or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bias, selection, and morons, oh my!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bias, selection, and morons, oh my!

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 

I'm a bit tired of vague and biased magazine reviews (compare reviews on Snoop in Ski, Skiing) and unknowledgable staff at local ski shops (Colo Springs and Breck).  I'm looking for a daily driver for Summit county, 80/20 on-/off-piste.  I'm 6-2, 200# and 39 years old.  I'm probably a 6 or 7 and working hard to improve.  I'm trying to demo skis and feel like I'm wasting my money as I'm recommended such a random selection.  I like to ski everywhere on the mountain and have been working on getting better on bumps in particular.  I don't feel a deep need to ski fast (GS-like).
 

Here's what I've tried (and my opinion)
177 K2 Apache Recon -- quick edge to edge, good on bumps, terrible in crud (maybe too narrow?)
177 Salomon Lord -- boggy, vague, unresponsive (least favorite)
177 Atomic Nomad Savage -- clumsy on anything except crud and powder and high speed carving (am I just not good enough to manage these yet?)
177 Volkl AC50 -- pretty good at everything (didn't try on powder), a bit too firm on bumps
176 Atomic Snoop -- decent at everything, not excelling at anything
172 Blizzard 8.1 -- incredibly responsive, fast edge to edge, didn't try on powder (these were too short for me. I wish they had one size up)

The more I learn (and read blogs on this site), the more it seems these skis are all over the map.  I get a 20 year old kid telling me the Savage is great on moguls in one store (Norway Haus) and another 20 year old telling me the AC50 is perfect for my needs (Bahnhof Sport).  I'm not sure if I just need to be a better skier or if I am getting bad advice on skis.  Can someone give me a few skis that are at least in the same category.  I'm thinking 175-178cm with 80-90 mm waist, modest float, middle of road stiffness and torsional rigidity.  I'm probably looking for a jack-of-all trades master-of-none kind of ski.  I'll expand the quiver as I develop (probably rent for true powder days).  Are the Sultan 85 or Watea 84 good places to start?

Aside question...do you really think you ski bumps well on a wider ski (95+)?

post #2 of 46
The answer to this is very easy and you have already got it. The Sultan 85 is (IMO) the best balanced ski in this width category. A close second is the Nordica HR Pro Burner. Either of these would be worthy of the "anchor" ski in anyone's quiver. Both are grippier than the Watea and more powerful in crud. FWIW.....the Watea IS better in bumpz but worse at most everything else.

On the aside......In bumpzzzz.......I ski 95's better than 105's but not as well as 85's.

SJ
post #3 of 46
 I've been on the 178 Mythic Rider this season and loved it!  The shop wants to sell my pair for $350-$400 if you are interested.  I haven't tried the Sultan yet.  I will probably get on the new Sultan 94 soon
post #4 of 46
There's no substitute for actually demoing skis, but that can be tough.  There is an annual ski review that is not tied to selling advertisements for manufacturers.  It's run by Peter Keelty and is subscription based -- subscribers pay a small annual registration fee.  The website is named after the review philosophy:  real information for skiers by real skiers.  Hence the website's name:   http://realskiers.com .  It's the best set of reviews that I know of, and the subscription is very cheap compared to the cost of purchasing the wrong ski for you and your skiing goals.  There are also some reviews here on epicski, but they aren't subject to the quality control standards used on realskiers.com
post #5 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post

There's no substitute for actually demoing skis, but that can be tough.  There is an annual ski review that is not tied to selling advertisements for manufacturers.  It's run by Peter Keelty and is subscription based -- subscribers pay a small annual registration fee.  The website is named after the review philosophy:  real information for skiers by real skiers.  Hence the website's name:   http://realskiers.com .  It's the best set of reviews that I know of, and the subscription is very cheap compared to the cost of purchasing the wrong ski for you and your skiing goals.  There are also some reviews here on epicski, but they aren't subject to the quality control standards used on realskiers.com

Although for the most part I'd agree about realskiers.com, I have to underscore your statement that there is no substitute for demoing skis, and then add that word-of-mouth from trusted sources can be invaluable.

Example being, Peter Keelty loved the Dynastar Legend 8000 and hated the Dynastar Big Trouble.  Word-of-mouth from SierraJim and others on this board spoke positively of both, so I ended up buying both at different times.  Both skis were indeed excellent, but were quite different in their attributes and demands.  Between these two pairs of skis, I ended up keeping the Big Trouble and selling the Legend 8000.

Was Peter Keelty wrong?  I wouldn't say that.  I'm pretty sure that if I had bought the Big Trouble first, I would have hated them as I would have not been able to drive them sufficiently (due to a combination of setup, technique, confidence, strength, etc.).  There are many things that go into a skiing experience, and almost all of them vary with conditions, evolving abilities, shifting tastes, equipment tune, etc.  Keelty's reviews are a snapshot of his skiing experience on that given demo day.  It is probable that the OP's "all over the map" suggestions are a reflection of that too.
post #6 of 46
I think that the reason for the reviews being what they are is that in spite of our individual preferences, the bottom line is that most of not all skis made by major manufacturers are pretty good.  Nothing is outright horrible.  As such you really have to pick up on the subtle nuances of the reviews.

You can have 5 people ski the same ski and feel totally different about it for many reasons.  I dont even think demoing really gives you the whole story unless you could demo for a few days becasue how you feel that day and the conditions will all play a part on how favorably you will feel about that particualr ski.   We have all gone out skiing one day and just not felt that we were on top of it....now if you were testing a ski that day is there any chance that you will think its a great ski?  Unlikely.
post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post



Example being, Peter Keelty loved the Dynastar Legend 8000 and hated the Dynastar Big Trouble.  Word-of-mouth from SierraJim and others on this board spoke positively of both, so I ended up buying both at different times.  Both skis were indeed excellent, but were quite different in their attributes and demands.  Between these two pairs of skis, I ended up keeping the Big Trouble and selling the Legend 8000.

Was Peter Keelty wrong?  I wouldn't say that.......................

And I wouldn't say he was wrong either. The paragraph above pretty much explains why some reviews and or reviewers will have different takes on a certain product. If a reviewer is reporting on what he/she likes, then that's what you get....their preferences. For the most part, that's what you'll get from magazines and to some extent from PK.

OTH......I'm a retailer that will carry 60-70 different retail skis next year from 8-9 suppliers. If I only carried what I liked, that number would be much smaller. Realistically, I don't much care whether I personally like something or not. If it serves an identifiable niche well, I'll buy it. So....when I test skis, I'm looking for the ability of that ski to fit it's intended target. The biggest challenge as a retailer is to get a coherent reply from the prospective customer as to what they are looking for. If you can get that..........getting them the right ski is not that tough.   

SJ
post #8 of 46
Ritchie, that's a great point ... however, if you make a mistake in judging a ski hastily, at least it's your mistake and not someone else's.

With reviews, you really need to know where the reviewer is coming from - what kind of skiing they do etc. It's easy to throw in words like "powder," "big mountain", "all mountain" - pro or con - but we've all got our own definitions of all of those words.

A bad review tells you what the reviewer likes.

A good review gives you insight into how you'll feel about the product.
post #9 of 46
I love this topic - I read the Ski magazine 2010 gear guide and only 2-3 ski reviewers out of 40 or so were 200+ pounds.  In fact, most were 150 pounds or lighter, by a longshot.  I think this is a major factor in where the averages come out, and underscores the need to simply try for yourself and talk to people who see you ski.  I am lucky to have an instructor who is knowledgeable and of somewhat similar build who can answer questions like this without having a sales or sponsorship interest.  It's a toughie!
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshershest View Post


Aside question...do you really think you ski bumps well on a wider ski (95+)?


Yes.

As for the original issue- focus on what you will really want the ski to do, keeping in mind that there are lots and lots of opposing qualities in ski design. You need to understand that quickness and stability oppose one another, edge grip and forgiveness oppose one another, lively and damp are opposite qualities. Once you understand that there is no 'free lunch' it's a little easier to find a ski you can live with happily. Knowing why you did not like a particular demo is very useful, use that knowledge to focus in on what you will like.

Looking at your demo list, what I see is a bunch of skis that fit a certain formula: just add some width to a carving ski and call it 'all-mountain' (AC50, Nomad, 8.1), and a couple skis that are: make a freeride ski narrower and call it all-mountain (Snoop, Lord). The carving skis get clunky and tend to suck in bumps, the freeride skis can lack some 'zip' on groomers and lose their soft snow prowess.

I'd look closer at the old 'mid-fat' ski group. Skis like the Recon (perhaps a touch wider, however). The Watea 84, Sultan 85, Kastle MX78 or FX 84, Scott Mission.

I'd also suggest, maybe, instead of the 'top of the line' skis in a shorter size, try some more 'forgiving' skis in longer lengths (any ski from my little 'mid-fat' list).
Edited by Whiteroom - 3/24/10 at 2:37pm
post #11 of 46
I like the ac30's everywhere but bumps, think they are great in the powder, but! all reviews will tell you otherwise, so DEMO DEMO DEMO.   
I want a ski like the AC30 but better in the bumps, so using reviews has at least helped me to narrow down what I am going to demo.
my lise
Elan magfire 82
Sultan 85
watea 's both.  
 
I think that will at least get me in the right direction, I have also read reviews on boots etc... and after renting boots for 2 years I have come to the conclusion that they really don't seem to effect my skiing ability, just comfort, unless I just rented a pair that was too big or something.    I skied Lang x9 race boots (super stiff)  for 15 years and now just bought a soft boot, because most of the rentals were 90 -100 flex and I really couldn't tell any performace difference.  So
get a list and try them out, you will probably buy the 1st one you try because it will be way better than what you have.  :)
post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshershest View Post

I'm a bit tired of vague and biased magazine reviews (compare reviews on Snoop in Ski, Skiing) and unknowledgable staff at local ski shops (Colo Springs and Breck).  I'm looking for a daily driver for Summit county, 80/20 on-/off-piste.  I'm 6-2, 200# and 39 years old.  I'm probably a 6 or 7 and working hard to improve.  I'm trying to demo skis and feel like I'm wasting my money as I'm recommended such a random selection.  I like to ski everywhere on the mountain and have been working on getting better on bumps in particular.  I don't feel a deep need to ski fast (GS-like).
 

Here's what I've tried (and my opinion)
177 K2 Apache Recon -- quick edge to edge, good on bumps, terrible in crud (maybe too narrow?)
177 Salomon Lord -- boggy, vague, unresponsive (least favorite)
177 Atomic Nomad Savage -- clumsy on anything except crud and powder and high speed carving (am I just not good enough to manage these yet?)
177 Volkl AC50 -- pretty good at everything (didn't try on powder), a bit too firm on bumps
176 Atomic Snoop -- decent at everything, not excelling at anything
172 Blizzard 8.1 -- incredibly responsive, fast edge to edge, didn't try on powder (these were too short for me. I wish they had one size up)

The more I learn (and read blogs on this site), the more it seems these skis are all over the map.  I get a 20 year old kid telling me the Savage is great on moguls in one store (Norway Haus) and another 20 year old telling me the AC50 is perfect for my needs (Bahnhof Sport).  I'm not sure if I just need to be a better skier or if I am getting bad advice on skis.  Can someone give me a few skis that are at least in the same category.  I'm thinking 175-178cm with 80-90 mm waist, modest float, middle of road stiffness and torsional rigidity.  I'm probably looking for a jack-of-all trades master-of-none kind of ski.  I'll expand the quiver as I develop (probably rent for true powder days).  Are the Sultan 85 or Watea 84 good places to start?

Aside question...do you really think you ski bumps well on a wider ski (95+)?


You're a big guy, why are you looking at little guy ski's? 
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddy View Post

I like the ac30's everywhere but bumps, think they are great in the powder, but! all reviews will tell you otherwise, so DEMO DEMO DEMO.   
I want a ski like the AC30 but better in the bumps, so using reviews has at least helped me to narrow down what I am going to demo.
 

Interesting.  I have the ac30s (albeit the 07-08 model) an do find them so-so in powder (really a challenge) but quick enough on moguls.

I'm with you on demoing.  That is how I got the ac30s.  That being said, demoing enough to try out a bunch of skis can work out pretty pricey.  I demoed maybe 8 days last time when I was looking for skis.  $50 a pop, it adds up.  OP may be better off doing some research, getting a good deal (or buying used), and then selling for a loss, if he doesn't like what he gets.
post #14 of 46
It's not that I can't ski bumps with them, I just like to zipper line bumps and AC30's are on the stiff side, for me, But just goes to show you that everyone is different, what I think is great in the powder (keeping in mind that I skied powder with straight ski's just fine), and hard in the bumps you think opposite,   A ski tech told me once, for every seat there is an ass to sit on it, meaning everyone is different. 
post #15 of 46
In regards to better in bumps, narrow is better, just look at the olympians.   I would suggest not going over 85mm,  or even staying around 80 and make sure the tail isn't overly wide, stay around 110 or less.   Just my opinion.  I'm not the greatest at bumps but I can keep up with just about anyone.  5-8 185 lbs, level 9  skier, over a decade of Backcountry experience on straight ski's. 
post #16 of 46
I don't know about other resorts but at Sun Peaks the ski shops will let you apply one days performance ski rental fee toward the purchase of a pair of skis. They also let you come back and change skis as often as you want.

With this in mind you can then demo several skis on the same day, same conditions, same run. In fact I ski the exact same line for each ski I demo and I try to find a not too steep wide sweeping corner on a trail where I can lay the ski over at decent speed and just sort of stand there and see what each ski does.

As far as ski mag reviews, I recommend a subscription to Ski Canada Magazine. Not only is this mag equal to or better than the US ski mags, IMHO it's ski tests are the best! Most of their testers are level III or IV CSIA and have been testing for years. The format the the magazine uses for categorizing and rating the skis is also very good.
post #17 of 46
well I went to ski canada magazine and couldn't find any reviews on Dynastar, Blizzard and several other manufacturers???     Maybe I just wasn't looking in the correct place for 2010 or 2009....          IF that is true then it is just as biased as any other magazine. 
post #18 of 46
I think most of the Ski Canada Magazine reviews are in the printed magazine. For 2010 they didn't review Nordica Skis because the Canadian distributor for Nordica chose not to participate. This was very odd because the previous year Nordica did very well with all of their reviewed skis.
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshershest View Post

I'm a bit tired of vague and biased magazine reviews (compare reviews on Snoop in Ski, Skiing) and unknowledgable staff at local ski shops (Colo Springs and Breck).  I'm looking for a daily driver for Summit county, 80/20 on-/off-piste.  I'm 6-2, 200# and 39 years old.  I'm probably a 6 or 7 and working hard to improve.  I'm trying to demo skis and feel like I'm wasting my money as I'm recommended such a random selection.  I like to ski everywhere on the mountain and have been working on getting better on bumps in particular.  I don't feel a deep need to ski fast (GS-like).
 

