EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone have experience with either Scott Mission or Scott Crusade?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone have experience with either Scott Mission or Scott Crusade?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Anyone know how the Scott Crusade and Scott Mission compare?   Neither seem to get much press on these forums, but seem to get consistently positive reviews...I'm surprised to see Scott putting out 3 skis that are so similar in spec (Mission, Punisher, Crusade).  Reference skis in this class being Watea 94, Elan 888, Blizzard 8.7 , im 88's, Mythic Rider, Snoop, Line Prophet, etc...lots of competition...

post #2 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

Anyone know how the Scott Crusade and Scott Mission compare?   Neither seem to get much press on these forums, but seem to get consistently positive reviews...I'm surprised to see Scott putting out 3 skis that are so similar in spec (Mission, Punisher, Crusade).  Reference skis in this class being Watea 94, Elan 888, Blizzard 8.7 , im 88's, Mythic Rider, Snoop, Line Prophet, etc...lots of competition...


i've had the exact same questions.  1) the mission, punisher and crusade seem similar and all interesting; and 2) anyone have any comments on how they ski

post #3 of 13

I know that a few people on here have written about our impressions sof the Scott Missions in the past.  I will say my experience has been positive.  Try a search for more info.

JF

post #4 of 13

I have 3 days on my 191 crusades I picked up the end of the season. They really are epic. They take a bit more work to ski than the other pair I picked up, 180 titan argos, but well worth it.

 

If you are looking for a powerful classic construction ski, with a 90+ waist but still a great carving sidcecut I would recomend them without hesitation. And they look great as well!!!!!

 

Sure for very deep days a bit more waist would be great, but this is my go to ski. Just a great classic feel damp ride. You can rip power, blast crud and lay down trenches without missing a beat.

 

I find allot of wider skis a bit "thrashy", if that is even a word, like they come around too quick and don't give you that bite and feel that you can drive the turn hard. These are not like that at all.

 

The missions and the punisher are the same ski, one twin tip, perhaps softer than the crusade with less shape. 

 

I am 5'10" 150 but ski hard and just love this ski.

 

 

post #5 of 13

I have the Missions and really like them. However, if you mostly ski groomers, then there are much better picks. For a 1-ski quiver, the Mission is a good pick, IMO.

post #6 of 13

For what it's worth, my 182 punsihers rock in every condition I have tried them in.  Have yet to ski them in powder or rock hard stuff, but they ripped gromers, packed powder, bumps, corn, and elephant snot.  Awesome short turn carvers, especially for the width. 

post #7 of 13

I agree with Vince. I have had Missions as my powder ski for two seasons and they surprise me with their all-round abilities. ( I am 5'10, advanced level and ski a 178cm) To me they feel like a slightly softer Monster 88 which I have skied back-to-back with them on a solid powder day ( I loved that ski too!). The Europeans love them AND they are a bargain price. Do yourself a favour and get some!

post #8 of 13

My friends in Kirkwoood rock the P4 as a powder ski.

 

Scott has put together a solid set of skis (made by fischer I believe) 

post #9 of 13
Not having a chance to demo would you go 178cm v 181cm at six foot 175lb?  Id use them for every day out west, but really want em for an ec pow, non ice, tree ski.  Im have another everyday WC ski thats 94cm wide. Thanks in advance
post #10 of 13
I'm 5"11" and the 169cm and 179cm worked well for me.  I tend to ski tighter stuff so thought the 169 felt a tad better.  Going over 180cm might be long.
post #11 of 13
kbuzz, there's really no felt difference in 3mm, but general rule would say if no other factors involved, go shorter for tighter turns, the 3mm won't affect stability or other. thin about this, 3 mm is .0118 inches    ......  its about < long......

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbuzz View Post

Not having a chance to demo would you go 178cm v 181cm at six foot 175lb?  Id use them for every day out west, but really want em for an ec pow, non ice, tree ski.  Im have another everyday WC ski thats 94cm wide. Thanks in advance
post #12 of 13
Much obliged for the replies.  Its really 178 v. 183 my mistake. Makes a hair longer But the info still works.

Finn Dog- also much thanks on the bootfitting info earlier this week
post #13 of 13
 I love my 183 Missions. Predictable, stable, and not too stiff. I'd go with the 183 due to the relatively soft flex. My go-to ride for all but the deepest days. They handle the groomers ok, but really shine in softer stuff. Workable in bumps, too. No experience on the Crusades, but IMHO, Scott makes great skis. Looking to add the P4s to the quiver this year as my powder ski. 
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 › Anyone have experience with either Scott Mission or Scott Crusade?