Puck it
Well-known member
I am looking at a pair of hell and back from Nordica. 98mm under foot. It is looks like it would be a great all around ski to replace my 88's.
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Hi I'm late to the party but the Atomic Theory All Mountain Twin Tip sounds like a good fit.
Everyone on the SuburbanSport.com Staff who demoed them last spring enjoyed them. We placed them in our Mixed Snow/All Mountain category since the Theory isn't a pure Park and Pipe Ski.
Atomic builds as great ski and and knows it way around twin tips too, they press Armada skis.
I personally have no use for a twin tip but enjoyed the way it skied the whole mountain albeit we were at Okemo.
IMO ski waist width of 88-98 with some early rise is where you'll want to be.
The "go shorter" trend of ten years ago has reversed itself and now most are going longer, especially for powder, especially for twin tip. Not sure about early tip rise but I would assume for that too. Ski characteristics might need to be factored into the equation as well. What are you currently skiing? You'd probably be fine in the 175-180 range.What about length, skis getting shorter now too? Is that a function of height / weight vs. ski surface area?
I'm 5'10, ~185 lb
Dude, you just need to go demo some skis! You'll find different brands might ski differently despite having similar length so length is not always reliable across brands like a pant size.
Demo a pair of Nordica Enforcers, 98 underfoot, and see what the edge to edge response is like, they'll shock you. Not only do skis vary from manufacturer to manufacturer obviously same hold true model to model. I also have the Nordica Jet Fuels, 86 underfoot, great ski. However it's stiffer and not as versatile as the Enforcers.
Can't change physics, though. Narrower is quicker, just because of the mechanics of the turn.
It's ridiculous how fat of skis people in the East use for all-mountains. 94 is my powder ski, I used it all of 5 days last year in the East. My all-mountain is 84, wouldn't want to go any wider. Hard snow, 66.
Can't change physics, though. Narrower is quicker, just because of the mechanics of the turn.
It's ridiculous how fat of skis people in the East use for all-mountains. 94 is my powder ski, I used it all of 5 days last year in the East. My all-mountain is 84, wouldn't want to go any wider. Hard snow, 66.
101 underfoot, non-twin, rockered tip, 15M turn radius.
I tend to agree with this, sorta.
I agree that people seem to be going way to wide in the east. Unless someone only gets out on Powder or Corn days, I think anything over mid 80s for a daily driver makes very little sense in the East for a strong skier given the average conditions we experience.
I don't agree with 94 being wide enough for powder in the East unless the person using the ski is under 170 pounds. My opinion is because of the 'third dimension' in smear turning in powder. In those conditions narrower isn't always quicker. I have had a pair of Rossi Axioms for 10 years as my powder ski. It's 184cm, heavy, 110 underfoot, probably 125 in the tip and tail, very straight ski. I'm guessing the turn radius is in the 30s. Two years ago I picked up a pair of 179 High Society FRs that are 92 underfoot, 125 in the tip, 114 in the tail with a 22m turn radius. In anything over 8 inches of snow, the old Rossi Boats are quicker due to the added float. In anything under 6 inches, I'd rather be on my B2s at 79 underfoot.
I'm 5'8" 185#. If I were to go out and buy a powder/tree specific ski for the East Coast tomorrow, I think something like Skilogik's Ullr's Chariot RL at 182cms seems like the best tool for the job for a guy my size. 101 underfoot, non-twin, rockered tip, 15M turn radius.
http://skilogik.com/skis-rockerlogik-ullrschariotrl.php
I'd probably go with the Watea 101s if I had to do it again, maybe a little wider.I tend to agree with this, sorta.
I agree that people seem to be going way to wide in the east. Unless someone only gets out on Powder or Corn days, I think anything over mid 80s for a daily driver makes very little sense in the East for a strong skier given the average conditions we experience.
I don't agree with 94 being wide enough for powder in the East unless the person using the ski is under 170 pounds. My opinion is because of the 'third dimension' in smear turning in powder. In those conditions narrower isn't always quicker. I have had a pair of Rossi Axioms for 10 years as my powder ski. It's 184cm, heavy, 110 underfoot, probably 125 in the tip and tail, very straight ski. I'm guessing the turn radius is in the 30s. Two years ago I picked up a pair of 179 High Society FRs that are 92 underfoot, 125 in the tip, 114 in the tail with a 22m turn radius. In anything over 8 inches of snow, the old Rossi Boats are quicker due to the added float. In anything under 6 inches, I'd rather be on my B2s at 79 underfoot.
I'm 5'8" 185#. If I were to go out and buy a powder/tree specific ski for the East Coast tomorrow, I think something like Skilogik's Ullr's Chariot RL at 182cms seems like the best tool for the job for a guy my size. 101 underfoot, non-twin, rockered tip, 15M turn radius.
http://skilogik.com/skis-rockerlogik-ullrschariotrl.php
Even a few nights at Wawa to test em 'out will be OK, but I do want to try some runs first.
For me the first six six skis, it was, eh, meh, so-so. They were good, but nothing to marry. The seventh one made my heart stop, it just felt so natural, and it worked so well with me. Not knowing if this is the right one, I kept dating more skis, just to be sure. I went back to true love and never looked back.
.
Yes, you can.can't go wrong with line prophet 90s...
This. A million times this.Yes, you can.
Blanket statements like this are nonsense. What's a great ski to someone can be utter rubbish to someone else. People have different preferences for responsiveness, flex, weight, etc.