# Help choosing the right ski



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

I need help choosing the right ski or at least the right type of ski. So I am 6'4" 210 lbs, and have been progressing fairly well. I have 9 days on the mountain, and have been running blues pretty well since the 4 or 5 day, on the eighth day I skied a black, but it was on the easier end of the spectrum. I want something that I can grow into, but will not take me a year to grow into. I don't want something that I will grow out of in three weeks. My goal is to be running blacks, and/or double blacks by the end of the season. The right ski is going to go a long way. I don't mind buying two different types of skis if need be. I want what I get to excel on what I am skiing. I want something that will can off the lift with down the groomers, and go off piste into the trees and it perform fairly well. I skied some solomon czars, and hated how chattery they were. If I need to later, buy powder skis I will get them, but looking for something I can hone my skills with. Price range is around $500.00 Thanks for your help in advanced.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

So, your best bet it to see if there are any demo days coming around. Last year they did one at Winter Park and I skied probably 10 different boards.

An all mountain ski with 80 to 90mm underfoot will be a good choice for what you describe. All the major manufacturers make them and I've been impressed with K2's ability to produce a solid all-mountain ski. I skied the Apache Stryker (similar to their Photon or Force line today) on Whistler under ideal conditions (powder every day, soft groomers) and they lived up to their all mountain status for me.


----------



## ENDOMADNESS (Jun 21, 2005)

I personally think a do everything ski should be 100 mm minimum under waist. But that is my preference. i have 2 skis K2 sidestash and BD jsutice both 108-112 mm at waist, and they can carve a grommer great (rockered tip with camber underfoot). 80mm under foot is now considered a slalom race ski (not really, but might as well be!)


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

ENDOMADNESS said:


> I personally think a do everything ski should be 100 mm minimum under waist. But that is my preference. i have 2 skis K2 sidestash and BD jsutice both 108-112 mm at waist, and they can carve a grommer great (rockered tip with camber underfoot). 80mm under foot is now considered a slalom race ski (not really, but might as well be!)


And with his weight, 90 to 100 is probably not a bad size anyhow. I'm only 175 so 90 under foot for an all mountain ski is a good compromise for me. The trouble with the powder boards is they tend to be a bit whippy and chattery for the beginners as he mentioned. Binding placement will have that effect as well given that people are mounting powder boards for, well, powder and as such requires a cleaner form when turning on groomers. I use BD Verdicts for my AT setup and 102 underfoot (for me) is awesome for touring/charging and I have no issues with them at the resort.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

hojo said:


> The trouble with the powder boards is they tend to be a bit whippy and chattery for the beginners as he mentioned. Binding placement will have that effect as well given that people are mounting powder boards for, well, powder and as such requires a cleaner form when turning on groomers.


I have to say, this is probably true of most powder skis but I got a pair of Gypsys this winter and even with the crappy snowpack they are the most fun pair of ski's I own. Even on the groomers they rail, I watch my friends eat it on ice and wonder why until I hear the sound change under my ski's but I never feel a slip. The whole "we matched the sidecut to the rocker" is not a gimmick, you have a full 180cm on the ice when the ski is even slightly on it's side. Also, center mount is WAY more fun than I ever imagined.

The only part that really sucks on powder ski's, IMO, are moguls, full rocker doesn't allow the tails of the ski's to release on the moguls so you have to jump and force them around for the next turn.

I gained a lot of confidence this winter on my powder ski's and while skiing them on groomers no less.

I'd say don't rule out a powder ski for an all around ski, depending on how it's dimensions are set up.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

the weight and density of the ski relates to chatter, also softness of overall flex.

I would recomend a 5 dimentional design, LIKE the armada jj or bent chetler, or rmu apostle, icelantic keeper, nomad rkr. etc.

they ski shorter on hard pack so go longer +180cm, also those models are not identical, but share the same charicteristics.

i would choose a rmu apostle, hands down the funnest most nimble ski i've tried. kills it in crud and chop, fast... not freight train, but stable for sure


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

also, i do not like armada or atomic, or any major brand. You should look for praxis or on3p up your way.

i dont like the h2o guide stuff other than the tanzillina, that was a good one


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

bobbuilds said:


> also, i do not like armada or atomic, or any major brand. You should look for praxis or on3p up your way.


Any reason for that? The boutique manufacturers don't necessarily have a monopoly on quality though they can excel across certain features.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

mostly because the margins are not there for retail shops, they make the most money, give the poorest warrantys, drag their feet and try to get out of customer service all together. these botique skis are better built, more customer relations and less issues overall.

with 1 exception, here is something that burns my ass.....

icelantic skis, here in colorado, give there shit away to anyone who send an e-mail or shows up at a first friday for about 350$, how are the shops around here supposed to compete with the supplier, if they sell all the skis to the locals? bent gate and wildy x have a return set up, but WTF? the only shops making retail are OUT OF STATE!!!

I have no idea how the future of small ski shops will deal with this kind of thing, so....

i guess its damed if you do, or damed if you dont. but fuck thats a shitty game to play.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm not too keen on Icelantic as their production is all in China. It's not that foreign production is bad. It's that they put on this Colorado persona when other Colorado and US producers make their skis domestically. Of course, I don't know where my BDs were made and my Dynastars (French company) were made in Spain. So, yes, I'm kind of a douche by judging Icelantic or any other CO company for not producing in the US.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

First, for me.

sorry i hijacked this thread
2nd, i wanted to say, AS AN EXAMPLE, technically, i could use any number of small business or reps, sport, etc... 

so that said, i was looking to adress an issue in this industry i see forthcoming that might be a concern IN GENERAL. not with them specificly.

