# What should I add to quiver between these two?



## Puck it (Oct 31, 2007)

In quiver all ready-

180cm 2003or4 Head Worldcup iRace with LD 12's(Rock skis)
177cm 2006 Head Worldcup iRace with FF17d's and plate (these fly)
174cm 2006 K2 Apache Recons with LD12's (no my favorite but works s with freshies, would like to replace and used out west)
160cm 2006 Head Supershape with FF14's and plate (these are a blast)

Now I am thinking of the Head Supershape Magnums with FF14's and plate in 170cm or Head im88 Monsters(06 model) in 175cm.

Which ones?

Do I get both and get rid of the K2's?


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 31, 2007)

iM88...you've got a skinny quiver there, needs some more girth.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Oct 31, 2007)

I'd go with some snow-blades..they rock in tight trees..


----------



## Trekchick (Oct 31, 2007)

im88 All the WAY!!!


----------



## Puck it (Oct 31, 2007)

Railflex or Flat on the 88's


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm not real brilliant on the Head Railflex, but I prefer flat for my midfats in general.
Maybe someone who has Railflex experience will weigh in differently.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 1, 2007)

I was thinking flat also.  I have a pair of LD 12's on railflex on my rock skis.  I was thinking of using those in stead of buying new ones.  I can get the 07 88's for 399 and MOJO 11's for 119.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 1, 2007)

If its a matter of getting a railflex to use your existing bindings, then I'd go with the railflex.
I've heard far more good about the im88 than the Mojo.  Not sure I'd go for that even if its cheaper.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 1, 2007)

The MOJO are flat bindings instead using my old railflex. Look PX12's Binding are an option also.

What about these?

Fischer 2008 Porohete (Prohete) Freeride Skis 170cm


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Nov 1, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> I prefer flat for my midfats in general.
> .



Just curious, how come?


----------



## Greg (Nov 1, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Just curious, how come?



I've been on risers, plates, rail systems, etc. for a few years. I'm going flat this season. It's my understanding that unless you're carving up on edge, lifts do little for you. Anyone that has seen me ski knows I don't carve. Skidded turns baby!!  Flat mounts also are supposed to lower your center of gravity a bit and there's probably a nominal weight savings there without the rails, plates and other junk. I'm interested to see if being closer to the snow feels any different this season.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 1, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Just curious, how come?





Greg said:


> I've been on risers, plates, rail systems, etc. for a few years. I'm going flat this season. It's my understanding that unless you're carving up on edge, lifts do little for you. Anyone that has seen me ski knows I don't carve. Skidded turns baby!!  Flat mounts also are supposed to lower your center of gravity a bit and there's probably a nominal weight savings there without the rails, plates and other junk. I'm interested to see if being closer to the snow feels any different this season.


Greg mostly answered this for me, but to add to it, a binding usually has an option for a slight lift if you want to use it.   A slight lift is enough for the purposes that a mid fat will usually be used.  I'm assuming that you'll use something skinnier for your "carvin' it up" times, THAT is when you want the plate or raised binding.
That is when I'll get on my FireFox or Race Tiger (70 and 67 respectively)

Put me on my mid fat(82-94) and let me schmeer some turns!


----------



## Greg (Nov 1, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> Put me on my mid fat(82-94) and let me schmeer some turns!



Are you sure you're from Epic? I get the impression most of those guys are carving purists/PSIA types, not some schmeerer like yourself.  You'll fit in well here... :lol:


----------



## Puck it (Nov 1, 2007)

What about the Fischers?  Any cooments? Too wide?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 1, 2007)

Greg said:


> Are you sure you're from Epic? I get the impression most of those guys are carving purists/PSIA types, not some schmeerer like yourself.  You'll fit in well here... :lol:


Epic has far more Gear ho's that schmeer turns than tech junkies on skinny boards.  Believe it or not, but Epic is known for the instruction and coaching, which is profound, and those guys are skinny ski, carving the perfect turn perfectionists.

I want to improve my skills but not to the point of perfection.  Certainly not to the point of having a constipated look on my face.  (not that they do, but I would if I thought about skiing technique that hard)
Some times ya just gotta schmeer and let that silly grin take over.




Puck it said:


> What about the Fischers?  Any cooments? Too wide?


Oooof sorry kinda missed that.....


> Fischer 2008 Porohete (Prohete) Freeride Skis 170cm


With a 106 waist, you're not going to have a lot of opportunity to use it on the EC, but you just never know.  I recall the storm last year the second week of April, and the Heavenly powder where you'd have loved that ski.  Just not a ski  you'll use a lot.

If you got a great deal on it then I'd say go for it and use it when you can.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 1, 2007)

The 88's and Fishcers are the same price.  I was thinking that 88's would get more use also.  And I think flat is the way to go with these.  Save the rock skis also since I wouldn't be using their bindings.  Should I keep the recon's?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 1, 2007)

Puck it said:


> The 88's and Fishcers are the same price.  I was thinking that 88's would get more use also.  And I think flat is the way to go with these.  Save the rock skis also since I wouldn't be using their bindings.  Should I keep the recon's?


The recons are great skis.  If they are in good condition and you want to sell them, you should be able to get some good $$$ out of them.

If you really love them, then keep 'em.
If you decide to sell them, let me know, I think I have a friend who'll buy them.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 1, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> I want to improve my skills but not to the point of perfection.  Certainly not to the point of having a constipated look on my face.  (not that they do, but I would if I thought about skiing technique that hard)
> Some times ya just gotta schmeer and let that silly grin take over.



Hey, I used to teach...come to think of it, the constipated set are kind of the reason I stopped teaching.

You just can't carve turns everywhere people go skiing now anyway; I don't feel comfortable carving turns in trees as an example. Pivoting and lots of rotary stuff works better there for me.

The rotary/skid model works better in bumps too. I always coached what seemed to work best for the majority. It's not always carving.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Nov 1, 2007)

Greg said:


> I've been on risers, plates, rail systems, etc. for a few years. I'm going flat this season. It's my understanding that unless you're carving up on edge, lifts do little for you. Anyone that has seen me ski knows I don't carve. Skidded turns baby!!  Flat mounts also are supposed to lower your center of gravity a bit and there's probably a nominal weight savings there without the rails, plates and other junk. I'm interested to see if being closer to the snow feels any different this season.




You've lumped risers, plates and rail systems all in together. I'm no expert on all binding systems, but I know a little about the Marker XBS and XBI systems. Without getting too techy, they don't just bind your boot to the ski, they integerate the boot and ski together in a way that gives you more balance especially if you get too forward or back. All skis have a dead flex zone, these systems make that area smaller.

My Hellcats are 90mm underfoot and the XBI isn't mounted on the ski, but actually in it. there is a bored out section on top of the ski to accomadate the binding system.

This video kinda shows how it works if anyone is interested.

http://www.skinet.com/skinet/videos/article/0,26958,1567108,00.html


----------



## Greg (Nov 1, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> You've lumped risers, plates and rail systems all in together.



Didn't mean to generalize. I know these integrated systems each have specific functionality, but in my very limited equipment experience it seems the point is to aid in carving. My point was they all raise the boot higher off the ski and add some nominal weight. For my style of skiing, I'm trying to zero in on a set-up that will facilitate quick rotary powered turns, not high speed carves.


----------



## Bumpsis (Nov 1, 2007)

Puck it said:


> In quiver all ready-
> 
> 180cm 2003or4 Head Worldcup iRace with LD 12's(Rock skis)
> 177cm 2006 Head Worldcup iRace with FF17d's and plate (these fly)
> ...



How about adding lessons??

I mean, it's your business what you do with your money, but if you need that many pairs of skis to get the most out of skiing, perhaps it your technique that could use a bit of buffing up


----------



## Puck it (Nov 2, 2007)

I have been skiing since I was 5. Different skis offer different things. Obviously, you have no knowledge of skiing. I am looking for some opinions, I was not asking for your useless comments. You should know who you are talking to before making comments like this.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Nov 2, 2007)

Bumpsis said:


> How about adding lessons??
> 
> I mean, it's your business what you do with your money, but if you need that many pairs of skis to get the most out of skiing, perhaps it your technique that could use a bit of buffing up





Puck it said:


> I have been skiing since I was 5. Different skis offer different things. Obviously, you have no knowledge of skiing. I am looking for some opinions, I was not asking for your useless comments. You should know who you are talking to before making comments like this.



Almost no one buys skis because they *need *them. We work hard and deserve our toys. It is nice to have different options for different conditions and terrain.

Other then about 18 inches of fresh on an established base, the best day for me is the first day I get on my new skis.


----------



## Greg (Nov 2, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Almost no one buys skis because the *need *them. We work hard and deserve our toys. It is nice to have different options for different conditions and terrain.
> 
> Other then about 18 inches of fresh on an established base, the best day for me is the first day I get on my new skis.



Right. I've been a one ski quiver guy for some time. This year I added a bump ski along with my mid-fat (which I also want to replace). Maybe a fat powder board would be nice, but for the number of really deep powder days I usually score, it's probably overkill. I see what Bumpsis is saying.....he just could have said it better.