Here's what I've tried (and my opinion)
177 K2 Apache Recon -- quick edge to edge, good on bumps, terrible in crud (maybe too narrow?)
177 Salomon Lord -- boggy, vague, unresponsive (least favorite)
177 Atomic Nomad Savage -- clumsy on anything except crud and powder and high speed carving (am I just not good enough to manage these yet?)
177 Volkl AC50 -- pretty good at everything (didn't try on powder), a bit too firm on bumps
176 Atomic Snoop -- decent at everything, not excelling at anything
172 Blizzard 8.1 -- incredibly responsive, fast edge to edge, didn't try on powder (these were too short for me. I wish they had one size up)

The more I learn (and read blogs on this site), the more it seems these skis are all over the map.  I get a 20 year old kid telling me the Savage is great on moguls in one store (Norway Haus) and another 20 year old telling me the AC50 is perfect for my needs (Bahnhof Sport).  I'm not sure if I just need to be a better skier or if I am getting bad advice on skis.  Can someone give me a few skis that are at least in the same category.  I'm thinking 175-178cm with 80-90 mm waist, modest float, middle of road stiffness and torsional rigidity.  I'm probably looking for a jack-of-all trades master-of-none kind of ski.  I'll expand the quiver as I develop (probably rent for true powder days).  Are the Sultan 85 or Watea 84 good places to start?

Aside question...do you really think you ski bumps well on a wider ski (95+)?

Any ski is a compromise.  Where you draw the line between bump performance, powder performance, race-like hard pack performance, high speed performance, etc. is likely different from where the line is drawn by someone else.

It seems that what you have been getting is a recommendation based on how a ski works for someone, based on how they ski, the techniques they favour, and where they draw the compromise line.  A ski that works well for a person who likes to ski off-piste at slower speeds with relatively low edge angles and a lot of pivoting, will be a different ski than a favourite ski for someone who likes to ski faster with higher edge angles and less pivoting, even though both might be "good" skiers. 

What I like about Peter Keelty's reviews over at realskiers.com is that you don't just get a "this ski is good", you get a break down of it's performance in several different areas, with a score that you can compare with other skis that you may be interested in.    You can get a feel for their reviews by seeing what they say about skis you have skied, and use that to calibrate the reviews.  You may find that you are perfectly happy with zero forgiveness, but want a 5 in carving.  You may be happy with a 4 in carving but want a 5 in rebound, or ... you get the picture.  They also give you some stats, so you may start to understand what you like in a ski.

Most magazine reviews do very little to differentiate the good skis.  Keelty's subscription reviews do the best job of it I have seen.
post #20 of 46
Thread Starter 
Appreciate all the comments.  In the last few diays, I tried the Nordica Jet Fuel in a 177 (or 178) and found the tail wouldn't let go of the turn.  Felt like I had to work harder than I should.  Tried but couldn't find Watea 84 or Scott Mission at a couple of shops in Breck, so I tried the Blizzard 8.1's again but in 179s.  Still liked them--even had about 8 inches of pow today and they did okay.

The variables are numerous and all seem important (length, waist, flexibility, torsional rigidity, etc.).  Then there are the snow conditions.  I tried several skis this week (about 5) an had about as many different snow conditions.  It made it very difficult to determine if my sense of the ski was the ski or the snow.  Kind of pissed me off since I really wanted to decide on a ski now so I could get a bargain in the off season.  Now it looks like I'm into next season again to demo a couple more.  (Can't get back up before the season is over.)  Pretty soon I'll have spent a full ski's worth on demos.  Not my intent.

There's a day at Copper Mtn in early December where you can ski demos all day long for a low price, like DanoT was talking about.  Might need to do that.

The other thing that I'm wondering is whether my ski preference will change as my skiing improves.  It seems like the better you get, the wider and longer ski you can manage.  Does this ring true?  ecimmortal said I was trying little guy skis -- what are big guy skis?  I want to be a big boy!
post #21 of 46
Hello Fresherest,

I you want to be a big boy you have to ski like one. What kind of skiing do you want to do when you grow up?

Leo
post #22 of 46

Speaking about "big guy skis" -- I'm the same size as you (6' 2", 200lbs) and I just went from a 180 Head Cross Ti to a 172 K2 Recon, and in just one weekend at Mad River I found myself with huge jump in skill.  By simply cutting down the length of my skis I  don't have to worry about my tips catching before I'm ready to be there, allowing me to point my skis, and lead them down, instead of carefully picking each turn before I make it.

Anyone who says "those skis suck" should be assumed to be speaking for themselves.  It really comes down to personal preference, and if you like more flexible skis that doesn't make you a worse skier.

post #23 of 46
Something to consider, if you haven't already... Have you had your boots dialed? What I mean is, have you had your boots properly fitted and aligned by a bootfitter? Not a ski shop dude, but a real bootfitter? If so, you are on the right track. If not, spend the $ to have it done. This will be the single best investment you can make for your skiing. It can literally revolutionize your on-snow performance. If your neutral position is off, even a little, no matter what ski you are on, your performance with be compromised. Get this done... at your level it can make ALL THE DIFFERENCE... Boots, properly fitted, are one of the most important things to make you a better skier at your level. 

After that, check out the Atomic all mountain skis. Their older Metron series was excellent.

Also, if you truly like to ski bumps and want to shred zipper lines, get those boots hooked up... slip, slip, slip... and get some bump specific skis. They are generally shorter and look much more old school with a much longer radius side cut. Modern shaped skis can be fine in bumps, but tend to get on edge REALLY easy. If you want mega performance score a set of bump skis on Ebay or something. Go shred...
post #24 of 46
When you demo make sure to ask for the specifics of the tune the demo dude is putting on the skis, and also boot center placement. I demoed a set of Nordy HRTF and loved them the way the demo dud had set them up, only to hate the ones I bought - until I eventually figured out the tune. Also, the xbi rail had two seperate sets of boot sole length scales and one scale moved the boot center around 1cm back from the ski center, while the other scale put the boot center in the same place as the ski center .

My newly bought set had less bottom edge bevel than I like and had apparently demoed, and the boot center was back 1 cm from the ski center. They felt hooky and unresponsive, and I did NOT like this ski that I previously loved in the demo. Eventually, we dialed in some more bottom edge bevel and matched the boot sole center witht the ski center and all was well!
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshershest View Post

I'm a bit tired of vague and biased magazine reviews (compare reviews on Snoop in Ski, Skiing) and unknowledgable staff at local ski shops (Colo Springs and Breck).  I'm looking for a daily driver for Summit county, 80/20 on-/off-piste.  I'm 6-2, 200# and 39 years old.  I'm probably a 6 or 7 and working hard to improve.  I'm trying to demo skis and feel like I'm wasting my money as I'm recommended such a random selection.  I like to ski everywhere on the mountain and have been working on getting better on bumps in particular.  I don't feel a deep need to ski fast (GS-like).
 

Here's what I've tried (and my opinion)
177 K2 Apache Recon -- quick edge to edge, good on bumps, terrible in crud (maybe too narrow?)
177 Salomon Lord -- boggy, vague, unresponsive (least favorite)
177 Atomic Nomad Savage -- clumsy on anything except crud and powder and high speed carving (am I just not good enough to manage these yet?)
177 Volkl AC50 -- pretty good at everything (didn't try on powder), a bit too firm on bumps
176 Atomic Snoop -- decent at everything, not excelling at anything
172 Blizzard 8.1 -- incredibly responsive, fast edge to edge, didn't try on powder (these were too short for me. I wish they had one size up)

The more I learn (and read blogs on this site), the more it seems these skis are all over the map.  I get a 20 year old kid telling me the Savage is great on moguls in one store (Norway Haus) and another 20 year old telling me the AC50 is perfect for my needs (Bahnhof Sport).  I'm not sure if I just need to be a better skier or if I am getting bad advice on skis.  Can someone give me a few skis that are at least in the same category.  I'm thinking 175-178cm with 80-90 mm waist, modest float, middle of road stiffness and torsional rigidity.  I'm probably looking for a jack-of-all trades master-of-none kind of ski.  I'll expand the quiver as I develop (probably rent for true powder days).  Are the Sultan 85 or Watea 84 good places to start?

