Need Advice on Buying New 05-06-07 Skis
52 posts
12 users
40k+ views
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 12, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
The Rossignol-X-cut-whatevers that I bought used, with bindings, for $100 on ebay have finally worn out so I'm in the market for skis. It's probably clear that I'm both a cheapskate and not much interested in ski models until the rare occasion when I need to replace mine.

My hope and plan is to find a new or used pair that will suit my needs, but I really don't know what make/model to buy. Any advice? I'm 54 years old and an intermediate skier who can handle blacks in the mid-Atlantic and blue cruisers in New England. I ski at a modertate pace and don't usually venture into moguls. Packed powder suits me fine. I rarely ski powder but often have to deal with, uh, frozen granular. (Hey, this is the mid-Atlantic, right?)

Among the skis that seem to fit my needs are these:
* Rossignol Bandit B1, 2007 model. (Plenty of them on ebay. They might be too advanced a ski for me?)
* Dynastar D-stinct
* Salomon X-Wing Predator

Would any of these be good/bad choices for me? Are there any other models I should check out?

Thanks!
Woody
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 12, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Volkl Unlimited AC. And the AC-30s may be a little too much for you, however, it will take you from ice to powder out East without much fanfare. I demo'ed them at Whistler and they were "like buttah"

Gearshop has got the ACs on sale for half price from MSRP, http://www.o2gearshop.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=2
skier219
April 12, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
There are almost too many choices for your description Woody. Would you say you'd prefer a smooth ski, or one with a lot of pop/energy (or both)? What is your height? Do you have an idea what length ski you'd be looking for?

Craig
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 12, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
Thanks, Craig. It's hard to know where to start.

I'm 5'10". I'd prefer a smooth ski. A length of 160 cm +/- seems to work well.

Woody
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki
skier219
April 13, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
I would recommend a Head ski -- their all-mountain models are extremely smooth. In fact, when I switch to my Head iM77 after skiing one of my other skis, it almost feels luxurious. They really absorb a lot of the irregularities in the snow that my other skis transmit to my boots. After experiencing it for myself, I came to find out that a lot of the Head models are known to be smooth, so it wasn't just me. While smooth, they still have a lot of power and energy for the times you may crank it up. It's just more subtle than some of the other brands.

Based on your height, you could go as long as 167cm for an all-mountain ski, or nose height. Your weight can factor into that range. By the way, from what I remember of your skiing, you're quite good, so don't be afraid to get something labeled as an expert ski. I remember that you had a very nice old-school parallel style that looked great to me!

So, the Head models to look for would be the older iM72, iM75, or iM77 (these were known as the "Monster" series). Some of these were offered with integrated "RailFlex" bindings, which can easily be adjusted for different boot sizes. More recently, the iM78 is a superb ski. Despite the wider waist, they are still fantastic on groomed snow. By the way, the number in the series denotes the waist width.

Next on the smoothness scale would be K2, and they have a bunch of models to choose from in the Apache series (or the predecessor Axis series).

All the other ski brands I have owned in recent years -- Volkl, Fischer, Atomic, Blizzard -- are more snappy and energetic, and lack the smooth feel of the Heads, and to a lesser extent the K2s. So if you want something smooth, I'd say shop around for some Heads. That iM "Monster" series happens to make for a great and versatile east coast ski.

Good luck -- Let us know what you end up getting!

Craig
JohnL
April 13, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
 Quote:
So, the Head models to look for would be the older iM72, iM75, or iM77 (these were known as the "Monster" series).


I own a pair of Head iM75's, earlier model. (3-4 years old?) These are extremely burly and heavy skis; so heavy, I don't use them anymore. If you do opt for them, ski them 7-10cm shorter than you would other skis. (I have a 177cm pair.)
Ullr
April 13, 2008
Member since 11/27/2004 🔗
531 posts
Normally I would tell you to go to the Mountain Adventure Center at Snowshoe and do the deom platter. It used to be about $55 and you could try as many ski's as you like. But since you don't want to spend lots of $$$ and are looking for used as opposed to new, this may not work well for you. I'd narrow the list down to about 5 or 6 then start checking out the swaps in Sept. I don't like e-bay cause with shipping the deals are not that great.

If you are looking for a cheap alternative to the AC30 try an older g3 or AC3 (very similar ski). I have a pair of 2002 g3's in a 177 that i could let you try sometime if we are close in shoe size's.
skier219
April 13, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
 Originally Posted By: JohnL
 Quote:
So, the Head models to look for would be the older iM72, iM75, or iM77 (these were known as the "Monster" series).


I own a pair of Head iM75's, earlier model. (3-4 years old?) These are extremely burly and heavy skis; so heavy, I don't use them anymore. If you do opt for them, ski them 7-10cm shorter than you would other skis. (I have a 177cm pair.)


So did they use different construction on the 75? I have always thought my iM77 were featherweights compared to some other mid-fats I have owned (for instance, Elan Mag12 with dual metal layers -- they were tanks). I do have the somewhat unique 06-07 model (last year for the 77) that did away with vertical sidewalls for Head's "full metal jacket" cap construction. The new iM78 is similarly light feeling but returns to the vertical sidewall construction. Both are definitely strong skis underfoot, so that is worth keeping in mind. I like them in 177cm, about nose height for me, and it's more than enough ski.

I thought of another good ski to recommend -- the Dynastar Legend 8000. These are very nice skis, and seem to be in good supply.

By the way, if anyone is looking for 186cm Head Monster 88, the Mother Lode ski shop at Alta had a pair for $299 on closeout (this is like 60-70% off). I had a hard time resisting those...
JohnL
April 13, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
 Quote:
So did they use different construction on the 75?


Paging Comprex, gear geek to the rescue. IIRC per a conversation with him, yes.

Until you hit 20 mph or so, the im75's didn't want to turn at all. I bought the 177, demo'ed the 170. The 170 was a very versatile ski and much more stable at speed than old school 210 GS boards. Still responsive in SL turns; 177's were not.

The Dynastar Legend's are nice skis.

 Quote:
I'm 54 years old and an intermediate skier who can handle blacks in the mid-Atlantic and blue cruisers in New England. I ski at a modertate pace and don't usually venture into moguls. Packed powder suits me fine. I rarely ski powder but often have to deal with, uh, frozen granular. (Hey, this is the mid-Atlantic, right?)


But I'm not seeing a match here ...

Tossing a ski name out, Fisher RX8's?
comprex
April 14, 2008
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

Hey JohnL, man, that was forever ago.

RX8 is a good thought, a bit pricey since everyone wants 'em.

Cheapskate, 160cmish to fit a 5'10" guy, smooth, poss half-upgrade from a Rossi Roc X? A bit tough, esp. online as there just aren't that many really smoking deals right now.

More brainstorming:

Atomic:
Slim & Sweet Daddy,
Metron 9 or 10,
SX 7 or higher,
keep an eye out for Dynamic i.AMs and i.Performs,
any Nomad really, if lucky on price
depending on budget the new telemark line e.g. RT80.
Cheap and good but not smooth: the old tele line like Diran/Kontega, Izor 9.7
Izor 9.7 can be found cheap but aren't smooth.

Nordica:
SUV (same as Gransport) 10 or higher,
(the Supercharger Ignition would be a bit too soft in that length)
+ keep an eye out on their womens' line like the Olympia Victory, Hot Rod Modified if you get lucky on price.
Hot Rod Overdrive, maybe slightly longer

Head:
Wild Thang. Yes it's a chick ski, it's superb.
iXRC 800
Xenon 9


Fischer: RX6, AMC76, Watea 84

Dynastar: 4800s, SkiCross 10, Contact 10, D-Stinct Plus

Rossi: Z9
SteveC
April 14, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
Just some quick thoughts.

I've skied the Rossi Cut line recently and would describe it as very soft. I skied the Rossi z9 (recommended above) and found it felt like a steel plank under my feet (very stiff). I would recommend the K2 Raider or Atomic Whiteout (I demoed both and bought the Whiteout). Both were stiffer than the Rossi Cut, but not as stiff as Rossi Z9 or K2 Recon.

I got a meeting to run to. Post up if you want more info.
skier219
April 14, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
We should have gear buying discussions more often -- it would save me a lot of money if I could talk rather than buy! Let me comment on some of the options being mentioned that I have owned or currently own.

RX-8: excellent carver ski, and very good choice for skiing hard manmade snow. Not too good in soft snow or crud, due to the wide tips and narrow waist (relative to each other that is). The RX-9 is another good choice that is a little more versatile due to the wider waist and straighter sidecut. Both of these skis are very athletic, energetic skis that provide a lot of feedback from the snow. This can be both good and bad. I happen to think the RX-9 are good in bumps because the tails skid so nicely.

