Architects needed -- building a quiver

[Svend]

Building two quivers, actually...one for me and one for Terryl.

OK guys! This is an RFP to all the consulting architects out there.? Need some advice.? Willing to pay with beverage of your choice? ?

The trip to Utah taught us that it would really be a good idea to have a back-up pair of wider skis to complement our Speeds.? For one thing, all that fresh snow on the untouched slopes was just a crying shame to ski past on the groomers on our narrow rippers -- couldn't even try to go there.? And on the groomers themselves....well, it wasn't fun.? All the soft stuff got clumped up pretty quickly into big mounds -- exhausting to ski through/around/over on the Speeds.?

We rented wider skis after day 2, and what a difference they made! I rented Rossi Phantom 80's for a day, and found them stable and easy to ski, but boring and lifeless.? No energy, no fun.? Switched to Dynastar Mythic Riders for the next day and loved them.? I never thought that a wide ski could carve like that.? Sweet! They were a lot of fun.? A bit wider too -- 88mm in the waist.

Terryl had Rossi Voodoo 80's for both days, and regretted not switching.? Halfway through the second day she had decided that they were as boring and dead as my Phantoms.? OK in the soft stuff, but little rebound in the tail. No edge grip when it got harder, either.

Some background -- we're looking for some versatile skis that will take us into some powder, blast through crud, good in bumped up snow, and still retain the fun factor, energy, carve and edge grip on the groomers.? They should (ideally) be easy turning and agile.

OK, before we get to specific skis, there are some important basics to be decided.?

So the first question is -- how wide? Do we need to go to 90 mm to get decent float in powder? Or will 80 mm suffice? What about 78 mm?

Second question -- how long? This is probably related to question 1, in that the total surface area underfoot is presumably what matters in choosing a ski with sufficient float (am I right?).? FYI, Terryl is 5'7" tall, 130 lbs, strong skier;? I'm 6'2", 230 lbs, and learning.? Neither of us has any experience in powder skiing (I, at least, felt like an absolute beginner on my first excursions into the fluffy stuff).

Third question -- how aggressive and stiff can they be before powder skiing gets compromised? Should we be looking at softer skis, or can we stay in the high performance realm of the Supershapes?

I've got a short list of skis that would appeal and that I think would be good, but I'd like to hear from you about width and length first, and go from there.? We'll see if I'm on the right track in my wish list.

Looking forward to hearing from y'all....

[midwif]

For Terryl's consideration:
Have heard and read good reviews for the women's Volkl Aura. Pretty wide waist. Don't love the graphics, but have heard two women skiers rave about it.
No personal experience. I want to demo these though.
Fischer Vision Zeal has good write ups as well. It's also on my demo list. Haven't experienced any real powder this year to warrant demoing a big, wide waisted ski.

Terryl, remember that as a smaller, lighter person, you do not need the kind of waist that Svend needs to float (in any sense of the word ). Others could more eloquently give the equivalent between men/womens ski widths at the waist and powder float.

Sorry Svend, couldn't help myself. You look quite svelte in the pics. 

Lynn

[jim-ratliff]

I'm not very knowledgeable here either, but I've never let that stop me from offering opinions.  Ski should be longitudinally softer, but there are still powder skis that have good torsional stiffness.  In Peter's reviews, look for skis that still have good carving numbers.  Are you planning on bringing the entire quiver with you on trips West, or does the second ski need to be a one-ski quiver for the trips.  If you have your Speeds, then you can go even wider for the second ski. (like what Ron and Gary now have instead of 84-100).

I would add Fischer Vision Vapor for Terryl, and suggest mid-70's to mid-80's waist for her.  The Head Great One might be a great ski for her. Peter's reviews say female version of the 76, but it looks more to me like a female version of the iM78.  In fact, she might just like the iM78.  You should also factor in the ego factor, and make sure that she is on something that won't go as fast or float as well as your pair.  It's called handicapping the race.

The Mythic Rider is an excellent ski and there is a lot to be said for demoing and knowing that you liked it.  I think Svend should be in the mid-80's to mid-90's range.  Gary, what would you say to a Fischer Watea 94 for Svend?  At your size, I would assume that you want the longest ski the manufacturer makes in that model (low to mid 180's probably unless you go really wide).

Ron may be able to hook you up with some Icelantics when end of year gets closer.  Lynn says the graphics are the most beautiful she's seen, and that is probably all that Terryl needs to hear.

Trade-off.  Do you want to buy the quiver, or do you just want to know ahead of time that if it snows a lot you are going to rent/demo.  You can demo a lot of days for the price of a new/used pair and not have to lug two pair through airports and what not.  And the selection of wide skis for demo is currently pretty broad because of the market hype. 

[gregmerz]

I'm in my second year with the Mythic Rider and I enjoy it.? The first year I skiied it in 178 and this year I'm using the 184.? I find I like the 184 better.? I'm 6'2" 235.

Great ski that performs welll on-piste and piste-off?

Just my two cents.

Come on out to Steamboat the first week of March and we'll help you buy a fat ski.

After further review, this sounds like a job for Phil.

Phil:? Come to Steamboat the first week of March and help this man buy some fat skis.?

[midwif]

Svend
Too bad you didn't like the Rossignol Phantoms. They're on sale on Tramdock for  $495 at this moment.

[Svend]

Too bad you didn't like the Rossignol Phantoms. They're on sale on Tramdock for? $495 at this moment.

That's OK, I won't mourn the lost bargain.? Scott (dawg from Epic) has a few really good skis for around $500 now too, incl. the Mythic and the Elan 888.? I've been chatting with him by PM and phone, and he's been giving some advice too.? Nice guy.

Terryl, remember that as a smaller, lighter person, you do not need the kind of waist that Svend needs to float (in any sense of the word ). Others could more eloquently give the equivalent between men/womens ski widths at the waist and powder float.

Sorry Svend, couldn't help myself. You look quite svelte in the pics.?

?Yeah, sure Lynn.? You sound remorseful as always? .? Svelte my a**, I gotta lose about 40 pounds before I look svelte again.

Jim:

I've read nothing but excellent reviews about the Great One, incl. on the German site (they raved about it, which means something when the Germans get excited like that).? Good call! Question is, whether it is wide enough at 77mm for good float? My guess is yes, but we've gotta get the right length, then, eh?

Not planning on carrying four pairs of skis when we travel west, just the wide ones, so they have to be good in all conditions - powder, groomed, crud.? A one-ski travel quiver for western big mountains.? Supershapes will (probably) stay home, unless the forecast is for no new snow.? On the other hand, I suppose we could get a couple of double ski bags....

As for your width recommendations, that's pretty much what I was thinking -- mid-80s to 90s for me.? But I'm not sure about Terryl, though, whether she would need a 90mm ski to get good powder and crud performance.? She is almost 100 lbs lighter than I, after all.? I'll need some advice on that question.

BTW, I should add that you needn't limit recommendations for Terryl to women's skis.? Most of their graphics she finds to be too girly-cutesy, and often prefers the graphics of a unisex ski.? She can handle the performance of a unisex ski too (as being on the SS Speed indicates), and some (not all) of the women's skis are made softer and lighter, which may not be necessary.

As for buying the quiver -- Yes.? We'd get enough use out of a versatile wide all-mountain ski both here in the east, and in our trips west, that it would be worth it to buy.? The rentals for just two days cost us $170 already.? Doesn't take long to make up the cost of buying.? Plus we could use them at our home mountain, which is a place where we would otherwise be disinclined to rent.

Greg:

Thanks for the affirmation of the Mythic Rider.? I really liked that ski a lot -- never got piste-off with it? , and was totally surprised by it's performance on groomed snow.? Very quick edge-to-edge, and great energy in the tail.? How do you find skiing the 178 wrt. short turns and agility? Still able to make quick turns? Change turn shape in mid-swing? I don't think I would go longer than 178 on it, or with any other wide ski for that matter, as I still would like to be able to use it here in the east on the short runs we have.? Anything longer than 180 would just be too long and cumbersome, is my guess.? Versatile is the name of the game here.

And thanks for invite to Steamboat to be my personal shopper.? Your fee will be fermented or distilled beverages - your choice.? ?

It would be good to hear from Phil.? I read one of his reviews of the Elan 888 from about a year or two ago, and that is a ski that I am interested in.? ?Highly recommended by Scott (dawg) as livelier and more energetic than the Mythic, but with great crud and powder performance.

[jim-ratliff]

There was a post on Epic (and copied here) at one time by PhysicsMan about the different surface area needed by lighter skiers versus a 200 pound guy.? My aged memory is that 70mm for 120 pounds is pretty equivalent to 100mm for 200 pounder.? Of course, there is a lot more that goes into the real ski feel, but I would imagine that mid-70's to low 80's would be an excellent soft snow ski for Terryl.

Lynn is slightly shorter than Terryl and weights less than 120 and skis the Head Every Thangs in a 156 (72mm waist) and has skied up to about 10" of powder in those, but they are really her EveryThing (name pun intended) ski and not a West coast only ski.? She also demoed the Fischer Vision Vapor (76mm waist) and really liked that but was concerned that 76 mm was a bit wide to bring back to the east.? Ultimately liked the Every Thangs more (and hasn't second guessed that decision a bit).? If she were to buy a soft snowski at this point in addition to the Every Thangs, I think she would be looking at 78-84mm waists.

I would assume that 165-172 would be good lengths for Terryl's size.? What length is she skiing the Speeds at?

However, I see little reason why you would pay much attention to east coast versatility in the Mythic Rider, just so you can use it on your local hill.? ? You've got an excellent ski for that; focus on picking the ski for the task at hand.? You don't want/need a quiver of "do it everywhere" skis.? ?? FWIW, Greg is very much your size and in a ski where float and surface area is important I would give his recommendation a lot of consideration.? It's soft enough that you will still be able to turn it, and the extra few centimeters are probably worthwhile. (and, as you know, Dawgcatching is a good knowledgeable guy as well)

PS. It's wonderful that you 'hit' a snow dump week; that doesn't happen to me very often, certainly less than one trip in four.

[gregmerz]

I simply find the Mythic to be a good "do-it-all" ski.? Various turns shapes are capable.? It is stable in cut-up snow, the tip does not get defllected.? It is also not overly heavy yet I've not found a speed limit on it.? Should you think you want this one, Ron has a line on a pair of 178's...

[Svend]

I would assume that 165-172 would be good lengths for Terryl's size.? What length is she skiing the Speeds at?

Terryl's Speeds are 163.? She would have no problem with a longer ski, esp. one more forgiving and with softer flex for soft snow.? FYI, she got back into skiing four years ago, after a 20 year absence, and skied her first season on 177 Volkl Carvers - stiff, sidewall construction, little sidecut -- no problem handling those, at all.

Your comments on Lynn's skis are most useful - that really helps a lot to focus in on the right width.?

However, I see little reason why you would pay much attention to east coast versatility in the Mythic Rider, just so you can use it on your local hill.? ? You've got an excellent ski for that; focus on picking the ski for the task at hand.? You don't want/need a quiver of "do it everywhere" skis.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to replace our Speeds with another do-it-all ski.? The new skis are really to be oriented for the western conditions, but if we choose the right length, then why not be able to use it here as well? There are at least four or five days every season at our local hill when we could really use a wider crud buster.? In fact, we've stayed away from our hill on some days like that because we didn't have the right skis.? After a big snowfall, it doesn't take more than a few hours for the hill to get badly chopped up into big bumps.  We just wait a day until the groomers pack it down, and then go.

Back to width vs. length, based on the float I was able to get in knee deep snow on the Rossi Phantoms, at 80mm, 175 length, I see no reason to go much longer for a ski that is even wider than that.? Thus, a Mythic, for instance, at 178 and 88mm would be even better, but not overly long.  Bottom line, my instinct is that a ski of 85 to 90mm underfoot, and say 175 to 180 cm long, would a most versatile beast indeed.? But then, this is new territory for me, and it's great to get opinions and guidance.

I imagine that choosing a good binding is also important.? One that slides on a rail would give us the ability to move the foot back when in soft snow, and thus lighten the tip.? Am I right on this? Railflex can do this...but can any others?

Greg:? did you find the Mythic in 178 too short for deep snow? If so, what was your limit (how deep) at that length? Is the 184 still reasonably agile and quick edge-to-edge, or does it become cumbersome in tight spaces like narrow runs, etc.?

