EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2010 wider skis: Dynastar Huge and Pro Rider; Blizzard Arogs; Rossi S7; Elan 1010
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2010 wider skis: Dynastar Huge and Pro Rider; Blizzard Arogs; Rossi S7; Elan 1010 - Page 3

post #61 of 84
This is an amazingly informative thread with lots of good input from all angles and types of skiers...reminds me why epicski is such an AWESOME site..

I am smaller at 155-160 lbs depending on how much of the wife's Xmas fruitcake I ate, and use an 08 LP all over at Alpine and Sugar Bowl as a 1-quiver ski in all conditions...
I also have a Huge Trouble (now for sale) which is easier to ski in deeper crud, but not nearly as good anywhere else....and while we all aspire to ski 100% of the time off-trail in virgin powder, this is rarely the case IMO...most times you end up skiing a lot of groomed snow and crud...
The LP is a bottom feeder in that it skims along below the surface in deeper snow and at my weight doesn't sink....and with sharp edges and high angles will do any kind of carving that's required...
I have tried the Coomba, Obsethed, S7, and last years Argos, and prefer the LP for the type of skiing I do....I hate the idea of stopping to change skis, and will ski 4-5 hours non-stop most days....
My $.02
post #62 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post




Do you think that if you already have the Huge Trouble, something like the S7 would be superfluous as a quiver addition?  Or are their strengths and ideal uses different enough?  My Huge Trouble I've been using for ANY new snow conditions from a few inches plus...but I want to at some point (probably at the end of the season) pick up a pair of rockered skis to try, and I'm wondering if I should be considering a hybrid design like the S7 / JJ...or are they a compromise?
Depends on what you are looking for, really. Rockered skis vary enough that you can't really put them into any one category.  Probably my favorite is the Blizzard Answer IQ, but it just has a rockered tip, and is stout throughout the rest of the ski, so it is very traditional.  It doesn't tend to get thrown around in cruddy snow like most of them, yet definitely releases very easily in crappy snow, which is a good compromise if you tend to ski fast.  With regards to the HT vs. S7, it wouldn't make sense for me to own both skis, and in my case, I found the HT to be better suited to my style of skiing.  With the flex and pull back move that I am working hard to master, it seems that having a rockered front end of the ski isn't nearly as important as having a stiff enough ski that doesn't get bounced and is predictable at speed in rough snow.  Having a wide, fairly soft tip is more than "good enough" to outweigh the stability drawbacks of the softer rocker designs.  Mostly, I find that as long as I can float through crusty windpack (which typically happens with a ski around 105mm or wider at my weight and skiing speed) I am all good as far as float goes; then it just becomes about how the ski handles rough snow, tight spaces like soft bumps, speeds, and big-mountain style GS turns.  The HT does most of those things well, but not all, and a ski like the S7 is more maneuverable but loses some stability-aiding heft.  I think you would use the S7 more than the HT on those days with a bit less snow, but would miss the HT when you are skiing bigger speeds. I know I would.  

I think you need to demo some stuff and see what style of ski you like.  There is no right "answer" and it will depend on your skiing style as much as anything. I was watching this video of these Japanese skiers in heli-skiing in NZ, and they were on what looked to be low 90's skis, skiing some pretty crappy windpack.  Their technique was so good in terms of their releases, and they were so strong, that most anyone would have been absolutely schooled on anything under 110mm and rockered in that snow.  But, they liked the heft and stability that those narrower, stiffer skis provided, and the extra float wasn't really of consequence, as they could release out of the chop, due to their incredible foot motion. It was as if they were bouncing in and out of the snow, not unlike the rebound one sees in a race course, yet they were doing it in steep, windpack off-piste conditions at crazy-fast speeds. Not many people can pull that off.
post #63 of 84
I think obssd's question was overlooked: "How would you compare the 1010 to the Sidestash"
 
I'm repeating it, since I'm very curious how the Elan 1010 compares to the K2 Sidestash. 

 
post #64 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giotto View Post

I think obssd's question was overlooked: "How would you compare the 1010 to the Sidestash"
 
I'm repeating it, since I'm very curious how the Elan 1010 compares to the K2 Sidestash. 

 
I remember the Sidestash being stiffer, but I haven't skied it in awhile.  The 1010 is very compliant, with a soft tip that bends up easily, yet it is really solid at speed in rough snow. I remember the Sidestash had a tip that released easily, but the ski mid-body felt a bit stiffer than I would like for a deep snow ski.  I remember coming away with a more positive impression of the 1010, but I am also a lightweight, and really stiff skis are tough for me to flex.

 
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
Granted I haven't skied any of these flat-cambered skis since they are generally too long and/or stiff for a 130lb'er...

The average American man weighs 191 lbs.  Skiers might be more active than average, so I'm thinking maybe 175 is a better number.  Looking at width compared to weight (not sure if that's really legit based on skiing mechanics, but it seems like it might be), a 115mm ski for Mr 175 average should feel like an 85mm ski for Mr 130 lb bantam.  And conversely, a 115mm ski for Mr bantam should feel like 155 underfoot for Mr average.  That might explain why Mr average thinks 115 is reasonably versatile and Mr bantam doesn't.
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by barcolounger View Post


Quote:
The average American man weighs 191 lbs.  Skiers might be more active than average, so I'm thinking maybe 175 is a better number.  Looking at width compared to weight (not sure if that's really legit based on skiing mechanics, but it seems like it might be), a 115mm ski for Mr 175 average should feel like an 85mm ski for Mr 130 lb bantam.  And conversely, a 115mm ski for Mr bantam should feel like 155 underfoot for Mr average.  That might explain why Mr average thinks 115 is reasonably versatile and Mr bantam doesn't.

 


Hi Barcolounger,
while i see your logic for float, i don't think it's quite that simple,
and,
width does much more for you then just float. having that extra width allows the out side edge to be more free, so you have the ability to drift, manuever, adjust line much quicker then on a skinier ski that wants to just keep tracking ahead. wide skis, keep your outside edge up out of the mank in broken snow and are a more solid platform, which is why the best freeskiers even ski them in bullet proof snow (if you watch any comps, like the ones at squaw the last couple years, even though there was hardpack and ice, they almost all choose 100mm or wider skis, not that they don't have the choice of skinnier ones...

Stiffness is more tuned into weight then width if you ask me, and that is why guys like scott and I like hte 1010, he's 150, I"m 165 and it works very well, while a gotama for instance doens't work well at all imo unless your 180 plus, or ski really fast all the time. which brings up another variable, velocity, mass X velocity =momentum, which makes skis work, so a smaller guy that is always skiing faster needs as stiff a ski as a larger guy who who skis at more moderat speeds... and, that is also why i think many skiers ski to stiff a ski. they get the top end skis, but ski much more slowly then many of those skis are designed for, but now i'm off on a tangent.

cheers,
holiday
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holiday View Post

 and, that is also why i think many skiers ski to stiff a ski. they get the top end skis, but ski much more slowly then many of those skis are designed for, but now i'm off on a tangent.
But, you got there in a smooth and slow fashion. 

post #68 of 84
Hi Holiday,

I have no argument with your points about wider skis. I wasn't saying that any particular width is more versatile than any other, nor was I talking only about float.  I was saying that the way ski width X works for a heavier guy (how hard it carves, slarves, skids, floats, etc) might be very different from the way it works for a lighter guy.  So if you've discovered that a 105 is the most versatile width for you at 165lbs, that doesn't mean it would be the most versatile width for an exact copy of you who was shrunk by 25%.  Mini-you would have to go narrower (and shorter) to get that same versatility.  At least that's my conjecture.

Happy new year,
Barc
post #69 of 84
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barcolounger View Post

Hi Holiday,

I have no argument with your points about wider skis. I wasn't saying that any particular width is more versatile than any other, nor was I talking only about float.  I was saying that the way ski width X works for a heavier guy (how hard it carves, slarves, skids, floats, etc) might be very different from the way it works for a lighter guy.  So if you've discovered that a 105 is the most versatile width for you at 165lbs, that doesn't mean it would be the most versatile width for an exact copy of you who was shrunk by 25%.  Mini-you would have to go narrower (and shorter) to get that same versatility.  At least that's my conjecture.

Happy new year,
Barc

There are probably some calculations one could come up with to determine ski float in various densities and depths of snow.  Anyone got a Fluid Dynamics text handy? I don't recall ever working out a model with snow during that class; only with air, water, and West Texas Intermediate.
post #70 of 84
Thread Starter 
Just a follow-up: did the hardest skiing since breaking my tib/fib: a 9-4 day at Squaw, with 6-14" new.  The 1010 was money: I couldn't have asked for more performance.  Everything from crusty "fresh" snow at the bottom of KT, scraped off icy bumps at the top of Chute 75, to 4-5 inches under Olympic Lady, and then the good deeper stuff up top when Headwall opened.  Even though it tracked out quickly, the 1010 was rock solid at speed in both the uncut snow early (what you would expect) as well as tracked-out crud later in the day, and the soft snow piles forming after 3pm on the steeper pitches and chutes over under C2.  In the 183cm, perhaps my only complaint was it wasn't quite as stable as a few bigger skis I have tried (closer to 190cm) in big arcs at speed, but stable enough, and way more nimble later in the day when I leg was hurting and I needed to keep the speed somewhat under control and make more medium sized turns.  It would be fun to get on something a bit bigger (but superior crudbuster) like the Answer IQ in 191cm for a few hours early, and then spend the rest of the day on the 1010.  With that slight complaint nonwithstanding, I was as impressed as could be with the 1010's prowess in the extremely variable snow conditions of the day.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post




There are probably some calculations one could come up with to determine ski float in various densities and depths of snow.  Anyone got a Fluid Dynamics text handy? I don't recall ever working out a model with snow during that class; only with air, water, and West Texas Intermediate.
Use Bernoulli's equation to get the right answer....
post #72 of 84
Dawg

I'm looking to replace my quiver of one (179cm 2008 Prophet 100's) as they getting quite beat up and the core is losing it's pop.  I will likely keep the p100's and mount my AT bindings to them.

I'm 5'10"  150lbs and a level 8/9 skier who skis 60-70 days a year in Colorado with a few trips to Utah thrown in.  I'm not a quiver guy.....I like to get one ski and ust get to know it and ride it.  I can't be bothered to make choices in the morning or to change skis in the middle of the day.

I've been considering several skis (Gotama, Katana, Motherships, VCT, Wailer 105).  I haven't yet skied any of the above but can probably find a place to demo all of them around here.  Based on reading this thread I am really interested in the 1010 but I don't think I can demo here in CO.  I'm hoping to demo the Katana this weekend in some powder at Steamboat if this storm delivers.   So I should be able to tell you what I think of them.

I've loved the p100's in everything but really bad hardpack (that's mostly the driver though) and in the crud as they are a very hooky ski due to the sidecut.  I've found them to be fun in the bumps, pretty darn good in the powder, they rail the groomers but they are twitchy at speed and tend to be pretty hooky in the crud.   I spend most of my days skiing at Copper Mountain with my 7 year old daughter who is a little ripper.   She skis everything on the mountain but at her age we still aren't skiing at mach speeds so based on reading up I don't think the Motherships would be a good choice.   How do you think the 1010 would work out as an everyday ski for mostly Colorado skiing?
post #73 of 84
155 lb skier looking for a softer wide ski. now have head im78 (love them but too skinny for mammoth snow days) and dynastar BT. Just got the bt's and just in time for all the big snow in mammoth however the first few days on them I was getting shooled. people said they were relatively soft but the ski demanded I be right on top of them and they were burning out my legs quick. I like the shape (quick), width and all that, they just seem stiff for me and they dive in the deep powder. (decided to hang on to them for now as I'm getting used to them and they have brought my skiing level up a little)...   since I can't see skiing this ski day in day out as my wide powder ski (too much work and shin bang), I'm looking for a wider softer non rockered on the quicker side edge to edge...  ski in the 105 110 range.    the 1010 keeps being mentioned as a softer ski in this group...  how's the flex compared between the 1010 and the BT? 

ps flex seems as important a spec as anything, wondering why this aspect of a ski hasn't been standardized and included in spec sheets?

  
Edited by makoona - 3/8/10 at 4:03am
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGASkiDawg View Post

Dawg

I'm looking to replace my quiver of one (179cm 2008 Prophet 100's) as they getting quite beat up and the core is losing it's pop.  I will likely keep the p100's and mount my AT bindings to them.

I'm 5'10"  150lbs and a level 8/9 skier who skis 60-70 days a year in Colorado with a few trips to Utah thrown in.  I'm not a quiver guy.....I like to get one ski and ust get to know it and ride it.  I can't be bothered to make choices in the morning or to change skis in the middle of the day.

I've been considering several skis (Gotama, Katana, Motherships, VCT, Wailer 105).  I haven't yet skied any of the above but can probably find a place to demo all of them around here.  Based on reading this thread I am really interested in the 1010 but I don't think I can demo here in CO.  I'm hoping to demo the Katana this weekend in some powder at Steamboat if this storm delivers.   So I should be able to tell you what I think of them.

I've loved the p100's in everything but really bad hardpack (that's mostly the driver though) and in the crud as they are a very hooky ski due to the sidecut.  I've found them to be fun in the bumps, pretty darn good in the powder, they rail the groomers but they are twitchy at speed and tend to be pretty hooky in the crud.   I spend most of my days skiing at Copper Mountain with my 7 year old daughter who is a little ripper.   She skis everything on the mountain but at her age we still aren't skiing at mach speeds so based on reading up I don't think the Motherships would be a good choice.   How do you think the 1010 would work out as an everyday ski for mostly Colorado skiing?
 

got to consider the Dynastar Legend Pro Rider, gone is twitch and hook-iness.
 some OSQ people ride this ski every day for years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by makoona View Post

155 lb skier looking for a softer wide ski. now have head im78 (love them but too skinny for mammoth snow days) and dynastar BT. Just got the bt's and just in time for all the big snow in mammoth however the first few days on them I was getting shooled. people said they were relatively soft but the ski demanded I be right on top of them and they were burning out my legs quick. I like the shape (quick), width and all that, they just seem stiff for me and they dive in the deep powder. (decided to hang on to them for now as I'm getting used to them and they have brought my skiing level up a little)...   since I can't see skiing this ski day in day out as my wide powder ski (too much work and shin bang), I'm looking for a wider softer non rockered on the quicker side edge to edge...  ski in the 105 110 range.    the 1010 keeps being mentioned as a softer ski in this group...  how's the flex compared between the 1010 and the BT? 

ps flex seems as important a spec as anything, wondering why this aspect of a ski hasn't been standardized and included in spec sheets?

  


funny to ask; there is a thread on this, a standard flex index printed on the ski with the turn radius, and it was a real snowball fight
I don't think the BT was designed as a powder ski. The 1010 is. A friend who skis the Elan 999 prefers his Mantras in a head to head.
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by makoona View Post

155 lb skier looking for a softer wide ski. now have head im78 (love them but too skinny for mammoth snow days) and dynastar BT. Just got the bt's and just in time for all the big snow in mammoth however the first few days on them I was getting shooled. people said they were relatively soft but the ski demanded I be right on top of them and they were burning out my legs quick. I like the shape (quick), width and all that, they just seem stiff for me and they dive in the deep powder. (decided to hang on to them for now as I'm getting used to them and they have brought my skiing level up a little)...   since I can't see skiing this ski day in day out as my wide powder ski (too much work and shin bang), I'm looking for a wider softer non rockered on the quicker side edge to edge...  ski in the 105 110 range.    the 1010 keeps being mentioned as a softer ski in this group...  how's the flex compared between the 1010 and the BT?  

makoona, I'm ~160lbs and I ski the '09 Dynastar Big Trouble (176cm).  I can assure you that they're firmer overall than the '09 Volkl Gotama (176cm), '09 Dynastar Legend 8000 (172cm), '09 Dynastar Contact 10 (165cm), and '07 K2 Public Enemy (174cm).  They are assuredly not a "wide powder ski".  I mean, even their much bigger siblings, the Huge Trouble, is not that much of a floater.  For me, the BT is a meatier all-mountain twip.
post #76 of 84
I have the bt '09's (green peas) in 186 so they may feel even stiffer to me at that length. My buddy is 6'4 240 and skis mojo 90's and he thought they felt stiff and beefy. I just want to be sure a wide powder ski I consider isn't going to be that beefy.  I gotta say, the length, shape etc are all fine.. I have no trouple taking these into bumps except for the stiffness. they're quick.
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

funny to ask; there is a thread on this, a standard flex index printed on the ski with the turn radius, and it was a real snowball fight


I don't think the BT was designed as a powder ski. The 1010 is. A friend who skis the Elan 999 prefers his Mantras in a head to head.

an overal flex might be too misleading. the relationship of forebody, to midsection to tail flex might be completely different for 2 skis which have the same overall flex 'index'. now we're talkin about some 'index' of all the magic which goes into what makes a ski happen. Then ad the length variable and all the different torsional qualities... Ultimately it would just add more fodder for the online forums, but prolly not much better comparison.
I'm sure it could be sus'd out, but the ensuing data might/would be more than many of uswould care to handle.
I remember the elaborate chart SKI mag used to do for each ski model, right around the late 60's and early 70's, when so many new designs and material combinations came out. Was a bunch of fun to read, but confused the shit outta everybody.


err... you wrote:
"I don't think the BT was designed as a powder ski. The 1010 is. A friend who skis the Elan 999 prefers his Mantras in a head to head."

prefers his Mantras in a head to head... to the 999 ? or 1010 or BT?
I lost your connection...?
meaning the 999 and 1010 are very similar ... or the BT and Mantras are similar...?
he prefers the Mantras to the 999 in pow ...?
all of the above...?

I'm wanting to demo some fatties (anything over 90...) when I'm in Mammoth again in 10 days. These are all on the list, but the list needs to get prioritized down to 3 , not not more than 4 skis to try all on one day... (based on the list and what's available at the mtn)
post #78 of 84
What'd I tell you bout needing powder skis sooner or later?!

Interesting that you went with Big Trouble 186...I've never skied BT's, but at 150 lbs., I am pretty sure that is the wrong size for you...176 would be more appropriate.  The Huge Trouble on the other hand would be about right at 185. 

Anyway, I know I mentioned the Elan 888 to you earlier in the season as a tweener ski, but on mine, the aluminum topsheet delaminates completely from the tips, so I think the QC factor rules them out.  I would be concerned about the 1010's as well for the same reason...maybe it is just the nature of the unorthodox metal topsheet...who knows? 

Having had such a phenomenal powder season in Mammoth, I've come to some new conclusions about how to orient my quiver this season, so I figure I should share the thoughts...

Like you, I have the Im 78's..mine are the 171's.  After my 888's started to fall apart, I went back to the 78's for any days with no new snow.  I had forgotten how versatile they are.  In reality, the need for a 90-100mm tweener ski is debatable, starting from the 78's, IMO.  The 78's are actually serviceable in just about any conditions up to even 8" of fresh or so of fresh I have found, this season.  The Huge Trubles are my other ski, and there is not much quiver gap with those two skis.  In fact they overlap a little in terms of use in up to 12" of fresh...those days where it starts snowing in the morning and goes all day (which have been many days this season at Mammoth).  Huge Troubles are actually sort of a tweener ski themselves, in that they are between that 90-100mm. crudbuster and the 115mm + powder specific fattie.  Bottom line is, if I know it will be snowing all day, I will be on the HT's right now, as they are versatile enough to get the job done from as little a few inches up to 2 feet of fresh.  If it may or may not snow, I'm on the 78's (unlikely to get more than 8-12" if it starts snowing only in the morning).  If it's been snowing non-stop all night or for 24hrs+, obviously the HT, as that will bring a guranteed 12-30".

That said, if I were to rebuild the quiver from the ground up at the moment, I think I would start with the im 78 171cm. again, then wait to try some of the new 90-100mm. skis that are coming out next year, many of which have some version of early rise tips, as well as the hybrid rocker 115mm+ skis like the S7, before settling on the flat-camberish HT and 1010.  I am curious to see what kind of improvements I'd see with the latter both in tree skiing and deep fresh and chopped .

In other words, if a 2 ski quiver, it would still likely be im 78 + Huge Trouble.  If 3 skis, it would be im 78, versatile 94-100mm ski (Shogun, Enforcer, Slicer, Sultan 94, Rossi S3, etc.), then nimble hybrid rocker (S7, JJ, Billy Goat, etc.).
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post




an overal flex might be too misleading. the relationship of forebody, to midsection to tail flex might be completely different for 2 skis which have the same overall flex 'index'. now we're talkin about some 'index' of all the magic which goes into what makes a ski happen. Then ad the length variable and all the different torsional qualities... Ultimately it would just add more fodder for the online forums, but prolly not much better comparison.
I'm sure it could be sus'd out, but the ensuing data might/would be more than many of uswould care to handle.
I remember the elaborate chart SKI mag used to do for each ski model, right around the late 60's and early 70's, when so many new designs and material combinations came out. Was a bunch of fun to read, but confused the shit outta everybody.


err... you wrote:
"I don't think the BT was designed as a powder ski. The 1010 is. A friend who skis the Elan 999 prefers his Mantras in a head to head."

prefers his Mantras in a head to head... to the 999 ? or 1010 or BT?
I lost your connection...?
meaning the 999 and 1010 are very similar ... or the BT and Mantras are similar...?
he prefers the Mantras to the 999 in pow ...?
all of the above...?

I'm wanting to demo some fatties (anything over 90...) when I'm in Mammoth again in 10 days. These are all on the list, but the list needs to get prioritized down to 3 , not not more than 4 skis to try all on one day... (based on the list and what's available at the mtn)
 


He had brand new 999's to replace his Mantras of a couple seasons ago (used and beat by 200 days or so) but was saddened to realize he preferred his old Mantras to the new Elans. He said it was just a feel thing.

The Big Trouble is billed as a park and pipe ski with all mountain capability. It was not intended as a powder ski, but could be made to work as well as any for its width.

Agreeing with Dt, the Dynastars were the stiffest skis in the wider ski rack at the stores I go to. well, Atomic was also stiff in that category. Well, the Rossi Pro 112 was also stiff. But some skis are way softer to optimize float over drive.
post #80 of 84

Well, I still like the idea of a 100-110 range conventional powder ski (non rockered) but I'm coming around to the BT's. I think it's possible that they have softened somewhat following the first few days on the mountain with them, including by a 240 lber. Probably still more work than a softer powder ski but I'm having a lot of fun on them now. Of course Mammoth is covered with ungodly amounts of soft powder, that might be part of it.       Re size: I ordered the BT's in 186 for the 240 lb guy and when he decided not to use them I figured I'd give them a try. They were very inexpensive. Size is a little bit of a conundrum for me because I'm only 155 lbs but I just like longer skis. I have no issue with maneuverability or control with the 186... and I'm guessing I'd loose float in powder and stability in crud with a shorter ski. On the other hand a short ski would feel softer I think.

BTW, My iM 78's are beginning to delaminate at topsheet on tail behind heel binding mount. not sure how far it'll go.

Also, now that I've skied half a season and been on the BT's, the iM 78's are feeling very small, narrow and soft. That's what mammoth in a good year'll do, I guess.

post #81 of 84
My experience with Mammoth is pretty extensive and I'd have to say that the BT (length notwithstanding) is actually a pretty good call down there most of the time. Much of the time, the snow on the upper mountain is some form of wind consolidated crud with softer pockets blown in. The rather odd flex pattern of the BT actually handles that pretty darned well. The BT is in general rather an odd duck of a ski. While Dynastar originally pitched it as a wide park ski, it was really better for AM usage than it was for most park skiers. While the BT never sold really well, it is a very good design and it formed the basis for the new Slicer for 2011. That Slicer knocks off a few of the rough edges of the BT and it could well turn out to be a really good choice as a bigger mountain OSQ.

SJ
post #82 of 84
Could you elaborate on the odd flex pattern and rough edges of the BT?    

OSQ?

 Thanks...   
post #83 of 84
The BT is stiffer in the forebody than in the tail mwhich is the opposite flex pattern of most skis. It works well, even very well but it's very different. It also has a full height twin tip which given the fact that it's not a great park ski, is a little superfluous. For all that, the BT is very good ski but the new 2011 Slicer will be better as an OSQ for most skiers.

SJ
post #84 of 84
I am new around here, but have got a ton of helpful information from this site.  Just wanted to add a note on here about the Blizzard Argos bc there are differing opinions on the skis (e.g., dawcatching v. SJ), and there aren't a ton of reviews of them on here.  I just got a new pair of 180s w/ Baron bindings.  My everyday skis are Volkl AC 30s in 170 length.

About me:
35 yrs
6 feet
180
Very advanced skier, w/ 20+ yrs or so experience.  Generally ski Mammoth.

I skied the Argos this weekend in Mammoth on fresh and packed powder.  I found these skis to be stunningly capable in soft snow, powder, soft moguls, and crud.  Contrary to what some have said about the skis, I found them to be very easy to ski and plenty forgiving in soft conditions.  In soft conditions, they manage trees and chute turns very well.  They skied well at fast and slow speeds.  They have no tendency to "hook" in crud-- likely the result of the limited sidecut.  I found that I had almost no leg fatigue after a day of powder skiing.  I don't ski goomers often, but found the skis had a high speed limit (higher than I likely would be willing to ski), yet were easy enough to turn on the groomed provided you put a modest amount of pressure down.  

That said, I do not think the Argos is a great "quiver of one."  In fact, I really am starting to believe that there is no such thing as one ski that really manages to do everything.  When things firmed up, the Argos was not quick enough for tight moguls or sharp turns in narrow chutes.  I found myself happily back on my AC 30s.  This is not unexpected, and I never expected the Argos to be more than a "sometimes" ski.   I doubt any 105 mm ski with a 24m radius excels in tight situations (trees, narrow chutes, moguls) on hard pack.

So, my take on the Argos is that it's a fantastic ski off piste in soft conditions, a good enough ski on groomers, but not the right tool when things firm up. 
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 › 2010 wider skis: Dynastar Huge and Pro Rider; Blizzard Arogs; Rossi S7; Elan 1010