or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Best all-mountain West Coast Ski? K2 Outlaw, Volkl AC3...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best all-mountain West Coast Ski? K2 Outlaw, Volkl AC3... - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Thread Starter 
Glad to hear that stevesmith, except maybe the powder part. But honestly, am I going to find another 84 waist ski that floats much better? Probably not. And I've heard they float fine if it's not too deep, plus I'm very light.

Liv2ski,
I value your opinion and I have a feeling I could go longer, but keep in mind I'm coming from 150's. I'm used to and enjoy short skis, so I don't really want to go beyond low 170's unless I must. Also, keep my weight in mind - I'm 145lbs and those little ski length calculators say I should be on 168's.

As for the MR's, I think they sound great, but I want something a little better on-piste I guess. How does the float of the MR's and the Nitrous compare?

Thanks
post #32 of 46
I didn't mean they don't ski small powder fine, they do. It's just they tend to seek the bottom. I also think the size is perfect for you. They don't ski short. I had the 178s and outweigh you by 45 lbs.
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ztrain727 View Post


As for the MR's, I think they sound great, but I want something a little better on-piste I guess. How does the float of the MR's and the Nitrous compare?

Thanks

I am thinking the MR's are 88 underfoot and the Nitrous are 78, so yes, the MR's work better for me in soft snow conditions. I am a gear whore, so I only use the Nitrous when there has been no fresh snow for awhile and I know some of the runs have gotten bumped out. The MR is my daily driver. I ski Mammoth and there is lot's of on piste skiing back to the lifts and the MR's rip up the groomers. The Nitrous are a very easy ski to turn, but I prefer the damp, solid feel of the MR better. In off piste conditions the Nitrous will get bounced around a bit where the MR's just feel a lot more solid. Both have great edge hold for ripping the groomers or steep and kind of scraped off and icy. For off piste, I want the MR. For mostly groomed or tracked out snow that has lots of bumps, I like the Nitrous, I would honestly go at least 178 and start eating some chesseburgers and hit the gym, as you should fill out and then the 170 really is to short for out west in all mountain conditions IMO. Either ski is great and I know you will be happy with either. Good news is, if you get the Nitrous, the the next logical purchase is a 100m ski underfoot and then you can buy the Legend Pro, which in retrospect, I should have bought over the MR. O well, live and learn.
Edited by liv2 ski - 10/4/09 at 8:17am
post #34 of 46
Thread Starter 
Again, very very helpful steve and live2ski!

I'm actually going to get the Afterburners, which are 84 underfoot, so almost as wide as the MR's. You make the MR's sound very tempting, but I think the AB's still sound more versatile. Also, for my weight, the MR's sound a bit heavy and I've heard bad things about MR's on groomers.

As for length, I don't see myself gaining huge amounts of weight because I've always tried and never succeeded (and I won't be eating cheeseburgers because I'm vegetarian, if that explains anything :)). I figure by the time I've gained 20lbs, I'll have new skis anyway. If there was like a 172-6, I might consider, but the next size up in 177 which is a big jump.

As for the good news, I agree entirely live2ski! I'm thinking if I get some nice all-around carvers, I can keep them and buy some powder skis next year.
post #35 of 46
I had a good talk lately with my local ski shop. All the skis are great now. As he put it, pick a category, narrow it down a bit, and you can't go wrong. I like your approach: think about it, get some input, then pull the trigger. The Nordicas are solid, European, laminate skis, and 84 is a super versatile width. You'll be kicking ass!
Have a great season and remember, ski all you can, while you can, before life f***s it up!
post #36 of 46
Thread Starter 
Squawbomber, those are some very encouraging words! Thank you! I guess I've started to feel just what you said. Reading the reviews, there aren't many skis people don't like. Of course different styles and physical differences make some types of skis more suitable for some types of people, but chances are you'll be happy with what you get. I bought the 170 AB's last night, and the guys said he'd already shipped them, so I'm pretty excited. I hear it's supposed to snow this weekend and A-basin is going to open on Friday. I'm SO excited! And don't worry, I'm going to definitely be skiing all I can.

Thank you all so much for your help. I'll report back this spring.
post #37 of 46
Hi Everyone,
I'm a Brit, living in Switzerland and want to buy my 1st Ski's.
I skied for about 4 years in my mid teens, didn't Ski on Snow for nearly 30 years and just started again last year.
I consider myself to be at Intermeadiate level, so parallel turns etc no problem, it's the bumps i am trying to master again after 30 years away.
This season, I plan to Ski every week, and I am looking for an all mountain Ski for all occasions. i want a Ski that will help me improve and give me confidence.
I am 5' 10" and weigh 81KG (about 175-180lbs)
Recommendations so far are:
Scott Missions 
Soloman X wing Tornados 

I am leaning towards the Missions, as they seem to be highly regarded by a few Pro's I have spoken to.

Would really appreciate your feed back on this.
 
post #38 of 46
StuartQ:

Welcome to Epic. Your request may get a little lost as it is tacked onto a thread about a pretty different kind of ski and a pretty different skier.

The term "all mountain" needs to be considered in the context of what conditions you will realistically be skiing for the near future and what your priorities are. In general, this means how much will you prioritize......(a) groomed or skier packed snow (includes bumps) vs. (b) off piste conditions that would regularly include deeper snow conditions.

There are a lot of very good skis and the two you are considering are fine. Both skis can handle both condition sets well enough but each has it's own area of superiority. The Tornado favors condition set (a) while the Mission favors condition set (b).

Choose you priorities.

SJ
post #39 of 46
 what, no Watea 84 or 101??  they are stellar all around mountain skies. 
post #40 of 46
 Hi Sierra Jim,

Thanks for the welcome. I should have made a new post I guess.

Anyway, I've gone with the Tornados, as for now I know I will be spending more time on Piste rather than off, and when I feel I'm ready i'll look at something for those off  piste days.

The Tornados seem to have great reviews!

I had to suffer major surgery on my shoulder this year after a last day accident, for which I blame a set of very twitchy hire Ski's,
Surely not down to my ability?

So I am now back in one piece, training hard to be fitter and stronger for the coming season.
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by squawbomber View Post

I had a good talk lately with my local ski shop. All the skis are great now. As he put it, pick a category, narrow it down a bit, and you can't go wrong. I like your approach: think about it, get some input, then pull the trigger. The Nordicas are solid, European, laminate skis, and 84 is a super versatile width. You'll be kicking ass!
Have a great season and remember, ski all you can, while you can, before life f***s it up!

I love this post!  Great attitude and I often feel no matter what I purchase, I will be happy since the differences are so slight.

I too am looking into an all mountain mid-fat ski mainly for Rockies and some European skiing.  I've narrowed it down to Watea 84's or the Monster 82's.  I ski 60% on piste, 40% off, very good skier that likes the bumps on occasion, but by no means an expert (I mean a real expert that can shred everything, not the definition at the ski rental shop).  I'm 5'10 175 lbs, 35 years old and not a stong as I once was - so looking at the 174 or 172 length (maybe even 177). 

I also wonder if I should get a slightly used ski at a discount or last year's model (basically a slightly used ski will cos the same as last years model but come with bindings).
post #42 of 46
how do the dynastar compare to the dynastar 2008 troublemaker twin tips?  I am thinking of ordering some troublemaker TT for $300 with bindings (for all mountain)
post #43 of 46
Gentlemen,
I am new here, although have been lurking around for a while.  Movng from northern Alberta to interior BC and looking forward to more powder skiing.
I am 5'10 156 lbs, 37-year-old, pretty aggressive skier with 30 plus year experience.  Currently skiing with my 05 Atomic SX11 170 cm with GS style medium/long turns at high speeds. Looking for an alternative for the powder, yet with all mountain qualities that would preserve my hardpack experience at high speeds. Have been reading about the K2 Recon, thinking about the 174 cm, and more recently about Volkl AC50 177 cm or 170 cm. 
Any other recommendations, also with size recommmendations.  I think I'd like something a bit longer for more floatation in powder, but again, would like to keep the stiffnes of a hardpack ski. One sidenote: last fall I had a minor ACL injury and since then I have been a bit more cautious and skiing with a high-end knee brace.  So the latter would maybe argue for a bit shorter ski. Dunno.
Looking forward to your educated input.
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by opimian View Post

 what, no Watea 84 or 101??  they are stellar all around mountain skies. 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/88575/fs-08-09-watea-101
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitger View Post

Looking for an alternative for the powder, yet with all mountain qualities that would preserve my hardpack experience at high speeds.

I think I'd like something a bit longer for more floatation in powder, but again, would like to keep the stiffness of a hardpack ski.


The stiffness that you crave for it's hardpack qualities will hinder you in powder. If you get a wider ski that is still stiff like your atomics, the benefit in powder will be less than you would probably expect. The thing that will benefit you the most is a somewhat softer flex because the flex is what turns you not the float.

Here is what I mean....comparing three skis with approximately the same waist width. (84-85mm)

Fischer Watea 84: Stellar in soft snow and bumps, challenged by very hard snow.
Dynastar Sultan 85: Good on very hard and in soft snow and bumps.
Volkl AC 50: Stellar on very hard snow, challenged by soft snow and bumpaz.

SJ
post #46 of 46
Thaks for your input.
Yes, I know, I am looking for a compromise, isn't everybody?
By the way I pulled the trigger and bought a slightly used Volkl AC50 170 cm and hope that I won't regret not going with the 177 cm.  Couldn't give up the high speed carving stability...
We'll see in a few weeks...
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 › Best all-mountain West Coast Ski? K2 Outlaw, Volkl AC3...