New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Movement Goliath Sluff

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
I haven't been able to find many good reviews of this ski, has anyone here got some time on them?

I have a couple of specific questions...

They are supposed to be a lightweight side-country type of board, does this light-weight construction sacrifice stability at high speeds through choppy snow?

How do they handle on hardpack compared to other 100ish skis?

I heard they are softer in the tip than the tail... how does this relate to skiing them in bumps and tight, bumped up trees?

Are they happy going straight? I think they have a relativley short radius compared to other similar skis?

Other movement skis I have been on (spark, thunder) seem REALLY solid, and pretty damn stiff. Does the sluff live up to this reputation?

Anything else worth noting?

post #2 of 14
There are reviews on TGR (they love 'em), SkiPressWorld (they thought they were OK beefy bombers needing agro, probably why TGR loves), Skiing (loved 'em and thought they were easy turning, spring but hooky, go figure), couple of European sites (very positive, but same angle as SPW). Sluffs have virtually the same shape as Mantras, slightly longer but still very short radius (22 at 174), so I assume they will have some of the same virtues (quick to initiate, easy to smear at end because of serious taper) and problems (hooky at speed). The wood they use is stronger and heavier than the wood in Mantras, so at least as stiff, suspect stiffer, and if you go by Goliath 191 flex curves, a bit more tail. The 174 Sluff weighs about the same as the 177 Mantra and if you correct for the Mantra's flip tail, is about as long.
post #3 of 14
I'm not the best reviewer of gear but having spent two days on them this weekend I'll take a shot at answering a couple of the specific questions. FWIW, I'm a lvl 7-8ish skier I think...6' 200lbs and moderately aggressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound View Post
They are supposed to be a lightweight side-country type of board, does this light-weight construction sacrifice stability at high speeds through choppy snow?
I never felt like they were unstable. I'm not the fastest skier but did spend most of one day doing my best to keep up with some fast skiers...the Sluffs seemed to pound through everything presented to them.

Quote:
How do they handle on hardpack compared to other 100ish skis?
I don't have a lot of other skis to compare them to, but I thought they were happier on hardpack than just about anywhere else. I got up to fast enough speeds that the wind was blasting through my closed lips and flapped my cheeks around like Jeremy Clarkson driving an Ariel Atom. The skis just railed with confidence at those speeds on hardpack.

Quote:
I heard they are softer in the tip than the tail... how does this relate to skiing them in bumps and tight, bumped up trees?
I found them to be a lot of work on harder bumps and in harder bumps in trees they didn't give me much confidence. Some of this is due to my lack of skill I think, but I just didn't feel like I could snap them around any time I liked.

Quote:
Are they happy going straight? I think they have a relativley short radius compared to other similar skis?
Never noticed any problems straight lining them. I'm guessing you already saw my other comments here.
post #4 of 14
Jay, I got on a pair last Feb and I thought they were great. I own last year's 191 Golaith and they are constructed much the same way. The core is made up of Okume and Poplar as well as a strip of Beech (MVMT's Power-rails) along both edges. The thinking is to reduce weight and have better natural dampening properties than a ski that uses metal and lower quality woods.

Hardpack.....we didn't have much hardpack at the Mammoth demo so I can't say. What I can is that the Sluff surprised me compared to other 100ish skis. Others I had to beg and plead to make a turn whereas the Sluff was responsive.

As far as bumps and tight trees the lighter construction may help them in the quickness category but do not expect a wiggle stick.

Going straight...the trick with them is all about the energy that you put into the ski. If you are light with them at speed they track well straight-lining. If you flex them at speed they will smile and ask "how much else you got?"

If you have skied the Spark and Thunder then you know that Movement only make skis that want to go fast and rip. The Sluff is the same way. When I got on them I tried to find a speed where they would feel sketchy and I couldn't. As far as choppy snow at high speed I think they would hold up great because of the high quality core construction.

Go for it! I own five pairs of Movements and I love them all.

-nerd
post #5 of 14
You could take the reply that Wannabe wrote and duplicate everything he said exactly...
They are great skis, but require a good driver in the deeper fluffier stuff...
On the trails that were soft these things were money...they drove right through everything without effort...I felt it was easier to stay in the drivers seat...I wasn't being pushed in the backseat...
In the trees and deeper stuff...they required very good technique...and a lot more effort..at least from someone with my skill level...
On the runs that i was in balance on them and centered, they were everything you could want...
I also agree with Wannabe, i would like a more playful ski in the trees..read easier for ME to use in the trees...
But for now I think I will push myself to improve my technique and grow into these...
Based on how i felt when skiing with the Sluff's, I think they would be very good in the bowls and wide open runs where you can open them up...this is where they excel, at least for me...
I never found a speed limit, my brain kicks in long before the speed limit on these things are reached...
Hopefully after using them a few more times i will grow into them, its too early to throw in the towel on them after only one day...
I would imagine once a skier adjusts to them, the sky is the limit, I don't foresee ever overpowering them...
post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the replies guys! I would like to hear more about what you felt these skis lacked in the deeper snow. What made them hard for you to ski? Have you skied other 100ish boards in these conditions? How were they different? Also in the tighter trees, have you skied other similar skis in the same trees? How did the sluff's differ from them? What made them so difficult to turn?
post #7 of 14
These are my first 100mm skis...
I had some Watea 84's last season, they were more playful for lack of a better description...but not big/wide enough for someone my size...5'10" 240lbs...
At first I felt the Sluff's were always putting me in the back seat, maybe because of the stiff tail, instead of flexing they just sank, thereby causing me to feel like I was in the backseat all of the time...I was fighting that sensation for several runs...
After about 90 minutes or so of skiing them i was able to figure out the sweet spot and get myself centered more easily, maybe getting the confidence in the tips to not dive and send me over the handlebars allowed me to do that...the tips never sank...they actually performed better the more I got used to the skis...
I know it sounds like a broken record, but these skis make/want you to stay forward and centered on them...
After a while I really felt that I could just ski them as i would normally any other ski...
This contradicted everything I had come to expect when skiing "Skinny" skis in deep snow...I always had to ski on the tails of skinny skis in deep snow...right or wrong that's how i had done it in the past...
With the Sluff's this not only is not needed but really hard...it will light your quads up in a hurry...
It was much easier to use them once I got used to them...
Unfortunately by that time, which was about 4 hours. my legs were fried...
I can't wait to get them back up in some soft snow, it does not have to be deep, although that would be preferred, anything over 4 inches and its game on with these...
I will say after coming out of the tree's and skiing the trails back to the lift, with about 4-6 inches of fresh, the Sluff's really came to life, plowed right through everything as it it was not there...I bet these would be a pretty good crud buster..very stable...
If I could change anything about them, I would soften the flex a little, that way they would not have to be driven so hard and maybe be a little more forgiving...but maybe that's more of a lack of technique on my part and will improve after a few more outings on them...
Maybe I just need step up and become a better skier...
post #8 of 14
The only other 100mm+ skis I've been on were Shamans which I found to be much easier to ski and much more playful. I was much more confident on them in the trees and found myself bashing through them in soft snow with much more speed and shooting much smaller gaps than I did on the Sluffs. In a major change of character, I was looking for things to jump off and places to just generally throw myself around and lay out. On the Sluffs I felt more like I was in a bit of a survival mode (which has its attraction too of course).

On the other hand...I never had the Shamans on any hardpack or hard bumps so I can't comment on the trade offs, but in the soft stuff, at my skill level, the Shamans were a ton more fun.
post #9 of 14
If you found the shamans to be easier to ski and more playful...
That makes me want to demo them even more...
Which length shaman did you demo...the 184 or the 173...
I can handle having a easy fat tree ski...
The hardpack and bumps performance I have other skis for...
post #10 of 14
I demo'd the 184 length. It felt a lot shorter (in terms of playfulness) than a 184 Sluff...
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabe View Post
The only other 100mm+ skis I've been on were Shamans which I found to be much easier to ski and much more playful. I was much more confident on them in the trees and found myself bashing through them in soft snow with much more speed and shooting much smaller gaps than I did on the Sluffs. In a major change of character, I was looking for things to jump off and places to just generally throw myself around and lay out. On the Sluffs I felt more like I was in a bit of a survival mode (which has its attraction too of course).

On the other hand...I never had the Shamans on any hardpack or hard bumps so I can't comment on the trade offs, but in the soft stuff, at my skill level, the Shamans were a ton more fun.
Any idea why? Do you think it is the technique that you admit could use some work, or something inherent in the ski? Did you find yourself being thrown into the back seat by the sluffs and not have the strength, skill, something? to get back where you needed to be? What about the Icelantics made you feel more confident while shooting gaps, hitting drops, etc?
post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound View Post
Any idea why? Do you think it is the technique that you admit could use some work, or something inherent in the ski? Did you find yourself being thrown into the back seat by the sluffs and not have the strength, skill, something? to get back where you needed to be? What about the Icelantics made you feel more confident while shooting gaps, hitting drops, etc?
I think it is a mix of what skills I possess and what the ski does easily.

The Shamans went where I wanted, when I wanted and how I wanted them to with no muss, no fuss and little effort. The Sluffs I had to work harder to get to turn and felt less accurate on, especially at lower speeds in soft snow (I think like most people, I don't really mach through the trees).

At both lower speeds and at high speeds, the Shamans were easy to initiate turns with (just tip and go)...perhaps because of the bigger shovels and softer flex? Once you get the Sluffs up to speed, they turn nicely but if you're in the trees or somewhere else you want to snap a turn off quickly at non-mach speeds, I found them pretty demanding and it took some work. I could do it, it just wasn't effortless. In comparison, the Shamans felt like more of an extension of my will...turns were more telepathic on them.

To answer the specific question on the back seat...I did notice the back seat more while I was on the Sluffs, especially in soft snow in the trees (I didn't notice it as much on hardpack...probably cause I was more in a hard charging mode there). I could almost always get back forward, but again, it took work and in the meantime, I felt like I was hanging on for surivial. I do remember getting into the back seat on the Shamans a few times, but it seems like it was less work (and quicker) to get back forward on them and while in the back seat I think I felt more control than I did on the Sluffs (maybe due to softer flex again?). I remember being a bit surprised by that since I'd read complaints that you couldn't recover off their tails very well.

Anyway, please do keep in mind that I have relatively little experience comparing gear...I only bought my first skis this year (had always demo'd or rented before) and this is my first season with more than about 5 days on the snow (I'm up to 10 already this year though...yay!). I am finding it very interesting that rspacher seems to be reporting a very similar experience though...so I'm starting to believe what I'm saying.
post #13 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wannabe View Post
I think it is a mix of what skills I possess and what the ski does easily.

The Shamans went where I wanted, when I wanted and how I wanted them to with no muss, no fuss and little effort. The Sluffs I had to work harder to get to turn and felt less accurate on, especially at lower speeds in soft snow (I think like most people, I don't really mach through the trees).

At both lower speeds and at high speeds, the Shamans were easy to initiate turns with (just tip and go)...perhaps because of the bigger shovels and softer flex? Once you get the Sluffs up to speed, they turn nicely but if you're in the trees or somewhere else you want to snap a turn off quickly at non-mach speeds, I found them pretty demanding and it took some work. I could do it, it just wasn't effortless. In comparison, the Shamans felt like more of an extension of my will...turns were more telepathic on them.

To answer the specific question on the back seat...I did notice the back seat more while I was on the Sluffs, especially in soft snow in the trees (I didn't notice it as much on hardpack...probably cause I was more in a hard charging mode there). I could almost always get back forward, but again, it took work and in the meantime, I felt like I was hanging on for surivial. I do remember getting into the back seat on the Shamans a few times, but it seems like it was less work (and quicker) to get back forward on them and while in the back seat I think I felt more control than I did on the Sluffs (maybe due to softer flex again?). I remember being a bit surprised by that since I'd read complaints that you couldn't recover off their tails very well.

Anyway, please do keep in mind that I have relatively little experience comparing gear...I only bought my first skis this year (had always demo'd or rented before) and this is my first season with more than about 5 days on the snow (I'm up to 10 already this year though...yay!). I am finding it very interesting that rspacher seems to be reporting a very similar experience though...so I'm starting to believe what I'm saying.
Nice work!
post #14 of 14
Well said..
You describe my thoughts on the sluffs. exactly...
They are not a bad ski...just a bit demanding for my current talent level...
I most likely will keep these for later...
But i will give the shamans a try for sure...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion