• 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!

Suggestions please for skis

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
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.
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
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.

Theory.jpg

I just read the Theory does not have "metal", I'm guessing that means in the core, obviously the edges still have metal.... those icy / hardpack days freak me out a bit if edge grip is really poor.
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
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
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
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
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.

Dude, you just need to go demo some skis! :cool: You'll find different brands might ski differently despite having similar length so length is not always reliable across brands like a pant size.
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
Dude, you just need to go demo some skis! :cool: You'll find different brands might ski differently despite having similar length so length is not always reliable across brands like a pant size.


FWIW I've recently found pant size also not so reliable :lol:
 

mondeo

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Points
0
Location
E. Hartford, CT
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.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
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.

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
 

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
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.


Demo them and then get back to us let us know how much you paid. :)
 

Glenn

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,691
Points
38
Location
CT & VT
I'm 155-160lbs, 5-10, I'm on a 178 for my all mountains, 175 for the twins. I'd love to try some wider skis. But I really love the edge grip on the twins.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
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 was looking at the Rave Rocker. Now, reconsidering and looking the Nordica Hell and Back. It comes in 177cm and is 98mm underfoot with a slight tip and tail rocker. Plus it is light and fairly stiff.
 

mondeo

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Points
0
Location
E. Hartford, CT
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 did find it amusing to see the skis being used in Colorado when I was out there last year. They were probably narrower on average than the skis I see at Killington. I did come away with the conclusion that the 94 would be a great every day ski for the West, it really was in its element with the mix of powder bowls that hadn't seen snow in a little while, soft groomers, and some bumps and open trees.
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
I'm holding off on a purchase I think until I can get a few demo runs in.. I've gotten a lot of awesome suggestions. Even a few nights at Wawa to test em 'out will be OK, but I do want to try some runs first.
 

billski

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
16,207
Points
38
Location
North Reading, Mass.
Website
ski.iabsi.com
Even a few nights at Wawa to test em 'out will be OK, but I do want to try some runs first.

Hey Nick,
Let me tell you how it worked for me. First, I found that big mountain or little mountain made little difference for getting the "feel" for a ski. If you find yourself testing multiple pair at one hill, then try to do the same moves on the same trails, then mix it up a bit. I demo'd 3 pair at Wawa, others at Stowe, others from a shop, etc. I think I went through about a dozen skis.
Don't worry about the cost of the demo. I found I learned as much about me/my abilities/my preferences as I did about the skis.

The second step is to be clear in your own mind what you plan to use them for. I kind of think of ski selection similar to dating. 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.

Yeah, it sounds hokey, and I expect the peanut gallery on this forum to this a full frontal assault. Meh.

Oh and by the way, I find that often the marketing hype simply does not live up to the experience. The ones that reviewers though were great I thought dekcus. Just because it's recommended does not mean you will fall for it. As long as you are having fun, that's all that matters.

Good luck with the demos.
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
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.
.

Ski slut :lol:

Seriously thanks for the suggestions!
 

jimmywilson69

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
3,179
Points
113
Location
Dillsburg, PA
you should demo first if you can.

I have done that on 3 of the last 4 pairs of ski's I purchased. It is nice to know what you are getting into before making such a large investment.
 

mondeo

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Points
0
Location
E. Hartford, CT
can't go wrong with line prophet 90s...
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.
 
Top