Off-season Steals

[BenedictGomez]

I need to pull the trigger on one of these summertime steals. I'm still searching for the ultimate eastern tree ski. I'm thinking healthy rocker, maybe 100 to 110 underfoot, and slightly shorter than my "80% of ski days" skis. At prices as low as seen in this thread, even if you hate them you could probably resell them in winter at breakeven.

 

[RustyGroomer]

^178 cm DPS Wailer 105's? Very few days on these. I just don't use them. Hybrid. Orange ones

 

[Savemeasammy]

^178 cm DPS Wailer 105's? Very few days on these. I just don't use them. Hybrid. Orange ones

Will he ski as well as you if he buys them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Highway Star]

I need to pull the trigger on one of these summertime steals. I'm still searching for the ultimate eastern tree ski. I'm thinking healthy rocker, maybe 100 to 110 underfoot, and slightly shorter than my "80% of ski days" skis. At prices as low as seen in this thread, even if you hate them you could probably resell them in winter at breakeven.

Not suer if you're looking for a packed snow tree ski, or a powder ski for tree skiing. He's a screaming deal on a EC powder ski:

http://www.skiessentials.com/browse.cfm/2013-volkl-shiro-skis/4,5967.html

If you're over 6 ft / 200lb, get the 193. Otherwise the 183.

They also have some really nice deals on '11-12 & '12-'13 blizzard, many of which would be a good tree ski, depending on what you're looking for.

http://www.skiessentials.com/browse.cfm/2012-13-skis/2,356.html?nbb=Blizzard&nbp=0&nba=&nbl=&nbw=

 

[yeggous]

Agreed 100%.

It's all personal preference ultimately but for me there are very few East Coast days where 88 is going to come up feeling too narrow.

I disagree. My E88's handle the boilerplate well but do not like the deep. I ski Wildcat and call out sick when it snows so fatties are a must.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Edd]

Agreed 100%.

It's all personal preference ultimately but for me there are very few East Coast days where 88 is going to come up feeling too narrow.

I disagree. My E88's handle the boilerplate well but do not like the deep. I ski Wildcat and call out sick when it snows so fatties are a must.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app

Sounds to me like you guys are really on the same page. Most eastern days, flotation won't be a problem with an 88 waist.

 

[timm]

Yep. I do have a fatter ski for pow days but in the east I don't think it's the first or even second ski I most go to.

 

[dlague]

My son and I share a pair of Elans that are 105s and chopsticks that are 131s but last year never used them - my Rossi's with 87 waist did the job!


.......

 

[Cannonball]

Not suer if you're looking for a packed snow tree ski, or a powder ski for tree skiing. He's a screaming deal on a EC powder ski:

http://www.skiessentials.com/browse.cfm/2013-volkl-shiro-skis/4,5967.html

I'll sell you a pair of those exact Shiros WITH Look Pivot 14 bindings (all like new) for that price. Basically that's $200 worth of binding for free and as you say a "screaming deal" on the skis.

 

[Tin]

Just because there is no fresh stuff doesn't mean you can't ski a 105+. I could never figure that out. They're great off the trail, on boilerplate, cord, and you can still bump with them with ease. I got my new 115s just to play with and then ended up being the best cruiser ski I've had. Can cut and charge like a sob.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Will he ski as well as you if he buys them?

No, I'd stink either way!

Not suer if you're looking for a packed snow tree ski, or a powder ski for tree skiing.

Now you want me to have TWO different pairs of tree specific skis? Dont tempt me!

I disagree. My E88's handle the boilerplate well but do not like the deep.

It's not just a question of underfoot, but total surface area. In fact, you could float on 65mm slalom skis if you were really, really, really, really light and short.

IMO, total surface area is scientifically more important than underfoot, but underfoot is the statistic everyone talks about when they speak of float because:

A) It's easier
B) As a metric, "Underfoot" generally is good enough for government work, and works in most overall (tip, waist, tail) cases
C) Calculating surface area is hard

 

[Puck it]

No, I'd stink either way!



Now you want me to have TWO different pairs of tree specific skis? Dont tempt me!



It's not just a question of underfoot, but total surface area. In fact, you could float on 65mm slalom skis if you were really, really, really, really light and short.

IMO, total surface area is scientifically more important than underfoot, but underfoot is the statistic everyone talks about when they speak of float because:

A) It's easier
B) As a metric, "Underfoot" generally is good enough for government work, and works in most overall (tip, waist, tail) cases
C) Calculating surface area is hard

http://freshiez.net/skiarea.html

 

[Highway Star]

No, I'd stink either way!



Now you want me to have TWO different pairs of tree specific skis? Dont tempt me!



It's not just a question of underfoot, but total surface area. In fact, you could float on 65mm slalom skis if you were really, really, really, really light and short.

IMO, total surface area is scientifically more important than underfoot, but underfoot is the statistic everyone talks about when they speak of float because:

A) It's easier
B) As a metric, "Underfoot" generally is good enough for government work, and works in most overall (tip, waist, tail) cases
C) Calculating surface area is hard

IMHO, if you ski at a first tier resort in the east that gets good natural snow and are advanced/expert, you need at least the following:

- Heavier all around ski that is good at groomers, hardpack, high speeds, but is still passable in softer snow and bumps (85-100mm waist midfat with metal, very mid or no rocker)
- Lighter all around ski that is good at soft snow, moguls, packed out trees (85-95mm twintip, no metal, some rocker)
- Powder ski that is very manuverable in the woods, on packed snow or powder (115-130mm waist, lots of rocker with camber underfoot, no metal)

 

[dlague]

IMHO, if you ski at a first tier resort in the east that gets good natural snow and are advanced/expert, you need at least the following:

- Heavier all around ski that is good at groomers, hardpack, high speeds, but is still passable in softer snow and bumps (85-100mm waist midfat with metal, very mid or no rocker)
- Lighter all around ski that is good at soft snow, moguls, packed out trees (85-95mm twintip, no metal, some rocker)
- Powder ski that is very manuverable in the woods, on packed snow or powder (115-130mm waist, lots of rocker with camber underfoot, no metal)

Well put! I find that skiing a wider ski > 100mm is ok but when things are bumped up in the woods or on steeper trails, I get tripped up a lot and I find that it changes my stance. I have a question - on any given day do you travel with all your skis or pick one before you head out?

 

[jimk]

IMHO, if you ski at a first tier resort in the east that gets good natural snow and are advanced/expert, you need at least the following:

- Heavier all around ski that is good at groomers, hardpack, high speeds, but is still passable in softer snow and bumps (85-100mm waist midfat with metal, very mid or no rocker)
- Lighter all around ski that is good at soft snow, moguls, packed out trees (85-95mm twintip, no metal, some rocker)
- Powder ski that is very manuverable in the woods, on packed snow or powder (115-130mm waist, lots of rocker with camber underfoot, no metal)

I generally agree; hard snow ski, regular snow ski, fresh snow ski, but I have trouble seeing much of a distinction between your first and second suggestions. Is there a place for a ski with a waist under 80mm if you're going to stay on firm groomers?

 

[dlague]

I generally agree; hard snow ski, regular snow ski, fresh snow ski, but I have trouble seeing much of a distinction between your first and second suggestions. Is there a place for a ski with a waist under 80mm if you're going to stay on firm groomers?

Absolutely - if you do not want to ski powder/crud there really is not much of a need for a wider ski! In fact 90% of the time in the northeast wider skis are not even needed in the woods!

 

[BenedictGomez]

http://freshiez.net/skiarea.html

I use this from time to time, and I have an Excel spreadsheet I downloaded that does the same thing. It's not a perfect science due to variability, but they're usually within 2% of each other. I think these tools are invaluable for calculating float between ski models.

I generally agree; hard snow ski, regular snow ski, fresh snow ski, but I have trouble seeing much of a distinction between your first and second suggestions.

Me too. There is a difference, but I dont feel it's enough for me to warrant the $$$ for two pairs of skis.

I would have thrown in a 4th category to his list as well, which is early season 100% groomers and/or icy conditions, for which I want something narrow underfoot - these are the only times my old 65mm touch snow.

 

[Highway Star]

I generally agree; hard snow ski, regular snow ski, fresh snow ski, but I have trouble seeing much of a distinction between your first and second suggestions. Is there a place for a ski with a waist under 80mm if you're going to stay on firm groomers?

Well, to me they are entirely different skis. The first is going to be a very high performance, precise, possibly race contruction midfat that is very good at carving GS turns (20m-25m radius), cruising at higher speeds on groomed, mixed condition trails, including hard pack, loose granular and ice. The proper kind of beefy midfat will destroy ice gnar if kept sharp with fairly agressive (true 1 deg) base bevel, with a solid binding. For all around go do every thing skiing at a big eastern resort, it will be very capable if handling all conditions, good and bad. It should also be capable of hopping in the trees or bumps in a pinch, so not too excessively beefy. This would possibly be single pair quiver ski, but on the more beefy side. It should be sized at your "target average ski length". So for 6'ish 200lb - 185cm, 5'9" 160lb - 175cm, etc. My ski in this spot was the Head IM88 186cm for many years, now its the Blizzard Bonafide 187cm (but I also have a few full camber midfats for hard condition groomer skiing).

The second ski is going to be considerably lighter, softer, more forgiving and playful. This will be used for softer conditions, but not really fresh snow except for high density or windpacked powder. Spring conditions, fresh snowmaking snow, 3 days after a storm. It will sacrifice stablity for nimbleness in the trees and bumps. No metal, probably a twintip, rocker, mounted somewhat rearward. I had two pairs of 179 K2 Public Enemies for this spot, but now it's more or less a 191cm Head Inferno 104 , which is really more of a soft snow charging ski and too much ski for that spot in the quiver. Have some older 179 K2 silencers and 188 stockli snake BC to mount up, we'll see how they do in that spot.

 

[jimk]

Cool beans. Someday I need to get into one of those season long ski demo/lease programs and get an education. I'm only 3 or 4 skis removed from old school skinny skis as my daily drivers

 

[Tin]

Well, to me they are entirely different skis. The first is going to be a very high performance, precise, possibly race contruction midfat that is very good at carving GS turns (20m-25m radius), cruising at higher speeds on groomed, mixed condition trails, including hard pack, loose granular and ice. The proper kind of beefy midfat will destroy ice gnar if kept sharp with fairly agressive (true 1 deg) base bevel, with a solid binding. For all around go do every thing skiing at a big eastern resort, it will be very capable if handling all conditions, good and bad. It should also be capable of hopping in the trees or bumps in a pinch, so not too excessively beefy. This would possibly be single pair quiver ski, but on the more beefy side. It should be sized at your "target average ski length". So for 6'ish 200lb - 185cm, 5'9" 160lb - 175cm, etc. My ski in this spot was the Head IM88 186cm for many years, now its the Blizzard Bonafide 187cm (but I also have a few full camber midfats for hard condition groomer skiing).

The second ski is going to be considerably lighter, softer, more forgiving and playful. This will be used for softer conditions, but not really fresh snow except for high density or windpacked powder. Spring conditions, fresh snowmaking snow, 3 days after a storm. It will sacrifice stablity for nimbleness in the trees and bumps. No metal, probably a twintip, rocker, mounted somewhat rearward. I had two pairs of 179 K2 Public Enemies for this spot, but now it's more or less a 191cm Head Inferno 104 , which is really more of a soft snow charging ski and too much ski for that spot in the quiver. Have some older 179 K2 silencers and 188 stockli snake BC to mount up, we'll see how they do in that spot.

When you're not challenging people to ski offs you're a pretty good guy around here.