[gregmerz]

I simply found the 184 to be more versatile.  A little easier to engage and just a little more stable.  Bigger sweet spot.  I've found no conditions where I would consider the MR in 184 to be cumbersome.  Even skiied them in the bumps and I don't go looking for bumps...

[jim-ratliff]

Svend (and all others): ?good morning.

Re your Mythic Riders. ?What I was reacting to was the response to Greg saying that you would choose the shorter length just so you could still use it for shorter turns at your local hill, and that sounded a bit like compromising your basic goal to accommodate using it east coast as well. ?I think, in reality, that going with the 180+ Length won't eliminate using it at your local hill, but I was waiting on Greg to describe the difference between the 178 and 184.

I was probably a bit long in Terryl's ski lengths even though she could handle it; one size up from what Lynn skis is probably correct (so 160-167).

[Gary]

Svend....I'm thinking either the 178 or 184 iin the MR s a good choice for you for crud, broken snow, light powder. I think if you were skiing snow shin high and above...rent something 95 to 105 underfoot.

I think for Terryl...she could great performance from somehting 78-88 underfoot for ankle high up to knee high. I think the ski length would be between the middle of her eyes and top of her forhead. Head has some great skis to offer in this area as well as Fischer. She might even find the Watea 78 a true ripper and quite versiatile for those broken snow days anywhere.

Jim's right on the Watea 94...it too is a very versatile and quick edge to edge ski. It's also good in the bumps as well, not as much stored up energy as the Mythic Ryder making it more playful and easier to arc.
I have become a big Icelantic fan and either the Pilgrim or Nomad would be great chocies for powder, bumps and crud skis.
Best,
G

[Svend]

I simply found the 184 to be more versatile.? A little easier to engage and just a little more stable.? Bigger sweet spot.? I've found no conditions where I would consider the MR in 184 to be cumbersome.? Even skiied them in the bumps and I don't go looking for bumps...

Greg, that's very good to know. ?Thanks for that. ?I've never skied on anything longer than a 175, so this is new to me. ?My assumptions and preconceptions about how a longer and wider ski handles are being blown away pretty quickly here. ?And it's all good!

Jim -- gotcha! All clear....

As for Terryl's length, my thoughts were similar to yours -- about the 165 to 168 would be perfect. ?That still puts the ski just under head-height, and should be easily manageable given the right sidecut and flex.

Gary -- thanks for the recommendations.? The Wateas certainly are on the short list.? Nothing but positive reviews and comments on these, and they sound like a great all-round ski.? Give us the liveliness and agility that we're looking for (your Fun Factor!), and the float and crud busting that we need to get us through the rough and deep.

OK, so here's our personal short list, in no particular order of preference:

Terryl -- Head Great One (78mm); Watea 78; Watea 84; Head Monster 82; Elan 777; Elan 888 (both Elans highly recommended by Dawg - the 888 being his top choice overall)

Me -- Watea 84 or 94; Mythic Rider; Elan 888; Head Monster 88.? Not sure I can get Icelantics anywhere -- a rare bird.? Nordica Afterburner (84mm) is also getting great reviews, but they tend to be pricey (ugly graphics, too).? Blizzard Magnum 8.7 might be a consideration, too, but I don't know much about them, other than they're really good on hard snow.

Still waiting for Ron and Phil to stick their oars in here -- whaddya think guys?

[Gary]

Suprised Dawg didn't suggest the 888 for you too Svend.....? 


For you Svend....finding something with the turning radius in that 17 to 20 meter is going to make that ski much more eastern friendly as well.

I've skied the 8.7 and that's a ski you could easily fall in love with....definetly a big "O" Ski.
I liked it's edge hold and it's got some awesome!

I think you should demo the Blizzard 8.7, the Watea 94 cause I think the 84 is going to be much too soft for you, and you know the MR.....and still curious about the 888.

G

[Svend]

Suprised Dawg didn't suggest the 888 for you too Svend.....??

He did....it's tucked in there in the middle of my list....his first choice for me too.   

Thanks for the head's up on the 8.7.? Doesn't Phil have those?