Recomendation for bump/tree ski, mostly eastern?

Just to mix things up, I was skiing this Sunday in woods and moguls on a Rossi S3 (178cm). It's 98mm underfoot with a rockered tip and tail. I felt like a superhero on these skis, sking lines through the woods that I never would have contemplated on my B2s. Kind of felt like I was telepathically linked to the skis. Just amazing in bumps, too.

On groomed snow they were OK, but a bit of work to get from edge to edge.

I don't think these could be my only skis, but I'm also pretty sure I can't live without them (or something like them, such as a Blizzard "The One" or Fischer Watea 98 ). Haven't budgeted for two new pairs, though, so I might have to wait until next year to get something in this category.

In the meantime, I think I've narrowed down my choices to a Line Prophet 90, Prophet Flite, or Fischer Watea 84. Really wish I could find a place to demo the Flite or Watea, but haven't been able to yet.

sankaty said:

Really wish I could find a place to demo the Flite or Watea, but haven't been able to yet.

Click to expand...

Try Forerunner at Killington. When I broke my skis last year, I bought new skis from them but they didn't have any in stock. Gave me a pair of the Watea 84s for the weekend, so they had demos last year at least.

mondeo said:

Try Forerunner at Killington. When I broke my skis last year, I bought new skis from them but they didn't have any in stock. Gave me a pair of the Watea 84s for the weekend, so they had demos last year at least.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

What did you think of the W84s?

I've got both the Dynastar Legend 8000s and the new Sultan 85. The Sultans are a bit heavier than the Legends. The only place I prefer the Legends over the Sultan 85 is in the trees because I can turn them slightly faster. The Sultans are 6mm wider so that does help in deeper snow.

I'm a tree skiing novice though so someone else might not notice the difference I do.

My Legend 8000s have Look P12 bindings flat mounted and my Sultans have the integrated bindings.

I ended up going for Blizzard "the One" in 177cm. It's a bit out of left field, but after my amazing day on the Rossi S3, just decided I needed a ski in that category (tip and tail rise, slight camber underfoot, 98mm waist). Opted for the One over the S3 because lots of folks who have skied both indicate that both are very similar, but the One is a bit more versatile on groomed snow. I'm very confident it will be great for softer days. May still try to pick up a cheap set of P90s for harder snow days.

I came to this thread because I have almost the same "want" as the OP.

I currently ski Salomon XScreams which are 68mm at the waist. They are absolutely awesome at high speeds, have great edge grip, fantastic in our (sometimes) icy eastern conditions, but frankly they are terrible on powder days, and are useless in the woods. How bad are they in powder? They go submarine.

But I just dont know much about ski technology, and I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good website or guide that explains the technological side in depth so I can educate myself, so to speak?

For instance, how wide a waist do I need for fresh snow? I dont view it as practical to go with a massively wide powder ski since 99.999% of my skiing is here in the east, but is 86mm enough, or would 96mm or 106mm be appreciably better? What am I sacrificing by going with a wider waist that my 68mm underfoot might be better at?

These are the types of questions I dont know much about, but I would like to learn.

BenedictGomez said:

I came to this thread because I have almost the same "want" as the OP.

I currently ski Salomon XScreams which are 68mm at the waist. They are absolutely awesome at high speeds, have great edge grip, fantastic in our (sometimes) icy eastern conditions, but frankly they are terrible on powder days, and are useless in the woods. How bad are they in powder? They go submarine.

But I just dont know much about ski technology, and I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good website or guide that explains the technological side in depth so I can educate myself, so to speak?

For instance, how wide a waist do I need for fresh snow? I dont view it as practical to go with a massively wide powder ski since 99.999% of my skiing is here in the east, but is 86mm enough, or would 96mm or 106mm be appreciably better? What am I sacrificing by going with a wider waist that my 68mm underfoot might be better at?

These are the types of questions I dont know much about, but I would like to learn.

Click to expand...

Here's what I've picked up in my research and demoing.

