Help me geek out on a new set of skis...

[tnt1234]

So, after breaking my bushwhackers, I replaced them with Blizzard Ruster 9s. And I like them fine. Seem a little still in the bumps, and I for groomers, I probably should have got them 188 instead of 180. Don't quite rail long turns the way I though they would, but whatever....they are super quick, and fun, and had a bit of float on the 15" day I had in march, so generally fine....

BUT.....

Last weekend in spring conditions my buddy was on his Scott Scrappers and was raving about the float, and nice, surfy, controlled slow turns in the trees....they are 115s, and he said they were fine in teh bumps, not great, but good....

So I think I need a pair of wider skis...

First question is, do I try for something a little wider to be my more-or-less daily driver, same the rustlers for true hardback, icy days....like a 105-110....or do I go 115 and just use the second set for soft or fresh snow days?

Second question....besides the scott scrapper, what should I look for?

I want a soft ski, no metal, a little camber under foot.

Ski season is over...ski buying season is just starting....

 

[Ski the Moguls]

When I demoed wider skis this year I was shocked at how much heavier and slower to turn the wider skis were. Even going from 90 to 100 under foot was a huge difference to me. I ended up preferring that the extra float and stability I was seeking come from a slightly longer ski rather than a wider one. I know this opinion is not shared by everyone here. Best advice is to demo before you buy. Like me, you might also be surprised by the results.

 

[tnt1234]

When I demoed wider skis this year I was shocked at how much heavier and slower to turn the wider skis were. Even going from 90 to 100 under foot was a huge difference to me. I ended up preferring that the extra float and stability I was seeking come from a slightly longer ski rather than a wider one. I know this opinion is not shared by everyone here. Best advice is to demo before you buy. Like me, you might also be surprised by the results.

that's interesting. I went from 88s to 94s and feel like they are every bit as quick edge to edge. But of course at some width that must change....

 

[Ski the Moguls]

that's interesting. I went from 88s to 94s and feel like they are every bit as quick edge to edge. But of course at some width that must change....

Edge to edge on a groomer would probably have been fine. I don’t ski that way if at all possible. I was in Utah skiing trees, soft bumps, some powder and lots of chop. My turns are often quick stivots with lots of forward pressure. I just found that I could not swing those wider skis around fast enough for my taste. They slowed my turns enough to kill my confidence and fun in the tight stuff. I was surprised that the Head Kore 93 gave me all the stability, float and forgiveness that I needed, and their super light weight made them perfect for my particular style.

But remember my point ... you ought to demo before you buy. Not everyone skis the same. If you are rolling GS turns edge to edge, rather than flipping your skis right there, right now, or else ... then it is unlikely we would prefer the same ski.

 

[tnt1234]

Edge to edge on a groomer would probably have been fine. I don’t ski that way if at all possible. I was in Utah skiing trees, soft bumps, some powder and lots of chop. My turns are often quick stivots with lots of forward pressure. I just found that I could not swing those wider skis around fast enough for my taste. They slowed my turns enough to kill my confidence and fun in the tight stuff. I was surprised that the Head Kore 93 gave me all the stability, float and forgiveness that I needed, and their super light weight made them perfect for my particular style.

But remember my point ... you ought to demo before you buy. Not everyone skis the same. If you are rolling GS turns edge to edge, rather than flipping your skis right there, right now, or else ... then it is unlikely we would prefer the same ski.

Yeah, I would love to catch a demo day, but I never seem to...

Actually sounds like we ski similarly.

 

[kingslug]

If your looking for soft and wide..rule out the Head Kore 117..very stiff.

 

[BenedictGomez]

First question is, do I try for something a little wider to be my more-or-less daily driver, same the rustlers for true hardback, icy days....like a 105-110....or do I go 115 and just use the second set for soft or fresh snow days?

You have it backwards.

Your Rustlers are 94 underfoot, which will likely provide satisfactory float on all but heavy powder days, which we get very few of in the east. They are probably fine as a daily driver ski.

If you're looking, however, for something for common east coast "true hardpack, icy" days, then you dont want to go wider, you want to go narrower. People who ski 110 on icy or groomer-only days are generally people who either dont know how to ski or dont understand ski technology. If I had those 94s as the daily ski, and I had the itch to add a pair of skis, I'd probably either add something 70 underfoot for groomer/icy east coast days or go big and add the 115s for the rare powder day. Know, however, that the 70mm will be far more useful than the 115s in terms of "perfect" east coast days to use them.

I've said it 1000 times before on these pages, but skiing too wide is the new skiing too long.

 

[chrisbk]

i'll take the other side. I ski 116 moment wildcats every day. I'm a pretty decent skier and i do understand how skis work. I don't particularly ski a lot of groomers, mostly woods and bumps, and when i do ski groomers, i'm not hide-the-wife-hide-the-kids dude on his slalom skis going 86mph down a blue. These skis, with their mix of a medium amount rocker and a decent but of camber perform quite well. Are they are quick edge to edge as a narrower ski? of course not. But do i care about that? Hardly ever. They float (you can tell the diff in 2 inches of snow), they hold an edge, they are very energetic and fun in the bumps, create a solid platform for landing when you air, and they are stiff enough to not get beat up. They just announced or released a 108 version, which is probably worth a look.

Before these i skied on a full rocker g3 empire at 125mm underfoot. Their edge was about 20 inches long at best when flat...but you know what? they were the most fun skis i've had. They made turning more optional. Too bad they broke.

it's kind of silly for people to make statements about this ski or that ski being good or no good. Every time i've gone wider, i've had more fun, from a 67 to a 74 to an 87 to a 105 to a 125, and now back to a 116. It all depends on what you ski and how you ski it, and having fun is what matters. I can't see myself ever going below a 105 again (those are what my backups are, 105 and 108).

 

[Ski the Moguls]

...it's kind of silly for people to make statements about this ski or that ski being good or no good...

Yes, absolutely.

One could say I wasted $120 on a couple of demo days in Utah, or, more accurately, that I saved $700 because I did not buy the skis I thought I wanted without trying them out first.

DEMO! Even if you have to pay for the privilege.

 

[Edd]

In the end it’s a matter of preference, but the simple physics involved compel me to have a narrow ski (78 mm) for icy days. Also, they’re my shortest skis. It is soooo much better than my 88, 93, or 107 mm skis. It’s like driving a sports car vs. a floaty Cadillac.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[tnt1234]

You have it backwards.

Your Rustlers are 94 underfoot, which will likely provide satisfactory float on all but heavy powder days, which we get very few of in the east. They are probably fine as a daily driver ski.

If you're looking, however, for something for common east coast "true hardpack, icy" days, then you dont want to go wider, you want to go narrower. People who ski 110 on icy or groomer-only days are generally people who either dont know how to ski or dont understand ski technology. If I had those 94s as the daily ski, and I had the itch to add a pair of skis, I'd probably either add something 70 underfoot for groomer/icy east coast days or go big and add the 115s for the rare powder day. Know, however, that the 70mm will be far more useful than the 115s in terms of "perfect" east coast days to use them.

I've said it 1000 times before on these pages, but skiing too wide is the new skiing too long.

Yeah, the rustlers are fine on icy hardback. You know, not as great as a 70mm carver, but good enough.

Your instinct is where I started - add something 115ish for when we get a good dump, and ski the rustlers the rest of the time...

So I'm intrigued by the Line Sick Day 114s and the Scott Scapers so far...

 

[Bandit2941]

Also have Rustler 9 180 and would also suggest getting a narrower or wider ski to complement them. In my case I have Head I.titan in 170 for for firmer days and Line Prophet 115 for deep days.

if you like the Rustler 9, what about the 11?

 

[prsboogie]

When I demoed wider skis this year I was shocked at how much heavier and slower to turn the wider skis were. Even going from 90 to 100 under foot was a huge difference to me. I ended up preferring that the extra float and stability I was seeking come from a slightly longer ski rather than a wider one. I know this opinion is not shared by everyone here. Best advice is to demo before you buy. Like me, you might also be surprised by the results.

So would you care to give examples of which skis you demoed and thoughts on them?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[tnt1234]

Also have Rustler 9 180 and would also suggest getting a narrower or wider ski to complement them. In my case I have Head I.titan in 170 for for firmer days and Line Prophet 115 for deep days.

if you like the Rustler 9, what about the 11?

I like the Rustler's but don't love them yet...they might be a little stiff...so I worry the wide, fat ski with the partial metal might be to stiff and aggressive for my tastes.

Does the prophet have metal?

 

[Bandit2941]

I like the Rustler's but don't love them yet...they might be a little stiff...so I worry the wide, fat ski with the partial metal might be to stiff and aggressive for my tastes.

Does the prophet have metal?

The prophet has one partial sheet like the rustler. It’s cut out differently but it’s the same idea. For me the rustler is the perfect balance of soft tip and tail for playfulness and the metal under foot gives them some power.

 

[BenedictGomez]

i'll take the other side. I ski 116 moment wildcats every day. Before these i skied on a full rocker g3 empire at 125mm underfoot.

it's kind of silly for people to make statements about this ski or that ski being good or no good.

I didn't say any ski mentioned in this thread is "no good", but I will say that skis are merely tools, and they are tools literally designed for specific conditions. You don't use a circular saw to hammer a nail (though you could).

I will, however, say that skiing something 125mm underfoot as your daily driver at any East Coast ski area is "silly", and it does make me question that you "know how skis work" as well as you think you do, especially given you claim you ski "mostly woods and moguls". I dont care how "good" the ski is, 125mm underfoot on the east coast is not optimal as a daily driver, regardless of how you ski, and especially for the exact type of skiing you claim you're doing most of the time.

 

[njdiver85]

I would add that 116 underfoot skiing east coast hardpack puts a lot of stress on the knees if you are tipping and carving. Can't be good long term.

 

[Domeskier]

I dont care how "good" the ski is, 125mm underfoot on the east coast is not optimal as a daily driver, regardless of how you ski, and especially for the exact type of skiing you claim you're doing most of the time.

I agree, but I don't think most recreational skiers need the optimal ski for their preferred conditions. Sure, someone on a 125mm ski is not going to win a slalom race or a mogul comp, but unless they're struggling to make a turn or putting their lives at risk in the trees, I don't think it matters much what they're on. The majority of skiers don't (and probably can't) push their skis to the limits of their designs anyway, so they might as well choose a ski they enjoy rather than a ski designed for Mikaela Shiffrin to shave a few seconds off an icy FIS course.

 

[John9]

My skis are 74 underfoot. Perfect for hard packed fast groomers. They sink like hot knives in butter in soft spring snow, not the right tool. How wide would I need to go to get some float in mushy snow? Let's keep it under 100.

 

[JimG.]

My skis are 74 underfoot. Perfect for hard packed fast groomers. They sink like hot knives in butter in soft spring snow, not the right tool. How wide would I need to go to get some float in mushy snow? Let's keep it under 100.

90-95