Best All Mountain Ski?

[BenedictGomez]

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.

But as you noted, there is terrain much tighter than 6-foot gaps (and more common than your analysis really). Granted, yes, as you say it's not "typical" and it does make up a smaller percentage of your tree skiing day, but..... it's there. There are some spots for instance at Jay where you might need to make it through 20 or 30 yards of tight trees to be rewarded by an area that is the path less traveled (i.e. people dont know it's there or said, "screw that").

As for your 186 down to 170 scenario, it depends on the wants of that particular skier. But again, IF either ski provides adequate floatation, and it is the "tree ski" in the quiver, there's absolutely no point in going with the 186. If the ski is for all-mountain, then sure, go with the 186, but this conversation has been and is regarding tree-specific skis. The wideness of modern skis has allowed for proper float in VERY short skis with a shorter turn radious and a lower swing.

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

That's where I'm going with that.

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?

This is where I believe the old-school logic and fallacy of "longer= better skier" comes into play. Because I'm at a loss for the logic in going long with a tree ski, unless you're a really big guy who needs length for float. But even then you'd have to be pretty big given the new technology.

I also think, as I eluded to way, way earlier in this thread, that many (most?) people, even many serious skiers are unaware of the relative nature of surface area and float. Going back to that Icelantic Shaman example from earlier, as mathematical coincidence would have it, a 161cm SHORT version of that ski would provide exactly the same floatation as the 186cm version of the Atomic Theory (1959sq/cm versus 1993sq/cm), which is the ski Riverc0il stated he favors. Yet the Shamen, which is a ski often purchased by the tree-skiing set J.Spin alludes to, yields that flotation at a full 10 inches shorter, and will an eye-popping radious differential of 12m versus 20m! That's relevant no matter how you slice it. Of course, if the skier is fairly tall a 161 might well be too short, but if you stepped up to the 173 version you'd now gain superior float characteristics and only increase the radius to 15 versus 20, still a significant advantage in tight areas.

Sorry to "math dork out" here for a bit, but I think math is the best way to empiracally demonstrate the modern differences.

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......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).

This will be my 2012/13 equipment experiment. I want to join the "short tree crew" and demo some of these tree-specialist models. I already know about how much surface area I require for proper float at my weight (165lbs -170lbs), and it should be a fun experiment trying the super fat shorties.

 

[HowieT2]

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.

Thanks.

 

[JimG.]

Thanks.

I choose to get my 10 year old slightly longer skis with less sidecut...I feel that type of ski is a bit more versatile, especially in bumps.
I emphasize the term slightly.

 

[gmcunni]

Icelantic Shamans (and others) no idea how prices compare -
http://www.evo.com/shop/icelantic/y...edium=email&utm_campaign=2012-09-10_Icelantic

 

[Puck it]

Icelantic Shamans (and others) no idea how prices compare -
http://www.evo.com/shop/icelantic/y...edium=email&utm_campaign=2012-09-10_Icelantic

Funny. The Scout is listed as a youth ski now!!!!!!!

 

[crank]

First, add me to the looking for new skis list. Not too fat, OK for all around use, sacrifice ice and groomers performance for back country and trees. I intend to mount AT bindings and will be about 50/50 inbounds and out mostly in Northern VT.

I currently ski an older pair of Solomon 1080's twin tips 188cm and 104mm at the waist.

I think I prefer something a little narrower, probable 190's range. And shorter, probably 175ish.

Second, Regarding the debate about the tightness of trees skied, I prefer a shorter ski just to make it easier to maneuver when I am bushwhacking or just plain stuck and need to turn around and try a different tack...or to lift them out of heavy snow... or to carry on my back or over my shoulder. Most of the time I am fine with the 188's but occasionally I wish I had shorter, lighter boards strapped on. I do not care about stability preferring something light and quick and easy to turn. A little rocker would be nice for floatation.