# Recommend some new all-mountain skis for me...



## millerm277 (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm currently using a pair of Rossignol Bandit BX's from 04-05, and I love them, but they're starting to get pretty high on the day count, so I'm starting to look for replacements.

They're 170's, with dimensions of 109-70-99. I'm looking for something similar. Any suggestions?


----------



## andrec10 (Jun 8, 2010)

Rossi CX80's. Got them for Xmas this Winter and love them! They hold on Ice like no tomorrow and float over crud and powder nicely. A cross between a GS and SL ski. Dont do too bad in the bumps either.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 9, 2010)

I'd personally think about something in the low to mid 80's for width.  You'd be surprised how well they can hold on the ice, carve through the groomers and float if you get lucky.


----------



## millerm277 (Jun 9, 2010)

RootDKJ said:


> I'd personally think about something in the low to mid 80's for width.  You'd be surprised how well they can hold on the ice, carve through the groomers and float if you get lucky.



So I've been told. Still on the fence though, I've been on a few wider skis in the past few years when mine haven't been with me, but I haven't enjoyed them much. (AC40's, Tigersharks.) I'm also a pretty light guy, 6ft 140lbs, so I've found I don't "sink" as much as other people seem to in the powder. (Or maybe it's just that I learned to ski powder on narrower skis). What would you suggest? I'm probably going to be demoing a bunch of skis next year, so I'm looking for things to try.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 9, 2010)

millerm277 said:


> So I've been told. Still on the fence though, I've been on a few wider skis in the past few years when mine haven't been with me, but I haven't enjoyed them much. (AC40's, Tigersharks.) I'm also a pretty light guy, 6ft 140lbs, so I've found I don't "sink" as much as other people seem to in the powder. (Or maybe it's just that I learned to ski powder on narrower skis). What would you suggest? I'm probably going to be demoing a bunch of skis next year, so I'm looking for things to try.


 
I ski regularly on Head Monsters and the Volkl Tigersharks and agree that these skis need a lot of power to drive and are not good for lighter skiers. The Tigersharks are good frontside skis, but not stellar in the bumps or trees.  These skis are stiffer as well. It depends on what you want in a ski. One brand that might be worth a demo is Atomic, which are quite popular because they are responsive and not too expensive. I know that the Metrons were the rave in 2007 or so, but I am not sure what they have now for models.  I like the Atomics I have skied.  Another try might be looking at K-2's which are generally softer.  Again, mine were great at the time, but I outgrew them and needed something stiffer.  I have not liked Dynastar skis and Salomons have been a bit too soft for me. 

Best advice though is to demo skis...demo, demo, and demo again. Try different brands on a demo day and go with the ski that you like the best when you are just out skiing the terrain you normally ski.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 9, 2010)

I've read that the Blizzard Magnum 8.1 are amazing east coast all mountain skis.  I'm in the market to replace my B2s, but probably not until after this season.  Like what I'm reading about the Blizzards and the new Fischer Motive 80


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 9, 2010)

Hey, at least it's good to be talking about skiing again


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 9, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> but probably not until after this season.



knowing your ways Root; when I saw you had replied I figured you would've quoted this above from me and repsonded

"famous last words"  :lol:


----------



## RootDKJ (Jun 9, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> knowing your ways Root; when I saw you had replied I figured you would've quoted this above from me and repsonded
> 
> "famous last words"  :lol:


lol...yeah really


----------



## millerm277 (Jun 10, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I ski regularly on Head Monsters and the Volkl Tigersharks and agree that these skis need a lot of power to drive and are not good for lighter skiers. The Tigersharks are good frontside skis, but not stellar in the bumps or trees.  These skis are stiffer as well. It depends on what you want in a ski. One brand that might be worth a demo is Atomic, which are quite popular because they are responsive and not too expensive. I know that the Metrons were the rave in 2007 or so, but I am not sure what they have now for models.  I like the Atomics I have skied.  Another try might be looking at K-2's which are generally softer.  Again, mine were great at the time, but I outgrew them and needed something stiffer.  I have not liked Dynastar skis and Salomons have been a bit too soft for me.



I'll add the metrons to my list to see if they're around. My skiing style is all over the place, so I actually need something that's decent in most terrain. I enjoy (and like to think I'm good at) everything except the tighter glades, lots of bumps, groomers, powder, slush....etc. I honestly don't really care about model year, I'll probably end up buying whatever it is off Ebay anyway for 1/2 the price this summer. (The BX's were a year old, unused when I got them for ~$150.)



> Best advice though is to demo skis...demo, demo, and demo again. Try different brands on a demo day and go with the ski that you like the best when you are just out skiing the terrain you normally ski.



I agree! Hence why I'm really looking for stuff to try, I have a few friends at random shops that'll let me demo almost anything anyway, I'm just looking for suggestions to narrow it down a bit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 10, 2010)

By the way.......fellow BX skier here.  Only about 25 days on mine.  Got em for $200 new in the wrapper at the end of 07-08.  Wish I picked up more at the time when I could have as they're a great bump ski.  Ok all mountain, but great in the bumps.


----------



## jack97 (Jun 13, 2010)

millerm277 said:


> I'm currently using a pair of Rossignol Bandit BX's from 04-05, and I love them, but they're starting to get pretty high on the day count, so I'm starting to look for replacements.
> 
> They're 170's, with dimensions of 109-70-99. I'm looking for something similar. Any suggestions?



Problem with old models is that unused pairs are harder to find as time passes. If it was me, I would check out the simular models made by k2 or Dynastar from that time frame or earlier. IMO, they make skis that feel close to each other. Presently, very few or no vendors make all mtn skis to that dimensions, every one is going wider; tips, waist and tail for an all mtn ski.


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2010)

Salomon Tornado will be one of the skinnier all mountain skis you'll find.  Going a bit fatter I've read some glowing reviews of the Dynastar Sultan 80.


----------



## legalskier (Jul 7, 2010)

Check out next season's line of K2s, with new dimensions and camber. I demo'd a pair in April, when I luckily bumped into a K2 rep who had some.  I think they were called the Rictor, which were 80 mm under foot and will replace the Recon. They have something called "baseline camber" if I recall, which introduces some rocker into the shovel, so the skis can release smoother into the turn which allows for a quicker edge engagement into the new turn; that's the theory at least. It was a blast skiing on them, almost effortless. There also will be another model called the Charger, a little narrower. I expect K2 will be rolling them out fairly soon, I'm seriously considering treating myself!


----------



## jack97 (Jul 10, 2010)

legalskier said:


> ......They have something called "baseline camber" if I recall, which introduces some rocker into the shovel, so the skis can release smoother into the turn which allows for a quicker edge engagement into the new turn; that's the theory at least. It was a blast skiing on them, almost effortless. There also will be another model called the Charger, a little narrower.....



Here's an article on the "rocker" and running length of the ski..... k2 use to drive me crazy when they listed the running length rather than the tradition length of the ski :-? 

It's an interesting approach/consideration for a ski used for different conditions; firm to powder. 

http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/blog/index/view/slug/how-rocker-affects-ski-length


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2010)

jack97 said:


> Here's an article on the "rocker" and running length of the ski..... k2 use to drive me crazy when they listed the running length rather than the tradition length of the ski :-?


Why would running length being posted drive you crazy? I am surprised a company like K2 would break with tradition and use running length. I could see how that could confuse less knowledgeable skiers that are used to talking total length. Running length is a really important factor to consider when you start getting into twin tips and rocker. I am a little surprised that that BD article seems to suggest these rocker skis are great on hard pack as well as natural snow because of running length. I would think many other factors including torsional strength, radius, materials, constructions, etc. would be important factors. Color me still not sold on rocker as anything but a specialty tool.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 10, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Why would running length being posted drive you crazy? I am surprised a company like K2 would break with tradition and use running length. I could see how that could confuse less knowledgeable skiers that are used to talking total length.



It would be fine if K2 listed the running length as the running length but when their skis gets to the stores, the running length gets listed as the tradition length. Since they leave this ambiguous, this leaves the buyer guessing which length gets listed. IIRC, the difference between lengths is about 5-7 cm on their mogul skis, its easy to see in a brick and motor place but at a ebay store you have to email in the question and hope the seller provides a knowledgeable response if any.


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Jul 10, 2010)

My recommendation is Fischer Watea 78's.  I'm on my second pair and they've done very well in all the conditions that I've encountered in the east.  Though I may try out the 84's when I get new skis in a couple of seasons as I'm not a light guy.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2010)

jack97 said:


> It would be fine if K2 listed the running length as the running length but when their skis gets to the stores, the running length gets listed as the tradition length. Since they leave this ambiguous, this leaves the buyer guessing which length gets listed. IIRC, the difference between lengths is about 5-7 cm on their mogul skis, its easy to see in a brick and motor place but at a ebay store you have to email in the question and hope the seller provides a knowledgeable response if any.


I am surprised to hear that any ski company would not list the full lengths on their skis. Especially a big brand like K2. That is mind boggling that they would only put the running length number on their skis. :-o


----------



## Rushski (Jul 19, 2010)

Saw that someone posted on The fIscher Wateas.  This upcoming year they have what seems to be a winner in their Motive series as well.  Demo'ed (and liked) them in March and others seemed thrilled by them too.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 24, 2010)

Fischer Progressor +9  (70mm)
Dynastar Sultan 85  (just threw this one in...fwiw)


----------

