# Need a pair of skis for trees and moguls



## elks (Feb 4, 2009)

I've been skiing a pair of Atomic Metron M11 in 162 (I'm 5'10" and 140lbs.) for the past 3 seasons and really love these skis.  However I find them sluggish in moguls and a lot of work in trees.  I'd like to find a second pair of skis that is not a dedicated powder ski but has a strong bias towards skiing trees and bumps.  

While at Jay Peak this week, I tried a pair of Line Prophet 90 and a pair of Rossignol SC 80.  The Rossignol were very mediocre and skied more like the Metron just not as well.  The Line Prophet 90 were much more in line with what I'm looking for.  They were very responsive in the trees and held a pretty good edge as well on groomers.  Definitely fun skis.

What else should I be trying?


----------



## elks (Feb 5, 2009)

anyone?  thanks!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 5, 2009)

K2 Public Ememy..probably around 170 in length for your height and weight..Wide enough and stiff enough(not Atomic stiff) for the crud and powder and narrow enough for bumps and groomers..The Metron you have been skiing on is quite a bit of ski for someone your height..I've skied that same ski and thought it skied like my 176 length Elans..The Metron is a tiring ski due to the turn radius..you'll be pleasently surprised on the K2 Public Enemy..you can find an 06-07 model on EBay for $150..but don't skimp on the bindings.  If you like the Public Enemy you'll also like the Rossi Scratch..a little softer and a little wider than the Public enemy but a very capable all mountain ski..they were pretty much my everyday ski last season..


----------



## mondeo (Feb 5, 2009)

I've heard good things about Trouble Makers.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 5, 2009)

Nordica Afterburners


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 5, 2009)

kelly001 said:


> I've been skiing a pair of Atomic Metron M11 in 162 (I'm 5'10" and 140lbs.) for the past 3 seasons and really love these skis.  However I find them sluggish in moguls and a lot of work in trees.  I'd like to find a second pair of skis that is not a dedicated powder ski but has a strong bias towards skiing trees and bumps.
> 
> While at Jay Peak this week, I tried a pair of Line Prophet 90 and a pair of Rossignol SC 80.  The Rossignol were very mediocre and skied more like the Metron just not as well.  The Line Prophet 90 were much more in line with what I'm looking for.  They were very responsive in the trees and held a pretty good edge as well on groomers.  Definitely fun skis.
> 
> What else should I be trying?



Those metron you own have a pretty big side cut.   In the trees you want a short turning radius, which you have.  Don't want to discourage you from getting new skiis but I think the ones you have are pretty good.  When is the last time you got them tuned?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 5, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Nordica Afterburners



Aren't you sponsored by Nordica?


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 5, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Nordica Afterburners



i want those!


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 6, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Aren't you sponsored by Nordica?



I'm the rep at WF for Nordica. If you’re implying I’m prejudice toward Nordica you are 100% correct. That said, the Nordica line is what I know and I think the Afterburners would work very well for Kelly for what he wants. I’m sure there are other skis from other companies that would also work well for him;  but like I said Nordica is what I know.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 6, 2009)

gmcunni said:


> i want those!


 You won't be sorry if you get them. They are an extremely versatile all mountain tool that work well in a variety of conditions.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 6, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> You won't be sorry if you get them. They are an extremely versatile all mountain tool that work well in a variety of conditions.


What do you think about the Hot Rod Top Fuel?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 6, 2009)

ALLSKIING said:


> What do you think about the Hot Rod Top Fuel?



That's my ski for non soft days. Fast, tenacious edge hold, damp, but not too damp, good in bumps and versatile enough for trees. When the snow gets deeper and/or softer I switch to my Hellcats.

If I could only have one pair of skis to ski everyday in the Northeast it would be the Top Fuels.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 6, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> That's my ski for non soft days. Fast, tenacious edge hold, damp, but not too damp, good in bumps and versatile enough for trees. When the snow gets deeper and/or softer I switch to my Hellcats.
> 
> If I could only have one pair of skis to ski everyday in the Northeast it would be the Top Fuels.



generally speaking, better in bumps, afterburner or top fuel?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 6, 2009)

gmcunni said:


> generally speaking, better in bumps, afterburner or top fuel?



The AB is softer and easier to turn at slow to moderate speeds because it has no metal, but they are 5 cm wider then the TF's. I guess the AB's, but I don't think a good bump skier would have trouble with either.

For powder definately the ABs.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 6, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> The AB is softer and easier to turn at slow to moderate speeds because it has no metal, but they are 5 cm wider then the TF's. I guess the AB's, but I don't think a good bump skier would have trouble with either.
> 
> For powder definately the ABs.


Metal=bad for bump skiing, in general. Weight and stiffness are both things you don't want.

And I hope you mean 5 mm wider than the top fuels?!:razz::wink:


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 6, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Metal=bad for bump skiing, in general. Weight and stiffness are both things you don't want.
> 
> And I hope you mean 5 mm wider than the top fuels?!



Of course I met mm, thanks for pointing out my mistake though. Always good to know the spell check police are on duty in the forum.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> The AB is softer and easier to turn at slow to moderate speeds because it has no metal, but they are 5 cm wider then the TF's. I guess the AB's, but I don't think a good bump skier would have trouble with either.
> 
> For powder definately the ABs.



can you say if the 09/10 skis will be different than current models?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 9, 2009)

gmcunni said:


> can you say if the 09/10 skis will be different than current models?



As far as I know the only that changes in the Hot Rod line is the graphics. I don't have a catalog for next season yet. If I hear different I'll let you know.


----------



## madskier6 (Feb 11, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> As far as I know the only that changes in the Hot Rod line is the graphics. I don't have a catalog for next season yet. If I hear different I'll let you know.



HPD: Do you know whether Nordica made any structural (non-graphics) changes to the Afterburner between 06-07 and 08-09?  The reason I ask is I demoed the 08-09 model last March & really liked them.  I've now bought a pair of 06-07 Afterburners at a real cheap price, which are being shipped to me.  I have yet to ski on those. 

Not a big deal either way because I know I'll like the skis & the price I paid for them is a steal.  But I'm just curious if there have been any changes at all over the years.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Feb 11, 2009)

madskier6 said:


> HPD: Do you know whether Nordica made any structural (non-graphics) changes to the Afterburner between 06-07 and 08-09?  The reason I ask is I demoed the 08-09 model last March & really liked them.  I've now bought a pair of 06-07 Afterburners at a real cheap price, which are being shipped to me.  I have yet to ski on those.
> 
> Not a big deal either way because I know I'll like the skis & the price I paid for them is a steal.  But I'm just curious if there have been any changes at all over the years.



Same ski. The only difference besides the graphics is that Nordica no longer uses Marker bindings they now use their own design. Also all Hot Rods got the XBI binding system this year. In 06/07 they where using the XBS system. 

All that said, I don't think you'll notice any difference. They are a truly great ski.


----------



## elks (Mar 23, 2009)

Just wanted to thank everyone again for your recommendations and comments.  While I wasn't able to demo every ski I wanted to, I did demo about a dozen models.   In the end, 3 skis stood out of the pack: Dynastar Legend Pro Rider, Line Prophet 90 and PMGear Bro model.  I pulled the plug on a pair of PMGear Bro model in the end.  I found they held a better edge on ice than their counterparts (it's an important factor when NE is your home base.)  The Prophets had an edge over the Bros when it came to on-piste carving but the softer Bros had an edge in the moguls over the Prophets.  The Legend Pro Rider were perhaps not beefy enough.  They left me wanting more ski.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 23, 2009)

I thought you were looking for a ski for trees and moguls, LOL! Just kidding. I appreciate your reporting back and following up on your thread. But seriously, your original post and your follow up post don't line up well with a pair of skis for trees and moguls. Your follow up post discusses better edge grip on ice and on-piste carving. IMO, these qualities make a ski worse for bumps and trees and powder. Just my take, you may have found the ideal ski for you, but I am surprised by your preferences given the type of ski you were looking for.


----------



## Bumpsis (Mar 23, 2009)

My comment is definitely post factum since kelly001 already scratched the buying itch. I also don't mean to suggest that kelly001 is not a strong or capable skier - I have no idea and can only assume that he is, but in my somewhat lengthy experience, I find that if something is not working with one's skiing style, often it's the skier not the ski. 

I'd also be first to agree that some equipment is more specialized, that is,better for some specific conditions, and not having the right tool can hold you back. But when it comes to moguls, the best way to improve one's way with them is to do all you can to beef up leg strenght and re-examine one's technique.
Really strong legs and well conditioned core is an absoute must for having fun in moguls. The same holds for trees. After all, once the powder gets packed  down in the woods, you're on moguls with trees.

I ski on a pair of skis that may be called "demanding". They are stiff, a bit on the heavy side and probably a bit too long for me. If I'm off my conditioning and the legs are not ready, I just suck and nothing clicks for me in the moguls. Can't swing them and get them to turn quickly enough and more often drop back into back seat - nothing works. But if I have a few ski days closely together and my legs had a chance to get a good work out before I hit the bumps, I do much better. Timing works, skis turn and it's all good. Same ski, different legs.


----------



## elks (Mar 24, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> But seriously, your original post and your follow up post don't line up well with a pair of skis for trees and moguls. Your follow up post discusses better edge grip on ice and on-piste carving. IMO, these qualities make a ski worse for bumps and trees and powder. Just my take, you may have found the ideal ski for you, but I am surprised by your preferences given the type of ski you were looking for.



The comments about carving abilities and edge grip on ice, are just side notes about those skis.  Those are not their strong points by any means and not their selling points either.  I just thought they were relevant to differentiate otherwise similar skis.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

kelly001 said:


> I've been skiing a pair of Atomic Metron M11 in 162 (I'm 5'10" and 140lbs.) for the past 3 seasons and really love these skis.  However I find them sluggish in moguls and a lot of work in trees.  I'd like to find a second pair of skis that is not a dedicated powder ski but has a strong bias towards skiing trees and bumps.
> 
> While at Jay Peak this week, I tried a pair of Line Prophet 90 and a pair of Rossignol SC 80.  The Rossignol were very mediocre and skied more like the Metron just not as well.  The Line Prophet 90 were much more in line with what I'm looking for.  They were very responsive in the trees and held a pretty good edge as well on groomers.  Definitely fun skis.
> 
> What else should I be trying?


If I were you, I'd put the Blizzard 8.7 and the Blizzard Cronus on your short list.  Between the two the 8.7 would be at the top of the list, but both are great skis with similar waists but very different intentions.

[trek-ducking]I've skied the afterburner and the Blizzard 8.7.  The Blizzard wins hands down. 
[/trek-ducking]


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

kelly001 said:


> Just wanted to thank everyone again for your recommendations and comments.  While I wasn't able to demo every ski I wanted to, I did demo about a dozen models.   In the end, 3 skis stood out of the pack: Dynastar Legend Pro Rider, Line Prophet 90 and PMGear Bro model.  *I pulled the plug on a pair of PMGear Bro model in the end*.  I found they held a better edge on ice than their counterparts (it's an important factor when NE is your home base.)  The Prophets had an edge over the Bros when it came to on-piste carving but the softer Bros had an edge in the moguls over the Prophets.  The Legend Pro Rider were perhaps not beefy enough.  They left me wanting more ski.



I just read this......
I have the Soft Bro and LOVE it!!!!

I guess I never imagined that you'd want something quite that wide since its 9 mm wider than most of what you had talked about originally, but this is a very versatile ski.

When I described my Blizzard 8.7 to a friend, I said, it seemed like it was a tamed version(NOT a wimpy version) of my BRO, the difference being a bit more carvability with the added sidecut.

You will be soooooo happy with the Bro!!!


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

Rivercoil, I ski my bros in the trees a lot!
you'd be surprised how much fun they are in the trees.


----------



## elks (Mar 24, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> I just read this......
> I have the Soft Bro and LOVE it!!!!
> 
> I guess I never imagined that you'd want something quite that wide since its 9 mm wider than most of what you had talked about originally, but this is a very versatile ski.
> ...



You know in general, as I demoed more skis, I had a preference for the skis with 100 underfoot versus the 90.  I really wanted a ski that was different from my carving 76 underfoot ski.  I wish I had been able to find a pair of Prophet 100s to try as a comparison.  The Bro I purchased is a stiff flex yet it's obviously much much softer than metal reinforced carving ski.  It's softer than the Prophet 90s too.



Trekchick said:


> Rivercoil, I ski my bros in the trees a lot!
> you'd be surprised how much fun they are in the trees.



I agree, they are really nimble in tight places and I find that unlike some other similar beefy skis, they are also content being skied at slower speeds if you need to.  They are not a very forgiving ski but if you keep on top of them, they are more versatile than any other ski I've been on so far.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

Kelly, I have mine mounted with Dukes.  What do you have on yours?

IMO they perform best with a wide platform binding, such as the jester, griffon or duke.

The only regret I have with having a duke is the zero delta, but I easily found the sweet spot for compensation.

The only place I don't like the Bros a ton is the Bumps.  But then I weigh 130 lbs and the stiff-ish tail hangs me up with my lack of skillz.

True Story: 
I arrived at Keystone one day and a friend lead me down Mine Shaft heading to the outback.  Mineshaft is a bump run that is southern exposure and not forgiving at all.  This was my warm up run  UGH!

THAT is the day I realized that the bros would spank you if you behaved badly. 

When we got to the outback and skied trees and reasonable bumps, I was in heaven!!


----------



## elks (Mar 24, 2009)

Bumpsis said:


> My comment is definitely post factum since kelly001 already scratched the buying itch. I also don't mean to suggest that kelly001 is not a strong or capable skier - I have no idea and can only assume that he is, but in my somewhat lengthy experience, I find that if something is not working with one's skiing style, often it's the skier not the ski.



I also agree with that statement.  If you suck at bumps and don't put in the time and effort, no ski will make you good in that department.  Ultimately, I wanted a ski that was drastically different from my other pair, which is a very biased EC carving ski (and that doesn't mean I wasn't taking that pair into the glades or bumps.)  Now I own a pair of ski that's more biased towards powder, off-piste, glades, etc. so I can pick and choose depending on the day, conditions, location, etc.


----------



## elks (Mar 24, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> Kelly, I have mine mounted with Dukes.  What do you have on yours?
> 
> IMO they perform best with a wide platform binding, such as the jester, griffon or duke.



I mounted them with a pair of Salomon STH 12.  From what I've read Marker's claims that it has a wider platform is a lot of ingenious marketing.  Apparently, Salomon's hole patterns are actually wider than those needed for Marker bindings...

My shop only had the Marker Griffon anyway no Dukes.  Salomon 5 year warranty / Marker 1 year or 3 years depending on the shop.  So yeah...


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

I'm a Salomon fan as well.  Now go get some Grins on those skis!


----------



## Geoff (Mar 24, 2009)

I don't get this thread.  A bump ski and a tree ski are pretty much at cross-purposes.  You want a bump ski to be narrow, very quick edge-to-edge, and torsionally stiff enough to give you reasonable edge grip.  The competition bump skis don't look all that different from a first generation shaped ski.  For trees, you want wide to get float in powder.  You want a ski that isn't all that torsionally rigid so the edge doesn't lock and you can skid it when you need to toss it sideways.  If you get a ski for both purposes, it's not going to be particularly good in either.  It'll be far too narrow to give you the float you want for trees.  It probably won't be torsionally rigid enough to keep you carving in the bumps.


----------



## elks (Mar 24, 2009)

Geoff,

I should have been a little clearer in my subject.  I didn't intend to say I wanted a mogul competition type ski.  More a ski that does well in trees that get pretty bumped up as is often the case in NE.  I'm not looking to zip line Outer Limits all day long in other words (though I'm not averse to a few runs either.)  I guess a freeride ski might of been a better way to describe what I was looking for.


----------



## Trekchick (Mar 24, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I don't get this thread.  A bump ski and a tree ski are pretty much at cross-purposes.  You want a bump ski to be narrow, very quick edge-to-edge, and torsionally stiff enough to give you reasonable edge grip.  The competition bump skis don't look all that different from a first generation shaped ski.  For trees, you want wide to get float in powder.  You want a ski that isn't all that torsionally rigid so the edge doesn't lock and you can skid it when you need to toss it sideways.  If you get a ski for both purposes, it's not going to be particularly good in either.  It'll be far too narrow to give you the float you want for trees.  It probably won't be torsionally rigid enough to keep you carving in the bumps.


What kelly got was a ski that performs well for big mountain and tree skiing with some forgiveness that will allow bumps though its not ideal in the bumps.


----------



## awf170 (Mar 24, 2009)

I have 2 days on a pair of Medium stiffness 179 Bro's and here are my thoughts (I weigh a 135 pounds):



Edge is hold is stupidly good.  I guess that is what happens when a ski is straight and torsionally stiff
I can't carve them.  I really can't lay down a carved turn.  I don't know why but I can't.
They ski deep corn very well.
They seem pretty quick in the woods.
They're way too big for bump skiing.
Overall they're an okay ski area ski.  Honestly I would rather have something with  half the turn radius when ski inbounds, but they get the job done.  They are a great touring ski though.  Pretty light, amazing edge hold for sketch conditions on washington, and enough float and power for chop, powder, corn and whatever else touring might throw at you.  If I have enough money this summer I'm going to throw some dynafits on them and use them exclusively as a touring ski.


----------



## Bumpsis (Mar 24, 2009)

kelly001 said:


> I also agree with that statement.  If you suck at bumps and don't put in the time and effort, no ski will make you good in that department.  Ultimately, I wanted a ski that was drastically different from my other pair, which is a very biased EC carving ski (and that doesn't mean I wasn't taking that pair into the glades or bumps.)  Now I own a pair of ski that's more biased towards powder, off-piste, glades, etc. so I can pick and choose depending on the day, conditions, location, etc.



yeah, it's great to have a choice, especially one that complements your strenghts. Enjoy!!


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 24, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> Rivercoil, I ski my bros in the trees a lot!
> you'd be surprised how much fun they are in the trees.


No doubt! I just thought it odd to be gauging the hard pack and carving ability of a ski meant for trees and moguls. kelly001, thanks for clarifying on those points! Secondary traits can definitely help seal the deal.


----------

