Quiver reloaded
12 posts
3 users
4k+ views
tromano
November 21, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
So I made a change in my quiver. The chiefs are gone via ebay to some guy in NC. Here is the new quiver.



Just mounted the Nordicas up over the weekend. The 188 Beasts are lighter and softer than the 174 K2 Chiefs were. They are also much more my size. Beasts will be my pow ski this year and my every day ski next year.

The Bigstix are sort of the odd man out here. I got a few recommendations to convert them for Tele or AT. Would a ski such as this be good for touring?

I guess I will need to get some skins, bindings, and boots right?
fishnski
November 21, 2006
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
The Nords look sweet! I've always liked large ski's...what is your height & weight? I'm just trying to figure out what size I have to come down to for a new pair of sidecuts. I'm 6' & 235lbs.(I should & would like to come down to about 210...but that is another story) I've skied 210's for years(old school straight ski's)
comprex
November 21, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Ah, I'd hold off on that.

You'll want them to fill the bumps and chop and refrozen 3D schmutz and crust over dust and windslab over mashies role.

(M'be start slow with Trekkers and skins and beacon and poles, but if the Nordicas are -that- light, stuff wide-waist gliding friction and use them)
tromano
November 21, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
I am 5'10" 210lbs

The weights are:
188 Beasts 16lbs (Din 12)
170 SX10s 16lbs (Din 12)
175 Bigstix 14.5lbs (Din 11)

Its amazing how much those damn SX10s weigh.

The jury is still out on the stix. I liked them in UTAH last year. They are good in up about boot top deep snow.
fishnski
November 21, 2006
Member since 03/27/2005 🔗
3,530 posts
So being a little taller & heavier & seeing that you do ski smaller sizes I guess 188's would work?..I got to go beddy bye(up at 4am) Will ck back in a few days for any info,Charts ect. Maybe with all the choices out there...there is no real answer! I just want 1 allaround good ski for my size.
comprex
November 21, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
fishnski, what ski are you looking at buying? So much depends on make, model, expected use that a hard and fast guess is, well, not worth Scott's electricity bill.
comprex
November 21, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

Yeah, when you move the SX10s are odd man out: plenty better SL hardpack skis out there.
tromano
November 21, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:


Yeah, when you move the SX10s are odd man out: plenty better SL hardpack skis out there.




I never have rode the SX10. I wanted a cross ski that would be a little easier to ski than the T50. That T50s rocked but wore out near the end last season and it was pretty stout. I would often be hurting by 3PM skiing those things. So I got the SX10 based on reviews and since at the deal I got it was like free for the cost of bindings.

What skis are you thinking of? I know there are plenty of cross skis out there.

Even in UT I will still want a cross ski for groomer days. The mid-fat type skis just aren't as fun on piste, I don't care what people say.
comprex
November 22, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

You looked pretty good on those T50s from where I was standing, so I had no idea you were looking for something to beat you up less.

I imagine I had Fischer's RX series or Dynamic's VR series or some of the HEAD skis in my head when I posted that ('K I'm a closet Dynastar fan too) but all of it awaits your reviews.
tromano
November 22, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Thanks for the assessment. I loved my T50s. But they were ass kickers. I will be sure to post a review of the SX10 as soon as I get 2-3 days on them. I am looking forward to playing with the adjustable bindings. I think the so called neutral position is way too far back.
comprex
December 27, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Time for an SX10 review?
tromano
December 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
I already posted some first impressions on epic. Here is some cross post action. web page

These are the Atomic SX10m Puls TI in 170cm with Atomic Neox 412 Bindings. 105/66/96 (16m)

I have skied the SX10s now about 4 days so far this season... A couple of those have been in cruddy or slushy conditions. The SX10s do well in all the conditions I have tried them in so far. Even deep mushy slush is workable. I think Peter Kelty nails the review. The ski holds well, its predictable, versatile, and is very quick turning. It doesn't beat a person up after a full day either. The SX10 has the best hard snow / ice grip I have experienced. Much better than my old T50s and better than the current generation Volkl S5 TI...

The SX10 is a great carving ski but is not that great arcing high speed turns and laying trenches. I have definately had to compensate for the relatively narrow tip when transitioning. I have not enjoyed the ski in bumps, but I still feel it has some potential. I think it would be much better in a wide open bump field (similar to goose bumps, devils drop, the face, etc... ) than it is on the rutted, tightly confined lines currently available at 7S. The biggest gripe is the difficulty really laying trenches in long turns at higher speeds.

I have tried both the "centered" and "forward" positions on the bindings. The skis seem to be more stable and forgiving in the centered position.

Overall I have decided that though I like the ski that there are better options for me. I reall ylike to be able to rail groomers at high speeds and the SX10 strangely does not see truly adept at doing that. I just found a pair of Matron B5s which I had a chance to demo and simply loved as a carving ski. They also seem to be very stable in crud and I think will replace both my current mid fats (Bigstix 7.6) and my SX10s. The quiver is ever shrinking but I think the quality is going up.
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds