or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quiver Fill Out?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Ok, I live in Boise, ski Bogus Basin 95% of the time. Will get an occasional trip to Utah. I know renting demos is probably the way to go, but wanted some advice, if I bought one more ski.

Have Fischer rx8 165 (66mm waist)
Have Stockli XL 174 (75mm waist)

Looking for something wider that can carve well, but I know that won't be it's strenth.

I'm thinking something in the mid 80's (watea 84) or high 80's (im88). I like the idea of the Fischer cold heat, but 82mm seems way too close.

What thoughts and considerations should I take into mind if I were to add a wider ski? How wide? I think I will only have one more spot in the quiver.


Thank you in advance.
post #2 of 20
You don't necessarily have to give up decent carving to enjoy a mid fat, these days.
Those you mentioned are revered in that category, as well as the Blizzard Titan Cronus, Volkl Mantra, Head iM82, Bro Standard..........nice stuff out there to choose from!
post #3 of 20
IMHO, your next step would be a 90-100mm ski.
I am working (with exception to race skis) 78mm, 98mm, 110mm. I seem to spend most of my time on my 98mm unless it is bulletproof.
post #4 of 20
I would consider the Fischer Watea 94 in a 178cm.

Michael
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
I would consider the Fischer Watea 94 in a 178cm.

Michael
Thanks, I didn't mention the Watea 94, but have read everything I can get on the net (especially here and realskiers), that everyone is surprised at the carving capability of the 94.

Going to go out an demo!
post #6 of 20
Icelantic Nomads baby.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
Thanks, I didn't mention the Watea 94, but have read everything I can get on the net (especially here and realskiers), that everyone is surprised at the carving capability of the 94.

Going to go out an demo!
Monster 88 is an amazing ski! particualrly when tuned properly.

Factory tune has way too much base bevel and not enough side edge bevel. Put a true 1 and 2 on it and you will have a carving machine that loves powder and absolutley annihilates cut up snow and crud!
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Monster 88 is an amazing ski! particualrly when tuned properly.

Factory tune has way too much base bevel and not enough side edge bevel. Put a true 1 and 2 on it and you will have a carving machine that loves powder and absolutley annihilates cut up snow and crud!
Couldn't agree more. Fantastic ski.
post #9 of 20
Ditto to what atomicman said. I would be looking at something mid to high 80s if you still want to enjoy carving to some degree. The Watea 84 is a great, super solid ski that loves the pow, the chop and the groomers alike. Another choice you may want to consider is the Mojo 90. I have 'em and they do everything great from carving on hardpack all the way to a foot of pow. I recommend them highly- they're tons of fun and more nimble than the Watea, but less stable at high speeds. Never skied the Monster 88 but have heard nothing but praise... Another decent choice may be the Mythic, as I've heard good things and I'm dying to try a pair- bet they hold a mean edge and still float. I would PM dawgcatching and give him your info- i.e. skier type, conditions you ski in most, etc. etc. etc. he is a freakin' ski guru and could probably narrow your search down to the best three choices for you. Good luck and happy hunting!
post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Couldn't agree more. Fantastic ski.
Thanks as always everyone.

I'm 5'10" 160lbs... any recommendation on the two lengths I should try, given my above lenghts in other skis?

I just told my wife that this forum is the best, and I must become a supporter.

Thanks again.
post #11 of 20
I am also 5'10" 160 lbs, ski 50+ days a year and have no trouble with the 175. I had them mounted flat for the first half of the year and switched bindings 2 weeks ago to the Tyrolia RFD12. For east coast skiing, I think the RF bindings make sense. If this is for POW most of the time, people will recommend mounting them flat. I haven't been able ski POW since I mounted them so I can't comment on that.
post #12 of 20
Thread Starter 

Head monster 88

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
I am also 5'10" 160 lbs, ski 50+ days a year and have no trouble with the 175. I had them mounted flat for the first half of the year and switched bindings 2 weeks ago to the Tyrolia RFD12. For east coast skiing, I think the RF bindings make sense. If this is for POW most of the time, people will recommend mounting them flat. I haven't been able ski POW since I mounted them so I can't comment on that.

So I've done some more research on the monster 88. Is it basically unchanged since its introduction in 2006? Funny how ski magazine didn't care too much for it the first 2 years, then here in their last year talked it all up. Outside magazine did as well this year, and realskiers loved it its first year- go figure.

A friend is willing to part with a 2007 pair, just wondering if it is all good and the same no matter which one I went for.
post #13 of 20
The 2008 have a new sidewall design that is said to be more durable than earlier years.

Michael
post #14 of 20
The 06-07 ski had a very brittle sidewall material that is prone to cracking in the event of an impact (even an impact in the middle of the ski that does not contact the edge). this happened to mys sons '07 186cm the 2nd time he skied on them. The good news is that Head sent us a new pair of 08's no questions asked.

You must send them back through a dealer. so if you are the 2nd owner or your friend got them through some off the wall source, that could be a complication.

lLst time i looked dawgcatching had some (maybe only 186 though for a great price) I would try to find some 08'. the side wall material is much more pliable.
post #15 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
The 06-07 ski had a very brittle sidewall material that is prone to cracking in the event of an impact (even an impact in the middle of the ski that does not contact the edge). this happened to mys sons '07 186cm the 2nd time he skied on them. The good news is that Head sent us a new pair of 08's no questions asked.

You must send them back through a dealer. so if you are the 2nd owner or your friend got them through some off the wall source, that could be a complication.

lLst time i looked dawgcatching had some (maybe only 186 though for a great price) I would try to find some 08'. the side wall material is much more pliable.
How big is your son? I know he raced and you gave him world cup tunes and he probably skis better than 97.48% of the members posting, but just wondering about the 186 size.

So was this damage, just cosmetic or a structure issue as well? This really concerns me on finding a bargain price as I do tend to hit things or bang my skis as I learn. If I'm not falling, I'm not trying.
post #16 of 20
He is Big! 6'1" 235LBS.

The damage was structural.

Funny you ask about the 186 vs. the 175 becuase i skied them back to back yesterday, and I tuned both pair from scratch.

I am 6'0 and 185 Lbs. the 186 's were just OK. I didn't love them. I felt they were just more sluggish and cantankerous without adding anything to what my 185's do.

the 175 is snappier, just as stable but much more manuverable. I have no problem with float with them at my size. I have skied the 175 in 2-3 feet of powder and they were fabulous.

there was some untracked variable depth snow over a hard icy base base yesterday anywhere for 0" to 12" deep. both skis held well (they are tunes 1/2) on the ice and truthfully i could enjoy either. But the 175 is just more fun to ski and is more versatile, particularly if you get into any slope with even minimal bumps on it.
post #17 of 20
I often suggest the 183cm Monster 82 to those who feel the 175cm Monster 88 is too short and the 186cm size is too long.

The 183cm feels as quick as the 175cm size 88 and as stable as the 186cm size.

None of these skis are going to be wide enough for a big guy in deep snow, so the added width of the 88 is not enough to make a difference IMO.

I'm 230 lbs & a gaper level 7 or 8.

Michael
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
82mm seems way too close.
I'd agree. Go with something at least mid-90's.
post #19 of 20
[quote=Atomicman;879606]He is Big! 6'1" 235LBS.

The damage was structural.

Funny you ask about the 186 vs. the 175 becuase i skied them back to back yesterday, and I tuned both pair from scratch.

I am 6'0 and 185 Lbs. the 186 's were just OK. I didn't love them. I felt they were just more sluggish and cantankerous without adding anything to what my 185's** do.

the 175 is snappier, just as stable but much more manuverable. I have no problem with float with them at my size. I have skied the 175 in 2-3 feet of powder and they were fabulous.

there was some untracked variable depth snow over a hard icy base base yesterday anywhere for 0" to 12" deep. both skis held well (they are tunes 1/2) on the ice and truthfully i could enjoy either. But the 175 is just more fun to ski and is more versatile, particularly if you get into any slope with even minimal bumps on it.[/quote]**Should say 175's
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck it View Post
Icelantic Nomads baby.
I didn't know anything about these skis, so now I'm reading up on them. Interesting concept. I think one local place "may" demo them.

How do they perform on the groomer? An honest impression...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion