EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
 I'm looking for suggestions for a versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski. So far I think I'd like to demo some 186 Gotama's, 183 Katana's and the 180ish Shogun's.  I'm looking for opinions on these and any thoughts on if im going in the wrong direction or going to waste a pile of money.  I'm thinking of throwing a pair of dukes or barons on them and they'd be my only AT bindings so I'd like a reasonably versatile ski, I know the full rockered ski's won't be the best for this but if i'm not getting freshies I'm not walking up the hill for it.  My current other skis are 178 Legend 8K's and 176 Big Troubles.  I'm 6' 175 and ski mostly northern VT resorts.
post #2 of 15
 That's a good list. I'd add the Rossi S7.
post #3 of 15
I hope this is not too much of a hijack-

I too am looking for a versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski for use in Northern Vermont.  Being 5' 3" and 135lbs. I have been considering going short and fat and am almost ready to purchase a 161 Icelantic Shaman.  But after reading a lot of similar threads and talking to the bushwacker during a gondola ride at Stowe (where I was demoing some Icelantic skis) I am thinking perhaps I should investigate some of the rockered skis which are lauded so frequently.  The length that these skis are available in, however, unerves me a bit as I'm not sure I would be able to handle them.  My "fat" ski of the moment is a 170 Stockli Snake which is certainly too much for me to throw around in the trees without a lot of effort (and skiing faster than I would like).

At my size would it be worth demoing the likes of the 178 Gotama or the 176 Katana?  Bury my pride and try a 162 Kiku?

I notice the Rossi S7 comes in a 166 and this really intriques me.  Any place up near Stowe where it is possible to demo?

So the question in a nutshell:  To go shorter and fatter?  Or to go longer and rocker?

I also plan to make it up there to take some tree skiing lessons with you guys before this season is over.  (That is if I can unerve myself a bit!)
post #4 of 15
 The demo center at Stowe has two pairs of 178 Gotamas, so you could try those. You could also call Pinnacle - http://www.pinnacleskisports.com/reserve_w07.html and see what is in their fleet. They have a 166 S7 on their wall for sale I don't know if they have a demo pair mounted hough.
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTripodi View Post

I hope this is not too much of a hijack-

I too am looking for a versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski for use in Northern Vermont.  Being 5' 3" and 135lbs. I have been considering going short and fat and am almost ready to purchase a 161 Icelantic Shaman.  But after reading a lot of similar threads and talking to the bushwacker during a gondola ride at Stowe (where I was demoing some Icelantic skis) I am thinking perhaps I should investigate some of the rockered skis which are lauded so frequently.  The length that these skis are available in, however, unerves me a bit as I'm not sure I would be able to handle them.  My "fat" ski of the moment is a 170 Stockli Snake which is certainly too much for me to throw around in the trees without a lot of effort (and skiing faster than I would like).

At my size would it be worth demoing the likes of the 178 Gotama or the 176 Katana?  Bury my pride and try a 162 Kiku?

I notice the Rossi S7 comes in a 166 and this really intriques me.  Any place up near Stowe where it is possible to demo?

So the question in a nutshell:  To go shorter and fatter?  Or to go longer and rocker?

I also plan to make it up there to take some tree skiing lessons with you guys before this season is over.  (That is if I can unerve myself a bit!)
 

hey bud.

I ended up demoing the sft nomad tthat day in a 181 and they really did rock. the soft felt almost like a reverse camber ski in the 5 inches of snow that day yet GS turned better than alot of other skis. very floaty and fun. but the Epic's Katanas were better everywhere except groomers and felt much short than the 181 sft nomad despite being stiffer  and longer than the nomad.

in nutshell go fatter, short and rockered. 

I dont think the 176 katana is totally out of reach IMO try it who know till you try it!, the ski is decambered already and VERY quick. The 166 S7 might be better choice but I think the S7 skis longer than the katana. Epic could confirm this since he owns both. 

also dont forget the often overlooked Rossi S3, could be a winner but I dont know....


Edited by BushwackerinPA - 1/21/10 at 3:39pm
post #6 of 15
bush,  thanks for the reply.  I took your advice that day and tried the Nomad SFT in a 168.  I really did like it a lot (the 156 was indeed pathetically short feeling, even for me).  I've been wavering between the Nomad and the 161 Shaman, but I like the idea of going short and rockered so I will definitely hold off until I can try  some rockered skis.  As epic suggested I will call Pinnacle and see what's set up for demo.  I checked up on the  S3 and it sure does sound very intriguing too.

I'll try to get up to Stowe end of February or early March and will get in touch.

I am hoping to detour the wife, mom and dog and hit Magic, which I haven't skied for several years, on the way home from my Daughter's engagement party in Boston this weekend.  Should be more snow than we found at A-Basin last week!
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTripodi View Post


bush,  thanks for the reply.  I took your advice that day and tried the Nomad SFT in a 168.  I really did like it a lot (the 156 was indeed pathetically short feeling, even for me).  I've been wavering between the Nomad and the 161 Shaman, but I like the idea of going short and rockered so I will definitely hold off until I can try  some rockered skis.  As epic suggested I will call Pinnacle and see what's set up for demo.  I checked up on the  S3 and it sure does sound very intriguing too.

I'll try to get up to Stowe end of February or early March and will get in touch.

I am hoping to detour the wife, mom and dog and hit Magic, which I haven't skied for several years, on the way home from my Daughter's engagement party in Boston this weekend.  Should be more snow than we found at A-Basin last week!
 

I checked pinnacle today, no S3 demos they dont even have it on the wall...

I might be guninea pigging them I think. Rossi gives a great deal to PSIA people on this ski and looks to be killer tree ski and light for skinning. will mount them with Dukes just debating 177 or 186 myself. the running lenght is really short on these I wish i could demos them as well before biting the bullet.
post #8 of 15
I will be waiting for your guninea pigging S3 reviews.   Just read through some of the 2011 threads just now.  Rockered Dynastars and rockered Kastles in more sizes.  It's all getting so delightfully complicated!
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 
 Epic, what length S7 do you ski? I had thought about those but scratched them off this list of stuff to try because i didn't think they would be as versitale as some of the other skis.  Hopefully it will snow more than an inch so i can try theses things out in the conditions i want them for.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhodyram View Post

 Epic, what length S7 do you ski?

188. I think they are actually one of the most versatile skis I've tried. The Katanas are probably a better powder ski (maybe), but the S7 shines it's brightest in weird conditions. It eats up windpack and crust like it's courdoroy.
post #11 of 15
 trigger pulled while if on monday they are still in stock... 186 which after lining up my 179 PE next to has about 7-8 cm shorter ruinning lenght than the 179cm Pes. Hoping for smeary, quick and more verstile tree skis than anything I have now.



will be mounted with small dukes so if you boot fits those and your in stowe and promise not to rock them to bad people can try them.
post #12 of 15
A guy from our shop, who grew up at K-Mart, said the Elan 999 would be the ultimate East-coaster ski for backside use. Super quick for a ski of it's relatively large radius, rules in bumps, very soft tip, so great in wind crust, but more stable in crappy snow than the S7.  He is skiing the 185cm at 6 foot 1. 

I have never skied back East, but I will take his word for it. He is a very good skier.  The 999 is a narrower (same layup) version of the 1010 that I ski, which is as quick or quicker than anything else I have skied in that width (same league in quickness as the S7, also just more stable in cut-up crud). Just a little wide for bumps and lesser snow conditions, though, and I bet the 999 would be a superb choice due to the narrower width.

Katana as BWPA mentioned would also be a good choice.  Very similar to the 1010, not quite as quick, but a touch more stable.   
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

A guy from our shop, who grew up at K-Mart, said the Elan 999 would be the ultimate East-coaster ski for backside use. Super quick for a ski of it's relatively large radius, rules in bumps, very soft tip, so great in wind crust, but more stable in crappy snow than the S7.  He is skiing the 185cm at 6 foot 1. 

I have never skied back East, but I will take his word for it. He is a very good skier.  The 999 is a narrower (same layup) version of the 1010 that I ski, which is as quick or quicker than anything else I have skied in that width (same league in quickness as the S7, also just more stable in cut-up crud). Just a little wide for bumps and lesser snow conditions, though, and I bet the 999 would be a superb choice due to the narrower width.

Katana as BWPA mentioned would also be a good choice.  Very similar to the 1010, not quite as quick, but a touch more stable.   

dawg while I respect your opinion and I think you way under rate yourself as a skier.

but

We dont ski woods here in a turn shape anywhere near the sidecut of any of the skis being mentioned above. Rockered skis make so much more sense for what the OP Jtripodi and myself and Epic skiing woods due the quickness and pivotiness. It doesnt matter how good of a skier you are rockered(but normal sidecut) will be easier and quicker to ski in the woods on the east coast. 

remember quite recently I was a anti fun shape person, then I made the mistake of trying some again in tight confines. I am now selling of my non rockered off piste skis and buying shorter and narrow but rockered skis.

I dont think you can fanthom how tight the woods can be, take your tightess woods and that would be as open our cut glades. Our woods(IE non marked non cut areas of the mountain) are so tight people out west wouldnt even look to ski in them.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




dawg while I respect your opinion and I think you way under rate yourself as a skier.

but

We dont ski woods here in a turn shape anywhere near the sidecut of any of the skis being mentioned above. Rockered skis make so much more sense for what the OP Jtripodi and myself and Epic skiing woods due the quickness and pivotiness. It doesnt matter how good of a skier you are rockered(but normal sidecut) will be easier and quicker to ski in the woods on the east coast. 

remember quite recently I was a anti fun shape person, then I made the mistake of trying some again in tight confines. I am now selling of my non rockered off piste skis and buying shorter and narrow but rockered skis.

I dont think you can fanthom how tight the woods can be, take your tightess woods and that would be as open our cut glades. Our woods(IE non marked non cut areas of the mountain) are so tight people out west wouldnt even look to ski in them.
The relationship between the sidecut radius of the ski and the radius of the turn that is so dominant on hardpack (turn radius = sidecut radius x cosine (tipping angle)) DOES NOT APPLY in soft snow.   More important is flex.  Although the sidecut does matter, in that it changes the relative areas near the tip and tail and force is pressure times area, the important thing is the FLEX of the ski.  The whole ski is being pressured by the snow and bending due to the applied pressure in relation to its flex characteristics.

When you ski on a ski in the snow, the ski IS decambered to a rockered shape whether it is a rockered ski or not.   The amount of pressure required to attain any given shape beyond the normal unloaded state of the ski depends on the FLEX of the ski.  0 pressure is required to attain the rockered shape of a rockered ski, some small amount is required to attain that same shape with a non-rockered ski.   Rockered skis are easier to pivot, that's about their only advantage.

I would give the 999 a try.
Edited by Ghost - 1/24/10 at 6:03am
post #15 of 15
The 'East Coast Powder Ski'... the El Camino of the ski world.



You know, for taking a load of gravel to the drag strip.

or:



The Mullet, business in front- party in back.


Sometimes, two great tastes Do Not taste great together.

Fat, Loose and Easy... like a successful Saturday night, that's the ticket in eastern woods.
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 › versatile east coast powder/tree focused ski