# Skiing Mag Gear Guide 2008



## ERJ-145CA (Aug 15, 2007)

Just got my Skiing magazine gear guide '08 in the mail today, getting excited, only 2 1/2 months or so to go.


----------



## drjeff (Aug 15, 2007)

You just made my afternoon move extremely slow now knowing what I have to look forward to tonight when I open up the mailbox!


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 15, 2007)

Damn, the latest Outside came yesterday and I got all excited that it was the gear guide. That 2007 issue is getting pretty worn.

Hope it's there when I get home.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 16, 2007)

Finally got it today! And it's better than usual, lots of backcountry gear reviews and even a Beer League racing category. Lots of articles on the Valentines Day storm too.


----------



## VTpowder (Aug 16, 2007)

i got the powder gear guide today, it is making me sick.
to many awesome skis to choose from.
tough choices eh?


----------



## madskier6 (Aug 17, 2007)

I got my issue of Skiing yesterday.  It's always nice to read all the gear reviews, especially in the middle of hot August.  

This year's issue has a couple of notable omissions in the Best Ski categories.  The Dynastar Legend 8000 & Mythic Rider (former 8800) are not mentioned anywhere in the magazine!   People may differ on their ski preferences but, come on, these 2 models are not among the 162 best skis on the market?  You're joking right Skiing magazine?


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 17, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> I got my issue of Skiing yesterday.  It's always nice to read all the gear reviews, especially in the middle of hot August.
> 
> This year's issue has a couple of notable omissions in the Best Ski categories.  The Dynastar Legend 8000 & Mythic Rider (former 8800) are not mentioned anywhere in the magazine!   People may differ on their ski preferences but, come on, these 2 models are not among the 162 best skis on the market?  You're joking right Skiing magazine?



If the company does not submit them they do not get rated.  
This years is the best yet.  It would be helpful if they listed all the skiis that were entered.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 17, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> If the company does not submit them they do not get rated.
> This years is the best yet.  It would be helpful if they listed all the skiis that were entered.



Yup, and Dynastar got best in test for the Big Mountain skis. So either they didn't submit the 8000s or they are falling behind the rest in the one ski quiver category.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 17, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> I got my issue of Skiing yesterday.  It's always nice to read all the gear reviews, especially in the middle of hot August.
> 
> This year's issue has a couple of notable omissions in the Best Ski categories.  The Dynastar Legend 8000 & Mythic Rider (former 8800) are not mentioned anywhere in the magazine!   People may differ on their ski preferences but, come on, these 2 models are not among the 162 best skis on the market?  You're joking right Skiing magazine?



They may not have bought enough ad pages. There's only so many "gold medals" to go around.

Having skied many, if not most of the skis reviewed, I had more than a few chuckles, particularly after reading some of the descriptions.


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 17, 2007)

big_vert said:


> They may not have bought enough ad pages. There's only so many "gold medals" to go around.
> 
> Having skied many, if not most of the skis reviewed, I had more than a few chuckles, particularly after reading some of the descriptions.



I have been using the mag for 5 years when making my ski selection and there reviews tend to be dead on.
It narrows down the selection quickly.   I only use one pair of skiis currently on the AC4 the ac40 came out on top this year so no new skiis for me this year.  Probably put together a back coutry package


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 17, 2007)

big_vert said:


> There's only so many "gold medals" to go around.



That's SKI. Can't you tell the difference? ;-) Maybe the 8000s will show up there.




big_vert said:


> Having skied many, if not most of the skis reviewed, I had more than a few chuckles, particularly after reading some of the descriptions.



Cause you had a different experience with the ski? I'd be interested to hear about which one's you agree/disagree about.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 17, 2007)

Great.  Now I have to go and buy Skiing, even if half the stuff they say in their reviews is complete nonsense.


----------



## madskier6 (Aug 17, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> If the company does not submit them they do not get rated.
> This years is the best yet.  It would be helpful if they listed all the skiis that were entered.



I find it hard to believe that Dynastar did not submit either of these skis for review.  Especially so with the Mythic Rider as this is a new model this year (though based on the old 8800 with some modifications).  One would think that Dynastar would want to push their new model plus the Legends have been one of the more popular ski lines over the years.


----------



## snowmonster (Aug 17, 2007)

Got mine yesterday. It's a sign that the skiing season is just around the corner. Is it me or is it starting to get cooler in Boston?

It was nice to see the east get some love in the magazine. I got fed up last season with reading all these articles about how there was no snow in the east then BOOM -- great second half of the season!


----------



## big_vert (Aug 17, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> That's SKI. Can't you tell the difference? ;-) Maybe the 8000s will show up there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go back a year, or two, or three -  see what they say about the same ski two years in a row - one year a great bump ski, the next it's ponderous in the bumps - same ski, same graphics, same size. One year a great carver, next year it's for bc.

Yes - "because I had a different experience with the ski". I can't very well provide your experience with it can I, so I have to use mine.:roll:

Specifically - Head 82 - good ski, not great (although I tried two sizes, neither one of which was probably correct for me), Nordica Jet fuel - 25 pound tips that need to be rotated around - one run is like 10 on any other ski, Salomon Fury - puleese, Tigershark - underwhelming.

Any other questions?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 17, 2007)

*Only two Head skis in the list.*

:argue:I also find it hard to believe that Head Supershapes are not even mentioned in the tests.  Or did I miss it.  This is a great ski.  I have it in a 160 and it is great on edge, but does not like to run flat due to its length.  They made this ski even better this with 71mm under foot. This is close to being a one ski quiver in my opinion.  Why does SKI and SKIING hate Head products so much?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 17, 2007)

*Only two Head skis in the list.*

They do test the boots though.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 17, 2007)

big_vert said:


> Any other questions?



Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious about what you thought. 

It just shows how subjective the tests are. I skied a few last year too and didn't agree with everything. I liked the tigersharks (10ft) and K2 Recons, wasn't impressed with the Salomons and actively disliked the Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3. And the Fischer Cool(Cold?) Heat were super stable, but had no life to them.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 17, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious about what you thought.
> 
> It just shows how subjective the tests are. I skied a few last year too and didn't agree with everything. I liked the tigersharks (10ft) and K2 Recons, wasn't impressed with the Salomons and actively disliked the Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3. And the Fischer Cool(Cold?) Heat were super stable, but had no life to them.



Same here. 

Tigersharks are OK, nothing great, and aren't up to the hype they'll get. They're this years skis to be seen with, and will be next year's Metron (feel free to quote me next year) - stick with the AC30's - excellent ski (my #2 fave).

K2 Recons are very damp. I have 4-5 days on them at Whistler. I still have a pair of Axispro's that I used for 1.5 years - the Recon's haven't advanced the art of skis much since the Axispro. I don't have a Rossi axe-to-grind, and don't see a lot of difference between a B2 and a Recon. Damning with faint praise?

Haven't been on Speedmachines but the Top Fuel is my #3 ski preference (Jet Fuel is nowhere near being on list - yuck). Never been on a Fischer.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 17, 2007)

The problem is as follows...put 2 people on the same set of skis and you'll get 2 different opinions. Especially true with new ski technology. The ski mags try to compensate for that by having alot of testers that vary by gender, height, weight, ability, age, even recreational skiers as opposed to pros. They all test the skis and they all make comments.

Then the editirs mess it up by trying to edit down all those comments into a few bullet points. It doesn't work. I find these tests useless.

The best way to figure out new skis is to demo them yourself, preferably with another skiing buddy who has similar interests as you. Pick 5 or 6 pair of skis and both of you ski each one throughout the day, then compare notes.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 17, 2007)

JimG. said:


> The problem is as follows...put 2 people on the same set of skis and you'll get 2 different opinions. Especially true with new ski technology. The ski mags try to compensate for that by having alot of testers that vary by gender, height, weight, ability, age, even recreational skiers as opposed to pros. They all test the skis and they all make comments.
> 
> Then the editirs mess it up by trying to edit down all those comments into a few bullet points. It doesn't work. I find these tests useless.
> 
> The best way to figure out new skis is to demo them yourself, preferably with another skiing buddy who has similar interests as you. Pick 5 or 6 pair of skis and both of you ski each one throughout the day, then compare notes.




Without doubt this is the best description I've ever seen as to why the Mag reviews are so useless. 

Anyone who would buy direct from any mag review is doing themselves a huge disservice. The mags aren't even consistent from one year to the next about a carry-over product.  Absolutely right - demo, demo, demo, demo. demo.

And, when in doubt, demo some more. Whenever there's a demo tent I get on something new. I loved my Axispro's years ago, then eventually stumbled on Dynastar Skicross 10's - new meaning to life. Then with a buddy in CO, tried some different things including the Dynastar 4800's, which lead to the 8k's - my fave of 40 years of skiing.  Nothing at the demo tents last winter has made me get off these yet - maybe this year. Maybe an Atomic (nah - just kidding - although I did try them again last season)


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 17, 2007)

BTW - not all skis are available to demo.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 17, 2007)

JimG. said:


> The problem is as follows...put 2 people on the same set of skis and you'll get 2 different opinions. Especially true with new ski technology. The ski mags try to compensate for that by having alot of testers that vary by gender, height, weight, ability, age, even recreational skiers as opposed to pros. They all test the skis and they all make comments.
> 
> Then the editirs mess it up by trying to edit down all those comments into a few bullet points. It doesn't work. I find these tests useless.
> 
> The best way to figure out new skis is to demo them yourself, preferably with another skiing buddy who has similar interests as you. Pick 5 or 6 pair of skis and both of you ski each one throughout the day, then compare notes.



Definitely, magazine reviews would work best for me if they included the following detailed ski specs:
- Available lengths
- Sidecut details
- Camber, tip/tail rocker, tip/tail height & shape
- Ski running length for each size
- Boot sole location on ski running length for each size
- Weight / swing weight by size
- Flex pattern
- Tip, middle and tail stiffness (on some kind of median scale)
- Construction (sandwich vs cap, metal/no metal, edges, etc.. etc..)

This should capture most of what is needed to make an educated decision on demoing some models.  You can't have an all around soft park ski that crushes crud.  You can't have a fat ski that is soft all around and has a bunch of time tip and tail rocker that is going to be better on hard snow that a ski with more traditional shape and stiffer flex.  A ski with a softer, rockered tip will float better than a Atomic B5. You can't have a stiff, heavy ski with two layers of metal and square tail rippin bump runs as well as a light straighter ski with a round flex.

If people still want some random bs opinions that are based more on which tester is sponsored by which brand and who paid more advertising money, they can still do their usual reviews where they rank skis 53% finesse vs. 47% power.  Like that helps a 230lb skier make a decision.  Some feather light female skier was overpowered by a ski... and what does that mean to someone that has twice the weight and 50% more leverage?

This way people who are educated on ski technology and understand how shape, flex, weight etc... affects their skiing experience can narrow down their demo list using specs and principles of ski construction/performance, not biased opinions that are driven by the publishing company's financial bottom line.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 17, 2007)

SkiDork said:


> BTW - not all skis are available to demo.



You are partially correct.

Maybe not on the trucks during demo days, but any reputable ski rep/shop will have a pair or two of each ski they rep, or they can get a pair for you to demo.

But that's probably not true for specialty skis like bump skis or tele skis.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 17, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Definitely, magazine reviews would work best for me if they included the following detailed ski specs:
> - Available lengths
> - Sidecut details
> - Camber, tip/tail rocker, tip/tail height & shape
> ...



10+ years ago when I worked in a shop we had an industry mag that had pretty much all that info in it. It was really handy when we had customers that wanted to know every detail. I don't remember the name. I'm sure someone else here is familiar with it.

Despite the subjective nature of the ski reviews I really enjoy seeing all those new skis and reading about them.


----------



## Rushski (Aug 18, 2007)

Obviously not all brands/models were available when they were testing, but surprised Elan who is pushing hard in many shops and signed Plake are barely in their.  And little or no Blizzard or Dynamic.

Also, one of their "Killer Deals" is a pair of Salomon X-Wing Cyclones for $1,275?!?!?  Does that come with boots for that price to be a Killer Deal?"

Take it all with a grain of salt and just use it to get pumped for life to begin again...


