EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help with ski/binding selection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help with ski/binding selection

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
I'm 5'11" and weigh 185lbs. I'm a strong intermediate skier (7-8 on the Crested Butte meter). I live and ski in Idaho (Bogus to Targhee) which takes me from hard-pack, to crud and knee deep powder. I'm currently sking Salomon Foils in a 174 and find the ski to chatter on the hard pack, lets go on the groomers when pushed, deflect in the crud and deflect/dive in the powder.

I'm looking for feed back on the below skis from a 1 quiver perspective and suggestion on length (I demo'd the Volkel AC4 several years ago at Targhee in a 178 (?) and absolutely loved them on the hardback/groomers, never had the chance to take them off-piste though)

Also, what bindings are out there that you would recommend and why.

Dynastar 8000
Dynastar Mystic
Elan 888
Fisher Watea 84
Fisher Watea 94

Thank you in advance for your feedback.
post #2 of 7
I agree with your assessment of the Foils. I can comment on two skis on the list:

The Legend 8000 is a wonderful ski as long as you don't want something that is super turny. You could do 178cm for an all around good length. This is a very graceful, smooth, yet capable ski.

I have the Watea 94, and they are great skis. Superb in powder and crud, and very impressive on groomers (packed powder, corduroy). I have yet to try them on eastern hardpack (ice) but I don't think they would be my first choice in that condition. You could do 178cm in these for sure, and maybe 186cm but that is getting longish for 5'11".

Good luck!
post #3 of 7
Dynastar mythic Rider 178cm with the Duke binding or Watea 94 with same binding. Both for me would be one quiver skis. I also like the Atomic crimson Nomad sweet turning ski with great powder float also. Try to dmo all three on one day going down the same run back to back.Then youll make the right choise. Rent all three if you have to.
post #4 of 7
Why would he want a Duke? He mentioned nothing about AT capability.
post #5 of 7
then he must have meant the jester
post #6 of 7
I like the Duke regardless. it just has such a catchy name. Also any of those skis I liked 90+ waist other than the Atomic could be backcountried so why not? I have a buddy I was skiing with yesterday who bought some skis two years ago and never used them back country untill this year. Hes kinda hooked on it now. Even if you never plan on useing them they ski just as good as any other binding if not better for wider skis in all the reports Ive read. So again why not. They cirtanly arnt going to hamper the performance of the ski and if one day you want to try some skinning your equipt to do it. I think this binding is going to make more people think about the possabilities they have now more than before. There was always a trade off before. All mountain ski and all mountain binding on or off pisti. Sounds like all bases covered thats the way I look at it anyway. My next binding is the duke for sure. I can save gas on the snowmobile that way.
post #7 of 7
There are still tradeoffs with the Duke, just like any other AT binding, when skiing downhill. The Duke just minimized some of the tradeoffs. Save money, weight, and stand height -- stick with the Jester if AT is not needed and the binding has to be Marker. Or go with the many other binding brands that are as good or better choices.

I have one pair of skis with AT bindings, and am glad to own them for touring. But the rest of my skis are clearly better off with downhill bindings.
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 › Help with ski/binding selection