3rd, im not yelling, just trying to edit myself, incase it is taken out of context.

4th. i like icelantic as a company. and i thought they did press in house at the never summer factory in denver, i do not know where they source their material, or how much prep is done in china if any, top sheet prints, glass layers etc. but the still press it in denver.

forwhat its worth, i want the icy stuff overlooked here in this thread, lets get this guy a good ski.

and, I forgot, man i am tired, YOU SHOULD GET....

PM gear lhasa pow, carbon or not, you decide.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Flyingspagman-

I would definitely recommend riding something 100mm or fatter under foot. I would also recommend something with tip and tail rocker.

Even though these aspects of a ski make it seem like they are "pow skis for experts on deep days only," a lot of the fat skis designs actually make things easier and perform well across almost all conditions. These design aspects make the ski stable and give you the option to make loose/slarvy turns if things are tight, or to throw them on edge and rail some big carves. Basically, the best of all worlds. 

I would echo the sentiment of others who recommended designs like the bentchetler, rocker II, etc. You could also look at similar shaped skis that are in the 100 to 110 under foot range, as these might be a bit easier to get a handle on at first than the wider bentchetlers. Don't let a ski sales person sell you on an 80mm underfoot "all mountain ski." That really translates to "these will do well on groomers and bumps, but your buddies on fat skis will leave you in the dust on the pow days when it really counts". 

See if you can get out and demo a bunch of skis that are that general shape/width and see how you like them! Good luck!


----------



## ryguy79 (Mar 15, 2011)

Can't agree enough with suggestions of fat skis with tip and tail rocker. Also tapered tip and tail are a big plus in my book, keeps them from feeling catchy in pow and crud. I'm only 5'9" but I ski 188cm 4FRNT CRJ. Most fun I've ever had on skis and they are fun in all conditions. They ski way shorter on groomer and are super playful but will still carve if you want them too. They feel way quicker than 118mm under foot has any right to be. A ski like that is something you wouldn't outgrow quickly.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I used to think that this super fat reverse rocker tip/tail blah blah blah was a bunch of bs. Then I got a pair of Atomic charters and love them. They make tele so much easier! Now it seems like ski lengths are getting longer again with this newer design. It's awesome!


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

bobbuilds said:


> PM gear lhasa pow, carbon or not, you decide.


This.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

hojo said:


> I'm not too keen on Icelantic as their production is all in China. It's not that foreign production is bad. It's that they put on this Colorado persona when other Colorado and US producers make their skis domestically. Of course, I don't know where my BDs were made and my Dynastars (French company) were made in Spain. So, yes, I'm kind of a douche by judging Icelantic or any other CO company for not producing in the US.



Iceys are pressed in Denver - not sure where you're getting your info from but they are definitely NOT manufactured in China.

Maybe you are confusing them with Ski Logik that outsources their production to China, pretty ski's but eff that business model.


----------



## hojo (Jun 26, 2008)

Jensjustduckie said:


> Iceys are pressed in Denver - not sure where you're getting your info from but they are definitely NOT manufactured in China.
> 
> Maybe you are confusing them with Ski Logik that outsources their production to China, pretty ski's but eff that business model.


I'm glad you pointed it out because I am indeed mistaken. It's not Icelantic. I committed heinous liable on Icelantic. It was Liberty with their bamboo cores. Rather than ship the bamboo here, they just produce there. So, to Icelantic, I offer my apologies for spreading rumors. To Liberty, start making your shit here already.


----------



## grandyoso (Aug 20, 2006)

I love my Icelantic keepers. The are one of the best powder skis that I have ever been on and made in Colorado. I got them early season two years ago for a good deal at a local WP shop. 
I also picked up a pair of Armada, TST which rip everything. Skied lots of groomer and they rip there. Just got them out to breck last week for a 10/18 inch day and they worked pretty well, kind of wish I had my keepers that day. 

Day 55 in the books at Vail Pass, it was ok.


----------



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

Skied on these all weekend pretty sick ski. Rossignol Experience 88 Ski | Backcountry.com


----------



## Clark (Apr 24, 2004)

Those Rossi's you tried will be fun on hardpack and bumps, but they'll be less than ideal in other conditions. You will still be able to use them, but you'll be missing out on some fun. 

All the comments on going wider / fatter are spot on. Big skis are not just for powder anymore; they carve super well on groomers, pound crud, etc. I'd say 100 underfoot at the very least, but personally, I'd recommend getting up to 110 or more. The equipment has evolved; take advantage.


----------



## lukelubchenco (May 10, 2008)

*Look to the smaller companies!*

I thought I'd chime in and second the RMU apostle that was said earlier. A good choice could also be their CRM in a 185 or 195 as it has a loosish tail (not early rise) that will inspire confidence, but an early rise tip that makes it super fun. Especially being tall, in my opinion, early rise can really hinder skiing for a lot of people. 
Icelantic is a great company as well. Praxis has some great skis and is probably the most affordable, but they are pressed in Cali. Demo days are super nice, and I'm sure that all but praxis will do some sort of demo days in the future around your area. Have fun trying out all the boards!


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

Clark said:


> All the comments on going wider / fatter are spot on. Big skis are not just for powder anymore; they carve super well on groomers, pound crud, etc. I'd say 100 underfoot at the very least, but personally, I'd recommend getting up to 110 or more. The equipment has evolved; take advantage.


I agree with this. I'm 6'4" 225-ish. 100mm under foot at a minimum. May sound silly now, but if you're serious into skiing 2 years from now.... you won't regret it.

Small brand recommendations - Line, Icelantic, and 4Frnt
Bigger brands - Volkl and Salomon


----------

