# 2008 Volkl Skis



## madskier6 (Jul 16, 2007)

Volkl has posted the details on their ski offerings for the new season.

http://www.volkl.com/ski/images/0708_volkl_skis.pdf

Looks like some good skis.  Volkl is one of my favorite ski lines.  I love the way they feel on the snow (at least the ones I've demoed).


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 17, 2007)

The M Rock looks interesting. Light weight back country oriented version of the Mantra which I found a bit cumbersome and beefy.

The line up is standard fair for Volkl. Rock solid skis. The Bridge is not quite the width I am looking for but adds a valuable mid-point between the Park and Freeride skis. Too bad the graphics lean Park, those skis are butt ugly.


----------



## awf170 (Jul 17, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> The M Rock looks interesting. Light weight back country oriented version of the Mantra which I found a bit cumbersome and beefy.
> 
> The line up is standard fair for Volkl. Rock solid skis. The Bridge is not quite the width I am looking for but adds a valuable mid-point between the Park and Freeride skis. Too bad the graphics lean Park, those skis are butt ugly.




My bet it is just re-badged version of the Aura (the woman version of the mantra).


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 17, 2007)

Meh, some quick research indicates the limited consensus appears to be it isn't that much different than the Mantra. The search continues, lol.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 18, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> Volkl has posted the details on their ski offerings for the new season.
> 
> http://www.volkl.com/ski/images/0708_volkl_skis.pdf
> 
> Looks like some good skis.  Volkl is one of my favorite ski lines.  I love the way they feel on the snow (at least the ones I've demoed).



I demoed the Tigershark 10 foot switch at the end of the season and it was an awesome frontside ripper.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 18, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> The M Rock looks interesting. Light weight back country oriented version of the Mantra which I found a bit cumbersome and beefy.
> 
> The line up is standard fair for Volkl. Rock solid skis. The Bridge is not quite the width I am looking for but adds a valuable mid-point between the Park and Freeride skis. Too bad the graphics lean Park, those skis are butt ugly.



With all the backcountry & woods skiing that you do, Steve, you should really demo the Gotamas.  They are so smooth in powder & the trees IMHO.  While they are fat at 105mm, they certainly don't ski like they're that fat.  I think you'd be surprised at how versatile they truly are.  They will be my next ski purchase :smile:

I know before I demoed them, I thought they would be WAY TOO FAT for me but I was really impressed by their manuverability.  Especially since you like the liveliness of the Dynastar Legend 8000.  Gotamas have a similarly lively and smooth feel.  They also stiffened them slightly this year so they are better on groomers than one would think (alhtough they obviously are not made for skiing groomers).  It's at least worth a demo opportunity.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 18, 2007)

Mad, I considered the Gots but I figured they are typical Volkl, especially after having skied the Mantra which did absolutely nothing for me, I completely disliked the Mantra. Lively and maneuverable are what I am looking for in a powder/woods ski. I can't stand all the latest trends of powder skis that rail on the groomers. Meh. I don't need a groomer ski, I need a fat boy for 1+ feet deep! Interesting to hear the Gots have a similar lively feel to the 8000. Any idea how they compare to the 8800 which is definitely not even close to the lively feel of 8000 and a heck of a lot less wide than the Got. I have gotten really frustrated with my search for a nimble and lively fat powder tree ski to say the least.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 18, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Mad, I considered the Gots but I figured they are typical Volkl, especially after having skied the Mantra which did absolutely nothing for me, I completely disliked the Mantra. Lively and maneuverable are what I am looking for in a powder/woods ski. I can't stand all the latest trends of powder skis that rail on the groomers. Meh. I don't need a groomer ski, I need a fat boy for 1+ feet deep! Interesting to hear the Gots have a similar lively feel to the 8000. Any idea how they compare to the 8800 which is definitely not even close to the lively feel of 8000 and a heck of a lot less wide than the Got. I have gotten really frustrated with my search for a nimble and lively fat powder tree ski to say the least.



lot's of smaller companies that may have what your looking for. larger companies have to target the masses. there is a really a diverse selection these days, much better than even 10 years ago.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 19, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Mad, I considered the Gots but I figured they are typical Volkl, especially after having skied the Mantra which did absolutely nothing for me, I completely disliked the Mantra. Lively and maneuverable are what I am looking for in a powder/woods ski. I can't stand all the latest trends of powder skis that rail on the groomers. Meh. I don't need a groomer ski, I need a fat boy for 1+ feet deep! Interesting to hear the Gots have a similar lively feel to the 8000. Any idea how they compare to the 8800 which is definitely not even close to the lively feel of 8000 and a heck of a lot less wide than the Got. I have gotten really frustrated with my search for a nimble and lively fat powder tree ski to say the least.



