Best All Mountain Ski?

[bzrperfspec77]

Ok, I'm sure this has been asked and people are probably like "WTF... How can you answer this?" Well I'm going to give it my best shot on narrowing the answer. I have a good set of all mountain skis now (Armada Triumphs 171 long -120/78/107 and Line Blends 179 long - 125/90/113) but I'm looking for something that will be a bit more Nothern Vermont capable (I.E. MRG tight trails, powder, trees). To me the skis I have now are good on hardpack and groomers. The Blends do decent in powder, but I want to get a more capable powder/tree ski. Do I go rocker? Do people normally go shorter when skiing in the trees? Just curious... Shoot away at me if I didn't give enough info...

6'0 tall, 190 lbs - I like to ski the blacks, but there are plenty other better skiers than me!

Thanks all.

 

[riverc0il]

Pick up a ski mag gear guide to get an idea of what is available. Look for their all mountain mid-farts or whatever the industry is calling em' these days. Shop around and get whatever is cheapest in your size. Look at last year's models for some deals though manufacturers often change the name of the same ski year to year to screw with this.

If you don't have any specific requirements, just pick a top sheet that looks good at a good price. Go to a demo day if you want to try a bunch out. Do get rocker (it is going to be hard not to these days) and DO NOT go shorter for skiing the trees. Ski length has nothing to do with tree skiing. Shorter skis don't make you ski the woods better, skiing better makes you ski the woods better, regardless of length.

Okay... time to commence most other posters chiming in with "get ski X. I ski it and its awesome!" for two dozen different models. Ready, set, go!

 

[NHmurph]

This otta be fun !!!!!!

 

[deadheadskier]

No such thing as an All Mountain One Ski Quiver IMO.

Anything I've skied under 100 is inadequate in snow deeper than 6-8 inches

Anything I've skied over 85 is inadequate for hard pack and bumps.

When you think "All Mountain" just recognize that you will be making some minor to major sacrifices depending on the conditions and terrain you're using them in. I can ski bumps on my Fischer Motive 84s, but my 70 waisted Rossi BXs are WAY, WAY better. I can take those same Fischer's in 6-8 inch deep snow, but my 92 waisted High Society Free Rides are WAY, WAY better. I have taken out those same HS Free Rides on DEEP days and they ski fine, but my 110 waisted Rossi Axioms are WAY, WAY better.

If you have to go with just one type of ski in the east, I'd recommend something with a waist around 85 unless you call one of the very few mountains in the East that have a 250 plus inch annual average home.

 

[BenedictGomez]

DO NOT go shorter for skiing the trees. Ski length has nothing to do with tree skiing. Shorter skis don't make you ski the woods better, skiing better makes you ski the woods better, regardless of length.

Depends how tight. You've expressed the above before, and several of us on here completely disagreed with you. Obviously no ski will make you a "better" skier, but if you're talking a ski specific for skiing tight trees as he's suggesting, I see no reason to not go a little bit shorter regardless of how proficient a skier you are. I'm a decent tennis player and could probably beat most people with a wooden racquet, but there's really no point in doing so.

 

[bzrperfspec77]

Thanks so far guys. Like some did by reading my post, maybe stating "All Mountain Ski" wasn't the best idea... What I want to find is that powder/tree ski for the powder days up north. I don't have a "Home" mountain. I can't afford a season pass so I scour for deals and hit various mountains on off peak days or powder days. To me going to a powder day with my 78 underfoot Armadas just doesn't cut it.

I guess I will just read the ski magazines and leave the questions on here for everything else besides asking about what ski is best... :wink:

 

[riverc0il]

Regarding the one ski quiver, it is more a reality now than before. I am actually going to give it a go this year with the Atomic Theory. It won't be perfect on the groomers but I tried it last year and it was better than I thought it would be a ski with a 95mm waist. And with a tip over 130mm, that is more than enough for powder without being a one trick pony. I think the industry is closing in the magic specifications. While no one ski will ever excel at each individual specialty, the trade offs have gotten significantly less.

Depends how tight. You've expressed the above before, and several of us on here completely disagreed with you. Obviously no ski will make you a "better" skier, but if you're talking a ski specific for skiing tight trees as he's suggesting, I see no reason to not go a little bit shorter regardless of how proficient a skier you are. I'm a decent tennis player and could probably beat most people with a wooden racquet, but there's really no point in doing so.

None sense. I stand by my statement. I ski on a 186cm ski in the trees and I could certainly easily handle longer if it suited me. And I love tight lines. Like, rabbit hole tight. Like, ski width tight elevator shaft tight barely a ski width and sometimes less. Ski length just has nothing to do with skiing trees. Get the ski that matches your specifications, size, weight, etc. Don't get a ski because you think you might hit a tree with your skis if they are too long. That is totally compensating for lack of technique and won't help you at all either.

 

[riverc0il]

Thanks so far guys. Like some did by reading my post

Wow, jeez, good luck. Maybe I'll have to read posts three times instead of only twice before I reply. :roll:

 

[xwhaler]

The other thing I would mention to the above is to pay attn to the sidecut/turn radius of the ski. No use in getting something with a long sidecut if you primiarly like doing short turns on steep groomers. I think anything under about a 22 mm is great for EC skiing.
As Rivercoil has said look at all the dimensions of the ski and how they work in conjunction with one another---there are lots of great choices out there right now.
I actually just picked up a pair of the Surface Watch Lifes. 182cm long x 132/100/122 19.5 sidecut
I'm stepping up from a 178 89 waisted ski (Scott Missions) but am really looking forward to getting that extra width underfoot as well as in the tip/tail.

 

[Puck it]

Hell and back at 98mm underfoot are a great everyday ski. Great edge hold on hardpack and very damp for no metal. They rail at high speeds. I highly recommend these.

 

[MadMadWorld]

The other thing I would mention to the above is to pay attn to the sidecut/turn radius of the ski. No use in getting something with a long sidecut if you primiarly like doing short turns on steep groomers. I think anything under about a 22 mm is great for EC skiing.
As Rivercoil has said look at all the dimensions of the ski and how they work in conjunction with one another---there are lots of great choices out there right now.
I actually just picked up a pair of the Surface Watch Lifes. 182cm long x 132/100/122 19.5 sidecut
I'm stepping up from a 178 89 waisted ski (Scott Missions) but am really looking forward to getting that extra width underfoot as well as in the tip/tail.

I too agree with Revercoil. Shorter definitely doesn't mean better, especially in the east when you don't know if the trees are going to be dust on crust or pow. My all mountain skis are K2 Kung Fujas. My feeling is that a true all mountain ski should be higher than 90 and lower than 110 at the waist. The dimension on these are 133-102-127. I truly enjoy them and I have skied everything from tight couloirs to tight tree lines in the east and they truly handle everything beautiful. I have also found that these are one of the most forgiving skis in the bumps.

Oh yea, and there are some great all mountain-one quiver skis out there including the Kung Fujas! What about the Bonafide or Cochise? Or even the Rossi S3 and Kastle BMX 98?

 

[gmcunni]

No such thing as an All Mountain One Ski Quiver IMO.

i have reluctantly come to agree with this statement. i wish i could find this ski, i've tried for 2 years but it just isn't happening.

i've come to the conclusion that "adequate" will be the experience on an all mountain ski in the extremes of pow/tree/super hard pack/bumps and in the everyday stuff it will be pretty good.

but if/when i buy a new pair it will likely be that attempt at a 1 ski quiver and likely in the 90-95mm range under foot.

back to OP's updated request regarding pow/tree ski - (not being much of a gear head myself) - i'd be looking for something 100-105 with a decent turn radius, rocker tip and as long or slightly longer than my everyday ski. and i'd try before i buy if at all possible.

reality is your ability has more to do with it than the ski itself BUT a great ski can give you the feeling of confidence and some stability that comes with width underfoot. IMHO.

 

[gostan]

A "Swiss Army " 1 ski quiver doesn't really exist no matter how the ski manufacturers over-promote the same. I have three pairs of skis in my current quiver, ranging from 81 to 98 to 112 under foot. But I ski 40-60 days a year with 7-10 days out west. I guess that if I skied less and had to pick 1 pair of skis for NE conditions, i might consider something in the 88-90 under foot range.

 

[SIKSKIER]

I beg to differ with ski length not mattering.Shorter skis have a shorter turning radius in general so it has to make some difference if your forced to make shorter turns in real tight trees.I know my old standard 210 cm skis couldn't touch my 188'sin tight trees.Of course sidecut does play a part in that also.

 

[HowieT2]

I too agree with Revercoil. Shorter definitely doesn't mean better, especially in the east when you don't know if the trees are going to be dust on crust or pow. My all mountain skis are K2 Kung Fujas. My feeling is that a true all mountain ski should be higher than 90 and lower than 110 at the waist. The dimension on these are 133-102-127. I truly enjoy them and I have skied everything from tight couloirs to tight tree lines in the east and they truly handle everything beautiful. I have also found that these are one of the most forgiving skis in the bumps.

Oh yea, and there are some great all mountain-one quiver skis out there including the Kung Fujas! What about the Bonafide or Cochise? Or even the Rossi S3 and Kastle BMX 98?

I am totally flummoxed by the whole ski buying scenario. I understand your argument that shorter skis wont make you ski trees better and dont disagree. They are easier to maneuver in certain tight situations. However, what advantage does a longer ski provide???
I'm riding the line profit 90's at 176 and my only issue with them is they chatter on steep boilerplate ice. dont think longer would address that issue.

 

[marcski]

It's the skier not the skis.

With that said (which I've been saying for years!), no one ski will be fantastic at everything on the hill in varying conditions. Period.

 

[Huck_It_Baby]

Depends on your ability and style of skiing I think. Can't say there is one magic pair of boards that are going to work for YOU.

I would look into the Line Sir Francis Bacon. I have the 2011-2012 model. I ski this thing on EVERYTHING and love it! Powder, trees, bumps, steeps, park, pillows, ice, groomers. I even have AT bindings on them.

It's 108 underfoot which you might think is too wide for bumps or tight trees but the ski handles like a charm. I have 178 length but is feels shorter than it is so I recommend going longer than you might think you need.

The only time I had any issue with the ski was bombing big, fast open lines on questionable snow in the Jackson back country. The ski is just not meant for super, super high speeds but everyone where else it shines like the North Star.

 

[AdironRider]

Whatever you choose, just remember the ski/board beneath your feet is not going to make you some amazing skier all of a sudden.

As a recovering gear whore, I can't tell you how much coin I've wasted on multiple skis/boards/boots etc.

I disagree with almost everyone but Riv in the fact that you can most definitely find a ski that can do it all. Anyone who thinks otherwise is more so trying to justify a purchase IMO.

Its not like you cant ski powder on a ski that isnt 100+, especially on the East Coast. Same with rocker boards. Rocker on the East coast is going to be worse for you on all but the deepest days. Don't let the marketing fool you, rocker is certianly good for certain conditions, but I would hate it if I was stuck on icy groomers for the majority of my season. All the pros ride regular camber and market the rocker for their sponsors. Remember this.

My wife skis 5 year old 105mm Gotamas with regular camber and kills it. Its a men's ski so the stiffness sorta compensates for it being wider on the groomers, but is still an amazing ski off piste.

 

[MadMadWorld]

I beg to differ with ski length not mattering.Shorter skis have a shorter turning radius in general so it has to make some difference if your forced to make shorter turns in real tight trees.I know my old standard 210 cm skis couldn't touch my 188'sin tight trees.Of course sidecut does play a part in that also.

Comparing 188s that you own now to 210 straight skis is like night and day. Turning radius means absolute squat if you are truly skiing tight trees. In tight trees, I would much rather have a longer ski that does a better job of fighting through tough snow then a shorter ski that gets bogged down. I guess it's all relative though to what the skier feels is "tight trees". In this case the poster is talking about MRG where the conditions get more variable and the trees get more tighter then any other place in the east.

 

[Huck_It_Baby]

Okay... time to commence most other posters chiming in with "get ski X. I ski it and its awesome!" for two dozen different models. Ready, set, go!

Hey nothing wrong with giving some first hand reviews of skis for the guy. Might help him to narrow down his choices on why we all like our models.