or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › HV Demo Day: Head, Fischer, Dynastar, Salomon, Rossi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HV Demo Day: Head, Fischer, Dynastar, Salomon, Rossi

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
Holiday Valley had their demo day tents set up yesterday. Spent the better part of 4 hours at the tents.

Stats: 38, M, 6' 170 lbs.

I am not real big on ratings but probably am somwhere around a Level 8.

Boots: Salomon Falcon 10 with Intution powerwraps.

I am not a speed merchant and and do not live for speed(or at least what some folks around here consider speed -- 65mph etc ). I enjoy a moderate pace, high energy quick turns, and light bump runs.

The majority of my skiing takes place in-bounds -- 80% groomed / 20% ungroomed -- mainly on the East coast with 1 or 2 trips out West each season.

All Demos taken on Cindy's Run x2, except for the Rossi B78, which I was tempted to take off my feet and walk down.

Conditions: Mostly a smooth groomed surface, a few ice spots, and lots of fairly heavy broken up chop at the steep section near the top where things got scraped off.

................................


Fischer:

Quick Note: Fischer rep says this is the last year for the RX8. I asked why the manufacturers are going wider and wider every year and ignoring the sub-70mm groomer carvers. He gave none of the usual techno talk about technology making it possible to add torsional stiffness to wide bodies. In so many words, he stated that the manufacturers are simply giving the consumer what they want. The destination traveler and weekend skier has learned that wide skis are easier to balance on and are generally more stable when simply skidding down the groomers. Straight running is also easier on an 88mm ski and you can impress your friends while flying through the slow signs and managing to stop just before the lift queu. Weekend skiers want something easy to stand on, not something appropriate for the conditions or a ski that is conducive to learning good edging and balance techniques. There is also the, "Mine is bigger than yours" bravado that can be flaunted in the liftlines. Fatty sales are exploding accross the board, from coast to coast, and its going to continue to grow.

Also interesing to note that almost everyone, young and old, was gravitating towards the wider skis --Salomon Lord, Line's, Watea 84's, Elan 82's. Two lonely Contact Limited's were sitting in the Dynastar tent, unused, every time I Passed by.

Fischer Progressor 8: 170.

This is probably biased as, based on the reviews here and elsewhere, I think I was expecting too much. I was surprised at the light feel -- both weight and on-snow feel. I was expecting something a lot beefier. This did not detract from stability, however. The ski was pretty stable once the speed picked up a bit. I thought it signifcantly lacked the 'solidity' of my 175 RX8 in both edge engagement and hold, however. Perhaps this was partly due to the tune. I ski with a fairly wide stance and also found I had to narrow the stance a bit or the tips would wander. Very forgiving ride and I did not think it was demanding in the least.

Compared to the RX8, it's a lot eaier to disengage the edge and skid the end of the turn, perhaps a bit too easy IMO.

Other than that, I would say the ride was smooth, light. I really did not come away with some of the glowing impressions I have heard from others. At 72mm, it should make a decent all-mountain ski for the East but lacked something in the fun factor IMO.

Fischer Progressor 9: 170.

Unless you are lightweight or timid or just turned intermediate, this is the ski most here should test drive IMO. This was a different story -- a lot more substantial in feel and control. I think some of the comments I have heard about the 9 being an RX8 on Steroids is very accurate. Substantially quicker than the Progressor 8.Springy and smooth. I found you would get a good kick at the end of a short turn when loading up the tails but it was very relaxed at long GS type turns -- one of those skis thats so smooth and stable, you cand daydream at speed. I have been on more demanding skis but the 9 is not what I would term an overely forgving ride. Although it had pretty good manners at slow speeds, I believe this ski would be a speed freaks dream. I thought short turns were a bit of a workout. The ski seemed more at home just crusiing big fat arcs. For me, it would be overkill given my preferences, but I believe this ski would definately be a must-see for the speed freaks out there. It wants to be driven fast.

Fischer Watea 77 174.

Last ski demoed for the day. Given my preferences and style, I could sum up in one word: boring. Compared to my Head 77, less stable and less edgehold. Liked to glide in relaxed turns but did not like to be pushed. Other than that, nothing to really comment on.