Sweet Daddy: one of the best soft snow skis I have owned, but I heard it described as "hopeless" on hard snow and agree. It's a light foam core ski with a soft flex, and sounds like a scraper on an icy windshield when skied on hard snow. I converted these into my AT skis.

Watea 84: fantastic soft snow ski that can also do hard snow reasonably well. Spectacular in crud and bumps. The fairly deep sidecut makes them quite good on groomers. I can overpower these skis on very hard snow with sloppy skiing. The next model up, the 94, is even better in powder and crud and not that much slower edge to edge on groomers. And it's got just enough extra bulk to make it a stronger ski on hard snow. The 94 can overpower me. These can be found in the $300-400 range this time of year.
comprex
April 14, 2008
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
steveC, don't forget he's 5'10" skiing a 160cm Z9. It would be a step up, but not really much of one. Something closer to 170cm would be.

skier219, I thought the Sweet was borderline in that size for him; longer would probably do better. Have you tried the Sweet in slush/slop?

Part of the issue is that we don't really know the gentleman's weight or top budget cap, so I tried to steer things towards "smooth" and "cheap", i.e. might found for less than $350, $400 max with bindings, rather than "best local performance".
skier219
April 14, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
I did ski the Sweets in spring snow a few times, and found that they were decent but could be pushed around by real heavy/slushy snow. Part of the problem was that Atomic spec'd a mount point on those skis that was very far back, putting my BOF about 7cm behind CRS (most factory marks put me 1-3cm behind) and making it extremely hard to pressure the tips. Perhaps the factory mounting mark was geared towards powder performance. When I remounted them with Naxos, I moved forward about 5 cm and it helped a lot. I think they make for a pretty good spring snow ski in that position. The light weight is a plus for climbing.
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 14, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
Wow.

I think I should take the next week off from work and go demo a bunch of skis tomorrow at Sugarloaf or some other NE place that remains open. My thanks to all of you -- lbotta, skier219, JohnL, Ullr, comprex, SteveL -- for your advice and recommendations so far. Skier 219 (Craig) sent me a PM with photos of his Railflex bindings and links to current deals. Great info.

I really appreciate the time you've all taken to help me buy my next skis. I wasn't very scientific about choosing the Rossignol X-Cuts in February 2005. I had skied until college days, taken 20-plus years off, then gotten back into skiing -- and liked it -- when my son started skiing at Wintergreen. After a couple of seasons of fighting rental lines and shelling out $25-$35 per day to rent, I went to ebay and got the used Rossi X-Cuts (160 cm) with bindings for $80 + $20 shipping. Why that ski? When I was in high school Rossignols had the cachet and, unfortunately, the high prices to match. Something I found online recommended this Rossignol model for intermediates. A hundred bucks later and I was skiing on Rossignols. After a year of using my old-school technique on these newfangled shaped skis, I read The Rusty's article on DCSki and began to learn how to carve instead of hopping and sliding my tails so much.

I'm not a strong skier, but I am blown away by how much "better" I ski on shorter, shaped skis and groomed slopes than I did on my 190-195 cm Volkl Portillos on boilerplate ice in 1972! I got older and skis (plus snowmaking and grooming) got much, much better.

OK, if any of you are willing to hang with me for a while as I mull things over, here's some responses to the points you raised. Budget: If I can get a good deal on new skis and bindings (say, b/w $350 and $450), I'll go for it, with my wife's blessing. I'm not opposed to slightly used skis but I don't want to be patching the bases all the time. I'm willing to buy the 2004-05-06 models to save money.

Choice: I assume I need an all-mountain ski. Not too thin, not too fat. Craig (skier219) made a strong pitch for the Head Monster line, esp. the iM77s. There are good deals to be had on those right now. What do the rest of you think about them?

More about me: I am not a strong skier, my technique is pretty sloppy although I try to carve and ski parallel, and I can't handle moguls well (too tiring).

Ability and ambitions (or lack thereof): I can do intermediate glades (e.g., Pearly Glades at T-line, and those at 7-S) as long as the slope isn't too steep and there's adquate space b/w the trees. I would like to handle fresh powder once in a while, steeper slopes frequently, and occasional glade skiing in the NE and mid-A better. I have no ambition to travel to the West for skiing, or to huck the features at the terrain parks. I can comfortably handle everything at Wintergreen and Wisp except Devil's Drop.

