoon. And, unless someone is massively athletic and talented and experienced (enough that asking for advice here is a giant waste of time) the original description strikes me as an "anti-ad" for a burly stiff crud buster ski that will send most of us over the bars or punish us in other ways if we are careless in those conditions...

I'm not knocking the skis mentioned. Most just strike me as being far closer to the non-powder specialist part of a 2 ski quiver. And maybe given personal preferences, they are great choices. What eludes me is the lack of correlation, IMO, between stated goals and the set of skis everyone, including the OP, is gravitating toward.

Note - I'm a pretty average skier. So maybe my POV is skewed by the fact that when I look for a "quiver" ski, I want a ski that will offer me the most help possible in the "target" environment...
Spin, I just have to disagree with you on what he was asking for. may be you are better at reading between the lines than I am. And I obviously haven't skied funshapes as much as you, so for me that isn't the ski I think of. But I think this is in someways besides the point. The real problem is that in general fun shapes are simply not widely available for demo. It doesn't matter if I like them or if you like them it matters if HE likes them and frankly, we don't know and if he can't get a demo then its moot point. You went out and bought one then decided if you liked it. Thats not exactly the best way to do things. The manufacturers of these skis are not doing a good job of making them available to try out.

Back to cases.... If a skier is used ot sking on a 75mm wide ski, just buying a reverse/reverse ski isn't IMO, going to really help him too much from a skills perspective. There is no ski in there to bridge the gap. What I personally think he should do is get a wider all mountain ski in a size around 85-95mm wide and a decent length around 180ish. After getting used to those and then decide if he wants an even wider / more soft snow specific ski. I am guessing that he will probably go wider and may very well go with a funshape. But who knows.
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 › Perfect 2 Ski Quiver- Recommendations