Best All Mountain Ski?

[BenedictGomez]

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.

This is exactly what you said last season, but what you're describing in the above is NOT tight tree skiing. This is the issue I have (and others had), the term "tight" is subjective, but "elevator shaft" and "ski width" tree lines are NOT tight.

Now, I'd agree with you that if you cant ski the type of width you're describing on 186s, then yes, perhaps you shouldn't be in there in the first place. But the "tight" I'm describing is near body-width tree skiing, or spots where you have to be almost scraping trees, or where you cant side-slip or drop into something sideways, because the spacing is tighter than the dimensions of your skis. This is the type of skiing you can seek out in zillions of places at Jay Peak etc... if you wish. If you want to spend the day tree skiing like that, I see no point in dragging out your longer skis, if you have something shorter and fat enough in your quiver.

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???

In very tight trees? None. I mean, all things being equal, length will increase float to some extent due to increased surface area, but so too would, all things being equal going fatter with shorter skis = math. Keep in mind, in this argument, I'm talking about the shorter ski SOLELY for tight tree skiing. In other words, if I was going to spend the day on groomed trails with my girlfriend, would I use that shorter ski? Of course not. If I was going to spend the day in easier (likely marked) glades would I use that shorter ski? Probably not. Different tools for different jobs is all I'm trying to get across here.

 

[deadheadskier]

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.

What it comes down to is performance expectations. I've got a 4 ski quiver that ranges from 70mm underfoot to 110mm. I can ski all of them in any kind of conditions I encounter. Just because I can ski any of them in all conditions, doesn't mean I don't have a major preference for using one pair over the other in certain conditions. My 70, 84, 92 waist skis are far inferior in conditions deeper than 8 inches than the 110s. For bumps, I'm going to be on the 70mm ski. They perform light years better than any of the other boards. If I'm skiing a hard pack day, I'm on the Fischer Motive 84s; the other three pairs don't come close to offering the same carving performance.

I've used the analogy before and I'll use it again. You can turn a philips head screw with a flat head screwdriver, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

 

[hammer]

Been reading single all-mountain ski vs. quiver discussions for years now...and one question I have is how many skis and of what types would be best for East Coast skiing? It's fine to want to have a 3+ ski quiver, but is it really necessary?

I have two skis at this point, a pair of Fischer Progressors that I basically used all last season on the hardpack/icy groomers and a pair of older all-mountain skis that didn't do much for me on the one day I skied chopped up powder. Plan on selling the all-mountain skis I think, but at my level I can't see how the Progressors will be a "bad" ski for most of what I will see this season. Will they be the optimal ski? Certainly not in some cases...but at this point I don't think I'd be able to tell much difference.

 

[Puck it]

The Skilogik Rockstars on order will be the powder ski for me. Anything over 4". Expectations are lowered since last year. The Hell and Backs will be the non pow day ski.

 

[gmcunni]

Been reading single all-mountain ski vs. quiver discussions for years now...and one question I have is how many skis and of what types would be best for East Coast skiing? It's fine to want to have a 3+ ski quiver, but is it really necessary?

i'd envision a 3 ski quiver would be ideal for east coast, perhaps 4, depending on the skier's areas of interest.

1. everyday ski - 85-90m "all mountain ski"
2. bump ski, if you like bumps (i do)
3. fat pow ski for the (hopefully not) occasional 8+ days
4. race ski - if you happen to race. (i don't)

 

[deadheadskier]

I have the same mindset as gmcunni.

1. bump specific ski
2. mid-fat all mountain that has great edge hold
3. powder ski

While it seems unreasonable to some to have a "quiver" of skis, one thing to keep in mind is that having multiple pairs of skis extends the life of them. For instance, my powder skis are 12 years old. They're beat to hell and in need of replacement, but still work well on deep days. My bump specific skis are six years old and still in near perfect condition as I only use them 3-4 days a year. Unless I start skiing in Vermont where it's easier to encounter great bumps more frequently, those skis will likely last me 6+ years more.

 

[WWF-VT]

The Skilogik Rockstars on order will be the powder ski for me. Anything over 4". Expectations are lowered since last year. The Hell and Backs will be the non pow day ski.

You need to be optimistic...let's hope that this year you are always on the Skilogik Rockstars while your Hell and Backs are colecting dust in the closet at home

 

[MadMadWorld]

This is exactly what you said last season, but what you're describing in the above is NOT tight tree skiing. This is the issue I have (and others had), the term "tight" is subjective, but "elevator shaft" and "ski width" tree lines are NOT tight.

Now, I'd agree with you that if you cant ski the type of width you're describing on 186s, then yes, perhaps you shouldn't be in there in the first place. But the "tight" I'm describing is near body-width tree skiing, or spots where you have to be almost scraping trees, or where you cant side-slip or drop into something sideways, because the spacing is tighter than the dimensions of your skis. This is the type of skiing you can seek out in zillions of places at Jay Peak etc... if you wish. If you want to spend the day tree skiing like that, I see no point in dragging out your longer skis, if you have something shorter and fat enough in your quiver.



In very tight trees? None. I mean, all things being equal, length will increase float to some extent due to increased surface area, but so too would, all things being equal going fatter with shorter skis = math. Keep in mind, in this argument, I'm talking about the shorter ski SOLELY for tight tree skiing. In other words, if I was going to spend the day on groomed trails with my girlfriend, would I use that shorter ski? Of course not. If I was going to spend the day in easier (likely marked) glades would I use that shorter ski? Probably not. Different tools for different jobs is all I'm trying to get across here.

The point is not that a longer ski is better than shorter ones in tight trees. It's that I would rather have a longer/wider/rockered ski in trees than a shorter one that isn't as wide or has rocker. Anyone who doesn't think a rockered ski is helpful in the trees at places like MRG has clearly never skied on a nice pair of rockered skis. I'm not talking ab Moment's Ghost Chants, my skis only have a slight rocker on the tip. The rocker helps me stay on top of crust and keeps the ski really light and bouncy which makes it a lot easier to make tight compact hop turns when the terrain requires.

Here is Ryan Hawks and the guys from MRG. This is how you ski tight trees on normal length skis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q0rMjaG_Uk

 

[gmcunni]

While it seems unreasonable to some to have a "quiver" of skis, one thing to keep in mind is that having multiple pairs of skis extends the life of them.

i think i'll be hitting a few ski swaps this year to try and find some older skis to create my quiver. probably a 100m+ pow ski would be my first acquistion.

it is funny but as I've avoided a ski quiver I've come to realize in other areas of my life the idea of a quiver is quite common. Cars for example (not that i have extra cars laying around) - we have a large SUV, the Jeep Wrangler and a 97 Camry. Depending on what type of driving i want to/need to do i will grab a different set of keys.

drove to NYC last night for a show - no doubt we take the Camry because if it gets dinged i don't care and it actually get the best gas mileage of all 3.

 

[ALLSKIING]

I have the same mindset as gmcunni.

1. bump specific ski
2. mid-fat all mountain that has great edge hold
3. powder ski

While it seems unreasonable to some to have a "quiver" of skis, one thing to keep in mind is that having multiple pairs of skis extends the life of them. For instance, my powder skis are 12 years old. They're beat to hell and in need of replacement, but still work well on deep days. My bump specific skis are six years old and still in near perfect condition as I only use them 3-4 days a year. Unless I start skiing in Vermont where it's easier to encounter great bumps more frequently, those skis will likely last me 6+ years more.

I go with the same idea:

Teneighty's for the bumps 66 waist
Coomba's for powder 102 waist
Rictors my main ski 80 waist

I do use my older recons 78 waist for my rock skies...so I usually like 4 pair.

 

[gostan]

It may be Ok to recommend a particular ski (hey we all like to jonse a bit a out our current fav) but when it come to recommending a particular length ski, all bets are off the board. Way too many variables such as height, weight, terrain, conditions, not too mention skier type.

 

[Puck it]

I am getting rid of all skis under 88mm in my quiver. I just never use them anymore.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

+ 1.

 

[thetrailboss]

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.

Those mid-farts ski pretty well.....

:lol:

 

[Puck it]

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.

He's an angry elf today!

 

[riverc0il]

Those mid-farts ski pretty well.....

:lol:

It was originally a typo but I thought it was fitting during review.

 

[ScottySkis]

I do not know if these are the best but I got a great pair of Dynastar Legends a couple years ago and they are great and I went for bigger ones then I should had and regret that a little bit, this site is great for cheap skis- http://www.evo.com/

 

[MadMadWorld]

I go with the same idea:

Teneighty's for the bumps 66 waist
Coomba's for powder 102 waist
Rictors my main ski 80 waist

I do use my older recons 78 waist for my rock skies...so I usually like 4 pair.

That's a mighty fine quiver. I have owned all of those at one time or another. I also use my old Recons as rock/exploring ski. Those things have taken a pounding and keep going. The amount of objects thats ski has skied over and into is mighty impressive!

 

[ALLSKIING]

That's a mighty fine quiver. I have owned all of those at one time or another. I also use my old Recons as rock/exploring ski. Those things have taken a pounding and keep going. The amount of objects thats ski has skied over and into is mighty impressive!

Yeah, I love them all for what they do! I hear ya on the Recons....Mine are pretty shot can't even get them sharp anymore but still ski great in the right conditions.

 

[Puck it]

I had a pair of Recons. I could. I skied them like 10x over three years. Hated them. I sold them to coworker.