EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Still Undecided, now consider 84mm, up from 78mm. How much of a difference is this really going to make?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Still Undecided, now consider 84mm, up from 78mm. How much of a difference is this really going to make?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I ski 70mm skis now and have always had narrower skis. I considered the Mach3 Powers for my new ski, but after much research I decided to go with the 78mm Top Fuels. I made this decision because I live in Texas and really only want 1 ski. I spend 80+% of my time on groomers and prefer medium sized/arc'd turns at relatively high speeds. I'm 6'0, 145LBS and currently ski a Nordica SUV14 in 180cm. I'm going to come down to 170 because the 180 is probably too much for my weight. Anyways, even this narrow ski requires a decent amount of speed to get going.

I thought I decided on the Top Fuels because it would provide more versatility in crud and it has two layers of metal so should provide great edge grip. My fear was giving up performance on groomers coming from my 70mm. However, I don't really do short radius carving so I may not be getting the value out of a 70mm ski. Hence why I dropped the Mach3 Power and moved to the Top Fuel.

However, the trend appears to be wider, and now I'm considering the Jet Fuels, which are essentially the same ski as the Top Fuel except 6mm wider.

Am I really going to notice the difference between 78 and 84mm (both on and off piste, both hard and soft snow)? I guess this is why demo'ing would be great, but we're headed off to 8 days in Switzerland and Austria and I doubt I can find demo's out there and in all honesty I don't want to screw around with demo'ing on my vacation.

Anyways, how much harder is it going to be to turn the 84s? I'm assuming the edge grip should be similar and I'll get a little better powder performance on the 84s with possibly a little loss in VERY fast edge to edge turning. However, I don't do short radius carving so quick edge-to-edge may not be as important as it sounds.

What do you guys/gals think? Both skis are about the same price, and I'm considering 170cm in both skis. I'm not completely against considering the AfterBurner and Nitrous, but I think I'd like the extra metal, although even my SUV 14s which are stiff have just one layer of metal so I imagine the TF and JF will be stiffer none the less. At my weight I don't know if I'd gain a whole lot with the metal versus carbon, but it "sounds" cool and edge grip and high speed stability are important to me.

Thanks,
Brian

PS - 90+% of my skiing is in Coloado (Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breck), Lake Tahoe (Northstar), and Utah (Deer Valley, Park City). However, the next trip is Ischgl and Zermatt, but I'm probably best off buying for the conditions in the Western US since most of my skiing will be there.

I ski mainly groomers because my g/f is much newer to skiing and I do enjoy ripping down hills more than anything now. Although I do like to occasional bump runs, I find myself enjoying the groomers more so I'd like to lean towards good groomer performance. However, I can't control the weather and sometimes it gets kind of cruddy. I find my SUV14s to be great on hard pack groomers, but if it gets tracked out or starts snowing, I lose some confidence in them so I'm willing to consider crud/light powder performance pretty significantly.
post #2 of 23
As a complement to your 70mm wide skis, it's a no-brainer to go as wide as you're willing to go.
post #3 of 23
Nordica's should do the job but it doesn't hurt to go bigger.

Look at the Head Monster 82's its enough ski to hit the whole mountain on any day but the biggest days (at your weight though I'm sure the biggest days it would do just fine). Dynastar Legend 8000 would be another nice choice. The Nordica AfterBurners your looking at are right on the right track also (excellent ski). These three will be friendly on the groomers for all type of turns for the most part and still tear it up off piste. For what your doing it could really be the only ski you use.

Any of those three you can't go wrong with for what you want out of a ski. Your going to be splitting hairs between them all. If you got a chance demo each of them. One might just click for your style/technique/feel of skiing and you'll know it. If you weren't skiing much on the grommers with the gf then I'd say go 90+.
post #4 of 23
You probably will not even be able to get those 84mm behemoths up on edge. No one ever needs a ski that fat.
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
You probably will not even be able to get those 84mm behemoths up on edge. No one ever needs a ski that fat.
Now I'm really questioning things. I need to make a decision in the next week between both the width and whether I want all the extra metal or not.
post #6 of 23
Hi,
The Nordi Nitrous would be perfect for you at 170cms...same ski as the Top Fuel w/o the metal, and a very nice ski...

However at 6'. 145#, the first order of business is to eat 6 cheeseburgers w/ bacon, and double fries, 3 times daily, and

done and DONE!...
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Hi,
The Nordi Nitrous would be perfect for you at 170cms...same ski as the Top Fuel w/o the metal, and a very nice ski...

However at 6'. 145#, the first order of business is to eat 6 cheeseburgers w/ bacon, and double fries, 3 times daily, and

done and DONE!...
I've got a small frame and small bones. At my peak weight of 170LBS I had a 35" waste which included a sizable gut. Now I'm at a 32", but realistically, 140-145 is the "right" weight for me given my frame. In US suits, I've always worn a 38R (which is real narrow for a 6 footer), but at my peak weight I needed a healthy 2-3" let out of the pants.

Unfortunately, I never really learned the difference between gear and have always bought on gut (uninformed). I generally like my SUV14s, but I do wish they performed better in light powder.

I can't speak from experience or intelligence on whether I'd be better off with the metal vs. non-metal'd Nordicas. That's still a decision I need to make, as is the 78 vs 84mm decision.

So given that, would you choose the Nitrous or AB (same ski, just 6mm difference)? To others, would you go metal or non-metal, 78 vs 84?

Based on the skiier level rating system used on this forum, I'd classify myself as around a level 8. I've already explained my skiing trends/style.
post #8 of 23
Thread Starter 
I'll add one more thing. I have a pretty strong brand loyalty to Nordica for a number of reasons so I'd like to stick with Nordica skis and I think they have the right ski for me, it's just deciding between 1 of 6 models.
post #9 of 23
Hi,

I demo'd the top fuels 170 last year at Sun Valley on the groomers (no new snow) and they ripped. Lots of fun.

I would love to have a pair for groomer days.
If you go with those and don't like them, you can sell them to me.

rob
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
I'll add one more thing. I have a pretty strong brand loyalty to Nordica for a number of reasons so I'd like to stick with Nordica skis and I think they have the right ski for me, it's just deciding between 1 of 6 models.
6mm will not be noticed, aside from construction differences which will be more significant you should get the Jah Love or Blower.

that will add "Variety" to the quiver real fast.
post #11 of 23
I'm not really qualified to even have an opinion, but I switched several years ago to an 82mm ski from a 70mm, and never even noticed the difference in width on groomers. Last season I jumped on some boards that went from 96-108mm, and again the width had little noticeable effect on groomed runs. Differences in length and stiffness were far, far more important. The width makes a big difference in powder and chowder; it's negligible on groomed snow.
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
Am I really going to notice the difference between 78 and 84mm (both on and off piste, both hard and soft snow)?
Ummmm....No
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
You probably will not even be able to get those 84mm behemoths up on edge. No one ever needs a ski that fat.
Now I'm really questioning things. I need to make a decision in the next week between both the width and whether I want all the extra metal or not.
I think you may need to calibrate your sarcasmometer. Maggot was poking fun at members who used to say that no one needs a ski that fat. The narrowest pair in Maggot's quiver:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
181 Coombas..., Ak Rocket Swallowtails..., Armada ANTs..., 194 Squads..., 196 Comikazis..., 200 flex 235 Iggy FFF's
... is the 95mm-waisted AK Rockets.

As for those who query whether you can tell the difference between a 78mm waist and an 84mm waist, of course you can.
post #14 of 23
Take the time and demo the skis, they are both fun, but don't forget the Hellcat at 90mm - It's awesome and of the three (TF, JF and Hellcat) it was my favorite. It's an edgeholding, crud busting charger without a speedlimit and coming from 70mm it will be fun in powder.
post #15 of 23
6mm difference would be such a slight difference in most snow conditions most people couldnt tell the difference.

My suggestion is to keep your 70mm skis and step up to the enforcers if you want to stay with nordica.
post #16 of 23
I agree with Bush . I did the same thing...still have the 67mm 6 stars and backed them up with Mantras.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
You probably will not even be able to get those 84mm behemoths up on edge. No one ever needs a ski that fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
Now I'm really questioning things. I need to make a decision in the next week between both the width and whether I want all the extra metal or not.
He was totally joking about that, by the way.....

Get a pair of (relatively) skinny carvers and a pair of Enforcers.

For what it's worth, If I lived in CO, my "skinny carvers" would be 85 or so underfoot.... Probably Blizzard Magnum 8.7's.

OR, if you really only want one pair... I'd go Helldiver.
post #18 of 23
the jet fuel is a good one ski quiver. better then the hellcat or top fuel as a 1 ski quiver for your stated preferences.
you're traveling and don't want a 2 ski quiver, dn the jet fuel will be just about as good on hard groomers as your suv and just about as good in pow as something like the enforcers.

jet fuel, 170, clean and simple, especially for what you say you like in your skiing and for almost always flying w/ skis.

the suv, enforcer quiver the boys mention isn't bad, but you're not taking 2 skis to europe..? and, once you bond w/ a wider ski, you won't end up spending much time on the 70mm ski, especially since you ski mostly the west.

quiver wise, i also have to admit that my skinny ski is 82mm (cold heat), then I have a 94mm (watea) and a 112mm ski. i also take into account what you are used to skiing when saying the jet fuel would be the right one for you. going much wider for a 1 ski quiver when you are used to a 70mm is too big a jump imo.

cheers,
holiday
post #19 of 23
I don't think you're going to get much benifit from the extra 6mm between 78 and 84 unless you are leaning towards most of your skiing off piste. Since you're looking at mostly on piste I think the best chioce is the 78mm Top Fuels.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
...I spend 80+% of my time on groomers and prefer medium sized/arc'd turns at relatively high speeds. I'm 6'0, 145LBS and currently ski a Nordica SUV14 in 180cm. I'm going to come down to 170 because the 180 is probably too much for my weight...

I thought I decided on the Top Fuels because it would provide more versatility in crud and it has two layers of metal so should provide great edge grip. My fear was giving up performance on groomers coming from my 70mm. However, I don't really do short radius carving so I may not be getting the value out of a 70mm ski...

...Am I really going to notice the difference between 78 and 84mm (both on and off piste, both hard and soft snow)? ...

Anyways, how much harder is it going to be to turn the 84s? I'm assuming the edge grip should be similar and I'll get a little better powder performance on the 84s with possibly a little loss in VERY fast edge to edge turning. However, I don't do short radius carving so quick edge-to-edge may not be as important as it sounds.

What do you guys/gals think? Both skis are about the same price, and I'm considering 170cm in both skis. I'm not completely against considering the AfterBurner and Nitrous, but I think I'd like the extra metal, although even my SUV 14s which are stiff have just one layer of metal so I imagine the TF and JF will be stiffer none the less. At my weight I don't know if I'd gain a whole lot with the metal versus carbon, but it "sounds" cool and edge grip and high speed stability are important to me.

Thanks,
Brian

PS - 90+% of my skiing is in Coloado (Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breck), Lake Tahoe (Northstar), and Utah (Deer Valley, Park City). However, the next trip is Ischgl and Zermatt, but I'm probably best off buying for the conditions in the Western US since most of my skiing will be there.

I ski mainly groomers because my g/f is much newer to skiing and I do enjoy ripping down hills more than anything now. Although I do like to occasional bump runs, I find myself enjoying the groomers more so I'd like to lean towards good groomer performance. However, I can't control the weather and sometimes it gets kind of cruddy...
The Afterburner would be a better choice for you. Made for expert level skiers in need of a ski that offers great flexibility in soft snow and versatile conditions with a lively response and predictable rebound.The Afterburner's effortless in powder or crud and will hold a solid edge on groomers. Light weight construction offers perfect performance in all conditions. sidecut: 126-84-112.

The Jet Fuel's and Top Fuel's extra metal makes them quite a bit stiffer and with your weight... For you, they will not perform as well off-piste in bumps, in powder, and in crud. The Top Fuels with their 124-78-108 sidecut, (170s have a turning radius of 15.5) are very turny...you will feel a difference in the sidecut. (Also, edge-angle and speed should be considered.) Wider width waist skis are more versatel and will "float" off-piste, but with a sidecut of 126-84-112 (170s have a turning radius of 17) be superb on groomers as well. All the Nordica's that you are considering are torsionally stiff and will carve just fine. For more versatility and "fun", I would get the softer, wider ski.
post #21 of 23
get something like the gotama. they turn very easily on groomers and make powder brain-dead easy. get a pair for your girlfriend too, and you will no longer be limited to groomers.
post #22 of 23
Thread Starter 
I ended up getting the JFs in 170. You guys convinced me to go 84mm since I really only can have one ski with me when I travel.

Also, my local shop has them and I got 08 models brand new for $599 + tax. That also included a $50 gift card which I used on a base layer, free K2 aluminum poles (ebay sell), and a free boot check/binding check. Also, my local shop will allow you to upgrade to another model if you don't like them after your first trip (only upgrades though, haha, so if I don't like them I can get into an 09 AB, Helldriver, etc.). It was a better deal then I could find online so I went with it.

They didn't have ABs or Top Fuels so that did help in my decision with the JFs, but had they had all three, I'm confident I'd get the JFs anyways.

I appreciate everyone's comments and I'll try to come back to do my first impression review.
post #23 of 23
Well played.
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 › Still Undecided, now consider 84mm, up from 78mm. How much of a difference is this really going to make?