realskiers

Hello,

I haven't purchased ski's in forever but last year caught the bug again and now need to buy new ski's.

I would classify myself as an advanced to lower expert skier--grew up swivel-hipping parallelling, form usually strong frontside but admit form suffers a bit in really steep bumps (some runs great and some disasters) as well as in lousy snow.? I am 6 feet, 175 pounds.? Physically very fit and strong.? Current ski's are Salomon Force 9's (which i have had for some years), which I have liked in front? side but liked less backside.? They are tired though in any event.

Anyway, I caught the bug tree skiing steep stuff in a couple of feet of powder last vacation (Utah).? ?Call me naive but I thought after "parabolics" would end innovation but of course that is not the state of the world as I seek to get more days this coming season and am researching!? I ski 100% western US with about half in Mammoth and half in Utah.?

Want to be able to have a better powder/tree experience but need to deal with the sometimes poor quality days of Mammoth with its steep and icy shoots as well as moguled up bowls.? All things considered I would rather have the ski that handles the trees and powder more effectively though.? Was looking at Bluehouse Maestro's and would appreciate any advice on the company and/or the ski's.? Also they seem to like ski's longer, or is that just a function that they seem to make wider waisted ski's, which have me intrigued.

Appreciate any advicde or insight.


Thanks,

Fred

Fred,

Are we to assume your boots are as old as the Salomon Forces that you still have? If so, boots are priority, get yourself to a good fitter first. While the ski is the fun and sexy thing to talk about boots are more important. You marry boots, you have date with skis. With that said, avoid the Bluehouses and stick (as JB said) to somehting in the mid 80's underfoot segment.

Sounds like boots first, check proper fit and allignment, then go demo or at teh very least, go to a few shops and see the skis. Where do you live? There are a ton of options out there and I have no idea of your level and what some consider steeps and trees are a lot different to others. On the surface, a ski of around the mid 90's to 105 would work for sure but there are so many other issues to consider like rocker or traditional for instance. At 6' 175 I would be looking at something around 180 and if rockered, a 184-189 length; again depending. 

john, he stated he wanted the emphasis on powder/soft snow

btw- got to play with a bunch of new skis, the dynastar 6th sense slicer is a very, very nice looking (profile speaking) with a nice flex.  the Rossi S3 in the 178 has a much more usable profile than the 184.  The Blizzard One would also make a great choice.

Thank you all for your advice!

My thinking was to look for a ski that is more powder oriented.  My thinking is that I can use my Force 9's for the more mediocre Mammoth days (my experience is Mammoth tends to be icey about half the time and fantastic the other half)  and I am intending on increasing my Utah days.    If it works out, I will then buy a another ski which is more of a technical ski.

What this discussion as well as looking at ski reviews here and elsewhere has shown me as that the industry, reviewers, and consumers are all over the board (no pun intended  ) in their perception of what makes an appropriate ski in particular conditions--almost a state of transition if you will.   I suspect that in a few years some of these styles, at least in their extreme, if not repudiated will be narrowed (no pun intended in terms of what is considered an optimal ski for certain conditions.

I tend to be a gadget person so would most likely lean to buy two ski's--an all arounder and a more powder oriented ski.  For the first purchase I am leaning towards the more powder oriented ski but need it to tur decently as I like the steep trees.

Fred

Fred

Fred, here are my views on Powder skis. I am not ncessarily in the majority. some people just love Rocker. A lt depends on how you ski, where you ski (Mammoth and Utah is what you have said) and what terrain you seek to ski. So here are some thoughts on powder skis:

Today there is more variety in the technical specs of powder skis than in any other kind of ski. Essentially there are powder skis for every different type of snow and terrain and every different approach to skiing . So the first two questions that someone buying powder skis must ask and answer is first where do I ski most and where will I use these skis most. East coast very different than Colorado and Tahoe or PNW very different from East Coast and the Rockies. The next question is really about camber and rocker which is all the craze today. I owned 3 pairs of skis with some amount of Rocker and I have sold them all. In my opinion, Rocker is really good for someone who has poor technique and needs help skiing powder or for someone that is an extreme skier that is dealing with wind buff in steep lines at high speeds. Rocker does float better in powder and skis with tip and tail rocker pivot every easily. In tight trees they are easy to use because you can resort to pivoting (terrible technique) and the tails will come right around. Some people love this. The problem is when you get into crud and chop. Rockered tips deflect!! They deflect a lot. As well with a lot of tail rocker it is hard to keep the ski on edge in a GS type turn (as the skis just want to pivot). For me this is terrible in chop as I can?t ride the natural sidecut of the ski and power through the chop with the skis on edge. Add to that the tip deflection, and I find myself doing way too much wok in chop on a powder day on rockered skis. That?s why I don?t ski them anymore.