I also did not really like the Mantra either.  The Goats ski very different from the Mantra & are not in the class of powder skis that rail on groomers.  My only point was that it was slightly stiffened to be a little better on groomers.  They have no metal in them.

On the same day, I also demoed the Dynastar Mythic Rider, which is this year's replacement for the 8800.  I liked the Mythic but not as much as the Gotamas.  As a fat powder ski, which is what you say you're looking for, I definitely preferred the Goats.  They float very well in the pow & are nimble & smooth in my opinion.  YMMV but I think you should check them out.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 19, 2007)

Word to smaller companies being able to focus more. The problem with smaller companies is lack of demos and smaller runs means less word of mouth and fewer reliable reviews.

Jeff, thanks for the thoughts on the Gotamas. Interesting you mention the Mythic Rider as I am actually essentially trying to replace my Intuitiv Bigs (former 8800) which just don't have that special something something in the powder. I will add them to the list. I was not aware that the Gotamas do not have any metal in them which is pretty rare for Volkl.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 19, 2007)

wa-loaf said:


> I demoed the Tigershark 10 foot switch at the end of the season and it was an awesome frontside ripper.


Man...I absolutely _LOVED_ the pp/hp performance of that ski.....slightly less dense than 5* but with its energy plus a little more width underfoot. (demoed back in Feb...would like to demo again this next season).  
Wouldn't I like to see someone get the Rossi/Look bindings(fks/px) on Volkl's rails somehow..(probably sounds like I've been smokin' more than a few joints today...;-))


----------



## bigbog (Jul 25, 2007)

*....ditto...*



riverc0il said:


> ........Lively and maneuverable are what I am looking for in a powder/woods ski. I can't stand all the latest trends of powder skis that rail on the groomers. Meh. I don't need a groomer ski, I need a fat boy for 1+ feet deep! Interesting to hear the Gots have a similar lively feel to the 8000. Any idea how they compare to the 8800 which is definitely not even close to the lively feel of 8000 and a heck of a lot less wide than the Got. I have gotten really frustrated with my search for a nimble and lively fat powder tree ski to say the least.



Unbelievable eh'?....with their somewhat lousy conditions at times out West, to get companies to design boards over 88mm to rail on EC hardpack....:roll:, *EDIT: But that said.....people out West know what they get for snow..so who am I to question.


----------



## big_vert (Jul 31, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Any idea how they compare to the 8800 which is definitely not even close to the lively feel of 8000.
> 
> Quick question - I've been on 8k's for two seasons, and haven't had so much fun on a ski in 40 years at it. I only got my 8.8's in June, so I haven't taken them out yet-  how do you explain the difference in feel - I hoped I was just getting a longer turn radius than the 8k's, but it seems you feel there's a lot of difference. Do you mean the pop isn't there?
> 
> Appriciate your comments.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 31, 2007)

Well, I can only compare to the 8800 predicesor which was the Intuitiv Big/Nobis Inspired, but from what I remember there were very few changes made to the 8800. To retain generational similarity, I will equate my experience with the Bigs to the 8800.

I find the 8800 to be more sluggish and much less turny than 8000 which is very nimble and lively. I have tremendously enjoyed touring with the 8800s on Mount Washington and feel this is a superior ski for "big mountain" stuff where you can really open things up and precision turning is not important. I was less than thrilled with the 8800 performance in the trees and with a narrow shovel and tail (nearly identical shovel/tail to the 8000), the float was not nearly what it should have been on the 8800 in powder. The Mythic Rider replaces the 8800 this season and the addition of some width and sidecut are very welcome. I think the Mythic Rider will be far superior to the 8800 (without having skied the Mythic but based on my impressions of the changes). That said, definitely far less pop compared to the 8000 which is my dedicated ski for all conditions but most especially natural snow and trees.

Just my impression, your mileage may vary as per usual.


----------



## big_vert (Jul 31, 2007)

Interesting - thanks for your thoughts.

I was on the phone for an hour with Dynastar yesterday about a warranty issue, and the question came up whether I should replace my 8.8's with Mythic Rider - their position was that "it wasn't worth it - not enough difference". I ended up replacing my second pair of 8k's with ontact 9's. I look forward to those for the East.

Well the 8.8's will be my Whistler / UT/CO skis anyway, so as long as I'm not going for trees at Steamboat it sounds like I'll be good.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 31, 2007)

I think the 8800s/Mythics would make for an ideal western ski, especially for the more open areas. Then again, there are always the Legend Pros too :lol: I am surprised that thought there wasn't a lot of difference between the 8800s and the Mythic. I almost considered the Mythic but am looking for something fatter and slightly more nimble for my purposes. I have yet to read other people's reviews but I have to believe the minor change made will be welcome for eastern skiers in particular.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 1, 2007)

Yes the Legend Pro's are a thing of beauty, but the lengths they come in are a bit much for me. It's been a long time since I've been on 185+. 

There were 8800's at Sierrasports for $199 a few days ago At that price......

It sounds like you want one of the Volkl's that're getting all the press recently if you want wide and lively. I haven't been on Goats, but I hear good things from people who's skiing (and choice of skis) I respect.

I tried Sandstorms at Whistler in April. Like all Solly's I've been on - yuck. If you like Dynastar's, there's not a chance you'll like them


----------



## bigbog (Aug 1, 2007)

*There are some ski from the smaller companies....most*

are out West, that would be interesting to try.  Some 08' models are supposedly a little stiffer than last years'.  4FRNT, Armada, LINE..   I've read some, but not many comparisons _between_ individual skis yet..  Best thing, although time consuming, is to find the shops to demo from or the demo days.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 1, 2007)

bigbog said:


> are out West, that would be interesting to try.  Some 08' models are supposedly a little stiffer than last years'.  4FRNT, Armada, LINE..   I've read some, but not many comparisons _between_ individual skis yet..  Best thing, although time consuming, is to find the shops to demo from or the demo days.



I love demo days. Sounds like an idea for a thread.

I try everything I can, and was on multiple models of Volkl, Head, Rossignol, Salomon, K2, Nordica, and Dynastar during last season. The smaller manufacturers often aren't so well represented on those days though - unfortunate. 

It's easy to see who you can take opinions / advice from after skiing enough different things and sharing thoughts.


----------



## Greg (Aug 1, 2007)

big_vert said:


> I love demo days. Sounds like an idea for a thread.



I'm sure we'll do it again like last year.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 1, 2007)

big_vert said:


> I tried Sandstorms at Whistler in April. Like all Solly's I've been on - yuck. If you like Dynastar's, there's not a chance you'll like them


That is really good to know coming from a fellow lover of the 8000. The Sandstorms had the specs I was looking for but I was skeptical of the skis performance being a Solly with foam core and all that. I flexed the blue noodles and the Tornados and was not impressed with the flex of either. My big beef with Volkl is being too stiff (e.g. Mantras) but I am encouraged by this thread to big the Goats a shot. Karhu BC100 looks like an interesting option as well.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 2, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> That is really good to know coming from a fellow lover of the 8000. The Sandstorms had the specs I was looking for but I was skeptical of the skis performance being a Solly with foam core and all that. I flexed the blue noodles and the Tornados and was not impressed with the flex of either. My big beef with Volkl is being too stiff (e.g. Mantras) but I am encouraged by this thread to big the Goats a shot. Karhu BC100 looks like an interesting option as well.



river, you have been talking up the 8000s for a while now.  Dynastar should start paying you for all the promo you are doing for them .  I did a bunch of research and was just about to get a pair in a 184 but then the sierrasnowboard sale started and I went for the B3s for less than half the price of what I could find the Legends for anywhere on the internet.

I was really really interested in them because of magazine and skier raves about the playful nature, quickness in trees and bumps, etc... but the only thing that was bothering me about them is some mags/skiers noting that they are easy to overpower especially when the skier is heavy.  If i remember correctly, you are 6+ feet and near/around 190-200lbs?  Have you had any issues with over skiing them a bit?  I am 6'2" and 225.  I am asking cause I am keeping the 8000s on the radar and if I can find a really cheap deal (like sub $250) I might still go for them later in the season.  Although this year's model is out of the question for me -  I hate the fact that they now come with built in rail binding crap - what is up with ski companies forcing you to buy skis and bindings all at once from them?  what are they trying to do, make a profit at our expense or something? :-?


----------



## big_vert (Aug 2, 2007)

koreshot said:


> river, you have been talking up the 8000s for a while now.  Dynastar should start paying you for all the promo you are doing for them .  I did a bunch of research and was just about to get a pair in a 184 but then the sierrasnowboard sale started and I went for the B3s for less than half the price of what I could find the Legends for anywhere on the internet.
> 
> I was really really interested in them because of magazine and skier raves about the playful nature, quickness in trees and bumps, etc... but the only thing that was bothering me about them is some mags/skiers noting that they are easy to overpower especially when the skier is heavy.  If i remember correctly, you are 6+ feet and near/around 190-200lbs?  Have you had any issues with over skiing them a bit?  I am 6'2" and 225.  I am asking cause I am keeping the 8000s on the radar and if I can find a really cheap deal (like sub $250) I might still go for them later in the season.  Although this year's model is out of the question for me -  I hate the fact that they now come with built in rail binding crap - what is up with ski companies forcing you to buy skis and bindings all at once from them?  what are they trying to do, make a profit at our expense or something? :-?



I have three buddies and my son who all share about the same boot size, and their reaction when trying my 8000's were all the same. Stop 200 yards down the hill and look up with a giant smile - too much fun - snap, crackle and pop whenever you want.

I've also read the reviews that say they can be overpowered by a heavier skier. The folks I mentioned before are in the 140-175lb range, so you're moving it up a couple of notches. At 6'2, 225  try a 178 first, as part of the charm of the ski gets lost as it goes longer (I found out the hard way - cost me $400).

And the 8k doesn't require a rail binding - even the new ones. They're smart enough to keep it as a binding of choice ski, but of course they know that the only binding to put on it is the PX12, so they're on pretty safe territory.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 2, 2007)

big_vert said:


> I have three buddies and my son who all share about the same boot size, and their reaction when trying my 8000's were all the same. Stop 200 yards down the hill and look up with a giant smile - too much fun - snap, crackle and pop whenever you want.
> 
> I've also read the reviews that say they can be overpowered by a heavier skier. The folks I mentioned before are in the 140-175lb range, so you're moving it up a couple of notches. At 6'2, 225  try a 178 first, as part of the charm of the ski gets lost as it goes longer (I found out the hard way - cost me $400).
> 
> And the 8k doesn't require a rail binding - even the new ones. They're smart enough to keep it as a binding of choice ski, but of course they know that the only binding to put on it is the PX12, so they're on pretty safe territory.



Hmm... its hard to picture myself skiing on the 178s, but maybe its just my ego.  As far as the 2008 8Ks go, this is what I found:
http://www.coloradoskishop.com/item2078.htm


----------



## big_vert (Aug 2, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Hmm... its hard to picture myself skiing on the 178s, but maybe its just my ego.  As far as the 2008 8Ks go, this is what I found:
> http://www.coloradoskishop.com/item2078.htm




I bought my 8800's there, and they were fine, although it took much longer for them to get to me than they said - but they didn't charge my card until they shipped.

since the 8k hasn't changed in 3 years, find some of last year's if you can - although I like the new graphics better.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 2, 2007)

big_vert said:


> I bought my 8800's there, and they were fine, although it took much longer for them to get to me than they said - but they didn't charge my card until they shipped.
> 
> since the 8k hasn't changed in 3 years, find some of last year's if you can - although I like the new graphics better.



