# Best All Mountain Ski?



## bzrperfspec77 (Aug 8, 2012)

Ok, I'm sure this has been asked and people are probably like "WTF... How can you answer this?" Well I'm going to give it my best shot on narrowing the answer. I have a good set of all mountain skis now (Armada Triumphs 171 long -120/78/107 and Line Blends 179 long - 125/90/113) but I'm looking for something that will be a bit more Nothern Vermont capable (I.E. MRG tight trails, powder, trees). To me the skis I have now are good on hardpack and groomers. The Blends do decent in powder, but I want to get a more capable powder/tree ski. Do I go rocker? Do people normally go shorter when skiing in the trees? Just curious... Shoot away at me if I didn't give enough info...

6'0 tall, 190 lbs - I like to ski the blacks, but there are plenty other better skiers than me! 

Thanks all.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 8, 2012)

Pick up a ski mag gear guide to get an idea of what is available. Look for their all mountain mid-farts or whatever the industry is calling em' these days. Shop around and get whatever is cheapest in your size. Look at last year's models for some deals though manufacturers often change the name of the same ski year to year to screw with this.

If you don't have any specific requirements, just pick a top sheet that looks good at a good price. Go to a demo day if you want to try a bunch out. Do get rocker (it is going to be hard not to these days) and DO NOT go shorter for skiing the trees. Ski length has nothing to do with tree skiing. Shorter skis don't make you ski the woods better, skiing better makes you ski the woods better, regardless of length.

Okay... time to commence most other posters chiming in with "get ski X. I ski it and its awesome!" for two dozen different models. Ready, set, go!


----------



## NHmurph (Aug 8, 2012)

This otta be fun !!!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 9, 2012)

No such thing as an All Mountain One Ski Quiver IMO.  

Anything I've skied under 100 is inadequate in snow deeper than 6-8 inches

Anything I've skied over 85 is inadequate for hard pack and bumps.  

When you think "All Mountain" just recognize that you will be making some minor to major sacrifices depending on the conditions and terrain you're using them in.  I can ski bumps on my Fischer Motive 84s, but my 70 waisted Rossi BXs are WAY, WAY better.  I can take those same Fischer's in 6-8 inch deep snow, but my 92 waisted High Society Free Rides are WAY, WAY better.  I have taken out those same HS Free Rides on DEEP days and they ski fine, but my 110 waisted Rossi Axioms are WAY, WAY better.

If you have to go with just one type of ski in the east, I'd recommend something with a waist around 85 unless you call one of the very few mountains in the East that have a 250 plus inch annual average home.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 9, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> DO NOT go shorter for skiing the trees. *Ski length has nothing to do with tree skiing. Shorter skis don't make you ski the woods better, skiing better makes you ski the woods better, regardless of length*.



Depends how tight.   You've expressed the above before, and several of us on here completely disagreed with you.   Obviously no ski will make you a_ "better"_ skier, but if you're talking a ski _specific_ for skiing tight trees as he's suggesting, I see no reason to not go a little bit shorter regardless of how proficient a skier you are.   I'm a decent tennis player and could probably beat most people with a wooden racquet, but there's really no point in doing so.


----------



## bzrperfspec77 (Aug 9, 2012)

Thanks so far guys. Like some did by *reading* my post, maybe stating "All Mountain Ski" wasn't the best idea... What I want to find is that powder/tree ski for the powder days up north. I don't have a "Home" mountain. I can't afford a season pass so I scour for deals and hit various mountains on off peak days or powder days. To me going to a powder day with my 78 underfoot Armadas just doesn't cut it.

I guess I will just read the ski magazines and leave the questions on here for everything else besides asking about what ski is best... :wink:


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 9, 2012)

Regarding the one ski quiver, it is more a reality now than before. I am actually going to give it a go this year with the Atomic Theory. It won't be perfect on the groomers but I tried it last year and it was better than I thought it would be a ski with a 95mm waist. And with a tip over 130mm, that is more than enough for powder without being a one trick pony. I think the industry is closing in the magic specifications. While no one ski will ever excel at each individual specialty, the trade offs have gotten significantly less.



BenedictGomez said:


> Depends how tight.   You've expressed the above before, and several of us on here completely disagreed with you.   Obviously no ski will make you a_ "better"_ skier, but if you're talking a ski _specific_ for skiing tight trees as he's suggesting, I see no reason to not go a little bit shorter regardless of how proficient a skier you are.   I'm a decent tennis player and could probably beat most people with a wooden racquet, but there's really no point in doing so.


None sense. I stand by my statement. I ski on a 186cm ski in the trees and I could certainly easily handle longer if it suited me. And I love tight lines. Like, rabbit hole tight. Like, ski width tight elevator shaft tight barely a ski width and sometimes less. Ski length just has nothing to do with skiing trees. Get the ski that matches your specifications, size, weight, etc. Don't get a ski because you think you might hit a tree with your skis if they are too long. That is totally compensating for lack of technique and won't help you at all either.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 9, 2012)

bzrperfspec77 said:


> Thanks so far guys. Like some did by *reading* my post


Wow, jeez, good luck. Maybe I'll have to read posts three times instead of only twice before I reply. :roll:


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 9, 2012)

The other thing I would mention to the above is to pay attn to the sidecut/turn radius of the ski. No use in getting something with a long sidecut if you primiarly like doing short turns on steep groomers. I think anything under about a 22 mm is great for EC skiing.       
As Rivercoil has said look at all the dimensions of the ski and how they work in conjunction with one another---there are lots of great choices out there right now.
I actually just picked up a pair of the *Surface Watch Lifes*. 182cm long x 132/100/122    19.5 sidecut
I'm stepping up from a 178 89 waisted ski (Scott Missions) but am really looking forward to getting that extra width underfoot as well as in the tip/tail.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 9, 2012)

Hell and back at 98mm underfoot are a great everyday ski.  Great edge hold on hardpack and very damp for no metal.  They rail at high speeds.  I highly recommend these.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 9, 2012)

xwhaler said:


> The other thing I would mention to the above is to pay attn to the sidecut/turn radius of the ski. No use in getting something with a long sidecut if you primiarly like doing short turns on steep groomers. I think anything under about a 22 mm is great for EC skiing.
> As Rivercoil has said look at all the dimensions of the ski and how they work in conjunction with one another---there are lots of great choices out there right now.
> I actually just picked up a pair of the *Surface Watch Lifes*. 182cm long x 132/100/122    19.5 sidecut
> I'm stepping up from a 178 89 waisted ski (Scott Missions) but am really looking forward to getting that extra width underfoot as well as in the tip/tail.



I too agree with Revercoil. Shorter definitely doesn't mean better, especially in the east when you don't know if the trees are going to be dust on crust or pow. My all mountain skis are K2 Kung Fujas. My feeling is that a true all mountain ski should be higher than 90 and lower than 110 at the waist. The dimension on these are 133-102-127. I truly enjoy them and I have skied everything from tight couloirs to tight tree lines in the east and they truly handle everything beautiful. I have also found that these are one of the most forgiving skis in the bumps.

Oh yea, and there are some great all mountain-one quiver skis out there including the Kung Fujas! What about the Bonafide or Cochise? Or even the Rossi S3 and Kastle BMX 98?


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 9, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> No such thing as an All Mountain One Ski Quiver IMO.



i have reluctantly come to agree with this statement.  i wish i could find this ski, i've tried for 2 years but it just isn't happening.

i've come to the conclusion that "adequate" will be the experience on an all mountain ski in the extremes of pow/tree/super hard pack/bumps and in the everyday stuff it will be pretty good.

but if/when i buy a new pair it will likely be that attempt at a 1 ski quiver and likely in the 90-95mm range under foot.

back to OP's updated request regarding pow/tree ski - (not being much of a gear head myself) - i'd be looking for something 100-105 with a decent turn radius, rocker tip and as long or slightly longer than my everyday ski.  and i'd try before i buy if at all possible.  

reality is your ability has more to do with it than the ski itself BUT a great ski can give you the feeling of confidence and some stability that comes with width underfoot. IMHO.


----------



## gostan (Aug 9, 2012)

A "Swiss Army " 1 ski quiver doesn't really exist no matter how the ski manufacturers over-promote the same.  I have three pairs of skis in my current quiver, ranging from 81 to 98 to 112 under foot.  But I ski 40-60 days a year with 7-10 days out west.  I guess that if I skied less and had to pick 1 pair of skis for NE conditions, i might consider something in the 88-90 under foot range.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 9, 2012)

I beg to differ with ski length not mattering.Shorter skis have a shorter turning radius in general so it has to make some difference if your forced to make shorter turns in real tight trees.I know my old standard 210 cm skis couldn't touch my 188'sin tight trees.Of course sidecut does play a part in that also.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 9, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> I too agree with Revercoil. Shorter definitely doesn't mean better, especially in the east when you don't know if the trees are going to be dust on crust or pow. My all mountain skis are K2 Kung Fujas. My feeling is that a true all mountain ski should be higher than 90 and lower than 110 at the waist. The dimension on these are 133-102-127. I truly enjoy them and I have skied everything from tight couloirs to tight tree lines in the east and they truly handle everything beautiful. I have also found that these are one of the most forgiving skis in the bumps.
> 
> Oh yea, and there are some great all mountain-one quiver skis out there including the Kung Fujas! What about the Bonafide or Cochise? Or even the Rossi S3 and Kastle BMX 98?


 
I am totally flummoxed by the whole ski buying scenario.  I understand your argument that shorter skis wont make you ski trees better and dont disagree.  They are easier to maneuver in certain tight situations.   However, what advantage does a longer ski provide??? 
 I'm riding the line profit 90's at 176 and my only issue with them is they chatter on steep boilerplate ice.  dont think longer would address that issue.


----------



## marcski (Aug 9, 2012)

It's the skier not the skis.

With that said (which I've been saying for years!), no one ski will be fantastic at everything on the hill in varying conditions.  Period.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Aug 9, 2012)

Depends on your ability and style of skiing I think. Can't say there is one magic pair of boards that are going to work for YOU.

I would look into the Line Sir Francis Bacon. I have the 2011-2012 model. I ski this thing on EVERYTHING and love it! Powder, trees, bumps, steeps, park, pillows, ice, groomers. I even have AT bindings on them. 

It's 108 underfoot which you might think is too wide for bumps or tight trees but the ski handles like a charm. I have 178 length but is feels shorter than it is so I recommend going longer than you might think you need.

The only time I had any issue with the ski was bombing big, fast open lines on questionable snow in the Jackson back country. The ski is just not meant for super, super high speeds but everyone where else it shines like the North Star.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 9, 2012)

Whatever you choose, just remember the ski/board beneath your feet is not going to make you some amazing skier all of a sudden. 

As a recovering gear whore, I can't tell you how much coin I've wasted on multiple skis/boards/boots etc. 

I disagree with almost everyone but Riv in the fact that you can most definitely find a ski that can do it all. Anyone who thinks otherwise is more so trying to justify a purchase IMO. 

Its not like you cant ski powder on a ski that isnt 100+, especially on the East Coast. Same with rocker boards. Rocker on the East coast is going to be worse for you on all but the deepest days. Don't let the marketing fool you, rocker is certianly good for certain conditions, but I would hate it if I was stuck on icy groomers for the majority of my season. All the pros ride regular camber and market the rocker for their sponsors. Remember this. 

My wife skis 5 year old 105mm Gotamas with regular camber and kills it. Its a men's ski so the stiffness sorta compensates for it being wider on the groomers, but is still an amazing ski off piste.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 9, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> I beg to differ with ski length not mattering.Shorter skis have a shorter turning radius in general so it has to make some difference if your forced to make shorter turns in real tight trees.I know my old standard 210 cm skis couldn't touch my 188'sin tight trees.Of course sidecut does play a part in that also.



Comparing 188s that you own now to 210 straight skis is like night and day. Turning radius means absolute squat if you are truly skiing tight trees. In tight trees, I would much rather have a longer ski that does a better job of fighting through tough snow then a shorter ski that gets bogged down. I guess it's all relative though to what the skier feels is "tight trees". In this case the poster is talking about MRG where the conditions get more variable and the trees get more tighter then any other place in the east.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Aug 9, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Okay... time to commence most other posters chiming in with "get ski X. I ski it and its awesome!" for two dozen different models. Ready, set, go!



Hey nothing wrong with giving some first hand reviews of skis for the guy. Might help him to narrow down his choices on why we all like our models.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 10, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> None sense. I stand by my statement.* I ski on a 186cm ski in the trees *and I could certainly easily handle longer if it suited me. And *I love tight lines. Like, rabbit hole tight. Like, ski width tight elevator shaft tight barely a ski width and sometimes less*. Ski length just has nothing to do with skiing trees. Get the ski that matches your specifications, size, weight, etc. Don't get a ski because you think you might hit a tree with your skis if they are too long. That is totally compensating for lack of technique and won't help you at all either.



This is exactly what you said last season, but what you're describing in the above is NOT tight tree skiing.  This is the issue I have (and others had), the term "tight" is subjective, but_ "elevator shaft" _and _"ski width_" tree lines are NOT tight.  

Now, I'd agree with you that if you cant ski the type of width you're describing on 186s, then yes, perhaps you shouldn't be in there in the first place.  But the "tight" I'm describing is near body-width tree skiing, or spots where you have to be almost scraping trees, or where you cant side-slip or drop into something sideways, because the spacing is tighter than the dimensions of your skis.  This is the type of skiing you can seek out in zillions of places at Jay Peak etc... if you wish.  If you want to spend the day tree skiing like that, I see no point in dragging out your longer skis, if you have something shorter and fat enough in your quiver.



HowieT2 said:


> I am totally flummoxed by the whole ski buying scenario.  *I understand your argument that shorter skis wont make you ski trees better and dont disagree.  They are easier to maneuver in certain tight situations.   However, what advantage does a longer ski provide???*



In very tight trees?  None.   I mean, all things being equal, length will increase float to some extent due to increased surface area, but so too would, all things being equal going fatter with shorter skis = math.  Keep in mind, in this argument, I'm talking about the shorter ski SOLELY for tight tree skiing.  In other words, if I was going to spend the day on groomed trails with my girlfriend, would I use that shorter ski?  Of course not.   If I was going to spend the day in easier (likely marked) glades would I use that shorter ski? Probably not.  Different tools for different jobs is all I'm trying to get across here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 10, 2012)

AdironRider said:


> Whatever you choose, just remember the ski/board beneath your feet is not going to make you some amazing skier all of a sudden.
> 
> As a recovering gear whore, I can't tell you how much coin I've wasted on multiple skis/boards/boots etc.
> 
> ...



What it comes down to is performance expectations.  I've got a 4 ski quiver that ranges from 70mm underfoot to 110mm.  I can ski all of them in any kind of conditions I encounter.  Just because I can ski any of them in all conditions, doesn't mean I don't have a major preference for using one pair over the other in certain conditions. My 70, 84, 92 waist skis are far inferior in conditions deeper than 8 inches than the 110s.  For bumps, I'm going to be on the 70mm ski.   They perform light years better than any of the other boards.  If I'm skiing a hard pack day, I'm on the Fischer Motive 84s; the other three pairs don't come close to offering the same carving performance.  

I've used the analogy before and I'll use it again.  You can turn a philips head screw with a flat head screwdriver, but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.


----------



## hammer (Aug 10, 2012)

Been reading single all-mountain ski vs. quiver discussions for years now...and one question I have is how many skis and of what types would be best for East Coast skiing?  It's fine to want to have a 3+ ski quiver, but is it really necessary?

I have two skis at this point, a pair of Fischer Progressors that I basically used all last season on the hardpack/icy groomers and a pair of older all-mountain skis that didn't do much for me on the one day I skied chopped up powder.  Plan on selling the all-mountain skis I think, but at my level I can't see how the Progressors will be a "bad" ski for most of what I will see this season.  Will they be the optimal ski?  Certainly not in some cases...but at this point I don't think I'd be able to tell much difference.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 10, 2012)

The Skilogik Rockstars on order will be the powder ski for me. Anything over 4". Expectations are lowered since last year.  The Hell and Backs will be the non pow day ski.


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 10, 2012)

hammer said:


> Been reading single all-mountain ski vs. quiver discussions for years now...and one question I have is how many skis and of what types would be best for East Coast skiing?  It's fine to want to have a 3+ ski quiver, but is it really necessary?



i'd envision a 3 ski quiver would be ideal for east coast, perhaps 4, depending on the skier's areas of interest.

1. everyday ski - 85-90m "all mountain ski" 
2. bump ski, if you like bumps (i do)
3. fat pow ski for the (hopefully not) occasional 8+ days
4.  race ski - if you happen to race. (i don't)


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 10, 2012)

I have the same mindset as gmcunni.  

1. bump specific ski
2. mid-fat all mountain that has great edge hold
3. powder ski

While it seems unreasonable to some to have a "quiver" of skis, one thing to keep in mind is that having multiple pairs of skis extends the life of them.  For instance, my powder skis are 12 years old.  They're beat to hell and in need of replacement, but still work well on deep days.  My bump specific skis are six years old and still in near perfect condition as I only use them 3-4 days a year.   Unless I start skiing in Vermont where it's easier to encounter great bumps more frequently, those skis will likely last me 6+ years more.


----------



## WWF-VT (Aug 10, 2012)

Puck it said:


> The Skilogik Rockstars on order will be the powder ski for me. Anything over 4". Expectations are lowered since last year.  The Hell and Backs will be the non pow day ski.



You need to be optimistic...let's hope that this year you are always on the Skilogik Rockstars while your Hell and Backs are colecting dust in the closet at home


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 10, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is exactly what you said last season, but what you're describing in the above is NOT tight tree skiing.  This is the issue I have (and others had), the term "tight" is subjective, but_ "elevator shaft" _and _"ski width_" tree lines are NOT tight.
> 
> Now, I'd agree with you that if you cant ski the type of width you're describing on 186s, then yes, perhaps you shouldn't be in there in the first place.  But the "tight" I'm describing is near body-width tree skiing, or spots where you have to be almost scraping trees, or where you cant side-slip or drop into something sideways, because the spacing is tighter than the dimensions of your skis.  This is the type of skiing you can seek out in zillions of places at Jay Peak etc... if you wish.  If you want to spend the day tree skiing like that, I see no point in dragging out your longer skis, if you have something shorter and fat enough in your quiver.
> 
> ...



The point is not that a longer ski is better than shorter ones in tight trees. It's that I would rather have a longer/wider/rockered ski in trees than a shorter one that isn't as wide or has rocker. Anyone who doesn't think a rockered ski is helpful in the trees at places like MRG has clearly never skied on a nice pair of rockered skis. I'm not talking ab Moment's Ghost Chants, my skis only have a slight rocker on the tip. The rocker helps me stay on top of crust and keeps the ski really light and bouncy which makes it a lot easier to make tight compact hop turns when the terrain requires.

Here is Ryan Hawks and the guys from MRG. This is how you ski tight trees on normal length skis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q0rMjaG_Uk


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 10, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> While it seems unreasonable to some to have a "quiver" of skis, one thing to keep in mind is that having multiple pairs of skis extends the life of them.



i think i'll be hitting a few ski swaps this year to try and find some older skis to create my quiver. probably a 100m+ pow ski would be my first acquistion.

it is funny but as I've avoided a ski quiver I've come to realize in other areas of my life the idea of a quiver is quite common.  Cars for example (not that i have extra cars laying around) - we have a large SUV, the Jeep Wrangler and a 97 Camry.  Depending on what type of driving i want to/need to do i will grab a different set of keys.  

drove to NYC last night for a show - no doubt we take the Camry because if it gets dinged i don't care and it actually get the best gas mileage of all 3.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 10, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I have the same mindset as gmcunni.
> 
> 1. bump specific ski
> 2. mid-fat all mountain that has great edge hold
> ...



I go with the same idea:

Teneighty's for the bumps  66 waist
Coomba's for powder 102 waist
Rictors my main ski 80 waist

I do use my older recons 78 waist for my rock skies...so I usually like 4 pair.


----------



## gostan (Aug 11, 2012)

It may be Ok to recommend a particular ski (hey we all like to jonse a bit a out our current fav) but when it come to recommending a particular length ski, all bets are off the board.  Way too many variables such as height, weight, terrain, conditions, not too mention skier type.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 11, 2012)

I am getting rid of all skis under 88mm in my quiver.  I just never use them anymore.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 12, 2012)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Hey nothing wrong with giving some first hand reviews of skis for the guy. Might help him to narrow down his choices on why we all like our models.



+ 1.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 12, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Pick up a ski mag gear guide to get an idea of what is available. Look for their all mountain mid-farts or whatever the industry is calling em' these days.



Those mid-farts ski pretty well.....

:lol:


----------



## Puck it (Aug 12, 2012)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Hey nothing wrong with giving some first hand reviews of skis for the guy. Might help him to narrow down his choices on why we all like our models.




He's an angry elf today!


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 12, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Those mid-farts ski pretty well.....
> 
> :lol:



It was originally a typo but I thought it was fitting during review.


----------



## ScottySkis (Aug 12, 2012)

I do not know if these are the best but I got a great pair of Dynastar Legends a couple years ago and they are great and I went for bigger ones then I should had and regret that a little bit, this site is great for cheap skis- http://www.evo.com/


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 13, 2012)

ALLSKIING said:


> I go with the same idea:
> 
> Teneighty's for the bumps  66 waist
> Coomba's for powder 102 waist
> ...



That's a mighty fine quiver. I have owned all of those at one time or another. I also use my old Recons as rock/exploring ski. Those things have taken a pounding and keep going. The amount of objects thats ski has skied over and into is mighty impressive!


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 13, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> That's a mighty fine quiver. I have owned all of those at one time or another. I also use my old Recons as rock/exploring ski. Those things have taken a pounding and keep going. The amount of objects thats ski has skied over and into is mighty impressive!


Yeah, I love them all for what they do! I hear ya on the Recons....Mine are pretty shot can't even get them sharp anymore but still ski great in the right conditions.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2012)

I had a pair of Recons. I could.  I skied them like 10x over three years.  Hated them.  I sold them to coworker.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 13, 2012)

Puck it said:


> I had a pair of Recons. I could.  I skied them like 10x over three years.  Hated them.  I sold them to coworker.


 I have heard that before....Thats why I always demo.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 13, 2012)

ALLSKIING said:


> I have heard that before....Thats why I always demo.



They were marketed as an All Mountain ski though they are anything but. On hard pack/groomers and bumps they do very well. Try and bring them in the trees or ski them on a powder day and they can be a headache to say the least. It kind of got a bad rap because it was targeted at the wrong market but I think it's a great advanced intermediate ski.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> They were marketed as an All Mountain ski though they are anything but. On hard pack/groomers and bumps they do very well. Try and bring them in the trees or ski them on a powder day and they can be a headache to say the least. It kind of got a bad rap because it was targeted at the wrong market but I think it's a great advanced intermediate ski.




I bought mine the first year out. They were considered a midfat then.  I think it was '06 when purchased.  The guys at the shop were raving about them.  I overpowered the ski, it just did not release in a turn for me.  That was my complaint.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 13, 2012)

Puck it said:


> I bought mine the first year out. They were considered a midfat then.  I think it was '06 when purchased.  The guys at the shop were raving about them.  I overpowered the ski, it just did not release in a turn for me.  That was my complaint.



Haha that's really funny. No one would ever look at that ski now and think it was considered a midfat. It sounds like the ski shop just failed to match the right ski to your ability.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Haha that's really funny. No one would ever look at that ski now and think it was considered a midfat. It sounds like the ski shop just failed to match the right ski to your ability.




At the time I was looking for a one ski quiver and this ski got this rating from all reviewers. The shop guys loved the ski though. It was just not for me.  However, the H&B is the same all wood construction and it is night and day compared to the Recon.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 13, 2012)

Puck it said:


> At the time I was looking for a one ski quiver and this ski got this rating from all reviewers. The shop guys loved the ski though. It was just not for me.  However, the H&B is the same all wood construction and it is night and day compared to the Recon.


