EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Minority report on Nordica Afterburner and Mach 3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Minority report on Nordica Afterburner and Mach 3

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Me: 6', 164 lbs, middle aged, advanced, like to turn.

Conditions: Heavy spring slush and chop over ice. Was skiing my Head SS 165's, happened upon Nordica demo tent. Reacted appropriately. These are the first Nordicas I've ever skied. Both were a bit long for my weight, especially the Mach's. I figured that might slow down edge to edge response some, but make them extra steady in the goop. Took two long runs on each, varied terrain. Played around with turn types and forward pressure.

Nordica Afterburners, 178 cm: Expected to be knocked out by this ski, especially in these conditions. Instead, found a nondescript, surprisingly easy turning midfat with good snow feel, but an annoying tendency to ride up in the goop and get bounced around. Didn't feel all that stable in big arcs at speed. Nice ski, but nothing special IMO.

Nordica Mach 3, 178 cm: Ditto expectations, this time found a plain vanilla carver that pivoted nicely in soft bumps and crud, but ironically didn't like to carve through them. In fact, far less solidity than my 165 Supershapes. Better at higher speeds than the Afterburners, but in all other ways, I liked them less.

Sorry, Nordica afficionados, just don't get the appeal. Maybe wrong sizes, or maybe conditions just didn't favor their strengths.
post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Me: 6', 164 lbs, middle aged, advanced, like to turn.

Nordica Afterburners, 178 cm: Expected to be knocked out by this ski, especially in these conditions. Instead, found a nondescript, surprisingly easy turning midfat with good snow feel, but an annoying tendency to ride up in the goop and get bounced around. Didn't feel all that stable in big arcs at speed. Nice ski, but nothing special IMO.



Sorry, Nordica afficionados, just don't get the appeal. Maybe wrong sizes, or maybe conditions just didn't favor their strengths.
I'm 5-11 195 and after about 25 days on my ABs (178) this year I'd have to guess the 178 was too long. Mine are quite stable in long high speed turns. They do seem to prefer a little more edge angle rather than an "old school" style. YMMV.


Steve
post #3 of 12
I'm 5'10", 165 lbs, strong skier and own the Mach 3s.

178 is definitely too long for a guy your size.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Expected to be knocked out by this ski, especially in these conditions.....

Nordica Mach 3, 178 cm: Ditto expectations,
You probably raised your expectations reading about the Mach 3 Power. I've read some good things about the "power", but nothing to suggest the ordinary Mach 3 is anything out of the ordinary.
post #5 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Sorry, Nordica afficionados, just don't get the appeal. Maybe wrong sizes, or maybe conditions just didn't favor their strengths.
Try the Jet Fuels. Sounds like you need some metal. Nordica is good stuff.
post #6 of 12
Wanted to comment that I **LOVE** my Afterburners, but I ski 170's. I'm 6', 175, and do pretty much the wh9ole mountain at Copper, with back bowls being my fav!

I was skiing Nordicas w/ metal, previously, and like the greater flex of the AB's.

I'd suggest that's something to check out too, in demo's: metal vs. not; at same length(!)

(I do quality engineering, statistics, etc. and would HIGHLY recommend exploring one variable -- e.g. length, or metal/not -- at a time; especially since they DO interact! i.e., change two, or more, at once, and whop knows which accounts for changes in what you experience! ;-/ )
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Me: 6', 164 lbs, middle aged, advanced, like to turn.

Conditions: Heavy spring slush and chop over ice. Was skiing my Head SS 165's, happened upon Nordica demo tent. Reacted appropriately. These are the first Nordicas I've ever skied. Both were a bit long for my weight, especially the Mach's. I figured that might slow down edge to edge response some, but make them extra steady in the goop. Took two long runs on each, varied terrain. Played around with turn types and forward pressure.

Nordica Afterburners, 178 cm: Expected to be knocked out by this ski, especially in these conditions. Instead, found a nondescript, surprisingly easy turning midfat with good snow feel, but an annoying tendency to ride up in the goop and get bounced around. Didn't feel all that stable in big arcs at speed. Nice ski, but nothing special IMO.

Nordica Mach 3, 178 cm: Ditto expectations, this time found a plain vanilla carver that pivoted nicely in soft bumps and crud, but ironically didn't like to carve through them. In fact, far less solidity than my 165 Supershapes. Better at higher speeds than the Afterburners, but in all other ways, I liked them less.

Sorry, Nordica afficionados, just don't get the appeal. Maybe wrong sizes, or maybe conditions just didn't favor their strengths.
yeah at 200lb I found the 172 mach 3 power to be pretty strong ski, lots of fun to ski, not forgiving enough in bumps...so I got the RC4 progressors...which I know feel should be 175cm or 180cm.

For a ski like the Mach 3 series I would drop down a size and get some metal in them then it may just work out great.
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
For a ski like the Mach 3 series I would drop down a size and get some metal in them then it may just work out great.
Yeah, with all the positive stuff about these skis, figured it must be the length. Gong shorter with some metal sounds reasonable to me; might also prefer the Jet Fuel over the AB. I'll look to try some next winter.
post #9 of 12
Beyond:

I found the AB's to be one of the most stable yet lively, precise and versatile skis I've ever tried. You can find my demo review in this forum somewhere. Unfortunately, at only 130lbs., even the 170's were too much ski for me...almost (as long as my technique was near-perfect they were amazing in deep snow, hard pack, bumps, fast/wide turns, etc; if not, they kicked my ass). I would have loved to try them in about 165cm, but they don't come in that size (and I don't like the feel of real short skis anyway).

As usual, not every skier (at similar weight and ability) will have the same impressions of a given ski, so demo, demo, demo.... Next year that is!

Have a great spring, summer, fall..., then more :
post #10 of 12
At 6', 185#, I found the AB in 178 to be a great all around ski. Does it have weaknesses? Sure. They don't carve as well as my slalom carvers (duh) especially at high speeds on steep icy groomers. They don't float as well as pure powder skis (duh). They're not great in moguls (or maybe I'm not great in moguls). But if you can only have one pair of skis to ski in the east and west in a wide variety of conditions, I haven't found a ski I like better.
post #11 of 12

Nordica

Demo'd and bought 178 AB's after several recommendations here on Epic. Skied them the rest of the year. Really like the ski, very versatile in all types of snow land terrain. Feel very comfortable on this ski - it does what I want it to do. 5'11", 200 lbs, skiing 37 yrs, advanced skier
post #12 of 12
I ski both the Mach 3 and the Mach 3 Power in 170cm and I'm an aggressive 220 lb skier! I also owned the Fischer Progressor in 175cm and found it to be too short. 178cm is definately too long for you, go with the 170 or shorter.
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 › Minority report on Nordica Afterburner and Mach 3