----------



## mattchuck2 (Aug 19, 2007)

Yeah, I tend to trust reviews done by skiers who are at the top of their games, rather than random people in a ski forum.  I have no idea how big_vert skis, but I have a pretty good idea of how Tommy Moe and Brant Moles ski.  Therefore, I think that the Skiing Magazine reviews are, indeed, useful.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 19, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm genuinely curious about what you thought.
> 
> actively disliked the Nordica Speedmachine Mach 3. .



Just curious on what you disliked about the Mach 3's. I have a pair and like them alot on front side hard pack. Great edge gripe, *very fast *as well as stable, and versitle enough to get in bumps, woods or jump in the NASTAR course.

On the majority of my ski days I choose my Top Fuels', but for front side rippin the Mach 
3's are nice.


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 19, 2007)

I wonder why people always hate on the reviews every year.  Cause your ski is not tops on the list.  Or better yet your skiis did not even make it to the plate.  I guess if I speant a grand on skiis and they did not even make it to the finals I would would feel like a fool as well and make excuses for them.
Its really does not matter if you ski inferior skiis if they match your skiing ability.  If you are happy then that is all that matters


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 19, 2007)

big_vert said:


> Without doubt this is the best description I've ever seen as to why the Mag reviews are so useless.
> 
> Anyone who would buy direct from any mag review is doing themselves a huge disservice. The mags aren't even consistent from one year to the next about a carry-over product.  Absolutely right - demo, demo, demo, demo. demo.
> 
> And, when in doubt, demo some more. Whenever there's a demo tent I get on something new. I loved my Axispro's years ago, then eventually stumbled on Dynastar Skicross 10's - new meaning to life. Then with a buddy in CO, tried some different things including the Dynastar 4800's, which lead to the 8k's - my fave of 40 years of skiing.  Nothing at the demo tents last winter has made me get off these yet - maybe this year. Maybe an Atomic (nah - just kidding - although I did try them again last season)




I have the t two years worth of reviews.  I like to compare.  They have very similar reviews from year to year.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 19, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Just curious on what you disliked about the Mach 3's. I have a pair and like them alot on front side hard pack. Great edge gripe, *very fast *as well as stable, and versitle enough to get in bumps, woods or jump in the NASTAR course.



I didn't ski the power version, not sure which one you have. When I demoed them I felt that unless I had them locked into a medium radius turn they were chattering around and being squirrily. I skied a bunch of demos of varying levels that day and they were the only ones that really gave me trouble. I'd try them again, maybe it was a bad tune or I was low on sugar or something. :grin:


----------



## big_vert (Aug 19, 2007)

mattchuck2 said:


> Yeah, I tend to trust reviews done by skiers who are at the top of their games, rather than random people in a ski forum.  I have no idea how big_vert skis, but I have a pretty good idea of how Tommy Moe and Brant Moles ski.  Therefore, I think that the Skiing Magazine reviews are, indeed, useful.



They're posers.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 20, 2007)

big_vert said:


> the Top Fuel is my #3 ski preference (Jet Fuel is nowhere near being on list - yuck). Never .



Interesting that an additional 3mm in the tip, 6 in the waist and 4 in the tail on the exact same construction turns you from a lover into a hater...sure, not as much sidecut, but other than that, its the same construction.  Did you get on the Hellcat?


----------



## big_vert (Aug 21, 2007)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Interesting that an additional 3mm in the tip, 6 in the waist and 4 in the tail on the exact same construction turns you from a lover into a hater...sure, not as much sidecut, but other than that, its the same construction.  Did you get on the Hellcat?



Nighr and day difference. Interestingly, my buddy was on the Nordica Grand Prix's (?), and the 06-07 version was a favorite - while the 07-08's had the same feel that I experiencesd with the Jet Fuel - super heavy front end that had to be swung around.

His feeling was exactly the same - one run on these things would be like 10 on any other ski. Go figure.


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 21, 2007)

JimG. said:


> You are partially correct.
> 
> Maybe not on the trucks during demo days, but any reputable ski rep/shop will have a pair or two of each ski they rep, or they can get a pair for you to demo.
> 
> But that's probably not true for specialty skis like bump skis or tele skis.



Also race skis - The local race ski shop at K, Peak Peformance won't demo stuff like Fischer RC4's etc.  i really didn't care because I know I love them anyways...


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 21, 2007)

I like the gear guide because they have lots of pictures, and that's how I pick my skis. It's gotta look cool. That's the most important thing.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 21, 2007)

big_vert said:


> Nighr and day difference. Interestingly, my buddy was on the Nordica Grand Prix's (?), and the 06-07 version was a favorite - while the 07-08's had the same feel that I experiencesd with the Jet Fuel - super heavy front end that had to be swung around.
> 
> His feeling was exactly the same - one run on these things would be like 10 on any other ski. Go figure.



I like them both...just for different places, Top Fuel for a one quiver EC ski (fortunately I'm not limited to a one ski quiver though) and the Jet Fuel for a western ski...the additional surface area made the 178 more skiable in deeper snow and crud than the Top Fuel...I'd want the 186 out west in the Top Fuel but the 78 Jet Fuel is just fine...with a fat ski for the DEEP days.  This year the HellCat takes it a step further...no mild mannered house cat...that thing is a beast...but a good kinda beast.  Did you try the Afterburner...Jet Fuel with no metal...I was at the Nordica product launch and most of the other dealers there favored the Afterburner over the Jet Fuel...lighter, snappier, etc...sounds like it would address your complaint.


----------



## bigbog (Aug 21, 2007)

VTpowder said:


> i got the powder gear guide today, it is making me sick.
> to many awesome skis to choose from.
> tough choices eh?


Talk about a plethora of fat skis waiting for the white stuff to fall.  I think I may think about ditching my 80-somethings...while salivating at these dimensions....:-o


----------



## skibum1321 (Aug 22, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> I wonder why people always hate on the reviews every year.  Cause your ski is not tops on the list.  Or better yet your skiis did not even make it to the plate.  I guess if I speant a grand on skiis and they did not even make it to the finals I would would feel like a fool as well and make excuses for them.
> Its really does not matter if you ski inferior skiis if they match your skiing ability.  If you are happy then that is all that matters



I think the point is that you shouldn't buy skis strictly on a 2 sentence review in a magazine. I don't think anyone is ripping the mag because their skis didn't make the list. But you would be stupid to not take anything they say there with a grain of salt. Remember who pays the bills.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 22, 2007)

skibum1321 said:


> I think the point is that you shouldn't buy skis strictly on a 2 sentence review in a magazine. I don't think anyone is ripping the mag because their skis didn't make the list. But you would be stupid to not take anything they say there with a grain of salt. Remember who pays the bills.



Case in point...I got SKI yesterday and glanced at the gear reviews.

I hear alot of good things about the Dynastar Legend 8000...I'll be demoing another pair this coming season because I do want a wider (the 8000 is listed at 79mm underfoot) ski better suited to powder skiing. I've heard alot of praises for this ski in this forum, from skiers who sound like they're pretty good in the bumps/trees/BC/powder. A versatile ski that skis alot of things well.

To me, that's the definitiion of an All Mountain Expert ski, a one quiver ski for experts.

SKI says it's an All Mountain Cruiser...designed for ripping big arcs on groomed snow. Why would they say that? It's Dynastar marketing to the people who read SKI...mostly groomer skiers I'll bet.

So, either SKI got it wrong or you guys are full of sh*t. I'll place my wager on the rag being wrong.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 22, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Case in point...I got SKI yesterday and glanced at the gear reviews.
> 
> I hear alot of good things about the Dynastar Legend 8000...I'll be demoing another pair this coming season because I do want a wider (the 8000 is listed at 79mm underfoot) ski better suited to powder skiing. I've heard alot of praises for this ski in this forum, from skiers who sound like they're pretty good in the bumps/trees/BC/powder. A versatile ski that skis alot of things well.
> 
> ...



It was probably the category Dynastar elected to put that ski into...I'm pretty sure its up to the mfu to select the category.  However, that doesn't rule out that any of us are full of it. :smile:


----------



## JimG. (Aug 22, 2007)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> It was probably the category Dynastar elected to put that ski into...I'm pretty sure its up to the mfu to select the category.



Which to me, makes the whole "test" useless.

The magazine is not at liberty to place the ski where the test results show it belongs. 

This does not serve the buying public's interests at best and is false advertising at worst.