 Yeah, the Recon is definitely not a one ski quiver...What size did you have? I first demoed the 174 and did not like them much but the 181 felt a lot better....although I wish they made a 186 at the time. I was worried I was going to overpower the Rictors but at 181  love it.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2012)

ALLSKIING said:


> Yeah, the Recon is definitely not a one ski quiver...What size did you have? I first demoed the 174 and did not like them much but the 181 felt a lot better....although I wish they made a 186 at the time. I was worried I was going to overpower the Rictors but at 181  love it.



I thought they were 180's but you may be right.  They were just too soft in tails. They just would not release.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 14, 2012)

gostan said:


> It may be Ok to recommend a particular ski (hey we all like to jonse a bit a out our current fav) but when it come to recommending a particular length ski, all bets are off the board.  Way too many variables such as *height, weight, terrain, *conditions, not too mention *skier type*.



True.  

In fact, if people truly wish to be helpful it would be best to post your height and weight when posting what you think an "amazing" ski is, because that "amazing" ski in X length might suck for someone with a different profile than you.  

When evaluating these sorts of posts, I consider most of them useless unless the poster says, I'm "X" tall, weigh "Y" pounds, have this ski in "Z" cm, and use it for all-mountain (or bumps, or trees, or groomers, or you-get-the-picture).  

When people include all those facts so that a representative picture can be formed, it can be a valuable post.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> True.
> 
> In fact, if people truly wish to be helpful it would be best to post your height and weight when posting what you think an "amazing" ski is, because that "amazing" ski in X length might suck for someone with a different profile than you.
> 
> ...



Ok, I am 3' 5" 275lbs. and I love my Icelantic Shamans in 145cm.:grin:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 14, 2012)

Puck it said:


> Ok, *I am 3' 5" 275lbs*. and I love my* Icelantic Shamans *in 145cm.:grin:



Coincidentally, Icelantic Shamans are the ski I'm most considering adding to my quiver.  

Sadly, however, I'm much taller and weigh much less than you!  My debate will be over the 161s or the 173s, and I'd like to demo them both.


----------



## Bene288 (Aug 14, 2012)

I like my Theories. I've had much success in the trees and on the crud. Very responsive and poppy. No problem getting on edge and shredding some groomers, they actually carve quite nice for a wider ski. I'm about your height and weight, but we could have totally different styles and form. I opted for the 186cm and have not regretted it. Good luck to you!


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Coincidentally, Icelantic Shamans are the ski I'm most considering adding to my quiver.
> 
> Sadly, however, I'm much taller and weigh much less than you!  My debate will be over the 161s or the 173s, and I'd like to demo them both.



i know nothing of the icelantic and hardly anything at all about skis in general but 161 sounds incredibly short to me for any adult male.  is the icelantic shaman meant to be skied shorter than "traditional" skis?




> Size(s):161, 173, 184
> Dimensions:160/110/130
> Radius: 12m @161, 15m @173, 18m @184


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 14, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> i know nothing of the icelantic and hardly anything at all about skis in general but 161 sounds incredibly short to me for any adult male. is the icelantic shaman meant to be skied shorter than "traditional" skis?



I thought the same thing. He mentions being taller than Puck It at 3 feet 5 inches (and 275 lbs ), but can't be much taller if looking at a 161.


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 14, 2012)

ah, now that i stare at the specs, is this like the salomon BBR where the asymetrical tip/tail result in shorter turn radius?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 14, 2012)

Gullible, I say.  Icelantics when they first came were all short. They had one size for each size were the ones at the lower side now.  They said the added width of the skis made up for the length.  They were said to be a Western made ski for East Coast Trees.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 14, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> i know nothing of the icelantic and hardly anything at all about skis in general but *161 sounds incredibly short to me for any adult male.  is the icelantic shaman meant to be skied shorter* than "traditional" skis?



Yes.  

When they first came out, they were all short.  As their company grew, they soon learned that this is not a great marketing concept, especially given the perception that many have that longer = better (which for some ski applications is correct).  

This would be to become my new "tree specific" ski if I got them, for days when I'm 100% in the n.VT woods from 8am to 4pm, and for this application, surface area and quick turns are more important to me than length and MachIII speeds.  For instance, even though they're only 161, due to the design of the ski they'd have about 10% more surface area than my all-mountain skis (179 Line Prophet 90s), and 25% more surface area than my 186 icy condition and groomer skis.  I will have to demo to see if 161 feels too short for me, but given Icelantic's "tree reputation" and the fact there are plenty of people who are taller and heavier than me that use the 161s as their tight tree ski with rave reviews, I'm hoping I'll like it.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

related query- my son is 16 and needs new skis.  He is 5'7" but obviously still growing.  should he be looking for a length that is a little long for him now that he can grow into???
he is a good skier.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 22, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> related query- my son is 16 and needs new skis.  He is 5'7" but obviously still growing.  should he be looking for a length that is a little long for him now that he can grow into???
> he is a good skier.


If he is a good skier then he can probably handle the extra length..What Length does he ski now?


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

ALLSKIING said:


> If he is a good skier then he can probably handle the extra length..What Length does he ski now?


he got his old skis when he was 13 and they are Gotama juniors at 148, but he grew almost 6 inches since last season.  he only weighs about 130.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 22, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> related query- my son is 16 and needs new skis.  He is 5'7" but obviously still growing.  should he be looking for a length that is a little long for him now that he can grow into???
> he is a good skier.



Can you elaborate on "good"? Things like skiing style, what is the type of skiing is he progressing towards, etc. Generally, you want to give a kid room to grow but not so much that it hampers him from improving right now.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

He has skied 40+ days a season since he was 11.  so he can ski anything and will, but he is by nature not aggressive, so he doesnt huck off cliffs or take air.  and he strongly prefers the woods to groomers.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

I found the following on evo.com and thought it relevant.

[h=2]Men's Ski Size Chart[/h]

 *User
*Height (in) *User
*Height (cm) *Expert*
				     Length (cm)  *Intermediate
*Length (cm) * Beginner
*     Length (cm) 				4'6" 				137 				140 				135 				125 				4'8" 				142 				145 				140 				130 				5'0" 				152 				155 				145 				135 				5'2" 				158 				165 				155 				145 				5'6" 				168 				175 				165 				155 				5'8" 				173 				180 				170 				160 				5'10" 				178 				185 				175 				165 				6'0" 				183 				190 				180 				170 				6'2" 				188 				195 				185 				175 				6'4" 				193 				200 				190 				180
 
*How do you pick the correct ski size? *

So the truth is that there is no perfect size for one height and  weight.  The general rule is to pick a ski that is going to land  somewhere between your chin and the top of your head.  Pro and expert  skiers may choose skis that are slightly taller than their height.  Within your size range there are multiple reasons to choose a shorter or  longer ski.

*Reasons to size your skis shorter, closer to your chin:*



 		You are a beginner or intermediate skier
 		Your weight is lighter than average for your height
 		You like to make short, quick turns
 
*Reasons to size your skis longer, closer to the top of your head:*



 		You are skiing fast and aggressively
 		You weigh more than average for your height
 		You plan to do the majority of your skiing off the trail
 		You are purchasing a ski with significant rocker in the tip
 
A shorter ski will be easier to turn yet not as stable as a longer ski.   A carving ski with skinnier waist and a smaller turn radius can be  skied at a shorter length than an all mountain or a freeride ski with  larger, longer turn radius and fatter waist width.


----------



## mikestaple (Aug 22, 2012)

I loved my new Line Prophet 90s last year.  Bumps, crud, trees, groomers, etc.  I bought them last year so I won't reload anytime soon.  But if I did, I would step up to the 98s.  The prophet is a great ski.........


----------



## Abubob (Aug 22, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> DO NOT go shorter for skiing the trees. Ski length has nothing to do with tree skiing. Shorter skis don't make you ski the woods better, skiing better makes you ski the woods better, regardless of length.



Really? I must suck then cause when I went from 185s to 170s I enjoyed it much more.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Aug 22, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> I found the following on evo.com and thought it relevant.
> 
> *Men's Ski Size Chart*
> 
> ...


175+ for a kid that 130lbs seems to long to me...Although it says I should go 190+ and I like 181....I would think in the low 160 range would be fine.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

Abubob said:


> Really? I must suck then cause when I went from 185s to 170s I enjoyed it much more.


 
same here.  According to the chart, I should be skiing 185-190's but I'm on 176.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 22, 2012)

mikestaple said:


> I loved my new Line Prophet 90s last year.  Bumps, crud, trees, groomers, etc.  I bought them last year so I won't reload anytime soon.  But if I did, I would step up to the 98s.  The prophet is a great ski.........



I've had mine for 3 seasons and love love love them


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 22, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> same here.  According to the chart, I should be skiing 185-190's but I'm on 176.



Check out the exceptions at the bottom of the chart
 This may be why. Or sometimes adults just get so comfortable skiing on a certain length that anything else feels awkward


----------



## Terry (Aug 22, 2012)

I have been skiing the line prophet 100's for the past 4 years in all terrain and wouldn't trade them for anything but a new not worn out pair! Awesome in all conditions except for sheer ice.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 22, 2012)

Abubob said:


> Really? I must suck then cause when I went from 185s to 170s I enjoyed it much more.


I never said shorter skis make you ski the woods worse or any one sucks for going shorter. Maybe you were on the wrong ski to begin with? Maybe other attributes besides length were also changed when you changed skis? All I am pointing out is that if you ski the woods with good technique, length isn't an issue to even be a consideration.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 22, 2012)

That chart is asinine. According to that chart, I should be between 190-195. I'm happy with 186 as my longest length. I skied 204s, 198s, and 193s back in the day. Not needed.

Which is besides the point, weight is going to have more impact than height. Flexing a ski isn't determined by height, which is only loosely correlated to height. It mentions early tip rise but I didn't see mention of going longer for a twin tip.


----------



## Abubob (Aug 22, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> I never said shorter skis make you ski the woods worse or any one sucks for going shorter. Maybe you were on the wrong ski to begin with? Maybe other attributes besides length were also changed when you changed skis? All I am pointing out is that if you ski the woods with good technique, length isn't an issue to even be a consideration.



Agreed. The 185 Dynastar's submarine in deep snow and while the tails are slightly turned up they're a little stiff. The Rossi's were mid fart  twin tip with a over all slightly easier flex. I weight over 200 lbs so a ski that short probably wouldn't serve me well on an open cruiser.


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 23, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> He has skied 40+ days a season since he was 11.



you are a great dad!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 23, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> if you ski the woods with good technique, length isn't an issue to even be a consideration.



Again, as with all other ski-related issues this too depends on the skiing.  If you're skiing normal glade runs at most resorts, you're most likely correct.  However, if you're skiing really tight trees off map or the few resorts with truly challenging glades, shorter skis _do_ help.  It's physics (and common sense).  There is simply no point skiing on 196 or 190 skis in shoulder-bumping trees if you can maintain proper technique on 176 or 170, ASSUMING these tree skis also maintain adequate float for your weight profile.   

Not to belabor this point, but the increased stability of the 196 skis will not really come into play in the trees where you're not skiing machII, and once you've reached a ski surface area profile (tip, waist, tail) that yields you nice float, there's simply NO point in going longer for a tree ski.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 23, 2012)

Abubob said:


> Really? I must suck then cause when I went from 185s to 170s I enjoyed it much more.



Oh dear lord......What do you need a shorter ski for? Are you turning your ski so far across the fall line that much that you think you are going to clip a tree?? If that's the problem then you really should practice on easier terrain and watch some instructional video


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 23, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> you are a great dad!



I wish I was that lucky!


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 23, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> you are a great dad!



not like I havent benefited from this arrangement


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 23, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> Oh dear lord......What do you need a shorter ski for? Are you turning your ski so far across the fall line that much that you think you are going to clip a tree?? If that's the problem then you really should practice on easier terrain and watch some instructional video



i definitely encounter some shoulder width worm holes where I am glad to have shorter rather than longer skis.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 23, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Again, as with all other ski-related issues this too depends on the skiing.  If you're skiing normal glade runs at most resorts, you're most likely correct.  However, if you're skiing really tight trees off map or the few resorts with truly challenging glades, shorter skis _do_ help.  It's physics (and common sense).


Actually, no, it is not physics but it is your common sense. We can agree to disagree here. I ski elevator shafts that are only a ski width on a 186cm ski. Never had a problem. Any one who is gone into the woods with me can attest how crazy I can be in snuffing how powder in tight and narrow places. Longer skis aren't slowing me down or causing me to have difficulty or crash. I have never ever thought "man, this would be easier with shorter skis." Never. And one reason is a shorter ski wouldn't be able to support my weight and would actually make my skiing worse... it is about flex and weight, not length. Unless you are in a 5' wide colouir...


----------



## bigbog (Aug 23, 2012)

"_Flex and Weight_"  

Sounds good enough to me, I'll go with that.....


----------



## JimG. (Aug 23, 2012)

My old RX8s are still holding up well...66mm waist and only 170cm. Wood/titanium core. Integrated bindings. Great carvers...not great in trees.

My Watea 78's are 10mm wider underfoot and 181cm in length. Wood core, flat with a light 2 piece binding. Love these skis in bumps and trees, wouldn't ski them any shorter.

The RX8's are better on ice and prefer short but definitely round turns. 78's better in bumps, trees and crud; just more versatile and much quicker than the RX8's.

Shorter does not mean quicker.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 23, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> We can agree to disagree here. *I ski elevator shafts that are only a ski width on a 186cm ski. Never had a problem.* Any one who is gone into the woods with me can attest how crazy I can be in snuffing how powder in tight and narrow places.



No, see; this is the problem, you dont ski tight trees.  This was last year's discussion.   "Elevator shaft" tree skiing is NOT a "tight" line, nor is 186cm wide tree skiing.... *that's over a SIX FOOT gap* for God's sake.  You are the only person I've encountered on these boards or en general that considers a 5 or 6 foot gap a "tight" tree line.  I'm sorry, but it's just not.



riverc0il said:


> Longer skis aren't slowing me down or causing me to have difficulty or crash.



Skiing 6 foot gaps?  I should certainly HOPE not.  If you felt the need to "slow down" or were worried about crashing on "elevator shaft" wide gaps, well, that person would have no business being in the trees in the first place.



riverc0il said:


> And one reason is a shorter ski wouldn't be able to support my weight and would actually make my skiing worse... it is about flex and weight, not length.



Yes, which I've (repeatedly) pointed out.  Weight is more important, IMO, in terms of generalizing than height as a solo consideration for the ski.  So if someone is a big guy and weigh 220lbs (or big because they're out of shape), yeah, a shorter ski isnt going to work for them, but that is a completely different and independent subject than just blanket-statement'ing that short skis arent needed in the trees.   Frankly, for a relatively short (the kid is only 5'7") person who is a featherweight (kid is 130lbs) and whose father said doesn't typically ski fast and spends_ "most of the day in the trees"_?  Yeah, I'd recommend that person should ski on a shorter ski.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 23, 2012)

Uh-oh...I'm sensing a bit of pent up Killington angst here.

Time to start a K thread!

Frankly, the debate just means that picking the "best" all mountain ski is pretty tough when you ask a diverse group of skiers.


----------



## Angus (Aug 23, 2012)

mikestaple said:


> I loved my new Line Prophet 90s last year.  Bumps, crud, trees, groomers, etc.  I bought them last year so I won't reload anytime soon.  But if I did, I would step up to the 98s.  The prophet is a great ski.........



I bought a prior year, 2011 model (179cm) last Labor Day Weekend. I had previously been skiing on a shorter, stiffer ski. I had some issues adjusting when I got to more challenging terrain - steeper, bumpier, etc. I did think they held there edge well on ice. By the end of March, I really was enjoying them but there was a transition - I really had to stand over the ski and keep it under me - maybe it required I ski better or be better conditioned! Bottoms were pretty tough. I did find on a day where there was a thick frozen glaze over powder (out west), the ski was almost un-turnable. I think I would probably move up to the 98s too. I bought mine for something like $250 so I can't complain.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 24, 2012)

JimG. said:


> Frankly, *the debate just means that picking the "best" all mountain ski is pretty tough when you ask a diverse group of skiers*.



Yes, there's a bit more than that.  It's this old-school 1970s-1980s mentality that "longer is for better skiers", this one-size-fits-all perception that if you're not skiing on a 196cm ski, well,,,,then you must have a small penis.   It's macho hogwash.  

There are different skis for different applications, different tools for different jobs, and frankly, to tell people that if you're going shorter than "X cm" in the trees, it's because you're not a good skier, is just flat out wrong.  And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.   

*This kid is perhaps the perfect demonstration of that fact. * If he truly does spend almost the entire day in the trees as was stated, at a weight of 130lbs and a height of a mere 5'7", and it was stated he's a person who doesn't like to ski very aggressive/fast?  

Then why on earth would anyone suggest he ski on a long set of skis?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 24, 2012)

Angus said:


> I bought a prior year, 2011 model (179cm) last Labor Day Weekend. I had previously been skiing on a shorter, stiffer ski. I had some issues adjusting when I got to more challenging terrain - steeper, bumpier, etc. I did think they held there edge well on ice. By the end of March, I really was enjoying them but there was a transition - I really had to stand over the ski and keep it under me - maybe it required I ski better or be better conditioned! Bottoms were pretty tough. I did find on a day where there was a thick frozen glaze over powder (out west), the ski was almost un-turnable. I think I would probably move up to the 98s too. I bought mine for something like $250 so I can't complain.



I have the Line Prophet 90 in 179cm as well.  I use it as my all-mountain ski and think it fits the bill there pretty well.  Not that great in the moguls, but I didn't expect something 90 underneath to be so.  It has solid float (I'm 168lbs) even in 5 or 6 inches of new snow, holds a decent edge, turns easily, busts right over crud and natural snow trails, and is capable in the trees.  The only place I dont like it is at extremely (somewhat abnormal) high-speeds, where it begins to chatter a little bit, but like with the moguls, it aint a race ski, so you get what you expect.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Any one who is gone into the woods with me can attest how crazy I can be in snuffing how powder in tight and narrow places.





BenedictGomez said:


> No, see; this is the problem, you dont ski tight trees.


Okay, I think we are done now. First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with me nor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact. You are no longer debating with logic and reason but arguing by suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, don't understand the topic, and lied about my experience. I say we will need to agree to disagree and you say I have no experience with the topic. This is no longer worth discussing since my experience in the area has been marginalized and the debate has shifted from your attacking the argument to attacking the person. 

FWIW, I used to share your position on this issue.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, there's a bit more than that.  It's this old-school 1970s-1980s mentality that "longer is for better skiers", this one-size-fits-all perception that if you're not skiing on a 196cm ski, well,,,,then you must have a small penis.   It's macho hogwash.
> 
> There are different skis for different applications, different tools for different jobs, and frankly, to tell people that if you're going shorter than "X cm" in the trees, it's because you're not a good skier, is just flat out wrong.  And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
> 
> ...



Well, I never said that. And I'm not measuring anyone's penis either.

The length of ski should not only be determined by ability, height, and weight, but it should also be dependent on the characteristics of the ski itself. That's all I was saying.

I know it is tough for kids because they really can't demo stuff either, at least not at demo days.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 24, 2012)

This discussion has veered totally off topic.  My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing.  what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain.  kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer.  He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Aug 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Okay, I think we are done now. First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with me nor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact. You are no longer debating with logic and reason but arguing by suggesting I don't know what I am talking about, don't understand the topic, and lied about my experience. I say we will need to agree to disagree and you say I have no experience with the topic. This is no longer worth discussing since my experience in the area has been marginalized and the debate has shifted from your attacking the argument to attacking the person.
> 
> FWIW, I used to share your position on this issue.



Point of reference might be helpful so we can put the disagreement to rest. For example, my picture underneath my screenname is at the top of 3 Cliffs. I dont think anyone can disagree that this is not tight trees. Nevermind, that opens up a whole new can of worms.....damn


----------



## JimG. (Aug 24, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> This discussion has veered totally off topic.  My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing.  what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain.  kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer.  He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.



I coached kids to ski for years at Hunter.

I always noticed that kids would struggle at the start of the season after they got new and usually longer skis. They also struggle to grow into their larger bodies and often feel awkward at first. But this passes quickly.

I don't think that getting skis 10cm longer than optimal (whatever that is as we have determined in this thread) would not be a disaster but assume that he will feel a little weird at first until he gets used to them.


----------



## Angus (Aug 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> I have the Line Prophet 90 in 179cm as well.  I use it as my all-mountain ski and think it fits the bill there pretty well.  Not that great in the moguls, but I didn't expect something 90 underneath to be so.  It has solid float (I'm 168lbs) even in 5 or 6 inches of new snow, holds a decent edge, turns easily, busts right over crud and natural snow trails, and is capable in the trees.  The only place I dont like it is at extremely (somewhat abnormal) high-speeds, where it begins to chatter a little bit, but like with the moguls, it aint a race ski, so you get what you expect.




So, three of us think the Line 90 is a good all mountain eastern ski. On steep bumps, I've found skiing a straight line is my best approach. Noticed the chatter too but I was skiing very fast in a big ski bowl out west.

personally, I subscribe to the "it's the skier not the ski" mentality. As I said, in my earlier post, I found fitness and techniques greatly improved my ski experience.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> First, you are calling me out as a liar. Second, you think you know me well enough that you know exactly what I do and do not ski, but in fact you've never skied with menor are you willing to accept my statements of what I ski as fact.



No, I never called you a liar, and I dont even see how you're concocting that.  And I am perfectly willing to accept your "statements of what you ski as fact"..  

What I am stating, is that from what you've literally written in these pages as being descriptive of "tight" tree skiing (_elevator shaft wide, 186cm wide_) is not tight tree skiing.   Please reread what you wrote.  You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing.  Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that?    So it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would hold a perception that going a bit shorter isnt handy in the trees, given that there wouldn't be any point for you dropping down from your 186cm given the tree skiing that you yourself say you're doing. 

 I apologize given you took my comments personal, but it's positively exasperating to me this mantra that there's no reason to ski less than _"insert X size per height/weight"_, and even worse the comments you made that persons lacks in skill level if they wish to drop size for tree skiing, because yes, yes, there is/are reasons to drop/gain length given the sort of skiing being done.





JimG. said:


> Well, I never said that. And I'm not measuring anyone's penis either.
> 
> The length of ski should not only be determined by ability, height, and weight, but it should also be dependent on the characteristics of the ski itself. That's all I was saying.



 My "penis" comment wasn't regarding your comments at all!   It was about this perception that I believe exists in the sport among many that:

Longer ski = Better skier

Which as several here have noted is completely false. 

 And it's completely false due to the very next sentence you wrote, because you're correct that skill level, height, weight, ski characteristics and what the ski is to be used for *all* enter into the equation.  IMHO, in 2012, alpine skiing is currently plagued with myriads of people who are skiing on skis that are unnecessarily long for them.    I'd go as far as to call it an epidemic.




HowieT2 said:


> My inquiry regarding my son was really whether he should get a ski that is longer than currently optimal because he is obviously still growing.  what I'm asking is, if his optimal size now is X, should he get X plus 10cm for example to account for future growth and weight gain.  kind of like buying shoes that are a size too big so they last longer.  He is pretty much the same size as I was at his age, so I'd anticipate in the next 3 years he'll grow 3-5" and gain about 30 pounds.



Given your son is going to be on these planks more than 40+ days in a season?  Personally I wouldn't buy non-optimal skis, since that's a lot of days on snow and your son is obviously a pretty serious skier.   Perhaps either rent for a season or two, or perhaps buy a used set of skis for $300 or $350 rather than making a big investment.  Would either of those options work?


----------



## JimG. (Aug 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> My "penis" comment wasn't about your comments!  It was about this perception that I believe exists in the sport among many that:
> 
> Longer ski = Better skier
> 
> ...



I knew that bud...but I'm one of those 60's-70's-80's skiers you refer to and I have never held the notion that longer ski=better skier. 

Personally, I think ski manufacturers have gone overboard with the number of choices today. Too many.

Some skis ski better if skied longer due to their dimensions. 

I also believe there is an epidemic of skiers who go for skis that are just too short for them whether due to body type, skill, or ski characteristics. To me, that's as bad and as counterproductive as skis that are too long.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 24, 2012)

Angus said:


> So, three of us think the Line 90 is a good all mountain eastern ski. On steep bumps, I've found skiing a straight line is my best approach. Noticed the chatter too but I was skiing very fast in a big ski bowl out west.



That ski has received about the best/most unanimously positive reviews I've ever seen in terms of a "one ski quiver" all-mountain ski, which admittedly was the deciding factor in my trying it.  My opinion still holds that the "one ski quiver" is no less a mythical creature than the unicorn or the mermaid, but nevertheless it's an impressive ski.  I'd like to try the 110 in icy conditions just for the hellofit to see how much grip would suffer from the 90.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 24, 2012)

I think Dynastar has an impressive line of all mountain ski's

http://www.dynastar.com/US/US/dynastar-skis-men-all-mountain.html


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing.  Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that?



I do.  

From Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, MRG (and any other VT tree mecca) to Cannon and Wildcat, to Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME, I can't think of single marked or heavily trafficked unmarked tree skiing area has trees tighter than 6 feet that is worth skiing.  An area with trees that tight or tighter borderlines on closer to bushwacking and it's unlikely someone is linking many turns no matter how short their skis are. Most places, even off map, it's more like 10-15 feet plus between trees.  Sure, you have gaps to shoot that are barely wider than shoulder width, but those typically open back up.  When thinking of the true elevator type shaft terrain that's commonly skied, Pipeline at Stowe, Face Chutes at Jay etc, yes they have long stretches of widths in the 6 foot range, but when you're skiing that type of terrain, you're hoping for at least a few inches of snow to slow you down equally as much as throwing in check turns.  I don't think someone Riv's size dropping down from a 186 to a 170 is going to make much of a difference; certainly not much a difference where any slight performance advantage gained in those situations would outweigh performance advantage lost in the vastly more common tree skiing areas.  16 cm = 6.2 inches.  It's not that big of a difference.  Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 24, 2012)

steamboat1 said:


> I think Dynastar has an impressive line of all mountain ski's
> 
> http://www.dynastar.com/US/US/dynastar-skis-men-all-mountain.html



I want to demo the 87's...I think I would like them.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 24, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.



On straight skis with little sidecut and 68mm underfoot.


----------



## J.Spin (Aug 25, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You have repeatedly stated here that 6-foot gaps between trees is "tight" tree skiing. Is there anyone here reading this thread who agrees with that?





deadheadskier said:


> I do.
> 
> From Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, MRG (and any other VT tree mecca) to Cannon and Wildcat, to Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME, I can't think of single marked or heavily trafficked unmarked tree skiing area has trees tighter than 6 feet that is worth skiing. An area with trees that tight or tighter borderlines on closer to bushwacking and it's unlikely someone is linking many turns no matter how short their skis are. Most places, even off map, it's more like 10-15 feet plus between trees. Sure, you have gaps to shoot that are barely wider than shoulder width, but those typically open back up. When thinking of the true elevator type shaft terrain that's commonly skied, Pipeline at Stowe, Face Chutes at Jay etc, yes they have long stretches of widths in the 6 foot range, but when you're skiing that type of terrain, you're hoping for at least a few inches of snow to slow you down equally as much as throwing in check turns. I don't think someone Riv's size dropping down from a 186 to a 170 is going to make much of a difference; certainly not much a difference where any slight performance advantage gained in those situations would outweigh performance advantage lost in the vastly more common tree skiing areas. 16 cm = 6.2 inches. It's not that big of a difference. Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.


 
I was about to respond like deadheadskier and say that I agreed as well.  At least in terms of what I’m used to skiing around here in Northern Vermont, six feet between trees seemed pretty narrow.  But I kept thinking about it and realized that it actually depends on what people are talking about – different interpretations of six-foot tree spacing can have people envisioning vastly different ski experiences.  If we’re talking about roughly six-feet of space between every tree, then I think most people would consider that to be fairly open tree skiing once they see what that actually looks like (I’d say it’s actually fantastic spacing for tree skiing).  When I thought about finding an example of that type of tree spacing, the first place that came to mind was Steamboat.  Plenty of places around here have spacing like this as well, but I knew I’d be able to find some appropriate pictures with relatively even tree spacing from Steamboat very quickly because those images are sort of their bread and butter.  I wanted to just stick the picture in here, but since it’s not mine, I think the appropriate method is just to provide the link from the site.  Now as you look at the picture in the link below, skip past that first 30 feet of terrain below the camera position (which are a bit more open), and then you’re into a decent example of what it looks like to have six-foot spacing between every tree.  I know it may not be exactly six feet of spacing between every tree in the image, but hopefully people get the idea:

http://tinyurl.com/9nt827r

An alternative interpretation of “six-foot tree spacing” is one of those long slots through the forest that has been cut at a width of six feet, with nothing but dense, impenetrable evergreens lining the sides.  I didn’t try to find a picture to provide an example, but I figure most people have experienced these things.  How “tight” one considers this type of line to be is still somewhat subjective, but it’s clearly a different ski experience than what is pictured in the link above.  We come across these types of shots at Bolton sometimes, both in and out of season.  I call it “one and done” style terrain.  Depending on how steep the terrain is, you’re either talking about a bobsled track (lower angle), or dealing with the type of stuff deadheadkskier is talking about above – using snow to slow you down, check turns, etc. (higher angle).  In either case, you’re not looking at much in the way of fresh tracks after the first person through has done their thing, and the option for creativity in what line you ski isn’t really there.  It’s not that these shots are the world’s worst skiing (this type of terrain pops up in various spots, like various inlets and outlets for the Kitchen Wall at Stowe), and they can be fun, but being essentially unable to diverge from the narrow constraints of these slots is what makes them “tight”.  Some of these may be natural (streambeds or whatever) but many of them are not, they were cut that way.  This discussion has actually come up during some of our work days at Bolton, and the general vibe was that these things are a waste.  It’s especially pointless when people cut these lines that are just a few feet wide on very steep terrain - one skier may be able to ping pong their way through and make a few turns amidst their side-slipping and tree grabbing, but that’s basically it.  I’m certainly not condoning unauthorized tree cutting, and presumably in authorized situations people will have supervision that prevents the cutting of this sort of stuff, but whatever the case, my advice is to not waste time making these things.  Selective removal of vegetation in a wider area produces something that is almost infinitely better than cutting down all the vegetation in a narrow swath.  The number of line choices available in the narrow swath of terrain (one) gets increased exponentially if the line is made at double or triple the width while leaving an appropriate amount of trees in place, not to mention how much better the flow of the skiing can be.  I know I digressed a bit there, but hopefully it provided some perspective on the topic of “tight” tree spacing.

On another note, I’m still confused about this concept of wanting “longer” skis for skiing in the trees, and I definitely fall into BenedictGomez’ camp on this topic.  Slalom racers generally use shorter skiers for shorter radius turns and slower speeds, downhill racers use longer skis for the stability at high speeds etc, but those skis are not going to be very responsive for quick turns.  Tree skiing generally involves turns with radii on the short end of the spectrum – so why are people trying to ride longer skis for that type of skiing?  I get that people don’t want to ride something so short that it can’t “float” their weight in the powder, or perhaps they want the stability for landing airs, but beyond that, isn’t shorter going to be better in the trees?  The speeds in the trees are generally low, the turns are often tight, and all things being equal, the same model ski in a longer length is simply going to have a lot more swing weight, more weight in general, and not fit through tight spaces as easily if it’s at any angle other than the direction of travel.  We ski powder and trees pretty religiously here, and generally with advice from experts that sell skis, my skis have been getting shorter and shorter over the past decade, with fantastic results.  Once I started Telemark skiing, I started going even shorter in those skis because I was finding that the longer Telemark stance was an added hassle in tight spaces like the trees.  When I hop on my 180 cm CMH Volkl fats now, (granted they are not rockered and are not that light) they feel like such dogs (i.e. hard to move around) in tight terrain!  They are great out in the open, and with their stability it feels like you can land airs of any magnitude, but getting them to make shorter radius turns is a bear, even in powder.  I get that rockered skis are a lot different with respect to length, but from what I’ve seen recommended in the offerings from the various ski companies, the general trend is that one still wants longer skis for straight line, Alaska-style terrain, vs. shorter for slower speeds, tighter spaces, and tighter turns.

