New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My skis -- your views?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I think that the first thing to do is to introduce myself and say something about where and how I ski.

I’m 56 years old, 5’10”, 166 lbs. I’ve been skiing for a LONG time – with some long interruptions too. I also have some bits of me that don’t work as well as they used to, so I’m past cliff-jumping and I get protest messages from my knees after a couple of bump fields. What I really like doing is making short radius turns in powder off piste.

(I don’t know how to embed video, but here’s a YOUTUBE of the kind of thing. Since there isn’t much going on skiing-wise, I recommend it anyway!)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uiWk6IZqwDk



I recently moved to the U.S. (Massachusetts) and from now on my skiing is probably going to look like this: a couple of weeks a year in Europe (Val d’Isere) and the odd weekend somewhere in the U.S.A.

I initially thought that I wouldn’t buy skis to have in Europe (just rent) but that I ought to own a pair for the U.S.

So here’s my experience of skis.

I’ve skied a lot of different skis for off piste skiing in the last few years. I haven’t liked Rossi Bandits (B2 or B3) – feel flat, heavy and dead to me. I’ve quite liked Trabs – light and lively and perfectly skiable on trail. Then this season I demoed (only on trail) some Dynastar Legend Mythic Riders (= 8800) as well as some X-Wing Furies, Volkl AC 40, AC 30 and some K2 Apaches. I liked the Dynastar best – found the Volkl’s heavy and the K2s very dead (although that may have had to do with the hire shop and the condition they were in).

I also skied some Mythic Riders (178) off piste and some Dynastar “Val d’Iseres” (172). The Mythic Riders were fine – you had to let them (sort of) ski themselves. Though they were heavy, you could get all the support you needed if you skied them gently and progressively. My though, they WERE heavy to carry up the hill! The Val d’Iseres were a lighter ski (I skied them in 172) and they needed a more active (I hope not “aggressive”) style. What’s more, I thought that they were perfect for skiing on trail.

But of all the skis I’ve used off piste, the ones I’ve liked the best have been the Salomon Pocket Rockets. I haven’t used a pair for five years, but my memory is of being able to ski in really poor snow (e.g. in the tracks of previous skiers) as if I were skiing fresh powder.

Now here’s what I bought.

I thought that it’s pretty clear that I like my skis light and lively and that I like the feel of Dynastars. What’s more, I’m not going to be getting into bottomless powder skiing on the East Coast of the U.S. so I bought a pair of 172 Dynastar Legend 4800s with standard bindings. They’re basically on trail skis to throw in the car if someone wants to head for the mountains on a weekend.

Then I started thinking. First, I was pretty fed up at not getting the skis I wanted in the length I wanted when hiring (if you need AT bindings, the hire options aren’t good, even in Val d’Isere) and, second, a friend of mine told me that he will have space in his cellar for skis if I want to keep some in the resort. So that pushed me.

First off, I bought a pair of Legend 8000s, also 172, having been told (I haven’t been able to check this!) that the “Val d’Iseres” are re-badged 8000s, with a Dynastar “Early Tram” (= rebadged Naxo) AT binding, and a pair of skins.

Finally, unable to hold back, I bought a pair of 164 Salomon 1080 Guns and a pair of Diamir Fritschi Freeride Plus bindings.

Did I take too much of a risk going with the 164 Guns (but they only come in 164 or 174)? And nowadays there are a lot more twin-tips than there were when the PRs came on the scene. Is there something else I could have gone for?

Anyway, thanks for reading such a long post – and thanks in advance for any of your thoughts.
post #2 of 18
H&T;

First, welcome to EpicSki!

If you asked me one can't own too many skis (my wife begs to differ

If you prefer shortswing the 164 should be fine IMO. For higher speed cruising the Dynastars would probably be better. But, always be open to getting something else especially if you consider used gear. Craigslist and eBay are full of gear that is barely used and priced way below cost:
post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
H&T;

First, welcome to EpicSki!

If you asked me one can't own too many skis (my wife begs to differ

If you prefer shortswing the 164 should be fine IMO. For higher speed cruising the Dynastars would probably be better. But, always be open to getting something else especially if you consider used gear. Craigslist and eBay are full of gear that is barely used and priced way below cost:
Thanks for the welcome!

It's not so much owning skis as getting them on and off planes ...
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherandthither View Post
Thanks for the welcome!

It's not so much owning skis as getting them on and off planes ...
With the direction the airlines have headed I plan to let UPS transport my ski gear and possibly my luggage when traveling by air. Just ship a small locked ski box with clothes wrapped around the skis inside and you can take several pair. Then they can be waiting for you at your hotel/destination when you arrive. And, you won't have to lug them through airports. Overseas travel would be a bit more complicated, but I'd be wary of taking even one pair overseas. I'd probably take my rock skis and rent/demo something at the resort like you suggested earlier:
post #5 of 18
Nice pairing. My guess is that you won't be skiing the 4800's much when you have the L8K's in your quiver. They handle trails just fine and in many respects better. The Gun is a good soft snow ski, so if you go anywhere where it is more than an ankle-deep, you will have fun on the Guns. In a way you also have good redundancy, as the Gun is quite confident on groomers, and the L8Ks can ski any snow depth (I was once surprised how they performed on a deep powder day at Squaw Valley here in California). Enjoy, and welcome to EpicSki.

Alex



Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherandthither View Post
I think that the first thing to do is to introduce myself and say something about where and how I ski.

I’m 56 years old, 5’10”, 166 lbs. I’ve been skiing for a LONG time – with some long interruptions too. I also have some bits of me that don’t work as well as they used to, so I’m past cliff-jumping and I get protest messages from my knees after a couple of bump fields. What I really like doing is making short radius turns in powder off piste.

(I don’t know how to embed video, but here’s a YOUTUBE of the kind of thing. Since there isn’t much going on skiing-wise, I recommend it anyway!)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uiWk6IZqwDk



I recently moved to the U.S. (Massachusetts) and from now on my skiing is probably going to look like this: a couple of weeks a year in Europe (Val d’Isere) and the odd weekend somewhere in the U.S.A.

I initially thought that I wouldn’t buy skis to have in Europe (just rent) but that I ought to own a pair for the U.S.

So here’s my experience of skis.

I’ve skied a lot of different skis for off piste skiing in the last few years. I haven’t liked Rossi Bandits (B2 or B3) – feel flat, heavy and dead to me. I’ve quite liked Trabs – light and lively and perfectly skiable on trail. Then this season I demoed (only on trail) some Dynastar Legend Mythic Riders (= 8800) as well as some X-Wing Furies, Volkl AC 40, AC 30 and some K2 Apaches. I liked the Dynastar best – found the Volkl’s heavy and the K2s very dead (although that may have had to do with the hire shop and the condition they were in).

I also skied some Mythic Riders (178) off piste and some Dynastar “Val d’Iseres” (172). The Mythic Riders were fine – you had to let them (sort of) ski themselves. Though they were heavy, you could get all the support you needed if you skied them gently and progressively. My though, they WERE heavy to carry up the hill! The Val d’Iseres were a lighter ski (I skied them in 172) and they needed a more active (I hope not “aggressive”) style. What’s more, I thought that they were perfect for skiing on trail.

But of all the skis I’ve used off piste, the ones I’ve liked the best have been the Salomon Pocket Rockets. I haven’t used a pair for five years, but my memory is of being able to ski in really poor snow (e.g. in the tracks of previous skiers) as if I were skiing fresh powder.

Now here’s what I bought.

I thought that it’s pretty clear that I like my skis light and lively and that I like the feel of Dynastars. What’s more, I’m not going to be getting into bottomless powder skiing on the East Coast of the U.S. so I bought a pair of 172 Dynastar Legend 4800s with standard bindings. They’re basically on trail skis to throw in the car if someone wants to head for the mountains on a weekend.

Then I started thinking. First, I was pretty fed up at not getting the skis I wanted in the length I wanted when hiring (if you need AT bindings, the hire options aren’t good, even in Val d’Isere) and, second, a friend of mine told me that he will have space in his cellar for skis if I want to keep some in the resort. So that pushed me.

First off, I bought a pair of Legend 8000s, also 172, having been told (I haven’t been able to check this!) that the “Val d’Iseres” are re-badged 8000s, with a Dynastar “Early Tram” (= rebadged Naxo) AT binding, and a pair of skins.

Finally, unable to hold back, I bought a pair of 164 Salomon 1080 Guns and a pair of Diamir Fritschi Freeride Plus bindings.

Did I take too much of a risk going with the 164 Guns (but they only come in 164 or 174)? And nowadays there are a lot more twin-tips than there were when the PRs came on the scene. Is there something else I could have gone for?

Anyway, thanks for reading such a long post – and thanks in advance for any of your thoughts.
post #6 of 18
i dunno, at 5'10" those 164's seem awfully short for a soft snow/off-piste/powder ski...

i'm 5'11" and 171lbs and anything shorter than 180 feels way too short to me.

all of my powder oriented planks are at least 185 - 188, as you're gonna want the float.

just my 2 cents (and you can make short radius turns on something that length, too).

anyway, hope the 164's turn out okay, but again that seems way, way, way too short for a soft snow/off-piste ski, especially at your height.
post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
i dunno, at 5'10" those 164's seem awfully short for a soft snow/off-piste/powder ski...

i'm 5'11" and 171lbs and anything shorter than 180 feels way too short to me.

all of my powder oriented planks are at least 185 - 188, as you're gonna want the float.
At first, I thought that too.

Quote:
anyway, hope the 164's turn out okay, but again that seems way, way, way too short for a soft snow/off-piste ski, especially at your height.
But then I realised that this will be East Coast tree ski for someone who likes PRs.

He'll be OK with that, I think; float not so much important as decent in bumps, random icey slough, minced crust, snow whale residue, spring slush come April.

At his weight, however, those 172cm 4800s might be pushing a bit stiff for East Coast ice days.

Ever been on a slightly-too-stiff carving ski that engages the tip on hardpack, but then lets go/slips the middle, just because the weight and speed aren't enough to flex the middle so it can follow the path of the tip?

And you sitting there, wondering what in the blazes is going wrong, the edges are sharp, the skis work fine and technique is not an issue?

So, my opinion is a little bit of a variation on yours, dook: the Guns are fine for EC but probably too little for taking West; the 4800s are fine for knocking about at speed or on softish days but not ideal for true ice days.
post #8 of 18
I am impressed with Head. The Liquidmetal thing really works. East Coast woods, im88. There's also the 82 but the 88 seems to generate more interest. The MoJo I know nothing about but some here seem to like em. PR vs Mojo - no contest.
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
First off, many thanks to everyone for some excellent thoughts and kind welcome. I'm so glad I found this forum!

dookey -- my thinking about the length was this. I was skiing the 8000s (AKA Val d'Iseres) at 172 in powder (not bottomless, admittedly) and having no difficulty with flotation. Now the Guns come in 174 or 164, so the question was: up a length or down. Since the Guns are wider, going down seemed sensible. I guess I'll have to wait to find out!

comprex -- that's a very interesting point. I realized that the 4800s would be thinner than the 8000s but didn't think that they would be stiffer too. The sidecut doesn't look very radical so it should be possible to get the middle engaged. Shouldn't it? Well, I guess I'll have to wait to find that out too.

Paul Jones -- so which Head twin tip do you think I should be looking at?
post #10 of 18
4800 is supposed to be a softer ski than L8K, isn't it so?

Alex


Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherandthither View Post
First off, many thanks to everyone for some excellent thoughts and kind welcome. I'm so glad I found this forum!

dookey -- my thinking about the length was this. I was skiing the 8000s (AKA Val d'Iseres) at 172 in powder (not bottomless, admittedly) and having no difficulty with flotation. Now the Guns come in 174 or 164, so the question was: up a length or down. Since the Guns are wider, going down seemed sensible. I guess I'll have to wait to find out!

comprex -- that's a very interesting point. I realized that the 4800s would be thinner than the 8000s but didn't think that they would be stiffer too. The sidecut doesn't look very radical so it should be possible to get the middle engaged. Shouldn't it? Well, I guess I'll have to wait to find that out too.

Paul Jones -- so which Head twin tip do you think I should be looking at?
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherandthither View Post
Paul Jones -- so which Head twin tip do you think I should be looking at?
Not concerned about twin tip. East Coast woods ski, I think the im88 needs to be on the list. I would try several Heads, they are a mighty fine ski.

You could even go up to Stowe and see Whiteroom for some demos.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitherandthither View Post
so which Head twin tip do you think I should be looking at?
Aw man, I was going to sit this one out but you just got me, hook line and sinker!

Welcome to Epic, and welcome to Massachusetts as well- you'll come to hate it in no time.

Reading your original post (OP), you said you like your skis light and lively, and here you ask which Head twin to look at, and I give you the Mojo 90. I have owned mine for about a half season (I got the '08 boards @ 89mm waist & 176 length, I'm 5'9", 165lbs) and I love them more and more every day. They handle east coast ice with nay a problem, but really shine when it gets fresh out- basically anything between loose base and a foot of snow is where they blow the comp out of the water. They are the most agile ski I have ever been on and I have had many concur with me that they may quite possibly be the best tree ski ever made. Some disagree, but whatcha gonna do? I describe it as a stiffer and far more composed version of the PE with more float but not suffering on the hard stuff. Basically to answer your question, only you can know for sure. If you want a crud-buster extraordinaire that will rail the face off groomers, go with the im88, if you want an agile, quick turning tree weapon that has a steamy love affair with the freshies, go with the Mojo 90. The only real reason I'd say go twin is because the up-curved tail makes it easier to break turn radius in the tight trees when some scary stuff creeps up on you. Otherwise, it doesn't matter much besides the rooster tails, which are just plain cool.
post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Welcome to Epic, and welcome to Massachusetts as well- you'll come to hate it in no time.
Thanks so much!

You've described just what I'm looking for. OK, I've got the Guns but they will (probably) sit in a cave in Val d'Isere, so I'm still open for a ski for Massachusetts. It sounds like this is the one. I should probably do a demo, though. I'm just about your size but I can't help thinking that 176 might be a bit long for my taste.
post #14 of 18
Meh. I kinda thought the same thing but they really are just so damn nimble and light that it disappears once you've taken your first 5 turns. I think they make a 168 as well, but I'm not positive. I would encourage the 176 over a shorter length tho, you'll be glad you did. Oh, and I was referring to Mass, not epic in the hateage department. Be careful on the roads mate! Be sure to let us know what you get and try to buy 'em from an epic-supporting company (look in the deals section) to give back to the forums a lil bit! If you can demo, that's always a good idea. Maybe whiteroom can help... Wait, what's your boot size?
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
Meh. I kinda thought the same thing but they really are just so damn nimble and light that it disappears once you've taken your first 5 turns. Yes, I don't suppose that I will get AT bindings and do any walking in the U.S. But at my age (and fitness level ) that's also a consideration. I think they make a 168 as well, but I'm not positive. I would encourage the 176 over a shorter length tho, you'll be glad you did. Oh, and I was referring to Mass, not epic in the hateage department. I love what I've seen of Epic so far, and I'm adapting to MA, I think (I must say that I don't have much use for snow without mountains -- especially in March and April, though). Be careful on the roads mate! I don't have a car (use Zipcar when I have to) but I bike in a helmet -- which I don't do in Europe. (Some) drivers seem to have short attention spans, to be sure. Be sure to let us know what you get and try to buy 'em from an epic-supporting company (look in the deals section) to give back to the forums a lil bit! Will do. If you can demo, that's always a good idea. Maybe whiteroom can help... Wait, what's your boot size? Body in Berlin, boots in Massachusetts. 310 mm, I think.
Best, Mike ...
post #16 of 18
Zipcar, eh? Must be in Beantown or nearby... Those zipcars are cool, my friend tried to explain how it works, but I'm still lost... My bindings are @ 315... I have mojo 11 bindings on 'em, but know nothing of binding adjustment capabilities- if we can get em to work without a remount I'd be more than willing to meet up & let you take em for a rip once we get some snow around here. Keep in touch.
post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 
DW, you're a star!

(Yes, based in the People's Republic of Cambridge -- which makes me wonder sometimes whether I'm in Massachusetts, or even in the U.S. at all. )
post #18 of 18
You're not. The Boston area is another dimension entirely.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion