EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Looking for a wider ski...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for a wider ski...

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Hi,

I'm 6'1, 170-175, 20yrs - ski 20-25 days per year for over 15yrs, Usually a week in whistler and two weeks in the east or europe.

I currently own a pair of Head iSupershapes (122-66-107), that rip on groomers, but I've also found them to be fun in mixed snow conditions. However, whenever the snow gets deep I have rented skis, and this is becoming too expensive. I thought that I should take advantage of the current sales to add a second ski to my arsenal.

Since I'm happy with my supershapes in many conditions, I think i want my new ski to be significantly wider. I have demoed the Mythic Rider in 178 and 184 (the latter being a bit too much in tight spaces, trees etc...) and liked it. However, I was wondering whether something like the watea 94 would offer better powder performance without much sacrifice of stability for crud. What about the Legend Pro in 176 - reading this forum suggests that this is a manageable ski that offers better powder performance than the Mythic but is still stiff for crud?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, and thanks for such a great forum.

Tim
post #2 of 24
Since your happy with the Supershape in mixed snow, I would go above 100mm at the waist for your fat ski. The K2 Coomba, Volkl Gotama, Dynastar Huge Trouble or PM bro soft come to mind.

Michael
post #3 of 24
Standard Bro 99 mm!

www.pmgear.com
post #4 of 24
If you skied more in the west, I'd also suggest a 100 mm range ski, like the Coomba's or Gotama's (which I just bought).

But, given that you don't, and that your day-to-day ski is an ultra-skinny 66 mm underfoot, you may be happier going to a mid-fat, like Volkl's AC40, or your suggestion: Watea 94.

I can ski my Goats day-to-day (many do), but I vastly prefer my 84 mm M:EX's in most conditions. It's just easier to get them up on edge.

At your current width of 66 mm's, stability is an issue. They'll get knocked around in anything that isn't smooth as a baby's butt.

If you only ski a week in the west each year, something between 80 mm and 100 mm should give you more all-round utility.
post #5 of 24
goltim - A great 2nd ski to add to your Supershapes would be the IM88 in 175 (or the new Mojo 94).
post #6 of 24
Thread Starter 
I think that the number of days that I will need more width of a 100+ range ski will be quite limited, so I agree that a slightly more versatile ski in the 90+ range would probably me more my thing.

What I can't decide is whether a ski like the watea 94 that is a bit softer would be more useful for me than the mythic riders i have tried (which i liked very much in the crud, but was slightly disappointed by their powder performance on a deep day. Also, would a non-system MR be noticeably better in the powder than the system version (lighter, softer flex)?

Thanks for all the help guys...

Tim
post #7 of 24
I seem to recall dawg comparing the MR and Watea, and thinking the MR was a little more forgiving and easier to ski, but not as energetic or rewarding. I have not skied the MR myself.
post #8 of 24
If you like your supershapes then get M88 - excellent ski
post #9 of 24
I own an MR and ski the Watea clan frequently. IMO the MR is stiffer, straighter, and more demanding than the W-94. IME the MR is the better crud buster and has better grip on hard stuff. However in truly light snow, the MR does not flex as well as the 94 and therefore does not come around as easily. Also the W-94 is simply an easier going ski. If you want an agressive ride, go for the MR, if you want easier and more forgiving, go for the Watea.

SJ
post #10 of 24
The Rossi B-series could be the ticket.

Then there's also the AK King Salmon (94mm)...sweet, sweet ride.

You really need to get out and demo a few things early next season...
post #11 of 24
Get 177 MAntras, they'll work just fine for you!
post #12 of 24
K2 Pontoon
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
I own an MR and ski the Watea clan frequently. IMO the MR is stiffer, straighter, and more demanding than the W-94. IME the MR is the better crud buster and has better grip on hard stuff. However in truly light snow, the MR does not flex as well as the 94 and therefore does not come around as easily. Also the W-94 is simply an easier going ski. If you want an agressive ride, go for the MR, if you want easier and more forgiving, go for the Watea.

SJ
SJ has given some of the most solid and well researched info on this particular ski category for you.

I was joking about the Bros, but in all honesty IF you were to look at something 99 in the waist, the Standard Bro is a blast, and rails like no body's business.
post #14 of 24
Since you like your Head skis, I would echo a couple of suggestions that have already been made... either the iM88 in the 175cm or the new (2009) Mojo 94 in the 180cm.