----------



## madskier6 (Nov 2, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> My Hellcats are 90mm underfoot and the XBI isn't mounted on the ski, but actually in it. there is a bored out section on top of the ski to accomadate the binding system.



Have you skied on the Hellcats yet or were they an off-season purchase?  How do you like them?  I'm intrigued by this ski & definitely want to demo a pair this season.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 2, 2007)

I posed the same question over the barking bear.  The barking Bears are saying to go even wider than 88's.  Overkill for the east?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 2, 2007)

Puck it said:


> I posed the same question over the barking bear.  The barking Bears are saying to go even wider than 88's.  Overkill for the east?



Believe it or not there is some great technology in skis that is making them very versatile.

The newest in this line up is the Volkl Bridge with a 94 waist.  While at the top end of the mid fat range, its been hailed as the true bridge between all Piste/off piste skiing.

You have some skinny stuff in your quiver you're keeping, right?  Why not go with a significant midfat to eliminate overlap and take you someplace you hadn't imagined!!!


----------



## Puck it (Nov 2, 2007)

The suggested the Icelantics.  The longest they make is 161cm but very wide.  Maybe Fischer Prophete would be good in a 170cm?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Nov 2, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> Have you skied on the Hellcats yet or were they an off-season purchase?  How do you like them?  I'm intrigued by this ski & definitely want to demo a pair this season.



I ordered them last week. I was not able to ski them last year. I'm told they ski very much like the Top Fuel, you just get the advantages that come with them being wider. Those that I've spoken to about them rave about them.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 2, 2007)

Puck it said:


> The suggested the Icelantics.  The longest they make is 161cm but very wide.  Maybe Fischer Prophete would be good in a 170cm?



I am not familiar with the icelantics, but as we discussed the prohete in a previous post.  Its a bit of an extreme because its 106, which is not going to have the versatile properties that a mid fat would have.
I'd really stay away from anything over 96 in the waist, if you want something that will work on the east coast and make due in powder.

I liked the idea of the 90 that canuck suggested.
Also, Whiteroom is a really good guy.  He has a ton of gear knowledge, and may offer you some really awesome ideas.  Heck, I turn to him with a bunch of my questions.  I think he's from the Stowe area IIRC.


----------



## Bumpsis (Nov 2, 2007)

Puck it said:


> I have been skiing since I was 5. Different skis offer different things. Obviously, you have no knowledge of skiing. I am looking for some opinions, I was not asking for your useless comments. You should know who you are talking to before making comments like this.



My, my, aren't we just a teeny bit thin skinned? I detect a bit of insecurity about your skiing  abilty here or perhaps just wounded pride  
My comment was a joking jab, a jest that seemed funny to me when I read your post. I was hoping you'd take it as such.

On the more serious side, yes I do think that some people ( maybe not you!) substitue equipment for skill.

To me this is just as funny as a Bogner clad ski bunny that's afraid to move for she may fall. The same for a guy with a rack full of skis that he keeps changing after every run so he can hit some imaginary performance zone. Unless somebody is pro, I personally think that blowing so much money on equipment is waste and swallowing a lot of marekting hooey, i.e. emperor's new clothes.

I have just one pair (OK, two, my old "straight" skis) on which I can have a lot of fun in whatever conditions I choose to ski, be it bumps, hardpack or or whatever else the mountain has to offer. I just ski what's there with what I got.

And yes, do rent perfomance skis from time to time and take advantage of demo days sometimes, just know what's out there.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 3, 2007)

I was asking a serious question and did not want some yahoo chiming in with attacks on ability. Let me know where you ski, so I can blow your doors off.  That is it. Now back to the topic.


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 3, 2007)

Title of this thread:

What should I add to quiver between these two?

Not:
What ski should I add to my quiver to make me a better skier?


Why on earth would anyone jump to a conclusion that the OP  needs lessons?

Puck It.............Lets make your quiver rock!
I jumped to the conclusion, of course, that you already do Rock!


----------



## Puck it (Nov 3, 2007)

Thanks.  I appreciate all of your advice Trechick.  I am still in a quandry though.  What do you think is a fair price for the Recons.  I was thinking $450.  I probably have skied them only ten to twelve time.  A ptex scratch was repaired after JH last year.  Not a core shit though.  It was worth it while looking a line OB at JH last year.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Nov 3, 2007)

Puck it said:


> Thanks.  I appreciate all of your advice Trechick.  I am still in a quandry though.  What do you think is a fair price for the Recons.  I was thinking $450.  I probably have skied them only ten to twelve time.  A ptex scratch was repaired after JH last year.  Not a core shit though.  It was worth it while looking a line OB at JH last year.




