# Need some all-mtn ski help, please



## The Sneak (Oct 14, 2008)

Hello.

Level 7+ skier. 30 years old. 5' 8" 160 lbs. Currently ski on aging Fischer RX8s, would like to retain those for groomer use. I am looking for a deal on year or 2 year old gear. I demo'd Volkl AC-30s in 170cm last february @ Wildcat, and found these to be very high effort, stiff skis. Could it have been the length? 

I am looking at AC-2s, AC-3s, AC-20s, and AC-30s. What I want is something fun and snappy on groomers, but better suited to crud, powder, bumps, and trees than my RX8s. I was thinking the AC20 in 163 or 170 would be the way to go, but am curious how the older AC2 and AC3 stack up.

Any input or advice is appreciated. My boots are Nordica Supercharger Ignitions, if that makes any difference. I will ski approx 10 days @ WaWa (silver passholder) and another 10+ at 'real' places this year. 

I'm value-oriented, so feel free to suggest other all-mtn advanced/not quite super expert skis that are good bargains. 

Thanks!


----------



## o3jeff (Oct 14, 2008)

If you are interested in the AC30 make me an offer
http://forums.alpinezone.com/35545-fs-08-volkl-ac30-marker-ipt12-0-piston.html


----------



## Greg (Oct 14, 2008)

I skied on 170 cm AC3s for a few seasons (I'm 165 lbs., but 6'1"). Great ski, lots of "pop". A little burly for the bumps, but a decent groomer and sub-1' powder ski. Very stable. If you consider yourself an advanced intermediate+, I don't know if I'd consider the AC2/20 line. Seems like Jeff's skis are right up your alley! Stay on the gas with them, and you'll be rewarded.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 14, 2008)

Depends how much you want to venture off the groomers... but I think there are better skis out there for a focus on non-grooming skiing including bumps, trees, crud, and powder. I would recommend demoing the AC2x before considering a purchase. If you consider the AC3x to be high effort and rather stiff, I doubt it was the length but I also think the AC2x would be too much of a step down for a level 7 skiing looking to take it up a notch. Try a bunch of other all mountains via demos this early season prior to deciding, IMO.


----------



## Greg (Oct 14, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Try a bunch of other all mountains via demos this early season prior to deciding, IMO.



I'm all for the demo thing if you can, but the problem is that often times during a demo, you don't get enough varied conditions to see how the ski does overall. Finding powder and good bumps early season might not be a given. I hold as much credence in consistently positive first hand reviews as I do demoing, which quite honestly I've only done once I think.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 14, 2008)

the first ac30...think it was 06 (orange ski) is softer than the 07 ac30 (black) and the 08...so if you felt that the ac30 you were on last year was too stiff, the orange ac30 and the ac3 before them are softer and more user friendly in bumps.  there are plenty of other options out there...a woodcore sidewall twin tip like a K2 PE would be a good pick...Fischer Watea 78 or 84...no metal, woodcore, sidewall freeride ski, Head Monster 78..lots of happy folks on Dynastar legends too.


----------



## gorgonzola (Oct 14, 2008)

too bad your not on line right now or you could grab some dynastar troublemakers on tramdock cheap -$174. I'm with ECPH, a sandwhich construction wood core twin makes a great all mountain ski


----------



## hrstrat57 (Oct 14, 2008)

Just sold my two pair of RX 8's 170's and 175's. Great skis, outstanding. The 175's were especially top notch for me - much more versatile than the shorter lengths.

I upgraded to Head i supershapes end of last season, 1 groomer ski is enuff.

Skis of the little bit wider type I have tried and liked in the last couple years? You would probably want to size down at least one size on all.....

Elan M666 176
Volkl Karma 177(would have prefrd the 184 I think)
K2 PE (174 I think)
Dynastar 8000 Legend (179?)

I ski'd the AC 3 and AC 4 and didn't like either particularly

I have decided on downsizing.to a 2 ski quiver -  the 170 Head i supershapes and a mint pair of 2005 Volkl Explosivs (180) with Rossi tt's...

Probably not much help as I am out on hunting further for now.....tho any of the above skis can probably be found NOS with a bit of hunting. Of the bunch I listed, the twin tips(karma and PE) were the most surprising. Great skis.

Karma has been replaced (Bridge?) and I haven't ski'd the replacement....the PE was pretty much unchanged last year from what I had tried I think.....others more up to current spec can chime in I hope.....