I am 5'10", weigh about 220, and I plan to take weekday lessons for the over-50 set in 2008-09. I exercise moderately, chow down too many Oreos and sit at the computer too much. I would like to buy all-mountain skis that will help me learn/improve my technique for carving on packed groomers and ice, which is what I ski 80-90 % of the time. I ski about 15 days a year, so these skis will be with me for a while.

(A sentimental aside: I just bought a pair of c. 1960 Head Standards -- never could afford those, either, back in HS days -- and would like to try an antique ski race sometime. That draws me toward Head skis if I can find the right ones.)

I guess I should have just started a MySpace page, but that's too post-2005 for me.

Advice?

Thanks,
Woody
comprex
April 14, 2008
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Woody, I like the Head Monster, IM77 suggestion;

My only caution is that 220lbs could overload them in 160cm, maybe stay open to going up to the 170cm range. Because published radii are tighter these days than when the Rossi Cuts were new, you really won't lose much carving agility at all.

Same with the Watea 78, Watea 84: 174cm/176cm is more the range I would expect you to be in.

Unless you plan on taking lessons, I would stay to the 75mm-82mm waist size range, because it works quite well to slow down the ski's response to random snow like death cookies, whilst still being pretty nimble for your knee speed.

I would not recommend going over 82mm unless I knew that your boots were very well fitted with really good heel hold. Yes, I know this means I'm less than perfectly happy with the 84 mm Fischer choice.



snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
April 14, 2008
Member since 03/15/2004 🔗
1,334 posts
I have a Head Monster IM70, length 170 and I love it. This ski does it all and is just a fun ski. The new Head Monster IM78 has gotten rave reviews. My friend who turned me onto the Heads weights 220 lbs and he skis a 170. I would suggest a demo.
The technology is amazing....liquid metal, electronic device which translate mechnical energy to electrical energy thus stiffening the torsional fibers!!
skier219
April 14, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 14, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
Very helpful, comprex, skier219 and snowsmith. After followqing up your comments by checking reviews and descriptions, I find myself drawn to the Head Monster im77s (2006 or 07) and the K2 Apache Strykers. Good deals on the K2s in a 174 length. Several choices and deals on the '06 im77s but only in the 163, not the 170 range. (Must have been a popular size?) Some reviewers say that Head models ski "longer," but I'm hearing that I should aim for the 170 range given my, uh, dimensions.

Will keep thinking...and looking for deals. The K2 package at $299m is tempting. Wish I could demo the Head im77s 163s this week.

Woody
SteveC
April 15, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
I see the K2 raider listed above in the deals. I demoed this, liked it (very stable through chopped up mash potato snow) but somewhat heavy and "damp". I try to avoid heavy skis because my legs fall asleep on the lift when the lift lacks a foot rest. I also like a livelier feel in the ski - a little more "spring" I guess I'd say.

That said, if I could have bought the Raider at the 359 price listed at the time, I would likely have gotten them.

I told the demo guy that I wasn't a big fan of speed and he put my 195 lb. butt on the 167. I liked the shorter size because they felt more nimble in mogels and on crowded slopes.

There was is a great series of articles on ski length for the over 50 set (I'm only 41 but found it very informative) called Bumps for Boomers. In a nut shell, they said their students had the best performace in 150 to 160 skis regardless of weight. I am not advocating that for you, but would encourage you to read the articles.

http://www.bumpsforboomers.com/blog/cate...ing-ski-length/
skier219
April 15, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
I'm still thinking that 167cm would be an OK length, basically about 10cm below your height. That would put the skis roughly at eye level. Depending on the ski, you can err up or down a few cm. The 2007 177cm iM77 I own (that's a lot of sevens) is a smidge long for its stated size, at least compared to other skis I own in that range. The iM77 has a long shallow tip, so this may be part of the reason for the difference (all the manufacturers have their own way of spec'ing length, and it may even vary from model to model). I will measure the skis tonight and see just how the true length compares to the spec'd length.

What makes a ski like that interesting is that it will have an "on-the-snow" running length of a shorter ski but the stability and swing weight of a longer ski. Kind of blurs a comparison. But, it can also give the ski an expanded personality. On hard snow, you get a shorter turning radius. In soft snow, the long shallow tip starts kicking in and you get better crud and powder performance. It's like an on-demand longer ski for soft snow.

BTW, here's a review I did on the 77s in Dec:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=64030
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 15, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
Great review Craig! You, dawgcatcher and everyone else who writes about the Head iM series places them at or near the top of the pile. It seems that at least some of the ski models in this series would allow me to relax and ski cautiously but challenge me to turn it up a notch if I wanted. Very appealing, although the only model in my size and price range that's available right now appears to be the orange and yellow iM77 Chip railflexes from 06 that you showed me.

That being said... SteveC, your series of articles on ski lengths for old f*rts (excuse me, baby boomers) steers me back to the 160mm length I've been skiing on. Thanks for the link and recommendation. I can identify with the type of over-50 skiers the author is describing: legs get tired (I stop a couple of times on 1000' vert runs), not agressive, ski at moderate speeds, not in the backcountry, and so forth. I do sound old. The recommendation is that shorter skis (150-160 mm for men) are easier to maneuver and tire the legs less. These characteristics trump both height and weight, according to the author.

Confusing. It makes me look more toward an intermediate's all-mountain ski like the K2 Apache Strykers -- skier 219 (Craig's) link. Then I need to decide on 160s or 170s.

More to consider. Advice welcome, as are other skis to consider.

Woody
SteveC
April 15, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
K2 stryker comes in 167. That seems like a nice middle of the road length.
skier219
April 15, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
In that article, they do mention that turning radius is a key factor but I don't think it was emphasized enough. In fact, I think the crux of the article comes down to choosing a ski based on turning radius more than length. In general, shorter skis have a shorter radius and that fits in with their Baby Boomer theme (more specifically, "bumps" for boomers, named for the mogul/powder program they offer at Aspen). But I am not sure I agree with it, especially in the context of all-mountain Eastern skiing.

For instance, when skied like they were meant to be skied, a ski with a 12m radius is going to require a LOT more turns down the hill than a ski with a 21m radius. That seems like it would take more work to me, in fact I know it will (as someone who has to work to ski a fast line slow, I know lots of short turns are harder to make than a few big lazy ones). The longer ski will get you to faster speeds, but that doesn't really take more work, it just means you ski faster (gravity is doing the work).

My own impression (I'm only 38 but feel 58 after a hard day on the slopes!) is that my longer skis are more relaxing, comfortable, and smooth than my shorter skis. There is no question the longer skis offer more stability. I tend to work more on the shorter skis and cruise more on the longer skis. Both can be pushed into a range of turn shapes, which I choose based on the terrain. So I might actually be making short turns with my long skis on a steep trail, and long turns with my short skis on a green cruiser. The best skis are the ones that can accommodate a range of turn shapes, and not lock you into one. So that's another reason I think the argument correlating turn radius and length to age is perhaps a stretch. Modern skis are versatile, and don't have to be one trick ponies like the early "super-sidecut" or "shape" skis were. You no longer have to choose a short ski if you want short radius turns.

Makes me wonder if they were specifically commenting on skis for their clients, who are aspiring mogul skiers. Short skis are easier in bumps for sure (sometimes considered a crutch), but I don't think that extends to all-mountain skiing.
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter
April 15, 2008
Member since 03/15/2004 🔗
1,334 posts

monster i.m 77
156,163,170,177,181 119/77/104 (16.5m) The non-chip version has evolved into a cult choice for pinners and other free heel in-and-out-of-bounds skiers. It is still a high-end, versatile powerhouse, but we suspect that most lift-served skiers seeking all mountain versatility will prefer the 72.

carve:5
soft edge:4
rebound:4
stability:4 straight run:4
quickness:4
lightness:4
forgiveness:4


Above is a review that I copied from Realskier.com. For east coast I suggest the IM72 (see below) or the newer IM78.


monster i.m 72 srII
156,163,170,177 117/72/102 (15.3m) Head mints yet another potential classic. The 72 blends the best of the 70 and the 75 and adds a new feeling of responsiveness and agility. This is a superb ski for almost anything except out-and-out bottomless powder or 40mph back-country blasting.

carve:5
soft edge:4
rebound:5
stability:5 straight run:4
quickness:4
lightness:4
forgiveness:4
JohnL
April 15, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
 Quote:
Above is a review that I copied from Realskier.com.


