EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Tell me I don't need more skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tell me I don't need more skis

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Greetings,

Long time lurker, you will usually find me on another site, but you guys are likely better to answer this question.
I started skiing again 5 seasons ago. Bought some used Vertigo's for the 1st season and traded for some 7/24's for the next season, then went to a AC4 the next 2 seasons. The AC 4 was a 170 and I weight 200lbs. I loved the AC 4's but then as a fluke, I bought some 187 skis and although they didn't work in powder the way I had hoped (tip dive) I loved the length (stability at speed) as an all mtn ski. So that got me looking at longer all mountain type skis and I bought a pair of 187 Movement Thunders in February. That ski absolutely rocks my world and with about 15 days on them, I have really made another huge jump in skill level, but here is the issue.
Now that I am attempting to ski all of the mountain at Mammoth, I find myself a little sketch in a few conditions due to the length and stiffness of the Thunders and my lack of skill. Dropping in on a 45+ degree slope and God forbid any bumps mixed in is intimidating, as these skis are a lot to turn (if a short radius) and again with my lack of skill in bumps and stiff skis, well it is a little scary at times.
Do I just sack up, keep hitting the runs that freak me out a little today until they are my bitch (or they pitch me and I am out for awhile) or do I get a ski like the Rossi Zenith 9 in a 177 to help me work my way through this part of the learning curve more easily? I focused on the Zenith 9 due to it's reputation as an advanced all mountain ski that is a low radius carver and is forgiving in the bumps.
The Thunders are 89 under the boot, the Zenith is about 74.
Thanks for reading the long post.
post #2 of 28
SACK IT UP!

I don't know too much about your Thunders, but I spent quite a few years with a 208 SG as my only ski. If they're too stiff, your skiing too slowly.
post #3 of 28
Instead of the Rossi, consider the Volkl Tigershark 12 in 175. You can get it cheap from either Sierra Jim or ptex1.
post #4 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post
Greetings,

Long time lurker, you will usually find me on another site, but you guys are likely better to answer this question.
Jong!!
There, you feel better now
Quote:
..........................187 Movement Thunders in February. That ski absolutely rocks my world and with about 15 days on them, I have really made another huge jump in skill level, but here is the issue.
Now that I am attempting to ski all of the mountain at Mammoth, I find myself a little sketch in a few conditions due to the length and stiffness of the Thunders and my lack of skill. Dropping in on a 45+ degree slope and God forbid any bumps mixed in is intimidating, as these skis are a lot to turn (if a short radius) and again with my lack of skill in bumps and stiff skis, well it is a little scary at times.
There are different tools for different jobs, and though most skis can be used by expert skiers in most any conditions, certain conditions are just funner with a funner tool.

I would suggest a midfat for a play ski in the bumps and shorter turn-ish conditions.
The one that immediately comes to mind is the Blizzard Cronus. Check it out. If you have questions about it, you could ask Whiteroom, or epic here. There are some good reviews of it in our gear review forum.

Quote:
Do I just sack up, keep hitting the runs that freak me out a little today until they are my bitch (or they pitch me and I am out for awhile) or.............
Funny! Weems said that at ESA Stowe. "make that snow your bitch!"

Quote:
do I get a ski like the Rossi Zenith 9 in a 177 to help me work my way through this part of the learning curve more easily? I focused on the Zenith 9 due to it's reputation as an advanced all mountain ski that is a low radius carver and is forgiving in the bumps.
The Thunders are 89 under the boot, the Zenith is about 74.
Thanks for reading the long post.
The Rossi Z series will be fine for short turns but you won't like them in the bumps, and in general, they are kind of an uninspirational ski.
Just my not so humble opinion.
post #5 of 28
The Zenith 9 is an often maligned ski that does ski really well. It will teach you a few things about arcing a ski. I think you may find the Zenith allows to have fun and progress as a skier, which will allow you to enjoy the Movement ski more.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Trekchick,
Thanks for the Jong, I was waiting for "tech forum biatch". I will read up on the Cronus, but as a rule, I thought Blizzard made burlier skis and I am trying for something a little softer (not soft) than the Thunders.
I may be mistaken, but the Thunders post a 23 turn radius and the Zenith's are about 16. Now I know you can jump turn any length ski, so really, does the turn radius even matter or would a little shorter more turny ski bounce better turn to turn in the steeps?
Looking at Jim's site, he gave the Zenith about the highest combined marks for bumps and groomed snow and I think off piste conditions. (I would never use them in pow as I have Maden's and Goliaths for that) They had much better combined marks than the Volkl.
Thanks for the replies.
post #7 of 28
OH! You meant "Tell me I need more skis"

Yes. I just bought a GS ski because I had SL, Deep snow, and SG.

You need the right tool for the Job. Get the Z9s.
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
SACK IT UP!

I don't know too much about your Thunders, but I spent quite a few years with a 208 SG as my only ski. If they're too stiff, your skiing too slowly.
I love this answer. I love stiff skis and I really love to go fast on a slope that is 40 degrees or less. It is the 45-50 degree stuff with a few bumps in it that is messin with my head, but I will get over it in time.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post
Trekchick,
Thanks for the Jong, I was waiting for "tech forum biatch". I will read up on the Cronus, but as a rule, I thought Blizzard made burlier skis and I am trying for something a little softer (not soft) than the Thunders.
I may be mistaken, but the Thunders post a 23 turn radius and the Zenith's are about 16. Now I know you can jump turn any length ski, so really, does the turn radius even matter or would a little shorter more turny ski bounce better turn to turn in the steeps?
Looking at Jim's site, he gave the Zenith about the highest combined marks for bumps and groomed snow and I think off piste conditions. (I would never use them in pow as I have Maden's and Goliaths for that) They had much better combined marks than the Volkl.
Thanks for the replies.
Well there you have it! Whiteroom and Sierra Jim both give props to the Z9. Two of the best in ski gear knowledge and review.
Get em!
You do NEED more skis!!

According to Lars, I'm just a chick trying to break my neck on some Bros
post #10 of 28
Hmmm, I think you owe it to yourself to buy more skis . But, you do seem to have conflicting requirements for a big-mountain ski that is also nimble. Going to a shorter ski will not meet both requirements. I think you need to look for a long ski that has a easier flex and can be tossed around. They do exist. At 200 lbs, I wouldn't go much shorter than 182cm if you plan to tackle gnarly terrain.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record mentioning Fischer Wateas all the time, but that is one example of a long ski with fairy good edge hold that is also pretty tossable. I initially found the 186cm Watea 94 a bit unwieldy in bumps and tight spaces, but last week I really got into the groove on them and was able to drive them through bumps and chutes pretty well considering my skill level. At least to the point where I was confident and comfortable. So I feel like this is an example of a semi-long ski that is amenable to tight spaces and fairly maneuverable. It has a pretty decent sidecut. The Watea 84 is even more forgiving and turny, but you lose some all-out stability. Anyhow, whether a Watea or not, try looking for skis that give you both length (for stability and edgehold) and flexibility/turnability (for maneuvering in tight spaces). Good luck!
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Hmmm, I think you owe it to yourself to buy more skis . But, you do seem to have conflicting requirements for a big-mountain ski that is also nimble. Going to a shorter ski will not meet both requirements. I think you need to look for a long ski that has a easier flex and can be tossed around. They do exist. At 200 lbs, I wouldn't go much shorter than 182cm if you plan to tackle gnarly terrain.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record mentioning Fischer Wateas all the time, but that is one example of a long ski with fairy good edge hold that is also pretty tossable. I initially found the 186cm Watea 94 a bit unwieldy in bumps and tight spaces, but last week I really got into the groove on them and was able to drive them through bumps and chutes pretty well considering my skill level. At least to the point where I was confident and comfortable. So I feel like this is an example of a semi-long ski that is amenable to tight spaces and fairly maneuverable. It has a pretty decent sidecut. The Watea 84 is even more forgiving and turny, but you lose some all-out stability. Anyhow, whether a Watea or not, try looking for skis that give you both length (for stability and edgehold) and flexibility/turnability (for maneuvering in tight spaces). Good luck!
Your description of your 186cm Watea 94 sounds similar to my Thunders except the fairy part and I hear you on the "conflicting requirements for a big-mountain ski that is also nimble". I too am skeptical of less than a 180ish ski for edge hold with my weight, but I thought a narrower waist (Thunders are 89) would prevent quiver overlap and I want a ski that is turny/nimble, good in the bumps, and can still blast through some crud at speed: Good luck is right. Thanks for the input.
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post
I want a ski that is turny/nimble, good in the bumps, and can still blast through some crud at speed: Good luck is right. Thanks for the input.
Yeah, that does sound kinda like an informercial! I'd seriously just ask Sierrajim or Dawgcatching directly- Describe to them the attributes you most desire and the conditions you're experiencing and I'm sure you can get a few excellent ideas. As for your skis, the thunders are maniacs from everything I've heard and I'd probably say you should try to up your game and rock 'em till those trails are your bitch! I'll always recommend buying more equipment, but you'll feel like superman the first time you smash those bumps in the thunders. You can do it! Backhand that trail on the thunders and then go buy yourself a new set of skis as a reward! Happy shopping brotha!
post #13 of 28
What happened to the AC4's ?
Why not just ski those? Even at 170 they're fine.
I have to agree with 219's comment on flex, but nothing < than 182? Nah..177 perfectly adequate. Even 170 is ok, just a bit harder. Christ people ski slalom skis all over the mountain-even in the west (just saw it done) it's harder and limits the turn shape but you'd certainly "learn more" than going to something in the mid 90's. (you might "pay more" in crashes too though)