So here is the real clincher for me on not using Rocker. For a decent skier, skiing untracked is actually pretty easy. It is a little easier on Rockered skis, but everything else is harder or worse or requires the wrong approach on rocker. I also find that in untracked I don?t need crazy wide ski either and because I like skis that I can turn and use the sidecut on in the chop I don?t like an ultra wide ski. All these are things to ask and answer when buyiing powder skis.

Mammoth and Snowbird and Alta get skied out real fast. This means you can ski fresh lines for the first few runs and after that you are skiing crud and chop.

Personally I would recommend a ski somewhere between 100 and 115m wide under the foot. Probably the sweet spot for a do everything powder ski is around 100mm under foot and 115 and higher gets you a much less versatile ski. If you will be skiing more powder and fluffier powder and at less than GS speeds (powder 8 turns) I would go with a softer flexing ski. If you are skiing in more chop and heavier snow and you like to go straight and faster I would get a stiffer ski (more like GS and Super G turns in powder).

I like that idea. I am skiing it this weekend.

Fred, here is a list of skis that I either own and like, have demoed and liked or am intrigeud by but have yet to demo:

K2 Hardside 98mm underfoot. Most would say not a pure powder ski but i love it in fresh snow
K2 Sidestash 108mm underfoot. Supposedly a wider version of the Hardside. If so should be a great ski and a super powder specific ski that will hold up well later in the day
Atomic Atlas 115m underfoot in the 182cm length. This is darren Rahlves powder ski that he helped design. This like the 2 K2 skis all have a flat tail, which I love.
Ski Logik Ullr's Chariot 101mm underfoot but with a tight truning radius of 15m. Supposedly rails on groomers and at 101 uder foot woll float well in Pow
Moment Belafonte 106mm underfoot, modest tip rocker. Similar to the Sidestash and the Hardside with minimal tip rocker. No hard tail but a twin tip tail.
ON3P Vicik 104mm underfoot, minimal tip rocker, twin tip tail
Kastle MX 98 98mm underfoot, minmal tip rocker, great do everything ski that will ski powder well
Kastle MX 108 similar to the 98 except woder and less gerat on hard snow and better and easier in pow
Line Prophet 115, tip rocker, twin tip tail

All these will ski powder well, but also give you stability and power skiing the chop after everything gets skiied out. All are easy to manuever in trees manily due to the minimal tip rocker which makes turn initiation easier.


Hope that helps.

Ron:  List your skis with dimensions and rocker/not and in what ski/snow conditions youwould use them??  Pretty sure you have more than just the Kastle and Bent Chetlers?  Include the Icelantics that you have owned if you think those may be good candidates as well.

I am not a ski expert - esp for powder!!  That said, I would recommend one, two or even three days of demo.  See if you can narrow down to 3 - 6 skis.  Now the hard part; how in the world if you get to demo on a good powder day, do you have the discipline to use some of you time to exchange skis.  If you can find a slopeside demo place, with the skis you want to demo that would be idea. That might be very tough.

It does come down to personal preference, style, body movement yada, yada.

The advice here will help you narrow down.  Over on Epicski, I have found that dawgcatching gives excellent reviews and he skis at Bachelor (would that snow be similar to Mammoth?)

Have fun finding your ride - PS - look at the ski logik including the Bomb Squad

Fred:

A contrasting point of view (and collection of skis) lest you think that everyone on the forum has a garage full of skis.  I too have recently found the thrill asscociated with skiing off trail and in trees, although not nearly as steep of terrain as John and Ron.  So here is my ski "collection". I am 5'11" and 190 lbs and 62 years old.

Head SuperShape Magnum.  70 mm waist, 176 length.  This is my east coast ski, trees, trails, bumps, whatever.
Ski Logik Ullr's Chariot.  101 mm waist, 178 length.  This is my Utah/Colorado ski, trees, trails, bumps, powder, whatever.  This is an upgrade from an 84mm waisted ski to match spending a higher percentage of time off piste, but still expect at least 1/2 my time to be on groomed trails.