I included the link in my previous forum to show an example of the 2008 Legend 8000 that now comes with a rail on it.  No longer flat mounting, at least not on the Fluid model or whatever.  Not looking to buy the 2008 model, I actually want the model 2 years back over the last years model - better graphics + no confusion about the mounting point.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 2, 2007)

koreshot said:


> I included the link in my previous forum to show an example of the 2008 Legend 8000 that now comes with a rail on it.  No longer flat mounting, at least not on the Fluid model or whatever.  Not looking to buy the 2008 model, I actually want the model 2 years back over the last years model - better graphics + no confusion about the mounting point.




It's not a rail honest - it's part of the graphic. Look at the Mythic Rider - same graphic - no rail.

C'mon this is Dynastar - a rail on big mountain skis from D'star?  I think not.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 2, 2007)

big_vert said:


> It's not a rail honest - it's part of the graphic. Look at the Mythic Rider - same graphic - no rail.
> 
> C'mon this is Dynastar - a rail on big mountain skis from D'star?  I think not.



Are you sure about that?  Looks like a rail to me... also been told by a local ski shop dude that the new Legend 8000s will have a rail.  Not like it matters all that much to me, if I get a pair, they will be last year's.


----------



## bigbog (Aug 2, 2007)

*really looking forward to my new boards....*

My iM82s(@172...122/82/108 ) may not be the ultimate quick tree ski with a 17.7m radius, but they'll be great in anything ungroomed on the EC...at anytime, and I really liked how much control I had, even with my previous boots _from the darkside!_ when I demoed them last January..on _EC mixed bag_.  I think I'll only love em' even more when in 6"+...

$.01
Steve


----------



## big_vert (Aug 2, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Are you sure about that?  Looks like a rail to me... also been told by a local ski shop dude that the new Legend 8000s will have a rail.  Not like it matters all that much to me, if I get a pair, they will be last year's.



I called Dynastar - The 8k and Mythic Rider (new 8.8k) will both come with and without plate, so you can choose what you like. (I bet the plate ones don't sell) If you get the plate, then it's set-up for PX14 Looks (now Dynastar) bindings. So - we're both right.

I have the orange 8K's from two years ago, and the 8.8's from last year. I like the older graphics better, and then I like the "fiber" graphics from two years ago even better.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 2, 2007)

big_vert said:


> I called Dynastar - The 8k and Mythic Rider (new 8.8k) will both come with and without plate, so you can choose what you like. (I bet the plate ones don't sell) If you get the plate, then it's set-up for PX14 Looks (now Dynastar) bindings. So - we're both right.
> 
> I have the orange 8K's from two years ago, and the 8.8's from last year. I like the older graphics better, and then I like the "fiber" graphics from two years ago even better.




Cool, thanks for checking.  Kudos to Dynastar for doing the right thing!  I can't stand the rail trend in all mountain skis.  The slightly better carving benefits aren't worth the extra weight, the complexity and cost.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 2, 2007)

koreshot said:


> river, you have been talking up the 8000s for a while now.  Dynastar should start paying you for all the promo you are doing for them .  I did a bunch of research and was just about to get a pair in a 184 but then the sierrasnowboard sale started and I went for the B3s for less than half the price of what I could find the Legends for anywhere on the internet.
> 
> I was really really interested in them because of magazine and skier raves about the playful nature, quickness in trees and bumps, etc... but the only thing that was bothering me about them is some mags/skiers noting that they are easy to overpower especially when the skier is heavy.  If i remember correctly, you are 6+ feet and near/around 190-200lbs?  Have you had any issues with over skiing them a bit?  I am 6'2" and 225.  I am asking cause I am keeping the 8000s on the radar and if I can find a really cheap deal (like sub $250) I might still go for them later in the season.  Although this year's model is out of the question for me -  I hate the fact that they now come with built in rail binding crap - what is up with ski companies forcing you to buy skis and bindings all at once from them?  what are they trying to do, make a profit at our expense or something? :-?



