or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › SAC alert: Scott Mission skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SAC alert: Scott Mission skis

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Just up, Scott Mission Skis @ $215.63 Two sizes: 178 and 168, they did not list the 183
post #2 of 14
Thread Starter 

Do you see what I see?

So the Scott's show up today. Very interesting graphic to say the least. Probably works well here in Utah for a certain faith but I am not sure what to think. Especially when you consider the direction ski graphics and names have gone in, it seems strange to see this graphic especially compared to the Dynastar Troublemaker graphic. Is Scott trying to make some kind of religious statement?
525x525px-LL-vbattach3448.jpg
525x525px-LL-vbattach3449.jpg
post #3 of 14
sick skis those are great harder days utah skis.
post #4 of 14
I've got 2 pair. 1 with alpine bindings & 1 with Fritschis, for skinning. They are soft, light & pretty good in just about anything. I got them for off piste, but they ski just fine on groomers & bumps if the snow is not rock hard.

I am 5' 10", 155 lbs. & got the 178's. The 183 would probably be better for someone bigger or wanting to make longer turns.

This is a great price!

Thanks,
JF
post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post
I've got 2 pair. 1 with alpine bindings & 1 with Fritschis, for skinning. They are soft, light & pretty good in just about anything. I got them for off piste, but they ski just fine on groomers & bumps if the snow is not rock hard.

I am 5' 10", 155 lbs. & got the 178's. The 183 would probably be better for someone bigger or wanting to make longer turns.

This is a great price!

Thanks,
JF
I would have preferred the 183 but they weren't offered on SAC. I just got the LD12 Railflex binding from Level Nine Sports mounted. They only charged $15 to mount them! I didn't realize how much those bindings elevate you above the ski. My guess is that I will experiment with fore and aft position and then eventually remount with a lighter binding.
post #6 of 14
I mounted mine right on the manufacturer's line. The skis have a huge sweet spot, making them really easy to ski. I hope you like them!
JF
post #7 of 14
I have a pair a couple of years old in 178 when they were still using the Santiago Mission name - surprisingly good on piste and a dream in anything over boot deep. I think you are going to love them. It's nice to be skiing something slightly left field too.
post #8 of 14
I'm bumping this thread to ask a length question on the Missions. I'm 5'9", 145, and not super-agressive--am I right to think that the 178s would be a bit too much ski for me in tight EC trees at MRG/Jay Peak.

I do a bit of hike up/ski down backcountry stuff, also, and the lighter weight you guys have cited sounds appealing, but does it have enough heft to handle the inevitable crud/hardpack of EC resort skiing? It wouldn't be my ice ski (Volkl P40s for that), but it's Vermont, so...you know...there will be ice.

The 168 seems like the better bet, right, for tight trees and the kind of short, quick turns I enjoy? My P40s are 163cm, so moving up to a 178 seems hard to wrap my head around. Then again, skiing the P40s on Big Jay again is hard to wrap my head around, too.
post #9 of 14
Yossarian,
I'm 5'10" 155, so about the same size. I have never skied in the east, so don't really know what the off piste skiing is like there. I tend to think you will be happy with the 168's.

The sacrifice is going to be some stability at higher speeds, & not as much float in deeper snow. Both lengths have a relatively short turning radius, & probably ski a little shorter than their labeled length because of their slightly turned up tail.

Either way, I think your head will be happier with the 168.

JF
post #10 of 14
Interesting this just came up again. I've been 'eyeballin' some of those.

Does this work pretty well as a powder ski?

I'm about 6ft, 205#.

I'm a little perplexed by the shortish 14.7m turn radius of the 178cm. I would think it longer.

Maybe I should go for the 183?

I was thinking I'm getting kind of lazy, not skiing as much as I used to...178?

Can't decide.

I am more of a short to medium radius turn lover. Thinking I would buy this as my soft snow ski for a few western trips. Or, if I luck out here in WV.
post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
I'm bumping this thread to ask a length question on the Missions. I'm 5'9", 145, and not super-agressive--am I right to think that the 178s would be a bit too much ski for me in tight EC trees at MRG/Jay Peak.

I do a bit of hike up/ski down backcountry stuff, also, and the lighter weight you guys have cited sounds appealing, but does it have enough heft to handle the inevitable crud/hardpack of EC resort skiing? It wouldn't be my ice ski (Volkl P40s for that), but it's Vermont, so...you know...there will be ice.

The 168 seems like the better bet, right, for tight trees and the kind of short, quick turns I enjoy? My P40s are 163cm, so moving up to a 178 seems hard to wrap my head around. Then again, skiing the P40s on Big Jay again is hard to wrap my head around, too.
Hey, I am 5'7 155 and ski pretty aggressively. I ski Jay thirty days a year. (Used to be 100+... ) and IMHO I think that the 168 will feel too short for you. The 178 MAY sound a little long, but I think that depending on where you mount them that may be the better choice, especially if you like to point 'em down the Haynes or the CanAm every once in a while when the woods are too icy and skied out. Once you try the longer ski I think you will be amazed at how quickly you can still get them around in bumpy, variable woods. FWIW, my daily driver this season on the same terrain will be a 183, and to compare to your 163 P40's my ice ski is a 162 Rossi Z9. Any chance you can demo both?
post #12 of 14
Johnny's Zoo,
For you...
Definitely 183

JF
post #13 of 14
I too have the 178 Missions. Was hoping to get something around 174 for quick turns in the tight trees, but the deal was too good to pass. Here is my question, I have read that moving the mount forward, shortens the ski up some, but how much is right, or too much? A BOF mount seem like it would really move the mount up. However, I have heard that is not the best idea for off piste. Any suggestions from the pro's? Positives for mounting forward, negatives? Thanks guys.
post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post
I've got 2 pair. 1 with alpine bindings & 1 with Fritschis, for skinning. They are soft, light & pretty good in just about anything. I got them for off piste, but they ski just fine on groomers & bumps if the snow is not rock hard.

I am 5' 10", 155 lbs. & got the 178's. The 183 would probably be better for someone bigger or wanting to make longer turns.

This is a great price!

Thanks,
JF
Your description of how they ski is right on the money. I haved found them great for virtually anything except hard pack. Then they chatter and don't grip enough due to being too soft. Maybe more edge bevel would help with that, but then I try to stick to the soft stuff anyway. So far, very happy with 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 › SAC alert: Scott Mission skis