New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mostly mogul

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

I'm looking for a ski that likes mostly moguls but is also fun around the rest of the mountain.  Older skis are fine.  Any ideas?

post #2 of 28

What type of skiing, east coast or west coast, how old (if you don't mind) and what skill level.

 

I still think that the Hart F-17 is an awesome choice of ski for the East coast.  And in the bumps it the best.  Not a cheap ski, but you can find them on sale right now.

post #3 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by csolar1281 View Post

I'm looking for a ski that likes mostly moguls but is also fun around the rest of the mountain.

Older skis are fine.  Any ideas? 

 

hart F-17

K2 caBrawler

K2 PE/Extreme

 

in that order

post #4 of 28

IF you're interested in the K2 Extreme's

 

SierraSki has some 169cm and 174cm for a great price

 

$219 !!!! Deliversd in the US

 

http://www.sierraskis.com/2009-K2-Extreme-44533.asp

post #5 of 28

F17 is a "modern" mogul ski (GS sidecut). Construction is world class compared to any other mogul ski out there. Plus it is a ski that you can take all over the mountain and still "ski". 

 

As far as "older" skis, find some soft/cheater GS skis, remove all plates and mount flat. 

post #6 of 28

What's the advantage to having mogul skis mounted flat? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

F17 is a "modern" mogul ski (GS sidecut). Construction is world class compared to any other mogul ski out there. Plus it is a ski that you can take all over the mountain and still "ski". 

 

As far as "older" skis, find some soft/cheater GS skis, remove all plates and mount flat. 



 

post #7 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilzthatkilz View Post

What's the advantage to having mogul skis mounted flat? 



 

You want the lowest center of gravity possible in the bumps.  That is why most of the top pros aren't very tall.  Also, risers are intended to increase the angle you  can lean a ski without hitting the boot.  I wouldn't recommend a lot of lean or angle in the bumps.  I prefer to keep my torso straight up verticle  shoulders forward a bit.and all the lean and angle below the waist, not enough to boot out.  Just my opinion, others may disagree or have other reasons for flat mount on bump skis.

post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the reply.  I ski west and I'm 56. 

post #9 of 28

I am 59 and I ski in the Tahoe region. There is plenty of Moguls and I took Mogul lessons. I have just bought a pair of Dynastar Mythic Rider with Flute and I found them good for me in the moguls. Some one might say the skis are too stiff, but I am not skiing competitively. If I can manage KT22 West face and Headwall North Bowl with ease, I think the skis are good enough for the average joes.

post #10 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by csolar1281 View Post

I'm looking for a ski that likes mostly moguls but is also fun around the rest of the mountain.  Older skis are fine.  Any ideas?


Get yourself a pair of good old Volant Chubbs with the zebra bases. Great for moguls, great for powder, crud or corn, quite functional for those annoying groomers. They're not much good for ice though.

 

They often can be had in great shape for under a hundred bucks on ebay in the fall.


Edited by volantaddict - 6/8/2009 at 02:43 am GMT
post #11 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by csolar1281 View Post

I ski west and I'm 56. 



 

For a one ski western quiver the excells in the bumps I would recommend the Fischer Watea 94s.  A light ski with a nice even mellow flex that will not throw you around or immediately punish you if you get your weight too far forward or back in the bumps.  The even flex is similar the Chubbs, but the 94s are considerably lighter and have more sidecut.  If you don't want to go that wide try one of the narrower waisted Wateas.

post #12 of 28

Lots of fun suggestions for all around skis.   But, for something "mostly moguls" I still recommend something under 70 mm under foot, the 80 mm PE/Extremes are OK but less than ideal.  At 80 + you're dipping more in to "sometimes mogul" territory. Anybody know any WC mogul skiers rocking anything fatter? 

post #13 of 28

When I saw that you are 56 years old I did not figure you wanted ski like the WC guys because I assumed your were not intending to ski the bumps zipperline style, which usually requires a particular type of ski more like the old style narrower/straighter boards, at least that's what the bump team here is always looking for.  My recommendation was based on a ski that would allow your to flex and drive it through the bumps in a more relaxed style.  If you are looking for something to slash and burn zipper bump lines you are out of my league.

 

Regarding your comment about needing sub-80 mm waisted skis, I ski steep bumps all day at Telluride on my 84 waisted M:EXs and have friends that enjoy it on 95 mm waisted Mantras, but then we are not doing it WC stype.  If you want to ski like Johnny Mosely then you'll need skinny boards, but I'll bet he will not be skiing bumps with that style when he hits 45 years old.

post #14 of 28

I'm turning 45 next week.  There's lots of old guys out there skiing in the zipperline.  I didn't see many bumps last season but I'm sure i can still pull it off.  You're right about it not being something a newbie can just pick up.  You have to have to be able to link very quick and tight turns all the way down a decent pitch before attempting it.  Maybe doubling bumps on a more forgiving ski would be a better way to start.  By "doubling", I don't mean jumping gaps between two bumps. I mean longer radius turns across the fall line around 2 bumps instead of one.  That term is used to describe both techniques.

post #15 of 28

I'm 58 and usually don't have trouble skiing a bump line turning on every bump, but I am doing it on a soft tailed ski that allows me to slow down in every trough without getting launched, hardly WC style skiing.  There is zipperline skiing. and then there is fall line bump skiing.

post #16 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post

 


Get yourself a pair of good old Volant Chubbs with the zebra bases. Great for moguls, great for powder, crud or corn, quite functional for those annoying groomers. They're not much good for ice though.

 

They often can be had in great shape for under a hundred bucks on ebay in the fall.


Edited by volantaddict - 6/8/2009 at 02:43 am GMT


I gotta say that other than the Dynastar V9's I used to ski bumps with in the 80's, the Chubb, even with it's width just might have been the most fun mogul ski I've ever been on. Was a great powder ski also.
 

post #17 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Lots of fun suggestions for all around skis.   But, for something "mostly moguls" I still recommend something under 70 mm under foot, the 80 mm PE/Extremes are OK but less than ideal.  At 80 + you're dipping more in to "sometimes mogul" territory. Anybody know any WC mogul skiers rocking anything fatter? 


Not really, but any ski reguardless of it's width, that's quick edge to edge can be a good mogul ski. My old B2's were fantastic bump skis as well as the skis I use now, the Dirtybird.
 

 

It's mostly about technique anyhow. An arguement we've hashed about for years but for some reason people still  think a certain kind or brand will make them a better mogul skier.

post #18 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post

 


Not really, but any ski reguardless of it's width, that's quick edge to edge can be a good mogul ski. My old B2's were fantastic bump skis as well as the skis I use now, the Dirtybird.
 

 

It's mostly about technique anyhow. An arguement we've hashed about for years but for some reason people still  think a certain kind or brand will make them a better mogul skier.


I think for me weight is a pretty big factor, especially since I'm not in ideal shape anymore.  I'll take a light 80 over a heavy 60-something like a SuperShape anyday.  And, that applies to cutting across them, turing on them,. or darting around them in the zipper.  Either way you get in to situations when you'll need to turn them in a big hurry and the lighter they are the easier that will be.  I've never skied Chubbs, but the Volant's I've handled seemed on the heavy side.

post #19 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 


I think for me weight is a pretty big factor, especially since I'm not in ideal shape anymore.  I'll take a light 80 over a heavy 60-something like a SuperShape anyday.  And, that applies to cutting across them, turing on them,. or darting around them in the zipper.  Either way you get in to situations when you'll need to turn them in a big hurry and the lighter they are the easier that will be.  I've never skied Chubbs, but the Volant's I've handled seemed on the heavy side.


This quote perfectly charaterizes why most of us should not be using the same skis as WC bump skiers.  Regardless of what kind of snow or terrain you are on, skis only work when they are in contact with the snow. If you are jumping then around more than occasionally then you are doing something wrong.  Nobody jump turns down the mountain.  (Pardon my self-rightious rant, but this is an issue that is dear to my heart.)

 

Chubbs are a perfect example of this priciple. They are 90 mm waisted, made of steel, and heavy, how could they possibly be good in the bumps?  Chubbs have a wonderful smooth, damp even flex, particularly in the tails.  They ski the bumps like rubber snakes in constant contact.  A ski with a stiff tail  will interrup the arc of your turn by straigtening out your line at the end.  If you rock your weight back hard it will pop you off the snow, even on flat groomed terrain.  In the bumps this results in a fight on every turn to (a) make your ski continue to turn in the direction you want to go; and (b) keep your skis on the snow.  A ski like the Chubb can ooze through the bumps allowing you to slow down on every turn, but can also smoothly rip if you want to turn up the speed.

 

A huge proportion of ski models will be throwing you around in the bumps because the tails are too stiff.  This is not as much of an issue if you are a very good bump skier and never get your weight back.   Flex is way more important than waist width or even length.  I used to love to ski bumps on my 208 cm Volant GS skis.  They had a mellow flex that allowed me to throw my weight back and carve a turn on just the back half of my ski if needed, literally giving me two chances at every turn, which is exactly the opposite of how most of the skis on the market would react.
 

If you ski like Johnny Mosely then you need stiffer straighter skis, but if you want to relax in the bumps all day then go for something with a mellow flex.  That's why powder skis have always made good bump skis.


Edited by mudfoot - 6/8/2009 at 03:49 pm GMT
post #20 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

 Regardless of what kind of snow or terrainn or snow you are on, skis only work when they are in contact with the snow. If you are jumping then around more than occasionally then you are doing something wrong.  Nobody jump turns down the mountain.  (Pardon my self-rightious rant, but this is an issue that is dear to my heart.)

 

 

Umm, I said that "Either way you get in to situations when you'll need to turn them in a big hurry and the lighter they are the easier that will be".  That has little to do with hop turning down the mountain.  This religious ski in contact with the snow at all times crap is more a new school vs old school technique than a bump thing.  Anywhere on the mountain the ability to "hockey stop" both ways or toss a quick check turn is a critical skill that many post shaped ski era skiers are lacking.  It's also why so many more folks are hooking edges and smacking trees because they lack that skill to hop or pivot back the other way in a crunch.

 

Hows that for a rant?

 

You don't need to be a world cup skier to practice the ability and skills needed to negotiate tight spots.  It's easier to do so on lighter, more nimble skis.  For learning bumps I recommend something manageable.

 

Anybody remember all the iterations that skateboard shapes evolved through about 5 years ahead of the shaped ski evolution?  First came the kick tail then the double kick tail, then back to rear kick.  Then folks starrted skiing more bowls/off road and they got fatter and fatter topping out around 12" wide.  Anyway, the bowl riding faze (similar to the powder rage currently) faded some and street riding had made a comeback.  Now boards have gone back to about 7-9 inches wide with 9 being a half pipe tool.  I'm betting skis do the same with more emphasis on racing and park.  I doubt bumps will ever be hugely popular.  Anyway 10 years form now skiing powder all the time and skis over 80 under foot will be old school the same way a 12 inch wide pig skateboard is today.

 

Rant off.  If you want to ski bumps I recommend bump skis.

post #21 of 28

how many times must I have to say that the weight of skis only matters when you are carrying them to the car.

 

They nothing when you are standing or skiing on them. weight only matters in dampness or dangeling while on the chairlifts.

post #22 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 

 

Umm, I said that "Either way you get in to situations when you'll need to turn them in a big hurry and the lighter they are the easier that will be".  That has little to do with hop turning down the mountain.  This religious ski in contact with the snow at all times crap is more a new school vs old school technique than a bump thing.  Anywhere on the mountain the ability to "hockey stop" both ways or toss a quick check turn is a critical skill that many post shaped ski era skiers are lacking.  It's also why so many more folks are hooking edges and smacking trees because they lack that skill to hop or pivot back the other way in a crunch.

 

Hows that for a rant?

 

You don't need to be a world cup skier to practice the ability and skills needed to negotiate tight spots.  It's easier to do so on lighter, more nimble skis.  For learning bumps I recommend something manageable.

 

Rant off.  If you want to ski bumps I recommend bump skis.


Because of the OP's weight concern I initially recommended the Wateas, which are even flexing and light, but I think the issue is really how you define a bump ski.  If you ski like a WCer (never get your weight back and have the abilitiy to rip the fall line) then you can use straight stiffer "bump" skis like they do.   The point I was trying to make is that for 85% of skiers the easiest, most forgiving, and probably the most fun ski to use in the bumps is something way softer flexing (particularly in the tails) than what is often sold as a bump specific ski.  If you are in a tight spot because you are late on your turn in the bumps, a light stiff tail ski may be better for forcing a direction change, but a softer flexing ski will be more likely to stay in contact with the snow and not be throwing you around while doing so, thereby giving better control.

 

As I said, I don't think width, length or weight is what makes for a bad bump ski, it's the flex.  I think our difference of opinion stems from my feeling that lghter skis change direction easier, but softer flexing skis actually turn quicker, regardless of weight.  Fortunately, they make lots of skis for both of us.

post #23 of 28

Fair enough

post #24 of 28

Soft flexing, damp, big sweet spot, forgiving, durable

 

All good traits of a good bump ski. Which is why I like rossi's. They're good bump skis that just happen to be good all mountain skis.

 

Did I mention light?

post #25 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars View Post

Soft flexing, damp, big sweet spot, forgiving, durable

 

All good traits of a good bump ski. Which is why I like rossi's. They're good bump skis that just happen to be good all mountain skis.

 

Did I mention light?


My old Rossi Viper Zs were one of my favorite bumps skis of all time.

post #26 of 28

I skied a season on FMs.  They worked for me, but the topsheets cracked pretty bad around the tips-just cosmetic.  Other folks blew them up all over the place.  I only weighed about 95 pounds at the time so they held together for me.  I'd ski Rossis again though.  I've just prefered K2s had them before (233 mid) and after (710 FO and  CaBrawlers) the Rossis for a primary bump ski.  Sounds like the Dirtybird would be a similar ride to the PE/Extreme.  How wide are they again?

post #27 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I skied a season on FMs.  They worked for me, but the topsheets cracked pretty bad around the tips-just cosmetic.  Other folks blew them up all over the place.  I only weighed about 95 pounds at the time so they held together for me.  I'd ski Rossis again though.  I've just prefered K2s had them before (233 mid) and after (710 FO and  CaBrawlers) the Rossis for a primary bump ski.  Sounds like the Dirtybird would be a similar ride to the PE/Extreme.  How wide are they again?


I skied the FM (Smash replacement) for a season too, they fell apart. I actually liked my ST Comps better as a bump ski. 

post #28 of 28

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I skied a season on FMs.  They worked for me, but the topsheets cracked pretty bad around the tips-just cosmetic.  Other folks blew them up all over the place.  I only weighed about 95 pounds at the time so they held together for me.  I'd ski Rossis again though.  I've just prefered K2s had them before (233 mid) and after (710 FO and  CaBrawlers) the Rossis for a primary bump ski.  Sounds like the Dirtybird would be a similar ride to the PE/Extreme.  How wide are they again?

78, same as the B2 and just an awesome all round ski. Big sweet spot, no brainer skis. They're not the best on groomer carvers as they're noodly but for my skiing, mostly moguls, trees and steeps with the ocasional powder day, they are nice.

 

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