Nice Ski!!

[jbotti]

I never would have thought that I would say this, I skied a very sweet K2 ski!! I had my two instructor friends from Squaw out skiing with me in Montana on Thursday and Friday. One of the guys has a deal with K2 and is skiing K2 exclusively after being on Nordica exclusively for years. He is an ex racer and a truly exceptional skier.

He brought one pair of skis which were the K2 Hardside?s in a 181. This ski is traditional everywhere except it has very slight tip rocker. I would call it early rise rather than rocker. It?s 98mm underfoot and it has a 23m turn radius in the 181. The 181 is actually the same length as my Fischer Atuas that are a 186 length (as K2 measures from contact points). The ski also has a traditional flat/hard tail. I was skiing the Watea 94?s (178m length). The conditions were around 3 inches of fresh on top of snow that was soft, hard or windlblown underneath. It was actually kind of funky because you never knew if you were going to hit something underneath that was soft, firm or real hard. The Watea?s were great, until I got on the K2?s. These skis were actually a little firmer and stiffer. I think because of this I was actually getting bounced a little less. The added length also helped. It was an amazingly easy ski to ski and I could really be aggressive on them and not get bounced around. In bumps with soft snow on them they were quite easy to engage and they came around quickly (not as quick as the Watea?s but almost). On groomed terrain they rocked. The tip rocker is so minimal that you hardly even notice it. I couldn?t bend the ski that much but it just railed GS turns at speed and there was absolutely no speed limit even making 23m turn radius turns. The very tip (maybe an 1.5 inches) would flap slightly but you could hardly notice it and it did not make the ski unstable in any way.

The next day we had maybe 2? more fresh snow. Conditions were a little easier. I really felt like I skied the best I ever have in very steep off piste terrain on these skis that day. The ski for me is just stiff enough that it continually reminds me to get forward but it does not take me down if I get back a little. I think maybe more importantly when I am forward and ski more aggressively the added stiffness and stability was really confidence inspiring. I skied it side by side with My Fischer Atuas yesterday (exact same length but the Atuas are twin tips) because I wanted to see if it was just length that was helping, and there really was no comparison. The Atua flexed more and this was really a hindrance. When I hit something hard on the Hardside the ski handled it and I wasn?t jolted. The opposite occurred on the Atuas.

It could be that because I am skiing more correctly off piste that I am more and more able to handle a stiffer ski, and more able to get the benefit of s stiffer ski. If that is the case then maybe any stiffer well made ski will ski this well for me. With no other skis in the test, I have to say that the Hardside is pretty sweet!!

Btw In softer snow (in places where I could find 6-8 inches of snow) it skied great. My guess is that on a true big powder day it would be all that I would ever need.

Again, I am truly surprised because every K2 ski that I have been on has been lifeless and in general unimpressive. The Hardside was a true pleasure to ski!!

[LivingProof]

John,
You keep making me want to buy a plane ticket to Big Sky! I need to see and ski the terrain you describe.

I've always believed in the saying "to your own self, be true". When selecting skis, figure out where you ski them and how you ski them, and, only then, buy them after trying them. Your Big Sky ski demands and terrain are unique and, I wonder if generic reviews or thoughts of other skiers are applicable. In your case, you still have the skis serving as benchmarks for performance. Some strange circumstances lead you to a ski you really like. Karma works!

What conditions would you ski the Kastle 84's compared to the Hardsides?

Going to add K2's to your quiver?

[jbotti]

Well Big Sky is an awesome mountain and it rivals anywhere else in North America for steeps, overall terrain and snow quality. It also has the smallest crowds of any place with anywhere near the size and quality of their terrain. Three issues keep people from going. First it is colder than many other places especially in December and January. Second, there is no Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton on the mountain. In general accomodations are mid end and there is nothing high end on the mountain. As well, the shopping and Restaurant situation is well below other big mountains. Third, there are only limited direct flights into Bozeman unlike SLC or Denver or even Vancouver (for Whistler). Having said that it is only 40-50 minutes from the bozeman airport. I should add one more. Big Sky actualy massively under reports the amount of snow that they get. There was an article in one of the ski magazines last year entitled "Big Lie". In the article they outlined how Big Sky measures their snow in the two lowest snow points on the mountain. There are many days when they report 3" of fresh and up top there is 8-10 inches. It definitely keeps people away, which is great for those that are there!!

With regard to the K2 Hardside, yes I am inclined to get a pair. My guess is that these will go on sale in the next month. I have some Dukes that I am taking off my Lhasa Pows which I am selling and they will do nicely on the K2's.

On the FX 84's, I think that I bought the wrong Kastle ski. Let's be clear, the FX 84 is a great ski, it's just not what I was looking for. It is a super ski in soft snow and all off piste conditions. It has an incrediby light feel and it is amazingly forgiving and is not untsable in any way. I am just looking more for an 85 waisted ski that I can attack more with, that is heavier and that hooks up quicker on groomed terrain.

As to when I might use either or both skis. My guess is that when there is no fresh snow up to 2-3 inches, I iwll use the Kastle's. 4" and up I think the K2's are pretty sweet but I doubt I would use them the next day with no fresh snow.

I agree with your comments on demoing. Having said that, I have bought many skis without demoing them and my hit rate is exteremely high. Peter Keelty helps a ton. Other freinds help as well. I do read reviews on Epic and TGR (less useful unless you know the skier and how that person skis). Lastly knowing a brand and how their skis usuaully ski and feel heps a ton.

Lastly, if we are students of skiing and we are always trying to improve, sometimes a ski that was perfect for us a year ago may be less than ideal today. For the past 3-4 years I have generally skied on shorter skis (for my height and weight) and I have avoided stiffer skis for my off piste skiing. This was the right move for me and these skis served me very well. In the past 2 ski seasons my off piste skiing has really improved (actually all my skiing has improved) and suddenl;y I am finding that I like a little longer and somewhat burlier skis off piste. I seem t ski better on them. I can be more agressive and in doing so I am can stay more forward and ski more correctly. At the end of the day I can't argue with it, I have to run with it. It means I will get a pair or two of some stiffer skis.

When I get to Montana on Friday I am going to list 3-4 pairs of skis for sale. I doubt anyone here will care but in case they do here are the skis I am selling:

Last years Mojo 94 180cm with Rossi SAS 140 bindings. These are mint and have been used maybe 3-4 days. I am thinking $450 + shipping for skis and bindings.
Last years Lhasa Pows 186cm with no bindings. Used 5 days. Great condition. I iwll list these on TGR and rorbably will get a bite. I am thinking $500 flat + shipping.
2 years ago DPS Lotus 138's 192 length with sollie 14 din binders.  Good condition. Used 15 days. $500 OBO + shipping. Will also list on TGR
I iwll most likley sell my FX 84's as well. They are in great shape. Used less than ten days. 176cm length with RFD Speedlock 14's on them. Not sure where they should be priced.

If anyone cares let me know.

[Perry]

interesting post about the K2's

You can't deny that they are open to trying new designs.  I have never been a believer in staying only with a couple of brands, although I do find that I really have liked Head, Fischer and Dynastar when I have skied them.  There is always the exception to the rule if you are willing to try them out.

[Liam]

I think the Hardside reflects a growing positive trend-Folks seem to be finding the sweet spot on those traditional camber skis, with wood core and some medal, 90-99mm waist and a rockered (or slightly rockered) tip.  I was pretty blown away by the 2010 Rossi Phantom 87 and 97's I skied (very similar lay-up to the Hardside)-I'd love to get a run on next years Sultan 94's which I think also have the early rise tip.

Cool report. 

[Ron]

Yes, Sultan 94 for next season has a rockered tip, cambered and flat tail. Should be a very interesting ski.  Lots of good stuff coming to market. A lot more rockered tip, no rocker or just slight rockered tail. This is kind of where the whole rockered thing is evolving to. There's limited (if any) real advantage to a rockered tail and plenty of disadvantage with rockered tail.  Rockered tip is really evolving to more of a 5% to 10% with a longer taper. for instance the New Icelantic Keeper is about a 5/30 rocker with camber. The slight rocker will allow better/longer snow contact (longer reffective running length on soft snow). 

[jbotti]

I have now skied on K2 Hardsides an additonal 5-6 days with conditions ranging from 12" of fresh to an inch or two on top of crud and chop. Based on my additional demoing I now own a pair in a 181 length (which actually measures 186cm from tip to tail). I think this is an excellent combo of new tech with old. The tips on this ski really only have what they are now calling early rise. It's really very modest rocker. The rest of the ski is traditional with a hard tail. It's reasonably stout under foot. Great combo!!

I will also say that I skied my IM 78's yesterday (177cm length). Wow, these may be the best midfats ever made. I may have carved my best turns ever yesterday on these. They were just rocking on grooomers. Off piste they held up amazingly well, and with only a trace of fresh snow they were better and easier to ski than the K2 hardsides. When I found pockets of pow, they were still excellent and when i wanted to be agressive and straightline some stuff, they were incredibly solid. Great skis!! Terrible news that Head is dumbing down their peak series and taking metal out. Truly a shame!!

[Ron]

just click in to a pair of MX78's........

[LivingProof]

I will also say that I skied my IM 78's yesterday (177cm length). Wow, these may be the best midfats ever made. I may have carved my best turns ever yesterday on these. They were just rocking on grooomers. Off piste they held up amazingly well, and with only a trace of fresh snow they were better and easier to ski than the K2 hardsides. When I found pockets of pow, they were still excellent and when i wanted to be agressive and straightline some stuff, they were incredibly solid. Great skis!! Terrible news that Head is dumbing down their peak series and taking metal out. Truly a shame!!

A small confession. This year, I owned and skied the Head IM 78 for one whole day. And yes you are hearing this from someone who calls others out for changing gear! I probably broke Ron's record for least use of an owned ski, but, he came close with his Dynastar 4x4's this year. My reason for change was Philpug did an all-inclusive trade-in of the IM78 that enabled me to go to the MX 88. There was an extra cost to do the deal, and, my MX88's were demo's. Don't regret that upgrade, and, I'd do it again in a second. I really wanted a wider ski to take west. Still love the MX 88, it rocks!

Having said that, I would not have made the same exchange of the IM 78 for the MX 78. I really enjoyed my day on the IM 78 on an east coast mountain. I demo'd the MX 78 in similar conditions and thought it to be a great ski. I wish I had spent more time on both skis. Certainly the IM78 is now older technology, but, proven. I wonder if Head has a reason for the proposed change other than support of future sales. Head's marketing confounds me at almost all levels.  If price was not an issue, the MX 78 would win, but, you get a small gain for a large cash difference. I'd rather put the bucks into an on-snow experience and ski someplace really neat. The limiting factor in ski performance is the driver of the skis, and, I've a long way to go. That's just one opinion, based on my needs.

[Ron]

hmmm,, MIke, I think you need to re-test the MX78, there's no comparison. Seriously.

[LivingProof]

hmmm,, MIke, I think you need to re-test the MX78, there's no comparison. Seriously.

It's funny how we perceive things. I remember Phil asking me how I liked the MX 78. I just made this big grinning face. Wow, great ski. But, I also remember skiing the IM 78 really hard all day and I did not find it wanting for anything in conditions I ski all the time. At the end of that day, if anyone told me I'd be trading it in on another ski, I would have said "not going to happen!". Never, not even for a second, did I consider upgrading to the MX78. That's much more of a personal statement than it is a review of either ski.

Reread John Botti's thoughts about the IM 78, a ski that is way-old by today's standards and does not generate any hype. It sure goes against the grain of ski marketing. How well does a "best" ski help over a "really good" ski? I leave that decision for each to decide according to their needs.

The Kastle's you, G and I bought helped us do quiver adjustments to support perceived individual needs/wants.

In a similar vein, sure, I'd like to trade my daily driver Supershapes for a RX 70. But for what advantage? I can hear Phil smiling at this marketing opening.

But that's just me. Not trading in my golf clubs or road bike either. Need to ski more to ski better!

[jim-ratliff]

The iM78 generated a lot of hype among the knowing, I think.? I remember a Peter comment about how amazingly many ski review cards he got for the iM78 in its second year, because usually the shop people are only looking at new products.? Also, the first ski swap where I tried the sell my iM78's, one of the ski patroller's commented that he had been trying to explain to people what a good ski the iM78 was, so there was awareness even if it wasn't a particularly great East Coast ski.? At the next ski swap I tried they were gone 2 hours after I dropped them off.

What amazes me is that a ski manufacturer will have a successful ski with a recognized name and then decide to change the name from iM78 to Peak 78, and the rumor mill then circulates that the Peak 78 has a layer of metal removed when compared to the iM78 (which, at least for this year, Peter's web site says wasn't true).

The sad part is that my iM77's sold almost as quickly (but for less money), and I didn't thinkthey were a very good ski at all (it was part II of my awakening to the problems of too stiff skis).? They were wide and attractive topsheet (and the $5 bindings that Lynn sold me were a good color match).? Caveat emptor.

But Mike, I think you raise an excellent point as to the incremental cost vs. the incremental value of these really high end skis.? I was absolutely amazed at how pervasive they were at Aspen; it almost made me cry to see such good skis masquerading as beat up rental skis.

Of course, I have to admit that I am very happy with my Toyota and wouldn't spend the extra money for a Cadillac or Mercedes (or Maybach).

[Ron]

incremental

[gregmerz]

"In a similar vein, sure, I'd like to trade my daily driver Supershapes for a RX 70. But for what advantage? I can hear Phil smiling at this marketing opening."

I kinda did this. ?I sold you my Supershapes and last night I mounted up my RX70's... ?

[Ron]

priceless!