Demo day this at liberty
17 posts
7 users
2k+ views
tromano
January 2, 2005
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
I am heading to the Ski Center Demo day this week. According to ski center they will have: salomon, dynastar, fischer, volkl, and maybe a few others for demo. The conditions are looking well interesting. Proabbly slopy and choppy snow.

I want to get something to complement my 168cm 5*s which don't give much float for my ~200#s when I want to go through a glade or two. I am talking about lift served terrain arround here and elsewhere in the east coast. I am looking to demo a midfat with something like 75-80 mm waist. I doubt they will have anythign wider for demo, but who knows.

The Fischer Big Stix Serries has me intrigued because I figure light and stong sounds like a great ski to take off trail. And it may not give up much compared to other skis in its class on piste.

The Salomon Scream 10 (Xtra) Hot are also supposed to be really good this year. Is also a lighter ski.

The Dynastar 8000 and Rossi B2 are also on my radar as a very versatile all mountain rigs.

The Head im75 may also be worth a look see, if Head is there. Its supposed to have a soft tip which might help to initate turns in the glades. And its ice hold and stability are supposed to be good.

What are you skiing off piste? Any one want to make a couple of recomendation about skis that I shold try to get a hold of?

I will probbably have a chance to buy or demo more later this month on a trip north. They will surly ahve wider skis and more options so plase don't hold back. Thanks, Tim
Bumps
January 2, 2005
Member since 12/29/2004 🔗
538 posts
Be careful, I demo'd the dynastar 8000 and ended up buying them. While up at Smugglers Notch this year I wanted to improve my skiing ability in the bumps. My instructor suggested that I demo some legends as a great all around ski which would carve adequately but really work in the aggressive stuff. I'm a tough fit because I'm a short stocky guy at around 190-195lbs, but only 5'8". I was able to go way shorter on the 8000 legends which improved my mogul skiing tremendously (along with a week of 1-on-1 instruction). I came across this review of the 8000's plus several other products which may interest you since its review of the dynastar was very similar to my experience. http://travel.canoe.ca/SkiCanadaProductTests/pg110_Ski_BG05_v-1_opt_opt.pdf . They suggested that heavier more aggressive skiers preferred the 8000's. I was also surprised at the speed I still had on the shorter skis. They still zip down the mountain faster than I want to go when you're carving and get them up on edge.
EasternSkiBum
January 2, 2005
Member since 08/20/2004 🔗
68 posts
I'm in doubt of it happening It's a game of wait and see. If it does, check out the Stockli Stormrider XL. There should be one there (if it's not out on rental) in a 174.
JimK - DCSki Columnist
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/14/2004 🔗
2,723 posts
I still hope to go to this event also, but watching weather and trail conditions very carefully in case I decide to be a no-show. These photos from 1/1/05 are quite encouraging, but unfortunately rain and warm temps are in the forecast this week.
http://www.skiliberty.com/aerials.htm

Here's some useful info from Ski Center's website:
Demo Day - Wednesday, January 5, 2004
9:30am to 3:30pm at Ski Liberty

Come ski with us at Ski Liberty and try the latest skis and snowboards! Be sure to pick up a coupon in our store for a $15 lift ticket. Use of demo equipment is free.

In the event of warm weather, heavy rain or lack of snow you may call 301-404-3572 the morning of the demo for a recorded update. Otherwise, please call our store at 202-966-4474 during normal business hours.
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki
JohnL
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Bumps,

What length Legend are you skiing? How would you categorize your skiing level, what type of terrain (besides moguls) do you ski, and where do you ski (Vermont, Mid-Atlantic, West, etc.)? Sorry about all the questions, but I'm interested in the Legend 8000 as a mid-fat ski in my quiver since I'm not real happy with my current mid-fat ski (Head IM75 Chip @177.) One complaint I have with the Head is that at the 177 length, it requires a fair amount of speed before turn initiation is effortless - this is not a good/safe feature in tight trees and tight chutes. On the power/finesse ratio, the Head falls more to the power end. I prefer a bit more of a finesse ski in softer snow conditions.

Note: there are several Legend models besides the 8000. IIRC, most of the others are beefier.
tromano
January 3, 2005
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

I'm in doubt of it happening It's a game of wait and see. If it does, check out the Stockli Stormrider XL. There should be one there (if it's not out on rental) in a 174.




Sweet, 174 is my size. I will have to write this one down as well. And I can't forget the Elan 666 Fusion if its there.

Jim,

Thanks for the pics. It gives me hope. The chance for rain is mostly tonigh and none so far. Fingers are crossed!!
JohnL
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Search Epic for some useful info. In particular, Physics Man has several threads concerning what width heavier skiers need for float. (I can't remember if 200 is considered heavy.)

You also need to consider where you'll be using the mid-fats: East Coast trees and bumps versus West Coast bowls. Since the East Coast lines are generally tighter (especially in the trees) and have less snow, for that terrain, I'd place more of a premium on ease of turning at slower speeds and "turnability" in tight spots. For more open lines conducive to GS-type turns (more common out West), I'd place more of a premium on float, high-speed stability, and crud-busting ability.

Also, in due deference to Ski Center (I've bought two pairs of skis from them recently), before buying any mid-fats, I'd demo the skis in the snow conditions & terrain in which you'll be using them. Ski Liberty is great for many things, but it is not known for deeper soft snow and tree skiing. Vokl 5 Stars in 168cm should be great for any conditions you encounter at Liberty with the possible exception of the occasional blizzard we get around here.

For the Head IM 75 Chips, they are awesome in East Coast trees (Jay Peak) at the 170 length. I weigh about 190 lbs and the 170's had plenty of float and stability. I've written about them on this forum.

Quote:

The Head im75 may also be worth a look see, if Head is there. Its supposed to have a soft tip which might help to initate turns in the glades.




I don't know where you heard that. I don't think they have a soft tip and I don't see how that would help in the glades.
Denis - DCSki Supporter
January 3, 2005
Member since 07/12/2004 🔗
2,222 posts
I recently bought a used SL race ski for teaching. It has a 65mm waist. Other than that, which is strictly for groomed slopes and teaching, the next narrowest ski I use is 78mm at the waist. I would not go under 75 for an all around ski and I'm about your size, 190 - 195. Modern skis and sidecuts have changed the whole equation. Go as wide as you can so long as you can still get good edgehold on the hardest snow you expect to encounter. The advantages of a wider ski are many so if you can get the edgehold, go wide.

I don't like to have a quiver of skis; I like one eastern and one western ski. The western ski is more powder oriented but I insist it be able to hold ice, just in case. The eastern ski is more hardpack oriented but I insist it be able to handle powder, just in case. My current western ski is a Volkl Vertigo Explosiv which is 95 mm at the waist (120/95/113). 2 years ago I used it almost exclusively everywhere, here and in VT, as well as the west. To my amazement it will carve railroad tracks on all but the bluest ice, and that is on tele boots and bindings. Volkls are legendary for their edgehold.
JohnL
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Quote:

I don't like to have a quiver of skis; I like one eastern and one western ski.




I'll agree with that; that's the extent of my quiver with the addition of a pair of Race GS skis (very limited use indulgement) and a pair of absolute beater skis.

Denis,
How much of your skiing is on tele gear and how much is on alpine equipment? How does that affect your recommendation? Do you ski any bumps? Even in powder havens such as Alta and Snowbird, most advanced runs get bumped up pretty quickly. (Even many tree runs.) Unless you are hiking and/or sticking exclusively to the trees, it's pretty tough to avoid bump runs. How do 95mm skis handle in the bumps?

Based on some discussions on Epic, I'll be demoing some 85-95 mm skis out West for my every day Western skis. If I like them, I'll sell my mid-fats on eBay.

I guess I'm a bit old school, but until the middle of last year, my Eastern skis were a pair of straight boards (even in pow and in the trees.) My current pair of Eastern boards are only 68mm @ 170mm, but I'm pleased with their float in the soft stuff.
Bumps
January 3, 2005
Member since 12/29/2004 🔗
538 posts
I went way short with the 158's, I was going to go higher (165 or 172) but I was specifically trying to improve my more challenging terrain skiing and once I tried them I wouldn't give them back . As far as level, based on the thread: http://www.dcski.com/ubbthreads22/showfl...art=2&vc=1. I would be a L8. But as the confusion in thread shows, I'm not certain and it sounds high. Soooo basically I can ski ungroomed black diamond terrain, carve turns and I can work my way through the trees, but I do so very cautiously. I get wild over 2-3 ft moguls. Not that I ski them for speed, but I luv that up and down motion with the occasional air. I think it falls into that motorcycle category, if you have to explain... I even recently tried these skis in a terrain park. Skis did well, but I'm uncomfortable with THAT much air and didn't really push it. I guess from a capability standpoint I can handle most terrain, but like to keep my speed in check. The snow I've skied these skis in so far is very typical eastern snow. Ranging from a few inches of powder over base to some pretty icy stuff. I have not really had them in deep powder yet. Oh yeah, Over the years, I've skied Vermont (I have time-share at smugglers), NH, NC, VA and WV (I grew-up near Canaan). No western skiing, yet. Dynastar's width is 116mm-79mm-102mm. I think the stiffness really comes into play on these skis. I think they float like a much larger ski because they don't bend in the middle as much, so you're really distributing your weight across the entire ski. As far as downhill stability, I think some folks want to run shaped skis like straight skis, when shaped skis are made to be carved. I have no trouble initiating a turn on these skis, but I think you've got to be willing/capable of committing to the turn. I mean getting the weight over the skis and some extension to get them on edge. I hope I answered all your questions and didn't ramble too long. I think with the different stiffness and shapes of skis today, folks should not only try a brand but various lengths, they may be pleasantly surprised.
Denis - DCSki Supporter
January 3, 2005
Member since 07/12/2004 🔗
2,222 posts
Sorry to have left a lot of questions unanswered. It is a slooow day so here goes.

I telemark all the time except when teaching. Most of that is at Whitetail on Wed. nights leading instructor clinics. I am Technical Director of TASC (Teen Adventures Skiing and Camping). I started tele 15 yrs. ago because I was blown away at the grace of a really good tele skier who I would see occasionally at Snowshoe. Now that I am into it, I love the feel; when it is done right it just feels so good. I am PSIA Level 2 at both alpine and nordic downhill (tele).

The Volkl Explosivs were an incredible deal I got in on 2 yrs. ago. Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH Heli skiing) has these skis made with their own graphics. They had a big oversupply of 1 yr. out of model skis and sold them at $225 Cdn in the shrinkwrap (~$140 at the time). I snapped up 2 pair of the 165s, one for myself and one for my VT daughter. I got 165 to save weight in skinning up in the backcountry, expecting to give up some performance. It turns out to be the most powerful ski I've ever owned. It is an absolute beast that just eats up crud, junk, crust, etc. and of course it is a joy in powder. It isn't super quick in in bumps but it is plenty quick enough for this bump lover. I will divide time about 50/50 between parallel and tele turns when the bumps or the woods get tight. It is no problem to parallel on teles if you are centered.

The eastern skis are Scotty Bobs. Rather than try to explain, I'll just give you the link. Gear Geeks will love it. http://www.scottybob.com/
These are sweeter turning than the Explosivs but are not as beastly. Maybe I need a pair of his new fats with 142 mm tip and 101 mm waist.
JohnL
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Denis,
I'm out sick today, so it's a slooooow day for me also.

At 190-195 lbs, you're skiing the Vokl's real short. Thanks for the data point. I'll be sure to demo a combination of wide underfoot but real short. With today's ski designs, there's a lot of possible experimentation.

Bumps,
You are skiing the Legends real short. I'd be curious to see how you like them in 6-12 inches of fresh or cut-up snow. They are much narrower in the waist than the skis Denis is talking about.

Tim,
As a complement to your 5 Stars, you may want to consider a ski that is even more radical than a mid-fat. This thread has got me thinking again about my own demo strategy.
tromano
January 3, 2005
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

Search Epic for some useful info. In particular, Physics Man has several threads concerning what width heavier skiers need for float. (I can't remember if 200 is considered heavy.)

You also need to consider where you'll be using the mid-fats: East Coast trees and bumps versus West Coast bowls. Since the East Coast lines are generally tighter (especially in the trees) and have less snow, for that terrain, I'd place more of a premium on ease of turning at slower speeds and "turnability" in tight spots. For more open lines conducive to GS-type turns (more common out West), I'd place more of a premium on float, high-speed stability, and crud-busting ability.

Also, in due deference to Ski Center (I've bought two pairs of skis from them recently), before buying any mid-fats, I'd demo the skis in the snow conditions & terrain in which you'll be using them. Ski Liberty is great for many things, but it is not known for deeper soft snow and tree skiing. Vokl 5 Stars in 168cm should be great for any conditions you encounter at Liberty with the possible exception of the occasional blizzard we get around here.

For the Head IM 75 Chips, they are awesome in East Coast trees (Jay Peak) at the 170 length. I weigh about 190 lbs and the 170's had plenty of float and stability. I've written about them on this forum.

Quote:

The Head im75 may also be worth a look see, if Head is there. Its supposed to have a soft tip which might help to initate turns in the glades.




I don't know where you heard that. I don't think they have a soft tip and I don't see how that would help in the glades.




John,

I am glad to hear the Heads IM75s are working for you. I was looking for your review of the IM75 but couldn't find it. This search is on my nerves again. I remeber that you mentioned them. Did you get the 177 or 170s?

I am skiing east coast exclusivly this season. And I agree Liberty isn't the best palce to try out a midfat destined for off piste conditions, but I want to make the most of this opportunity. Demo days are too few arround here so you gotta make the most of em. I am plannign to take a day later this month at MSA and demo of some wider skis. They have some nice in-bounds glades that would be a great "testing ground".

As for the quiver, I am dumping all my current skis except for the 5* and another wider as yet to be determined pair. Its too much of a pain to lug 'em arround. And I don't see enough ski days to justify it. And its just more sets of skis to wax, maintain etc...


I noticed there are a number of threads on epic basicly looking for the same thing I am. I PMed Physicsman over on Epic and he basicly convinced me to start demoing wider skis. According to his calculation I may want to look at upto a ~90mm width or so. Thats probably going to be too much ski for me right now. I am trying to head in that direction with a nice midfat and go up from there. So far my widest ski is has been 70mm.

As for the IM chip technology: I may be buying into their techno-bable sales pitch too much. I though the whole idea of the IM Chip was thet is softens the ski at low speeds for turnability and stiffens it at high speeds for stability.
tromano
January 3, 2005
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Dennis,

Every one who mentions Explosivs says they are the most amazing things out there. They are going on ebay for nearly MSRP. So thats a sing people don't want to sell em. Thanks for the tip. However I am sure that they won't be for demo at liberty.
Bumps
January 3, 2005
Member since 12/29/2004 🔗
538 posts
John,
Around here it would be a problem I would like to have . I'll be honest. It was something I was concerned about, but I just could not get over how they skiied. I almost bought longer based solely on ego, but I decided to stay with what was working. I've been doing some searches and it seems many folks are going shorter and granted wider when in the powder. This article by Lito Tejada-Flores helped my ego some : http://www.breakthroughonskis.com/Pages/lessons.html . If I really need too, I can break out my 20 year old 190cm Kastle K12's, but will probably pick up some shaped powder ski's if it becomes a problem.
Bumps
PhysicsMan
January 3, 2005
Member since 11/20/2001 🔗
218 posts
Denis: ...I snapped up 2 pair of the 165s, one for myself and one for my VT daughter...(~$140 at the time)...It is an absolute beast that just eats up crud, junk, crust, etc. and of course it is a joy in powder. It isn't super quick in in bumps but it is plenty quick enough for this bump lover...

Denis - This is too weird for words ... do you realize:

1) We are probably the only two guys at WT (and probably in the mid-Atlantic) on Explosivs. I taught for the last couple of weeks of last season on them;

2) We are probably among the few adult male skiers in the world of reasonable ability that are using and singing the praises of 165 Explosivs. Other than a couple of TGR maggots, almost everyone else thinks 165's are absurdly short for decent skiers;

3) We are probably among the few people in the world who think nothing of taking their Explosivs out on hardpack, and think they are quite servicable in the bumps. I have often said that if I had to pick just one ski to take on a trip, and had absolutely no idea what sort of snow or terrain I would be skiing, I would pick the Explosivs. I would much rather be caught on them on ice than caught on a pr of hypercarvers in crud;

4) We both got great deals on our skis, but I can beat your price. I got our wizard TT model for free when a certain ski shop in Columbia, MD mis-mounted a pair of bindings on other skis and gave me a choice of any Volkl ski as a replacement.

5) We are probably among the only people in the world who bought the exact same skis for their daughters. My intent was for my daughter to use it in a few years, but she insisted on trying it at 11 y.o., and, much to my amazement, was completely dialed in after just a couple of turns. When we are skiing together on a real powder day, she claims the 165's, and I get to go back to my 190 Explosivs.

BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, Denis and I are not brothers separated at birth , but we did work in the same lab in similar areas of science roughly 25 years ago. We lost track of each other until one evening last season when he jumped on the expert chair at WT in the middle of an instructor's clinic. He was fully covered up, but as soon as he started to speak, I realized it was him.

:thumbsup:

Tom / PM

PS - TRomano, don't be so sure that the Explosivs will be too much ski for you. While burly, they are absurdly easy to maneuver. See my comment above about my daughter.
JohnL
January 3, 2005
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
TRomano,
I demo'ed the 170's at Jay but bought the 177's for out west. I'd look at the 170's. They were super quick in the bumps, incredibly stable at speed and great at blasting through crud.

The IM 75 is a very, very heavy ski. I'm sure exactly how the chip affects peformance, but the 170's have a very large sweet spot for turning (i.e. I can be a bit off balance and muscle the ski if needed), but the 177's require me to be right on the ski to get it to turn. Since the 177's are so beefy, I'm not sure if the chip makes any difference for me for the first 3-4 turns. Not so for the 170's.

When you do load the 177's properly at speed, look out. I got rocketed out of some GS powder turns @ Snowbasin and was able to do some super-G turns through some nasty cut-up crud. But if I lost that sweet spot, I'd be hanging on for dear life. There is a lot of energy in that ski.
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds