EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Coming from "Straight" Skis - Considering K2 Recons and Line Prophet 90s
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Coming from "Straight" Skis - Considering K2 Recons and Line Prophet 90s

post #1 of 26
2/19/10 at 1:42pm
Thread Starter 
First a little background on me:

Height: 6' 1-2"
Weight: 195-200 lbs
Age: 23
Skier Level: Advanced

I spend most of my skiing days up at Mad River Glen in Vermont, where I belong to the Hartford Ski Club.  I currently live in Virginia, but still make the trip several times a year.  I've been out west twice before (Utah, both times) and will be heading out to Jackson Hole in two weeks.

The last pair of skis I had was about a 168cm long Elan, at least 8 years ago.  Since then I jumped up to a 180cm ski (honestly not sure of the brand, I want to say Atomic, I know the model is "Cross Ti").  I resisted the "shaped ski" movement and now I'm wondering if that's going to bit me in the butt since I'm clearly going to be experiencing some design changes from the past decade I missed.  That said, I've actually been pretty unhappy with the Cross Ti's -- 180cm is significantly longer than I like, despite my size.

Last weekend I was at Mad River and tried out an older pair of 182cm Dynastars (which I foolishly forgot to note the name of), then demoed some Dynastar Sultans (85mm underfoot, about 172 length) and K2 Apache Recons (78 underfoot, about 177 length).  I was happiest with the Recons, but definitely wanted a little bit shorter (I'm a big woods skier, for one) and a thought a few mm less underfoot would be fine too.

I've been reading reviews online (that's how I found this fine site!) and getting advice from friends who work in ski shops.  I like the idea of a twin-tip ski too, and a light ski.  That all lead me to the Line Prophet 90s, which I've heard nothing but great things about.  I really liked how stable the Sultans were that I demoed, but the width did feel like it was harder to carve and change directions on a dime, and the stance had to be wider for the bumps, so I wasn't running into myself constantly.  But all the reviews I read of the Prophet 90s say "they turn so much better than I was expecting!" so I wonder if there's something there which will make me like them more than I did the Sultans.

Ultimately I'm looking for a very all-mountain ski: short enough for the woods, not so wide I can't turn (I like short, sharp turns on the groomers sometimes), agile enough for the bumps and with enough float so I'm not 3 feet deep when I do get out west to the powder.  I realize this may be asking for the "dream ski" which doesn't exist, but any advice would be great!

Finally: should I be looking for a certain kind of bindings with either of these skis?  I've heard good things from salesmen about high-end Markers (Jester 12, Barron 12, Griffon 12) and how they somehow "make turning on a wide ski easier", but I'm wondering if that's just to sell me a more expensive product.  I wouldn't mind a pair of bindings that can pop off when I twist a ski in a crash, but I don't want to spend more on a binding than a ski either.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but the members here seem to have a lot of good insight from what I've read, so thank you for reading this far and please share your thoughts!   I will take them to heart!
Reply
post #2 of 26
2/19/10 at 2:22pm
I've skied the Sultans and the Prophets.  The Prophets will not turn as quick as the Sultans.  Professional reviews of the Prophets point out short turns as the biggest weakness, although some on this board will tell you the Prophets can turn water into wine.

If you want to go skinnier give the Sultan 80 a spin.  If you decide float is critical I've heard the Salomon Lord (87 underfoot) is a fun, undemanding ski but it will suffer on hardpack compard to the Sultan 80s.  You said you enjoyed the K2s.  The K2 Extreme (85 underfoot) in a 174 may fit the bill nicely.
Reply
post #3 of 26
2/19/10 at 3:09pm
For a 90mm underfoot ski, the Prophet 90 is one of the quickest turning skis available - the deep sidecut they stuck on there is almost unheard of for a ski that wide that is freeride oriented.

You're really comparing apples-to-oranges a bit here.
Reply
post #4 of 26
2/19/10 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

For a 90mm underfoot ski, the Prophet 90 is one of the quickest turning skis available - the deep sidecut they stuck on there is almost unheard of for a ski that wide that is freeride oriented.

You're really comparing apples-to-oranges a bit here.
 

Maybe he doesn't need a 90mm ski.  Not only that, but the Prophet and the Sultan 85 claim similar all-mountain missions (the most notable difference being twin-tip vs. non twin-tip).  If he enjoyed the Recon over the Sultan, I doubt he'll be interested in the P90s.
Reply
post #5 of 26
2/20/10 at 8:11am
I personally don't think any of the skis mentioned are the best choices for MRG.  The tight icy terrain begs for a something like the Fischer Progressor 8+ or 9+ or Volkl Tigershark 10 or 12.  Powder days are few and far between in VT and the snow is typically heavier, so the narrow width is not a major issue.  Hard snow grip and maneuverabillity are what matters. 
Reply
post #6 of 26
2/21/10 at 2:01pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the great input everyone!  At this point (with 2 weeks before my trip out west), I'm considering getting my current skis prepped, but demoing a bit out there as well.

My current skis are Head Cross Ti, 108-66-98, at 180cm with a 17m radius, and as I've said before, I don't much care for them.

I'm planning on checking out as many of the skis I've had suggested as I can find in my sizes, so thanks for the input!  I wish there were still Prophet 80s out there, but it seems they're all long gone.

Does anyone have any binding advice?  Are those wide-nosed Markers worth the extra ~$80?
Reply
post #7 of 26
2/22/10 at 6:37pm
Well I have the Line Chronics and I love them. You probably know that they are twin tips but they turn like a normal alpine ski. I'm acpecting that the Prophets will be just as good if not better then my skis. I would dedinetly pick Prophets over anything else.
Reply
post #8 of 26
2/22/10 at 7:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimH View Post

I personally don't think any of the skis mentioned are the best choices for MRG.  The tight icy terrain begs for a something like the Fischer Progressor 8+ or 9+ or Volkl Tigershark 10 or 12.  Powder days are few and far between in VT and the snow is typically heavier, so the narrow width is not a major issue.  Hard snow grip and maneuverabillity are what matters. 

Depends on where you ski on the hill. On groomers, I totally agree. But the OP said he was "a big woods skier". Personally, at least at my (light) weight, I don't like the kinds of skis you describe in the tight quarters represented by ungroomed terrain at places like MRG. Too stiff and and insistent when I need to be fluid and reactive.
Reply
post #9 of 26
2/24/10 at 7:59am
I ski the eastern hardpack all year.  Some tighter turning skis you should consider are the Stockli Stormrider L, Nordica Hot Rod Igniter CA, Blizzard Magnum 7.6, Dynastar Sultan 80.  All of these skis will hold well on the crap we ski out here, while still providing nice, crisp, almost slalom shaped turns for in the trees.  I recommend everything I listed in a 168-170.  You can downsize if you want, but you might suffer by losing some float.  Like you said, you've only been out west twice, so why accommodate that in your ski purchase?  Rent a pair of fat skis when you go out there.  MRG, Sugarbush, Stowe and the other NE Mountains demand a completely different ski.  Its one thing if you skied in the east and west equally, but you don't.  Anything I listed there should be quite manageable in the west, but will excel in the east.  Personally, I think you should keep yourself to around 76-82 mm underfoot.
Reply
post #10 of 26
2/24/10 at 9:24am
I also wanted to add that while some here will swear by fatter skis, be careful how fat you go.  Those skis are made for thin, airy western powder that requires a ski that can "float."  Out here in the east many of these fat skis will be much more difficult to turn.  It takes a lot more energy to go edge to edge on a 90mm width ski than it does on a 70mm width ski.  Think of it this way- is it easier to sit on a bar stool and rock side to side, or to sit on a park bench and rock side to side... think about it.
Reply
post #11 of 26
2/24/10 at 11:43am
I demoed the K2 recons and the K2 Raiders. I bought the Raiders since they were more quick turning. If you are a tree skiier I dont think the Recons are a good choice as the have a larger turning radius. Prior to that I had Salomon 1080s which were double tipped. They were a real pain in the butt loading them onto the outside of a gondola. I also feel the Raiders absorb bumps better than the 1080s. With the double tipped flexible ski, you feel every bump.
Reply
post #12 of 26
2/24/10 at 12:59pm
Thread Starter 
This is the first I've heard of the Raiders... though I am curious: the K2 website says they have exactly the same shape as the recons: 119-78-105 and a 15m radius at 177cm (though I'd be getting a 170).  The only difference is the Recon has a "Metal Laminate Cap" and the Raiders have a "Torsion Box Cap"... not sure what that means though.

So far these are the skis I've had suggested:
  • Sultan 80
  • Line Prophet 80 or 90
  • K2 Recon
  • K2 Raider
  • K2 Extreme (74 underfoot)
  • Fischer Progressor 8+ or 9+
  • Volkl Tigershark 10 or 12
  • Blizzard Magnum 7.6

Clearly more skis than I'll be able to demo during my trip west, but I think I've decided demoing is definitely in the cards.  Too many options to pick one without giving it a try first.

Also, any binding recommendations?  Or are the $100 ones just as good as the $300 ones?  I've seen a lot of great input here (thanks everyone!) but no word on bindings.
Reply
post #13 of 26
2/24/10 at 1:13pm
You are also highly unlikely to find demos of narrow carving skis like the tigersharks and progressors out west. 

If you are interested in light, lively skis that can turn in the trees you may want to try the Fischer Watea 84 and 94.  Fantastic skis and very versatile.  I've also heard good things about the Sultan line of skis and have owned the K2 PE/Extreme.  Extreme is a good ski, but much heavier and more damp feeling than the Wateas.

Good luck with your search!

Mike

Quote:
Originally Posted by myingling View Post

This is the first I've heard of the Raiders... though I am curious: the K2 website says they have exactly the same shape as the recons: 119-78-105 and a 15m radius at 177cm (though I'd be getting a 170).  The only difference is the Recon has a "Metal Laminate Cap" and the Raiders have a "Torsion Box Cap"... not sure what that means though.

So far these are the skis I've had suggested:
  • Sultan 80
  • Line Prophet 80 or 90
  • K2 Recon
  • K2 Raider
  • K2 Extreme (74 underfoot)
  • Fischer Progressor 8+ or 9+
  • Volkl Tigershark 10 or 12
  • Blizzard Magnum 7.6

Clearly more skis than I'll be able to demo during my trip west, but I think I've decided demoing is definitely in the cards.  Too many options to pick one without giving it a try first.

Also, any binding recommendations?  Or are the $100 ones just as good as the $300 ones?  I've seen a lot of great input here (thanks everyone!) but no word on bindings.
 
Reply
post #14 of 26
2/24/10 at 3:54pm
 I recently got Tyrolia Peak 15 bindings for 100 bucks on Tramdock.com, I've only taken them out one but they seem nice to me. They retail for 335 so I pretty much got a steal that I couldn't resist. I actually mounted them on a pair of Line Prophet Flites which I loved when I skied on them. I have only had a chance on my crappy local hill but I'm heading out to Summit County in a week and half. Pretty excited to see how they perform on real snow.
Reply
post #15 of 26
2/24/10 at 7:07pm
Honestly for tree skiing you're probably looking for something with a 14-15m radius and nothing more than a 80mm waist.  Anything else will not be mobile enough to get through the trees.Just my humble opinion, of course.  I'm hoping some of the others might agree with me on this?
Reply
post #16 of 26
2/24/10 at 7:38pm
who would use a carver at MRG? I sure as hell wouldnt but then again I kinda of hate true carvers...

you owe yourself to check out the Rossi S3. When I got to ski it, it felt like a ski that had eastern woods skiing in mind when being designed. 98mm waist is perfect on all but the icest days, has a decent amount of float and just feel nimble and poppy everywhere. it skis short so try out both the 177 and 186.

There are other skis out there but I would avoid listening to people who clearly ski the northern vermont area in areas that skied out faster. 


some more points

skinny skis are dead(unless you race) IMO even on this coast.

turn radius makes skis hooky at speed in trees, 14-15 meter sounds like a ACL injury to me. I skied tight steep woods today on a 40 meter sidecut! 

narrow waists make the skis sinkable and they tend to get stuck, some days even a 105mm isnt enough heck today I am not sure 120mm was ideal.
Reply
post #17 of 26
2/25/10 at 1:33pm
Well I do want to refine my comments here... I think an 80 or 85 waist is more than appropriate for the NE.  Snow density out here simply doesn't require such a large ski... in my humble opinion.  I've skied some of the gnarliest terrain the east has to offer on 70mm waist skis.  Large radius skis are great for wide open big mountain skiing... but I just personally don't find them agile enough for the trees. 
Reply
post #18 of 26
2/25/10 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by myingling View Post

Thanks for the great input everyone!  At this point (with 2 weeks before my trip out west), I'm considering getting my current skis prepped, but demoing a bit out there as well.

My current skis are Head Cross Ti, 108-66-98, at 180cm with a 17m radius, and as I've said before, I don't much care for them.

I'm planning on checking out as many of the skis I've had suggested as I can find in my sizes, so thanks for the input!

considering the conditions out here this season, I'd prolly 'park' the Cross Ti's and either demo every day or figure out some other option.
You certainly will be able to ski a 66 mm waist ski, but not gonna like it much when and if you head off the groomers. And is 'The Hole' about groomers?
I'd prolly go for anything 78 mm and up to 84 and consider it an allrounder for out here.
Why limit yourself? There are some great deals to be had right now and honestly, there's not likely gonna be many skis you won;t like.
I know, a bit late and last minute. But then how much is the week (or whatever) you're gonna have in Jackson Hole worth to you, to have the 'better' experience?
I would definitely 'park' those Heads and start considering other options.
And maybe not worry about what works both at Jackson Hole and MRG.
Like BushwackerinPA says, 'skinny skis are dead'. Realistically anything under 70 mm is maybe racecourse stuff. And for most eastern allmountain needs anything mid-70s is gonna be fine enough (base on my recollections of MRG and similar areas/terrain). I personally was blown away by how quickly my 82mm Fischers went edge to edge, and worked well in cruded, tight trees and on serious 'eastern-like' hard conditions.
have fun at Jackson Hole...
Reply
post #19 of 26
2/25/10 at 5:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Metzler View Post

Well I do want to refine my comments here... I think an 80 or 85 waist is more than appropriate for the NE.  Snow density out here simply doesn't require such a large ski... in my humble opinion.  I've skied some of the gnarliest terrain the east has to offer on 70mm waist skis.  Large radius skis are great for wide open big mountain skiing... but I just personally don't find them agile enough for the trees. 

snow denisty was 20 percent yesterday which is really heavy!!

watch this every ski on this video had at least 105 mm waist and a 25 meter turn raduis



turn radius is just a number in powder, the flex matters much more.
Reply
post #20 of 26
2/25/10 at 5:46pm
To the OP i would say not to limit your choices by waist width alone. There are a lot of people on this forum that are uninformed about how some of the fatter ski's actually perform, even in tight places. Take some time to demo while in Jackson. You would be surprised how well some of the wider ski's perform in tight places, and how they can make a few inches of fresh feel deep.
Reply
post #21 of 26
2/25/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

To the OP i would say not to limit your choices by waist width alone. There are a lot of people on this forum that are uninformed about how some of the fatter ski's actually perform, even in tight places. Take some time to demo while in Jackson. You would be surprised how well some of the wider ski's perform in tight places, and how they can make a few inches of fresh feel deep.

I would contend most  days a 100mm skis will be more nimble in tighter places than a 70 mm ski.
Reply
post #22 of 26
2/25/10 at 6:09pm
Hey, try everything, find something that feels sweet and ski it.  As you can see in this thread, everyone has their own personal preferences.  A lot of my ski buddies ski fat skis, and a lot of us ski something in the 80-86 range.  My only feeling is that a 90+ is a difficult ski to have when you're going for a one ski quiver.  Like I said, ski it all and see how they feel.  I'm a racer, so I love the super-stiff/bigger sidecut skis.  That being said, some of the more flexible skis with smaller sidecuts and wider waists are awesome too.  We don't need to all agree, different stoke for different folk.  All good as long as you're skiing.
Reply
post #23 of 26
2/25/10 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

To the OP i would say not to limit your choices by waist width alone. There are a lot of people on this forum that are uninformed about how some of the fatter ski's actually perform, even in tight places. Take some time to demo while in Jackson. You would be surprised how well some of the wider ski's perform in tight places, and how they can make a few inches of fresh feel deep.

Yeah, I'm stoked to try stuff in the 90's and even wider on my next trip to Mammoth. This past trip for me was all about getting to know the 82mm Fischer Cold Heats, and I was totally impressed on what a 'wide' ski (for me...) could do.
So considering that we are just getting one storm after another coming thru here, it just can't be a better opportunity to try a whole bunch of new stuff. And the combinations of width and length variations should make for a whole bunch of fun.
Demoing is costly, but when you consider how much a trip costs, scrimping on the ultimate objective - a fun ski day - seems like false economy.
Be Stoked!
We're gonna be skiin thru June this yr!
Reply
post #24 of 26
3/11/10 at 4:41pm

Can't really help in regards to the P90s, but I own both the 80s and 100s.  The aforementioned turn on a dime and are like a hot knife through butter in the bumps/trees.  The 100s don't ski much differently, but are more stable at high speeds and float very well in powder.  Their only con vs. the 80s are on ice and hardpack- don't hold an edge quite like the 80s do, but still very managable.  I'd imagine the 90s are somewhere in-between, so a very solid choice for what you're looking for.  The only con with a wider ski is your ability to get them on edge quickly.  It's not difficult, but requires some skill through tight spots.   

Reply
post #25 of 26
3/12/10 at 6:33am
Demoing is probably one of the funnest things to do, you get to try everything without the huge price tag for new skis. I am currently contemplating getting the Dynastar's 4x4 Contacts. They are a 75mm waist, and stiff. But I have never been out west, so it is ideal for me.

Bushwackerin' - You hit 2 trees!! They must not turn that quick!!! Just kidding!! :)
Reply
post #26 of 26
3/25/10 at 5:50pm
 first of all, lets clarify.... while ive never met josh ( bwpa). his ski vids demonstrate, that he knows his stuff.

i agree that mrg needs a wider ski..... when it snows MRG is one big tight bump run; due to the amount of tele turns.

i own the dyna 4X4's they are a one dimensional, GS hardpack ski, yes you can turn them in the bumps but you'll be backseat driving quickly. they are fast and furious and don't suffer the timid. the blizzis are killer skis...... the 8.1 and 8.7 are  exceptional.

i  mostly ski okemo and for me, whatever the condition  i put on the prophets....  the only better 1 sk quiveri IMO is the kastle mx 88
which costs more than my first 3 cars... ( yep, im old)  the p90 is a great, reasonably priced one ski quiver. you wont regret them.


you also cant go wrong with the k2 extremes with the exception of ice........

now i want to demo rossi s3"s.........
Reply
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 › Coming from "Straight" Skis - Considering K2 Recons and Line Prophet 90s