goldsbar
New member
Quivers can be built over time. I still happily use my 2004 Fischer SC's (slalom-lite style ski). The tech has changed the most on the wider skis.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
When is there too much snow?
- Thread starter tunagod
- Start date
This is a very good point. Two years ago I finally retired the aforementioned Rossi Axiom Powder skis I bought in 2000. I guess they're not fully retired as I still have them, but they were replaced. So, 15 years out of a powder specialty ski. Unless I bust the Vagabonds, I fully intend on keeping them the same amount of time skiing them probably 5 days a season. At 75 days use with well taken care of bases, the skis are only "middle aged". It's really the bindings that will be toast at that point. I only replaced the Axioms because technology has changed to make the new powder skis that much better. If there's no compelling technology changes 15 years from now for powder skis, maybe I'll just replace the bindings and keep the Vagabonds even longer.
You should be able to get at least 150 days out of a set of well constructed skis provided you take care of the bases, don't stone grind the hell out of them and not rip an edge. Adding a specialty ski whether it's for powder, hard snow carving or bumps just extends the life of your daily drivers.
IMO it's a worthwhile investment for the added performance you get buying a ski designed specifically for certain terrain/conditions. I make the same argument for snow tires. They're a worthwhile investment for the added performance they provide and extend the lift of my summer tires in the process.
i've daily driven a pair of 125mm g3 empires for the last 2 seasons. They're a suprisingly stiff fully rockered ski (lots of rocker in the tips). I ski at Mad River Glen almost exclusively, trees and bumps, which is meaningful to this given conditions the last 2 years (lots of awfulness). I only ski groomers with my kids or to get somewhere. I've never had them tuned at all aside from some spray wax i put on twice this year (probably 60-70 days on them), and as i said they are full rocker so my effective edge is about 90cm 
my other skis are a 105mm line influence. they are awesome...but i've only skied them 2x in the last 2 years. i would highly highly highly recommend them to anyone who wants a wider ski that is great in the fluff but can also rail hardpack. i think they are the "best" ski i've ever skied in terms of versatility. i'd buy another pair if i saw them on sale for a backup. i think 105-110 is probably the ideal size for a 1 ski quiver on the east coast.
But why haven't i skied the 105s? the g3s may not be "best", but they are the most fun and that's why i have been skiing them. i can run over any kind of crud, chopped powder, whatever. they're like a steamroller; it doesn't matter. stability landing jumps is excellent. quicker edge to edge than you think, and they're probably lighter than the Lines. it's a little more work in the bumps but at the same time their skiddy nature isn't a bad thing there. if there is say 3+ inches of power, they become absolutely wonderful stiff floaty skis. they were glorious on the deeper days this year. when conditions are bad (eg all of last season), it's very interesting trying to handle them. i enjoy that challenge however. it is a lot of fun and requires a real change in how i think about skiing icy stuff. i think the challenge has improved my balance and stance and consciousness of my body position - in other words it has made me a better skier. and you know what? if there's a groomer that's in good condition? they're fine. they like to go fast
point being, what's best isn't always "best". don't get hung up on width. i've gone from 74 to 87 to 105 to 125 and i am happy as a clam. recently got my 4'11 wife to go from a 90 to a 108 and she hasn't looked back.
my other skis are a 105mm line influence. they are awesome...but i've only skied them 2x in the last 2 years. i would highly highly highly recommend them to anyone who wants a wider ski that is great in the fluff but can also rail hardpack. i think they are the "best" ski i've ever skied in terms of versatility. i'd buy another pair if i saw them on sale for a backup. i think 105-110 is probably the ideal size for a 1 ski quiver on the east coast.