Aside question...do you really think you ski bumps well on a wider ski (95+)?


The bolded bits are the keys here.  You seem to be looking for the wrong stuff, so no wonder you are struggling. 

Start looking for the right gear:

Point 1:  Decide what you want.  You said 80% on piste...ie 80% groomers.  So that is not likely 80-90mm.  That is 70 to 80....maybe 85 considering you are out west, and thus even groomers get "choppy".

Point 2:  You are big guy at 200lbs and not a bad skier at 6-7, so no you dont want middle of the road stiffness, go for maximum.  Torsional rigidity is a trade-off, more stiff equals more performance...less is more foregiving.  At level 6-7 you dont need forgiving.  Material science being what it is, means stiffer torsionally equals stiffer lengthwise...that is fine, your weight can handle it.  Go stiff.

Point 3:  Length, again, you are 6'2, open up your options from 172ish to 182ish.

Point 4:  Turning radius.  You didnt mention this, but on groomers this matters.  Good all round radius is like +/-15m.  The higher the radius the better it will be for Powder....but not as much fun on the groomers...so I think +/-15m is a good place to start.

Point 5: Balance - get the ski balance right...from above, the narrower, means, shorter length, means the shorter turning radius.  Hence when picking, think about those ranges...if you get somthing in the bottom of the width range, go bottom of the length range, and bottom of the radius range...conversley if you go wider, go longer, and go longer radius....

With this advice you are likely looking at a totally different class of ski....you will likely find what you want with these specs.

My advice..for budget concious....Head Peak 78 or 82, in around a 180ish length.
My advice..for cashed up...Kastle M78, in around a just under 180ish length.
post #26 of 46
 Chris touched on this, but when you are demoing a ski (or see a review) it is as much about the tune on that ski as it is the ski. I have seen fantastic skis get verbally trashed i reviews/demos because of a bad tune. Looking at your demo list and knowing the skis that you tried, there is some inconsistency in your comments so it is either the tune or you don't know what you are looking for. I think it is the tunes. There isn't a bad ski that was either tried by you or suggested, I think you could go with almost any of them in a pinch, some better choices some lesser. It will come down to you skiing them and and adjusting your skill set to get the most from the ski and as you get better from your 6-7 that will happen and you wlll also get more from the ski at that point. 
 
post #27 of 46
Thread Starter 

Minutes ago pulled the trigger on the Sutan 85's at 178cm.  Went up to A-Basin last weekend after about 20in pow over 2 days and had to rent a pair of sh#$ sticks, which made the otherwise epic day a bit tiring and frustrating.  Pushed me to go ahead and make the leap despite my indecision.  Thanks to all for their input.  This is a great site/blog with helpful, intelligent, enthusiastic folks.  Now I'm psyched to try out my purchase.  Can't wait for next season!  Cheers to all!  BTW, found them on www.powder7.com, a clearing house for demos in Golden, CO.  Nice staff, decent deals.  My skiis were this year's demos for $380.  Not bad.

post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


You're a big guy, why are you looking at little guy ski's? 
 

Eci -- you frequently make comments/digs re ski length.  Do you have some kind of Freudian length issues?   
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




Eci -- you frequently make comments/digs re ski length.  Do you have some kind of Freudian length issues?   

eccimortal is halfway right, alot of those skis are WAY too short for the poster. The Recon, Savage, and AC50 are the right length but the Lord, Snoop and 8.1 are too short. 
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




Eci -- you frequently make comments/digs re ski length.  Do you have some kind of Freudian length issues?   
 

I only really comment when I see someone comparing 2 different types of ski's with the same criteria. I'm smart enough to know that you shouldn't size a real all mountain ski the same way you would a front side carver. I think a lot of people do that here.
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 › Bias, selection, and morons, oh my!