# Recomendation for bump/tree ski, mostly eastern?



## sankaty (Feb 5, 2011)

Haven't quite found an answer to this in past threads.  Sorry if I've missed one.

I'm looking for a freeride ski with a waist in the 85-92 range.  

Here's me:

Skier type: advanced
Terrain: Bumps and trees (50/50), almost exclusively.
Current ski: Rossi B2 174
Height: 6"
Weight: 160

I currently ski on a Rossi B2 and am reasonably happy with them.  They are dreamy in the bumps and good in the trees.  I'd like something wider, though, for better flotation in fresh snow.  I'm willing to give up a small amount of bump performance, but they would still need to be good.  I'll keep my B2s for spring days when I'm 100% in corn bumps.

The B2s are not great on hard groomed snow, but I try to avoid that anyway.  I have some carving skis for when I'm socially obligated to ski on hardpack.  A ski that was a bit better on goomers would be a bonus, but is not a priority.  A ski that has been around for a few years so I could pick up a previous year's model on closeout would be ideal, but I can be flexible.

Last year I skied the Volkl Mantra in 18" of powder in Utah and loved them, but felt they'd be too stiff outside of fluffy western bumps.  Thinking I should look at the Line Prophet 90, Dynastar Sultan 85, and Rossi S86, but know there's a lot more out there.  I know that there are some freestyle skis that might also be a good fit, but I'm not familiar with that market.

Many, many thanks for any suggestions.  Also, if the consensus is that I should just stick with my B2s, that's fine.


----------



## jimmer (Feb 5, 2011)

if u liked the mantras,try the line profit 100s  ,its a great ski,and works well in the conditions u spoke of,and it should cost a bit less than the mantras,,i ski these and wood recomend them too anybody!!!!!


----------



## sankaty (Feb 5, 2011)

jimmer said:


> if u liked the mantras,try the line profit 100s  ,its a great ski,and works well in the conditions u spoke of,and it should cost a bit less than the mantras,,i ski these and wood recomend them too anybody!!!!!



Thanks.  I'll definitely try those and the P90.  I should say that while I liked the Mantras, I won't typically be skiing in 18" of Utah powder.  I think the Mantras would be way too stiff (and possibly wide) for my day-to-day skiing.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 5, 2011)

Go with the Icelantic Pilgrim or Nomad in a shorter length. They are an awesome ski. Great graphics. I skied used these quite often when there is 4 or more of freshies. Give them a look.


----------



## sankaty (Feb 6, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Go with the Icelantic Pilgrim or Nomad in a shorter length. They are an awesome ski. Great graphics. I skied used these quite often when there is 4 or more of freshies. Give them a look.



Thanks for the suggestion.  The 2010 Pilgrim would also satisfy my soft requirement of having crustacean-themed graphics.

Based on further research, the contenders are:

Dynastar Sultan 85
Line Prophet
Fischer Watea 84
K2 Aftershock
Atomic Crimson
Icelandic Pilgrim
Rossi S86

The Dynastar, Line, Fischer, and Icelandic hold particular appeal because there is still a decent amount of stock available from previous years, so there are deals out there.

I doubt I'll get to demo all of these, but I'll let you know what I find.  Any more suggestions or thoughts on these skis is appreciated.


----------



## bvibert (Feb 6, 2011)

I love my Watea 94's, but I'm a big guy and tend to like a stiffer ski.  The only conditions that I don't like them in is big, tight bumps with deep troughs.  They're really more at home making big turns on soft snow, but they also rip on groomers and I can make up em turn down the zipper line as long as the bumps aren't too tight.  It's all subjective though, I bet a lot of people wouldn't like them in the bumps at all.  Greg is a lot lighter than me and didn't like his at all.

Not sure how similar the 94's are to the 84's are though.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 6, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I love my Watea 94's, but I'm a big guy and tend to like a stiffer ski.  The only conditions that I don't like them in is big, tight bumps with deep troughs.  They're really more at home making big turns on soft snow...


Just goes to show you the subjectiveness on gear. I don't find the Watea 94 to be a stiff ski and I got it specifically it straddles the line between having a respectable amount of beef without being a tree. And I find they prefer smaller turns to big turns due to the radius. Its always tough to generalize preferences because so much is individual depending on personal preferences, interpretations, characteristics, techniques, style, etc.

That said, sankaty's contender list is pretty sound though a lot of those skis are going to have quite different characteristics. The only way you'll ever know is to try them all. If you don't plan on demoing, just read online reviews and look for similarities between other people's preferences and your own (and especially differences on what other people like). Just beware most reviews will be glowing. After dropping $500 on a ski, no one likes to admit "damn, I made a dumb purchase!" Thus knowing your differences relative to other reviewers with glowing reviews is often just as important as similarities.


----------



## sankaty (Feb 7, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Just goes to show you the subjectiveness on gear. I don't find the Watea 94 to be a stiff ski and I got it specifically it straddles the line between having a respectable amount of beef without being a tree. And I find they prefer smaller turns to big turns due to the radius. Its always tough to generalize preferences because so much is individual depending on personal preferences, interpretations, characteristics, techniques, style, etc.
> 
> That said, sankaty's contender list is pretty sound though a lot of those skis are going to have quite different characteristics. The only way you'll ever know is to try them all. If you don't plan on demoing, just read online reviews and look for similarities between other people's preferences and your own (and especially differences on what other people like). Just beware most reviews will be glowing. After dropping $500 on a ski, no one likes to admit "damn, I made a dumb purchase!" Thus knowing your differences relative to other reviewers with glowing reviews is often just as important as similarities.



I'll definitely demo a few of them.  I guess I'm hoping that I'll fall in love with one of the contenders before having to go all the way down the list.  We'll see.

Very true about how subjective gear reviews are.  I think bump performance, which is key for me, is one of the most subjective, probably because of the range of techniques folks use in moguls.  Edge grip on hard snow is another area where experiences seem to vary wildly, though that's not as much of a priority for me.  It would be nice to have a ski that didn't drift as much under pressure as my B2s do, but that's a pretty low bar.  Of course, that edge release is part of what makes them so nice and slithery in bumps, so it's a balance.


----------



## Greg (Feb 7, 2011)

If the Sultan 85 is as good as the older Legend 8000 is in the bumps/trees, you have to seriously consider those. Might just be my next ski.


----------



## gorgonzola (Feb 7, 2011)

Greg said:


> If the Sultan 85 is as good as the older Legend 8000 is in the bumps/trees, you have to seriously consider those. Might just be my next ski.



i'm loving mine - there really isn't anything this ski doesn't do pretty well


----------



## sankaty (Feb 7, 2011)

Greg said:


> If the Sultan 85 is as good as the older Legend 8000 is in the bumps/trees, you have to seriously consider those. Might just be my next ski.



My wife has the Legend 8000.  It's a fantastic ski.  I almost got them in 2007 instead of the B2, and sometimes wish I had.

The Sultan 85 is currently at the top of my list to demo, though I'm also really curious about the Line Prophet 90.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 7, 2011)

Personally, I would go for a straight up pow ski over 100mm and then keep the B2s for bump days.

I find that bump performance goes down considerably when you get much above 80 in the waist, especially solid/icy bumps.. 

I ride a High Society Free Ride as my eastern pow ski.  It's a fantastic ski and handles bumps very well, but definitely not in the same league as a B2, which is my primary ski as well.   I wish they made a longer version of the High Society that was still 92 underfoot.  I'm 5'8" 190lbs.  I like the ski a lot, but wish it was more in the 185 range with a straight tail as opposed to the 179 twin tip that it comes in.


----------



## sankaty (Feb 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Personally, I would go for a straight up pow ski over 100mm and then keep the B2s for bump days.
> 
> I find that bump performance goes down considerably when you get much above 80 in the waist, especially solid/icy bumps..
> 
> I ride a High Society Free Ride as my eastern pow ski.  It's a fantastic ski and handles bumps very well, but definitely not in the same league as a B2, which is my primary ski as well.   I wish they made a longer version of the High Society that was still 92 underfoot.  I'm 5'8" 190lbs.  I like the ski a lot, but wish it was more in the 185 range with a straight tail as opposed to the 179 twin tip that it comes in.



Interesting thought.  The Mantras seemed super wide at 96mm, but really fun to get up on edge.  Would be great to try out something over 100mm.  However, I've been having a hard time reconciling my skiing style to a ski that is too specialized.  I like alternating runs, one in the bumps, another in the trees, etc.  The only dedicated bump days are in the spring (and I'll definitely keep my B2s for those).

I guess I'm hopeful that the Sultan 85 or Watea 84 (and maybe even the P90) won't be too much of a step down from the B2 in the bumps and do other things better, but it's possible that I'll find that my B2s are still the best all-mountain skis for my purposes.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 9, 2011)

sankaty said:


> I'm also really curious about the Line Prophet 90.



For what you said, I would lean more towards the prophet flite than the 90's.  I have a par of last years 90's and love them for a groomer/tree ski.  But the flite is softer and wont get kicked around so much in the bumps.  The flite will hold a much better edge than the B2 on groomers.


----------



## sankaty (Feb 17, 2011)

Got a chance to demo both the Sultan 85 and the P90 in variable conditions at Sugarbush.  Really liked both skis, but need a some more time with them to make a decision.

Conditions: mostly FG with some windblown powder following a heavy thaw, refreeze.  Very atypical, but allowed me to test the skis in some crazy conditions.

Sultan 85 (172cm):

Handled really well on the firm FG groomers where my B2s would have been useless.  Had several runs through several inches of windblown powder over a scratchy crust.  The Sultans handled this very well.  Flotation and turn initiation was excellent, allowing me to stay in the narrow lanes of powder along the sides of the upper mountain trails.  The jury is still out on mogul performance.  I got tossed around more than usual on Middle Earth, but the bumps beneath the new snow were Very Firm, so I'm not sure what was the ski and what was the snow.

Line Prophet 90 (172cm):

These skis really spoke to me.  Fantastic on the hard snow.  The tails are perfect for my skiing style, holding an edge right until I'm ready to release the turn.  In bumps, they were unexpectedly fantastic, maybe as good as my B2s.  I found soft bumps on Morning Star, so I really got to get a feel for them (wish I had tried the Sultans on this trail).  The only caveat in bumps is that the tips would sometimes catch on each other with my narrow stance, but I can adjust to this.  My only concern about these skis is deeper snow performance.  Most of the powder from the day before was tracked out, so I only got a couple of turns in powder on the P90s, and the tips seemed a little divey.  I was sking them short (172), so a bump up to the 179s might take care of that.  It also might just have been imagined, as my powder sample was much too small to draw real conclusions.

Both skis made me realize how much my B2s lack in anything but very soft snow.  The tails on the B2s wash out so easily, it's very hard to pressure the second half of a turn on anything remotely firm/steep.  The P90s (and possibly the Sultans, pending more bumps) were superior to the B2s in just about every way.

Next up, try the P90s a bit longer (and in deeper snow), the Sultans in bumps, try the Watea 84 and possibly the Line Flite.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 18, 2011)

When my P90's were the widest ski that I had, I never thought they were lacking in the powder.  Now that i have some Powder skis I find them to not float as nice, but I loved them before.


----------



## bigbog (Feb 19, 2011)

Fwiw...there's another in that zone...if you see it anywhere, might be worthwhile to demo = Fischer Motive 84


----------



## sankaty (Feb 20, 2011)

bigbog said:


> Fwiw...there's another in that zone...if you see it anywhere, might be worthwhile to demo = Fischer Motive 84



I'd really like to try the Watea/Motive line, but I've been having a hard time finding demos of them.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Feb 22, 2011)

i just grabbed a pair of line elizabeths (139/110/137) what a great ski, it carves better than my rossi powderbird at 80 underfoot..was great in the bumps and trees...love it, held a great edge on the hardpack...dont just look at the underfoot measurement, look at the whole ski....

I have it as a tele setup with hammerheads...


----------



## skidmarks (Feb 22, 2011)

Dynastar Sultan 94 is an amazing ski. Wide but it still carves. For what it's worth I never really liked the B2's even though I tele on the Powderbirds


----------



## sankaty (Feb 28, 2011)

Just to mix things up, I was skiing this Sunday in woods and moguls on a Rossi S3 (178cm).  It's 98mm underfoot with a rockered tip and tail.  I felt like a superhero on these skis, sking lines through the woods that I never would have contemplated on my B2s.  Kind of felt like I was telepathically linked to the skis. Just amazing in bumps, too.

On groomed snow they were OK, but a bit of work to get from edge to edge.

I don't think these could be my only skis, but I'm also pretty sure I can't live without them (or something like them, such as a Blizzard "The One" or Fischer Watea 98 ).  Haven't budgeted for two new pairs, though, so I might have to wait until next year to get something in this category.

In the meantime, I think I've narrowed down my choices to a Line Prophet 90, Prophet Flite, or Fischer Watea 84.  Really wish I could find a place to demo the Flite or Watea, but haven't been able to yet.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 1, 2011)

sankaty said:


> Really wish I could find a place to demo the Flite or Watea, but haven't been able to yet.


Try Forerunner at Killington. When I broke my skis last year, I bought new skis from them but they didn't have any in stock. Gave me a pair of the Watea 84s for the weekend, so they had demos last year at least.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 1, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Try Forerunner at Killington. When I broke my skis last year, I bought new skis from them but they didn't have any in stock. Gave me a pair of the Watea 84s for the weekend, so they had demos last year at least.



Thanks!

What did you think of the W84s?


----------



## mlctvt (Mar 1, 2011)

I've got both the Dynastar Legend 8000s and the new Sultan 85. The Sultans are a bit heavier than the Legends. The only place I prefer the Legends over the Sultan 85 is in the trees because I can turn them slightly faster.  The Sultans are 6mm wider so that does help in deeper snow.

I'm a tree skiing novice though so someone else might not notice the difference I do. 

My Legend 8000s  have Look P12 bindings flat mounted and my Sultans have the integrated bindings.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 2, 2011)

I ended up going for Blizzard "the One" in 177cm.  It's a bit out of left field, but after my amazing day on the Rossi S3, just decided I needed a ski in that category (tip and tail rise, slight camber underfoot, 98mm waist).  Opted for the One over the S3 because lots of folks who have skied both indicate that both are very similar, but the One is a bit more versatile on groomed snow.  I'm very confident it will be great for softer days.  May still try to pick up a cheap set of P90s for harder snow days.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 2, 2011)

I came to this thread because I have almost the same "want" as the OP.  

 I currently ski Salomon XScreams which are 68mm at the waist.  They are absolutely awesome at high speeds, have great edge grip, fantastic in our (sometimes) icy eastern conditions, but frankly they are terrible on powder days, and are useless in the woods.  How bad are they in powder?   They go submarine.

But I just dont know much about ski technology, and* I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good website or guide that explains the technological side in depth so I can educate myself, so to speak?*

For instance, how wide a waist do I need for fresh snow?  I dont view it as practical to go with a massively wide powder ski since 99.999% of my skiing is here in the east, but is 86mm enough, or would 96mm or 106mm be appreciably better?  What am I sacrificing by going with a wider waist that my 68mm underfoot might be better at?   

