or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:


post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

Hello Im looking for a crud buster/powder ski and research has pointed to the AC30 40 and 50.However Im worried that the 40's and 50's may be too big and stiff for my size.


Me:5'4 120 pounds.



Any help is apprecated.

post #2 of 24

more info needed about how you ski, but I think that ski-ra would say the Watea 84 would be better for a lightweight...my understanding is that the AC50 is more of a wide carver that is better in crud than powder.

post #3 of 24

None of them are powder skis.  Crud, yes. 

post #4 of 24

Hey boomernickel,


The AC30 is a 90/10 front side carver that is most confortable on the groomers.  I would characterize the AC50 as a wider carver (85 mm under foot) that is closer to a 50/50 all mountain type ski.  Both skis are great on the front side groomer, and are well suited for some backside off piste skiing (more of the AC50).  However if you ski mostly western conditions and powder, there are some better selections.


I would consider the Fisher Watea 94, Head IM88, as well as the Volkl Gotama as some skis that are more softer bias for Big Mountain skiing (front side groomer + decend powder performance). 

post #5 of 24

I have the Volkl AC30 and I've tried someone else's AC40 as well, it felt pretty similar. Most of the things I've heard about the Volkl AC50 say that it's really stiff.


For someone your size, I'd recommend taking a look at the Dynastar Mythic Rider and Fischer Watea 84, those will be more of a powder-type ski.


The Volkl AC30 (and in my opinion AC40 as well) is a 70/30 front-side ski. For me, it works well as part of a 2 ski quiver. When there's been fresh snow at the resort I'm going to, I take my Nordica Enforcers. If not, then I take my Volkl AC30s. I definitely wouldn't recommend them for as an all-around ski.

post #6 of 24

For your size, I agree with the others, I don't like any of those Volkls for you. You are uber light, you don't need a lot of width, a Watea 84 is the first ski that comes to mind.  

post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 

hmmm ok I understand what everyone is saying.But I am looking more for a crud/off piste ski then a powder ski and since Im light weight I thought the AC30 would seem very stiff to me and hence be realy good off piste and in the crud.


I ski race so I know how to carve stiff skis.


Do you agree wih What I am saying or do you all still think the other skis that you mentioned would be better for me?

post #8 of 24

 I still like the other skis for you or even a Blizzard Magnum 8.1. The AC30 isn't wide enough to be a crudbuster...next years will be, but not the current one. 

post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 

ok thank you

post #10 of 24

what about the line blends?

or would those be too wide with 100 underfoot?

i have a friend with those skis and we skied lots of crud up at alyeska, and he loved them.

post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 

depends I want something oriented off piste performance.

post #12 of 24

Just went through this for myself.  Went from a Volkl AC4 to a Watea 94.  I'm about 5' 10, 165.  It was a great tradeoff in terms of more float and friendliness, bit less grip.  More to the point, a ski buddy brought new AC 50's to Whitefish on our last trip.  He's a big boy...about 6' 8 and 200 ish.  He used the AC 50's one day and they never left the box thereafter.  He used his old pair of Volkl G4's.  The length was 178 ish (not sure of the exact).  Great big carver and crud buster but not versatile in trees, bumps, powder.  The Fischer is light, easy to ski, very versatile...admittedly not the gripper that the Volkl is but fab fun.



post #13 of 24

Hey, dumb question coming: what is "crud"?  


Last week at The Canyons, I skied through packed and semi-packed (but not hard-packed) clumps/mounds of snow three days after it fell and after it had been skied over by many others before me.  Is that crud?  If not, what is it called?  

post #14 of 24

Crud is what you get after powder has become heavily tracked out, cut up, and pushed around.  Once it starts settling and gets packed down, I don't call it crud anymore, that's more like bumps in the making. 


Sounds like what you were encountering was crud in various stages of baking.  You should be able to ski through/over it with little resistance if the snow is still light.  To me, heavy crud can be as fun as skiing powder, with the right skis of course.


Edit: here's a good video of some crud -- I was pretty much extracting every last bit of powder on those runs.  About midway down, it was primarily heavy crud.  Top and bottom still had untracked though.  Fun, fun!



post #15 of 24

Skier219 -- Thanks.  From your description, it sounds like we had actual crud, crud becoming bumps/moguls, and bumps/moguls.


I asked the question so that I could better understand reviews saying that a particular ski is "good in crud". 


Great video, BTW.  I gotta get to Snowshoe next season. 

post #16 of 24

If you can hit SS on a weekday powder day, it's pretty good.  Out of all my east/west trips this season, I think two powder days at SS in Feb were among my best.

post #17 of 24

OP, tell us where you ski the most. Where are you from ?


The more info you give us, will make it easier to recommend some skis.


I agree the AC50 is may be stiff and no where near as versatile as the AC4 and 40, I'm leaning towards next years AC30 as a replacement for my AC40's.


You are right, these skis AC30's will be good for everyday skiing and crud and the spring time crud until it's gets real deep. I'm a big Volkl van and have skied the these and up to 8-10" of VT snow.


If your not skiing out west every ski day the AC30 and the smallest length will be fine.


FWIW, I just bought Gotama's from one of the vendors on this site. But I'm not sure your even big enough for them in 168cm. I have them in 176cm and they are easy to ski. I'm 5'11" 190lbs.





post #18 of 24

Might as well jump in on two points. First, the 168 Goat would be fine for you; Goats ski really short. I'm 163, and I ski the 183 happily. If I used it in the east or just for what you seek, maybe the 176. The 168 would be a great second ski for you if you already have a <70 carver. If not, probably too wide for your only ride. 


Second, all the Volkls you mention are stiff, beefy, and basically wide, wider and widest carvers. They tunnel through soft snow, rather than float. If you were to ski on a short enough length for your weight, so you could bend it, it would be silly short for powder. Generally, makes more sense in soft snow skis to look for something flexy enough you can get a reasonable length (somewhere between your mid-forehead and a bit above your head). So Fischer Wateas are excellent suggestions, either the 84 or 94, and some other candidates would include the Blizzard Cronus and the Salomon Fury. Truth: Any of these will be a lot more enjoyable in deeper crud or  powder or glades and bumps than the Volkls you list.

post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 

Ok thank you everyone for your help I will look into these skis that you have mentioned.


your advise is apprecated,




post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 

Ok question what brand are the line blends 

post #21 of 24

That would be, um, Line

post #22 of 24


Originally Posted by boomernickel View Post

Ok question what brand are the line blends 

Like is the brand, Blend is the model. Let me know if you want these, we have one pair left in stock, I give you good deal. 

post #23 of 24


Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

Edit: here's a good video of some crud -- I was pretty much extracting every last bit of powder on those runs.  About midway down, it was primarily heavy crud.  Top and bottom still had untracked though.  Fun, fun!



This is very cool. I wonder if you have experimented with pointing the camera up a bit more. As I was watching the video I found myself craning my neck, trying desperately to look UP and get a sense of the horizon. I assume the video is supposed to make the viewer feel like s/he is skiing the run. I did feel like it was me skiing the run, but with a fifty pound sandbag on my forehead.

post #24 of 24

I know what you mean by that "neck craning" feeling.  I'll probably tweak the angle a slight bit upward next season.  What I have found is that if I point it too far up, it becomes more like a scrolling scenery video and you lose the sense of skiing.  I like to get just enough downward view to capture the pole plants and skis, and the powder when it exists.  The exact amount of that depends on the terrain I am skiing, how steep it is, how far ahead my vision projects, etc.  When shooting POV, you never have the perfect angle for everything (like you would when manually aiming a camera for each shot).  Here's another video with a bit more variety in the terrain and viewpoint:  http://vimeo.com/2962100



New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion