Best All Mountain Ski?

My old RX8s are still holding up well...66mm waist and only 170cm. Wood/titanium core. Integrated bindings. Great carvers...not great in trees.

My Watea 78's are 10mm wider underfoot and 181cm in length. Wood core, flat with a light 2 piece binding. Love these skis in bumps and trees, wouldn't ski them any shorter.

The RX8's are better on ice and prefer short but definitely round turns. 78's better in bumps, trees and crud; just more versatile and much quicker than the RX8's.

Shorter does not mean quicker.

riverc0il said:

We can agree to disagree here. I ski elevator shafts that are only a ski width on a 186cm ski. Never had a problem. Any one who is gone into the woods with me can attest how crazy I can be in snuffing how powder in tight and narrow places.

Click to expand...

No, see; this is the problem, you dont ski tight trees. This was last year's discussion. "Elevator shaft" tree skiing is NOT a "tight" line, nor is 186cm wide tree skiing.... that's over a SIX FOOT gap for God's sake. You are the only person I've encountered on these boards or en general that considers a 5 or 6 foot gap a "tight" tree line. I'm sorry, but it's just not.

riverc0il said:

Longer skis aren't slowing me down or causing me to have difficulty or crash.

Click to expand...

Skiing 6 foot gaps? I should certainly HOPE not. If you felt the need to "slow down" or were worried about crashing on "elevator shaft" wide gaps, well, that person would have no business being in the trees in the first place.

riverc0il said:

And one reason is a shorter ski wouldn't be able to support my weight and would actually make my skiing worse... it is about flex and weight, not length.

Click to expand...

Yes, which I've (repeatedly) pointed out. Weight is more important, IMO, in terms of generalizing than height as a solo consideration for the ski. So if someone is a big guy and weigh 220lbs (or big because they're out of shape), yeah, a shorter ski isnt going to work for them, but that is a completely different and independent subject than just blanket-statement'ing that short skis arent needed in the trees. Frankly, for a relatively short (the kid is only 5'7") person who is a featherweight (kid is 130lbs) and whose father said doesn't typically ski fast and spends "most of the day in the trees"? Yeah, I'd recommend that person should ski on a shorter ski.

Uh-oh...I'm sensing a bit of pent up Killington angst here.

Time to start a K thread!

Frankly, the debate just means that picking the "best" all mountain ski is pretty tough when you ask a diverse group of skiers.

mikestaple said:

I loved my new Line Prophet 90s last year. Bumps, crud, trees, groomers, etc. I bought them last year so I won't reload anytime soon. But if I did, I would step up to the 98s. The prophet is a great ski.........

Click to expand...

I bought a prior year, 2011 model (179cm) last Labor Day Weekend. I had previously been skiing on a shorter, stiffer ski. I had some issues adjusting when I got to more challenging terrain - steeper, bumpier, etc. I did think they held there edge well on ice. By the end of March, I really was enjoying them but there was a transition - I really had to stand over the ski and keep it under me - maybe it required I ski better or be better conditioned! Bottoms were pretty tough. I did find on a day where there was a thick frozen glaze over powder (out west), the ski was almost un-turnable. I think I would probably move up to the 98s too. I bought mine for something like $250 so I can't complain.

JimG. said:

Frankly, the debate just means that picking the "best" all mountain ski is pretty tough when you ask a diverse group of skiers.

Click to expand...

Yes, there's a bit more than that. It's this old-school 1970s-1980s mentality that "longer is for better skiers", this one-size-fits-all perception that if you're not skiing on a 196cm ski, well,,,,then you must have a small penis. It's macho hogwash.

There are different skis for different applications, different tools for different jobs, and frankly, to tell people that if you're going shorter than "X cm" in the trees, it's because you're not a good skier, is just flat out wrong. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

This kid is perhaps the perfect demonstration of that fact. If he truly does spend almost the entire day in the trees as was stated, at a weight of 130lbs and a height of a mere 5'7", and it was stated he's a person who doesn't like to ski very aggressive/fast?

Then why on earth would anyone suggest he ski on a long set of skis?

Angus said:

I bought a prior year, 2011 model (179cm) last Labor Day Weekend. I had previously been skiing on a shorter, stiffer ski. I had some issues adjusting when I got to more challenging terrain - steeper, bumpier, etc. I did think they held there edge well on ice. By the end of March, I really was enjoying them but there was a transition - I really had to stand over the ski and keep it under me - maybe it required I ski better or be better conditioned! Bottoms were pretty tough. I did find on a day where there was a thick frozen glaze over powder (out west), the ski was almost un-turnable. I think I would probably move up to the 98s too. I bought mine for something like $250 so I can't complain.

Click to expand...

I have the Line Prophet 90 in 179cm as well. I use it as my all-mountain ski and think it fits the bill there pretty well. Not that great in the moguls, but I didn't expect something 90 underneath to be so. It has solid float (I'm 168lbs) even in 5 or 6 inches of new snow, holds a decent edge, turns easily, busts right over crud and natural snow trails, and is capable in the trees. The only place I dont like it is at extremely (somewhat abnormal) high-speeds, where it begins to chatter a little bit, but like with the moguls, it aint a race ski, so you get what you expect.

riverc0il said:

Any one who is gone into the woods with me can attest how crazy I can be in snuffing how powder in tight and narrow places.

Click to expand...

BenedictGomez said:

No, see; this is the problem, you dont ski tight trees.

Click to expand...

Okay, I think we are done now. First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with me nor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact. You are no longer debating with logic and reason but arguing by suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, don't understand the topic, and lied about my experience. I say we will need to agree to disagree and you say I have no experience with the topic. This is no longer worth discussing since my experience in the area has been marginalized and the debate has shifted from your attacking the argument to attacking the person.

FWIW, I used to share your position on this issue.

BenedictGomez said:

Yes, there's a bit more than that. It's this old-school 1970s-1980s mentality that "longer is for better skiers", this one-size-fits-all perception that if you're not skiing on a 196cm ski, well,,,,then you must have a small penis. It's macho hogwash.

There are different skis for different applications, different tools for different jobs, and frankly, to tell people that if you're going shorter than "X cm" in the trees, it's because you're not a good skier, is just flat out wrong. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

This kid is perhaps the perfect demonstration of that fact. If he truly does spend almost the entire day in the trees as was stated, at a weight of 130lbs and a height of a mere 5'7", and it was stated he's a person who doesn't like to ski very aggressive/fast?

Then why on earth would anyone suggest he ski on a long set of skis?

Click to expand...

Well, I never said that. And I'm not measuring anyone's penis either.

The length of ski should not only be determined by ability, height, and weight, but it should also be dependent on the characteristics of the ski itself. That's all I was saying.

I know it is tough for kids because they really can't demo stuff either, at least not at demo days.

This discussion has veered totally off topic. My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing. what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain. kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer. He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.

riverc0il said:

Okay, I think we are done now. First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with me nor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact. You are no longer debating with logic and reason but arguing by suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, don't understand the topic, and lied about my experience. I say we will need to agree to disagree and you say I have no experience with the topic. This is no longer worth discussing since my experience in the area has been marginalized and the debate has shifted from your attacking the argument to attacking the person.

FWIW, I used to share your position on this issue.

Click to expand...

Point of reference might be helpful so we can put the disagreement to rest. For example, my picture underneath my screenname is at the top of 3 Cliffs. I dont think anyone can disagree that this is not tight trees. Nevermind, that opens up a whole new can of worms.....damn

HowieT2 said:

This discussion has veered totally off topic. My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing. what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain. kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer. He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.

Click to expand...

I coached kids to ski for years at Hunter.

I always noticed that kids would struggle at the start of the season after they got new and usually longer skis. They also struggle to grow into their larger bodies and often feel awkward at first. But this passes quickly.

I don't think that getting skis 10cm longer than optimal (whatever that is as we have determined in this thread) would not be a disaster but assume that he will feel a little weird at first until he gets used to them.

BenedictGomez said:

I have the Line Prophet 90 in 179cm as well. I use it as my all-mountain ski and think it fits the bill there pretty well. Not that great in the moguls, but I didn't expect something 90 underneath to be so. It has solid float (I'm 168lbs) even in 5 or 6 inches of new snow, holds a decent edge, turns easily, busts right over crud and natural snow trails, and is capable in the trees. The only place I dont like it is at extremely (somewhat abnormal) high-speeds, where it begins to chatter a little bit, but like with the moguls, it aint a race ski, so you get what you expect.

Click to expand...

So, three of us think the Line 90 is a good all mountain eastern ski. On steep bumps, I've found skiing a straight line is my best approach. Noticed the chatter too but I was skiing very fast in a big ski bowl out west.

personally, I subscribe to the "it's the skier not the ski" mentality. As I said, in my earlier post, I found fitness and techniques greatly improved my ski experience.

riverc0il said:

First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with menor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact.

Click to expand...

No, I never called you a liar, and I dont even see how you're concocting that. And I am perfectly willing to accept your "statements of what you ski as fact"..

What I am stating, is that from what you've literally written in these pages as being descriptive of "tight" tree skiing (elevator shaft wide, 186cm wide) is not tight tree skiing. Please reread what you wrote. You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing. Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that? So it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would hold a perception that going a bit shorter isnt handy in the trees, given that there wouldn't be any point for you dropping down from your 186cm given the tree skiing that you yourself say you're doing.

I apologize given you took my comments personal, but it's positively exasperating to me this mantra that there's no reason to ski less than "insert X size per height/weight", and even worse the comments you made that persons lacks in skill level if they wish to drop size for tree skiing, because yes, yes, there is/are reasons to drop/gain length given the sort of skiing being done.

JimG. said:

Well, I never said that. And I'm not measuring anyone's penis either.

The length of ski should not only be determined by ability, height, and weight, but it should also be dependent on the characteristics of the ski itself. That's all I was saying.

Click to expand...

My "penis" comment wasn't regarding your comments at all! It was about this perception that I believe exists in the sport among many that:

Longer ski = Better skier

Which as several here have noted is completely false.

And it's completely false due to the very next sentence you wrote, because you're correct that skill level, height, weight, ski characteristics and what the ski is to be used for all enter into the equation. IMHO, in 2012, alpine skiing is currently plagued with myriads of people who are skiing on skis that are unnecessarily long for them. I'd go as far as to call it an epidemic.

HowieT2 said:

My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing. what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain. kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer. He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.

Click to expand...

Given your son is going to be on these planks more than 40+ days in a season? Personally I wouldn't buy non-optimal skis, since that's a lot of days on snow and your son is obviously a pretty serious skier. Perhaps either rent for a season or two, or perhaps buy a used set of skis for $300 or $350 rather than making a big investment. Would either of those options work?

BenedictGomez said:

My "penis" comment wasn't about your comments! It was about this perception that I believe exists in the sport among many that:

Longer ski = Better skier

Which as several here have noted is completely false.

And it's completely false due to the very next sentence you wrote, because you're correct that skill level, height, weight, ski characteristics and what the ski is to be used for all enter into the equation. IMHO, in 2012, alpine skiing is currently plagued with myriads of people who are skiing on skis that are unnecessarily long for them. I'd go as far as to call it an epidemic.

Click to expand...

I knew that bud...but I'm one of those 60's-70's-80's skiers you refer to and I have never held the notion that longer ski=better skier.

Personally, I think ski manufacturers have gone overboard with the number of choices today. Too many.

Some skis ski better if skied longer due to their dimensions.

I also believe there is an epidemic of skiers who go for skis that are just too short for them whether due to body type, skill, or ski characteristics. To me, that's as bad and as counterproductive as skis that are too long.

Angus said:

So, three of us think the Line 90 is a good all mountain eastern ski. On steep bumps, I've found skiing a straight line is my best approach. Noticed the chatter too but I was skiing very fast in a big ski bowl out west.

Click to expand...

That ski has received about the best/most unanimously positive reviews I've ever seen in terms of a "one ski quiver" all-mountain ski, which admittedly was the deciding factor in my trying it. My opinion still holds that the "one ski quiver" is no less a mythical creature than the unicorn or the mermaid, but nevertheless it's an impressive ski. I'd like to try the 110 in icy conditions just for the hellofit to see how much grip would suffer from the 90.

I think Dynastar has an impressive line of all mountain ski's

http://www.dynastar.com/US/US/dynastar-skis-men-all-mountain.html

BenedictGomez said:

You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing. Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that?

Click to expand...

I do.

From Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, MRG (and any other VT tree mecca) to Cannon and Wildcat, to Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME, I can't think of single marked or heavily trafficked unmarked tree skiing area has trees tighter than 6 feet that is worth skiing. An area with trees that tight or tighter borderlines on closer to bushwacking and it's unlikely someone is linking many turns no matter how short their skis are. Most places, even off map, it's more like 10-15 feet plus between trees. Sure, you have gaps to shoot that are barely wider than shoulder width, but those typically open back up. When thinking of the true elevator type shaft terrain that's commonly skied, Pipeline at Stowe, Face Chutes at Jay etc, yes they have long stretches of widths in the 6 foot range, but when you're skiing that type of terrain, you're hoping for at least a few inches of snow to slow you down equally as much as throwing in check turns. I don't think someone Riv's size dropping down from a 186 to a 170 is going to make much of a difference; certainly not much a difference where any slight performance advantage gained in those situations would outweigh performance advantage lost in the vastly more common tree skiing areas. 16 cm = 6.2 inches. It's not that big of a difference. Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.

steamboat1 said:

I think Dynastar has an impressive line of all mountain ski's

http://www.dynastar.com/US/US/dynastar-skis-men-all-mountain.html

Click to expand...

I want to demo the 87's...I think I would like them.

deadheadskier said:

Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

On straight skis with little sidecut and 68mm underfoot.

BenedictGomez said:

You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing. Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that?

Click to expand...

deadheadskier said:

I do.

From Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, MRG (and any other VT tree mecca) to Cannon and Wildcat, to Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME, I can't think of single marked or heavily trafficked unmarked tree skiing area has trees tighter than 6 feet that is worth skiing. An area with trees that tight or tighter borderlines on closer to bushwacking and it's unlikely someone is linking many turns no matter how short their skis are. Most places, even off map, it's more like 10-15 feet plus between trees. Sure, you have gaps to shoot that are barely wider than shoulder width, but those typically open back up. When thinking of the true elevator type shaft terrain that's commonly skied, Pipeline at Stowe, Face Chutes at Jay etc, yes they have long stretches of widths in the 6 foot range, but when you're skiing that type of terrain, you're hoping for at least a few inches of snow to slow you down equally as much as throwing in check turns. I don't think someone Riv's size dropping down from a 186 to a 170 is going to make much of a difference; certainly not much a difference where any slight performance advantage gained in those situations would outweigh performance advantage lost in the vastly more common tree skiing areas. 16 cm = 6.2 inches. It's not that big of a difference. Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

I was about to respond like deadheadskier and say that I agreed as well. At least in terms of what I’m used to skiing around here in Northern Vermont, six feet between trees seemed pretty narrow. But I kept thinking about it and realized that it actually depends on what people are talking about – different interpretations of six-foot tree spacing can have people envisioning vastly different ski experiences. If we’re talking about roughly six-feet of space between every tree, then I think most people would consider that to be fairly open tree skiing once they see what that actually looks like (I’d say it’s actually fantastic spacing for tree skiing). When I thought about finding an example of that type of tree spacing, the first place that came to mind was Steamboat. Plenty of places around here have spacing like this as well, but I knew I’d be able to find some appropriate pictures with relatively even tree spacing from Steamboat very quickly because those images are sort of their bread and butter. I wanted to just stick the picture in here, but since it’s not mine, I think the appropriate method is just to provide the link from the site. Now as you look at the picture in the link below, skip past that first 30 feet of terrain below the camera position (which are a bit more open), and then you’re into a decent example of what it looks like to have six-foot spacing between every tree. I know it may not be exactly six feet of spacing between every tree in the image, but hopefully people get the idea:

http://tinyurl.com/9nt827r

An alternative interpretation of “six-foot tree spacing” is one of those long slots through the forest that has been cut at a width of six feet, with nothing but dense, impenetrable evergreens lining the sides. I didn’t try to find a picture to provide an example, but I figure most people have experienced these things. How “tight” one considers this type of line to be is still somewhat subjective, but it’s clearly a different ski experience than what is pictured in the link above. We come across these types of shots at Bolton sometimes, both in and out of season. I call it “one and done” style terrain. Depending on how steep the terrain is, you’re either talking about a bobsled track (lower angle), or dealing with the type of stuff deadheadkskier is talking about above – using snow to slow you down, check turns, etc. (higher angle). In either case, you’re not looking at much in the way of fresh tracks after the first person through has done their thing, and the option for creativity in what line you ski isn’t really there. It’s not that these shots are the world’s worst skiing (this type of terrain pops up in various spots, like various inlets and outlets for the Kitchen Wall at Stowe), and they can be fun, but being essentially unable to diverge from the narrow constraints of these slots is what makes them “tight”. Some of these may be natural (streambeds or whatever) but many of them are not, they were cut that way. This discussion has actually come up during some of our work days at Bolton, and the general vibe was that these things are a waste. It’s especially pointless when people cut these lines that are just a few feet wide on very steep terrain - one skier may be able to ping pong their way through and make a few turns amidst their side-slipping and tree grabbing, but that’s basically it. I’m certainly not condoning unauthorized tree cutting, and presumably in authorized situations people will have supervision that prevents the cutting of this sort of stuff, but whatever the case, my advice is to not waste time making these things. Selective removal of vegetation in a wider area produces something that is almost infinitely better than cutting down all the vegetation in a narrow swath. The number of line choices available in the narrow swath of terrain (one) gets increased exponentially if the line is made at double or triple the width while leaving an appropriate amount of trees in place, not to mention how much better the flow of the skiing can be. I know I digressed a bit there, but hopefully it provided some perspective on the topic of “tight” tree spacing.

On another note, I’m still confused about this concept of wanting “longer” skis for skiing in the trees, and I definitely fall into BenedictGomez’ camp on this topic. Slalom racers generally use shorter skiers for shorter radius turns and slower speeds, downhill racers use longer skis for the stability at high speeds etc, but those skis are not going to be very responsive for quick turns. Tree skiing generally involves turns with radii on the short end of the spectrum – so why are people trying to ride longer skis for that type of skiing? I get that people don’t want to ride something so short that it can’t “float” their weight in the powder, or perhaps they want the stability for landing airs, but beyond that, isn’t shorter going to be better in the trees? The speeds in the trees are generally low, the turns are often tight, and all things being equal, the same model ski in a longer length is simply going to have a lot more swing weight, more weight in general, and not fit through tight spaces as easily if it’s at any angle other than the direction of travel. We ski powder and trees pretty religiously here, and generally with advice from experts that sell skis, my skis have been getting shorter and shorter over the past decade, with fantastic results. Once I started Telemark skiing, I started going even shorter in those skis because I was finding that the longer Telemark stance was an added hassle in tight spaces like the trees. When I hop on my 180 cm CMH Volkl fats now, (granted they are not rockered and are not that light) they feel like such dogs (i.e. hard to move around) in tight terrain! They are great out in the open, and with their stability it feels like you can land airs of any magnitude, but getting them to make shorter radius turns is a bear, even in powder. I get that rockered skis are a lot different with respect to length, but from what I’ve seen recommended in the offerings from the various ski companies, the general trend is that one still wants longer skis for straight line, Alaska-style terrain, vs. shorter for slower speeds, tighter spaces, and tighter turns.

All things being equal, if someone comes along with a proposition and says that you have to either add 70 cm to your skis and ride a 250 cm ski, or take off 70 cm from your skis and ride a 110 cm ski (roughly the size of my sons’ skis, which many of us are often coveting when we watch them rip short-radius turns through tight spaces) which one is going to be the choice for relatively tight lines in the trees? These numbers are simply to make a point, but based on my experience on lots of different lengths of skis, I’d much rather spend my day in the trees on something short (and hopefully fat – like I saw on this guy at Bolton on the picture below from February 26[SUP]th[/SUP] of last year) than try to muscle a pair of 250 cm skis through the trees. I didn’t see the guy actually skiing on the skis below, but I’m pretty sure these sticks would have been a lot of fun in Bolton’s trees:



There has definitely been a trend back toward slightly longer skis in the past several seasons due to the addition of rocker taking away some running length, but what I’ve generally seen as advice from the tree-skiing, powder skiing gurus on SkiVT-L when someone makes an inquiry about a ski for getting into the trees around here in Northern Vermont, is to lean toward the shorter, fatter side. I’ve been trending this way with each new pair of skis and haven’t noticed anything being lost for the type of skiing we generally do (trees, powder, short-radius turns). In the spirit of the initial post, I’m not suggesting that someone should be looking for shorter skis as their all around ski, but I’d still like to see some discussion on the benefits of longer skis in the trees and why one would tip the scale on ski choice in that direction vs. the shorter side if they are looking for a ski to use in that environment.