The Explosivs are so versatile they make the 75-85 width ski unnecessary for me. Amazingly, I can carve RR tracks on groomers with them, big turns of course not shortswing ski a lot like an old school GS race ski on packed snow, think maybe 208 Rossi 7gk  like....

In deep stuff of course they are fantastic..... 

I might suggest you think also about going a bit wider?

Hopefully I finally catch up with you at Wa this year.....we've missed a few times.....


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 14, 2008)

Greg said:


> I'm all for the demo thing if you can, but the problem is that often times during a demo, you don't get enough varied conditions to see how the ski does overall. Finding powder and good bumps early season might not be a given. I hold as much credence in consistently positive first hand reviews as I do demoing, which quite honestly I've only done once I think.


I disagree that you need to demo a ski in all conditions to get a good feel for it. Maybe this is true if you are looking for a specific ski (powder or bump ski as an example) but you can do demos later in the season, no need to specifically do early season. 

For an all mountain ski, as long as you can find some natural snow on the mountain, you can at least get a feel. At the very least, you most definitely can cross off certain models straight out (many that might possibly have a strong following online) which is just as important as finding the right ski.

I had this experience with the Volkl Mantra. I was all set to pull the trigger (almost did but a place had sold out at a discounted price) and ultimately decided to demo. Hated the ski. Best decision I made that year was doing a demo. Saved me a lot of money and a lot of wasted time.

I have actually only done three demos in my life. Once was a full on multi-ski demo day, the second was a follow up to that day on the 8K, and the third was the Mantra. I have bought skis without demoing with mixed results with one ski I sold after one day's use, one ski I used for a few seasons but was too one dimensional, and a third ski that was nearly a home run. So I don't have a lot of demo experience and I have made some good and bad buying decisions without demoing. My best decisions (on both what to buy and what not to buy) were made on the days I demoed though.


----------



## Greg (Oct 14, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> I disagree that you need to demo a ski in all conditions to get a good feel for it. Maybe this is true if you are looking for a specific ski (powder or bump ski as an example) but you can do demos later in the season, no need to specifically do early season.
> 
> For an all mountain ski, as long as you can find some natural snow on the mountain, you can at least get a feel. At the very least, you most definitely can cross off certain models straight out (many that might possibly have a strong following online) which is just as important as finding the right ski.
> 
> I had this experience with the Volkl Mantra. I was all set to pull the trigger (almost did but a place had sold out at a discounted price) and ultimately decided to demo. Hated the ski. Best decision I made that year was doing a demo. Saved me a lot of money and a lot of wasted time.



I hear ya. If you can swing it, demoing is a good idea and in your instance proved critical. I guess I've been lucky in that actually non of the skis I've ended up with have not been demoed beforehand and I still enjoyed the skis for the most part. That might be due in part in me not being skilled enough to be able to detect subtle differences or whatever. The closest I got was demoing the predecessor of my AC3, the 724 EXP. Similar ski, but still not exactly the same one. I guess my point is that if the OP is looking to find that elusive do-it-all ski and wants it in advance of the majority of this season, it might be tough to pull of a demo early enough and in enough different conditions to be able to rely solely on a demo.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 14, 2008)

Word. The Sneak did not indicate needing to buy before the season started but if that was the case, then there is little choice but to rely on word of mouth. I specifically brought up demoing in this instance especially because The Sneak didn't seem to have a super experience with the AC3x but was considering the 2x which didn't seem like a prudent move considering what we know at this point. Ruling out skis is almost as important as deciding on one... perhaps even more important because you can have a short list of skis that all will work but you don't want to get stuck without something you don't like. A lot of money to roll the dice. I have done so but don't mind being a gear nut that buys and sells of equipment all the time.


----------



## Mildcat (Oct 15, 2008)

I bought a pair of Dynastar legend 8000's (172's) last year and it sounds like just what you're asking for. You can find some left overs cheap too.


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 15, 2008)

Thanks all for your input. Yes, I'm definitely looking to grab some leftovers before the season starts. 

I love the way the RX8s ski but they just aren't great off the groomers. I'm going to check out some of the suggestions posted here and see what I can come up with.

Paul, we will definitely have to meet up. I'm sure I'll be @ WaWa opening day for the WROD.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 15, 2008)

*...where off-trail?....Wachusett???*

I'd go along with all of riverc0il's....and fwiw I have demoed older AC20s one day @SR.."*pp*"...although that was the 03' ski I believe...thought it felt like a rental ski...heavy..etc.    My 99' Vertigo G3s(70mm) had it all over the AC20(back then!).
You might wanna try to demo jeff's AC30...his or resort's.
Imho there are lots of areas where you want something that your weight can vary turn size easily and be able to handle rather rough drops/bumps/undulating-terrain...and once you get up to some level of momentum..overgrowth can come at ya' rather quickly...but that's just at my 175lbs & 5'8"..some bushes I just can't see over that someone over 6' can.   I think this is where Fischer's Watea/Axxx(sp?),  Dynastar's Mythics/8000s, just to name just a few, hold their own when off trail.

$.01


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 15, 2008)

bigbog said:


> where off trail...wachusett?



funnnny...

No, not at WaWa...more like Stowe, Wildcat, Mt Snow, Beast, Sunapee, Sugarloaf etc. 

I'm looking at those Dynastar 8000s now. 165 or 172 is the question...


----------



## Greg (Oct 15, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> I'm looking at those Dynastar 8000s now. 165 or 172 is the question...



Understand that the 2008+ models are different than the 2007 and earlier. I've never seen a complaint about the older models, but haven't heard much about the newer ones. I'd imagine you'll still be able to find the pre-2007 boards. I'm 6'1", 165 lbs. and I ski the 172 cm. I love them. I think they would compliment your RX8s well. The Legends are great off the groomed and manageable in the bumps. Not a great hard pack ski, but you already have that in the RX8.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 15, 2008)

*8000 length...*

Hi Sneak,
*Just a little bit of humor...didn't mean to be wisea**...spent my initial years mostly at WaWa...weekday nights!!  ..There's room for a LOT of tree skiing up here in Maine.  I guess at resorts the bottom-line$$ takes precedence above taking the labor-time for the needed trimming due to overgrowth....but there sure could be a lot more tree lines with some cutting.  I think in Wachusett's case...it may too be cause of State Park regs...??  But it is time consuming...but something I'd love to do... 
Surprising though what the 165s can do...but I don't know its top limit for speed is...
Haven't been on 165s since ~03', so as Greg mentioned...they've tweaked it a little bit...but get the mount point right..and the 172 isn't a giant step up from the 165s in controllability but will certainly be more stable.

$.01
SteveD


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 15, 2008)

Alright, time for the ski recs since you want to purchase sight unseen before the season starts. My suggestion would be, based upon your input thus far, to get a ski that will lean more towards great natural snow performance and not offer so much hard pack performance but enough that it can get you to where you are going. I think the AC3x puts too much cross coverage in your quiver and you can do better for natural snow performance. This is also based on your input that you found the ski to be high input and stiff (I wouldn't consider this ski to be high input or stiff, but skis ski different for different people and your input can guide other's suggestions).

So I would suggest "all mountain mid-fat" skis that are not lined with sheets of metal, have a decent shovel and width for powder, but still retain good characteristics for bumps and trees per your desired ski preferences. The skis that immediately come to mind are the Fischer Watea (78 or 84 are available I believe, depending if you would prefer better performance in powder or else where) and Dynastar Legend (4800 and 8000, I'd recommend stepping it up with the 8000 if you are still developing). Both can be found rather cheaply online (ebay is a good source)... last year's models (and older for the 8000) for cheap brand new. Other considerations might include the Elan 666 (little better hard pack performance) and perhaps something in the Solomon Gun line up depending upon how fat you want to go. Lot's of options. Do searches online, both here and else where and you should find substantial opinion on these various models. Ultimately, you will have to choose what type of performance matters most and make some sort of compromise because there is no quiver of one, contrary to popular demand, that does every excellent. But there are a lot of skis that do a lot of things well and excel in certain conditions.

The problem with buying skis sight unseen and untested that are old models and on the bargain end of things is they will not retain their value. If you don't like the skis you choose, you'll be loosing money on the deal.

Good luck!


----------



## hrstrat57 (Oct 15, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> I'm looking at those Dynastar 8000s now. 165 or 172 is the question...



172 for you (or 178 def not 165)

If you find a pair of flat ski's to buy let me know, I can set you up with some mint Look turntables cheap...if I can get the ol no 3 posi drive screwdriver to work. You'd be on your own for wide brakes tho....

