Quote:
|
Originally Posted by riverc0il that's strange the dynastar guy didn't suggest the 8000, especially after you had a bad experience on the 4800. i wonder if it was the same dude who set up at cannon? the dude that helped me said he skis the 4800s and he was surprised i liked the 8000 better. i think a lot of it was the size and weight difference, the 4800 was particularly dead to me, but at 6'1" and 220 lbs, i need "more ski" under me than most people, whereas this dude was 5'7" and 50 lbs less than me. |
Perhaps it was the same guy, but he 8000 was never mentioned. I'm certainly much lighter than you at 165 lbs, but I still think the 4800 would have been better in a mid 170 length. I will definitely try the 8K if I get the chance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by riverc0il regarding size, i think there is a real dangerous trend to go too small now a days. everyone has this smaller is better attitude which is great if you're upgrading from skis that are 4+ years old because back then people were skiing on much longer skis (in 1999 i was on 198, 2001 i was on 193, 2003 i was on 183, now i have a 17  . but there reaches a point that you loose something when you go too small. too often people make a blanket statement regarding sizing and going shorter instead of considering what is best for the indivudial skier and their style of skiing. yes, if you are used to 190+cm, by all means go shorter. but if you're used to current shapes and sizes, YMMV. |
Agreed. It's probably no surprise that the two skis I liked the best were 177 and 178 cm. I didn't feel at all like they were too much ski for me. I went from 205 to 190 in 2000 and then to 183 in 2003. I simply can't see myself on a ski shorter than 175 or 173.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by riverc0il of particular disgust to me when i demoed at cannon was the atmoic guy who's arrogance would have had every skier not skiing over 168. different conditions, different sized people, different performance demands, and different skiing styles dictate different sizes. i demoed one of the merton models (which ever is the freeride model) and thought the ski sucked, but it may have been cause the guy gave me a short ski and no objection would make him change his mind. any ways, his arrogance has steared me away from atomic... well, that and my perception of the performance of the ski that i demoed. |
Now this guy definitely sounds like the same guy. When he broke out the 162, I was like, "that's a little short, no?" Well, he said, "these only come in 152, 62, and 72," and sent me on my way (the Atomic Web site indicates the availability of longer lengths, BTW). I was not impressed with the ski either (an M9). It may have been a different experience on a 172. Was the guy an older, somewhat "larger" fellow? Greying hair?
I agree that it'll be tough to find an all-mountain ski that's a great cruiser like the Volkl but still forgiving in the bumps. I am anxious to try out the Dyna 8000 though. If it has the stability of the Skicross 9 with some of the excitement found in the Volkls, then it may just be my next ski...