|
Post by ron on Nov 20, 2013 9:22:15 GMT -7
So here's the short-hairs review Mike, again, what do you want this for? Crud and broken and some powder (less than 8") I would look up to 105 underfoot but with something that has medium stiffness underfoot (crud stability) and not too much tip or tail splay (which can get deflected in the tip or not enough support in the tail for finishing turns or fore/aft support). however, you could easily take ski that is 95-100 and ski it at blue. I am skiing both the DPS112 and the Nordie Patron /unleashed hell. I would not recommend those for your use. The DPS gets deflected too easily in crud or heavier snow (I'm on the 112's in my avatar pic BTW Its great in powder but on broken or crud, Its doable but some days my shins are raw after a days of bashing piled snow. I think for your use and comfort level, you would be more comfortable skiing a thinner ski. The Unleashed is said to be much better in crud and broken and very competent on the groomed but I this think you would like narrower, less work edge to edge. Have you looked at the Head REV 105 or the Collective 105? I love the REV 105 as it skis much more like a traditional ski and is so easy to get on edge. I actually added my own tail low rise for a little easier release for drifting in crud. Its a much overlooked ski that once mounted correctly (I like +2.5) is a total blast and carves like a SL ski (this is only a slight exaggeration) ask Gary about my perma-grin when ripping down a soft snow groomer.... Another choice is the Nordi Vagabond. I skied this and really liked it. You could go the route of a Stockli 95 but not sure its in the budget.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 20, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -7
Some great points Ron...I know my experience with the DPS was similar.. in soft groomers and pow it was a blast, snaky, pivoty, turny...but in the firm stuff, wet and crud....no no no....not so good for me.
Having said that...end of last season I had mentioned to Ron I was bringing out my Rev 105's to the Boat...Ron's first re action was not positive...UNTIL he skied it....and he too loved it We figured THAT ski is really all about getting the mounting point correct. With the Marker Schizo's on my skis...it was a piece of cake. It loves to carve, very comfortable on high edge angle...playful in the trees and in powder as well as in bumps. Ron was blown away by a ski with 105 underfoot that was SO easy to carve some serious linked turns. Yeeeehaaa!
I also think it could be a daily driver very versatile ski for you Mike....certainly worth a demo.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Nov 20, 2013 12:16:19 GMT -7
My thoughts/suggestions were aimed at more of a resort powder ski - not a crud buster or chop chopper. As Ron said, I think we need more direction from LP.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 20, 2013 12:24:48 GMT -7
the problem with most resort powder is that its only powder for about an hour. After that it has to become more versatile. If you aren't skiing trees and seeking out untracked, the focus has to be on skiing soft piles and bumped out stuff and having decent float. So, you want a powder ski? Fine, grab a 112 or an unleashed/patron but if you want that ski for inbounds tracked and broken its a different ski for Mike. He's not going to like a 112/3 ski even with the published 18m tr on soft groomed broke and pushed.
the REV 105 will float fine in 6" of fresh ( I skied it 8" and it did fine; not as much fun as the 112) but will shine after the open runs are hammered and piled. The Vagabond would too BTW. its not as turny as the 105.
|
|
|
Post by livingproof on Nov 21, 2013 10:11:33 GMT -7
Let me state that I am not looking for ski for a powder day, more for a western soft or broken powder skiing. While I would like it to be competent on groomers, power and stability at speed are low on my needs. Ron mentioned the Solly Q98, the link below will get you to Start Haus review of the ski, check out the video review contained the that thread by Sierra Jim. starthaus.com/salomon-n-q-98-skis-20336.htmlI had a brief discussion with Philpug yesterday, his only caution on this ski, was my past inability to like a wide ski, he thinks I might be happier on it's little brother the Q 90. Phil also does a "Steals and Deals" review of ski gear without premium $$$ but delivering a lot of performance, and the Sollie Q's were singled. If I come across a Head 105 demo, I'll be all over that to. So, it's not a problem that needs solving for another several weeks, but, I do appreciate your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by HighAngles on Nov 21, 2013 11:55:44 GMT -7
On a truly deep day I don't want to be on a 90 something ski. I want something that is going to plane up faster in any low angle pow I may run into.
I may have a slightly different view of the 112RP as I ski the 190 length. There's so much rocker on that ski that it's like a 130 on the hard pack and when you're in the deep pow it turns so quickly that you would never know it was a 190. It's the best tree ski I've ever been on and I have no desire to go shorter. So for me the 112RP isn't nearly as "squirrely" as some of the shorter lengths available.
I haven't skied the Solly Quest series skis so I can't comment on those suggestions. The Rev 105 might actually be the best play here. It has a nice combo of surface area and rocker profile.
|
|
|
Post by danboisvert on Nov 21, 2013 17:53:10 GMT -7
LP, how big are you? Liam, the skis are actually for a different and slightly taller lady friend. Do you think 100 underfoot is overkill for somebody who's barely 100lbs? I was thinking that, since she weighs approximately nothing, she could go narrower and get something that'd be easier to tip and tax her knees less on groomed stuff, while still having a very high flotation/weight ratio.
|
|
|
Post by JimRatliff on Nov 21, 2013 19:45:46 GMT -7
Liam, the skis are actually for a different and slightly taller lady friend. Do you think 100 underfoot is overkill for somebody who's barely 100lbs? I was thinking that, since she weighs approximately nothing, she could go narrower and get something that'd be easier to tip and tax her knees less on groomed stuff, while still having a very high flotation/weight ratio. Dan: Here is some reasoning by Gary for Lynn comparing length and width of skis for him versus similar skis for his wife (similar size to your friend). I think 100 is overkill for someone at that size and experience level. (and mid-80's will be much easier on the groomed, which may be mostly what you encounter). TO COMPARE WIDTHS: Here’s my reasoning…I weigh 152 lbs and I’m on 105cm underfoot…. Skis great in ankle high to shin high snow. It works out to be 1.45 pound for every cm underfoot So Alice at 108 lbs …using the same ratio with the Maya 8 being 84 underfoot….she would get the same float if she were 121 pounds. SO ALL GOOD THERE as far as float. NOW LENGTHS: As for length…my height is 67.5 inches on a 171 length. This is my pow crud ski. MY everyday ski the Kastle FX84 is 168 length. Alice is 63” and using the same ratio from my 171 and the Mya being 156 length, she would be ideally (compared to me) on a 159 length. BUT having said that, I’d stick with the 156 because Alice is using the Mya8 for her every day ski. And using the ratio from my Kastle 84’s…that would put Alice on the 156 solidly. From the demo’s Svends daughter did on the Mya 8, she never once complained the rocker was noticeable…I really don’t notice it on my Rev 105…it’s just there above the snow in pow where you want it. On groomers, crud and bumps…..it just feels like a normal ski. Knowing how much both girls like performance oriented skis…I think the Mya 8 is a fantastic choice….Alice really wants to demo one first…and that I understand. Hope my craziness is not catchy! Best, G
|
|
|
Post by ron on Nov 22, 2013 8:58:23 GMT -7
I had the 112 in a 190 but I found it too long for tight trees (too much length to move around) the 184 is so much more manageable and didn't give up anything the 190 gave for that use. Less work= more turns. It also ski's a little different.
The Q90 is supposed to be a great sk; I did not ski it. I do tend to agree that Mike might not like a wider ski. Again, I revisit the 105 as it skis so easy and with all that sidecut is super easy to initiate turns with. It has decent float due to sheer mass.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 22, 2013 9:10:01 GMT -7
I had the Rev 105 in the 181 length...great in bowls, trails, playing along the edges...but FOR ME.....too much work in the bumps and trees.
Went to the 171. My 6'2, 230lb son was the recipient of the 181's.
|
|