 Poster: A snowHead
|
slikedges, yesterday I was on a couple a skis on your list, plus a couple more, in order (mm/length/radius..approx) Scott Mission(89mm/183cm/14.7m), Black Diamond Havoc (88mm/183cm/21m), K2 Outlaw (88mm/181cm/19m), and Movement Thunder (89mm/187cm/22m). The conditions were definitely 'wrong' for the skis - a little bit softer than the previous day, but still a mixture of hardpack and ice with a couple of mm soft snow covering in patches - but I was interested to see how skis like this did cope with hard pistes. I was mostly hitting things pretty darned hard all day - basically how fast and tight could I carve them in all the conditions available (and I am now sporting a couple of moderately impressive bruises to show for it), with a few sets of short swings as well. I would certainly want to ski any of these in their 'home' environment and in a more sustainable way before coming to any firm conclusion.
With those caveats though, my favourite was probably the Missions, with the Thunders and Havocs tying for 2nd place, and the Outlaws coming 4th. JT would have put the Outlaws top. I found the Outlaws really too heavy (really noticed it when lifting a foot off the snow) - but as I approach this from the POV of a part-time tourer this may bias my view differently to you. They were all great at laying down high speed high angle carves, but I felt that the Missions were easiest to vary turn radius. The Missions are just a great ski, and I loved them as did I think everyone who tried them (e.g. sharkymark, Ray Zorro, me, JT, although he thought the Outlaws shaded it - and we're all quite different skiers).
The Black Diamonds were also really great. A very noticeable difference going from the 15m to 21m radius, but they really railed long graceful curves, and felt beautifully smooth making rhythmic series of turns down the fall line. For such a light ski (3.2 kg for this width is pretty light - as you would expect from a company that specialises in back-country skis) I was surprised at how rigid they were, and found they held a pretty good edge. The width on these skis probably caught me out the most though, and they were the keenest to tell me when I was slipping into the back seat - a bit odd behaviour for a ski from a back-country company.
The Outlaws were the ski that really surprised me - they really did feel like lumps of concrete on my feet. I found these the least easy to do short swings on. Sure when I tried pushing them in the softer patches they worked well, but I really didn't feel happy on them at slow speeds. I wasn't at all conviced about how well the radius could be tightened - but again JT felt no problem there. Maybe I was just feeling a little out of sorts at the time and the weight of them just biased me from the start - because these get universally great reviews.
The Thunders were huge fun and really responded to my hooning around at max power, although reading the Fallline review afterwards (which I hadn't beforehand) they reckoned that was how they needed to be skied. I certainly felt the most comfortable skiing them the hardest - but that may also have been due to me getting more used to this width of ski through the day (I'd never skied anything over 80mm on hardpack before) - and I was happy treating them with pretty much the same angulation and general abuse I would a slalom ski. They did though feel the least comfortable with the last 50m of patchy bare glacier ice that was the end of the home run (the Missions and Havocs felt way happier).
JT also tried the Furies, so he may be able to provide some more feedback on those. But the thing that really surprised me was how well all of these worked on piste. As I mentioned above I'm a bit fan of the Dynastars, but I think they would have really suffered in these conditions. I wanted to do a comparison with the 8000s or 8800s, but the Dynastar guys gave me a French shrug and "c'est fini" when I tried to get some  - so that's why I took a punt on the Thunders. So I'm interested to see how any of these skis behave in the softer/deeper stuff they're actually designed for. I was trying some full on GS race skis the previous day - and these certainly didn't disgrace themselves in comparison. They didn't provide anything like the energy out of the turn that say the Atomic Worldcup GS did, but they certainly matched them on edge hold (although I think that could have been down to a crap prep on the Atomics). The one place that the extra width underfoot troubled me was attempting to ski on the outside edge of the inside ski (either skiing on one foot or doing Charleston-type turns) - I'm not great at it, but can just about do it on a race ski - but really couldn't commit to getting out onto that edge on these wider skis.
At your weight I would expect you to find a different response to much of this - particularly with the Thunders - but I'd certainly recommend you to try the Black Diamond Havocs. admin loved them and they got a David Murdoch seal of approval too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yep, agree with Graham pretty much. He approached the wider skis with a touring view as he may well be looking for a replacement soon, so weight would be a factor whilst uphilling.
I only tried the Mission, Fury and Outlaw which was pretty much my list. The day was very cold with the wind and skiers clearing any soft snow so this was always going to be a test out of context with the primary use, IMV, of the skis.
So, surprisingly, those 3 skis did a pretty fine job on the hardpack/ blue ice being not so far behind as you would think, than the dedicated Race skis we tried. Maybe the tunes on the race skis were a little off after so many demo's.
I tested the Mission in 183. Huge shovel (128)..? which nearly outstretches the hand and this ski has a big footprint. Nimble and quick and will take any type of turn. A doddle to ski and will not tire you out if you are outback all day. Derserves its universal praise, IMV. Anyone can use this ski, I'd say
Next up was the X-Wing Fury which I though was a bit small at 180. Again, big footprint and did well on the icy surface in all turn shapes. It may well suit me at a longer lenght and I put this just behind the Missions, just!!
Next the Outlaw...took me a few times to track this down and I though it was a 181...but hidden on the ski was 174/175..can't remember...but it stood taller than other 175 skis so there is something in the way some manufactures measure their skis.
Not an issue here on the hardpack piste but I'd want 181 off-psite. Reminded me of the Recon and only just marginally slower into the turn which will be a good thing outback. Feels solid, which again I like for those crud busting days but I didn't notice the weight Graham did. Maybe put that down to use pespective. For lift served...ie, not skiinning all day, this is a fine ski.
I thought the Outlaw just shaded the 3 in the conditions I tried them in. I think it is a given that all will perform in deeper stuff and I'll not be dissapointed at all to be on any of these skis for a day off the back of somewhere.
Edit; Cr*p grammar/spelling
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 6-11-06 14:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
This thread is working real well, great feedback from GrahamN, and JT, showing that skis over 80mm can work well on the piste and will work great when venturing off piste. So positive. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
One thing technique-related that these fatter skis brought home to me (which is dead obvious when you think about it) was the extra effort/thought required to get the inside ski working. Whereas on a narrower ski (even on the 79mm wide Legends) you get some degree of engagement from the edge of the inside ski pretty much just by shifting your weight, on these fatter skis it took a conscious placement of the little toe on the snow and pushing the inside knee into the turn to make it work. And it was so obvious when you got it right (or wrong...delete as appropriate). So they actually work as fantastic technique refiners!
OK so the fattie zealots amongst us probably knew that anyway!  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
GrahamN, On the nose Jon. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fat is good, just not on me!
My fats are 98mm at the waist, they turn tlike a dream but DO force me to edege properly. Great for technique - believe me, I need all the practice I can get 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW with the usual caveats that ski opinions are highly specific to the tester, weight, height, technique or lack of I demoed a few skis at the Mondial.
They mostly were a great laugh & more or less confirmed my view that you have to make a real effort to buy a bum ski (as opposed to a ski-bum who you can usually buy for a grand bierre (sorry)).
My key observation from usually skiing mid fats (97mm) as my ski of choice is that the skinny waisted skis are just heavier. Demo bindings play a part but the longest and fattest skis I tried were definitely the lightest of the bunch. I cheated here a bit but it also told me that while I'd probably be happy buying most of the other skis I demoed I almost certainly won't unless I get to live in the mountains and have days when I will certainly be skiing boilerplate or racing.
Plus I've already bought my new skis this year & if SZK comes through on the recently mooted (by me) snowheads exclusive wholesale price on 180+ Gotamas I could be further tempted
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Following on from GrahamN, I tried the Missions for a day and despite icy conditions and a slight hangover, they were startlingly easy to ski. I then tried the Aztec Pros (same topology, just thinner), thinking they would turn better and they didn't really so I guess that shows how good a ski the Mission is. Would need to ski it a bit more to feel truly confortable on it though...lampbus loved it and was performing impressive inside ski turns on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sharkymark, I think it goes to show, fatter doesn't always mean less fun to turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I do feel at last I've got some idea of what I might be able to expect of each now, so I'll be able to whittle the test list down a smidgen. I'm hoping in 4 weeks I'll get the chance to test them on my first trip out, and buy before my second trip. Really excited now! 
