Are you happy with your "specialty" ski purchase?

[tekweezle]

the way i have beat up my skis, they are well on their way to being relegated to rock skis status!

[mondeo]

Originally Posted by 2knees

very happy with my bump skis. Head Mad Trix. Great in bumps. I have no quiver. its my only ski so i have to make them work everywhere.

Same here (K2 Cabrawlers.) They take a little effort in crud or deep powder, but 90% of the time they work fine. That being said, once I get past the financial hurdle of buying a house, the quiver will start.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by tekweezle

i do agree with the statement that improving skills could help you tackle any condition on the mountain. But sometimes, you don;t want to work so hard. having a better tool for the job increases the fun factor on the mountain.

That is extremely ironic because becoming a better skier with more proficient technique and prowess makes it so you don't work so hard and have a higher fun factor on the mountain. I am not suggesting having two or three skis is not preferable (as cited by my previous posts regarding thinking a three ski quiver is ideal... I currently have five ). But rather I was suggesting the inverse of a point of diminishing returns and that is a point of not getting much out of a specialty ski without having the technique to utilize it and also suggesting that the money factor could be an issue, what is worth more.... substantially increased technique that will last until your body starts to deteriorate or a one trick pony pair of boards.

I think the ski industry is really loving this quiver idea. It is great for some skiers but I don't think it is good for most people. The industry certainly does not cater to the quiver crowd despite encouraging it because so many companies try to release the quiver of one do it all ski. Specialty skis are often hard to locate (who has seen a bump ski in a local shop or a light weight fat powder ski? most shops in New England don't carry that stuff). Interesting dynamic as far as industry drive, consumer demand, and what types of skis are actually created. Personally, I think there is a disconnect that the industry does not want to identify because they are quite alright with everyone chasing after a truly specialized ski that does not yet exist because ski manufacturers need to produce in high quantities to make it worth while.

I guess that is where the boutique or so called "exotic" brands come in to play.

[skibum9995]

Very happy. I picked up some 181 Nordica Dobermann GSRs at the beginning of the season and have had the chance to ski them in all conditions from bulletproof to a 14" powder day. It took a couple days to get used to the two sheets of metal instead of the single sheet I was used to in my Volkls. Super stable at speed and hold like ice skates on the hardpack. They are also the best powder skis I have ever skied being 67 underfoot and they power through crud with ease. Perfect one ski quiver.

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by skibum9995

They are also the best powder skis I have ever skied being 67 underfoot

That's very funny considering the conversations people have around here of needing 101 under foot. My skis are currently 66 and have been great in everything, although I am tempted to pick up something like an Apache recon with 78+. 101? Only if I lived in Utah. . .

[deadheadskier]

Originally Posted by wa-loaf

101? Only if I lived in Utah. . .

You say that.....but knock something that wide until you try em'. My Powder skis are 110 underfoot. I bought them as did half the town of Stowe in the winter of 00-01. A Rossi Rep had a bunch of these skis, I think they might have been a 97 model, very old first gen powder board, pre - fat craze, and he was selling them for $100.

Best skis I've ever owned. Anything powder days with over 8" and I'm on em'. Getting on something that wide in deeper snow is some major fun.

[kingslug]

Well, I now have a somewhat strange quiver. K2 Strykers, 180 and 74 underfoot, Volkyl AC40 Carbons 170, 84 underfoot. I'm still waiting to bring them both somewhere and test them against each other. The Volkyl's are kind of short for me but really hold onto ice. Stiff in the bumps though but the shortness helps a little. The strykers might actualy be a better ski in all conditions as they are very damp and forgiving. The Volkyl's need to be managed, the Strykers could care less. Next up...powder skis.

[skibum9995]

Originally Posted by wa-loaf

That's very funny considering the conversations people have around here of needing 101 under foot. My skis are currently 66 and have been great in everything, although I am tempted to pick up something like an Apache recon with 78+. 101? Only if I lived in Utah. . .

All skis over 70 should be burned.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Originally Posted by skibum9995

All skis over 70 should be burned.

Well then all Spyder jackets and tight pants should be burned as well..lol

[twinplanx]

Originally Posted by GrilledSteezeSandwich

Well then all Spyder jackets and tight pants should be burned as well..lol

good burn Steeze