EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is it me, the conditions, or the skis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it me, the conditions, or the skis?

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
So,

Last weekend I demoed some 184 Icelantic Shamans for a few hours in boot to thigh deep fluff at Loveland and loved them. This weekend I demoed some 184 Movement Giant Sluffs from the guys at BentGate (who were great, BTW) in somewhat more skied out and consolidated conditions (skied trees that were a bit steeper I think) at Loveland and I felt like I had to fight the Sluffs a lot. On Sunday I took the Sluffs to ABasin and skied almost no soft stuff (pretty much everything was packed down by then) and the Sluffs seemed to be a lot happier maching around on the hardpack.

I wasn't really expecting this outcome...I was expecting the Sluffs to feel a lot more happy in the powder. So, my question is, was I exposing something wrong in my skiing or is the stiffness of the Sluffs such that they really aren't meant for tree skiing in soft stuff? I know that at least some of it was that at first, on the Sluffs, I probably wasn't being aggressive enough and I kept getting pushed into the back seat while on the Shamans I felt like I could just play around and have fun. I also noticed when I tried to carve turns on the Sluffs I tended to find myself getting too much weight on the inside ski too soon. The radius of the Sluff isn't THAT much different than the Shamans is it (Sluff=22m, Shaman=18m)? Other than that...how much of it could be just that I was in somewhat heavier snow? It wasn't a LOT heavier when I was on the Sluffs, but it was a day or two old I guess while the snow I skied the Shamans in was still falling...

I'm wanting to eventually pick a mostly powder-centric ski that can also handle other conditions reasonably well that I can tour with occasionally (probably put Barons on them). The list I'm still planning to work through in addition to the above mentioned skis is: Icelantic Nomad, G3 Reverend, G3 el Hombre. Other suggestions welcome of course as well...(maybe rockered stuff?)

Anyway, since I'm not used to comparing gear I am interested to hear what input ya'll can give me. TIA
post #2 of 9
"Balance" was going to be my first guess too.
post #3 of 9
I have the Goliath Sluffs in the 184 length...
I was up at Loveland on the 4th...found boot to knee deep powder everywhere...sometimes deeper...
In all fairness this was the first time I was on them in something other than hardpack...
It took me about 90 minutes to adjust to them, i had to ski them aggressively, like on a groomer ski, stay centered and forward...they need to be driven, skied with authority...
At first I was always getting driven into the back seat...boy did that make the legs burn...
Once i adjusted for this they were a blast to ski...but it seemed to take a conscious effort...
They did perform real well on the trail back to the lift line...it had several inches of snow on the trail and the Goliath's went right through all of it...with ease...that's where they were the easiest to use...
Now i also want to try out a set of Shaman's in the same conditions...
I will find out sometime down the road...as you know Loveland demos the Icelantic line...
post #4 of 9
Some of what you describe might be attributed to the binding location on the skis. Lou, one of the Epic boot experts, has written on this. http://www.lous.ca/techarticles.htm. Lou's conclusion is that the ski maker's marking on the skis are sometimes good for many folks and sometimes way off for many folks best skiing and enjoyment of those skis.
post #5 of 9
Haven't skied either, but if you look at the flex curves, Sluffs are pretty stiff in the behind, suggesting that they will need to be driven from the front seat, will excel on hardpack or chop, and have a lot of kick, may need some flying hours before they feel right in powder.
post #6 of 9
After reading the intital post and knowing nothing about either ski, my immediate thought was that the Sluffs must be stiffer, especially in the back end. It sounds like the softer ski worked better in soft snow, and the stiffer ski worked better on harder snow, not suprising. Sidecut radius really doesn't matter in the pow, you need to reverse the camber to make them turn quick, and that's near impossible at less than warp speeds with a stiff ski in soft snow. It takes more than a wide waist to make a good powder ski. You need softer flexing skis or rocker if you want to relax in the deep stuff, or you could just ski the Sluffs really really fast all the time.
post #7 of 9
You just described my Sluffs exactly...
They need to be driven, while being forward and centered...
Once I did that they became much easier to use, but still demanded your attention on technique..
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the comments...it's nice to have some confirmation that what I thought I was feeling makes sense. I guess it's a question of what I want from a ski and right now I'm leaning toward something a little more on the playful and easy right off the bat (for me) end.

Maybe after a few more demos I might even make up my mind.
post #9 of 9
Sounds like the Icelantic Shamans set the bar you need to compare everything else to...
I look forward to getting on a pair myself up at Loveland...
How did the Shamans feel compared to the Sluffs'...were they easier to turn, more nimble...?
I am going to try the 173 and 184 length's in the Shaman...
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 › Is it me, the conditions, or the skis?