Rossi B78: 178

I probably should have not demoed the B78 right after the Progressor 9. Does this ski even have an edge? Once I hit the crud piles at the top of Cindy's, I was very nervous. The edges do not slice through the crud, the tips simply bend into the crud and flop all over the place like a ragdoll. Was not much better anywhere else. Noodley and very unstable, IMO. Does not like hard snow in the least. Would not hold a clean edge without washing out -- period. Bad tune, binding placement? I wasn't going to find out and couldn't hand these back fast enough.

Rossi CX80: 170

This was a bit of an oddity. Why 80mm? Too stiff and too radical a shape for powder. I own the Rossi Z9, and to borrow the RX8 metaphor, the CX80 is a Z9 on steroids. A bit too wide for my tastes, not as quick but more powerfull and obviously a bit more stable. Wants to be ridden on edge, like all the time. Jarring and fighting when trying to soft-edge. Short turns were certainly doable, but tiring. Felt like it would be a handfull in the bumps. IMO, the ski behave less like an all-mountain ski and more like just another unusually wide hard snow carver. My thought was, who is the target audience for this ski? An 80mm waisted hard snow ski? Why?

Salomon Tornado 170.

Very similar ride to the Rossi Z9 but a lot lighter and IMO less stable through cut up junk. Quicker than the Z9 in short turns. Quiet and very smooth -- hardly a sound or wobble cuting though a patch of ice. I never really liked Salmom in the past but if I had not owned the Z9, I might consider this as my all-mountain carver. I was impressed with the edge grip and stability for a Salomon.Very fun ride.

Head:

Just a comment: The Head rep acted like he had a bad hangover and wanted to be anywhere but there. I was waiting behind two other people and he barked at some lady ahead of me in the line because she didn't know what ski ski wanted to demo. When it was my turn the second time around, I asked about the construction of the IM76 and he grew impatient. Guy was a total dweeb.

Monster 76, 171:

Comapred to my 05/06 77 CHIP, this is a step down in both edegehold and stability, IMO but a step up in quickness, lightness and general fun factor. VERY light ski. It also has a totally different shape and lakced the railflex plate which I prefer on Head's all-mountain, so as to adjust the bindings on the fly. The bindings were mounted almost near the center on this and I would have preferred the ride a bit back--was getting jarred around a bit in the crud at the top. I would also have liked to demo a longer 178 but it was not available. Other than that, the ski held an edge pretty well on the soft groomers but suspect this would not be a good ride on ice.

Head SS Magnum 170:

This ski rocked, plain and simple. Went through the chop and fresh machine snow piles they had blowing on Cindy's like it wasnt there. A bit heavy feeling but very very stable and quick. Very very fun in short turns. Anyone on the East coast would probably like this ski. Although the flex rating I have read in the reviews list it as stiff, I did not concur. Fairly soft flexing and easy to push into any turn shape, even soft edging. Did not try it on ice but suspect it would hold quite well.

Elan 78TI --, 178. More substantial than the Watea 77 but again, nothing to write home about as far as my tastes go. With the exception of the new shape on the Heads, I think all of the 78'ish all-mountain models are starting to blend into one. Held an edge well but simply lacked the edge qiuickness I prefer for my tastes and style. Cut through the chop well without a wobble. Not an exciting ski for me. As with others I tried, gets the job done -- nothing more, Nothing less.

Elan Mag 12 168.

I am a bit biased as I have never really liked Elan that much and this has probably influenced my perceptions. The ride reminded me of the old S12. Very very bad tune on the demo. You think the reps would want to keep them sharp. Scraping my nail over the edge I could feel just a smooth flat surface with no bite. Did not hold real well on icey patches but handles the groomers wll enough. Not overely quick and fairly damp. I could leave it.


K2 Crossfire 174.

Quiet, smooth, and damp and would hold an edge like no tomorrow. Just not real quick and short turns had my quads burning in just two runs. Not my bag of tea. Very hefty ski and does ot react well to soft edging or low speeds IMO. Feels more like a detuned GS ski.

Dynastar:

Luckily, the Contact Limited and 4x4 were sitting there against the tent walls as HV skiers were all lined up for the 85+ fatties to test them on how well they navigate down that 700 feet of freshly groomed courdoroy on Mardis Gras. Nobody was touching them and I had no problem getting hold of them. Nothing beats that totally rad reverse camber found on the Salomon Lord while skiing at HV.


Dynastar Contact 4x4:

Best ride of the day, hands down. Anyone on the East Coast should Demo this ski. The comments I have read here are spot on IMO. It does anything you ask of it-- Short, long, slow, fast, Doesnt matter, it still reacts the same. I could do not do much to throw this ski off balance and I certainly am known for gettingin the back seat at times.

Just as forgiving as the Contact 9 I demoed last week but more solid and substantial feeling. Just as quick and just as nimble. Nice looking ski too. Never have been a fan of Dynastar color schemes before.

Quick, Stable, Fun, and awesome. The rep let me take it for two more runs. I wanted to keep it. I kept thinking, "If i sell my Head and Rossi and sell a few more things on E-Bay..."

Then reality sunk in and I realized I was just laid off so I had better not.
post #2 of 33
What length did you demo the 4x4 in?
post #3 of 33
Thanks for the reviews...Were there any conditions you believe you would prefer the Supershape over the 4x4?
post #4 of 33
Great reviews (as usual), thanks!

Michael
post #5 of 33
Mojoman - Thanks.

Great reviews. This post is a perfect example of EpicSki at it's best. It is really helpful to hear individual results and experiences with these products. Picking ski equipment is challenging (and addicting) and these reviews really help me. Can't wait for the next demo day. I am looking for an all mountain/off psite ski to round out my quiver and give me an advantage on my 13 year hot shot son who is gaining on me rapidly.....thanks again.
post #6 of 33
Thread Starter 
oh...the 4x4 was 172..sorry I forgot to include the specs.

Magnus -- tough question. Just a guess but I would suspect on real icey conditions I would prefer the 4x4 just because it felt more stout. It was light enough and forgiving but you can definately tell there is something ready and willing to handle things when you start moving. Hard to describe. Also, based on my ride on other contact models, they held to the ice like a crampon so I dont see why the 4x4 would be any different.

Both skis held to the somewhat firm snow like glue and the Magnum was a tad quicker from edge to edge. The Magnum did not feel as versatile and balked a bit at soft-edging on the hard sections I encountered. Magnum has a totally different taper. For me, the 4x4 just was more fun and definately felt like it could handle more situations you might encounter on ungroomed in-bounds. Also, I think the tail on the 4x4 would allow better mogul peformance, although I did not try them in this area.

Both are still fun skis, however, and neither would be a dissapointment for me, but I personally preferred the 4x4.

Anyways, its safest to try for yourself. My worse ski purcahse came after I based the purchase on the review speculations of others and I hated it -- 06 Elan S12. Different strokes for different folks. 'Bad Ski' is an entirely subjective phrase. As always, reviews are mostly subjective opinions and I do have a bias for different types of skis and as stated, I am not a high speed skier(my age-induced comfort zone ends somewhere around 35mph) and prefer skis that are quick and snappy.

I sensed the 4x4 would be more stable at high speeds, however, just based on the stout feel. I don't know what the speed limit was on either as I really did not ramp it up to try to find it -- the runs at HV are only so long amd my test was for me to decide how the skis handless based on my own preferences.

Anyways, I still feel sorry for those poor pairs of Contact Limited's sitting there all lonely, looking on while everyone went for the fatties -- they need a home in the East
post #7 of 33
Nice report. You were lucky to get to try so many skis in such a short time. I usually try to do the Whistler tents at the end of the season, but usually only get 6-7 pairs in over the weekend. Found a lot of good stuff and some real junk.

My opinion is that everyone should have to demo before buying. I've heard and read so much nonsense about why demoing doesn't work - probably from people who haven't demoed.

I've seen people here who've made recommendations based on someone else's impression. . You really have to have your head up your butt to even think of doing that.

Contact 4x4. I try not to ski the least coast anymore, but the 4x4 would probably join my quiver if I did.
post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
It was easy -- I took 2 runs and walked over to the tent and grabbed another pair. You received a voucher at the rental place and just handed it to the rep when you took a ski out. Some demo events make you sign up with the rep every time you take out a ski to demo.

I was helped by the fact that the 70mm'ish skis were not really getting much interest, except for the Progressor 9. About noon, the Dynastar Rep said I was the only one of three that took out the Contact. Magnum was sitting their unused all day.

The Line tent was almost unavailable the entire day. Watea 84 and 94 were also taken most of the time, and there was a waiting list for the Salomon Lord and K2 Pontoon. I was serious about everyone young and old grabbing the fat skis. Saw an older skier straight-running Mardis Gras on what looked like 182cm Line Prophet 100's. I don't know if he was straight lining because he was having trouble getting them to turn or he just was having fun. I saw a patrol sled heading down the run about 5 minutes later, probably unrelated.
post #9 of 33
No offense, but two runs on Cindy's couldn't begin to relate any kind of feeling from a ski other than maybe a bad tune.

Two runs on 300 vertical feet and a 90 second ride surely doesn't give justice to any kind of demo.

How were they in the lift line?
post #10 of 33
Wide skis skid better: maybe by dumbing down the skis, they are making people happier. And, it gives them something to market as "new and improved". I just don't get the wide ski fad for people who aren't in a position to utilize them. Just like the big SUV fad: it was cool for awhile as everyone had notions of clawing their way up a steep jeep trail; now people look at them as the root of all evil. Hopefully beginners don't get some wide skis, can't do a thing on them, and end up hating the sport. Reminds me of this kid I see up at Bachelor: I know him a bit (he works at the mountain) and his "skinny" skis are K2 ObSETHed, wide skis are Hellbents. He was telling us how cool his skis are (he comes in the shop from time to time) but when I see him up there, he is always flailing around (usually on the groomer, ironically). Hey, as least his skis have cool graphics..... Then again, I always see the "slugs" pedaling their 6-7" freeride bikes around here on our pure single-speed friendly singletrack, not a rock in sight. They look like they are hating life....

With that said, I have a pair of Huge Troubles, but I sure wouldn't take them with me on a trip to Vermont.

I am glad you liked the 4x4. Best frontside ski on the market, at least in my opinion. And, the perfect ski for HV. Thanks for sharing!
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post
It was easy -- I took 2 runs and walked over to the tent and grabbed another pair. You received a voucher at the rental place and just handed it to the rep when you took a ski out. Some demo events make you sign up with the rep every time you take out a ski to demo.

I was helped by the fact that the 70mm'ish skis were not really getting much interest, except for the Progressor 9. About noon, the Dynastar Rep said I was the only one of three that took out the Contact. Magnum was sitting their unused all day.

The Line tent was almost unavailable the entire day. Watea 84 and 94 were also taken most of the time, and there was a waiting list for the Salomon Lord and K2 Pontoon. I was serious about everyone young and old grabbing the fat skis. Saw an older skier straight-running Mardis Gras on what looked like 182cm Line Prophet 100's. I don't know if he was straight lining because he was having trouble getting them to turn or he just was having fun. I saw a patrol sled heading down the run about 5 minutes later, probably unrelated.

where were you yesterday!! I was up on at holiday valley on my 'fat' K2 Pes. surprising worked really well besides the fact holiday valley does not have 750 vertical feet anywhere on the mountain. but my progressor were better everywhere except the tree run by yodelor

Beside some guy I saw killing it on mantras though, there were alot of 'steezey' park type that couldnt turn to save their lives. I was playing my favorite game with pasucks up there. Inpersonate the gaper.

Hey at least there was alot of racer types and a bump team who could rip.

so I own the 170cm Progressor 9, if you get way up on the tip it will make SL sized turns, if your centered its a GS turner. It does indeed rip, but I think I am getting some SL skis because I am finding I want something with more edge grip than my progressors.

Dawgcatching I totally agree. Alot of people who cant ski are getting on to fatter skis and will never be able to ski because of it. this happening at alot of mid alantic hill where twin tip use to be 75 are now 85 to 90 mm and the kids/ adults who want to ski park but suck so bad at skiing they will never be able to ski there.
post #12 of 33
Disagree on not being able to do a valid test in two runs, even on a small hill. You can tell right away (even skating over to the lift) if a ski is working for you or not. After two runs you start to accommodate the ski and get less accurate in your judgement. First impression is best and most correct. I spent many years testing skis, and we'd never take more than two runs before moving on to the next ski.
post #13 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
No offense, but two runs on Cindy's couldn't begin to relate any kind of feeling from a ski other than maybe a bad tune.

Two runs on 300 vertical feet and a 90 second ride surely doesn't give justice to any kind of demo.

How were they in the lift line?
What does it take to relate any kind of feeling for a ski, especilly for someone like myself who skis 90% of the time on groomed inbounds terrain?
post #14 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
where were you yesterday!! I was up on at holiday valley on my 'fat' K2 Pes. surprising worked really well besides the fact holiday valley does not have 750 vertical feet anywhere on the mountain. but my progressor were better everywhere except the tree run by yodelor

Beside some guy I saw killing it on mantras though, there were alot of 'steezey' park type that couldnt turn to save their lives. I was playing my favorite game with pasucks up there. Inpersonate the gaper.

Hey at least there was alot of racer types and a bump team who could rip.

so I own the 170cm Progressor 9, if you get way up on the tip it will make SL sized turns, if your centered its a GS turner. It does indeed rip, but I think I am getting some SL skis because I am finding I want something with more edge grip than my progressors.

Dawgcatching I totally agree. Alot of people who cant ski are getting on to fatter skis and will never be able to ski because of it. this happening at alot of mid alantic hill where twin tip use to be 75 are now 85 to 90 mm and the kids/ adults who want to ski park but suck so bad at skiing they will never be able to ski there.
Yesterday, I was at home. I was coming back from K-Ton and stopped at HV to check out the demos.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post
What does it take to relate any kind of feeling for a ski, especilly for someone like myself who skis 90% of the time on groomed inbounds terrain?
I just don't understand how anyoine can give an honest accessment of a ski on a run that is 60 seconds long and maybe 20 turns on 300 vertical feet. jmho
post #16 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
I just don't understand how anyoine can give an honest accessment of a ski on a run that is 60 seconds long and maybe 20 turns on 300 vertical feet. jmho

Well, I judge a ride by the things important to me - edgehold, quickness in short turns, and stability on groomed terrain found mostly in the East -- my stated preferences. 300 feet or two miles, the ski doesn't know or care how long the run is when turning and edging. 20 turns x2 is more than enough for me to gauge whether a ski meets my criteria for what constitues a fun ride in bounds, or a boring one. If I cannot tell after 40 turns on hardpack whether the ski will perform to my liking then I have already answered the question.
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post
Well, I judge a ride by the things important to me - edgehold, quickness in short turns, and stability on groomed terrain found mostly in the East -- my stated preferences. 300 feet or two miles, the ski doesn't know or care how long the run is when turning and edging. 20 turns x2 is more than enough for me to gauge whether a ski meets my criteria for what constitues a fun ride in bounds, or a boring one. If I cannot tell after 40 turns on hardpack whether the ski will perform to my liking then I have already answered the question.
I guess if that's all you ski it's fine. But when I demo a ski I want to see how it performs on all terrain such as bumps, steeps, trees and powder/crud. So to me the review is kind of worthless, which is not the point of reviews. We used to have some kind of guidelines when posting equipment reviews. I guess i'll quit bitching.
post #18 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
I guess if that's all you ski it's fine. But when I demo a ski I want to see how it performs on all terrain such as bumps, steeps, trees and powder/crud. So to me the review is kind of worthless, which is not the point of reviews. We used to have some kind of guidelines when posting equipment reviews. I guess i'll quit bitching.

Of course, anyone is free to ignore my impressions as based on nothing and just try the skis for thesmelves -- which everyone should do anyways before buying a ski.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Wide skis skid better: maybe by dumbing down the skis, they are making people happier. And, it gives them something to market as "new and improved". I just don't get the wide ski fad for people who aren't in a position to utilize them. Just like the big SUV fad: it was cool for awhile as everyone had notions of clawing their way up a steep jeep trail; now people look at them as the root of all evil. Hopefully beginners don't get some wide skis, can't do a thing on them, and end up hating the sport. Reminds me of this kid I see up at Bachelor: I know him a bit (he works at the mountain) and his "skinny" skis are K2 ObSETHed, wide skis are Hellbents. He was telling us how cool his skis are (he comes in the shop from time to time) but when I see him up there, he is always flailing around (usually on the groomer, ironically). Hey, as least his skis have cool graphics..... Then again, I always see the "slugs" pedaling their 6-7" freeride bikes around here on our pure single-speed friendly singletrack, not a rock in sight. They look like they are hating life....

With that said, I have a pair of Huge Troubles, but I sure wouldn't take them with me on a trip to Vermont.

I am glad you liked the 4x4. Best frontside ski on the market, at least in my opinion. And, the perfect ski for HV. Thanks for sharing!
I think wide skis _can_ help for those who already can ski a bit, and that they can limit those who are still learning.

my parents are in their mid 60's. The ski groomers for the most part. 6 or so years ago my dad was on a speed 63, 178 cm. now he is on a fischer rx6, 165 cm. if they buy again, i would aim to get them around 75-80 in the waist, and shorter yet. my mom went from the 63s to some wider, shorter elans in the womens line. but i would still go wider with the next pair.

they make solid turns, but dont carve and arent quick edge to edge.

for them, the loss in edge to edqe quickness is no concern at all, and the wider waist would only help on the days when the snow just keeps piling up.

but lots of young skiers out there, who just cant turn. the fat twins off piste allow a lot more straightlining with the weight on the tails. not good skiing, but lots of it..
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post
I guess if that's all you ski it's fine. But when I demo a ski I want to see how it performs on all terrain such as bumps, steeps, trees and powder/crud. So to me the review is kind of worthless, which is not the point of reviews. We used to have some kind of guidelines when posting equipment reviews. I guess i'll quit bitching.
Yes please do quit bitching. I would want to demo the same way as you BUT the OP demoed groomer skis on groomer trails which is what they are primarily made for. His review has value for people looking for that type of ski. I don't think your 3 or 4 negitive posts here added any value.
post #21 of 33
not to pile on, but i _think_ most ski mag reviews (fwiw) are based on just a few runs.

Why - after that you the pilot tend to make the ski behave the way you like, ie compensate for its natural tendencies...
post #22 of 33
I was one of the masses skiing fat skis all day...

I couldn't find anything I didn't like on this day. I think the snow was too well groomed to bring out any weaknesses.

The list was volkl mantras and bridges, line blend, prophet 90 and 100, palmers, liberty hazmat and head mojo 94.

All made shorter and longer carved turns just fine. Felt plenty quick and maneuverable. Nothing felt dead like I've felt on similar lines and heads before.

My biggest thing in a ski is how well it can make quick and snappy short turns. Nothing was a disappointment.

I was a little mad that I didn't try the progressors. The rx8's seem like a ski I would like. I fell in love with the tornadoes on previous demo days and bought a pair this season. Now that I have the tornadoes I think My next ski will be a pair of twins that are fatter than my current PE's.
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
I was one of the masses skiing fat skis all day...

I couldn't find anything I didn't like on this day. I think the snow was too well groomed to bring out any weaknesses.

The list was volkl mantras and bridges, line blend, prophet 90 and 100, palmers, liberty hazmat and head mojo 94.

All made shorter and longer carved turns just fine. Felt plenty quick and maneuverable. Nothing felt dead like I've felt on similar lines and heads before.

My biggest thing in a ski is how well it can make quick and snappy short turns. Nothing was a disappointment.

I was a little mad that I didn't try the progressors. The rx8's seem like a ski I would like. I fell in love with the tornadoes on previous demo days and bought a pair this season. Now that I have the tornadoes I think My next ski will be a pair of twins that are fatter than my current PE's.
curious do you have green pants and dont wear a helmet?
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by choucas View Post
Disagree on not being able to do a valid test in two runs, even on a small hill. You can tell right away (even skating over to the lift) if a ski is working for you or not. After two runs you start to accommodate the ski and get less accurate in your judgement. First impression is best and most correct. I spent many years testing skis, and we'd never take more than two runs before moving on to the next ski.
Is this like speed dating for skis?

First impressions reveal more about the person doing the judging than the object being judged. If you think you are reviewing the skis you are incorrect, you are reviewing your-self skiing on those skis.
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
Is this like speed dating for skis?
...you are reviewing your-self skiing on those skis.
Wrong, skis are easy to understand, people require more than speed dating...

Developing an opinion of a ski is based on more than just skiing.

Skis are designed and constructed to function a certain way.

Understanding the dimensions, construction, and materials used provides an foundation for ski testing. If you have done some research on a ski model, It can be both simple and effective to know if the ski performs as intended without using the ski for hours.

If the OP was providing a review that speculated wildly about a product, I could understand these critical comments. However the review is both accurate and honest.


Michael
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
The impressions I gave were not meant to be a comprehensive review for all skiers of all levels, desires, and conditions.

Comprehensive reviews by one tester skiing on the conditions nature hands you on any given day are impossible, regardless of how many runs you take, IMO.

Also, impressions are only as good, or bad, as the conditions you skied on during the test. Lots of things influence impressions.

Luckily, the conditions were ideal for the type of terrain I generally prefer. The evaluatuion was easy and simple and meant for me -- I thought I would share the impressions.

I certainly am not a top caliber expert or demo team member but have enough experience, presence, and skill to know what influence flex, shape, sidecut, and taper have on varying conditions.

For insance, although I did not ski the progressor 9 in moguls, I can tell you emphatically from the flex profile that they would not make an ideal ski for someone who skis a lot of moguls. Quite frankly,they would probably suck in moguls and the ride would not be fun unless you enjoy rapid burnout and excessive jarring to the knees.

On the 4x4, I could tell right away from the evan flex profile,nicely tapered low profile tail that they would handle fairly decent in some fresh powder up to about a couple of feet. Although the 4x4 is not a soft ski, I don't think it has the charcteristics that would make it too overly dfficult in softer moguls. It is smooth, light-feeling underfoot, easy to soft-edge and pivot for a ski with a race-like feel when you push it. Probably why there are so many rave reviews for it-- it would appeal to so many skier types, levels, and styles -- fast or slow, short or long.
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

For insance, although I did not ski the progressor 9 in moguls, I can tell you emphatically from the flex profile that they would not make an ideal ski for someone who skis a lot of moguls. Quite frankly,they would probably suck in moguls and the ride would not be fun unless you enjoy rapid burnout and excessive jarring to the knees.
I found that out at Squaw last year in a hurry! Not a bump ski. The 4x4, OTOH: I did a short bump run on them, and found them to be agreeable in 172 in the bumps. 178 was too stiff and jarring. Pretty impressive for such a good hard-snow carver.
post #28 of 33
I wasn't replying to the OP and didn't mean to thread crap on you.

Maybe we should have a new thread....

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?p=1024301

post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
curious do you have green pants and dont wear a helmet?
I do have green pants but I wear a white helmet.
post #30 of 33
Kudos to mojoman here. His original post was fine. I have no fault with that. And meant nothing personal. My point was this, Cindy's Run takes less than 60 seconds to ski. It has a short headwall with a blue pitch that gradually tapers off to a flat run out that if you don't carry enough speed through you'll find yourself having to skate to get to the lift. (I patrolled Holiday for ten years) The most fun I ever had on Cindy's was high speed runs of maybe 6 turns. It's just not the kind of hill where I could form any kind of impression of a pair of skis other than if they had a good tune or not. I totally agree with tromano's thoughts. But, maybe someone can get all the knowledge out of a ski's performance after two minutes of skiing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › HV Demo Day: Head, Fischer, Dynastar, Salomon, Rossi