But why haven't i skied the 105s? the g3s may not be "best", but they are the most fun and that's why i have been skiing them. i can run over any kind of crud, chopped powder, whatever. they're like a steamroller; it doesn't matter. stability landing jumps is excellent. quicker edge to edge than you think, and they're probably lighter than the Lines. it's a little more work in the bumps but at the same time their skiddy nature isn't a bad thing there. if there is say 3+ inches of power, they become absolutely wonderful stiff floaty skis. they were glorious on the deeper days this year. when conditions are bad (eg all of last season), it's very interesting trying to handle them. i enjoy that challenge however. it is a lot of fun and requires a real change in how i think about skiing icy stuff. i think the challenge has improved my balance and stance and consciousness of my body position - in other words it has made me a better skier. and you know what? if there's a groomer that's in good condition? they're fine. they like to go fast
point being, what's best isn't always "best". don't get hung up on width. i've gone from 74 to 87 to 105 to 125 and i am happy as a clam. recently got my 4'11 wife to go from a 90 to a 108 and she hasn't looked back.
If what's best isn't always 'best" then why isn't Hart's latest mogul ski 120mm?
Don't get me wrong. People can have fun skiing all sorts of different shapes and sizes of skis. I say go for it. That fact remains is that there is engineering science behind why certain skis are built the way they are. There has been a tremendous amount of "blending" to create that "one quiver ski" in about the 85-105 range over the past ten years with some astonishingly versatile results. However, that one "all mountain" ski always is giving up some aspects of performance that a skilled skier will notice. I guess it boils down to the tolerance of the individual skier as to what performance aspect they are willing to give up.
Personally, my tolerance is decreasing. I really enjoy riding the perfect tool for the terrain/conditions at hand. You ski better with the perfect tool.
Don't get me wrong. People can have fun skiing all sorts of different shapes and sizes of skis. I say go for it. That fact remains is that there is engineering science behind why certain skis are built the way they are. There has been a tremendous amount of "blending" to create that "one quiver ski" in about the 85-105 range over the past ten years with some astonishingly versatile results. However, that one "all mountain" ski always is giving up some aspects of performance that a skilled skier will notice. I guess it boils down to the tolerance of the individual skier as to what performance aspect they are willing to give up.
Personally, my tolerance is decreasing. I really enjoy riding the perfect tool for the terrain/conditions at hand. You ski better with the perfect tool.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
If I were forced to only own one pair of all-mountain skis for eastern conditions, I'd go with approximately 90mm underfoot.
I think that's about the perfect "Jack of all trades" there.
It's not going to be awesome in the moguls, but it is capable.
It's not going to be a surfing powder ski, but it provides okay flotation for you to have fun.
It's not a 65mm FIS race ski, but you''ll still feel safe ripping turns at high speeds on groomers.
You just described the Nordica Steadfasts, which is what I ski 80% of the time. I wish I had bought a second pair to "cellar" for when I wear mine out.
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
jimk
Well-known member
What was the dedicated bump ski you demo'd and liked?
Like you, I have a pair of Vagabonds (107mm). They are pretty much my daily driver out west. And at places like Snowbird they are some of the skinniest skis in the tram line:lol:
Savemeasammy let me borrow a pair of his Hart F17s. They were lightening quick snapping off turns. Effortless
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
yeah i agree about the versatile ski size --- i'd lean to the 105 end of the spectrum because i think a 90mm is too limiting in crud and soft snow.
Jully
Active member
I'd love to demo those too. I'll be on the lookout for those next season for sure.