These are the types of questions I dont know much about, but I would like to learn.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 3, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I came to this thread because I have almost the same "want" as the OP.
> 
> I currently ski Salomon XScreams which are 68mm at the waist.  They are absolutely awesome at high speeds, have great edge grip, fantastic in our (sometimes) icy eastern conditions, but frankly they are terrible on powder days, and are useless in the woods.  How bad are they in powder?   They go submarine.
> 
> ...



Here's what I've picked up in my research and demoing.

I think that you'll find that there is no one factor that will determine performance in any one area.  A ski's characteristics will be determined by a blend of flex pattern, width, side cut, length, and rocker/camber.  This also needs to be balanced against the skier's weight and technique, as a heavier, hard driving skier will find a ski very different than a lighter, finesse skier (or anything in between), even if both are very accomplished skiers.

Here are some general guidelines (note that there are many exceptions to these):

Flex:  All other things being equal, a stiffer ski will typically be more stable at speed, less easily deflected in crud, and have better edge grip on hard snow.  However, a more flexible ski will typically be easier to manage in bumps and trees, float better in 3D snow, sometimes be easier to turn, and be generally livelier.  The general wisdom is that more advanced skiers should be on stiffer skis.  There's some truth to this, but it also gives aspiring skiers an incentive to be on much stiffer skis than they need.  However, nobody enjoys a ski that you can overpower (i.e. easly push downhill when you pressure it), so it's important not to go too flexible for your skiing style, either.  A very stiff ski is typically very hard to manage in moguls, so they are out for me.  I'm also not very heavy at 160 lbs, so I don't need as much stiffness as a heavier skier.

Width:  You'd think that a wider ski would automatically be better in powder, but there's a lot more to it than that, as flex and rocker/camber has just as much influence over flotation than waist width.  Some relatively narrow, flexible skis, such as the Watea 84, do very well in soft snow (though at the cost of hard snow performance).  Some wide, but stiff skis, such as the Volkl Mantra, are just OK in deep snow, but really shine in busting through any chop you throw at it and can rail on hardpack.  In my experience, just about all mid-fat skis (about 78mm +) will be easier to ski on variable ungroomed snow than a narrower ski.  The main trade off is that a narrower ski is easier to get from edge to edge just by tilting your ankles.  The wider the ski, the more you have to swing the ski out from under you to get it on edge.  Everyone has a different feel for when added width becomes cumbersome.  For me, I don't notice the width too much up to about 90mm.  At 98mm, it's a bit of work going quickly from edge to on gentle, groomed slopes.  On steeper slopes (where your skis are going to making wider arcs anyway), or anything ungroomed (where pure carving is not dominant), even 98mm is perfectly fine for me.

Side cut:  The deeper the side cut, the shorter radius turn a ski will make natively.  I don't pay much attention to this anymore, as the skis I'm considering are all flexible enough that they can be pressured/feathered/pivoted into whatever turn shape I need.

Length:  Generally, the longer the ski, the more stable and better flotation it will have.  Shorter skis will be easer to maneuver.  Skis that are too short for you typically feel squirelly and divey.  Skis that are too long feel cumbersome.

Rocker/Camber:  With traditionally cambered skis, when you put them base to base, they bow out in the middle.  A fully rockered ski will do the opposite; the waists of the skis will touch and the tips and tails will spread out from each other.  A full rockered ski is a deep powder speciallist that will be just about useless on groomed snow.  There are newer skis that are rocker/camber hybrids.  The middle portion of the ski has traditional camber, but the tip (or both tip and tail) is given some rocker so that it rises off the snow some distance down from the shovel.  These kinds of skis are OK in groomed snow, but have some advantages in ungroomed snow.  1) The early rise  keeps the tips from diving, enhancing float in 3D snow.  It also makes it easier to avoid getting your tips caught under a hidden obstacle in the woods. 2) The pre bent tip smooths turn initiation, making it much nimbler in soft snow.  I'm not convinced early rise does anything helpful in groomed snow.  The tip and tail engage the snow later in the turn than a full camber ski.  It's hard to describe the sensation.  It's not terrible, but it's a little wierd.  The greater the rise, the wierder the sensation, apparently.  In trees, however, tip and tail rocker are amazing.  On the Rossi S3, the incredible agility of the ski made me feel like I was going in slow motion, even though I was generally skiing faster than I ever have on my conventional skis.  I was also able to control my speed much better through narrow lanes that would totally freak me out on my full camber skis.

I decided to get the Blizzard the One beacause I was absolutely hooked on the performance of the hybrid rockered ski in woods and bumps (I've been told that the One skis very similarly to the S3.  We'll see!).  I'm not convinced that it would be a good single ski option for someone who will be doing much skiing on groomers.  If you're looking for an east coast all mountain ski right now, meaning that it has to do as well on hardpack groomers than it does in bumps and trees, something in the Line Prophet 90/Flite, Dynastar Sultan 85, Fischer Motive 84, Kastle MX88, Rossi S86, Atomic Crimson, K2 Aftershock, etc., is still probably the best bet.  There will be a lot more low rise rocker skis coming in 2012, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Hope this helps.  If any of you gurus out there notice anything I've gotten wrong, please set me straight.


----------



## RISkier (Mar 3, 2011)

sankaty, great post! I think Peter Keelty and the reviewers at www.realskiers.com do a really find job reviewing skis. It's not free, I believe the annual fee is $20 but lots of useful information on ski technology, boot fitting, and reviews of almost all currently available skis. On www.epicski.com Dawgcatching and Sierra Jim provide reviews of many skis. Both are ski retailers and both ski a ton of different skis. While they do have vested interests in their products I think both are really valuable resources. I especially find Dawgcatching's reviews detailed and helpful. He really takes pains to describe how a ski feels, how it does in bumps, on hard snow, how it does in crud, etc. He has threads comparing large numbers of skis in different categories. He reviewed a whole bunch of mid 80s waisted skis in one thread. And there are threads in which he reviews wider skis and narrower skis. Sierra Jim had a thread titled something like Crazy 88s. While reviews are just someone else's opinion I do think you can use those opinions to get you in the ball park. The one thing I'd add to sankaty's comments is that all skis represent a compromise of some kind. The best skis for hard snow and ice will not be great in other conditions, and the best deep snow skis aren't going to be very on the hard pack. So you need to assess what you really want the ski to do. Seems to me that skis in the 78 - 88 range tend to offer the most versitility. But, one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So there's no one perfect tool.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 3, 2011)

RISkier said:


> *sankaty, great post!*



It really was a great post by him, ty for taking the time to splain'.  I definitely need to get my research on.  Hell, the last time I bought skis, "integrated bindings" didnt even exist, so even that I need to look into to see what that's all about.   I've got much to read up on.



RISkier said:


> *While they do have vested interests in their products *I think both are really valuable resources.


  Yeah, I'm always cognizant of this sort of thing regarding endorsements etc...



RISkier said:


> one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So* there's no one perfect tool*.



Well at this point the "must" is simply that they will float in powder, rather than sink like concrete shoes, and I would like if they were quick-turning for bumps and trees.  

Then I would have 2 different skis, and I could keep using the old XScreams for early/late season, variable conditions, and when I'm skiing groomers with my gf.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 3, 2011)

RISkier said:


> sankaty, great post! I think Peter Keelty and the reviewers at www.realskiers.com do a really find job reviewing skis. It's not free, I believe the annual fee is $20 but lots of useful information on ski technology, boot fitting, and reviews of almost all currently available skis. On www.epicski.com Dawgcatching and Sierra Jim provide reviews of many skis. Both are ski retailers and both ski a ton of different skis. While they do have vested interests in their products I think both are really valuable resources. I especially find Dawgcatching's reviews detailed and helpful. He really takes pains to describe how a ski feels, how it does in bumps, on hard snow, how it does in crud, etc. He has threads comparing large numbers of skis in different categories. He reviewed a whole bunch of mid 80s waisted skis in one thread. And there are threads in which he reviews wider skis and narrower skis. Sierra Jim had a thread titled something like Crazy 88s. While reviews are just someone else's opinion I do think you can use those opinions to get you in the ball park. The one thing I'd add to sankaty's comments is that all skis represent a compromise of some kind. The best skis for hard snow and ice will not be great in other conditions, and the best deep snow skis aren't going to be very on the hard pack. So you need to assess what you really want the ski to do. Seems to me that skis in the 78 - 88 range tend to offer the most versitility. But, one person on epic describes all mountain skis as skis that don't really don anything well. So there's no one perfect tool.



Thanks!  I've been immersed in those Dawgcatching's and SJ's reviews for a couple of weeks now.  In fact, I ended up buying "the One" from Dawgcatching's shop.

I've been curious about realskiers.com.

BenedictGomez, there are a lot of good options (and deals) available now, but if you can wait until fall, the Blizzard Bushwacker seems like a really interesting ski for 2012

Now, I need it to either snow or get sunny and warm so I can try out my skis.  I'll be sure to report back with what I find.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 3, 2011)

sankaty said:


> I ended up going for Blizzard "the One" in 177cm.  It's a bit out of left field, but after my amazing day on the Rossi S3, just decided I needed a ski in that category (tip and tail rise, slight camber underfoot, 98mm waist).  Opted for the One over the S3 because lots of folks who have skied both indicate that both are very similar, but the One is a bit more versatile on groomed snow.  I'm very confident it will be great for softer days.  May still try to pick up a cheap set of P90s for harder snow days.



not sure I understand the logic in getting two pairs of skis in the 90mm waist range.  Seems like a lot of overlap.

I don't care how well the P90 does on hard snow, there will be skis in the high 70s / low 80s that perform much better on ice than something in the 90s.  It's pure physics.  

I have heard great things about the P90 for carving and hard snow performance, but I bet something like a Blizzard 7.6 or 8.1 Magnum would blow it away.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 3, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> not sure I understand the logic in getting two pairs of skis in the 90mm waist range.  Seems like a lot of overlap.
> 
> I don't care how well the P90 does on hard snow, there will be skis in the high 70s / low 80s that perform much better on ice than something in the 90s.  It's pure physics.
> 
> I have heard great things about the P90 for carving and hard snow performance, but I bet something like a Blizzard 7.6 or 8.1 Magnum would blow it away.



Stiff and wide is a good crud/mush ski.

But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.


----------



## RISkier (Mar 3, 2011)

sankaty said:


> Thanks!  I've been immersed in those Dawgcatching's and SJ's reviews for a couple of weeks now.  In fact, I ended up buying "the One" from Dawgcatching's shop.
> 
> I've been curious about realskiers.com.
> 
> ...



Reviewing skis and ski shopping presents a lot of challenges. Skis can ski quite differently depending on length, size of skier, tune, etc. And when you demo you don't know what the tune is like and the conditions vary from day to day. We were in Stowe in January and I was intending to demo a bunch of skis. We hit really interesting conditions with fresh snow but lots of wind and lots of wind scoured. In some ways perhaps really good conditions to demo, but I wasn't sure I'd really get a great feel for different skis for purposes of comparison. I do think reviews can help identify appropriate skis. I like the realskiers site. As far as I can tell it's not beholding to any manufacturer and it will rip skis.  I'd decided to make it through the year on my old Nordicas. I knew they were on their last legs. Last time we skied the little bit of material left on the bases was sloughing off the ski. Decided to order some Fischer Motive 84s based on various reviews and discussions with Dawgcatching. And he was selling them at a pretty good price this time of year. So I took a flier. I ordered a pair of Elans from him several years ago. I think he's a real good guy and does his best to put people in appropriate skis. I've not seen any negative comments from folks who've done business with either Dawgcatching or Sierra Jim. Hope you enjoy your skis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 3, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Stiff and wide is a good crud/mush ski.
> 
> But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.



absolutely

but when you've already purchased something that's 98 underfoot, picking up a second ski for hard snow use that's 90 underfoot doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 3, 2011)

sankaty said:


> BenedictGomez, there are a lot of good options (and deals) available now, but *if you can wait until fall,* the Blizzard Bushwacker seems like a really* interesting ski for 2012.*



I'm frugal*** though, so I'd like to buy a 2010 or 2011 either the end of this season when the sales start, or October of next season.  I've been knee-deep in reading review videos for the last few hours, and it seems I cant find an unkind word about those Dynastar Sultan 85s.  Those might have to go on my demo list.




****Frugal* (frü-gəl, adjective) - Polite word for calling one cheap.  eg.  BenedictGomez sure is very frugal with his money


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 3, 2011)

mondeo said:


> But I don't have a 10 ski quiver.



how many do you have?


----------



## sankaty (Mar 4, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm frugal*** though



Hey, me too!  That's also why I didn't wait.  Even the idea of getting two pairs of skis is making me a little nauseous.  I actually just found the One online for a bit less than I paid for it.  I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . .  I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . . I'm still very happy to have supported Dawgcatching's shop . . .

Seriously, I am glad that I supported those guys.  They offer a ton of great advice to the skiing community for free.



deadheadskier said:


> absolutely
> 
> but when you've already purchased something that's 98 underfoot, picking up a second ski for hard snow use that's 90 underfoot doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.



Part of me thinks the same thing.  However, I'm still considering it for these reasons:

1) As already noted, I'm cheap, err, frugal.  The P90 can already be gotten for $350 flat.  The Prophet series is changed for the first time in a long time in 2012 (some tip rocker added), so the new old stock may go down in price even more.  There are some skis that would probably be better options (the Motive 84, for example), but they typically go for significantly more.  I would consider the Sultan 85, though, if I could find a comparable price on it.

2) Even my firm snow ski needs to be pretty good in bumps, or it will never get any use.  This eliminates a lot of skis that would out perform the P90 on ice, including the Magnum series.

3) The One and the P90 are more different than just the width suggests.  The early rise tip and tail plus the softer flex make the One more of a softer, ungroomed snow specialist.  Also, I've been finding that the difference between a 90mm and 98mm ski is much more significant than the difference between something like a 85mm ski and a 90mm ski.  The S3 felt much wider than the P90 to me.  However, the P90 did not feel much different than the Sultan 85 underfoot to me.  There's something about a wide ski in general that compliments my skiing style.

4) I've already skied the P90 on just about as firm a day as I'm likely to ski (the day after a refreeze at Sugarbush), and I loved it, so I know it will do the job, even if there might be something even better out there.

5) I'm confident that a combo of the P90 and the One would be competent in all the conditions I'm likely to ski.  The significant overlap between the One and the P90 is medium-soft snow, bumps, and trees, which describes my average day.  The idea that I could grab the P90 on a day that I thought would be pretty firm, but not really wish I had my other skis if I found some softer snow, is pretty attractive to me.

Convinced?  Me neither.  I'm not 100% sold that it's the best plan yet.  I intend to ski the One for a few days first, get a sense of its limitations, and go from there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2011)

Fair enough

I hear you on being frugal, I am as well.  

I still think for eastern 2 quiver, 2 skis in the 90s doesn't make much sense.

There is a reason carving skis are built with waists in the 70s.  There is also a reason that bump skis are 70 in the waist or less.

I'd be looking for something with a dimension like the B2, but wood core, sidewall construction and small amount of metal.  It would outperform a P90 in the bumps and hard snow, but there are options out there that would still do great in soft snow and crud.  Even on the mushiest of spring days, I've never feel like the B2 isn't wide enough, but it's hard snow performance sucks due to it's core construction.  

My general observation is people in the east tend to go wider than they really need to or should for the types of conditions we often encounter unless they're tremendously picky about the days they go out.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Fair enough
> 
> I hear you on being frugal, I am as well.
> 
> ...



Do you have anything in mind?  Something like a Sultan 80 or Rossi SC80?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2011)

Something in those dimensions yes.  At least that's what I'm looking for.  I've heard great reviews of the Nordica Firearrow 80, though they maybe the most ugly skis I've ever seen.  :lol:

If you haven't visited already, epicski.com is a great web forum for gear review.  Not that I don't trust the opinions of many of the great skiers I know through this forum.  Epic's gear review section is just a bit more organized and standardized.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Something in those dimensions yes.  At least that's what I'm looking for.  I've heard great reviews of the Nordica Firearrow 80, though they maybe the most ugly skis I've ever seen.  :lol:
> 
> If you haven't visited already, epicski.com is a great web forum for gear review.  Not that I don't trust the opinions of many of the great skiers I know through this forum.  Epic's gear review section is just a bit more organized and standardized.



I have been using the epicski reviews extensively.  They've been very helpful.

That Nordica Firearrow 80 is really, really, very ugly.  IMO, the 2012 Blizzard freeride skis give them a run for their money (though the Firearrow is worse):

http://cdn.epicski.com/c/c8/c8db0ba7_2012blizzard.jpg

A lot of recent skis seem to have graphics lifted directly from an airbrushed mural on a 1974 conversion van.  It's not a revival I'm excited about.

It's a good thing I pretend not to care about ski graphics.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2011)

While graphics don't matter tremendously to me, they do at least a little.  I prefer something more simple.  I think Kastle have the best looking graphics out there.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> While graphics don't matter tremendously to me, they do at least a little.  I prefer something more simple.  I think Kastle have the best looking graphics out there.



+1 on both accounts. i've grown disgusted by the graphics on my Noridas and when i demo'd Kastle their beauty was one of the many compliments i passed along to the rep.



cute kid, ugly skis


----------



## mondeo (Mar 4, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> how many do you have?


3. Hart F17s, Fischer Addict Pros, Fischer Watea 94s.


sankaty said:


> Part of me thinks the same thing. However, I'm still considering it for these reasons:
> 
> 1) As already noted, I'm cheap, err, frugal. The P90 can already be gotten for $350 flat. The Prophet series is changed for the first time in a long time in 2012 (some tip rocker added), so the new old stock may go down in price even more. There are some skis that would probably be better options (the Motive 84, for example), but they typically go for significantly more. I would consider the Sultan 85, though, if I could find a comparable price on it.
> 
> ...


You want a 80-85 underfoot park ski. Cheap as dirt, and wide range of options. My Addict Pros were $210 - great hard pack ski, and functional in bumps. Stiff as hell, though, there are better mid-fats for 6" of new snow days. I know a decent number of people with Head park skis, I know they were about the same price.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 4, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> *My general observation is people in the east tend to go wider than they really need to or should for the types of conditions we often encounter *unless they're tremendously picky about the days they go out.



Now you're speaking to my dilema.  

My XScreams are 185, which I feel is a touch too long given I'm 5.10, but these were bought just before the "get short" revolution.  On piste, they're generally awesome.  In the bumps or trees I feel the length is cumbersome.  But the 68mm waist goes absolutely submarine in powder.  They're completely useless on powder days.  

That's the reson I'm looking for another ski, but as you very well said, for the _"conditions we often encounter"_, a ski that's good in powder with a bit wider waist isnt commonly necessary.  But given those rare days are my favorite, I feel I need to invest to properly enjoy them.  Problems, problems, problems. lol


----------



## RISkier (Mar 4, 2011)

gmcunni, which Kastle's did you demo and what were your impressions? They generally get rave reviews on Epic. The FX84 got the 5s (highest score) in every category Realskiers rate numerically. They are pricey.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 4, 2011)

RISkier said:


> gmcunni, which Kastle's did you demo and what were your impressions? They generally get rave reviews on Epic. The FX84 got the 5s (highest score) in every category Realskiers rate numerically. They are pricey.



RXSL and FX.  i REALLY liked the FX. you are right, they are pricey.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=88615


----------



## RootDKJ (Mar 14, 2011)

Bump.  

Yesterday at Blue, I skied on AtomicSkier's Volkl Mantra's in a 184.  Wow, what a difference over the Hot Rod Jet Fuel.  I also played around on his 190ish Gotama's.  

I've been thinking about adding a powder/spring ski to the lineup. I mostly ski groomers at high speeds (40-55 mph).  One thing I liked about the Mantra is once it got going, it was insanely stable on edge (blasting through the spring slop) but really seemed to prefer long gs turns, and while I enjoy that (a lot), I tend to use a variety of turn shapes. Railing on hardpack is a higher priority over bump performance.

I've been reading some reviews of the P 90 and a lot of people say that it's a little bit nicer through the end of the turn.  I really liked the stiffness of the Mantra and with the 96mm waist, it would add some more variety to my ski options.  I'm kinda thinking that the 84mm Jet Fuels and 90mm P90's are kinda pretty close in size/style?

Jet Fuel 126-84-112 (18m)
P90 125-90-113 (17.5m)
Mantra 133-96-116 (21m)

I'm open to other suggestions.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 19, 2011)

RootDKJ said:


> Bump.
> 
> Yesterday at Blue, I skied on AtomicSkier's Volkl Mantra's in a 184.  Wow, what a difference over the Hot Rod Jet Fuel.  I also played around on his 190ish Gotama's.
> 
> ...



The Mantra is very stable, but I've found that it's stiffness makes it not ideal for a powder ski, if that's what your looking for.  I skied the Mantra in about 16" of fresh powder, and it was fun, but it was prone to tip dive if I wasn't careful.  I've not found a ski that both excels in powder and railing on hardpack.  The Mantra can be great for spring snow, though, if bumps are not a priority (it can be managed in bumps, but takes a fair amount of proactive piloting).

I'm really enjoying my Blizzard the One in spring snow and powder.  Any of the tip/tail rocker hybrid skis (Rossi S3, Watea 98, Dynastar 6th Sense Slicer, Blizzard One) will be super agile even in wet corn snow.  I don't expect that they would be as stable as the Mantra at high speed, though.

I've found the P90 to be much better than the Mantra in bumps and still good on hardpack.  I expect the P90 would be better than the Mantra in powder, but haven't tried it there.  I don't know much about the Jet Fuel, so I can't comment there.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 19, 2011)

I've skied two days on my Blizzard Ones and here are my impressions so far:

Day one: 4" of fresh but dense snow at Killington (a fair amount of sleet mixed in) over a firm base.

They performed very well in these conditions.  I didn't really appreciate how good they were until I switched back to my full camber skis and found that the thick snow was very demanding.  Switching back to the rockered skis was pure joy.  I spent lots of time in the woods to skiers right of Superstar, and they really shined.  On the steepest slopes, they could be overpowered a bit if I was too aggressive, but this was minor.  Overall, they were very agile and predictable in what could have been demanding conditions.

Day two: Spring corn at Stratton

These are fantastic Spring skis.  Turn initiation even in wet, lumpy, mashed potatoes was incredibly easy.  I finally had a chance to try them in sustained bumps, and they were great.

I've been trying to compare them to the S3, but it's been hard because the conditions have been so different (I skied the S3s in 7" of perfect dry powder over a soft base).  The Ones are definitely better on soft groomed snow (haven't tried either on hardpack), where they are quicker from edge to edge.  Unlike the S3, I didn't really even notice the rocker on flat snow with the Ones.  Both are good (and similar) in bumps.  They also seemed similar, and very good, in trees.  The S3s may have seemed a touch more effortless and nimble in trees, but so far I'm thinking that has more to do with snow conditions than the skis.

I have decided against supplementing the Ones with the P90.  The Ones do well enough on groomed snow that there is just too much overlap.  I'm thinking that one of next year's skis in the 84-88 range, slightly stiffer with a slight tip rocker, would be a really good supplement.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 19, 2011)

sankaty said:


> The Mantra is very stable, but I've found that it's stiffness makes it not ideal for a powder ski, if that's what your looking for.  I skied the Mantra in about 16" of fresh powder, and it was fun, but it was prone to tip dive if I wasn't careful.  I've not found a ski that both excels in powder and railing on hardpack.  The Mantra can be great for spring snow, though, if bumps are not a priority (it can be managed in bumps, but takes a fair amount of proactive piloting).


I will echo all of that. But a lot of skiers really like the Mantra and it has been around for a while, fairly unchanged. It has more weaknesses than strengths from my perspective. I am surprised so many people like this ski.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 19, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> I will echo all of that. But a lot of skiers really like the Mantra and it has been around for a while, fairly unchanged. It has more weaknesses than strengths from my perspective. I am surprised so many people like this ski.



Yeah.  I did like the Mantra for the things it's good at (and its very good at those things), but I wonder if it could be 10mm narrower and be just as good while being more versatile.  I'm not sure why I would choose the Mantra over something like the Blizzard Magnum 8.7, for example.

FWIW, the Rossi S3 basically skied the way I had hoped the Mantra would ski in powder.  Lots of float and easy to turn with just a bit of tilt.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2011)

Several people in here mentioned they enjoyed the Line Prophet 90.

  I'm wondering if any of you that are heavier could comment? 

 I go 195 lbs, and I'm referring to the following from Skinet.  I sure dont base all my decisions on Ski mag/web reviews, but I do find the below concerning enough to want to ask around.....   Thanks.



> *Testers under 170 pounds found the Prophet 90 to be damp and stable, with easy but determined turn initiation.* The tails provide power and end-of-turn support, but their round, upturned shape disengages easily. It seemed not to have a radius preference. “Very easy to turn,” said one tester. PLUS: An uncomplicated, unhurried, and playful jib board. MINUS: *Heavy testers noticed stability crumble at high speeds.*


----------



## RISkier (Mar 23, 2011)

BenedictGomez said:


> Several people in here mentioned they enjoyed the Line Prophet 90.
> 
> I'm wondering if any of you that are heavier could comment?
> 
> I go 195 lbs, and I'm referring to the following from Skinet.  I sure dont base all my decisions on Ski mag/web reviews, but I do find the below concerning enough to want to ask around.....   Thanks.



I've never been on the ski. I did check the realskiers review and they didn't mention anything about skier weight.


----------