Copyrighted material? From a pay site? If so, better delete it ASAP.
comprex
April 15, 2008
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Check REI for K2 PE's today.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 15, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
I thought in magazines and articles and stuff, under the fair use caveat, you could cite the verbiage as long as it was exact and you gave credit to the appropriate source. ??
SteveC
April 16, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
I don't think so, based on similar subscriptions we have at work. The material is meant only for the subscriber. Period. I'm with JohnL on this one.
JohnL
April 16, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
 Quote:
I thought in magazines and articles and stuff, under the fair use caveat, you could cite the verbiage as long as it was exact and you gave credit to the appropriate source. ??


What was posted *appears* to be accessible only to those who pay an annual membership fee at http://www.realskiers.com. I've subscribed to the site in the past.

Fair use only applies to very brief passages. What was posted is pretty much if not the entire review for a ski. Posting of entire articles, reviews, etc. is not covered by fair use, it is basically stealing content. Web site owners get sued for stuff like that.

Pretty much every discussion site I frequent (skiing, college basketball, news, politics, etc.) prohibits posting of entire third party content, even if the content is free. Brief passages with a link to the entire content is the standard procedure.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Thanks for the clarification. Gather the writer should pull or edit...

And appreciate the URL on the realskiers site. Awesome information.
jimmy
April 16, 2008
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
 Originally Posted By: comprex
Check REI for K2 PE's today.


Comprex i've almost pulled the trigger on a pair of these a couple of times. Seems a year or two ago people skiing the PE felt it could do no wrong; now i'm hearing that they're not so good in crud?? Not so good as what i guess is the question.

I'm still looking at getting a pair in 169, my thinking being it would be a fun ski here in WV and a better choice to take west than Izor in 159 length????? Passed on a real good deal on some demo 164's that were mounted with jesters cuz i think that's too short, the bindings were prolly worth what the shop was asking for the package tho.
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
 Originally Posted By: jimmy
 Originally Posted By: comprex
Check REI for K2 PE's today.


Comprex i've almost pulled the trigger on a pair of these a couple of times. ...(snip)
...I'm still looking at getting a pair in 169, my thinking being ...

(snip).



Hey ol' Jimmy, yer hijackin' my thread!
(But I hope you find the skis you want.)

Woody
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
The reviews that several DCSkiers have recommended and that I've found online have brought the Head Monsters to the top of the pile, esp. the Head iM78s (black and red), the Head iM77s (green on black), and the Head iM72s (blue).

Thanks!

Looks like I should aim for 165-175 cm lengths. My budget for skis + bindings is $500 or less. The trick seems to be getting Head Monsters in my length range; they seem scarce.

But...there appear to be plenty of K2 Apache Strykers around at good prices.

Ditto for the Rossignol Bandit series, such as these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110237181147&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001

Questions:

1. Any thoughts about the K2 Apache Strykers or Rossi Bandits? Would they suit my needs as well (or nearly as well) as the Head Monsters?

2. Are there likely to be better deals on 05-06-07-early 08 skis later in the year, or is April-May a very good time to buy?

3. Are 05-06-07 Head Monsters in my length range likely to come on the market later, or am I just out of luck?

Woody
SteveC
April 16, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
I demoed the Bandits 78 (not the 74 you show above). The tip seemed to flop around alot unless you really got them on edge. I asked the guy at the shop if it was just me and he said he experienced the same thing.

A guy at another shop was really promoting them because of their "vertical sidewall construction".

For me, they were too much like what I was skiing (Rossi Super T Axiums - which are a little stiffer than the Rossi Cuts which I had skied and gave to my kids). Don't get me wrong, they edged really nice and clung on to the ice/hardpark that day much better than the SuperTs, but they weren't as nice - in my uneducated assessment - as the Whiteouts that I ended up with.
skier219
April 16, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
Woody, I think your budget creeps up by $50 every time you post here. Obviously, we are having a bad influence on you! Pretty soon you will be able to afford full ski shop prices! ;\)

It's a good time to buy right now, for sure -- it's a buyer's market. For sellers, a better time is in the fall. I have had a hard time selling skis in the spring, but they go quickly in the fall.

The 05-07 Heads will get more and more scarce as time goes on (at least new). I heard from dawgcatching on Epic that people still called looking for the rare 07 cap model all the time, even a season after they stopped making them. Since the iM78 came out, I think the older models have been few and far between. And now that closeout 08 iM78s are selling in the $350 range, that will fill the void.

I don't know much about the Rossis, but some people on Epic like them, others don't. Some of the models are foam core and get a bad rap, which may or may not be deserved. I haven't demoed a Rossi in many years, so I can't comment myself.

Jimmy, I can't say enough good things about the PE -- it's an awesome ski that does a lot of things well and is a ton of fun. They are great in spring snow and bumps. I am one of the people who happen to think the crud performance is not so great. The long shallow tip and soft tip flex makes them porpoise over everything, which results in a rodeo ride in crud (yeee-hah!). A ski like the Watea 84 is much better in crud (and powder) but not as strong on hard snow. Other than that, PEs rock. Be aware, they ski short on hard snow due to the long tip and curved tail. My 179cm PEs have about 10-15cm less running length than my other skis in that length range. If you size them about forehead height it's a good match.
skier219
April 16, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
Woody, now that you're cracking the $500 range, these Dynastar Legend 8000 are also great skis:

http://www.sierrasnowboard.com/Dynastar-Legend-8000-System-17807.asp

That price includes the system binding. These are smooth damp skis like the Heads, but with a bit more spunk. Still, they would suit you very well. Many people rave about them, and it's always been a ski I would like to have for myself.
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
For me, 172s or 178s in the Dynastar 8000s?
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
832 posts
manly ski, go shorter (imho).

HOWEVER, Woody, I am disappointed in you! Whenever someone accused me of being cheap, I could say... "well, have you seen Woody?" Now what am I going to do? You are looking at half a grand skis! what's next? organic french cheeses and boutique wine bottles in your rucksack?

well, whatever i wish you success but fear that you may not want to share a lift with me again, what with the old clunkers I am riding. \:\)
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
A rucksack? I just jam stuff into my pockets. Guess I need to look at rucksacks now.

Pagamony, you'll still outski me on your whatevers even if I am sliding on some new boards next season. I've been proud of the "80 bucks plus postage" Rossingnols I bought on ebay back in '95, but the metal is showing through on the bottoms (again) in several places and I didn't even push them over the rocks at the end of the season this year the way I usually do. (Now they're rock skis.)

I just marked off 172 cm on the wall and it came above my eyes. *No way* I'm getting skis any longer than that! (Hey, if I get really, really good in a few years then maybe longer skis can be my reward.)

Now I'm thinking either 172s or 165s.

I am also giving the Dynastar Legend 4800s a good look.

Thanks for the advice,
Woody
skier219
April 16, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
Woody, I would stay in the 167cm range on any of these skis, including the Legend 8K. This kind of ski can be skied long for more off-piste capability, or short (height minus 10cm) for an on-piste bias. You can go either way. In your case, considering our location, I think you want to go with the on-piste bias. So the 165cm 8K would be a fine choice.
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 16, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
 Originally Posted By: skier219
Woody, I would stay in the 167cm range on any of these skis, including the Legend 8K. This kind of ski can be skied long for more off-piste capability, or short (height minus 10cm) for an on-piste bias. You can go either way. In your case, considering our location, I think you want to go with the on-piste bias. So the 165cm 8K would be a fine choice.


This makes sense to me...and I'm always glad to hear a recommendation for shorter skis. ;\) Thanks, too, for your take on my best-time-to-buy and other questions. Very helpful. My only reservations now about the Dynastar Legend 8Ks are that they may be more ski than an aspiring-to-be-better intermediate boomer can handle. And then there's the graphics -- that "wood grain" look. Hmm... .

Does anyone have thoughts on the Dynastar Legend 4800s? Seems like more of an intermediate ski than the 8K but maybe too stiff (?). Love that royal blue color!

(My tendency -- whether it's skis or cars -- is to buy used and get a bargain. My wife deserves an award for encouraging me to buy new skis. Then again, she's driving a new Prius.)
crunchy
April 17, 2008
Member since 02/22/2007 🔗
596 posts
well, depending on your height/weight.. going too short can hold you back from progressing also. Say you are 6' 200lb and skiing a 167. Most likely you will be over powering the ski, skidding turns etc. your fore-aft balance might not be good on it either. you mentioned being 5'10", i would at least get a 172 in those dynastars. 178 is the biggest those dynastars come. i have the 8000s in a 178 which I think is almost too short for me since im 6'1" and a fairly decent skier. the 4800s have a little more side-cut too, so I think you easily go with a 172 or 178 and ski em at least for a few years. I like the eyebrow test. standing up, the tips should be at least the height of your eyebrows unless you are a beginner. \:\)
pagamony - DCSki Supporter
April 17, 2008
Member since 02/23/2005 🔗
832 posts
 Originally Posted By: bousquet19
Does anyone have thoughts on the Dynastar Legend 4800s? Seems like more of an intermediate ski than the 8K but maybe too stiff (?). Love that royal blue color!


well, it cannot be both too intermediate and too stiff at the same time. I would not worry about the eyebrow test too much, skis come in a wide variety of widths and flex characteristics. The absolute best source of ski reviews, other than skier219, I have found is skicanada magazine, which can be found online. Either the 4800 or 8000 will be a big change from the x-cuts, much bigger than the difference between the two. oh yeah, I dig the woodgrain.

 Originally Posted By: bousquet19

(My tendency -- whether it's skis or cars -- is to buy used and get a bargain. My wife deserves an award for encouraging me to buy new skis. Then again, she's driving a new Prius.)


here we go again, back to the fancy rucksack \:\) my wife deserves an award for putting up with 10+ year old cars!
skier219
April 17, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
I apologizing for adding even more fuel to the fire, but look at the graphics on next season's (09) Legends:





I don't normally get swayed by graphics too much, pro or con, but these look hot to me. I saw some last week at Alta, and they looked really sweet. Kind of got the modern old-school medieval hip wood thing going. They should have airbrushed some beartrap bindings in there too! This is the first ski that has graphics that appeal to me in a break-out-the-wallet kind of way (and that tells you something since I'm already a gear whore). The red on the Mythic Rider may be blood from snowboarders vanquished in battle \:D .

I demoed the Legend 8K in a 184cm and a 178cm (yes, they have a 184) and either would have suited me. Were I to buy a pair, I would go with 178cm since I already have better (ie, wider & longer) skis for soft snow. The 8K would fill the same role my 177cm iM77 does -- kind of a swiss army knife do it all ski for the east coast that does a little of everything well and won't offend the skier in any one condition. For me, my western skis are 184-186cm, and my eastern skis are 175-180cm. When the conditions invert, so do my ski choices. I only had one occasion to break out a long/wide ski in the mid-A this past year \:\( .
jimmy
April 17, 2008
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
2,650 posts
 Originally Posted By: bousquet19



Hey ol' Jimmy, yer hijackin' my thread!
(But I hope you find the skis you want.)

Woody [/quote]

HEE Woody just off on a little tangent there, if i was trying to hijack u thread, i used to be considered somewhat of an expert in such matters, right now we'd be into the fifth page of a spirited discussion of mass-transit, recipies for roasting wolverine or naming the microbrews for the grand opening of Moonshine Mountain, something along those lines.

Buy them, the 4800's if you can find them for your price. Organic French Cheese, mmmmmmmm \:D
David
April 17, 2008
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
 Originally Posted By: skier219
Kind of got the modern old-school medieval hip wood thing going.


Good use of adjectives....
bousquet19 - DCSki Supporter
April 17, 2008
Member since 02/23/2006 🔗
688 posts
The deed is done: Dynastar Legend 8000 System (A8310)
PX 12 FLUID / 165, from SierraSnowboard(!?!).com. Gotta dig that hip modern wood-grain thing.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in with comments, links, sage advice, diversions, whatever. Skier219 you missed your calling as a ski sales consultant and bargain-finder. You da MAN!

See you all next season! (And hope I won't be too wobbly on my new boards.)

Woody
skier219
April 17, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
Hey, I just like it when someone else spends money on skis for a change! The rest is all fun!
JohnL
April 17, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
Woody,

Congrats on the new planks.

 Quote:
I like the eyebrow test. standing up, the tips should be at least the height of your eyebrows unless you are a beginner.


I'll disagree on that one. As someone else mentioned, way too many variables wrt ski construction, stiffness, forgiveness, desired ski terrain/speed, etc. My current skis range from chin to nose. And I don't suck too badly when sliding downhill.
SteveC
April 18, 2008
Member since 10/24/2005 🔗
145 posts
FWIW A very knowledgeable shop guy who was helping me in N.H. put the 8000 in the same category as the B78 and the Whiteouts. Given what you've told us about yourself, I would say you picked a good one!

(And my new skis touch my nose!)
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 18, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
If you're ever at Snowshoe let me know. I'm there half the winter. Besides taking turns, beers on me
DCSki Sponsor: DCSki

Ski and Tell

Speak truth to powder.

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds