or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Western daily drivers (???) in the 90-100mm range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western daily drivers (???) in the 90-100mm range.

post #1 of 169
Thread Starter 

Over the last month I have been extensively testing 2011 skis in the 90-100mm range with an eye toward picking my product mix for next year. Sorting through these is not a chore for me because they are all so good and such fun to ski on. Testing started at the SIA demo at Winter Park and concluded at the Mammoth trade fair. (in between I did women’s skis at Alpine meadows). The test hill at WP was a GS race trail that I suspect had been treated at some time in the recent past. Despite the great grooming, there were some areas where the snow was very firm. At Mammoth, I had typical western conditions of day old crud that had been consolidated by the wind and then partially filled in by blow in. Continuous wind kept the snow blowing and filling all day. The result was chalky crud with pockets of deeper snow in the 6”-12” range over a firmish base. Occasionally that firmish base peeked out of the crud in the form of a hard srapey patch. The groomers were firm winter conditions.  

 

What I expect from this group of skis is a balance of capabilities between consolidated conditions (skiing on the snow) and semi-deep, 3-dimensional conditions (skiing in the snow ). I don’t expect these to “rip the groomers at Super G speeds” (I just LOL whenever somebody posts that crap) or be ice specialists. Conversely I don’t expect them to be super floaty in blower powder either. In deeper snow, I expect these to flex well enough to come around without too much work and to handle at least 12” of depth comfortably. In the more common mixed and varied conditions that really describe most days in the west, I expect these skis to be nimble enough in soft, forming bumps, solid enough to push through crud, and forgiving enough to allow a quick skiddy maneuver when a tree or rock face leaps into your path. I’m fairly tolerant of modest groomer performance but the ski still needs to be fun when it hasn’t snowed lately. I personally find that skis that are too stiff overall and/or in torsion are not compliant enough to handle mixed, broken, or varied conditions well. As a reminder, I’m 5-10, 200#, L-8 skier with an off trail to on trail bias of about 75/25. I tend to prefer medium to med-stiff skis. I’ll regularly test about 40 men’s skis and 15 or so women’s skis every year.

 

Following are quick thumbnail evaluations of several models and how I view them for the consumer. I tried to keep them all in roughly the same size range. I started the day with a few current and well known 2009 skis as a baseline.

 

Line P-100-179: (conventional camber 100mm waist)

 

This ski has a medium firm flex and a fairly deep sidecut The sidecut makes it very quick on the groomers and nimble in mixed bumps. Grip is very good on the firmer snow and it is pretty energetic. In this length, this ski pretty turny for my tastes in the crud. I chose this ski in 186 as a replacement for my old 183 Gotamas. The P-100 is pretty competent at everything.

 

Salomon Shogun-182: (conventional camber w/tip rise 100mm)

 

The Shogun is one of the first of the “new breed” of Salomons. These are beefier and more aggressive skis than Salomon has produced in recent years. The Shogun really takes advantage of the tip rise and is very easy and nimble in the mixed up softer conditions. The tip initiates super quick and the medium firm midsection and tail allows a solid finish without a lot of effort. The tip rise feels a bit prone to deflection at times but the rest of the ski keeps it under control. The Shogun has a surprising amount of energy for this width of ski. On the groomers, the tip rise is noticeable and the tip feels a bit loose but the midsection and tail are solid enough and grip is good enough. For me, this ski has a bit of a soft snow bias and the 182 was fine.

 

Blizzard Atlas-180: (conventional camber 94mm)

 

The Atlas has been one of my personal mainstays this season and will remain so next year. This ski is right in the middle of the mix for shape and is on the med-firm side for flex with fairly firm torsion. The Atlas is more of a buster than a floater in deeper snow but it has a balanced flex and the tail flexes well enough in crud and softer snow to allow the ski to finish smoothly and without much effort. This ski is in the middle for nimbleness and on the higher end for stability. The Atlas is one of the grippier skis in this group on groomers and it engages from the tip, but the sidecut is not overbearing. Dampening on the harder snow is excellent. This is a ski for a strong skier. For me the 180 is plenty of ski.

 

Following are new models………………….

 

Salomon Sentinel-184: (conventional camber, short tip rise, 94mm)

 

The Sentinel is another “new breed” ski from Salomon and has a firm, pretty balanced flex. In the chalky cruddy stuff at Mammoth, the Sentinel initiated easily and punched the rough snow very predictably. In the areas where the crud was forming into bumps, it was easy enough to initiate but a little long for my tastes. This ski gripped the hard snow @ Winter Park well and felt more nimble than one would expect given the flex and the length. The tip rise is visible but pretty short and the rise was not really noticeable one way or the other whether I was on the snow or in it. This ski has a pretty neutral balance of skills. For my tastes, the Sentinel is one of the standouts of the year regardless of category. For me a 177 would be the right length.

 

Atomic Access-181: (conventional camber, long tip rise-100mm)

 

My first turns on the Access were in early January on firm groomers. The long tip rise made the ski feel super nimble and quick for its length and width. The long tip rise section was floppy on the harder snow but the rest of the ski was solid enough underfoot to be comfortable at moderately high speeds. The edge grip was very good considering how much of the ski was disconnected from the snow. In the more consistent crud at Mammoth, the Access was a hoot to ski, as it was easy, nimble and fun. In the choppy chalky stuff, the tip was prone to deflection. This ski has a distinct bias toward softer conditions and I felt that I wanted a longer size than the 181 which is currently the longest being offered.

 

Volkl Kendo-177: (conventional camber, 88mm)

 

This ski is a little out of width category here but deserves mention. This is a new ski that shares a common build with the venerable Mantra. I have always thought that the Mantra was either too stiff for its width or too wide for its stiffness. The Kendo solves that problem both ways in that it is narrower than the Mantra but it skis slightly softer as well. The first turns on the Kendo came @ Winter Park and it felt very smooth and grippy on the very hard snow without the harshness that some stiffer skis exhibit. I felt that on those hard conditions, the Kendo was easier and more comfortable to ski than the AC-50 without giving up much at all in power and stability. Out west at Mammoth the Kendo was overshadowed by the wider skis in the crud but not as much as you might think. The Kendo has a flex that allows it to come around well without feeling like you are fighting it and it felt pretty maneuverable in the building bumps. This is still a pretty stiff ski but it is more versatile than some existing models and is (IMO) the best new ski that Volkl has built lately.

 

Dynastar Sultan 94: (conventional camber, “tip rise” 94mm)

 

The Sultan 85 has wowed skiers for a year now with its nearly perfect blend of characteristics and capabilities. The 94 comes in with the same pedigree but in a wider shape and just like the 85, it just plain works. I ski the Sultan 85 a lot so when I first jumped on the 94 @ Winter Park, I was expecting it to be similar but possibly a bit more sluggish. Welllll….similar it is, but sluggish it isn’t. The 178 cm. 94 felt very nimble and easy turning while having very good grip underfoot on the harder snow. In the typical western conditions at Mammoth, the 94 handled everything in its path. It busted the chalky wind chop, cruised in the little powder patches and felt effortless in the forming bumps. Out on the groomers the Sultan pulled right from the tip, gripped underfoot and released when I moved my foot forward. This is a medium to longish turn ski and is for better skiers. I would say this ski is not best at any one thing but for versatility, pretty well defines the category. 

 

Following are three double rise skis that I wasn’t too sure (at first) would fit into the daily driver category as I envision it.

 

Blizzard The One-177: (low double rise, flat underfoot, 98mm)

 

I was mostly skiing narrower skis at Winter Park and this ski was not really on my radar at the time. I took it out as I was wrapping up simply because I wanted to see what it would do on very hard snow and quite frankly, I was surprised. In shorter turns or at medium speeds the One feels a little swimmy. Once speed picks up enough to justify a higher edge, the tip and tail quiet down. While this ski never really pulls from the tip or grips hard at the tail, it is stable enough for all day use and grip is quite good underfoot. In the Western snow at Mammoth, the One was really in its element. Easily the most playful and nimble of this group of skis, this ski handled the choppy chalky stuff very well. I attribute this surprising result to the very low rise in the tip and tail. The shape does not rise out of the snow very much and hence, it’s not that prone to deflection. This was the best of this group in the little bits of light snow I found and I’ll surmise that it’s going to be the best of this group in pure light powder. This ski is pretty soft and is certainly not the best for some Gnar Eaters. Even so, it skis more solidly than one would think and I was very impressed. This could well be the “Pocket Rocket” of this generation of skis. I would prefer the 184.

 

Dynastar Slicer – 181: (low double rise, camber underfoot, 98mm)

 

The Slicer is a medium-firm ski that uses Dynastars’ spring blade construction giving it a very solid feel underfoot with a more flexible tip and especially tail. I didn’t ski this at Winter Park so my first few turns were in the fairly steep pitch @ Mammoth in the chalky western crud. The tip rise enabled the Slicer to initiate easily but the firm middle of the ski wanted to power the turn and bust the crud rather than float over it. The soft tail with its low rise released easily. In the building bumps, and the choppy chalk, the Slicer skied like the conventional cambered skis and it was not prone to deflection but was also not as nimble as the softer double rise skis. I give the Slicer about an even split in hard/soft snow bias with a bit of a nod toward more aggressive skiers. I found the Slicer to be rather the antithesis of the One from Blizzard in that it has a much more serious feel to it. As such, it could well be the ski for the Gnar Eater that the One is not. The 181 was plenty of ski for me.

 

Rossignol S3-178: (double rise, camber underfoot, 98mm)

 

The S3 was around this year but not very many people noticed it including me. In my case the reason was that Rossi seemed to pitch the ski as an afterthought and with an emphasis toward the park/jib market. The teenish graphics for ’09 helped to keep it off my radar and the same for our customers. None of this is deserved as the S3 is quite a capable ski and is more of a daily use ski than a jib tool. I skied the S3 in an early intro on very firm groomer conditions and was impressed enough to start thinking about it. The tip and tail rise are fairly substantial and so those portions of the ski are certainly a bit disconnected from snow feel. Out on the groomers, the ski felt short but it was certainly solid enough underfoot. Those attributes really help the S3 in the conditions such as I experienced at Mammoth. The S3 was nimble and forgiving in the choppy crud and bumps and really good in the little patches of powder. As with some other skis of this type, the weakness was a bit of tendency toward deflection in the rough stuff. I liked the 178 and I think it was the right size for me although I’ll try the 185 when I get the chance.

 

Sooooooo………………………

 

This width range of ski including down to about 85mm or so makes a really good choice for the western skier as a daily driver or a “one ski quiver”. Choosing from this batch is about the skier’s priorities and the frequency that he/she encounters deeper snow vs. more consolidated conditions. Note that the key word here is priority.  Some skiers simply prioritize deeper conditions regardless of whether or not they ski them very often. That skier might choose from the wider examples of this spectrum or possibly the double rise models. He may choose an even wider ski than this range and be quite happy to “make do” on the days when there is no significant depth. OTH, there are many skiers (possibly most) who do not prioritize snow depth that highly. Maybe those folks realize that they see deepish snow seldom if ever, or maybe they just flat out don’t care. Those folks may be well suited by narrower skis than this range.

Skiing be a fun sport................

SJ

post #2 of 169
So SJ, how does (y)our beloved Dynastar Sixth Sense Big (aka Big Trouble) fit into this scheme of things?
post #3 of 169
Thread Starter 
It doesn't. As great as the BT has been, there are limitations inherent to the width, the full twin shape and the soft tail. The Slicer is the better choice for most skiers when park is not a consideration. The Slicer didn't necessarily need to be 98mm in order to do it's job but it doesn't really suffer in comparison to the 92mm BT in many areas and it is more balanced and better at most things.

One thing that it likely will have in common with the BT is the moniker of "best ski that nobody knows about"

SJ
post #4 of 169
thanks SJ!
you were reading my mind. I'm gonna be up at Mammoth in 2 wks and was plannin to demo stuff in the 90-100 range. Obviously I won;t be able to try any new models, but similar stuff from this year will be fun.
Thinkin to try Sultans, Mantras, Atomic Nomad Renus or Savage and hopefully Fischer Watea 94s.
But if there are some Blizzards in town, I'll definitely give those a spin.
should be great fun

oh, and how could I forget Elans! definitely top O list
post #5 of 169
Interesting review on the S3.  Sounds like it is quite different than the S7, which you seemed to feel was completely a powder specialty quiver ski..Also, given that you were skiing the S7 in a 188 +, was it surprising that the S3 at 178 was about right?  Does the S3 just have a less extreme rocker profile and/or stiffer flex? Some more details on how the S3 compares to the S7 would be appreciated...

Also, considering that you were not sure about the double rise skis as all-mountain choices, after skiing the S3, did you feel like it was a legitimate contender for a daily driver (at least at a place like Mammoth)?
Edited by monologuist - 3/2/10 at 9:36pm
post #6 of 169
Enjoy reading your reviews as always SJ.

Given the statements below about the Sultan and Slicer, can you provide any further insight into key differences in personality between the two?

What kind of skiers will you aim to sell each to next season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Dynastar Sultan 94: (conventional camber, “tip rise” 94mm)

 

is for better skiers. I would say this ski is not best at any one thing but for versatility, pretty well defines the category. 

 

Dynastar Slicer – 181: (low double rise, camber underfoot, 98mm)

 

I give the Slicer about an even split in hard/soft snow bias with a bit of a nod toward more aggressive skiers. 
 

post #7 of 169
Thread Starter 
The S3 and S7 are markedly different. The S3 is much narrower, and has a lower rise and a shorter run on the rockered portion than the S7. Hence the conventional section of the S3 is proportionally quite a bit longer. The S3 is also stiffer. For my tastes, the S7 is absolutely a powder specific ski while the S3 could be a daily driver.

SJ
post #8 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

Enjoy reading your reviews as always SJ.

Given the statements below about the Sultan and Slicer, can you provide any further insight into key differences in personality between the two?

What kind of skiers will you aim to sell each to next season?
 


That is absolutely the question of the week for me. I honestly don't know yet. Going into test season, I knew the Sultan would be great, knew who the customer would be, etc. (basically knew it all.........)

Then along came the Slicer and botched my master plan. I had no idea that it would be as good as it turned out to be. I had not really seen one and didn't know the camber profile or the flex so I was skeptical as to whether the  Slicer (or the narrow double rise skis in general) could make reasonable choices as daily driver skis. But they can.

I can say that the Sultan feels more conventional on groomers but it's not necessarily better, just different. I'll spend a fair bit more time on both this spring in order to clarify things a bit but both skis are really good.

Maybe have to consult moose and squirrel on new master plan..................

SJ
post #9 of 169
Jim,

I was just reading somewhere that the rocker profile for the S3 for 177cm and below is significantly less (both in rise and run) than for the 186cm.  pretty interesting.  that could make for the 177 being a better daily driver....

Would you say the S3 177 felt comparable to the S7 188 in terms of running surface and crud stablity/deflectability?
Could you compare the S3 to the Slicer?
And do you know if the 2011 S3 is any different than the 2010 version besides graphics?
post #10 of 169
Thread Starter 
I can't say on the profile of the S3 177 vs. the 186 as I haven't seen a 186. I would not say that the S3 and S7 are really comparable in any way, they are too different. The graphic change is the only one that I'm aware of. 

On the S3 vs. Slicer, I think the review covered both pretty well but generally, the Slicer is stiffer, more stable, but less playful. Keep in mind the lengths were different.

SJ
post #11 of 169
Thanks, SJ.  I always enjoy your insights. 

I find the Blizzard Atlas very interesting in this group.  Tried the 191 Shogun on dust on crust and did not like its feel.  It was very grabby in an awkward way on harder groomers.  Obvioiusly, that's not its strong suit, but it was significantly more awkward feeling than my Volkl Bridge's.  No matter how hard I try to like Salomon skis, I just can't get there.  

How does the Kendo compare to the Bridge?  Is there anything in here that would be a significant upgrade over the Bridge for general, all mtn. ripping?
post #12 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post
 
How does the Kendo compare to the Bridge?  Is there anything in here that would be a significant upgrade over the Bridge for general, all mtn. ripping?

The Kendo is double metal, flat tailed and more grippy, but less playful than the Bridge. As far as a significant improvement over the Bridge, I guess I'd have to ask in what way? I like the Bridge over any other similar category ski from Volkl. I'd be good with a Bridge if it were the only ski I had or my only companion to a powder ski. OTH, I'd probably buy several skis on this list over a Bridge for my usage. So...............whattayawant to improve about the Bridge?

SJ
Edited by SierraJim - 3/3/10 at 10:36am
post #13 of 169
What's Dynastar's replacement for the Mythic? It doesn't read to me like there truly is an offering comparable in terms of stiffness, sidecut and crudbustability
post #14 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

What's Dynastar's replacement for the Mythic? It doesn't read to me like there truly is an offering comparable in terms of stiffness, sidecut and crudbustability

There is no direct replacement but several skis that offer a various menu of characteristics. For example, the Mythic was stiff enough and straight enough that was a crudbuster par excellance. OTH, it was not very floaty in light snow, good but not great on very hard snow, and not super nimble. Personally, I'd take either of the Sultans and probably the Slicer as well over a Mythic at this point. The closest in overall capabilities is probably the 94 and IMO, it does more things well than the Mythic. But...........if you want an exact replacement, I'd say buy another Mythic while you can.

SJ
post #15 of 169
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"The Kendo is double metal, flat tailed and more grippy, but less playful than the Bridge. As far as a significant improvement over the Bridge, I guess I'd have to ask in what way? I like the Bridge over any other similar category ski from Volkl. I'd be good with a Bridge if it were the only ski I had or my only companion to a powder ski. OTH, I'd probably buy several skis on this list over a Bridge for my usage. So...............whattayawant to improve about the Bridge?"
Thanks, SJ.  Generally the Bridge serves as my daily driver for the West, complemented by a fattie for deep days.  I bias towards off-piste and ski bumps when there's no fresh to be had.  I like the Bridge b/c it is playful yet will carve if you lay into it, and it pops off things well and is a super fun ski.  I prefer a twin.  I also know that next year's version has some Rocker which I'm not sure I want for my all mtn ski.  I guess what I'm saying is that I don't what I don't know.  It sure seems to be a great all-around ski and hits the sweet spot in term of compromise better than any ski in a similar width that I've run across.  Am I missing something in this class that is a game changer?
post #16 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
 I also know that next year's version has some Rocker which I'm not sure I want for my all mtn ski.  I guess what I'm saying is that I don't what I don't know.  It sure seems to be a great all-around ski and hits the sweet spot in term of compromise better than any ski in a similar width that I've run across.  Am I missing something in this class that is a game changer?

Well..........................

I think the new version will miss the mark for some skiers in the same way that the '10 Gotama has. Continuous rocker does not seem to hold much appeal for most skiers in this width range. (at least so far) The new ski will be jibbier for sure and probably better in deeper snow but to me, it felt worse at everything else. IMO the everything else is a major component of the job description here.

So.....any game changers for you? maybe, but that really depends on you. The conventional or minor tip rise skis in this mix are certainly worthy replacements for the Bridge (probably not the Kendo though) and they will be better at some things but not as good at others. The double rise skis have some potential for you for sure but I really don't know yet how the public will perceive them. Honestly, it could go either way. I want to try to get at least a small number of 2011 demos for the spring to offer a little preview of new technology. That'll allow me to get a better handle on this sorta new category.

SJ
post #17 of 169
 Great writeup, thanks SJ.  I was saving this one until I could sit for an extended reading, and it was worth it.
post #18 of 169
 I get to try the Blizzard one tomorrow in a 177 pretty freaking pyshced!
post #19 of 169
Sounds like by and large the Slicer and Sultan 94 have a very similar set of capabilities, and differences are fairly subtle rather than being than distinctive.

Thread hopping now, but in retrospect this would have been a great question for the Dynastar Product Manager to go into more detail about. Would be great to hear Dynastar's take on how both skis are positioned and who they are targeting for each one. They must have thought about whether the Sultan 94 and Slicer will cannibalise each other...

Maybe he goes into it a bit in the video? Speaking of which, any luck 'un-misplacing' the video SJ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




That is absolutely the question of the week for me. I honestly don't know yet. Going into test season, I knew the Sultan would be great, knew who the customer would be, etc. (basically knew it all.........)

Then along came the Slicer and botched my master plan. I had no idea that it would be as good as it turned out to be. I had not really seen one and didn't know the camber profile or the flex so I was skeptical as to whether the  Slicer (or the narrow double rise skis in general) could make reasonable choices as daily driver skis. But they can.

I can say that the Sultan feels more conventional on groomers but it's not necessarily better, just different. I'll spend a fair bit more time on both this spring in order to clarify things a bit but both skis are really good.

Maybe have to consult moose and squirrel on new master plan..................

SJ

 
post #20 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

 I get to try the Blizzard one tomorrow in a 177 pretty freaking pyshced!

Keeping the length in perspective, and what the target is, I think you'll appreciate it. I did and I really expected not to.

SJ
post #21 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinski View Post

Sounds like by and large the Slicer and Sultan 94 have a very similar set of capabilities, and differences are fairly subtle rather than being than distinctive.

Thread hopping now, but in retrospect this would have been a great question for the Dynastar Product Manager to go into more detail about. Would be great to hear Dynastar's take on how both skis are positioned and who they are targeting for each one. They must have thought about whether the Sultan 94 and Slicer will cannibalise each other...

Maybe he goes into it a bit in the video? Speaking of which, any luck 'un-misplacing' the video SJ?
 


 

The differences are fairly subtle that's for sure. Nat did not really go into the differences in the video. FWIW, while both skis can and will have similar skill sets, I'd visualize the Sultan as a more traditional buyer that wouldn't be interested in a twin tip and especially one with an agressive graphic. OTH, the slicer would visually appeal to a buyer that wants the same characteristics but perhaps has a differing vision of himself.

BTW, the video is not really misplaced, it's in jail. Meaning we know 'zactly where it is. It is trapped in the borrowed vidcam and needs to be sprung, downloaded to our computer, edited, then posted. We are gonna get 'er done though............really.



SJ
post #22 of 169
Quote:
I think the new version will miss the mark for some skiers in the same way that the '10 Gotama has. Continuous rocker does not seem to hold much appeal for most skiers in this width range. (at least so far) The new ski will be jibbier for sure and probably better in deeper snow but to me, it felt worse at everything else. IMO the everything else is a major component of the job description here.


So.....any game changers for you? maybe, but that really depends on you. The conventional or minor tip rise skis in this mix are certainly worthy replacements for the Bridge (probably not the Kendo though) and they will be better at some things but not as good at others. The double rise skis have some potential for you for sure but I really don't know yet how the public will perceive them. Honestly, it could go either way. I want to try to get at least a small number of 2011 demos for the spring to offer a little preview of new technology. That'll allow me to get a better handle on this sorta new category.

 



This is super helpful.  Thanks, SJ.  Agree that the "everything else" is important in this category..at least, to me.  I look forward to hearing your take is it evolves. Cheers
post #23 of 169
Quote:
I think the new version will miss the mark for some skiers in the same way that the '10 Gotama has. Continuous rocker does not seem to hold much appeal for most skiers in this width range. (at least so far) The new ski will be jibbier for sure and probably better in deeper snow but to me, it felt worse at everything else. IMO the everything else is a major component of the job description here.


So.....any game changers for you? maybe, but that really depends on you. The conventional or minor tip rise skis in this mix are certainly worthy replacements for the Bridge (probably not the Kendo though) and they will be better at some things but not as good at others. The double rise skis have some potential for you for sure but I really don't know yet how the public will perceive them. Honestly, it could go either way. I want to try to get at least a small number of 2011 demos for the spring to offer a little preview of new technology. That'll allow me to get a better handle on this sorta new category.

 



This is super helpful.  Thanks, SJ.  Agree that the "everything else" is important in this category..at least, to me.  I look forward to hearing your take is it evolves. Cheers
post #24 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

 

Sooooooo………………………

 

This width range of ski including down to about 85mm or so makes a really good choice for the western skier as a daily driver or a “one ski quiver”. Choosing from this batch is about the skier’s priorities and the frequency that he/she encounters deeper snow vs. more consolidated conditions. Note that the key word here is priority.  Some skiers simply prioritize deeper conditions regardless of whether or not they ski them very often. That skier might choose from the wider examples of this spectrum or possibly the double rise models. He may choose an even wider ski than this range and be quite happy to “make do” on the days when there is no significant depth. OTH, there are many skiers (possibly most) who do not prioritize snow depth that highly. Maybe those folks realize that they see deepish snow seldom if ever, or maybe they just flat out don’t care. Those folks may be well suited by narrower skis than this range.

Skiing be a fun sport................

SJ


Sooooooo, if a girl like me were to spend more time out west, what kind of ski would you pick for her(errrrr, me) ? 
post #25 of 169
Thread Starter 
Only one?................................


SJ
post #26 of 169
FWIW, I was fondling the S3 last night in both 178 and 185/6 (forget which it is). 
The tip and tail rise on the 185 is MUCH more substantial than that on the 178. In fact, 
the running length on hard snow (I.e. the normal camber section) appears identical. 
Having not skied either, I would expect the 185 to be the preferred size for most, as it 
will likely offer similar maneuverability on firm snow and bumps but with additional 
stability and float in the soft stuff. 

SJ, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Rossi SC97 vs the above-mentioned 
skis. I recently picked up a pair to replace my Mantras as my daily driver, and so far 
they seem like a good all-around ride when there's not much new. (got HT's for that)

Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

Interesting review on the S3.  Sounds like it is quite different than the S7, which you seemed to feel was completely a powder specialty quiver ski..Also, given that you were skiing the S7 in a 188 +, was it surprising that the S3 at 178 was about right?  Does the S3 just have a less extreme rocker profile and/or stiffer flex? Some more details on how the S3 compares to the S7 would be appreciated...

Also, considering that you were not sure about the double rise skis as all-mountain choices, after skiing the S3, did you feel like it was a legitimate contender for a daily driver (at least at a place like Mammoth)?
 
post #27 of 169
Thread Starter 
Re the longer S3. I think that the higher rise will certainly make the 186 better in deeper snow and be a push on hard snow but for many skiers will it make the ski less versatile in the scheme of "everything else". I have discovered that for my own tastes a low rise frees up the tip during initiation but still keeps the tip stable in the context of mixed and variable conditions (such as described above) The higher and/or longer the tip rise is....the more vulnerable to deflection the ski seems to be in those conditions..................Another tradeoff.

Re: The SC97. I skied it last year and decided not to carry it b/c it felt too planky to gain wide acceptance. It would be fine for those with a taste for stiffer skis, but I already had several other options there so it it was not a fit for our product mix.

SJ
post #28 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post




Keeping the length in perspective, and what the target is, I think you'll appreciate it. I did and I really expected not to.

SJ
 

I loved it! review coming up soon
post #29 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post




Sooooooo, if a girl like me were to spend more time out west, what kind of ski would you pick for her(errrrr, me) ? 

OK.....a more reflective response this time.

On any given year, Tahoe conditions are (give or take) about like this.

  • 50% Ain't snowed lately
  • 25% Snowed two days before yesterday
  • 15% Snowed or snowing in spits and schnizzles
  • 10% Holey Moley!!!

I usually have a ski like the Dynastar Sultan or Blizzard Atlas in my car all the time. If I can sneak outta work on short notice, either of those is great for the first two categories and purty good for #3. For category #4 I have other stuff.

For one such as yerownbadself.........Maybe a Dynastar Eden, Fischer Koa 84, Blizzard Eos, K2 Payback, or Line P-90. If you wanted to edge a bit closer to category #4, the Nordica Nemesis is a great ski and next year's may be even better as they are taking out the top metal layer and the '11 Blizzi Crush has gotten hoots from the ladies that have skied it.

SJ
post #30 of 169
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




I loved it! review coming up soon

I thought so.....that thing has been a total surprise.

SJ
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 › Western daily drivers (???) in the 90-100mm range.