Unless of course everyone here is full of it.


----------



## tjf67 (Aug 22, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Case in point...I got SKI yesterday and glanced at the gear reviews.
> 
> I hear alot of good things about the Dynastar Legend 8000...I'll be demoing another pair this coming season because I do want a wider (the 8000 is listed at 79mm underfoot) ski better suited to powder skiing. I've heard alot of praises for this ski in this forum, from skiers who sound like they're pretty good in the bumps/trees/BC/powder. A versatile ski that skis alot of things well.
> 
> ...




I dont like Ski's reviews.  They dont make a whole lot of sense to me.   
IMO Skiing did a great job.  Ski had more skiis but they were confusing.  I kept going back and forth between the two mags.  In the end I found a few skiis for my girl that I am going to take a look at from Ski.  The testers take give you an idea.  

I have been buying based on the skiing reviews for years.  saloman exscreme, K-2 XP, Atomic Metron, K-2 Recons, My current pair AC4.   I have never been dissapointed.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 22, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Which to me, makes the whole "test" useless.
> 
> The magazine is not at liberty to place the ski where the test results show it belongs.
> 
> ...



Yeah...it wouldn't be a bad idea to just test them all and then decide which ski goes into which category after the fact.  My biggest complaint is there usually isn't someone on the test panel close to my weight and age...on the SKI panel they jump from about 10 of them under 170lbs up to 244 with only one guy in the middle...Todd Casey at 190...and he's about 6'5...not to mention most of the guys are over 40...not that there's anything wrong with that...guess that's their biggest demographic anyway.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 22, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> I didn't ski the power version, not sure which one you have. When I demoed them I felt that unless I had them locked into a medium radius turn they were chattering around and being squirrily. I skied a bunch of demos of varying levels that day and they were the only ones that really gave me trouble. I'd try them again, maybe it was a bad tune or I was low on sugar or something. :grin:




I have the Powers. They don't chatter or get squirrily.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 22, 2007)

Jim, as far as the 8000s, the groomers are the weakest link in the "all mountain" part of the ski (not to say they are bad but definitely not excelling on hard pack). It excels on all forms of natural. Bumps aren't super but certainly one of the better mid-fats I have tried in the bumps due to the quick, nimble, and lively feel. I still could be just full of it but I think any one that considers the 8000 a great cruiser needs to get their head examined. That isn't even an issue of different skiers liking different skis better for different uses... that is just completely wrong. Dynastar offers a high speed cruiser ski and it is not in the Legend series. Just goes to show how much trust you can put in these reviews. It is nice to see all the pretty skis lined up with their digits. I noticed powder even broke down dimensions by length which was very nice.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 23, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Jim, as far as the 8000s, the groomers are the weakest link in the "all mountain" part of the ski (not to say they are bad but definitely not excelling on hard pack). It excels on all forms of natural. Bumps aren't super but certainly one of the better mid-fats I have tried in the bumps due to the quick, nimble, and lively feel. I still could be just full of it but I think any one that considers the 8000 a great cruiser needs to get their head examined. That isn't even an issue of different skiers liking different skis better for different uses... that is just completely wrong. Dynastar offers a high speed cruiser ski and it is not in the Legend series. Just goes to show how much trust you can put in these reviews. It is nice to see all the pretty skis lined up with their digits. I noticed powder even broke down dimensions by length which was very nice.



Steve, your preaching to the choir.

My impressions of the 8000's mirror yours...lively and fairly nimble, adequate in bumps, but cruising on the groomed was the weak point. Which is good because I definitely don't want them for groomers.

But bad if a magazine tells you they're good for the groomed.

SKI did break down dimensions by length also which I liked too.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 23, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Steve, your preaching to the choir.
> 
> My impressions of the 8000's mirror yours...lively and fairly nimble, adequate in bumps, but cruising on the groomed was the weak point. Which is good because I definitely don't want them for groomers.
> 
> ...



I just read the Ski review on the 8000's. They call it a west coast cruiser and do not recommend it for east coast hard pack.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 23, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> I just read the Ski review on the 8000's. They call it a west coast cruiser and do not recommend it for east coast hard pack.



See? I'm full of sh*t too.

Not that that's big news.


----------