I think that you'll find that there is no one factor that will determine performance in any one area. A ski's characteristics will be determined by a blend of flex pattern, width, side cut, length, and rocker/camber. This also needs to be balanced against the skier's weight and technique, as a heavier, hard driving skier will find a ski very different than a lighter, finesse skier (or anything in between), even if both are very accomplished skiers.

Here are some general guidelines (note that there are many exceptions to these):

Flex: All other things being equal, a stiffer ski will typically be more stable at speed, less easily deflected in crud, and have better edge grip on hard snow. However, a more flexible ski will typically be easier to manage in bumps and trees, float better in 3D snow, sometimes be easier to turn, and be generally livelier. The general wisdom is that more advanced skiers should be on stiffer skis. There's some truth to this, but it also gives aspiring skiers an incentive to be on much stiffer skis than they need. However, nobody enjoys a ski that you can overpower (i.e. easly push downhill when you pressure it), so it's important not to go too flexible for your skiing style, either. A very stiff ski is typically very hard to manage in moguls, so they are out for me. I'm also not very heavy at 160 lbs, so I don't need as much stiffness as a heavier skier.

Width: You'd think that a wider ski would automatically be better in powder, but there's a lot more to it than that, as flex and rocker/camber has just as much influence over flotation than waist width. Some relatively narrow, flexible skis, such as the Watea 84, do very well in soft snow (though at the cost of hard snow performance). Some wide, but stiff skis, such as the Volkl Mantra, are just OK in deep snow, but really shine in busting through any chop you throw at it and can rail on hardpack. In my experience, just about all mid-fat skis (about 78mm +) will be easier to ski on variable ungroomed snow than a narrower ski. The main trade off is that a narrower ski is easier to get from edge to edge just by tilting your ankles. The wider the ski, the more you have to swing the ski out from under you to get it on edge. Everyone has a different feel for when added width becomes cumbersome. For me, I don't notice the width too much up to about 90mm. At 98mm, it's a bit of work going quickly from edge to on gentle, groomed slopes. On steeper slopes (where your skis are going to making wider arcs anyway), or anything ungroomed (where pure carving is not dominant), even 98mm is perfectly fine for me.

Side cut: The deeper the side cut, the shorter radius turn a ski will make natively. I don't pay much attention to this anymore, as the skis I'm considering are all flexible enough that they can be pressured/feathered/pivoted into whatever turn shape I need.

Length: Generally, the longer the ski, the more stable and better flotation it will have. Shorter skis will be easer to maneuver. Skis that are too short for you typically feel squirelly and divey. Skis that are too long feel cumbersome.

Rocker/Camber: With traditionally cambered skis, when you put them base to base, they bow out in the middle. A fully rockered ski will do the opposite; the waists of the skis will touch and the tips and tails will spread out from each other. A full rockered ski is a deep powder speciallist that will be just about useless on groomed snow. There are newer skis that are rocker/camber hybrids. The middle portion of the ski has traditional camber, but the tip (or both tip and tail) is given some rocker so that it rises off the snow some distance down from the shovel. These kinds of skis are OK in groomed snow, but have some advantages in ungroomed snow. 1) The early rise keeps the tips from diving, enhancing float in 3D snow. It also makes it easier to avoid getting your tips caught under a hidden obstacle in the woods. 2) The pre bent tip smooths turn initiation, making it much nimbler in soft snow. I'm not convinced early rise does anything helpful in groomed snow. The tip and tail engage the snow later in the turn than a full camber ski. It's hard to describe the sensation. It's not terrible, but it's a little wierd. The greater the rise, the wierder the sensation, apparently. In trees, however, tip and tail rocker are amazing. On the Rossi S3, the incredible agility of the ski made me feel like I was going in slow motion, even though I was generally skiing faster than I ever have on my conventional skis. I was also able to control my speed much better through narrow lanes that would totally freak me out on my full camber skis.

I decided to get the Blizzard the One beacause I was absolutely hooked on the performance of the hybrid rockered ski in woods and bumps (I've been told that the One skis very similarly to the S3. We'll see!). I'm not convinced that it would be a good single ski option for someone who will be doing much skiing on groomers. If you're looking for an east coast all mountain ski right now, meaning that it has to do as well on hardpack groomers than it does in bumps and trees, something in the Line Prophet 90/Flite, Dynastar Sultan 85, Fischer Motive 84, Kastle MX88, Rossi S86, Atomic Crimson, K2 Aftershock, etc., is still probably the best bet. There will be a lot more low rise rocker skis coming in 2012, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Hope this helps. If any of you gurus out there notice anything I've gotten wrong, please set me straight.

sankaty, great post! I think Peter Keelty and the reviewers at www.realskiers.com do a really find job reviewing skis. It's not free, I believe the annual fee is $20 but lots of useful information on ski technology, boot fitting, and reviews of almost all currently available skis. On www.epicski.com Dawgcatching and Sierra Jim provide reviews of many skis. Both are ski retailers and both ski a ton of different skis. While they do have vested interests in their products I think both are really valuable resources. I especially find Dawgcatching's reviews detailed and helpful. He really takes pains to describe how a ski feels, how it does in bumps, on hard snow, how it does in crud, etc. He has threads comparing large numbers of skis in different categories. He reviewed a whole bunch of mid 80s waisted skis in one thread. And there are threads in which he reviews wider skis and narrower skis. Sierra Jim had a thread titled something like Crazy 88s. While reviews are just someone else's opinion I do think you can use those opinions to get you in the ball park. The one thing I'd add to sankaty's comments is that all skis represent a compromise of some kind. The best skis for hard snow and ice will not be great in other conditions, and the best deep snow skis aren't going to be very on the hard pack. So you need to assess what you really want the ski to do. Seems to me that skis in the 78 - 88 range tend to offer the most versitility. But, one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So there's no one perfect tool.

RISkier said:

sankaty, great post!

Click to expand...

It really was a great post by him, ty for taking the time to splain'. I definitely need to get my research on. Hell, the last time I bought skis, "integrated bindings" didnt even exist, so even that I need to look into to see what that's all about. I've got much to read up on.

RISkier said:

While they do have vested interests in their products I think both are really valuable resources.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm always cognizant of this sort of thing regarding endorsements etc...

RISkier said:

one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So there's no one perfect tool.

Click to expand...

Well at this point the "must" is simply that they will float in powder, rather than sink like concrete shoes, and I would like if they were quick-turning for bumps and trees.

Then I would have 2 different skis, and I could keep using the old XScreams for early/late season, variable conditions, and when I'm skiing groomers with my gf.

RISkier said:

sankaty, great post! I think Peter Keelty and the reviewers at www.realskiers.com do a really find job reviewing skis. It's not free, I believe the annual fee is $20 but lots of useful information on ski technology, boot fitting, and reviews of almost all currently available skis. On www.epicski.com Dawgcatching and Sierra Jim provide reviews of many skis. Both are ski retailers and both ski a ton of different skis. While they do have vested interests in their products I think both are really valuable resources. I especially find Dawgcatching's reviews detailed and helpful. He really takes pains to describe how a ski feels, how it does in bumps, on hard snow, how it does in crud, etc. He has threads comparing large numbers of skis in different categories. He reviewed a whole bunch of mid 80s waisted skis in one thread. And there are threads in which he reviews wider skis and narrower skis. Sierra Jim had a thread titled something like Crazy 88s. While reviews are just someone else's opinion I do think you can use those opinions to get you in the ball park. The one thing I'd add to sankaty's comments is that all skis represent a compromise of some kind. The best skis for hard snow and ice will not be great in other conditions, and the best deep snow skis aren't going to be very on the hard pack. So you need to assess what you really want the ski to do. Seems to me that skis in the 78 - 88 range tend to offer the most versitility. But, one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So there's no one perfect tool.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I've been immersed in those Dawgcatching's and SJ's reviews for a couple of weeks now. In fact, I ended up buying "the One" from Dawgcatching's shop.

I've been curious about realskiers.com.

BenedictGomez, there are a lot of good options (and deals) available now, but if you can wait until fall, the Blizzard Bushwacker seems like a really interesting ski for 2012

Now, I need it to either snow or get sunny and warm so I can try out my skis. I'll be sure to report back with what I find.

sankaty said:

I ended up going for Blizzard "the One" in 177cm. It's a bit out of left field, but after my amazing day on the Rossi S3, just decided I needed a ski in that category (tip and tail rise, slight camber underfoot, 98mm waist). Opted for the One over the S3 because lots of folks who have skied both indicate that both are very similar, but the One is a bit more versatile on groomed snow. I'm very confident it will be great for softer days. May still try to pick up a cheap set of P90s for harder snow days.

Click to expand...

not sure I understand the logic in getting two pairs of skis in the 90mm waist range. Seems like a lot of overlap.

I don't care how well the P90 does on hard snow, there will be skis in the high 70s / low 80s that perform much better on ice than something in the 90s. It's pure physics.

I have heard great things about the P90 for carving and hard snow performance, but I bet something like a Blizzard 7.6 or 8.1 Magnum would blow it away.

deadheadskier said:

not sure I understand the logic in getting two pairs of skis in the 90mm waist range. Seems like a lot of overlap.

I don't care how well the P90 does on hard snow, there will be skis in the high 70s / low 80s that perform much better on ice than something in the 90s. It's pure physics.

I have heard great things about the P90 for carving and hard snow performance, but I bet something like a Blizzard 7.6 or 8.1 Magnum would blow it away.

Click to expand...

Stiff and wide is a good crud/mush ski.

But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.

sankaty said:

Thanks! I've been immersed in those Dawgcatching's and SJ's reviews for a couple of weeks now. In fact, I ended up buying "the One" from Dawgcatching's shop.

I've been curious about realskiers.com.

BenedictGomez, there are a lot of good options (and deals) available now, but if you can wait until fall, the Blizzard Bushwacker seems like a really interesting ski for 2012

Now, I need it to either snow or get sunny and warm so I can try out my skis. I'll be sure to report back with what I find.

Click to expand...

Reviewing skis and ski shopping presents a lot of challenges. Skis can ski quite differently depending on length, size of skier, tune, etc. And when you demo you don't know what the tune is like and the conditions vary from day to day. We were in Stowe in January and I was intending to demo a bunch of skis. We hit really interesting conditions with fresh snow but lots of wind and lots of wind scoured. In some ways perhaps really good conditions to demo, but I wasn't sure I'd really get a great feel for different skis for purposes of comparison. I do think reviews can help identify appropriate skis. I like the realskiers site. As far as I can tell it's not beholding to any manufacturer and it will rip skis. I'd decided to make it through the year on my old Nordicas. I knew they were on their last legs. Last time we skied the little bit of material left on the bases was sloughing off the ski. Decided to order some Fischer Motive 84s based on various reviews and discussions with Dawgcatching. And he was selling them at a pretty good price this time of year. So I took a flier. I ordered a pair of Elans from him several years ago. I think he's a real good guy and does his best to put people in appropriate skis. I've not seen any negative comments from folks who've done business with either Dawgcatching or Sierra Jim. Hope you enjoy your skis.

mondeo said:

Stiff and wide is a good crud/mush ski.

But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.

Click to expand...

absolutely

but when you've already purchased something that's 98 underfoot, picking up a second ski for hard snow use that's 90 underfoot doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

sankaty said:

BenedictGomez, there are a lot of good options (and deals) available now, but if you can wait until fall, the Blizzard Bushwacker seems like a really interesting ski for 2012.

Click to expand...

I'm frugal* though, so I'd like to buy a 2010 or 2011 either the end of this season when the sales start, or October of next season. I've been knee-deep in reading review videos for the last few hours, and it seems I cant find an unkind word about those Dynastar Sultan 85s. Those might have to go on my demo list.




*Frugal (frü-gəl, adjective) - Polite word for calling one cheap. eg. BenedictGomez sure is very frugal with his money

mondeo said:

But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.

Click to expand...

how many do you have?

BenedictGomez said:

I'm frugal* though

Click to expand...

Hey, me too! That's also why I didn't wait. Even the idea of getting two pairs of skis is making me a little nauseous. I actually just found the One online for a bit less than I paid for it. I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . . I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . . I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . .

Seriously, I am glad that I supported those guys. They offer a ton of great advice to the skiing community for free.

deadheadskier said:

absolutely

but when you've already purchased something that's 98 underfoot, picking up a second ski for hard snow use that's 90 underfoot doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Click to expand...

Part of me thinks the same thing. However, I'm still considering it for these reasons:

1) As already noted, I'm cheap, err, frugal. The P90 can already be gotten for $350 flat. The Prophet series is changed for the first time in a long time in 2012 (some tip rocker added), so the new old stock may go down in price even more. There are some skis that would probably be better options (the Motive 84, for example), but they typically go for significantly more. I would consider the Sultan 85, though, if I could find a comparable price on it.

2) Even my firm snow ski needs to be pretty good in bumps, or it will never get any use. This eliminates a lot of skis that would out perform the P90 on ice, including the Magnum series.

3) The One and the P90 are more different than just the width suggests. The early rise tip and tail plus the softer flex make the One more of a softer, ungroomed snow specialist. Also, I've been finding that the difference between a 90mm and 98mm ski is much more significant than the difference between something like a 85mm ski and a 90mm ski. The S3 felt much wider than the P90 to me. However, the P90 did not feel much different than the Sultan 85 underfoot to me. There's something about a wide ski in general that compliments my skiing style.

4) I've already skied the P90 on just about as firm a day as I'm likely to ski (the day after a refreeze at Sugarbush), and I loved it, so I know it will do the job, even if there might be something even better out there.

5) I'm confident that a combo of the P90 and the One would be competent in all the conditions I'm likely to ski. The significant overlap between the One and the P90 is medium-soft snow, bumps, and trees, which describes my average day. The idea that I could grab the P90 on a day that I thought would be pretty firm, but not really wish I had my other skis if I found some softer snow, is pretty attractive to me.

Convinced? Me neither. I'm not 100% sold that it's the best plan yet. I intend to ski the One for a few days first, get a sense of its limitations, and go from there.

Fair enough

I hear you on being frugal, I am as well.

I still think for eastern 2 quiver, 2 skis in the 90s doesn't make much sense.

There is a reason carving skis are built with waists in the 70s. There is also a reason that bump skis are 70 in the waist or less.

I'd be looking for something with a dimension like the B2, but wood core, sidewall construction and small amount of metal. It would outperform a P90 in the bumps and hard snow, but there are options out there that would still do great in soft snow and crud. Even on the mushiest of spring days, I've never feel like the B2 isn't wide enough, but it's hard snow performance sucks due to it's core construction.

My general observation is people in the east tend to go wider than they really need to or should for the types of conditions we often encounter unless they're tremendously picky about the days they go out.

deadheadskier said:

Fair enough

I hear you on being frugal, I am as well.

I still think for eastern 2 quiver, 2 skis in the 90s doesn't make much sense.

There is a reason carving skis are built with waists in the 70s. There is also a reason that bump skis are 70 in the waist or less.

I'd be looking for something with a dimension like the B2, but wood core, sidewall construction and small amount of metal. It would outperform a P90 in the bumps and hard snow, but there are options out there that would still do great in soft snow and crud. Even on the mushiest of spring days, I've never feel like the B2 isn't wide enough, but it's hard snow performance sucks due to it's core construction.

My general observation is people in the east tend to go wider than they really need to or should for the types of conditions we often encounter unless they're tremendously picky about the days they go out.

Click to expand...

Do you have anything in mind? Something like a Sultan 80 or Rossi SC80?

Something in those dimensions yes. At least that's what I'm looking for. I've heard great reviews of the Nordica Firearrow 80, though they maybe the most ugly skis I've ever seen. :lol:

If you haven't visited already, epicski.com is a great web forum for gear review. Not that I don't trust the opinions of many of the great skiers I know through this forum. Epic's gear review section is just a bit more organized and standardized.