or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview. - Page 6

post #151 of 187

All of this talk about 98s reinforces my thinking that I am personally better off owning multiple skis of narrower and wider width and just skipping the 98 niche altogether :)

post #152 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

All of this talk about 98s reinforces my thinking that I am personally better off owning multiple skis of narrower and wider width and just skipping the 98 niche altogether :)


Yeah, I know this is a violation of party discipline, but I am persuaded by Dawgcatching's argument that (serious paraphrase) a 98-ish width is neither wide enough nor narrow enough. I think it is a great width as a One Ski To Rule Them All for the west, or as a travel ski for most places outside of NE. Both cases assuming you prefer softer snow and hiking to groomers. But if you have more than one ski, I'd personally go with something like a 80-85 and a 110-115 for the west, or 68-72 and 105-110 for the east. YMMV.  

post #153 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post

 

 That's one of the key lines....those of us that actually ride, tend to ride from home.



No kidding. It is around 30 minutes to Phils from my house, 25 minutes downhill back home, and conveniently passes Backporch on the way, where they hook me up with a $1.00 (best shot in town) espresso if I am on my bike.  It would take me 20 minutes to load my bike and drive over there, yet most people drive, not ride to the trailhead, if they ride at all.

post #154 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post


Ha! I actually know a guy who purchased a new $6,000 ride, and because he feel is car was not adequate for transporting it, also purchased a Porsche Cayenne Turbo to go with it!  What a bit of twisted logic. 

 


What was his previous ride? A 911?


I didn't ask, but that is a very good question.  If he had a 911, he probably didn't get rid of it, only just sheltered it for the winter.

post #155 of 187


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

All of this talk about 98s reinforces my thinking that I am personally better off owning multiple skis of narrower and wider width and just skipping the 98 niche altogether :)


Yeah, I know this is a violation of party discipline, but I am persuaded by Dawgcatching's argument that (serious paraphrase) a 98-ish width is neither wide enough nor narrow enough. I think it is a great width as a One Ski To Rule Them All for the west, or as a travel ski for most places outside of NE. Both cases assuming you prefer softer snow and hiking to groomers. But if you have more than one ski, I'd personally go with something like a 80-85 and a 110-115 for the west, or 68-72 and 105-110 for the east. YMMV.  


what?! then you're going out to the car to change skis every day that has soft snow getting progressively skier packed? That is the downside of over  specialization over dependable versatility. If you can't ski a 98 for most conditions, you are buying into a lot of crap that will cause you to be overly fussy and prissy and picky and spoiled. Step into a solid, good, broadly capable ski and get out there.

 

Dawg is generally a voice of reason, but on this I think the perspective is obsessive.  You then have no ski that is versatile and have to keep changing skis. PITA

post #156 of 187

davluri,

I can ski my 78 or 88 in most conditions. But that's not the point......

post #157 of 187

so what is the point? there are skis that just do it all and there are skis with such a narrow performance range that a skier is left wondering if the ski is holding him back for conditions. real skiing practical considerations over theory in the shop or on the couch.

post #158 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

so what is the point? there are skis that just do it all and there are skis with such a narrow performance range that a skier is left wondering if the ski is holding him back for conditions. real skiing practical considerations over theory in the shop or on the couch.



if you don't "get it", then I can't possibly delude myself into thinking that I can explain it to you

post #159 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

All of this talk about 98s reinforces my thinking that I am personally better off owning multiple skis of narrower and wider width and just skipping the 98 niche altogether :)


Yeah, I know this is a violation of party discipline, but I am persuaded by Dawgcatching's argument that (serious paraphrase) a 98-ish width is neither wide enough nor narrow enough. I think it is a great width as a One Ski To Rule Them All for the west, or as a travel ski for most places outside of NE. Both cases assuming you prefer softer snow and hiking to groomers. But if you have more than one ski, I'd personally go with something like a 80-85 and a 110-115 for the west, or 68-72 and 105-110 for the east. YMMV.  


what?! then you're going out to the car to change skis every day that has soft snow getting progressively skier packed? That is the downside of over  specialization over dependable versatility. If you can't ski a 98 for most conditions, you are buying into a lot of crap that will cause you to be overly fussy and prissy and picky and spoiled. Step into a solid, good, broadly capable ski and get out there.

 

Dawg is generally a voice of reason, but on this I think the perspective is obsessive.  You then have no ski that is versatile and have to keep changing skis. PITA


Uh, where I ski 70% of my days the "soft snow" is maybe an inch or two of manmade or overnight fluries, with plenty of ice and hardpack underneath waiting for the boarders to sideslip it into daylight. If you can't ski that nicely on a 78 mm ski, you can't ski.

 

And even out west, I've never gone back to my car in my life. If I'm hitting morning pow that'll be skied off by lunch, I either go backside/sidebounds by 11 am, or I take two pair of skis (that's why nature gave us two shoulders) along, lock up one pair at the base lodge or if there's a tram, up the mountain. And yep, I've skied Valley Run at 4 pm with a pair of skis on my shoulders. No worse that most coaches carrying all sorts of crap and gates at the end of the day. The extra PITA getting them up and down from the snow is more than offset by having the right ski for the job all day...

post #160 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastskier44 View Post

Idk about you guys, but I'm pretty surprised abou Volkl.  For an Austrian "hard-snow" oriented brand for the most part, I'm really surprised to see them throwing rocker in pretty much all of their skis.  Think it's not a bad idea for the Mantra and maybe even Kendo, but I'd like to know if the Core series will be replacing the Tigersharks.  If they are, I'd be really disappointed.  Also, I think the AMR series makes a bit of sense, as I think they missed the target a bit with the AC series, especially the AC50, as they were supposed to be for the whole mountain, but really just excelled on hard snow and could do ok in powder (due to their stiffness and camber).  



Somebody named nobody........biggrin.gif.........did pretty well with this but here is the spin that Volkl gave these questions. First, "rocker" is the new talking point. Basically you have to have it in most categories in order to be considered relevant. It is not a bad thing to have some non rockered skis available as a counterpoint. Re: the Grizz and the TS series, those models have not been huge hits in the market with the Grizz being an especially slow seller. I did mean "Code" when I typed "Core" and I haven't seen one yet so I can't say much except that their story is that the amount of rocker is very minimal and hence not a big disadvantage. Volkl absolutely understands that the AC-50 is no great shakes for mixed snow use and I suspect that the new RTM will be more useful  as much b/c of better flex than the rocker which is pretty small. The Gotama in current form was a bit of a miss as well but by knocking down much of the rocker and putting more platform under the foot, I think it will be better also.

 

SJ


This is all starting to make sense, I could never wrap my head around the AC series, but then again maybe I like to "hold onto classics".  My "hard snow, front side, East Coast ski" is still the Volkl AllStar.  It is what I like to call the 5.5 Star.  My "soft snow, front side, back side, East Coast, West Coast" ski is the Mantra.  I usually ski the All Star early season in Vermont and after freezing events or extended durations of no snow, otherwise I am all Mantra all the time.

 

Seems as though the "Code" will be the worthy successor to the All Star (to me the TS just never cut it - in fact my favorite ski shop in VT never carried it).  Looking forward to trying the new Mantra.

post #161 of 187



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by easternskr View Post

Interesting discussion.  When I started out this year my main goal for the season (ski wise), was to replace my Head 88s for a new daily "east coast" driver.  A few demos, some very good advice from this list, and mission accomplished via the purchase of a pair of Elan Apex (thanks to Dawgcatching).

 

Two weeks ago while in Jackson Hole (my first time there and found it to be an incredible place), my buddy and I decided to demo different skis each day (I know it was expensive but well worth it).  And I managed to try out both the Kastle MX 98 and MX 108.

 

First the 108, liked this ski a lot.  But I do have a pair of Goats (pre rocker), with very little miles on them so buying this would not have been very prudent.

 

But the 98, what a ski.  At least for me, this would be a great east coast soft snow/powder ski.  I mean yes, I do have the Goats, but I simply have not been able to take these out all that much in the couple of years I have had them because I just don't seem to be up north when the big storms roll in.  Usually, my east coast powder days are 6 to 10 inches of new fluff.  The 98 would at least for me, be much more realistic then a bigger ski and I would guess I would have many more days on them then I have had on my Goats (I would say that between the Elan Apex, and a pair of Kastle MX 98s, I would have most all conditions covered for what and how I ski here in the east (save for a few true hard snow strictly front side days  - where I can pull out my old K2 Crossfires if needed).

 

Honestly, I was really impressed by how well the MX 98 skied in a variety of conditions, from fresh powder to chopped up crud.  And I had thought, like many others, that a 98 waisted ski like this would simply be too close in performance to something from the 88 line, but after trying them out I have completely changed my opinion.  

 

So maybe "98" becomes the new west coast daily driver but the new east coast powder ski? (at least for us mortals/flatlanders who don't live right around the corner from the mountain).  Now, I just have to find the cash to pick up a pair - which, probably won't happen until next season so hopefully - they won't change these skis at all.

 

 

 

 

     

 

 



the thing is for east coast powder skiing the bigger you can go while still being passable on groomers is very desriable. Bigger skis ski quicker in woods where people can not go.

 Also non rockered skis suck here because they simple dont let your slarve as well.  I can ski powder, days after a storm because I can ski lines other people simply arent equiped to ski. I own a pair of 98 mm skis but my 111m katana make the 98mm skis feel like dead weight in as little as 3 -5 inches of snow.

 

its the chicken and the egg arguement i have shown alot of people around and watch them hack though the woods I can ski, because they simply dont own the right gear.  Also alot of people dont ski powder on the east coast because their skis wont let them ski powder. I guess I dont want to see that change(more for me!) but really when I see people post how good say a kendo was in powder I just have to think how much it is not.


Ahh, so you must be tracking up the Stowe woods while others only watch in envy....

 

But yes, I understand what you are saying.  And I have skied with someone up there who also skied the Katanas and raved about their ability to "slarve" in the woods.  So it may very well be that the "rockered tip" is helping a lot in these situations.  For what it is worth though, I found the performance of the MX 98 and MX 108 only slightly different in fresh snow but we were not skiing bottomless powder (in which case the difference between the two would probably be much more significant).  But part of this too may be due to the rockered tip on both, and I would think either one would be great on the east coast.  And though I do agree that the wider, rockered skis will be superior to something narrower in the woods like a 98, I can't get over how much fun the 98 simply was in all of the conditions I skied it in. 

post #162 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel View Post

All of this talk about 98s reinforces my thinking that I am personally better off owning multiple skis of narrower and wider width and just skipping the 98 niche altogether :)


Yeah, I know this is a violation of party discipline, but I am persuaded by Dawgcatching's argument that (serious paraphrase) a 98-ish width is neither wide enough nor narrow enough. I think it is a great width as a One Ski To Rule Them All for the west, or as a travel ski for most places outside of NE. Both cases assuming you prefer softer snow and hiking to groomers. But if you have more than one ski, I'd personally go with something like a 80-85 and a 110-115 for the west, or 68-72 and 105-110 for the east. YMMV.  


what?! then you're going out to the car to change skis every day that has soft snow getting progressively skier packed? That is the downside of over  specialization over dependable versatility. If you can't ski a 98 for most conditions, you are buying into a lot of crap that will cause you to be overly fussy and prissy and picky and spoiled. Step into a solid, good, broadly capable ski and get out there.

 

Dawg is generally a voice of reason, but on this I think the perspective is obsessive.  You then have no ski that is versatile and have to keep changing skis. PITA


Yeah, I don't change my skis out either, unless I am demoing.  Not really sure what you are talking about. I do have a few pair that I can choose from, depending on conditions, but I could ski ANY of them on a given day and have a fun day, save for maybe something like the RX12 in bottomless pow or the Huge on blue ice. I think my general suggestion is to get something for firmer conditions, and something for softer conditions, which sounds like what 85% of the people around here tend to build their quiver as.

post #163 of 187

Y

post #164 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Yeah, I know this is a violation of party discipline, but I am persuaded by Dawgcatching's argument that (serious paraphrase) a 98-ish width is neither wide enough nor narrow enough. I think it is a great width as a One Ski To Rule Them All for the west, or as a travel ski for most places outside of NE. Both cases assuming you prefer softer snow and hiking to groomers. But if you have more than one ski, I'd personally go with something like a 80-85 and a 110-115 for the west, or 68-72 and 105-110 for the east. YMMV.  


Yep.  The width of the daily driver for the PNW is still in the 80's by my reckoning, with a 105-115 for powder days.

post #165 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

Yep.  The width of the daily driver for the PNW is still in the 80's by my reckoning, with a 105-115 for powder days.



Disagree. The inertia of the ski replacement cycle means that most skis on the hill were purchased several years ago. There are an increasing number of 95-115-ish "daily drivers" out there in the Cascades. A significant percentage - probably the majority - of all around skis sold this year by shops that "get it" in this region fall into this category.

 

On powder days, the range is more like 115 to just shy of 140.

 

Obviously what you see depends on conditions and the day of the week. But based on skiing 3-4 days a week in the Cascades, I'm pretty sure of the way the picture is shaping up.

post #166 of 187

In Girdwood (AK), it seems the width of the daily driver is a function of the skier's age.

Nobody under 30 (except the ski racers) seems to own skis that are less than 100 underfoot.

Many of us who are north of 30 (far north, in my case) still ski often on skis in the 80's.

Powder days bring out the big guns.

post #167 of 187

why does the statement: "I could ski that on any ski..." always come up. yeah, we all could, so what?!

 

I use a quiver to match skis to conditions, but to have too many skis that are very narrow in performance characteristics is a PITA. I just want to grab the daily driver and go most days. So a good western quiver for me is 75mm for firm and ice, 98mm for practically anything and everything, 115mm for deep and fresh, which is special conditions skis sandwiching a versatile, typical daily conditions ski. certainly, skiers could argue for an 88 or a 98 in that center position. 

 

In terms of changing out skis in the middle of the day, the conditions can do an absolute about-face all in one day, heck in 2 hours, and hiking out to the car is sometimes a waste of good ski time and staying with a ski that has no power and drive is not making the best of what gear could provide for changing conditions.

 

Gird, young skiers riding fat daily drivers is also an economic function, as many don't have the cash to have a quiver. they own one pair of skis. they buy for epic days and deal when that's not in the offing.

post #168 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

 

I use a quiver to match skis to conditions, but to have too many skis that are very narrow in performance characteristics is a PITA. I just want to grab the daily driver and go most days. So a good western quiver for me is 75mm for firm and ice, 98mm for practically anything and everything, 115mm for deep and fresh, which is special conditions skis sandwiching a versatile, typical daily conditions ski. certainly, skiers could argue for an 88 or a 98 in that center position. 

 

More or less identical to what I have.

Not sure we have a disagreement here.
 

post #169 of 187

While 98 seems to be the magic number for next year, I skied 8 or so 98's that all skied very different. When I get more time, I can offer thumbnail descriptions, but I am sure in saying 98 is not 98 is not 98 in how these skis perform. 

post #170 of 187

just sayin' that I took a different quiver approach to what Dawg was working with. mine is anchored with a center at 98. Dawg may be putting together a 2 ski quiver, which would have to be mid 80s and mid 115s.

post #171 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

just sayin' that I took a different quiver approach to what Dawg was working with. mine is anchored with a center at 98. Dawg may be putting together a 2 ski quiver, which would have to be mid 80s and mid 115s.



I currently run 78, 88, 115

 

I could substitute a 98 for an 88 - but don't have much preference here. I certainly haven't tried every ski on the market but am willing to bet that the difference between many 88s and 98s are rather marginal depending on sidecut, flex, etc. I think this speaks to Phils' comment above.

 

For example, my Apex 88s are softer, floatier and less demanding than my Mythic 88s which is a more of a powerhouse crudbuster. And I don't care much for my older Mantras anymore which are overly hooky in crud and overly stiff in powder for my tastes. So I bet I use my 88s in the same conditions that you use your 98. Some of this likely also comes down to the differences between Colorado champagne and Sierra cement.

post #172 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

While 98 seems to be the magic number for next year, I skied 8 or so 98's that all skied very different. When I get more time, I can offer thumbnail descriptions, but I am sure in saying 98 is not 98 is not 98 in how these skis perform. 


Well put. No way you can compare the way say a Prophet 98, and a Rossi S-3 perform in varying conditions.

 

On another note: I'm pretty much more aligned with Spindrift with what I use for a daily (104), and my pow ski (120). I may get something skinnier in the future. But I REALLY have not felt the need here in Oregon. And I have zero desire to carve hardpack. But needs, desires, and opinions are different with different people. At least we have this forum so someone stuck on an iced up garbage mound can shit on the gear choices of a western pow enthusiast.

post #173 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
And I have zero desire to carve hardpack. But needs, desires, and opinions are different with different people. At least we have this forum so someone stuck on an iced up garbage mound can shit on the gear choices of a western pow enthusiast.

FWIW, there is actually a ski, ah, resort in south central Michigan that IS an iced up garbage mound: http://www.mtbrighton.com/trail-map.php No less than 7 lifts, and technically, made of landfill. When I skied it, used to be issues with local cows wandering across the lower part, so between them, the total vert (300 feet) and all the lift posts, slalom turns were recommended. The bar sign at the turnoff was larger than the ski sign. And the bar wasn't bad. Don't make fun of stuff like this or Trekchick will turn your life into a living hell...wink.gif

post #174 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
FWIW, there is actually a ski, ah, resort in south central Michigan that IS an iced up garbage mound: http://www.mtbrighton.com/trail-map.php No less than 7 lifts, and technically, made of landfill. When I skied it, used to be issues with local cows wandering across the lower part, so between them, the total vert (300 feet) and all the lift posts, slalom turns were recommended. The bar sign at the turnoff was larger than the ski sign. And the bar wasn't bad. Don't make fun of stuff like this or Trekchick will turn your life into a living hell...wink.gif

Gee... those black diamond runs do look scary... Hats off the the folks in Michigan who ski on the "iced-up piece of garbage"...  Gotta question the utility of the uber-fat-rockered-flat-cambered ski on that kind of slope...  
 

post #175 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Gotta question the utility of the uber-fat-rockered-flat-cambered ski on that kind of slope...  

 


Duuude, you are so over. Fatypus A-Lottas rule Big Brighton!!

post #176 of 187

I think 98mm (with tip rocker) makes a lot of sense for the people that don't hit the gates. You'll want something that can take care of the skied off mountain, but that can also float in powder. 115mm is a LOT to get up onto edge. My ankles are usually feeling bruised at the end of the day if I'm angulating them a lot (i.e. carving hardpack). I still feel 105mm a bit on the ankles, but they're not sore at the end of the day. 98mm sounds like a good length to avoid this problem completely. That said, 115mm are amazing in the trees, as long as the rocker shape and flex is dialed - like BWP mentioned about his Katanas.

 

The only time I use the ~100mm range is when doing crudbusting at speeds that would make most people on here crank their necks from the lift to watch (murmers like 'holy sh*' and 'wow' are not uncommon). The extra stability from a wider ski is absolutely necessary at these speeds in crud, but too wide and the ankles start to hurt, since I use edge angles to slice through the junk. Not trying to pump my ego here, but just mentioning that this level of stability isn't needed by the average skier. If I didn't really enjoy this sort of skiing, I probably wouldn't own something in this range, since I tend to hike/skin on powder days once the trails/bowls get skied off.

post #177 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
FWIW, there is actually a ski, ah, resort in south central Michigan that IS an iced up garbage mound: http://www.mtbrighton.com/trail-map.php No less than 7 lifts, and technically, made of landfill. When I skied it, used to be issues with local cows wandering across the lower part, so between them, the total vert (300 feet) and all the lift posts, slalom turns were recommended. The bar sign at the turnoff was larger than the ski sign. And the bar wasn't bad. Don't make fun of stuff like this or Trekchick will turn your life into a living hell...wink.gif

Gee... those black diamond runs do look scary... Hats off the the folks in Michigan who ski on the "iced-up piece of garbage"...  Gotta question the utility of the uber-fat-rockered-flat-cambered ski on that kind of slope...  
 


No question about it. It would be idiotic. I count myself luck to have more options at my doorstep.

post #178 of 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


No question about it. It would be idiotic. I count myself luck to have more options at my doorstep.


Hey lighten up. If you haven't been paying attention, these last few posts haven't been precisely serious. 

post #179 of 187

And for those of you who are already deeply bored with 2012, here's some Kastle twin tip freestyle news for 2013: http://www.facebook.com/pages/WE-SKI/122197007828039

post #180 of 187

Any news on the 2012 Atomic lineup? Has the Nomad line changed or are they keeping it the same and just changing the topsheet?

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 › 2012 skis and gear.....a (pre) preview.