I am 210 lbs and 6'1" and have NO problems over powering the skis. This wouldn't be the ski I would want for groomer skiing all day (it gets the job done, but it isn't the best tool for the job and I could over power it if I wanted to rip serious Super G turns). I skied on the B2 and absolutely hated them but good luck with the B3. Different skiers have different preferences so it is always hard to get a good feel for how you will like a ski versus someone else. Any one saying they over powered the 8000 must be used to a Legend Pro or something because it is a solid wood core moderate flexing ski. They are available brand new for $350 in older models flat. Is the 07-08 sold with rails exclusively? The 8000 has been popular with backcountry skiers (I have both P12s and Freerides on my two pairs) and Dynastar actually sold the 8000 with naxo this past season so I would be extremely surprised if they did not offer a flat option. I don't mind rail systems but ski companies that are serious about upper end skis and upper end skiers should always sell their best skis flat. BTW, I ski the 8000 in 178, fwiw. Still haven't found a ski I like more than the 8000 so if the no more flat thing is correct, I am going to start stocking up! Oh, another thing, the original first year model boot center point is about 1.25cm further forward than the second and third year skis (not sure about current year) and I prefer the original boot center point as it does make a difference.

/hyjack


----------



## Edd (Aug 3, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> That is really good to know coming from a fellow lover of the 8000. The Sandstorms had the specs I was looking for but I was skeptical of the skis performance being a Solly with foam core and all that. I flexed the blue noodles and the Tornados and was not impressed with the flex of either. My big beef with Volkl is being too stiff (e.g. Mantras) but I am encouraged by this thread to big the Goats a shot. Karhu BC100 looks like an interesting option as well.




Can you be more specific about your impression of the Tornados?  I'm considering replacing my Legend 4800s.  I love them, really great skis but I think I'd like more sidecut; something that may float better in deeper snow.   During a week at Whistler this past season I had a hell of a time in some deep slush; sank like a stone.  I had a similar experience with that crazy April snow at Sugarloaf.  

Anyway, the Tornados have alot of positive press and are the 8000s really that different from the 4800s?

Ah crap; should have read your post better.  You didn't actually ski the Tornados, huh?  My bad.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 3, 2007)

I only flexed the Tornados, I did not ski them. They flexed too easily for my liking. I am not into a super stiff ski, they just had a weird flex to them so the construction in general didn't feel right. Can't quite put my finger on it.

The 4800 and 8000 are complete different skis. I absolutely hated the 4800. They did nothing for me at all. No energy, no pop, no liveliness, etc. 4800 is probably better for a lighter skier and someone not looking for top level expert ski performance. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 3, 2007)

Edd said:


> Can you be more specific about your impression of the Tornados?  I'm considering replacing my Legend 4800s.  I love them, really great skis but I think I'd like more sidecut; something that may float better in deeper snow.



You probably already know this but sidecut is usually considered a drawback in powder.  What is most important for float in powder (from the sidecut perspective) is what is directly under foot.  Increasing the size of the ski in tip and tail does help somewhat in getting better float (and keeping good carving manners for the groomers) but they also make the ski a bit funky in the deaper snow.  

Skis that are fatter under foot and have less sidecut usually make for better soft snow skis.  Having a healthy taper between tip and tail is also a big plus - helps the skis release out of a turn easily for smearing.  The Legend line seems to follow these principles more than other all mountain and powder skis - this is why people love them.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 3, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> The 4800 and 8000 are complete different skis. I absolutely hated the 4800. They did nothing for me at all. No energy, no pop, no liveliness, etc. 4800 is probably better for a lighter skier and someone not looking for top level expert ski performance. Your mileage may vary.




Interesting. My buddy rented some 4800's in Steamboat when we had about a foot of powder two years ago, and when he went in for lunch I put them on. I tried to get him to take a longer lunch because I was having so much fun on them, but he saw through that in an instant.

OK, I'm smaller / lighter, but man, I thought they were turning fools. They're what got me convinced on the 8k.

Anyway Edd - I've been on the Sandstorm and the Fury, which are also Soloman's, and if the Tornado's are anything like their sister skis, no doubt you'll be dissappointed after having 4800's. Also as mentioned, more sidecut will diminish your poder fun. I had 4 trips to Whsitler last year, and 3 times brought my 8k's out, and I was never hurting for float.

If you like 4.8's, the 8k's will be for you. Go down a size though as it's a much stronger ski in the bowls.


----------



## Edd (Aug 3, 2007)

Thanks for the input about the 8Ks.  Don't get me wrong about the 4800s; I found them quite usable in powder, but deep SLUSH is something else to me.  The 8Ks with a wider waist sounds awfully tempting.  Rivercoil, I weigh about 175 and I think I remember you saying you're over 200 so the 4800s may be a funner ski for me than yourself


----------



## awf170 (Aug 3, 2007)

koreshot said:


> You probably already know this but sidecut is usually considered a drawback in powder.  What is most important for float in powder (from the sidecut perspective) is what is directly under foot.  Increasing the size of the ski in tip and tail does help somewhat in getting better float (and keeping good carving manners for the groomers) but they also make the ski a bit funky in the deaper snow.
> 
> Skis that are fatter under foot and have less sidecut usually make for better soft snow skis.  Having a healthy taper between tip and tail is also a big plus - helps the skis release out of a turn easily for smearing.  The Legend line seems to follow these principles more than other all mountain and powder skis - this is why people love them.




This is west coast talk, IMO.  I hate my 8800 in powder + woods, they just won't turn quick enough.  24m turn radius is too large for the east coast.  I like my Aztecs with a 14m turn radius way more in powdery woods conditions.  If you still want to skid your turns though your opinion may differ.  But if there is deep snow in the woods skidding just kills way too much speed.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 3, 2007)

awf170 said:


> This is west coast talk, IMO.  I hate my 8800 in powder + woods, they just won't turn quick enough.  24m turn radius is too large for the east coast.  I like my Aztecs with a 14m turn radius way more in powdery woods conditions.  If you still want to skid your turns though your opinion may differ.  But if there is deep snow in the woods skidding just kills way too much speed.



To each his/her their own I guess.  Everyone has different techniques, some people like the "carving" feeling in powdery trees and others go for the skis that allow pivoting and smearing turns.  A year ago I went from a powder ski with a lot of sidecut to one that has minimal sidecut - I was amazed at how playful, quick and mid turn adjustable the new skis felt in powder and crud in the trees.

It is interesting though how divided some people are on this topic.  Many consider the Voland Spatula, the first widely available reverse camber reverse sidecut ski the best powder tree ski ever made - tips and tails stay out of the snow at all times, never snag and hence can pivot lightning quick.  Others think that Phantoms and Icelantics with their super sidecut design are the ultimate tight tree skis.  What I don't understand is, what good is a 14 meter turning radius if the trees are spaced 2 meters apart?  Won't you spend most of the time skidding/pivoting them anyway?

Oh, a few years ago Shane McConkey ripped a huge line at 45mph in a sustained sideways skid so it is possible to smear turns and keep speed up in powder.


----------



## awf170 (Aug 3, 2007)

koreshot said:


> To each his/her their own I guess.  Everyone has different techniques, some people like the "carving" feeling in powdery trees and others go for the skis that allow pivoting and smearing turns.  A year ago I went from a powder ski with a lot of sidecut to one that has minimal sidecut - I was amazed at how playful, quick and mid turn adjustable the new skis felt in powder and crud in the trees.
> 
> It is interesting though how divided some people are on this topic.  Many consider the Voland Spatula, the first widely available reverse camber reverse sidecut ski the best powder tree ski ever made - tips and tails stay out of the snow at all times, never snag and hence can pivot lightning quick.  Others think that Phantoms and Icelantics with their super sidecut design are the ultimate tight tree skis.  What I don't understand is, what good is a 14 meter turning radius if the trees are spaced 2 meters apart?  Won't you spend most of the time skidding/pivoting them anyway?
> 
> Oh, a few years ago Shane McConkey ripped a huge line at 45mph in a sustained sideways skid so it is possible to smear turns and keep speed up in powder.



But don't you want to go back to 179 Seth's for the woods, which are pretty turny skis (well at least compared to the Bros)?  Though that tiny bit of rocker might make them pretty sweet in the woods, just enough so your tips an tails don't hook.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 4, 2007)

I think that is really a matter of personal preference. I prefer a lower turning radius ski for the trees probably due to my specific style or turning. The other factor is even with a dedicated powder ski you generally have only a few runs in a given day that are completely untracked powder for which a typical powder ski would excel and the rest of the day is sloppy seconds or some packed down stuff. Lots of folks on TGR seem to complain about lower radius skis being "hooky" but I think that is a characteristic I enjoy in those conditions since I turn so much. My skis are very rarely, if ever, leveled straight down a fall line.


----------



## koreshot (Aug 4, 2007)

awf170 said:


> But don't you want to go back to 179 Seth's for the woods, which are pretty turny skis (well at least compared to the Bros)?  Though that tiny bit of rocker might make them pretty sweet in the woods, just enough so your tips an tails don't hook.



Correct, I want the 179 Seths cause they are 10cm shorter than the Bros.  The around 20 meter radius (instead of 35 or whatever the Bros are) should make a huge difference on the harder snow.  Love the Bros, perfect west coast one quiver ski, but their length is overkill in the EC woods and I am starting to get fed up with having to skid down the groomers back to the lifts.  Ideally I would rather go with a shorter low sidecut ski for the woods, like the 176 or 183 Gotama, or a superfat 179 Bros but with a 200-250 dollar budget that would be hard to pull off.

Been reading about some EC tree skiers doing the 180cm Powder Plus tip/tail bend - supposedly it is an amazing setup for EC trees. I have a brand spankin new pair of 180 Pow+ in the closet, but finding it hard to bring myself to bend them.  They are hella-heavy.


----------



## big_vert (Aug 4, 2007)

awf170 said:


> This is west coast talk, IMO.  I hate my 8800 in powder + woods, they just won't turn quick enough.  24m turn radius is too large for the east coast.  I like my Aztecs with a 14m turn radius way more in powdery woods conditions.  If you still want to skid your turns though your opinion may differ.  But if there is deep snow in the woods skidding just kills way too much speed.




No doubt this is WC talk. I only bring my 8k's or Contact 9's to the hill in the East, no matter how deep the "powder". It's usually so heavy the the 8k's hook up as much as I need for the float. The 8800 is too much ski for the East as far as I'm concerned - very few places are big enough to let them air out, as I don't go past south-mid VT.

The other thing to consider is length. I found that only 7cm made a huge difference with 8k's at least. That's why I got my 8800's short - 168


----------



## koreshot (Aug 4, 2007)

big_vert said:


> No doubt this is WC talk. I only bring my 8k's or Contact 9's to the hill in the East, no matter how deep the "powder". It's usually so heavy the the 8k's hook up as much as I need for the float. The 8800 is too much ski for the East as far as I'm concerned - very few places are big enough to let them air out, as I don't go past south-mid VT.
> 
> The other thing to consider is length. I found that only 7cm made a huge difference with 8k's at least. That's why I got my 8800's short - 168



West Coast talk ha?  Tell it to these guys.  Doesn't look like they are having trouble skiing EC powder on fat skis with low sidecut. (B-squads, Spatulas, Big Daddys, Bros, etc...).  All pictures taken in Northern Vermont.























I don't claim that the B-Squads are the best EC ski, or that if I get a pair I will ski like these guys can, but I am saying that there is no way that a pair of 168 8800s would have anywhere enough float to keep me from sinking on a Northern Vermont powder day.  Nor would I need west coast space to air 168cm 8800s out, IMO they are user friendly, easy turning skis.  Actually, given my size, I would only consider the 178 8800s as an EC tree ski.

To each his own I guess.  Some people like to dance their way through the trees, others like the carving feeling.  Others just skip the trees altogether and jump off the nearest waterfall   Some people are too heavy for skis 80mm wide to float them, others not.  Aren't we lucky that ski manufacturers make every possible type of ski these days and we aren't all stuck trying to ski 210cm skinnys in the woods?

I will end my hijack now.  I apologize.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 12, 2007)

koreshot said:


> ........(nice pics snipped..)I don't claim that the B-Squads are the best EC ski, or that if I get a pair I will ski like these guys can, but I am saying that there is no way that a pair of 168 8800s would have anywhere enough float to keep me from sinking on a Northern Vermont powder day....


....and especially in late winter/early spring....hanging up on bottom is a factor in NewEngland...
$.01
Steve


----------