Don't sell the twintips I described short.....leftover K2 PE's could be found cheap at REI in Cranston at end of last year....good ski, shouldn't be hard to find some "07's. The Volkl Karma was a great all mountain ski too..... 

The Elan M666 was one of the best skis I have ever been on....should have bought a pair.....

Anderson ski in EG has a pretty good selection of used stuff upstairs.....there were some mint looking Volkl G3's for example. Some of my stuff is up there on consignment as well, nothing you are looking for tho....

Most of the skis discussed here are probably all awesome and you would dial in any of them pretty easily IMO. I agree with rivercoil on probably bypassing the skis with metal like top fuel etc...the Nordica Hot Rod modified was another ski in this category I ski'd and loved a couple of years ago. No metal in that one either.

I'm in on WA but I will probably skip the WROD if it is just Conifer....

Guess you missed my little rant on here and Epic about that last year:evil:

We'll get it done this year......


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 16, 2008)

Thanks again all for your detailed input. I used to be a much better skier than I am now. 11, 12 years ago, I logged back to back ~80 day seasons @ the Loaf. (ahh, college). 

I was broke as a joke in my mid 20s and gave up skiing for 3 or 4 years. When I came back to the sport in 2005-2006, I was still using circa 1999? K2 4s with the little glowing red light. 

I picked up the RX8s a few years back and really like them for what they are. Fast, nimble, super fun. I'm not nearly as confident or aggressive as I used to be for some reason, but it started to come back towards the end of last season. Hoping this year will be my breakthrough season. 

Based on everything I've seen here and elsewhere, the Dynastar Legend 8000s look like a solid choice. I'm off to look for them in 172cm.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 16, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> Thanks again all for your detailed input. I used to be a much better skier than I am now. 11, 12 years ago, I logged back to back ~80 day seasons @ the Loaf. (ahh, college). .



where did you go to school in ME?


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 16, 2008)

UMF 96-98, then transferred out as I changed majors...


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 16, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> UMF 96-98, then transferred out as I changed majors...



UMF 91-95...Ski Industries and Bus/Econ...with a minor in the Loaf.


----------



## Greg (Oct 16, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> Based on everything I've seen here and elsewhere, the Dynastar Legend 8000s look like a solid choice. I'm off to look for them in 172cm.



Look no further:

http://www.levelninesports.com/dynastar-2007-legend-8000-all-mountain-skis-172cm-p-2983.html

Really a great ski, and that's an insane price. This is the 2007 model.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 16, 2008)

Greg said:


> Look no further:
> 
> http://www.levelninesports.com/dynastar-2007-legend-8000-all-mountain-skis-172cm-p-2983.html
> 
> Really a great ski, and that's an insane price. This is the 2007 model.



That's a good price but not an insane price. Most of my pairs I got brand new for around $350. I think the most I paid was $400.

These skis are available on eBay buy it now for under $300. That is an insane price. No warranty though... and for the record, I have snapped two pairs of 8000s.... one bought on eBay without warranty. For $289 though, who gives a crap.

Sneak... if you are looking for a cheap new older model based on your criteria, you ain't gonna find any better for the price.


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 17, 2008)

Ok guys
What changed from 07 to 08 with these? I can get freshly tuned, lightly used 2008 (the newer graphics with the gothic looking Dynastar lettering) demos with look px12 lifter/fluid for $350 or $334 with marker titanium 12.0s. 

I can also get flat 2007 (orange) legend 8000s - new - for $289.99. Has anyone skied or heard about the differences between the 07 and 08? It appears the tips are 4mm wider.

What is the best or best value binding setup, assuming I buy the leftover flat 07s?


----------



## Glenn (Oct 17, 2008)

Did you find those 07's on Evogear? I picked up a pair of 07 Nothing But Troubles from them. Great service...and free shipping!


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 17, 2008)

Not sure on the specific differences. I think they bumps up the waist/tip/tail like 1-2mm's or so? Makes sense from a marketing perspective to bump the waist up even just 1mm so it would be in the 80s. Not sure about weight or performance differences. I can't imagine they would futz with it too much. $350 used with bindings is a decent price. Demo bindings suck though, IMO. I'd splurge for the new undrilled and slap your own bindings on them. Evogear had a great clearance this summer with $100 Axials... not sure if there are any left or not. I'd go with the Looks over the Markers if you go with the used.

Oh, there is the warranty issue too. You get an extra year warranty if you mount with Looks as I recall. But you gotta buy new from an authorized dealer for that to matter.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 18, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Not sure on the specific differences. I think they bumps up the waist/tip/tail like 1-2mm's or so? Makes sense from a marketing perspective to bump the waist up even just 1mm so it would be in the 80s. Not sure about weight or performance differences. I can't imagine they would futz with it too much. $350 used with bindings is a decent price. Demo bindings suck though, IMO. I'd splurge for the new undrilled and slap your own bindings on them. Evogear had a great clearance this summer with $100 Axials... not sure if there are any left or not. I'd go with the Looks over the Markers if you go with the used.
> 
> Oh, there is the warranty issue too. You get an extra year warranty if you mount with Looks as I recall. But you gotta buy new from an authorized dealer for that to matter.



and typically there is no warranty on demo product...some companies will be sticklers, others will let it slide if the ski is being returned by a consumer.


----------



## Starter Jackets Rule! (Oct 18, 2008)

http://www.levelninesports.com/head-2008-mojo-twin-tip-skis-172cm-p-2994.html
http://www.levelninesports.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=319046
one of the best groomer rippers  http://www.levelninesports.com/head-supershape-skis-175cm-p-3720.html
http://www.levelninesports.com/head-monster-railflex-skis-170cm-p-3786.html
another groomer ski that worls great for the lighter skier.
http://www.levelninesports.com/dynastar-2007-legend-8000-all-mountain-skis-172cm-p-2983.html
toped off with a great ski at a great price.
(note this ski skis long, but not that long)
http://www.levelninesports.com/head-2008-monster-skis-171cm-p-3370.html


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 18, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> I had this experience with the Volkl Mantra. I was all set to pull the trigger (almost did but a place had sold out at a discounted price) and ultimately decided to demo. Hated the ski. Best decision I made that year was doing a demo. Saved me a lot of money and a lot of wasted time.



Hey River, what didn't you like about the Mantras?  I was thinking of picking up a pair for this season . . .

EDIT: Scratch that . . . Did a search and Found your review . . . 

Thanks,

Matt


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Oct 18, 2008)

I bought Fischer Watea 78's last year.  I think they are great all mountain skis, easy to ski from hardpack to crud and they're fast too.  I think last year was the first year they were made but maybe there may be some of last years version around for cheaper.  They changed the graphics for this year.  I ordered them last summer from ski-depot.com and had no problems, I received them promptly.  This link is for last years model:

http://www.ski-depot.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SDO&Product_Code=722987FWATEA7808


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 22, 2008)

I found some demo watea 78s in 167 for stupid cheap. Are these too shrot? Would I be okay on 167 or better off with 174s? 

How do they compare with Legend 8000s?


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm 5'11" and I got the 167's and they work great for me, you'll mostly get a little more speed from the 174's i guess, but the 167's are very fast.  If you are taller than me then you'll want the 174's.  I don't know the Legend 8000's.


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 23, 2008)

Naw man, I'm barely 5' 8" when I first get up in the morning. My RX8s are 165cm. 

I think I'm gonna snag em. They're a bit beat looking but a fresh tune will straighten em out and for $150 you can't lose, right?


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Oct 23, 2008)

That sounds like a great deal to me, I paid a lot more than that new last year but they were worth every penny, best skis I've skiied so far.


----------



## Greg (Oct 23, 2008)

ERJ-145CA said:


> I'm 5'11" and I got the 167's and they work great for me, you'll mostly get a little more speed from the 174's i guess, but the 167's are very fast.  If you are taller than me then you'll want the 174's.  I don't know the Legend 8000's.





The Sneak said:


> Naw man, I'm barely 5' 8" when I first get up in the morning. My RX8s are 165cm.



Weight has far more to do with the appropriate ski length than height...


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 23, 2008)

155 lbs if I put down a 6 pack of IPA first.


----------



## Greg (Oct 23, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> 155 lbs if I put down a 6 pack of IPA first.



Go with the 167 cm which will be easier in the bumps and trees. Longer would be better for powder/crud, bit a 78 mm waisted ski is not really considered a powder ski these days.


----------



## Glenn (Oct 23, 2008)

Greg said:


> bit a 78 mm waisted ski is not really considered a powder ski these days.



That always makes me LOL a bit. I see people on other message boards worrying about taking their 78mm skis out West: "Are they to thin for powder?" I skied a pair of Rossi 7S's out West in the early 90's...I managed. Back then, a 78mm ski would have been a power ski...or even a water ski. :razz:


----------



## Greg (Oct 23, 2008)

Fat skis with a wide stance is the cool way to play these days, I guess...


----------



## WWF-VT (Oct 23, 2008)

I have demo'd 156 cm Rossi B78's and 172 cm Dynastar 8K.  I'm 5' 7" , 180 lbs and current ski is a 170cm RX8. I recently purchased last years model of the Fischer Watea 78's at 167 cm.  Looked for a wider option as last year found myself spending a lot more time in soft snow and the woods.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 23, 2008)

5'8" is a tough call. You'll have to make the call depending upon what is more important or look at a different ski that has a better middle ground size point. I have left a lot of skis on the table because they did not offer the length I wanted.

For what it's worth, my 8000s are 79 under foot and most of my powder days are skied on them. No need to bring out the phatties for anything less than 7-8".... especially if you are dealing with less than half a foot that is mostly tracked up. "Mid-fats" are more than fine for the average skier even on a powder day so don't go short thinking you need another ski that is longer just for powder (unless you really want one of course.... it certainly is the best way to go, IMO, if you enjoy your pow). The Watea comes in an 84 option as well if powder/crud performance is more important. But the price point you got is pretty darn good. I never sacrifice performance for a better price, though.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Oct 23, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> The Watea comes in an 84 option as well if powder/crud performance is more important.



funny...the watea 84 is one of my hard snow skis...but I like 'em fat   :grin:  great all around ski - it holds really well on hard snow for an 84mm waist


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 24, 2008)

At this point it's either Dynastar Legend 8000s in 172 or Fischer Watea 78s in 167.

I don't get to hit enough powder days to justify anything wider.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 24, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> At this point it's either Dynastar Legend 8000s in 172 or Fischer Watea 78s in 167.
> 
> I don't get to hit enough powder days to justify anything wider.


The ski I use for boiler plate days is 84 under foot.   Powder ski 98.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 24, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> 5'8" is a tough call. You'll have to make the call depending upon what is more important or look at a different ski that has a better middle ground size point. I have left a lot of skis on the table because they did not offer the length I wanted.
> 
> For what it's worth, my 8000s are 79 under foot and most of my powder days are skied on them. No need to bring out the phatties for anything less than 7-8".... especially if you are dealing with less than half a foot that is mostly tracked up. "Mid-fats" are more than fine for the average skier even on a powder day so don't go short thinking you need another ski that is longer just for powder (unless you really want one of course.... it certainly is the best way to go, IMO, if you enjoy your pow). The Watea comes in an 84 option as well if powder/crud performance is more important. But the price point you got is pretty darn good. I never sacrifice performance for a better price, though.



I'm in Steve's camp on this one, though I've never skied anything in the 80-105 waste range, so I wouldn't know if I'm missing anything.  

I'm 5'8" 195lbs and ski on a 174 Rossi B2's with a 78mm waste. For the most part the length and width are more than sufficient for powder days up to about 8" at which point I bring out the Fatties (110 mm waist, 184 length).  I skied 20 days last season and used the Fatties twice.


----------



## Glenn (Oct 24, 2008)

Greg said:


> Fat skis with a wide stance is the cool way to play these days, I guess...




Whatever works. I finally feel like I have a handle on what's what. It's tough being out of it and jumping back in after so much stuff has changed. "They have twin tip skis now?"


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 25, 2008)

Bought the demo Watea 78s in 167 for $150 shipped. Thanks all for your advice and input. Can't wait to get em tuned and will hopefully be able to report back on my impressions within a few weeks.


----------



## rueler (Oct 25, 2008)

The Sneak said:


> I found some demo watea 78s in 167 for stupid cheap. Are these too shrot? Would I be okay on 167 or better off with 174s?
> 
> How do they compare with Legend 8000s?



They're not too short!! I'm 5'11" 180 lbs. and ski the 167 Watea 78. One of my favorite pair of skis that I have ever turned on. Very versatile ski.  You will have tons of fun on them!


----------



## bigbog (Oct 26, 2008)

*...Watea78s...!*

Congrats Sneak!.....


----------

