Ski Butternut - 12/28/2004 (Free Demo Day)

[Greg]

Date(s) Skied: Tuesday, 12/28/2004, 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM

Resort or Ski Area: Ski Butternut, Great Barrington, Massachusetts

Conditions: Hard pack, manmade, machine groomed. Temps about 5-15; no wind; sun early, then mostly cloudy.

Trip Report: Today was free demo day up at Ski Butternut. I got to the lot about 8:45 and quickly got dressed in the lodge. It was nice to not have to lug the skis through the parking lot. First I'll discuss conditions, then the skis I tried.

First run was down Lucifer's Leap and Hob Nob. Lucifer's was a bit scratchy, yet edgeable as was most of the mountain. I then rode up the Top Flight again and hit Pied Piper, Twist and West Way (terrain park). There was a lot of snowmaking on much of that run. I then took a ride up the new Highline Quad which is nice and should relieve some pressure off the Top Flight Quad. Main Street was nice with decent snow along the sides. Centers of the trails were slick today. A lot of snowmaking on Whip today, but it was still not yet open. Also hit Lower Applejack from the midpoint on Hob Nob/Crosstown. Snowmaking going strong here too, but the snow was nice.

Now for the skis. I was hoping to try some Volkl Supersport 5 Stars, but they only had 168 cm so I opted for the Volkl 7 24 EXP in 177 cm. Very nice ski that transitions well between turns, but it, with most Volkls I'd imagine, skied very fast. Super fun ski but I'm looking for something a little more responsive at slower speeds and forgiving in the bumps.

Next demo was the Dynastar Skicross 9 in 178 cm. I actually liked these skis alot. The did very well on the hardpack and cut right in. Super stable, but almost too much that they were a bit boring and didn't have the life of the Volkls. I next tried the Dynastar Legend 4800, but he only had them in 165 cm. Perhaps it was the ski length or type of snow surface (fast hardpack), but I really couldn't get into these skis. I would have like to try them in a longer length.

Final ski was an Atomic M9 in 162 cm. These skis were fun and skied longer, but nowhere near as fun as the Volkls or even the Skicross 9. So, after today, I would have to say the Skicross 9 and Volkl 7 24 EXP were the two best skis I tried. The Dyna was stable and secure, while the Volkl was fast and exhilirating. I think I'm going to need to demo some more again when there are some moguls as I don't know that either of these two will be the best ski for that. Perhaps the Dynastar Legend 4800 will be better for me in a slightly longer length and in the bumps.

All in all a fun day and great chance to try out some different skis!

[riverc0il]

at cannon's demo day i tried the volkl 724 Pro and found it was great at speed but lacked for snappy turns and agile movement. volkl really needs to come up with a soft ski that isn't completely bomber as so much of their line is built for high speed groomer action. i also tried the legend 4800 and didn't like them much, but the 8000 was incredible. i liked the 8000 so much, i bought it for my AT rig i'm setting up. check out the 8000 if you get another shot and a little longer than 165 wouldn't hurt either (i have 178cm), they are the sweetest ski i've ever turned (excluding high speed turns for which volkl rules at).

[Greg]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

...but the 8000 was incredible. i liked the 8000 so much, i bought it for my AT rig i'm setting up. check out the 8000 if you get another shot and a little longer than 165 wouldn't hurt either (i have 178cm), they are the sweetest ski i've ever turned (excluding high speed turns for which volkl rules at).

Darn. They had them too, but the Dyna guy didn't even suggest them. After the 4800 experience, I didn't even consider trying another Dyna and went out on the Atomics. Next time I'll try the 8000's.

I think I did come away with the knowledge that a ski length in the mid 170's is right for me now (currently on 182 cm K2 Axis X Pros which are sleds...).

[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.

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.

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.

[Greg]

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.

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.

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...

[riverc0il]

Was the guy an older, somewhat "larger" fellow? Greying hair?

yup, that's definitely the guy! i'm sure the same reps do all the demo days throughout this region.

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.

that's the tough part, there's a definite trade off between being soft and forgiving and quick in the bumps vs. being a solid all mountain cruiser. the 8000 is definitely not geared towards the groomed, it loves natural snow. i don't know if i would want the 8000 as a one ski quivver, i think i prefer my volkl p50 for the one ski in bounds quivver. but that's why i wanted two different set ups (inbounds/outbounds). definitely give it a shot. also if you haven't checked out the elan 666, that's quite a ride too. a little heavy for the bumps, but i think it's a solid shot as a one ski quivver that can do it all yet still does high speed cruising well.

choices choices! ski press said this was definitely the year to buy, lol! so much good stuff coming out, it's really easy to dismiss excellent skis as not up to par.

[skijay]

How were the crowds?

[Greg]

Originally Posted by skijay

How were the crowds?

Not bad. Your typical holiday week crowd. It got busy between 11 and noon but not bad at all before and after that. The lifts stopped a lot though...