Both have that similar "feel" to your SuperShapes but can handle a wider variety of deeper snow much more easily. As far as deciding between the two, I think the 88 would handle choppy snow and higher speed a tad better and the 94 would be slightly more fun in deeper snow, tighter places, and the terrain park (if you ever go there).

Deals will probably be available on the 88 over the summer, which is a consideration as well. I don't think you could go wrong with the 88, even if you're unable to demo. I've never talked into a good skier who didn't like the 88.

Good luck with the search.

disclaimer: I'm compensated to say nice things about Head skis.
post #15 of 24
I see a bit of a contradiction here. I read you love the SS, which is a great ski but if you want a more powder specific ski, you will most likely want a softer flexing ski. The 88 is a great board but if you thought the MR was too narrow for powder at 88/89 its should be similar in float to the MR. How much pow are you talking here? I am just wondering maybe the skills need to come up a bit and decide what you value in the ski. I love the 94 and think it's plenty float for up to knee high days but it's definitely softer and more easy going; which is a good thing to me. (6', 178#). If you want the SS powder ski equivelent, its hands down the Icelantic Shaman, 160-110-130, 15m TR. You can read my review.
post #16 of 24
Thread Starter 
thank you to everyone who has replied, this is really useful.

It would if course be ideal to demo some more before buying, but current deals of 50-60% discount are too good to pass up.

I'm leaning towards the watea 94 over the MR's (and im88s) due to the better soft snow perormance, and reports on this forum suggest that the watea also handles itself pretty well in the crud. The bros are just too expensive for me now, but I'm intrigued by the AK King Salmon (it's on sale) - does anyone have more specific info on this ski? Also what are people's opinions on the legend pro in 176 - is this too much ski for my weight?
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by goltim View Post
the legend pro in 176 - is this too much ski for my weight?

Not at all!
post #18 of 24
There is an important distinction to be made between soft snow and truly light snow. I chose the MR as a quiver ski for myself because snow conditions here in Tahoe and many other places in the West do not produce really light snow all that often. In situations where the snow is heavier, high moisture, sun baked, windblown, etc., the MR is superb. However, the really light snow that I described earlier does not provide enough resistance to flex the MR relative to say the 94 or other softer skis. Also, one should keep in mind that while the MR is not the superior ski in light snow......light snow is relatively easy. The MR IS superior in the more difficult conditions assuming one has the confidence to ski it fairly aggressively.

SJ
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
I see a bit of a contradiction here. I read you love the SS, which is a great ski but if you want a more powder specific ski, you will most likely want a softer flexing ski. The 88 is a great board but if you thought the MR was too narrow for powder at 88/89 its should be similar in float to the MR. How much pow are you talking here? I am just wondering maybe the skills need to come up a bit and decide what you value in the ski. I love the 94 and think it's plenty float for up to knee high days but it's definitely softer and more easy going; which is a good thing to me. (6', 178#). If you want the SS powder ski equivelent, its hands down the Icelantic Shaman, 160-110-130, 15m TR. You can read my review.

Icelantic Nomads in 168cm is my vote! And I have SS's also.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck it View Post
Icelantic Nomads in 168cm is my vote! And I have SS's also.
Wasn't he looking for something cheap on sale?
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
SierraJim - On your site you sell the MR's flat and as a system, is there much difference in performance between the two?

I have been reading up about the AK King Salmon here and over on TGR, seems like it might be what I'm looking for, but the info is quite thin on this ski, any more views on it?
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by goltim View Post
SierraJim - On your site you sell the MR's flat and as a system, is there much difference in performance between the two?
If you didn't know. That is about bindings..
post #23 of 24
Thread Starter 
I know that this relates to bindings ... What I meant was whether the softer flex and lighter weight that would probably come with a flat ski, would make it a better performer in softer snow - would this be a good compromise between the watea and the system mythic rider that I demoed.
post #24 of 24
You mentioned the Legend Pro--- that ski doesn't have too much sidecut compared to some other fat skis. The Rossi B serious are also pretty straight. I personally prefer more sidecut than either of those.

I just wrote on another thread that my buddy got Nordica Enforcers this year and totally loved them. He's 6'6", 250, with a racing background, so he really goes for it. The Enforcers hold pretty well on groomers considering they're 98mm underfoot, and they have (I think) 17m turn radius, so they're turny. I personally like to be on the turny side. I don't have a problem getting skis to NOT turn, so I'll take whatever help I can get as far as sidecut.


There's good deals on Enforcers out there right now, so have a look at least. Backcountry.com had some good user reviews on the ski.

Chris
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 › Looking for a wider ski...