Don't know about the Rossi, but Tigersharks are great. Personally I'd go with the 10' with switch. If you think they're no good on steep terrain, well I skied around with a bunch of really good skiers at Big sky who were on those things on the 45-48 deg pitches. They didn't "need" something long and fat.
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
SACK IT UP!

I don't know too much about your Thunders, but I spent quite a few years with a 208 SG as my only ski. If they're too stiff, your skiing too slowly.
I'd go this route.

I see a lot of "good" skiers that will never be great, just because they stick with skis like the zeneth that allow then to too easily stay in their comfort zone by making tiny little turns down everything.

I've found I push myself a lot more, and improve a lot more, when I'm skiing a ski that I HAVE to muscle around a little bit, one that doesn't come alive till you get some speed up.

Especially since you already have easy to ski skis for the iciest days, get something that pushes you a bit.
post #15 of 28
I think you have to compromise, if you ski in-bounds you are going to probably experience 45 degree steeps, 35 degree bumps, a 30 degree cruiser, and a 15 degree coaster to the lift almost every run. So which part of that do you want to ski with the most enjoyment? If Mammoth has a lift where you could cycle 45 degree stuff all day without the other and thats what you want to do then go with whatever you find works best for you in that scenario. So size up your ski for what you want to spend the most time skiing and live with the shortfalls in the other terrain that you occasionally find yourself. I do think you should be challenging yourself, If you can ski bumps with confidence and speed everything else will fall into line. If you make your thunders work in the bumps they will feel light and nimble everywhere else and you won't need another ski.
post #16 of 28
Do you want a ski that will help you progress... or do you want a ski that will allow you to ski better with your current skill set?

You're getting two different groups of opinions, one is "this will work better for you", and the other is "this will compliment the ski you have, and do some different stuff."

I'm assuming you're looking for the second option. Here are some popular choices:

Rossi Z9
Nordica Nitrous
Head Supershape Magnum
Volkl Tigershark
Dynastar Contact Ltd.
Stockli XXL

I'd look for something that will develop some fine edge control, help you create bigger edge angles (larger muscle groups, less fatigue, more power) and teaches you to stay centered (better balance). A carving oriented ski will do this... a long-ish, wide-ish, soft-ish ski won't.

