EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2008 Mid-Fats Reviews: Snoop, Watea 84, Mythic Rider, Volkl Bridge
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2008 Mid-Fats Reviews: Snoop, Watea 84, Mythic Rider, Volkl Bridge - Page 2

post #31 of 40

Monster 78 is a great ski in the 177cm length, one of those skis you can't really go wrong with.  I have no feedback to offer on the others you mentioned. 

post #32 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fwstol View Post it did not hold.  I am looking for skiis. 

 I am 5 10 190.  Age 60 (slowing down a bit). I am an advanced/expert skier.  I get out to Utah once every few years but mostly ski Sunday River in the east - groomed - hard snow/ice. 

 

The skis recommended by a ski shop are:  1. Nordica mach; 2. Salomon Xwing 8; 3. Head Monster 78; Rossignola Pro(?) 80.  The suggested length was 170 - 176.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts.  I will be buying only one pair of skis.  Thank you.

 

Fred

IMO, the iM78, in a 177 for you, is the clear choice among your list. If you are not limited to these, also try to demo a Blizzard Magnum 8.1, a Dynastar Contact 10, and/or a Atomic Blackeye.

post #33 of 40

Dear Skier 219 and Beyond: 

 

Thank you very much for your response.  I will now commence a search for a year end offering.  I really appreciate the time.

 

Fred

post #34 of 40

Dear nfp158:

 

Thank you for your note - for some reason, I could not respond to your email directly.  At any rate, I will begin to investigate the skis that you suggest.

 

Fred

post #35 of 40

Wow... I guess it is all about preference.  Myself, I find that the move towards fatter skis is overdone and unnecessary.  If I were looking for an Eastern ski for most conditions (and I AM an Eastern skier), I would never go fatter than, say mid-70's underfoot and really more towards the low 70's.  I just like the quickness and response that I get from a narrower ski.  I have tried some 80+ underfoot skis and have yet to find one that reacts quickly enough for the ice and narrowness of Eastern trails.

Just my own preference.

post #36 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

 

Wow... I guess it is all about preference.  Myself, I find that the move towards fatter skis is overdone and unnecessary.  If I were looking for an Eastern ski for most conditions (and I AM an Eastern skier), I would never go fatter than, say mid-70's underfoot and really more towards the low 70's.  I just like the quickness and response that I get from a narrower ski.  I have tried some 80+ underfoot skis and have yet to find one that reacts quickly enough for the ice and narrowness of Eastern trails.

Just my own preference.

 

your limiting yourself....

 

check out my lastest videos that were taken on a 85 mm ski, or go skis with some of the mags at magic or stowe and you mind will change quickly

post #37 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

If I were looking for an Eastern ski for most conditions (and I AM an Eastern skier), I would never go fatter than, say mid-70's underfoot and really more towards the low 70's...I have tried some 80+ underfoot skis and have yet to find one that reacts quickly enough for the ice and narrowness of Eastern trails.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

your limiting yourself....

check out my lastest videos that were taken on a 85 mm ski, or go skis with some of the mags at magic or stowe and you mind will change quickly

Not sure this is about limitations. Ever watched a racer on cheater GS's work a typical recreational black with mix of crud, bumps, and hardpack? They choose a line and just pretty much ignore the changes in terrain. "Oh, I'm in bumps? I'm in crud? Whatever..." Don't see a lot of limitations there. 

 

What I see is excellent skiers back here slicing on 68-78 mm through typical mid-winter conditions. And I see excellent skiers on 90+ doing same terrain with different technique. (Although in truth latter group will usually be looking for soft in trees or sidebounds.) Where's the limitation? That you trade off edge to edge quickness for absorption? OK. That a race carver will suck in the woods but excel on hardpack? OK. All skis have optimizations. That's called ski design. Oh, or excuse me, is it just narrow skis that are optimized, while fats are universally wonderful?  I'll try to remember to curse my bad luck the next time I'm on narrow Eastern ice with my carvers instead of my Lhasas. 

 

But we always end up with the video/review/deathbed confession of an excellent skier doing a nice job on X terrain with Y skis. Proving? Choose one: a) That he/she's a good skier and prefers Y skis. b) That Y skis rock everywhere. 

 

post #38 of 40

As between the iM 78 and the Blackeye, do you have a preference? 

post #39 of 40

I notice this conversation is approaching a year old and yet is still chugging along.

 

I also have a question about ski choice. I've been skiing for 20 years, almost exclusively in CO, but have not skied for six of the last eight years except the last two years (I had three kids in 2001+). I skied last year in NC and this year NC a couple of times and then Taos and Wolf Creek this March (2009). I've always been an intermediate skier, in my previous incarnation I could ski most of the mountain with marginal technique, but by being athletic I could usually overcome my shortcomings . . . . These days I find I need better technique as I've gained weight and lost athleticism. And I have improved, technique-wise. I'm 6' and 230 these days.

 

On my Taos/Wolf Creek trip I took my Volkl Vertigos (184s) and skied them the first couple of days, but there was a lot of crud and new snow and I could never get comfortable.

 

I rented for the next three days with mixed results and on the fourth I asked for a "fatter" ski and they brought out a ski that I really enjoyed all over Wolf Creek, "groomed" and powder (it snowed there for three days), a pair of 2004 (I found out later, although they were a bit dinged up!) Dynastar Little Big Fats (116/88/103):

 

http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/70/30/

I didn't know at the time how old they were, but now that I'm home and looking to find a ski for next year I've been looking at the Legend Mythic Rider and its specs seem to match the LBF, but I wonder about its "expert" designation in some reviews and stiffness.

The stiffness would seem to be a good thing for a big guy like myself, so in your opinion, could the Dynastar Legend Mythic Rider be the "successor" ski to the LBF for me? Or is there a better, more forgiving ski for an older intermediate guy? 

At Taos I skied the greens and blues and had trouble with the blacks, which were often icy and bumpy. At Wolf Creek I skied greens and blues comfortably, through the trees, powder, crud and some black (with some trepidation but more success than Taos). My favorite skiing by far was the trees at Wolf Creek in and out of the Powder.

Next year (2009/10) will be the same, 2-3 trips to NC followed by a weeklong Colorado trip. Wolf Creek will be on the list for sure.

Thanks!

JoeL
Atlanta, GA
 

post #40 of 40

joeldm

 

The Dynastar skis with similar dimensions are the Little Big Fat, Inspired by Nobis, 8800, and the Mythic Rider.  The Mythic Rider is the current ski.  Even though all of these have similar dimensions, they are not the same ski. 

 

Your size at 230 pounds would make the LP a better choice but skill wise it is above your level.  At your weight you should be able to handle the MR. 

 

Wolf Creek has great snow but is rather tame.  Taos doesn't have as good of snow as WC but it not tame when you hit the blacks and above in difficulty.  Skills, not the ski, make the difference. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2008 Mid-Fats Reviews: Snoop, Watea 84, Mythic Rider, Volkl Bridge