EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Long review of a bunch of 2010 skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Long review of a bunch of 2010 skis

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

About me:
6'0", 195lbs, Probably a level 8 I'd say
Ski's I've liked: Watea 94 (my daily driver), Obsethed, Nordica Afterburner
Ski I haven't liked: Rossi S5, Volkl Bridge

About the day:
Fairly firm groomers with about 3" of fresh that fell throughout the day keeping things a little soft and fun.  The off trail stuff was pretty frozen and miserable in most places due to some warm daytime temps in the past 2 days, so I didn't get to test some of these skis in their best environment.

Just so you know, I'm not as eloquent a reviewer as some of the folks on here, and I don't get to ski on as many different skis.  I don't do a good job of figuring out that a ski is stiff underfoot, torsionally stiff, things like that.  I mostly figure out what a ski does well for me, and what it doesn't do well, and whether I like it because of that.  So, take this for what it's worth. :)


Atomic Bent Chetler (183): I was really interested to get on this ski because the whole point of the hybrid shape like this, the JJ, etc., is make a ski that's still fun when conditions aren't ideal.  And since conditions weren't ideal for this type of ski today... perfect!  Well, it turns out that the ski *isn't* fun when the conditions aren't ideal.  I just couldn't get the sidecut to work for me.  I was mostly just skidding around on the groomers.  Maybe I don't know how to ski a ski like this, but regardless of the cause, this was the least fun ski for me today.

Head Peak 88 (175?): I've never been on a Head before, so I don't know what the monsters used to ski like, but this just felt lifeless to me.  I didn't feel like I was getting anything back from the ski in the turns.  It wasn't so much that the ski was bad, just incredibly bland.  I wasn't impressed with this one.

Blizzard Magnum 8.1 (179): This was much more fun than the Peak 88 (these were back to back, so I got a good comparison).  A lot more energy in the ski, but still felt very stable.  I did feel like this ski really wanted me to be in good form, on top of things at all times.  Doesn't seem to like a lazy skier.  I'll be honest, sometimes I like to get lazy, so I don't think this was the ski for me (not really in the market for something this narrow anyway), but it was much more fun to ski than the Peak.

Dynastar 6th Sense Big (186): This is the Big Trouble, just renamed.  One word.  Wow.  This is the ski I should have bought instead of my Watea's, I think.  This was a very fun ski. Handled well enough on the firmer sections as well as the piles of fresh snow that were building up.  Felt very nimble and responsive, yet much more stable than my wateas when things were a little crunchy or uneven.  Enough sidecut to come around quickly, but not squirrely at all when running flat.  This just did everything I asked it to do, and felt comfortable and easy doing it.  Now, I didn't get to test it in a very wide range of conditions, but today this was the winner.

Volkl Gotama (186): I've been on this year's gotama, and I don't think the rocker is an improvement.  I feel like it's lost some of the life it had on groomed terrain.  I bet it's better in softer snow than it used to be, but I can't help but think they kinda took the wind out of its sails, and made it less of a one ski quiver.

Atomic Snoop (185?): I was only on this for part of a run 'cause I swapped skis with a friend I was with.  I immediately didn't like it.  It felt very skittish and not stable at all whether I had it on edge or running flat.  It would do the things I wanted it to, but never felt comfortable doing it.  I immediately traded back 'cause I just didn't care for this one.

Dynastar 6th Sense Huge (185): Renamed Huge Trouble.  Holy cow.  This was way more fun than a ski this fat should have been on a day like today.  Very stable, just smoothed out everything in its path.  I took it into some of the frozen crud that was tripping me up earlier in the day, and it did markedly better.  This ski feels like it could really make nasty snow ski like a dream.  On the groomed stuff, you could definitely feel the width, it was a little slow obviously, but it still felt very normal.  I think this would be a great ski for the conditions we get up here in the PNW.  I'm *very* tempted right now by some of the used ones I see up for sale here currently.

Fischer Watea 94 (186): My ski, just the new version.  Felt pretty much like my skis, no big surprise.  This is when I realized that the extra stability from the Dynastar Big Trouble was missing from mine.  When I opened up the watea's a little bit, they got knocked around more.  I still like them more than most things out there that I've tried, but they have their limitations.  And when the snow's a little softer than it was today, I don't notice the lack of stability in the watea's.  It was the refrozen crud that they just couldn't deal with.

 

 

At the end of the day, I think I've just become a big Dynastar fan.  Favorite 3 skis of the day were the Big Trouble, the Obsethed (I only took one run on this, I've already reviewed this recently, and I already knew I liked it), and the Huge Trouble.  All three were very fun skis.

post #2 of 21

It sounds like you might have been at Crystal yesterday for Sturtevant's Spring Fling based on the conditions and wide range of demos.

 

I got a late start yesterday and tried about 4 pairs of skis at Crystal. One of which was the 2010 Watea 94 (186 cm) which I just loved at Alpental in soft snow. I don't know if I was tired (way off my game) or it was just the conditions, but everything felt so different, possibly due to the strange conditions - some fresh over frozen crud, icy hardpack with a bit of clouds and whiteout (I get vertigo easily). I couldn't get it to handle the steep hardpack at the top. OTOH, none of the skis really did very well - probably my technique more than anything - at the top on the hard stuff. I have to agree with you, as much as I liked the Watea94 last week, it had significant problems with frozen crud; definitely, it is more a soft snow ski.

 

For some reason, I had some trouble with all of the skis that I tried on that hardpack:im82 (177 cm); Sultan 85 (172 cm), Rossi SC 87 (long length - don't remember). At those widths, none of them are ideal for icy hardpack. I could neither get the tails to slide smoothly to scrub speed nor could I get them to carve nicely without grabbing. I think I really prefer skis that I can scrub speed on icy hardpack at times. OTOH, taking only 2 runs on each ski really isn't enough to make full and valid evaluations.  But I also realize that some of the lengths were too short for me for real steep fast skiing on hardpack (I'm 6'2" 187 lbs naked), When it gets steep, I seem to fall a bit back if I don't have enough length on the front of the ski, which compounds problems on wider skis when it comes to icy hardpack. The ski that seemed to handle the best on the combined conditions was the longer SC 87 once I found the sweet spot on that. OTOH, I felt that the Sultan 85 in a longer length (172 cm was too short) may offer alot of the versatility of my Legend 8000s but with some greater flexibility for deeper snow. The other ski that I wish I could have tried was the longer length of the im82 (183 cm) on the steep hardpack - they didn't have it.

 

All in all, the way I feel today suggests that I was off my game yesterday so I really am not going to try to put too much weight on my impressions of these skis. Hmmmm, I still will have to try out your recommended 6th Sense Huge since I was considering the Watea 94 for a back- or side-country setup. My only concern is the weights of Dynastars. How was the weight compared to your 94?

 

Nick


Edited by BigNick - 3/29/2009 at 06:21 pm
post #3 of 21

jaobrien6 - Thanks for the great set of reviews.  A couple of questions:

  1. The Dyna's and obSethed reviews elsewhere paint these as polar opposites. The Dyna's "Trouble" line being medium+ in flex and still farily crud-busting focused (though perhaps less than the "Legend" line), while the 'Sethed's being very soft and not good at crud-busting (with mostly only lightweights liking them).  Interested if that's your impression and/or why you like these very different skis.
  2. If you like the hybrid rockered 'Sethed's why not the new Gotamas?

Thanks!

post #4 of 21

Nice job, much thanks!

post #5 of 21
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post

 

It sounds like you might have been at Crystal yesterday for Sturtevant's Spring Fling based on the conditions and wide range of demos.

 

 

 

 

All in all, the way I feel today suggests that I was off my game yesterday so I really am not going to try to put too much weight on my impressions of these skis. Hmmmm, I still will have to try out your recommended 6th Sense Huge since I was considering the Watea 94 for a back- or side-country setup. My only concern is the weights of Dynastars. How was the weight compared to your 94?

 

 

Yup, this was up at Crystal yesterday.  I was *really* hoping the 7-11" they had forecast was going to come through, would have made some much different conditions for testing... but looked like only about 2-3" by the time it was done.

 

The dynastars are heavy.  When I picked up the Huge's I was kinda surprised by the weight.  However, they didn't seem to *ski* heavy to me.  I'm sure the weight helped them smooth out a lot of the crud, but they still felt nimble (for the size) and easy to ski.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

jaobrien6 - Thanks for the great set of reviews.  A couple of questions:

  1. The Dyna's and obSethed reviews elsewhere paint these as polar opposites. The Dyna's "Trouble" line being medium+ in flex and still farily crud-busting focused (though perhaps less than the "Legend" line), while the 'Sethed's being very soft and not good at crud-busting (with mostly only lightweights liking them).  Interested if that's your impression and/or why you like these very different skis.
  2. If you like the hybrid rockered 'Sethed's why not the new Gotamas?

Thanks!

 

1. I think I would agree with that assessment.  I'm guessing it boils down to the fact that I don't only look for (and enjoy) skis that ski a certain way.  The obsethed and the dynastars did definitely feel different, and the obsethed did not like the refrozen crud much, while the Huge's didn't do too bad with it at all.  Even though they ski differently, both of them were fun.  Honestly, the biggest thing I look for in a ski is fun.  It's an intangible that will have a lot to do with skiing style and personal preference, but both all 3 of these skis managed to make the conditions yesterday enjoyable.  They felt different doing it, but they still worked.  I would be happy on any of them, I just might ski a little differently on all 3.  So, I do think your impression of them is right, but they're still both (or all 3) good at what they do.  I was thinking of replacing my watea's with some obsethed's, but am now on the fence about keeping the watea's and getting some Huge's instead.

 

Another note on this.  One of the skis I listed that I like is the Afterburner.  Very different that what I normally ski on, and I wouldn't want one as my daily driver.  However I think it's a fun ski that is very good at what it does.

 

2. My theory is that since the obsethed's only have a small rocker with normal camber underfoot, they still skied some of the firm snow like a relatively traditional ski, but in softer snow, the slight rocker makes them more fun and manueverable than my watea's.  I think because the gotama's went to a full rocker, they lost that traditional feel on firm snow.  I bet I would have liked the gotama's a lot better on a softer day, but I think they lost some of the versatility from the old goat by going to a full, but very small, rocker.  Now, there are some people that will disagree with that, and really like fully rockered skis on harder snow just fine.  I just think I like the feel of normal camber better on groomers (personal preference), and the obsethed has enough of it to give it a more lively feel.  I was surprised, I expected to like the new gotama a lot, but I think it's gone to a more soft-snow oriented ski with this change.  I went from the gotama right to the huge trouble, and found the huge trouble to be much more fun.

 

post #6 of 21


 

Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

 

 ...I think because the gotama's went to a full rocker, they lost that traditional feel on firm snow....I just think I like the feel of normal camber better on groomers (personal preference), and the obsethed has enough of it to give it a more lively feel. 

Ah yes, forgot that the new Goats are fully (albeit mildly) rockered - that would explain your assessment (and it's interesting to note that a tip/tail rockered ski which is very soft - the 'Sethed's - can outperform a farily stiff but fully rockered ski - the Goats - on firmer snow).  No wonder the Goat lovers seem to be massing with pitchforks....

 

Thanks for your detailed response (yeah fun is the operative word!).


Edited by ski-ra - 3/30/2009 at 01:50 am
post #7 of 21

I was also at Crystal yesterday, and demoed some of the women's 2010 lineup.  Conditions were dust on crust, i.e. craptastic.  I don't know what it is, but I've never experienced good snow at Crystal.

 

Line Pandora 2010 in 172.  I own the 09 Pandora in the 162 length, and I think it's a great ski.  Its only failing is that it requires some tip management in low-angle powder.  The 2010 model incorporates tip rocker, which should hopefully cure the tip dive problem.  The 3" of snow at Crystal wasn't enough to evaluate this, unfortunately.  However, it performed admirably despite the conditions, holding an edge on crust and sailing across whatever soft snow I found.  The traveling demo roadshow found its way to Stevens today, and so I had a chance to demo it again.  No tip dive in deep conditions; but I thought it was a little harder to manage in tight trees, which is probably a function of its length and stiffness, relative to my much-loved and probably a bit decambered 162s. 

 

Head "Great One":  Because of the crusty conditions, I thought I'd try a carver.  I don't recall precisely what the dimensions were, perhaps ~75mm underfoot, 160cm length.  A resounding MEH!  Squirrely, nervous, little tiny girly ski.  Good edge hold, but no feeling of stability.  I couldn't wait to get rid of these.

 

Roxy Mumbo Jumbo.  I was really excited to try these, because of the tip and tail rocker, with early taper and cambering underfoot.  It ought to behave like a reverse sidecut ski in powder, and a conventional ski on the hardpack.  I didn't have a chance to test it in powder, but I can attest that it stank on hardpack.  It slid out (possibly it had a crappy tune), had a heavy swing weight, and overall just lacked the "fun" factor.  When I returned the skis, the rep told me that his girlfriend has that ski, and notes that it chatters and is hard to control on groomers, but is awesome in powder.  I thought to myself - if you want a ski like that, what's the point of the recurve technology, just go for the full reverse-reverse.  It is also butt-ugly.

 

Volkl Aura.  Lots has been written about the Volkl Aura already, so I'll just say - I see why people like it.  Great edge hold, floated in the few inches of snow I could find, very confidence-inspiring.  It would actually be a good daily driver in the PNW.  I can't get past the boobalicious graphics, however.

 

Line EP Pros.  I demoed this purely for kicks and giggles.  I'm 5'5", 135lbs.  This ski is 185cm and 127mm underfoot - i.e. inappropriately huDge!  It was like skiing a Hummer.  That handles like an Audi.  Or something.   Probably the reason I was able to ski it (and not the reverse) is that it is soft-flexing, relatively lightweight, and reverse cambered.   Slarvy, slashy, pivoty, drifty fun.  I went across some dust on refrozen death cookie chunks: somehow the skis bounced and flexed and absorbed it all, and I rode 'em down.  Meanwhile, my husband on his Goats was cursing me for picking that line, as he barely stayed on his feet.  Anyway, it was massively amusing to ski, and I'm very tempted to try to grab a pair of 09s if I can get 'em cheap. 

post #8 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

Line Pandora 2010 in 172.  I own the 09 Pandora in the 162 length, and I think it's a great ski.  Its only failing is that it requires some tip management in low-angle powder.  The 2010 model incorporates tip rocker, which should hopefully cure the tip dive problem.  The 3" of snow at Crystal wasn't enough to evaluate this, unfortunately.  However, it performed admirably despite the conditions, holding an edge on crust and sailing across whatever soft snow I found.  The traveling demo roadshow found its way to Stevens today, and so I had a chance to demo it again.  No tip dive in deep conditions; but I thought it was a little harder to manage in tight trees, which is probably a function of its length and stiffness, relative to my much-loved and probably a bit decambered 162s. 

 

 

Acrophobia,

 

I contacted you before I bought her a pair of 162 Pandoras (2008) and I could use your help again.  She didn't have the revelation we were hoping for in powder on the Pandoras (I still say the factory mount is too forward!) so we sold them in anticipation of the rockered version coming this year.  I'm a little concerned the rocker will make the 162 cm length ski much shorter than the non-rockered version, so I was considering moving up to the 172.  However, my wife and I are tree lovers so I'd hate for it to be too long.  Do you see the 162 rockered Pandora skiing considerably shorter than the non-rockered version it's replacing?

 

Thanks,

 

Magnus

post #9 of 21

The 172 skis longer than the 162, but not a lot longer.  The tradeoff is more stability and float for slightly less manuverability.  As for the forward mount, you're trading powder tip dive for stability.  There have been loads of situations where I really should have fallen down - but didn't.  Those long tails bounce me right back up.

 

The Volkl Aura and Kiku both have a more conventional mounting point (and more choices about mounting point).  The 2010 Kiku is the women's version of the Gotama, with flat camber and subtle rocker.  They are both well-made, confidence-inspiring skis.  Your wife may prefer these, if she can possibly demo. 

 

I don't think there's such a thing as a non-diveable tip in a powder ski, unless you go to a Pontoon or a Kuro or a Lhasa Pow, or swallowtail designs, but these have their drawbacks also.  I had high hopes for the Armada JJ (which I haven't demoed), but after trying the Roxy Mumbo Jumbo, I'm more skeptical about the recurve design. 

 

In the end, the specialized tools help a lot, but there's no substitute for days on snow and perhaps a powder lesson or two.  The first time I skiied in deep, wet snow on my Pandoras, I got mired and did a lot of cursing.  The second time, I kept to steeper slopes and had lots more fun. 

 

post #10 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

The 172 skis longer than the 162, but not a lot longer.  The tradeoff is more stability and float for slightly less manuverability.  As for the forward mount, you're trading powder tip dive for stability.  There have been loads of situations where I really should have fallen down - but didn't.  Those long tails bounce me right back up.

 

The Volkl Aura and Kiku both have a more conventional mounting point (and more choices about mounting point).  The 2010 Kiku is the women's version of the Gotama, with flat camber and subtle rocker.  They are both well-made, confidence-inspiring skis.  Your wife may prefer these, if she can possibly demo. 

 

I don't think there's such a thing as a non-diveable tip in a powder ski, unless you go to a Pontoon or a Kuro or a Lhasa Pow, or swallowtail designs, but these have their drawbacks also.  I had high hopes for the Armada JJ (which I haven't demoed), but after trying the Roxy Mumbo Jumbo, I'm more skeptical about the recurve design. 

 

In the end, the specialized tools help a lot, but there's no substitute for days on snow and perhaps a powder lesson or two.  The first time I skiied in deep, wet snow on my Pandoras, I got mired and did a lot of cursing.  The second time, I kept to steeper slopes and had lots more fun. 

 

 

Thanks for the reply.  If the Kiku has been updated with a continuous rocker like the Gotama we will take a close look at that as well.  As far as the Aura goes, unless it's changed drastically it is still more of a middle ski than a dedicated powder ski.  She liked the 06-07 Aura but fills the middle of her quiver with a Roxy Black Magic.

 

What you claim about there being no such thing as a non-diveable tip powder ski (other than the ones you mentioned) surprises me.  I have (and love) my Kuros but have yet to try a ski with tip rocker only like the '10 Pandoras.  I assumed the tip rocker on tha Pandora would prevent tip dive (for the most part) and negate the need for a rearward mount and/or leaning back in low angle powder and soft chop, much like the Kuro.


Edited by Magnus_CA - 3/30/2009 at 05:28 am
post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

Roxy Mumbo Jumbo.  I was really excited to try these, because of the tip and tail rocker, with early taper and cambering underfoot.  It ought to behave like a reverse sidecut ski in powder, and a conventional ski on the hardpack.  I didn't have a chance to test it in powder, but I can attest that it stank on hardpack.  It slid out (possibly it had a crappy tune), had a heavy swing weight, and overall just lacked the "fun" factor.  When I returned the skis, the rep told me that his girlfriend has that ski, and notes that it chatters and is hard to control on groomers, but is awesome in powder.  I thought to myself - if you want a ski like that, what's the point of the recurve technology, just go for the full reverse-reverse.  It is also butt-ugly.

 

I 100% agree.  This is exactly how I felt about the Bent Chetler's.  I totally thought that this was going to be a more versatile design, that would give me a reason not to consider a traditional powder ski, and maybe even use on most/many of my days in the PNW.  I haven't been on the S7 or the JJ yet, but based on my test of the Bent Chetler on a very marginable day, the design isn't nearly as versatile as I'd hoped.  The zero camber Huge Trouble was a lot more fun in the same conditions.  I, also, was very interested in the JJ (and the Lhasa Pow), but my enthusiasm has been tempered at this point.  Maybe I picked a bad example of this type of design to try, maybe some of the others are better than the Bent Chetler, I don't know, but these skis are hard to demo at this point so I can only go by what I've been able to try.

post #12 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post

I, also, was very interested in the JJ (and the Lhasa Pow), but my enthusiasm has been tempered at this point.  Maybe I picked a bad example of this type of design to try, maybe some of the others are better than the Bent Chetler, I don't know, but these skis are hard to demo at this point so I can only go by what I've been able to try.

FWIW, I've heard nothing good, zero, nada, about the Bent Chetler, while I've heard nothing bad about the Lhasa Pow (I also own one, have reviewed it here), and several other rockered designs. Point being, I think you got unlucky about your demo choices. Some nontraditional designs that have gotten very strong reviews between recently and a year or two ago: Pontoons, Lhasas, Blowers, Rossi S7's, EHP 186's, the new Shoguns and the new Goats. When these skis are criticized, it tends to be for abilities you wouldn't expect to be optimized in a rockered or no camber design, such as some loss of grip or stability on harder groomed or handling in icy bumps. For instance, I own a recent Goat and am not interested in the rockered version because I use my Goat as an all-mountain ski. 

 

What it gets down to, IMO, is that a nontraditional design isn't as versatile as a traditional fat twin, but it gains something in softer deeper snow. So a classic tradeoff between a generalist and a specialist: if you're looking for one fat ski to do it all, ski everywhere and most conditions except sheer ice, suggest something traditional. If you're looking for one fat ski for off road and pow/chop over a foot deep, where groomed is what you ski to get to the soft stuff, a non-traditional will give you a bigger grin. Ideally, you own one of each, but that's another issue. 

post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

 

I was also at Crystal yesterday, and demoed some of the women's 2010 lineup.  Conditions were dust on crust, i.e. craptastic. 


 

Acrophobia - That was a great review (both pithy and funny).  It was certainly worthy of it's own thread.  I'm especially interested in sharing thoughts with you since I am 5'5", 130lbs. and continue to look for other like-weighted skiers with whom to share more useful ski performance feedback - the reviews from the big boys normally recommend skis that are inappropriate for us little people (though it may take some arm-twisting to get me to purchase a ski with pink flowers on it).

 

Keep the great work up and there must be some interesting back story on your user name (how does someone--not saying you--scared of heights ride ski lifts?).

post #14 of 21

could someone write a review on the 2010 armada jj?

i am looking to buy it and the graphics are looking sick!

 

 

thanks alot,

freeskier10

post #15 of 21

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

 

What you claim about there being no such thing as a non-diveable tip powder ski (other than the ones you mentioned) surprises me.  I have (and love) my Kuros but have yet to try a ski with tip rocker only like the '10 Pandoras.  I assumed the tip rocker on tha Pandora would prevent tip dive (for the most part) and negate the need for a rearward mount and/or leaning back in low angle powder and soft chop, much like the Kuro.

 

The 2010 Pandora's tip rocker may eliminate tip dive, but I don't know for sure.  And I wouldn't count on it, either.  There's a whole discussion at TGR about mounting point for Praxis Powder skis (full reverse/reverse) because of problems with tip dive.  At the very least, I'd say the tip rocker should reduce tip dive.  Nevertheless, learning basic skills for powder management is a good investment.  Bouncing, balancing on your heels (not leaning back) and some porpoising is useful to know how to do, even if your ski design eliminates the need for these most of the time.  I think of it as like knowing how to steer into a skid, even if you drive an Audi Quattro.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


 

Acrophobia - That was a great review (both pithy and funny).  It was certainly worthy of it's own thread.  I'm especially interested in sharing thoughts with you since I am 5'5", 130lbs. and continue to look for other like-weighted skiers with whom to share more useful ski performance feedback - the reviews from the big boys normally recommend skis that are inappropriate for us little people (though it may take some arm-twisting to get me to purchase a ski with pink flowers on it).

 

Keep the great work up and there must be some interesting back story on your user name (how does someone--not saying you--scared of heights ride ski lifts?).

 

Thanks!

 

I am actually very acrophobic.  I can't climb a ladder, for instance.  Spiral staircases freak me out.  But this season has been, basically, a long session of desensitization training.  

 

Funny you mention lifts.  They don't bother me so much anymore.  Except surface lifts.  The T-bars at Whistler totally sketch me out, to the point that my husband has to play distraction games with me, like "Who would win in a battle, Borg Queen or Wraith Queen?"  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskier10 View Post

 

could someone write a review on the 2010 armada jj?

i am looking to buy it and the graphics are looking sick!

 

 

thanks alot,

freeskier10

 

You won't find one here.  Principally because the search function is fried.  Try a search at:

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/

post #16 of 21


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskier10 View Post

 

could someone write a review on the 2010 armada jj?

i am looking to buy it and the graphics are looking sick!

 

 

thanks alot,

freeskier10


 

You need to start a separate thread for this, Freeskier10.  Welcome to EpicSki.  Take a look around to see how

 

http://www.epicski.com/wiki/faq

post #17 of 21

Some more reviews- Short sound bites

 

ME : old, trees, chutes, given up on powder cause it only lasts two runs anyway

 

Yea I was at Crystal too. To bad there wasn't at least a little soft snow to play in.

 

 

 

BLIZZARD 8.7  Didn't think this ski was that versatile. It held an edge very well on the Ice but got thrown around when you hit a pile.

 

HEAD PEAK 82 As others have said, a disappointing ho hummer

 

HEAD PEAK 88 Ditto

 

DYNASTAR SULTAN 85 The rep said this was the new Mythic- but with more beef. It skied well, good grip,  variable turn size, stable without being a Dead Head. skied the piles well. all around fun.

 

STOCKLI XXL This ski is 80cm in the middle but skis quicker, excellent edge, refined rebound. If it weren't so damned expensive I'd own a pair for hard pack days.

 

K2 HARDSIDE This ski skis like my PE only with more edge hold. It did just fine on the icy crap, It blew through the piles, easily the most fun, huge sweet spot, quickturner for a 98 . Try it, you'll like it.

 

LINE PROPHET 100   I own this ski in a 186 . Skied it at the end of the day for grins. If you are realistic , ski off piste in all sorts of snow conditions , in all the varied terrain, and ride the groomers home, than this is your ski. My brother demoed both the 186 and the 179. He is the only one of the three of us to buy a ski from this demo deal, the 179

 

 

post #18 of 21

Dynastar still has the Mythic in their line for 2010, so I think the Sultan is more of a unique model in the lineup.  It may supersede the Mythic eventually (seems to be better in some key ways) but they are very different skis, and may in fact cater to different customers.

post #19 of 21

Bought the 2010 Kikus 170cm, without demo-ing.  My first rockered ski, and I'm struggling.  I'm 5'5", 130 lbs, and had been skiing for a season on Auras, also 170cm.  The Kikus have been ego-crushing for me.  They're fun in pure pow and surprisingly on groomers (super springy).  But they throw me around on non-pure-pow bumpy terrain unless I'm in a very small sweet spot.  And on steeps, they keep hooking me up. 

 

On the Auras, the whole mountain was my playground.  The Kikus seem to have reduced the fun terrain by about 20%.  Anyone else have this experience?  Or is there a different way to ski rockered skis that I need to get used to?

post #20 of 21

Everyone's different but I'm not surprised you're getting thrown around.  Your Kiku's will try to stay on top of everything.  It took me a good 3 FULL days to get the hang of pivoting from my ankles and smearing my turns on my Kuros.  Even groomers got easier and became a lot more fun.  So yes, there is a learning curve and you should try and resist the urge to ski them like traditional cambered skis.  Just play with them and experiment.  IMO, you should keep your Kikus for powder days or day after at most.  They just aren't going to be as versatile as your Auras.  However, once you get the hang of them, and I expect you will, you'll find yourself hooked on finding whatever untracked snow you can find.

post #21 of 21
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaobrien6 View Post


Dynastar 6th Sense Huge (185): Renamed Huge Trouble.  Holy cow.  This was way more fun than a ski this fat should have been on a day like today.  Very stable, just smoothed out everything in its path.  I took it into some of the frozen crud that was tripping me up earlier in the day, and it did markedly better.  This ski feels like it could really make nasty snow ski like a dream.  On the groomed stuff, you could definitely feel the width, it was a little slow obviously, but it still felt very normal.  I think this would be a great ski for the conditions we get up here in the PNW.  I'm *very* tempted right now by some of the used ones I see up for sale here currently.

 

Just as a little follow up, I couldn't resist.  I just pulled the trigger on Dawgcatching's HT's that he had for sale.  Should have them by this weekend to play around in what looks to be a very slushy day up here (forecasting mid 50's and sunny at Steven Pass).

 

Sweet!

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 › Long review of a bunch of 2010 skis