East Coast All-around Skis

[kbroderick]

I'm looking for input on skis. I've got GS skis and long skis for when I want to rip turns on the groomers, but my all-around (woods / powder / teaching / etc) skis are looking a bit rough. I've already got a set of AT bindings on order, so I need to find a pair of skis that meet my needs and can be mounted with non-manufacturer bindings. I had wanted to go with the Zenith Z9, but it only works with Rossi bindings and is thus out of the running. The characteristics I like about the Z9 are:* slalom-sized turning radius (14m)
* stable at speed, even in a 162cm
* waist is just a bit wider than a race ski (74mm in this case; overall dimensions are 126/74/105)
* will hold on firm snow

I've been unable to locate anything particularly similar in a quick review of options; most of the not-quite-slim-waisted skis I've found offer less sidecut (e.g. the B2 or Dirty Bird from Rossi, the Karhu Kodiak, et al).

I'm going to look into the differences between the B2 and the Dirty Bird, but I'd appreciate any input on skis that might fit the bill.

Thanks,
Kevin

 

[riverc0il]

have you considered the dynastar legend 8000? i have a pair mounted with AT and mounted with look p12s, great ski. superb tree ski and decent float for not being a strictly pow ski. the 8000 radius may look big, but this ski is one of the most nimble skis i have ever been on and can cut turns left and right on a dime.

 

[kbroderick]

have you considered the dynastar legend 8000? i have a pair mounted with AT and mounted with look p12s, great ski. superb tree ski and decent float for not being a strictly pow ski. the 8000 radius may look big, but this ski is one of the most nimble skis i have ever been on and can cut turns left and right on a dime.

I hadn't considered it, and it does seem to fall into the "close-but-not-quite" shape category (at 116/79/102, it's comparable to a B2 or the Karhu Kodiak). How does it hold up on hardpack? I don't exactly get to chose the snow conditions every time I go out (I will be teaching a bit and doing a bit of patrolling this year), so being able to handle classic New England snow is important.

Also, this may seem like an odd question, but do they feel like Dynastars? I don't know how to describe it, but most of the Dynastars I've skied in the past (including my Skiercross 66's) have a characteristic feel, that's almost twitchy and damp at the same time.

The Stockli Rotor is actually looking really, really tempting right now; the shape is very close to the Z9, and it's actually available flat. I'm just nervous considering a ski from a brand I've never actually skied before.

Thanks for the input.

 

[riverc0il]

i think i understand your "close but not quite" comment as meaning is it a typical "all mountain expert ski:" good at everything, great at absolutely nothing. most of those mid-fats that fall into that range i skied a few years go (been three or four years since that demo day where i covered them all, i assume not much as changed) and i found the 8000 particularly strong in certain situations unlike many of the other skis. do they handle classic new england snow? yea, they do okay. i have a pair of gs boards though if i plan on skiing groomers all day. these puppies were made for natural snow and trees (at least they way i ski them...), and are passable in hard pack conditions. but you said you already had a GS board and didn't mention needing something for the new england hard pack groomers which is why i through that out. elan m666 i found similar to the 8000, not as nimble, a bit more damp, but liked the hard pack more. as always, ymmv.

 

[rogue rider]

I have to ask why you want to mount AT bindings? It seems a bit at odds with the intended use of the ski you are looking for.

If you are using the ski for strictly lift accessed skiing, it would seem that there is little benefit to using an AT binding. If on the other hand you plan on using it to access side country/back country terrain then I wonder what conditions would be worthy of the effort. For me it would be one of two things:
1. Untracked soft snow in which case AT bindings are the obvious choice but why not use a ski designed more for pow?
2. Late season corn / hard pack in which case the snow is generally firm enough that just putting the skis on your pack and walking is not that difficult since you are not post holing every step.

 

[kbroderick]

I have to ask why you want to mount AT bindings? It seems a bit at odds with the intended use of the ski you are looking for.

If you are using the ski for strictly lift accessed skiing, it would seem that there is little benefit to using an AT binding. If on the other hand you plan on using it to access side country/back country terrain then I wonder what conditions would be worthy of the effort. For me it would be one of two things:
1. Untracked soft snow in which case AT bindings are the obvious choice but why not use a ski designed more for pow?
2. Late season corn / hard pack in which case the snow is generally firm enough that just putting the skis on your pack and walking is not that difficult since you are not post holing every step.

I live at a resort surrounded by thousands of acres of backcountry terrain, much of which is worth skinning to. I can't afford to get one pair of on-hill utility skis and a pair of backcountry skis this year, so it's gonna be one pair for all of the above. I'm accustomed to a 66mm-ish waist and a 14m-ish sidecut, the latter of which is quite useful in the trees and the former of which could use a bit of fattening.

(Besides which, the lifts here turn from the day after Thanksgiving until the first weekend in April; the snow tends to last a bit longer on both ends.)

 

[rogue rider]

I live at a resort surrounded by thousands of acres of backcountry terrain, much of which is worth skinning to. I can't afford to get one pair of on-hill utility skis and a pair of backcountry skis this year, so it's gonna be one pair for all of the above. I'm accustomed to a 66mm-ish waist and a 14m-ish sidecut, the latter of which is quite useful in the trees and the former of which could use a bit of fattening.

(Besides which, the lifts here turn from the day after Thanksgiving until the first weekend in April; the snow tends to last a bit longer on both ends.)

Sorry, wasn't trying to be a PITA. But since you already have GS that would be good for groomers and hard snow conditions and you want something for trees (soft snow usually), pow (soft snow) and teaching, it seems that a ski made for soft snow might actually better suit your needs.

Then again, I am just a stupid snowboarder.

 

[kbroderick]

Sorry, wasn't trying to be a PITA. But since you already have GS that would be good for groomers and hard snow conditions and you want something for trees (soft snow usually), pow (soft snow) and teaching, it seems that a ski made for soft snow might actually better suit your needs.

The increased float doesn't make up for the trade-offs in a true soft-snow ski (particularly the reduced sidecut to get the wider body tip to tail) in my experience (and based on the type of skiing I expect to do). It's a lot more work to turn a larger-radius ski, whereas it's not particularly difficult to open it up on a smaller-radius ski and get a little more float out of the ski.

Then again, I am just a stupid snowboarder.

Isn't that redundant? :razz:

 

[AHM]

My two cents...........

KB: I would consider the B3 before the B2. Both will ski fine on groomers, but the B3 will be better in woods, Camels hump, and the Bolton Backcountry that you will hit. Dirty bird is basically the same ski. Sick bird is like a scratch BC dimensionally. I am considering the scratch for my next AT setup.

Waist: 74 mm: Too slender. Go to 83 or larger. Pay no attention to the turn radius. I use a 90 mm waist, with a 26 m turn radius as my primary ski. It works fine at slow speeds, with little or no work turning. Don't let either measurement bother you.

All skis are quick and easy to turn on groomers, so have the ski work best in the funky, it'll be no problem on a groomer. For that you want a wider waist and it will give you more overall versatility (early and late season)

Stockli: careful here. Skis are overall very damp. I use the Stormrider Scott Schmidt (124 - 91 - 112). They are not my favorite woods ski due to the dampness and heaviness. I like them, but find them a better ice ski and western board, than an eastern woods boards. That said, the skis are high quality and have solid edge hold. The edge hold, dampness, and stability at speed will blow away all other skis. But not a ski I'd use as a full time AT ski.

From all that you post, I would simply get a fatter ski and recognize it'll turn just fine for ya.

Legend 8000: I'd actually go with the 8800, but in terms of do these ski like a dynastar--you bet, has the Dynastar snap at the beginning of a turn, but still feels damp.

We constantly talk this issue about fat skis and ease of turning etc. I really think this comes down to the skier.

Not convinced ?? If you are not buying the ski for the next month, we can hook and you can use a pr of 90 mm skis I have with a Fritschi and just see for yourself. I can hook you with a 185 XXX (riv hates the triple) or if that is too big I can grab a 165 pocket rocket.

 

[riverc0il]

Legend 8000: I'd actually go with the 8800, but in terms of do these ski like a dynastar--you bet, has the Dynastar snap at the beginning of a turn, but still feels damp.

We constantly talk this issue about fat skis and ease of turning etc. I really think this comes down to the skier.

AHM is spot on the mark that it really comes down to the skier, but to address the 8000 vs. the 8800, i essentially have both of these skis both rigged with touring bindings, and they ski very differently. if i am going to be turning a lot and not deep pow, 8000s baby. they both have the same tip and tail with 10mm difference at the waist, that is significant for non-powder turning, imo. 8800 all the way for pow baby.

 

[rogue rider]

Isn't that redundant? :razz:

I dont get it.




:wink:

 

[bigbog]

....

Kevin,
Fwiw...I'll be in climbing-boots/snowshoes on the ascent...and changing at the top into all-alpine for descents. Hotronics are in skiboots with some neoprene as cuff-covers. We shall see how it goes. In addition, adding boot-gloves onto the lower shells during ascents would be a good idea....no cold shells to climb into!...just have to tie the snowshoes onto the pack and stuff the boots into pack....not squishing my lunch;-)

That's my $.01 for this season of climbing for turns....
Looking for Mo' Snow this season.......and will go to any length to get to it...:-D

 

[kbroderick]

Kevin,
Fwiw...I'll be in climbing-boots/snowshoes on the ascent...and changing at the top into all-alpine for descents. Hotronics are in skiboots with some neoprene as cuff-covers. We shall see how it goes. In addition, adding boot-gloves onto the lower shells during ascents would be a good idea....no cold shells to climb into!...just have to tie the snowshoes onto the pack and stuff the boots into pack....not squishing my lunch;-)

That's my $.01 for this season of climbing for turns....
Looking for Mo' Snow this season.......and will go to any length to get to it...:-D

Been there, done that, and that's why I'm getting an AT setup this year. That and I want to be able to keep up with the guys who have AT gear, of course.

(OK, admittedly I didn't have the Hotronics or the Neoprene covers...but, quite frankly, I hate changing in and out of ski boots, and doing it that way tends to limit me to one run. And there was also the one day where I had my hiking boots attached to the compression straps on the outside of my pack for the descent, except that one wasn't really attached.)

To everyone else, I appreciate the feedback. I'm really leery of going wider than low 80s because I know that there's a significant tradeoff in turning performance and quickness; I realize that the Z9s are not generally seen as an off-piste ski, but the slalom-ski-with-extra-waist shape worked well for me both on the groomers and off when I was out in Utah last spring. I feel that my skiing style is tuned towards having plenty of sidecut to use, in part because I'm not particularly big or strong. I'm a little nervous in picking new skis because I'm also going to a much stiffer boot than what I've been skiing in (from a Rossi Soft boot to the Garmont Adrenalin), and I'm worried that the additional leverage of a stiff boot will encourage me to overpower a softer ski (such as the very-worn Rossi T-Power Vipers that I've been skiing on).

Any additional thoughts appreciated...at this point, I'm leaning strongly towards the Dirty Bird, although the Altibird is strongly tempting. The Legend 8000 or 8800 would be tempting, except that I don't particularly like that Dynastar feel. The Stockli Rotor would be tempting if it was so pricey (I don't think I can afford a pair of those this year).

(This is assuming that I can't find a satisfactory way to attach my Silvrettas to a pair of Z9s, which I haven't quite given up on yet.)