madriverjack
Member
Try the dynastar twisters if you get a chance.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using AlpineZone mobile app
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using AlpineZone mobile app
jimk
Well-known member
I wanted a new Eastern front side ski this past fall and got a pair of Nrgy 80s. They feel good on groomers/hardpack, but I wish I'd picked up something like those. I'm not that into fast groomer carving, but if a ski like that would help me in the bumps - that's an old man's dream
I skied skinny skis for decades, so I'm not afraid to go back to something like 65mm.A friend from Utah on his wider 4FRNT Devastator skis this January:
Last edited:
dlague
Active member
Last edited:
Savemeasammy
New member
Sorry. Didn't see this til now. By 90, I just mean that it's a regular tune, no bevel one way or the other. I used to bevel the edges both ways at 2 degrees, but the regular hardpack trail skiing performance ranged anywhere from crappy to downright scary! Each time I dialed it back a bit, and I found I enjoyed a .5/.5. (This was on my f17 classics). This summer I bought a pair of F17 WC's, and I decided to try skiing them with the factory tune. I discovered that I liked it just fine (and in fact I used them for a while in a race league for gates). That said, my technique is more straight down the hill than it is skidding, so sharp edges aren't as much of a penalty. Sometimes when the bumps are bulletproof, I will ski with more of a skid, and I find the tails are a bit grabby, but I'm willing to live with it...
I don't see 244's out there very much, but I saw someone skiing some at Ragged last Sunday!
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
I second this recommendation. Just switched from F17 classics and won't go back until mud and rock season. They are great in NE ice bumps, probably because the lack of side-cut makes them easier to skid. Looking forward to seeing how they perform in spring conditions. The factory tune seems fine to me.
dlague
Active member
I have seen those posted on here before. I would like to give them a run for the fun of it. However, I am not the type to hit moguls all day. So at a 64 waist it becomes a functional ski for bumps and ripping groomers. It would also work well for tracked out trees. Geez, I think I am talking myself into them. I have not skied anything under 87 underfoot in over 10 years.
Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
Couldn't find the dimensions on those skis, but if they do not have a lot of side cut, they probably won't be much help in ripping groomers. Hart's F-17 classics would be more appropriate if you want a bump ski that performs well on groomers too.
EDIT - Should have scrolled down... Looks like these are pure bump skis. Will be a pain to carve up groomers with, especially if you've been skiing shaped skis for the past 20 years or more.
Last edited:
sankaty
Member
I've got three pairs, 98mm Blizzard Ones, 88mm Blizzard Bushwackers, and 85mm Blizzard Magnum 8.5 Ti.
The Magnums are for hard pack groomer days, which I try to avoid as much as possible, so I use them less the 20% of the time. They are great for hard snow, but I find the stiffness a bit annoying for anything else. I'm pretty lightweight (150 lbs) and prefer quick turns/bumps/trees to speed, so I don't need a very stiff ski for my preferred skiing.
The majority of the time is split between the Ones and the BWs. I used to ski the BWs more, as I prefer the narrowness in bumps, but as I've gotten used to the 98mm over the years, I now prefer the Ones in more cases than the BWs. The BWs are still my choice for days when I know there won't be any unpacked snow, and I love them in the spring corn bumps.
I used to have 67mm carvers instead of the Magnums. On days when I'd start on the 67s and then switch to something wider during the day, I'd find the adjustment period annoying. I like that my current hard snow skis are wider, as I maintain the wider hip/knee/angle swing required to get them on edge, which makes switching skis pretty seamless.
The Magnums are for hard pack groomer days, which I try to avoid as much as possible, so I use them less the 20% of the time. They are great for hard snow, but I find the stiffness a bit annoying for anything else. I'm pretty lightweight (150 lbs) and prefer quick turns/bumps/trees to speed, so I don't need a very stiff ski for my preferred skiing.
The majority of the time is split between the Ones and the BWs. I used to ski the BWs more, as I prefer the narrowness in bumps, but as I've gotten used to the 98mm over the years, I now prefer the Ones in more cases than the BWs. The BWs are still my choice for days when I know there won't be any unpacked snow, and I love them in the spring corn bumps.
I used to have 67mm carvers instead of the Magnums. On days when I'd start on the 67s and then switch to something wider during the day, I'd find the adjustment period annoying. I like that my current hard snow skis are wider, as I maintain the wider hip/knee/angle swing required to get them on edge, which makes switching skis pretty seamless.
dlague
Active member
You can see the side cut but here are the dimensions. 90x64x80
Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
Similar threads