All things being equal, if someone comes along with a proposition and says that you have to either add 70 cm to your skis and ride a 250 cm ski, or take off 70 cm from your skis and ride a 110 cm ski (roughly the size of my sons’ skis, which many of us are often coveting when we watch them rip short-radius turns through tight spaces) which one is going to be the choice for relatively tight lines in the trees?  These numbers are simply to make a point, but based on my experience on lots of different lengths of skis, I’d much rather spend my day in the trees on something short (and hopefully fat – like I saw on this guy at Bolton on the picture below from February 26[SUP]th[/SUP] of last year) than try to muscle a pair of 250 cm skis through the trees.  I didn’t see the guy actually skiing on the skis below, but I’m pretty sure these sticks would have been a lot of fun in Bolton’s trees:







There has definitely been a trend back toward slightly longer skis in the past several seasons due to the addition of rocker taking away some running length, but what I’ve generally seen as advice from the tree-skiing, powder skiing gurus on SkiVT-L when someone makes an inquiry about a ski for getting into the trees around here in Northern Vermont, is to lean toward the shorter, fatter side.  I’ve been trending this way with each new pair of skis and haven’t noticed anything being lost for the type of skiing we generally do (trees, powder, short-radius turns).  In the spirit of the initial post, I’m not suggesting that someone should be looking for shorter skis as their all around ski, but I’d still like to see some discussion on the benefits of longer skis in the trees and why one would tip the scale on ski choice in that direction vs. the shorter side if they are looking for a ski to use in that environment.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Aug 25, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I do.
> From Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, MRG (and any other VT tree mecca) to Cannon and Wildcat, to Sunday River and Sugarloaf in ME, I can't think of single marked or heavily trafficked unmarked tree skiing area has trees tighter than 6 feet that is worth skiing.  An area with trees that tight or tighter borderlines on closer to bushwacking and it's unlikely someone is linking many turns no matter how short their skis are. Most places, even off map, it's more like 10-15 feet plus between trees.  Sure, you have gaps to shoot that are barely wider than shoulder width, but those typically open back up.  When thinking of the true elevator type shaft terrain that's commonly skied, Pipeline at Stowe, Face Chutes at Jay etc, yes they have long stretches of widths in the 6 foot range, but when you're skiing that type of terrain, you're hoping for at least a few inches of snow to slow you down equally as much as throwing in check turns.  I don't think someone Riv's size dropping down from a 186 to a 170 is going to make much of a difference; certainly not much a difference where any slight performance advantage gained in those situations would outweigh performance advantage lost in the vastly more common tree skiing areas.  16 cm = 6.2 inches.  It's not that big of a difference.  Let's remember, we were skiing these same lines on 200cm skis only 15 years ago.



But as you noted, there is terrain much tighter than 6-foot gaps (and more common than your analysis really).  Granted, yes, as you say it's not "typical" and it does make up a smaller percentage of your tree skiing day, but..... it's there.  There are some spots for instance at Jay where you might need to make it through 20 or 30 yards of tight trees to be rewarded by an area that is the path less traveled (i.e. people dont know it's there or said, "screw that"). 

As for your 186 down to 170 scenario, it depends on the wants of that particular skier.  But again, IF either ski provides adequate floatation, and it is the "tree ski" in the quiver, there's absolutely no point in going with the 186.  If the ski is for all-mountain, then sure, go with the 186, but this conversation has been and is regarding tree-specific skis.  The wideness of modern skis has allowed for proper float in VERY short skis with a shorter turn radious and a lower swing.



J.Spin said:


> If we’re talking about roughly six-feet of space between every tree, then I think most people would consider that to be fairly open tree skiing once they see what that actually looks like



That's where I'm going with that.



J.Spin said:


> I’m still confused about this concept of wanting “longer” skis for skiing in the trees, and I definitely fall into BenedictGomez’ camp on this topic.  Slalom racers generally use shorter skiers for shorter radius turns and slower speeds, downhill racers use longer skis for the stability at high speeds etc, but those skis are not going to be very responsive for quick turns.  Tree skiing generally involves turns with radii on the short end of the spectrum – so why are people trying to ride longer skis for that type of skiing?



This is where I believe the old-school logic and fallacy of "longer= better skier" comes into play.  Because I'm at a loss for the logic in going long with a tree ski, unless you're a really big guy who needs length for float.  But even then you'd have to be pretty big given the new technology. 

 I also think, as I eluded to way, way earlier in this thread, that many (most?) people, even many serious skiers are unaware of the relative nature of surface area and float.  Going back to that Icelantic Shaman example from earlier, as mathematical coincidence would have it, a 161cm SHORT version of that ski would provide exactly the same floatation as the 186cm version of the Atomic Theory (1959sq/cm versus 1993sq/cm), which is the ski Riverc0il stated he favors.   Yet the Shamen, which is a ski often purchased by the tree-skiing set J.Spin alludes to, yields that flotation at a full 10 inches shorter, and will an eye-popping radious differential of 12m versus 20m!  That's relevant no matter how you slice it.   Of course, if the skier is fairly tall a 161 might well be too short, but if you stepped up to the 173 version you'd now gain superior float characteristics and only increase the radius to 15 versus 20, still a significant  advantage in tight areas.  

Sorry to "math dork out" here for a bit, but I think math is the best way to empiracally demonstrate the modern differences.



J.Spin said:


> The speeds in the trees are generally low, the turns are often tight, and all things being equal, the same model ski in a longer length is simply going to have a lot more swing weight, more weight in general, and not fit through tight spaces as easily if it’s at any angle other than the direction of travel.  We ski powder and trees pretty religiously here, and generally with advice from experts that sell skis, my skis have been getting shorter and shorter over the past decade, with fantastic results......There has definitely been a trend back toward slightly longer skis in the past several seasons due to the addition of rocker taking away some running length, but what I’ve generally seen as advice from the tree-skiing, powder skiing gurus on SkiVT-L when someone makes an inquiry about a ski for getting into the trees around here in Northern Vermont, is to lean toward the shorter, fatter side.  I’ve been trending this way with each new pair of skis and haven’t noticed anything being lost for the type of skiing we generally do (trees, powder, short-radius turns).



This will be my 2012/13 equipment experiment.  I want to join the "short tree crew" and demo some of these tree-specialist models.  I already know about how much surface area I require for proper float at my weight (165lbs -170lbs), and it should be a fun experiment trying the super fat shorties.


----------



## HowieT2 (Aug 25, 2012)

JimG. said:


> I coached kids to ski for years at Hunter.
> 
> I always noticed that kids would struggle at the start of the season after they got new and usually longer skis. They also struggle to grow into their larger bodies and often feel awkward at first. But this passes quickly.
> 
> I don't think that getting skis 10cm longer than optimal (whatever that is as we have determined in this thread) would not be a disaster but assume that he will feel a little weird at first until he gets used to them.



Thanks.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 26, 2012)

HowieT2 said:


> Thanks.



I choose to get my 10 year old slightly longer skis with less sidecut...I feel that type of ski is a bit more versatile, especially in bumps.
I emphasize the term slightly.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 10, 2012)

Icelantic Shamans (and others) no idea how prices compare -
http://www.evo.com/shop/icelantic/y...edium=email&utm_campaign=2012-09-10_Icelantic


----------



## Puck it (Sep 10, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> Icelantic Shamans (and others) no idea how prices compare -
> http://www.evo.com/shop/icelantic/y...edium=email&utm_campaign=2012-09-10_Icelantic



Funny.  The Scout is listed as a youth ski now!!!!!!!


----------



## crank (Sep 10, 2012)

First, add me to the looking for new skis list.  Not too fat, OK for all around use, sacrifice ice and groomers performance for back country and trees.  I intend to mount AT bindings and will be about 50/50 inbounds and out mostly in Northern VT.

I currently ski an older pair of Solomon 1080's twin tips 188cm and 104mm at the waist.  

I think I prefer something a little narrower, probable 190's range.  And shorter, probably 175ish.  

Second, Regarding the debate about the tightness of trees skied, I prefer a shorter ski just to make it easier to maneuver when I am bushwhacking or just plain stuck and need to turn around and try a different tack...or to lift them out of heavy snow...  or to carry on my back or over my shoulder.  Most of the time I am fine with the 188's but occasionally I wish I had shorter, lighter boards strapped on.  I do not care about stability preferring something light and quick and easy to turn.  A little rocker would be nice for floatation.


----------