So, do you want to get better, or feel like you ski better?
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
What happened to the AC4's ?
Why not just ski those? Even at 170 they're fine.
I have to agree with 219's comment on flex, but nothing < than 182? Nah..177 perfectly adequate. Even 170 is ok, just a bit harder. Christ people ski slalom skis all over the mountain-even in the west (just saw it done) it's harder and limits the turn shape but you'd certainly "learn more" than going to something in the mid 90's. (you might "pay more" in crashes too though)

Don't know about the Rossi, but Tigersharks are great. Personally I'd go with the 10' with switch. If you think they're no good on steep terrain, well I skied around with a bunch of really good skiers at Big sky who were on those things on the 45-48 deg pitches. They didn't "need" something long and fat.
I sold the 170 AC4's once I had a few days on the Thunders, there was no comparison between the 2 skis at my weight. The Thunders are just a more powerful, awe inspiring ski that demands the best from you. If you can meet the skis demands, they are incredible things for your confidence and will have you stepping up your game to the point where your quickly asking yourself "f$%k, I'm I ready for this"??.
The Tigershark while a 10 on groomers, rated poorly in bumps (like a 1 on Jim's site, so the Zenith 9 or Watea 84 with a 7 for bumps seems better for what I am trying to accomplish (turny in steeps / forgiving in bumps) with no overlap on my Thunders if I go with the Zenith 9 in the 176. I just wish it was a 180. Guess I could try to lose 20 pds by next winter:
Thanks for your 2 cents
post #18 of 28
Eliminate the Head ss magnums. Way too soft for your weight. I own these and weigh about the same as you. Mine are 170's and probably would be much better at 177 at a place like Big Sky. As it was, they tended to flop around way too much at the bottom of the turn in the steep (low to mid 40 deg) and soft snow.

Quote:
So, do you want to get better, or feel like you ski better? -Whiteroom


I argue that if you want to get better go with something less than 78mm underfoot. Learn to feel the inside ski engaged in the snow. Get it down on the groomed with forays into the soft. Learn to ski those and then go back to the fats.
If you want to feel better, well go with something like 125 underfoot. That way on steep terrain you can just slideslip down like a bad snowboarder.
post #19 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Do you want a ski that will help you progress... or do you want a ski that will allow you to ski better with your current skill set?

I'm assuming you're looking for the second option. Here are some popular choices:

Rossi Z9
Nordica Nitrous
Head Supershape Magnum
Volkl Tigershark
Dynastar Contact Ltd.
Stockli XXL

I'd look for something that will develop some fine edge control, help you create bigger edge angles (larger muscle groups, less fatigue, more power) and teaches you to stay centered (better balance). A carving oriented ski will do this... a long-ish, wide-ish, soft-ish ski won't.

So, do you want to get better, or feel like you ski better?
Ahhh... Whiteroom, perceptive read there.
I want a ski that will allow me to ski better with my current skill set with the thought that will make me a better skier too?
I agree that I can sack up, ski the thunders all next season and be much better by years end, however, there are runs I won't try on the Thunders yet, that I may try on your other suggestions right away.
The goal in buying skis is always to get better. That said, am I better served mastering the Thunders or having a different pair of sticks in the quiver to (possibly?) move me forward quicker is what I am struggling with.
I appreciate your insight.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2 ski View Post

The Tigershark while a 10 on groomers, rated poorly in bumps (like a 1 on Jim's site, so the Zenith 9 or Watea 84 with a 7 for bumps seems better for what I am trying to accomplish (turny in steeps / forgiving in bumps) with no overlap on my Thunders if I go with the Zenith 9 in the 176. I just wish it was a 180. Guess I could try to lose 20 pds by next winter:
Just saw your post. Don't take those scales on Jim's site with any seriousness. He has posted here saying there was a mistake by the webmaster that essentially allowed anyone to change them. So if you see a "1" it just means someone has slid the pointer to 1 and left it there. They are not "votes" and maybe at one time were the opinions of the testers but their value has been quickly destroyed.

As for length, you can learn a lot on shorter skis that will translate in technique for longer skis. The reverse is not nearly as true. By short I'm talking like 170 or less. Really want to get better? Go down there, but in the mid 60mm's to low 70's tops.
The z9 sounds like a good choice in shape, don't know it's flex. Goodness, 176 is more than enough.

Don't forget that speed hides a multitude of problems. It's much harder to ski slow. (not talking racing here)
Ingemar Stenmark got better by skiing extremely slowly.
post #21 of 28
179 K2 PUBLIC ENEMY, mounted 0 or +1.

IMHO, one of the best skis for technically demanding terrain and snow conditions, east or west.
post #22 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
179 K2 PUBLIC ENEMY, mounted 0 or +1.

IMHO, one of the best skis for technically demanding terrain and snow conditions, east or west.
My ski partner has a pair and we have the same BSL.
Next time we are out I will trade with him.
I hate the ptex top sheet on those skis as they look like sh!t quick.
But he tears up the mountain on them, so maybe your right.
Also, they are cheap to buy and I have some new Solie sth 16's looking for a home.
post #23 of 28
I'm guessing we are talking about wipeouts/dropouts, hangers & the avi chutes--i.e. bumped up & 40+degrees? I went through a similar progression to you: traded some 170 im75s for 178 Bandit XXX's and LOVED the Bandits in the Spring corn. (I'm about 185 & 5'-9" so the lengths are shorter but I think the experience is similar.) But then sometimes I noticed that the Bandits were kind of clunky and I was more comfortable billygoating those tricky entrances in the im75s. I moved away from Mammoth, but I think I'd like what I'm skiing now there: 172 Salomon Furies. I also skied some Seths at whistler in 179 that would work. or 179 soft bros? I don't think skiing the terrain you're talking about is a question of getting on edge, its a question of not getting thrown around and learning to stay in balance while threading your way through the obstacles--so width for stability and shorter and softer for agility and forgiveness. You might go longer than I do, but I think the 179-ish length in a softish mid fat works. And bindings not too far back (a problem with my bandits)--how that relates to manufacturers mark will depend on the ski.
post #24 of 28
Thread Starter 
I just wanted to thank all of you for taking the time to give me some food for thought. After reviewing lots of skis today, I am leaning towards the Nordica Nitrous in a 178. I think they will fill the bill for what I am looking for with no over lap with my other skis.
Now could it dump just a few more days for me to try them out this season?
post #25 of 28
Well I guess we have suceeded in convincing you that you do need more skis.
Beware of the slippery slope that will land you in this thread:
The utterly shameless extroverted how big is your quiver PICTURE thread!!!

This is "Fat Boy":
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
And this is "Thin Man":

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post
just a little teaser......
Who will you be?

-cheers
post #26 of 28
[quote=Trekchick;894676]Jong!!


I always wondered what in the world this term means? I have read it many times and am not forum savvy enough to guess? Help please! Sorry, this has nothing to do with the OP.
post #27 of 28
Since you are already into Movement, why don't you consider the Gladiator? I found this ski surprisingly comfortable in the bumps and in eveything else also for that matter (just didn't liked ice!). In a couple of day's my speed in bumps doubled on them. Surely a ski that gives convidence! As it skied so easy with 92mm underfoot, I'm considering the Goliath myself (1.93/108mm) as my second (softsnow) ski.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by QmQ View Post
Since you are already into Movement, why don't you consider the Gladiator? I found this ski surprisingly comfortable in the bumps and in eveything else also for that matter (just didn't liked ice!). In a couple of day's my speed in bumps doubled on them. Surely a ski that gives convidence! As it skied so easy with 92mm underfoot, I'm considering the Goliath myself (1.93/108mm) as my second (softsnow) ski.
I would highly recommend Movement skis to anyone looking in the mid 80's to 108 (Goliaths) waist, as I think this brand is the **** for advanced/strong skiers. However, to avoid quiver overlap (I already have the 89 waist Thunders) and address the bumps issue that I am weakest at (I suck in steep bumps) I am thinking a narrower, softer ski is what is needed to keep progressing in that terrain. I would prefer a mid 70 waist in a 180 with a medium flex. The Nitrous seems to closely fit the shopping list.
Once I have this monkey (skill set learned) off my back, I will be on my Thunders as much as possible. For me, I know those skis will go anywhere, if you have the sack/skill to drive them.
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 › Tell me I don't need more skis