Skis and Gear Discussion > Skis 4 Me -- Suggestions or Advice??
Am I Off My Rocker
Svend:
Mike, some thoughts are starting to gel here. A quick synopsis, if I may: max 90mm; early rise tip and softer longitudinal flex to absorb jarring on rough snow to save the knees; high torsional stiffness to give good edge grip on hard snow, increasing versatility; perhaps a binding lifter, rail binding or plate to give you more stand height, quicker edge-to-edge, less clumsy feeling; pref. adjustable binding to play w. fore-aft to find the sweet spot; longest length possible (180+) to maximize float in soft snow; sub-20m turn radius for agility; and light weight. Am I on the right track here?
A couple of models come to mind:
- Nordica Steadfast...90mm, very light, torsionally stiff, apparently excellent in both soft snow and crud, and rips on groomers, early rise tip, reviews are all A+ on this ski
- Atomic Nomad Crimson...88mm, early rise tip...I have skied the 82mm Blackeye Ti, and if the Crimson is anything like it, this may suit nicely; the Blackeye was very light underfoot, but exceptional edge hold on hard snow, a great carver. but a bit unrelenting grip in crud though, which I didn't care for, as you had to be on it at all times (could have been the tune, though); not a crudbuster.
- Dynastar Outland 87....yeah, I keep coming back to this one, but it was fun, light underfoot, damp and calm and quiet at speed, great grip on hard snow, easy to handle in crud and broken snow, very agile, just lacking some power and energy for a guy my size, but a great all-rounder.
- Stockli Stormrider XL...88mm, similar to the Nomad in feel, but more damp, hard to judge this one as the binding setup was way off for me (see my review)
Re. Head and Kastle: as I recall, the Peak 84 didn't feel especially light underfoot. Pretty solid ski; not sure how well it would do in soft snow. From what you've mentioned about the feedback on the PMTS forum about the Rev 85 compared to this, the two are apparently quite similar. Besides, it's so close in width to your Hart, I really wonder whether there will be much improvement in all-mtn. versatility that you are looking for. HighAngles makes a very valid point - adaptable and versatile is the name of the game for a mid-fat all mtn. ski. Not trying to talk you out of a Rev 85, just playing devil's advocate.... ;D
I know there are a few Kastle fans here, but to offer a counterpoint, my wife skied a couple of models last year - BMX98 and MX78, and disliked them both. She found them ponderous, heavy, tiring, lacking agility, overly damp, and just kind of dead feeling underfoot. Not pleasant to ski, just a burden, and therefore no fun, in other words. She much prefers the feeling of her Head Supershape Speed's, iM78's, and Dynastars -- still damp and stable, but much more life in them than the Kastles. No experience on the FX or LX series, so they may be very different -- I know the FX are softer and much lighter than the MX/BMX series in general, so probably more versatile for all-mtn. conditions. Perhaps the FX94 with a rail binding would be just the ticket?
LivingProof:
The perpetual state of indecisiveness continues. ???
In a conversation with Philpug, he threw in the Head Rev 90, which address some of the issue regarding getting more width than the Head Rev 85. Starthaus carries them, so, another joins the list.
A sleeper is a pair of almost new Blossom Hooks, which are twin tip 90 mm waist. Only one pair in the USA, available via an Epic associate. Soft snow focus, soft flexing, solid edge hold from two people who have skied them. I do like Blossom skis, graphics are kinda funky but I like different graphics. Least expensive solution, so....
The Head 85's make the most sense as they would work best on my home mountain during it's spring crud season.
Or, just take the Hart 77's.
The solution, or lack of solution, will come from these 4 options.
Svend:
--- Quote from: LivingProof on February 27, 2013, 09:18:19 am ---The perpetual state of indecisiveness continues. ???
--- End quote ---
Sounds like some demoing might be in order, then(?). Might make sense to ski your Harts for a day or two, see how they work out there, and in the terrain that you like to ski on, then try a few demo skis on for size if they are not working for you. I still think you might be fine with a 90 to 95 waist if the binding had some stand height. Would feel like a sub-90 flat mounted ski.
FWIW, I looked at the map, and Big Sky lies almost directly south of Banff, and is also on the eastern edge of the range. That is not necessarily an indicator of similar snow, but if it is, then you might be fine with a 77 for most terrain (depending on its stiffness, sidecut and flex pattern). As mentioned, the only fat skis you see at Banff are under the feet of out-of-towners. You would almost never see a 100+ ski on a local; most are on 85 or narrower. The snow is rather firm, and you just don't need the float. YMMV....
Whatever you do, sounds like a great trip. Have a blast!
Perry:
--- Quote from: LivingProof on February 27, 2013, 09:18:19 am ---The perpetual state of indecisiveness continues. ???
In a conversation with Philpug, he threw in the Head Rev 90, which address some of the issue regarding getting more width than the Head Rev 85. Starthaus carries them, so, another joins the list.
--- End quote ---
FWIW - the Rev 90 has less medal and is softer. I would definitely try that if I could travel with a hard snow ski and a soft snow ski. I love my Rev 85 but I wasn't too worried about the stiffness at 200lbs. It would be interesting to demo them back to back though. All the guys who store our skis comment on the Rev 85 "Great ski" They also like the Oblivion which is 90mm under foot, twin tip with tip and tail rocker and camber under foot. I had a ski like this and they were fun as can be off piste but not so much on piste.
HighAngles:
I think you'll be fine on the Pulse and/or your Sultan 94. If we get a deep day just rent something wide. A twin tip/no rocker ski is pointless these days unless you're a park skier who likes to ski switch.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version