Eastern Skis: your powder weapon of choice...
- Thread starter ono
- Start date
That was my point. The B1 is not really an all-mountain ski by today's standards.
When I bought my Volant Power Ti's in 1999, they were the widest all-mountain ski of that time at 73mm. Most then were under 70mm, such as the hot-selling Salomon X-Scream Series at 68mm. I skied the X-Scream Series at Las Lenas, and I can assure you that I would have done much better there on a wider ski.
I understand that Prophete 130 might be his everyday ski. Well almost!
It's not the 130mm that's is the problem theses skis are very too long for eastern woods standards. Make skis wider but shorter. But this market is too small.
On 90mm at center it like walking with high heels or skating. I ski at least 95mm on a regular basis, mostly 110mm and more. by example today at MSA, I thought it will be very hard pack so Bandit XXX 1,88m for fast speed and more edges. These skis were perfect last Sat at Massif de Petite rivière st-Francois. Butthen today MSA opended 3 extreme trails as Sept Chutes (translatin: 7 falls! Not on this trail!) Canyon and Gondoleuse (just under gondola). First time of Winter. Lot of pow and new smooth moguls appearing. Oh I wished to skis on Volkl Sumo 1,76m to ride top to bottom in a freeride session. It was more difficult to skis with Bandit XXX skis over 1,88m. Legs were burning very faster.
But the conditions are really different in Eastern Townships or Ottawa of course. Next WE: Mt-Edouard. very fat needed!
It's not the 130mm that's is the problem theses skis are very too long for eastern woods standards. Make skis wider but shorter. But this market is too small.
On 90mm at center it like walking with high heels or skating. I ski at least 95mm on a regular basis, mostly 110mm and more. by example today at MSA, I thought it will be very hard pack so Bandit XXX 1,88m for fast speed and more edges. These skis were perfect last Sat at Massif de Petite rivière st-Francois. Butthen today MSA opended 3 extreme trails as Sept Chutes (translatin: 7 falls! Not on this trail!) Canyon and Gondoleuse (just under gondola). First time of Winter. Lot of pow and new smooth moguls appearing. Oh I wished to skis on Volkl Sumo 1,76m to ride top to bottom in a freeride session. It was more difficult to skis with Bandit XXX skis over 1,88m. Legs were burning very faster.
But the conditions are really different in Eastern Townships or Ottawa of course. Next WE: Mt-Edouard. very fat needed!
If you want a bad ass ski that blast through anything. Deep powder to be specific then you want to try a pair of Rossignol Squads. I just used mine for the first time Saturday at Jay. I was waiting for the right conditions and Saturday was the day. I'm 5-11", 165lb and the skiis are 174cm. They are 100 under foot and they fly. Do your self a favor and try these before you buy anything.
forgot to mention a ski brand nobody does around here:
Nordica-
yes, relative newbies to the ski market. but i was coerced into trying out a pair of Nordica BEASTS from a shop in Waitsfield. skied 'em at MRG's single opening on new year's eve this year. pow/packed pow plenty-o-rocks and small bumps. GREAT SKI 94mm underfoot. quick enough to swing around, and fairly stiff enough to handle the non-soft stuff. even had built in notches on tips and tails for skins. DISCONTINUED. odd- a really cool fat ski. the guy in the shop said guys in alaska were calling him for it- no reason to discontinue such a great ski he said. hmmm..
looking into the Volkl Gotamas for a pure powder ski (they make a 168- good for a shorty like me) too bad- can't find a cheap pair anywhere (not paying $700 or even $500 for a pair ever again) anyone know anything about Gotamas (105mm underfoot) vs. other stuff out there??
to think prior to december 22nd this season, i thought 8000's were wide enough at 79mm. a shop technician in sugarbush changed my opinion. now, 88mm underfoot with my 8800's is an everyday ski- need 100mm plus for a powder day. skiing (and building up ski quivers) is addicting.
good to see my post spark some good, informative discussion- thanks and keep it up.
Nordica-
yes, relative newbies to the ski market. but i was coerced into trying out a pair of Nordica BEASTS from a shop in Waitsfield. skied 'em at MRG's single opening on new year's eve this year. pow/packed pow plenty-o-rocks and small bumps. GREAT SKI 94mm underfoot. quick enough to swing around, and fairly stiff enough to handle the non-soft stuff. even had built in notches on tips and tails for skins. DISCONTINUED. odd- a really cool fat ski. the guy in the shop said guys in alaska were calling him for it- no reason to discontinue such a great ski he said. hmmm..
looking into the Volkl Gotamas for a pure powder ski (they make a 168- good for a shorty like me) too bad- can't find a cheap pair anywhere (not paying $700 or even $500 for a pair ever again) anyone know anything about Gotamas (105mm underfoot) vs. other stuff out there??
to think prior to december 22nd this season, i thought 8000's were wide enough at 79mm. a shop technician in sugarbush changed my opinion. now, 88mm underfoot with my 8800's is an everyday ski- need 100mm plus for a powder day. skiing (and building up ski quivers) is addicting.
good to see my post spark some good, informative discussion- thanks and keep it up.
riverc0il
New member
i find the lack of sidecut on the 8800s compared to the 8000s make the 8000s a better choice for an everyday ski in the east (the skis have the same tip and tail, just different waist). i just don't ski powder often enough around here to feel better on the 8800s vs the 8000s. i have been thinking about it recently, and if i can find a ski with a reasonably good sidecut with 90mm under foot, i would definitely like to try them out.ono":2grskott said:
salida
New member
One thing that no one has had much mentioned here is length...
Greg, the feature of many of our video segments was in a K-ton shop yesterday looking to pick up a cheap pair of PE's. Looking around the shop he could only find 174's (they were out of the 179, the longest PE that K2 makes). Asking the shop hand if they had any 179's out back, the guy says, you sure you want a 179, that 174 is a pretty big ski. In utter disgust Greg up and left... This brings me to my point, with the advent of the shaped ski everyone has been going incredibly short. I know there are quite a few reasons, turn radius, skiing tight trees, yada yada yada. However, when you're skiing a ski meant for powder, that doesn't have tons of sidecut, why do people still feel the need to downsize. I understand many of the posters in this thread are not "large" people. However, I find that a ski under 175-178 does not provide the stability needed, even in very tight situations, IE mittersill, MRG, sleuthing through the woods and such.
Regarding ono getting a 168 Gotoma... it seems counter intuitive, to be getting a ski that fat but getting it in such a short length...
Thought I'd throw all of this out there.
Porter
Greg, the feature of many of our video segments was in a K-ton shop yesterday looking to pick up a cheap pair of PE's. Looking around the shop he could only find 174's (they were out of the 179, the longest PE that K2 makes). Asking the shop hand if they had any 179's out back, the guy says, you sure you want a 179, that 174 is a pretty big ski. In utter disgust Greg up and left... This brings me to my point, with the advent of the shaped ski everyone has been going incredibly short. I know there are quite a few reasons, turn radius, skiing tight trees, yada yada yada. However, when you're skiing a ski meant for powder, that doesn't have tons of sidecut, why do people still feel the need to downsize. I understand many of the posters in this thread are not "large" people. However, I find that a ski under 175-178 does not provide the stability needed, even in very tight situations, IE mittersill, MRG, sleuthing through the woods and such.
Regarding ono getting a 168 Gotoma... it seems counter intuitive, to be getting a ski that fat but getting it in such a short length...
Thought I'd throw all of this out there.
Porter
i know what you're saying- that under 170ish is small- it is.
i find like anything, it's a tradeoff. my short pairs (158's!!) both 8000 and 8800's are good for most stuff, but you do lose a bit of stability at higher speeds, esp. in chowder/rough stuff. want to acquire 168's for that reason (probably both 8000's and 8800's)
i'm only 5'5" or 5'6" at most. in between- so a 168 with a lot underfoot is pretty good for me- i mean, i raced a shaped dynastar speed 178 for slalom and GS in high school, and things have gotten progressively shorter since then. especially in eastern trees, i think for the under 5'8" crowd, skiing under 170cm is a good fit, generally, for most conditions.
however, i know what you're saying. my good buddy just bought a pair of 8800's 168cm. he's 6ft. he's just gotten back into skiing after a decade hiatus (never developed his technique after gradeschool) so he went short. Sure, it's good for now to increase his ability in the short run, but long run i think he definitely should've gone larger. he doesn't think so- kinda angers me cause i feel like he's a whimp skiing a length i intend to be on- when he's 6"+ taller than me. kinda want to call him a pussy (pardon my french) cause it's true.
i find like anything, it's a tradeoff. my short pairs (158's!!) both 8000 and 8800's are good for most stuff, but you do lose a bit of stability at higher speeds, esp. in chowder/rough stuff. want to acquire 168's for that reason (probably both 8000's and 8800's)
i'm only 5'5" or 5'6" at most. in between- so a 168 with a lot underfoot is pretty good for me- i mean, i raced a shaped dynastar speed 178 for slalom and GS in high school, and things have gotten progressively shorter since then. especially in eastern trees, i think for the under 5'8" crowd, skiing under 170cm is a good fit, generally, for most conditions.
however, i know what you're saying. my good buddy just bought a pair of 8800's 168cm. he's 6ft. he's just gotten back into skiing after a decade hiatus (never developed his technique after gradeschool) so he went short. Sure, it's good for now to increase his ability in the short run, but long run i think he definitely should've gone larger. he doesn't think so- kinda angers me cause i feel like he's a whimp skiing a length i intend to be on- when he's 6"+ taller than me. kinda want to call him a pussy (pardon my french) cause it's true.
sven
New member
I just bought a pair of Mantras (184 cm), and they are awesome in everything except icy tight bumps. theyre still fun in any conditions, maybe not always optimal, but I would probably not hesitate to make them my primary all-conditions ski if I didnt have an old pair of 7/24 Pro's as a second pair (which I think are a lot easier to handle in bumps, and im a lot less afraid of running over rocks since theyve already taken a beating).
riverc0il
New member
Nhski, I would love to hear a full review of the Mantra since you had four or five days on them up at Jay Peak this week, especially since I know exactly what conditions you skied on, it would make a great reference point.Nhski":rmyvsoxk said:
I will second that. I am starting to do some research on a East Coast Fat Ski and the Mantra seems to keep coming up. A lot of reviews are billing this as "great in a variety of conditions" and what not. I am not interested in a ski that performs well in a variety of conditions, that is my Legend 8000 for everyday purposes. Rather, I am interested in a powder/crud only ski with more side cut than your typical Figure 11 skis. A radius as close to 20 as possible while still having a good sized tip/tail as that has become my major problem with the Intuitiv Bigs, not enough tip and tale relative to under foot. Beta seems to indicate that the current year's Mantra was beefed up compared to the previous year's, but I would rather have a response ride rather than a "will bust through everything" heavy weight. Wondering how much difference there is year to year. Admin, you are on the predecessor to the Mantra, how would you rate the Explosiv as an East Coast Pow board? Albeit the Mantra looks softer and with more sidecut, which I favor any ways. Will have to locate a demo center in the area with Mantras and give them a rip on a pow day. Sure wish I could demo the Black Diamond and G3 lines around here. The Kilowatt (wood core!) looks sweet. Though this would be an Alpine, not an AT setup, not that that makes any difference.Smootharc":rmyvsoxk said:
Just had to jump in here after lurking for while to mention the Head Mojo 90's. Me...5'6" about 137lbs on 176cm...I had some Pocket Rockets before snapping them at Jay a couple years ago (I still have the unmounted warranty pair in my kitchen). Anyway for you PR fans I suggest you give them a try...much better edge hold and stability at speed...heavier but still plenty quick for tight trees...Try 'em you'll like 'em 
wayne
wayne
moguleater
New member
thought I might jump in as we just had an epic pow day at sugarbush sunday demoing some fat skis. I am 5'4'' and 120 and normally ski some B2Ws at 160 cm but lately have been feeling like these were too soft/short for the type of skiing I do (lots of trees/bumps/steeps). tried out some legend 8000's in 165 and 172 cm and found the 165 is a great length for me, so I'm a bit surprised to find out how short people like to go on these skis. today and yesterday tried out some rossi B4's 168 cm on the recommendation of a shop tech at sugarbush and found them great in the soft deep stuff in the trees and on soft bumps, but not that quick otherwise. my husband (5'7'' and 155) absolutely LOVED the demo legend pro's at 176 cm, said they were the best ski he's ever used (he usually skis the legend 8000s at 178). Said that they were actually quite quick in the bumps. If you ski hard in the east you might want to go longer than some folks in this thread have mentioned.
btw props to sugarbush for handing out free lift tickets to all of us who sat around saturday afternoon when the power went out around 12:30, closing the resort for the rest of the day. they didn't have to do it and it was much appreciated.
btw props to sugarbush for handing out free lift tickets to all of us who sat around saturday afternoon when the power went out around 12:30, closing the resort for the rest of the day. they didn't have to do it and it was much appreciated.
riverc0il
New member
i had looked at the legend pros (as a current rider and lover of the 8000s) but figured they were way too much ski for my needs. folks on the TGR tech talk forum seemed to bill the LP as the next explosiv post the mantra adjustments. i may try to arrange a demo just to try them out, but with my primary focus exclusively powder and nimbleness in and out of the trees, i am fairly certain the pro would be over kill. who knows though, it would be fun to give them a rip regardless.
Ironically, Riv, my Explosivs really are the Mantra. The Explosivs made under private label for CMH reportedly had a slightly softer forebody and were the model for the Mantra. I love 'em - they can really do anything, from ski pow or crud to actually carve a decent arc on a groomer. About the only place they're sup par is in bumps, mainly due to all of that metal.
sven
New member
I've skied on my mantras 6 days now, 2 of them "spring like" days (in January :roll: ), and they really were beautiful in the softer snow. 3 days were in icy conditions, mostly on trails, not the woods, and I did have brief moments of chatter here and there, but I still loved them, and if youve got a lot of space to work with you can really lay em on edge and go for it.... they handle very well at high speed. This years Mantra is a bit stiffer than last years, which I think I like better (although I havent tried out the earlier model, but i like stiffer skis in general). They were beautiful on 2/15 at Stowe, they just tore through the heavy powder but you need to put some leg muscle into it with wide, stiff skis and the heaviness of the windpacked snow - although when you do put some power into it theyre rewarding, and the tail is pretty lively (which i was sitting back on all day in that deep snow). I think I was able to get through it a lot better than people who werent on similarly fat skis, and the Mantras definitely seemed pretty popular at Stowe that day, i must have seen 3-4 other people on them. I managed to cut some turns in the woods off Bypass and couldnt imagine being able to do that with less wide skis, the snow was so deep and heavy. The sidecut proportions are not too far off from what my 7/24 pro's are and I really enjoy those skis, these have got a bit bigger turn radius at the same length though (25.5 m I think versus 20.4m on the 7/24 pros). I would definitely recommend the mantras any day though for anyone who is interested, and I did have some concerns about going for something 94mm underfoot in eastern conditions, but have absolutely no regrets buying them whatsoever. I'm 6'1" and 185 lbs and I'm on the 184 cm's, mounted on the line. I'm almost considering going even wider for the next pair of skis I buy, but want to demo first to see, and decide where I'm living and how much snow falls there.
Sven
Sven
Sharon
New member
I've demo's the 8000s, and while they were nice, I prefer fatter for powder and crud.
I love my Salomon Pocket Rockets. Would love them more if they didn't have the twin tips. I find I clip the turned up tails a lot when skating. But as for the skiing, they are totally awesome in burley conditions. They ski ok on groomers, but they really want to be on natural snow. They also do very well in the bumps and are quite nimble for their girth.
I have Fritschi Titanal bindings on the fat skis. They are plenty light enough and tour very well. They can handle just about anything the backcountry has to offer. They are an awesome ski, and the favorite in my quiver. They aren't as fun on firm and packed conditions, but they will manage them if necessary.
When I saw the the forecast in Utah was for snow for a few days and sun the rest of the trip I decided to bring both pairs of skis.
My All-Mountain ski is the Salomon Scream LTD. I picked them up on Steep and Cheap for $168 and mounted the 912S bindings I had taken off the first pair of Pocket Rockets I owned. (the first pair's edges seperated and Salomon replaced them). I didn't cry too hard when I got a core shot rock at Snowbird. Now they are all filled in and fixed up and good as new.
I just love these skis. They are quick and nimble and handle most conditions. Work the bumps very well. While they will ski crud and powder fine, the Pocket Rockets make crud and powder much more fun and less work.
I love my Salomon Pocket Rockets. Would love them more if they didn't have the twin tips. I find I clip the turned up tails a lot when skating. But as for the skiing, they are totally awesome in burley conditions. They ski ok on groomers, but they really want to be on natural snow. They also do very well in the bumps and are quite nimble for their girth.
I have Fritschi Titanal bindings on the fat skis. They are plenty light enough and tour very well. They can handle just about anything the backcountry has to offer. They are an awesome ski, and the favorite in my quiver. They aren't as fun on firm and packed conditions, but they will manage them if necessary.
When I saw the the forecast in Utah was for snow for a few days and sun the rest of the trip I decided to bring both pairs of skis.
My All-Mountain ski is the Salomon Scream LTD. I picked them up on Steep and Cheap for $168 and mounted the 912S bindings I had taken off the first pair of Pocket Rockets I owned. (the first pair's edges seperated and Salomon replaced them). I didn't cry too hard when I got a core shot rock at Snowbird. Now they are all filled in and fixed up and good as new.
I just love these skis. They are quick and nimble and handle most conditions. Work the bumps very well. While they will ski crud and powder fine, the Pocket Rockets make crud and powder much more fun and less work.