I would say $300 for the recons since they're a year old and were skied on 10-12 times..


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 3, 2007)

Puck it said:


> Thanks.  I appreciate all of your advice Trechick.  I am still in a quandry though.  What do you think is a fair price for the Recons.  I was thinking $450.  I probably have skied them only ten to twelve time.  A ptex scratch was repaired after JH last year.  Not a core shit though.  It was worth it while looking a line OB at JH last year.





GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I would say $300 for the recons since they're a year old and were skied on 10-12 times..


I was going to say 350 ish, if you planned on selling them to a fellow forum member. You may get more if you Ebay'em.  

 The only thing against them is that they are used 10-12 times, and have a ptex repair.  The thing you have going for you is that the K2 Recon is still one of the hottest skis in the regular consumer market.
Take me for instance................
I probably wouldn't be interested in it but then, I'm a gear ho and I am more intrigued with 2009 technology than 2007 technology. 
My friend demoed that ski last year and has been hunting for it, and a deal on a pair every since.  He just can't get it out of his head.

Those of us who frequent these forums are not the average consumer.


----------



## Mildcat (Nov 3, 2007)

If you don't use the Recons you should sell them on Ebay. Do you have an account set up to sell on Ebay? If you don't I'm sure there are many of us here on AZ willing to give you tips to sell them. To sell them on Craigslist you would need to set a lowball price but on Ebay you'll have plenty of people bidding on them. I've been looking for dirt cheap Recons on Ebay but they're hot enough people bid up the price.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 3, 2007)

I think I made up my mind.  Buy the 170cm Magnums.  Keep the Recons for now.  And demo a pair of 88's from Sport Thoma or even at Alta this year.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2007)

A recon should be worth way more than $450, unfortunately people are very cheap and only looking for ridiculous good deals.:angry:

I think $450 is more than a fair price, but I have no idea what to tell you to make them sell...;-)


----------



## Mildcat (Nov 3, 2007)

Bumpsis said:


> My, my, aren't we just a teeny bit thin skinned? I detect a bit of insecurity about your skiing  abilty here or perhaps just wounded pride
> My comment was a joking jab, a jest that seemed funny to me when I read your post. I was hoping you'd take it as such.
> 
> On the more serious side, yes I do think that some people ( maybe not you!) substitue equipment for skill.
> ...



My, my, aren't we just a little troll?

A joking jab at a total stranger = an insulting slap in the face. 

If a ski bunny can afford Bogner does that mean she should not wear it because she'll be made fun of by an angry troll like you? 

An "All Mountain Ski" is marketing "hooey". A good skier can have fun on any ski but the right  ski for the right conditions is more fun. I'm sure there are a lot of good skiers on this board with large quivers. So are you taking a joking jab at them too?


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 3, 2007)

Trekchick said:


> I was going to say 350 ish, if you planned on selling them to a fellow forum member. You may get more if you Ebay'em.
> 
> The only thing against them is that they are used 10-12 times, and have a ptex repair.  The thing you have going for you is that the K2 Recon is still one of the hottest skis in the regular consumer market.
> Take me for instance................
> ...





Mildcat said:


> If you don't use the Recons you should sell them on Ebay. Do you have an account set up to sell on Ebay? If you don't I'm sure there are many of us here on AZ willing to give you tips to sell them. To sell them on Craigslist you would need to set a lowball price but on Ebay you'll have plenty of people bidding on them. I've been looking for dirt cheap Recons on Ebay but they're hot enough people bid up the price.





Hawkshot99 said:


> A recon should be worth way more than $450, unfortunately people are very cheap and only looking for ridiculous good deals.:angry:
> 
> I think $450 is more than a fair price, but I have no idea what to tell you to make them sell...;-)


Did you all look at the ebay link in my post?
That auction for a used pair of Recons sold for over 600.00!!!!!!
It was approaching 500 when I linked it to this thread.  
If you want to sell them.............ebay'em!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Nov 3, 2007)

Hawkshot99 said:


> A recon should be worth way more than $450, unfortunately people are very cheap and only looking for ridiculous good deals.:angry:
> 
> I think $450 is more than a fair price, but I have no idea what to tell you to make them sell...;-)



But it's a last years model and it's used..based on the Teton Gravity formula..it should be about 60 percent off MSRP..


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 3, 2007)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> But it's a last years model and it's used..based on the Teton Gravity formula..it should be about 60 percent off MSRP..


its called supply and demand.  That is why a year old ski that was used in a demo program sold for $635 when it should have sold for 400


----------

