New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eastern everyday skis - Page 3

post #61 of 76
Thread Starter 

Keith, I know this, but I'm including tune up prices. ~$40 for edge grind and ptex.

 

@SkiMango: You keep suggesting a two ski quiver, and total prices on the higher end of things, which I simply cannot do.

 

I'd add the P90s to the list, but reviews are mixed and either really good or really meh, and prices are mixed as well.

 

How long do you plan on keeping the SCs, Phil? I might end up making an offer, but not anytime before mid-late October. I'll just buy another MRG sticker and put it on the ski. Still need answer about length options, though, with weight/height in first post.

 

Thanks,

Nick


Edited by NickM - 9/16/10 at 1:53pm
post #62 of 76

Sorry Nick.  Used skis are a way to get two pairs.  Otherwise you need to skew your choice to what you'll be doing most.

 

You're just not going to find one ski that will do everything you want it to do.  If you forget about having a bigger platform for "floating" in powder you can do pretty well.  If  you think you're going to get some float out of a ski that can still hold it's edge on east coast ice and hard pack you'll realize you can't.  I know, I tried.  My Watea 84's didn't float and didn't hold on ice.  They were pretty good in the East and pretty good in the West, but they didn't make powder any more fun.  I was better off returning to my 72 under foot Progressor, having better East Coast performance and still be able to ski powder (albeit not to float in it of course.)  It's easier to ski powder on a non-powder ski, then to ski hard pack and ice on a powder ski.

 

Like the old joke of the difference between a specialist and a general practitioner.

 

A Specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

 

A GP is someone who learns less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.

post #63 of 76
Thread Starter 



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Sorry Nick.  Used skis are a way to get two pairs.  Otherwise you need to skew your choice to what you'll be doing most.

 

You're just not going to find one ski that will do everything you want it to do.  If you forget about having a bigger platform for "floating" in powder you can do pretty well.  If  you think you're going to get some float out of a ski that can still hold it's edge on east coast ice and hard pack you'll realize you can't.  I know, I tried.  My Watea 84's didn't float and didn't hold on ice.  They were pretty good in the East and pretty good in the West, but they didn't make powder any more fun.  I was better off returning to my 72 under foot Progressor, having better East Coast performance and still be able to ski powder (albeit not to float in it of course.)  It's easier to ski powder on a non-powder ski, then to ski hard pack and ice on a powder ski.

 

Like the old joke of the difference between a specialist and a general practitioner.

 

A Specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

 

A GP is someone who learns less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.



I might not find a do-it-all ski, but the goal was to sacrifice some groomer performance (not ENTIRELY), to get an 84+ waisted ski that is lighter and nimbler than the tigersharks, can sufficiently do powder (not more than knee-deep unless we get another February 2010 here), and can handle bumps (lighter and nimbler essentially means this). I'm sure skis like this exist, and I'm sure I've found a few already. No one has commented yet on the Dstar big trouble, and Phil has yet to respond, so. I think the possibilities are set, now it's just getting the right price at the right time.

 

@Phil again: you mentioned the Dynastar slicer earlier, and am getting curious, but can't find anything besides 2011 (if thats the only year, which I doubt). Price/length/info?

 

Thanks,

Nick

post #64 of 76

Understood.   All I'm saying, and I won't keep beating this dead horse after his post, is that the sacrifice you make in hardpack performance needs to be offset in another area.  I don't think 84 adds anything to powder skiing.  What you want is definitely a quicker turning ski with more flex then the Tigershark, no question about it.  It's the underfoot width that you'll be paying for and giving up edge to edge quickness for - and for what gain?

 

I just re-read your first post describing what you want to do, and to me a ski like the Magnum 7.6 or a Progressor 8+ or another carver without a lot of metal in it would make your bump skiing better.  Knee deep powder?  Not so much, but neither will a mid 80's ski give you any real float in that.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I think skis in the 80's underfoot have very little purpose.  70's (or less) do one thing, 98 and up do different amounts of another thing.  The rest is in the shape and flex patterns of the ski.

 

post #65 of 76



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Understood.   All I'm saying, and I won't keep beating this dead horse after his post, is that the sacrifice you make in hardpack performance needs to be offset in another area.  I don't think 84 adds anything to powder skiing.  What you want is definitely a quicker turning ski with more flex then the Tigershark, no question about it.  It's the underfoot width that you'll be paying for and giving up edge to edge quickness for - and for what gain?

 

I just re-read your first post describing what you want to do, and to me a ski like the Magnum 7.6 or a Progressor 8+ or another carver without a lot of metal in it would make your bump skiing better.  Knee deep powder?  Not so much, but neither will a mid 80's ski give you any real float in that.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I think skis in the 80's underfoot have very little purpose.  70's (or less) do one thing, 98 and up do different amounts of another thing.  The rest is in the shape and flex patterns of the ski.

 



Park Rats love skis in the 80's underfoot.  Like all skis, they have their place in the big compromising scheme of things.  It has more float than the 66mm, and carves better than the 115mm.  etc. etc.

post #66 of 76
Thread Starter 

@SkiMango: No need, you hold good arguments, and I understand that you're suggesting things that favor towards groomers/bumps, because I'll ski those more often than whatever powder days I get in the NE. True, however any difference in going up to an 85+ waist is meant to sacrifice groomer performance in favor of any powder perf gains I may get, and considering the Tsharks weight, flex, and overall bump/pow performance, it's a significant difference any way you look at it. I'd like a two ski quiver as much as the next guy, but economics just don't allow. I'm sure a 90 waist that is light and flexible will do much better than my steel planks of tigersharks in powder and bumps, and although it sacrifices the epic carving the Tshark had, it's a worthy tradeoff for the benefits in other terrain, which I plan to ski more often. I'm going from 80:20 to 60:40 and I'm hoping that gets better in the future. Even though I live in CT, and trips to Jiminy Peak and maybe Kton will be somewhat prominent, MRG is good enough to make a trip to every now and then, maybe ill get 10-20 days there this season, with a few days midweek possible. 

 

I'll still take good suggestions as of yet, because I'm in no hurry to buy anything yet, but still looking for good suggestions. I have a feeling I would've gotten better prices had I asked earlier in spring rather than now. I remember seeing 2010 salomon tornadoes selling for 169 on o2 gear.

 

Thanks,

Nick

post #67 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

 

I may be in the minority here, but I think skis in the 80's underfoot have very little purpose.  70's (or less) do one thing, 98 and up do different amounts of another thing.  The rest is in the shape and flex patterns of the ski.

 

My understanding is that a mid-80s ski will perform better off trail on non-powder days and I'm hoping that is true since I'll be on Sultan 85s this year. The 70s (or less) seem like a great idea for groomed and hard snow and the fatties are obviously great for powder, but I like to ski off trail in softish snow that is not groomed, not consistently deep and quite variable in general -- isn't that a good place for a mid-80s ski? I hope so.
 

post #68 of 76

Well the bottom line is it is the skier, not the skis in any case.  I ski with a lot of excellent skiers who can slay the soft snow in the trees on stiff slalom skis if that's what they happen to have on.  

 

We all, myself included, blame our equipment - or in this case, hope our equipment will give us the skills we don't have! (Not that the right ski doesn't make things easier of course, they do - but in the grand scheme of things the difference is a lot less then what skill brings to the equation.)

post #69 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post

Well the bottom line is it is the skier, not the skis in any case.  I ski with a lot of excellent skiers who can slay the soft snow in the trees on stiff slalom skis if that's what they happen to have on.  

 

We all, myself included, blame our equipment - or in this case, hope our equipment will give us the skills we don't have! (Not that the right ski doesn't make things easier of course, they do - but in the grand scheme of things the difference is a lot less then what skill brings to the equation.)

Since I have very little talent I acquire skills quite slowly and will never have the skills to slay anything on stiff slalom skis (although I do enjoy watching those who can and do get inspired by them). Therefore, I'm going to try to use the best possible skis/equipment for the environments I will likely encounter and for my skiing style/ability and then hope the confidence in my equipment will at least have a placebo affect and enable more skillful skiing.
 

post #70 of 76

Try and find a used pair with no ptex of any midfat.   The sharks are stiff, but WOOHOO fast.  Perfect for the icy days around here.  Don't go too wide and sacrifice to much hard snow performance, as the east only gets soo much pow pow each season. 

 

I was in the exact same boat as you, but a bigger guy (6'1, 260lb in a 38" pant, former ATB racer turned gymfreak turned married. )  08 tshark 10ft 175 motion ipt14s running great on the groomers and hardpack.  Went to jiminy during a 12" dump and I was all over the place, 50% control at best. I was WHIPPED at 1pm trying to keep the waxed side down.  Heading past the windmill was great because all of the snow blew off, but once I worked my way into the tree covered, I was a mess.  It's even worse when the conditions aren't consistent due to the wind.  Snow in the face, ice one minute and then 2' of powder the next.   I said to myself "I need midfats!"

 

Do yourself a favor.  Just as SMJ suggested, each ski is different for each person.  I know Jiminy/Potters is having a demo day on the 19th of December.  Run the sharks until you do a demo day, and you'll get a feel for the best ski for your preference underfoot.   Going off all of our suggestions may give you reviews of skis, but it really depends on your level/ability.  You may end up spending a little more buying a demo ski, but at least you can play with all of the models for like $40 and end up with your favorite of the bunch..  Even mess with the lengths too.  Don't expect to get too many runs in if you are changing the skis out every two runs..   Ask their opinion, and they should be able to narrow it down quite a bit based on what they offer.  They have volkl bridge's, line p90's, p100's, ac30's, k2 aftershocks, rictors and so on.   OR ....You might want to participate in the ski swap and sell at thier shop starting 9/30 to 10/3.   I'm sure you'll see some decent equipment there for cheap money.  If you want to get a new setup, throw your tsharks in there for $2, and when they sell, take the 100% PB Giftcard.   Details here: http://potterbrothers.com/events.php .   The main store (of 5) is in Kingston, NY 12401, literally 300ft off I-87 and about 10 minutes from me in Rhinebeck, NY.

 

If you want to meet up, I may go over to their even anyway and look for some stuff for S&G's, but I'll introduce you to the guys of the store.  I'm a regualr, and I should work there, but I would never leave with a paycheck. 

post #71 of 76

You're getting tons of advice and some of it is philosophical ... an analogy would be if you ask which SUV to buy on an automotive forum and someone says SUVs are pointless, get a sedan. A valid opinion, but not universally shared. If I wanted one ski, the 8.7 would be on my shortlist along with the 8.1 and a couple of Kastle models I haven't mentioned b/c they're clearly beyond the budget you're going for in this case.

 

Gotta add, however, that if I were looking for a carving ski, the Tigershark would be high on my list, and you've already got those. The more carve-oriented ski in my two-ski quiver for this winter is Head SuperShape Magnums but they're not as specialized for carving as the Tigersharks.

 

Personally ... and opinions vary ... but if I were you, a primarily eastern skier who already has Tigersharks, it'd be hard for me to get the Pilgrims out of my mind as a second ski.

post #72 of 76

There is not a person who was ever dissatisfied with a purchase from Finndog. Buy his Pilgrams to go with the TS's

post #73 of 76
Thread Starter 

Budget is $255 without selling the Tigersharks. I doubt I can do that, and plus tuneup.

 

I asked a few questions, Phil, you think you can answer a few of them? They're in some of the previous posts of mine.

 

@NickH: I was planning to demo things there if I get to it, but I was also thinking going up to Kton for their likely november opening would give me more time in advance, but since Jpeak's demos are free on that one day, It might work out better, even though conditions may be more icy and variable. A good time to test out which of some suggestions will work best on ice, I suppose.

 

Again, have to wait and see.

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

post #74 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickM View Post



 



I might not find a do-it-all ski, but the goal was to sacrifice some groomer performance (not ENTIRELY), to get an 84+ waisted ski that is lighter and nimbler than the tigersharks, can sufficiently do powder (not more than knee-deep unless we get another February 2010 here), and can handle bumps (lighter and nimbler essentially means this). I'm sure skis like this exist, and I'm sure I've found a few already. No one has commented yet on the Dstar big trouble, and Phil has yet to respond, so. I think the possibilities are set, now it's just getting the right price at the right time.

 

@Phil again: you mentioned the Dynastar slicer earlier, and am getting curious, but can't find anything besides 2011 (if thats the only year, which I doubt). Price/length/info?

 

Thanks,

Nick





Quote:
Originally Posted by NickM View Post

Budget is $255 without selling the Tigersharks. I doubt I can do that, and plus tuneup.

 

I asked a few questions, Phil, you think you can answer a few of them? They're in some of the previous posts of mine.

 

@NickH: I was planning to demo things there if I get to it, but I was also thinking going up to Kton for their likely november opening would give me more time in advance, but since Jpeak's demos are free on that one day, It might work out better, even though conditions may be more icy and variable. A good time to test out which of some suggestions will work best on ice, I suppose.

 

Again, have to wait and see.

 

Thanks,

Nick

 


Sorry, I have been busy and can't check into every thread and every post..as much as I try.

 

If 250.00 is your budget, it is gonna be tough even with the SuperChargers. Used might be thee way to go. To save some time weeding through posts either reply here or shoot me a PM to exactly what parameters you need..refresh my memory. 

post #75 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


snoops are just meh, I have skied the the 176, 184, and own the 192 and its just doesnt hold a good edge or is that much fun. basically there are better skis for what you want.

 


Agreed.  Tried 6 different skis in the 85-100cm waist range out west at the end of last year, the 174 Snoops were definitely my least favorite.  Not a dynamic ski at all and it was extremely reluctant to get on edge, very hard to generate any angulation on compared to other similar sized skis.

 

I went with 177 Enforcers.  Have 2 pairs of 08 race stock Rossi SL/GS skis, but needed something for trips out West and non-groomer days out East.  I didn't expect to go 98mm at the waist, but the Enforcers totally railed on groomers (I didn't have good conditions out at CB when I demoed - actually was skiing on suprisingly hard snow).  Coming off years of racing out east, I was amazed how well they handled the harder stuff, with a big plus on versatility in deeper/choppier stuff.

 

For something a bit more front-side oriented, I thought the Salomon XWing Fury was actually pretty good...doesn't seem to get a lot of talk but I thought it made a nice middle of the road GS/SL turn shape, pretty quick and could still hold going hard across the hill, all of that at 85 at the waist.
 

post #76 of 76

I live on the east coast, use my 08-09 Atomic Snoops as my everyday ski (aside from some rock skis I use early season).  I absolutely love them for the east coast.  Great on groomers, although i spend most of my time in trees/bumps.  I'm 5'11, 185 so i'm on the 176's.  Perfect ski for trees/ marginal amounts of snow.  I'd like something fatter for powder days, but really, how many of them do we really get out east??  The Snoops are great for anything up to 12" IMHO

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion