 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
That depends on your definition of "normal" - there are softer and harder piste skis; a detuned racer is at the stiffer end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Voelkl seem (to me) to have a really weird way of defining skis's. Going through their ski finder it asks:
Select your skiing terrain - Racing, All Mountain, Freeride, Freestyle, Touring
To me "All Mountain" means splitting time between piste and lift served off piste but as there was no piste ski option I selected this and then got:
What snow conditions do you need this for: Perfectly Groomed, Mostly Groomed, Mix of Both, Mostly All Conditions, All Conditions
If I select "Freeride" it asks:
What conditions do you need the ski for: Powder, Mostly Powder, Mix of Both, Mostly All Mountain, All Mountain
Which seems contradictory because if I select "All Mountain" surely I should have selected the different terrain type.
I am a bit anal and logicalist about this stuff but it seems off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I wonder how much of this is "auf Deutsch"... and how much it is the website coder getting the picklists mixed up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Layne, Its all marketing, most skiers seem to want to think they'll go off piste, so "all mountain" covers this IMHO. Whereas Atomic have Race, Piste, All Mountain and Free ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@kitenski,
| Quote: |
most skiers seem to want to think they'll go off piste, so "all mountain" covers this IMHO
|
To be fair, my all-mountain skis are terrific in late season slush, even on piste. And, of course, on unpisted runs etc. Although I've given up going off-piste (except within easy reach of the piste) I'm glad to have all-mountain skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a really interesting thread, and as mentioned what is classed as an all mountain ski differs massively depending on what part of the world you are in and it also comes down to personal preference and what type of skiing you like. I personally even in wider skis prefer a more traditionally built ski with full sidewall, camber underfoot, fairly stiff and a decent sidecut.
I used to teach Skiing in western Canada, when i was out there we would class all-mountains skis as starting from about 85mm underfoot and off-piste ski over 100mm. My standard ski setup was an everyday piste ski at around 70mm underfoot and then a ski in the high 90's for powder days.
There are also some skis good options in that 90-100 underfoot range if you are interested in putting something like a Salomon shift binding on them and doing a little ski touring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like my Salomon XDR 88’s for 70/30 piste/off piste, bit more forgiving than Brahmas, nice carving and edge hold on piste, comfortable in moguls, and work well in powder though I accept wiser skis might be a bit more flattering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DavidYacht wrote: |
| I accept wiser skis might be a bit more flattering. |
Older and wiser skis always know to be more flattering: it’s the wider skis you need to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Grinning, well-played. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think that a lot of people have very different opinions on this subject because there are so many variables at play which are not often discussed and in particular the conditions that people define as 'off piste' are very very different: Surfing 1m of fresh snow is very different to pushing 20cm of fresh snow around on a firm base. Once things are skied up at a resort then things will ski differently again, so when talking about skiing offpiste I think that it is worth being more specific (and honest) about what it is that you are going to ski.
With this in mind, I've skied quite a few skis in the 90-120 range and my take is that there are definitely 3 broad 'zones' for me which are as follows:
1) Skinny - anything under 90mm. Skis narrower than 90mm underfoot are a bit less tolerant to skiing deep snow. They are totally fine if you want to go and push 20-30cm of soft stuff around on top of a firm base, but if you ski them in deep snow then you need good technique to weight them properly. Beginners may find themselves faceplanting and/or in the backseat.
2) Mid range - anything ~95mm-110mm starts to become a lot more tolerant of being skied off piste in deeper snow. If combined with appropriate amounts of tip rocker then they can perform well in soft snow and tolerant of much deeper snow. Often the additional width (and weight can help when things get skied up a bit at the resort). Personally I find skis up to about 105 are still good enough on piste to tolerate on a day when I'll be on piste 50% of the time.
3) Fat - Once I get on something above ~110mm underfoot I'm in a range where skiing in deep snow is changed. It starts to be possible to drift the skis sideways in deep snow. But equally the width of the ski starts to compromise my ability to edge strongly and I would only use this kind of ski for epic powder days or touring. Because of this, these skis start to become quite specialised and I would suggest are only needed if you know that you are likely to get in a few powder days each year - perhaps you ski Japan / Canada / West coast of the US or you live in the mountains.
I'm sure that for different people the boundaries fall slightly differently, but I think that these 3 zones probably exist for most people.
What this means in practice for me is that I have a pair of Nordica Enforcer 100's for everyday at the resort. This is my goto ski. They play nicely on piste, have enough weight for pushing through crud and behave nicely when I get a bit of deeper / softer snow.
I then have lighter skis (Line Sickday 104) for touring for turns which are not dissimilar to the Enforcers but lack the weight to ski crud nicely.
I then have wider skis (Praxis GPO's & Lotus 120's) for powder (>30cm of snow) days. The GPO's behave better in the resort and I tend to reserve the Lotus for touring.
When skiing in Europe, 80-90% of the time I'm on the Enforcers or the Sickdays and don't normally want for more. I consider the GPO's and Lotus something of a luxury - they exist in my quiver from skiing week long backcountry trips in Canada and trips to Japan or out west when I used to live in the US. If I skied the alps for 1-2 weeks per year I would not go out and buy a ski that specialised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@BenA,
good post - I'd agree with nearly all of that. May be just a couple of nuances:
I'm typically on 108mm if there is soft snow about. If the pistes are hard and the offpiste is chalky (or just horrible - refrozen, skied raincrust perhaps) then I'll take some piste skis out - they will be much more rewarding / fun than the 108s (even if the 108s are totally useable).
If there is more than a dusting of powder then I will likely reach for my category 3 skis (even though the 108s would love those conditions) - more rocker makes them (even) more playful.
I completely agree with you that category 3 skis are a complete luxury in Europe - I only expect to get 2 or 3 days a year on them but I got them for a good price and I have a ski locker so... If I had to carry skis on a plane I'd almost never have them with me. I'm going to Whistler in April and I won't even take them for that - 4 pairs of skis among the family is quite enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BenA, How does Skier weight fit into your calculations ie. Would a 65kg Skier on a 93 mm waisted ski, get similar float to a 95kg Skier on a 105 mm one (all things being equal).
I know it's an impossible question - but I'd like your thoughts.
Everybody gets hung up on width, whereas I think it's about width and weight (and of course, design).
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Wed 15-01-20 15:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@BenA, surely you have just defined piste, all mountain and powder ski's?
Most punters (UK based) have to operate of one set - therefore you either ski mostly piste or you ski as much as poss off piste.
For me, it's pretty simple.
For punters who live near the mountains and therefore have access to multiple sets it's a different story.
Ski touring just brings another dimension but despite it's increased popularity is still pretty small beer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
@BenA, How does Skier weight fit into your calculations ie. Would a 65kg Skier on a 93 mm waisted ski, get similar float to a 95kg Skier on a 105 mm one (all things being equal).
I know it's an impossible question - but I'd like your thoughts.
Everybody gets hung up on width, whereas I think it's about width and weight (and of course, design). |
Yes, I'm certain that you are correct that the weight of the skier has an influence on float, so a 15 stone gorilla will probably need more underfoot than my elf like figure to 'feel' similar.
However, I suspect (don't know) that the width at which a ski might start to drift (so transitioning to a catagory 3 ski in my definitions above) might be less sensitive to this and there may simply be a length (across the ski) at which it will start to plane sideways cleanly through the snow.
I also suspect that the compromise of wider skis on piste is more likely to be felt sooner if you are shorter, as your shorter levers will require more effort to get the skis on edge. Similarly those with stronger knees may notice additional width less.
The other thing is that heavier people tend to ski longer skis which also adds surface area/float.
Yes - so it's a very nuanced discussion - body shape, skiing style and ski shape all come into it. I've certainly skied 100mm skis that are worse on piste than my GPO's which are surprisingly good (just to somewhat contradict my post above:).
I guess my observation in looking through this thread was that there were a lot of opinions about how much ski you need for 'off piste' skiing and my take is that those opinons are probably based on very different experiences of what 'off piste' actually is which may go some way towards explaining the differences of opinon. If it is exploring off the edges of the pistes in resorts then requirements are very different to skiing bottomless pow in Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| BenA wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
@BenA, How does Skier weight fit into your calculations ie. Would a 65kg Skier on a 93 mm waisted ski, get similar float to a 95kg Skier on a 105 mm one (all things being equal).
I know it's an impossible question - but I'd like your thoughts.
Everybody gets hung up on width, whereas I think it's about width and weight (and of course, design). |
Yes, I'm certain that you are correct that the weight of the skier has an influence on float, so a 15 stone gorilla will probably need more underfoot than my elf like figure to 'feel' similar.
However, I suspect (don't know) that the width at which a ski might start to drift (so transitioning to a catagory 3 ski in my definitions above) might be less sensitive to this and there may simply be a length (across the ski) at which it will start to plane sideways cleanly through the snow.
I also suspect that the compromise of wider skis on piste is more likely to be felt sooner if you are shorter, as your shorter levers will require more effort to get the skis on edge. Similarly those with stronger knees may notice additional width less.
The other thing is that heavier people tend to ski longer skis which also adds surface area/float.
Yes - so it's a very nuanced discussion - body shape, skiing style and ski shape all come into it. I've certainly skied 100mm skis that are worse on piste than my GPO's which are surprisingly good (just to somewhat contradict my post above:).
I guess my observation in looking through this thread was that there were a lot of opinions about how much ski you need for 'off piste' skiing and my take is that those opinons are probably based on very different experiences of what 'off piste' actually is which may go some way towards explaining the differences of opinon. If it is exploring off the edges of the pistes in resorts then requirements are very different to skiing bottomless pow in Japan. |
Thank you for your answer.
Yes, I too think it's a nuanced answer.
As somebody that weighs 65kg, I went for a Playful AM ski (92 underfoot) in a 180......with the idea it has enough surface area for Off Piste and narrow enough for On Piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@BenA, good post.
Only thing I'd really add, is that your Cat 3 (+) skis have the potential to make the (relatively common) middling 20-30cm powder days feel more like the (rare) really epic ones by virtue of the extra float helping you not touch bottom.
But that only works up until the snow gets tracked, so again comes back to where you are skiing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@clarky absolutely agree. Didn't want to lengthen what was already too long a post with that little nugget! The flipside as you say is, once things get tracked, the wider skis 'slam' into the tracks a bit more than a narrower ski. Decisions decisions!
@layne, there are parallels, yes, but I think that the understanding of what an 'all mountain' means is pretty variable and it's that variability that I was trying to be more precise about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
the whole idea of 50/50 or 30/70 or 70/30 on/off piste seems strange to me
A typical European day is likely to go icy morning piste/tracked crud/nice powder stash/more tracked crud/dodging trees/icy bobsleigh run/chopped up moguly piste
I like a ski than can manage and entertain on all of the above well enough
Bragging that you can ski deep powder on 76mm skis is just as pointless as me saying I can carve on piste on 112 mm skis
There's not been much discussion of traditional camber vs rocker profile, but this can be just as important as width
For me skis 100mm under foot, moderate traditional camber with tip riser and longish radius ticks all the boxes. They enable me to ski fine on piste but not quite as fast as someone on race carvers. The fat skis that I've since sold were great fun but I still get down the same off piste terrain at 100mm just fine.
Whatever Whitedot have replaced the R.98s with, Solomon QST 99s or similar seem to good options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
the whole idea of 50/50 or 30/70 or 70/30 on/off piste seems strange to me
|
To me, it does make sense (to a degree).
For example, if you spend 70-80% of your time On Piste - then that is how the skis should be biased - as IMO. skis that are wide enough to be comfortable Off Piste, are too big a compromise On Piste.....and vica versa. It is of course, personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, Disagree a little as I think its the 30-20% which has more to gain - and probably bring more joy - by being on a ski less biased towards piste. I run 85mm as my everyday skis for 'typical European ski day' which are a narrowed freeride ski and find they are able work in most conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Ozboy wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Disagree a little as I think its the 30-20% which has more to gain - and probably bring more joy - by being on a ski less biased towards piste. I run 85mm as my everyday skis for 'typical European ski day' which are a narrowed freeride ski and find they are able work in most conditions. |
We may not be that far apart.
For me, 85mm would be a good width for a Piste Ski, that can then handle deeper conditions if necessary.
If "almost" all of the time was spent On Piste, then that could come back to 80.
If going Off as much as possible, as a 1 week/yr skier (40 - 50% of the time), given the right conditions, maybe 90 - 95 would be better.
If Piste is only seen as a means to reach the Off Piste, then 110+ could be the way to go.
If, like my Daughter you have no interest in straying away from the Piste, then 70 would be a good choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, Very similar as I have a 96mm version of the same ski with shift bindings for side piste and basic touring when snow is fresher / deeper or spring mash potato. I’ve opted for narrowed Freeride skis rather than widened piste skis which I think give a more playful all-mountain experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| Ozboy wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Disagree a little as I think its the 30-20% which has more to gain - and probably bring more joy - by being on a ski less biased towards piste. I run 85mm as my everyday skis for 'typical European ski day' which are a narrowed freeride ski and find they are able work in most conditions. |
We may not be that far apart.
For me, 85mm would be a good width for a Piste Ski, that can then handle deeper conditions if necessary.
If "almost" all of the time was spent On Piste, then that could come back to 80.
If going Off as much as possible, as a 1 week/yr skier (40 - 50% of the time), given the right conditions, maybe 90 - 95 would be better.
If Piste is only seen as a means to reach the Off Piste, then 110+ could be the way to go.
If, like my Daughter you have no interest in straying away from the Piste, then 70 would be a good choice. |
Yes - that is a good description.
The only thing I would say - and it is personal - is that even in the "piste is only seen as a means to reach the Off Piste" situation you are going to spend a lot of your time skiing chalk, moguls and spring snow rather than powder and I would prefer something 95 to 105 for that. It is personal and I am 75kg (badly behaved December!) rather than 90kg...
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| Ozboy wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Disagree a little as I think its the 30-20% which has more to gain - and probably bring more joy - by being on a ski less biased towards piste. I run 85mm as my everyday skis for 'typical European ski day' which are a narrowed freeride ski and find they are able work in most conditions. |
We may not be that far apart.
For me, 85mm would be a good width for a Piste Ski, that can then handle deeper conditions if necessary.
If "almost" all of the time was spent On Piste, then that could come back to 80.
If going Off as much as possible, as a 1 week/yr skier (40 - 50% of the time), given the right conditions, maybe 90 - 95 would be better.
If Piste is only seen as a means to reach the Off Piste, then 110+ could be the way to go.
If, like my Daughter you have no interest in straying away from the Piste, then 70 would be a good choice. |
Yes - that is a good description.
The only thing I would say - and it is personal - is that even in the "piste is only seen as a means to reach the Off Piste" situation you are going to spend a lot of your time skiing chalk, moguls and spring snow rather than powder and I would prefer something 95 to 105 for that. It is personal and I am 75kg (badly behaved December!) rather than 90kg... |
I would only go wider than the 92 that I have, if I either lived in the Alps, or took multiple trips per year.....but I'm very light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, @jedster, I weigh 90kgs and prefer some stiffness but that can lead to some back seat riding in tricky conditions but happy to suck it up as it’s few and far between in the PDS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I'm looking for a bit of advice. Here are my thought on some Stockli's I've tested. I rented the GS 180cm, SC 177cm and the SX 177cm since I tried the 175cm AX.
I found the GS had loads of rebound and energy. Quite a wild ski which was fast, exciting and tricky to tame. Quite tiring and a bit of a handful though but I loved it. The 180cm is certainly a lot of ski compared something like the Atomic X9 181cm - maybe similar to the 183cm Atomic G9. I'm wondering if I should try it in 175cm or go with the 180cm as an aspirational ski I can progress to. The GS felt very powerful - almost overpowering in long turns at times but I enjoyed that feeling of force on my legs in the turns even if I find myself stopping for rests often.
The SC had more rebound in the short turns than the SX and AX - Maybe the TRT is higher performance than the Turtle shell? The turtle shell skis seem very compliant, easy and smooth but for me lack some excitement in the turn. I think they may have been similar in the long turns - the SC and SX. I really liked the versatility of the SC and it seemed much less tiring but still higher perfomance than the turtle shell AX and SX. It switches between long and short turns so intuitively and I feel like it could make any kind of turn I wanted with ease.
I found it a very easy put still energetic and lively ski but perhaps not quite as exciting / thrilling as the GS? Still exciting but not as powerful and aggressive in the long turns on your legs. You really feel the force with the GS.
By the way congratulations because I would be happy to own any of your ski's i've tested from Stockli. They are all amazing skis - it's just finding what characteristics you appreciate most.
In terms of outright power and performance I would rank the constructions in the following order:
FIS > VRT > TRT > Turtle Shell
Would you agree?
What do you think? Should I try the 175cm GS to see if it's much more manageable and less tiring but with the same power and performance, or just buy the 180cm GS and get fitter and better, or get the SC as an exciting, fun and versatile ski that will do it all on piste without tiring me too much and still give me pop and rebound I look for in a ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Suspect you have done a more through test than anyone here and that we can't help you much!
FWIW I have stocklis with an 18m radius (same as GS 180 I think) and I have found them very enjoyable on piste and not hard work. However I recently tried some Salomon FIS SL (so 13m radius I think) and found them EASIER to use than the stocklis. I guess what I am saying is that perhaps my bar for hard work is quite high!
All in all, I'd be tempted to go for something with a bit shorter radius than 18m because its fun to be able to carve turns in as wide a range of scenarios as possible. Whether that is SC or GS 175 I couldn't tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Powder Pete, I don't know these skis but I'de go shorter for piste skis. I am 5'10" 90Kgs and ride 173 on piste and they are more than adequate, and fast, and around the 180 mark on all mountain skis with a rocker. Think you might be over-thinking this which I am prone to doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm happy on 177cm piste skis - my atomic G9 177cm started to feel short on me after a season so I thought i'd try to size up. 181 atomic X9 are very easy for me. 180cm GS Stockli feel more like 183cm G9s. Depends on the piste ski really. I'm very comfortable around the 177 mark. I feel it's too short and lacks stability much lower than that. When I start to get to a stiff 180+ ski I can feel it trying to throw me in the back seat at every opportunity. Really got to watch they don't leave me behind. It was the same with the Enforcer 93 185cm.
Well hard work depends how fast and dynamically you ski, technique, style and I guess general strength and fitness levels. I tend to ski in really dynamic fast aggressive bursts - kind of like sprint training.
The SC is 16.2 in the 177cm - the GS is 17.1 in the 175cm. Not a lot in it if I went with the 175cm GS instead of 180cm. I think the SC is the best all rounder for sure though from what i've skied so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Powder Pete wrote: |
| I tend to ski in really dynamic fast aggressive bursts - kind of like sprint training. |
Then go for a long 170mm slalom ski which will still allow you to do bigger turns by varying the pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Yes the SL 170cm is on my next to try list along with the 175cm GS. I'll try and hunt down a pair tomorrow as I was unsuccessful today. I did try an short radius pair of 170 Elans and hated them so I'm not sure if i'll get on with them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Powder Pete, If I may - you could try every ski and never find one you like for what you like to do in a test scenario. I'd just go with one that looks good on paper for your needs and skis reasonably well and then bite the bullet - you will get used to the skis once you've had a few days on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Oh i've found a few. It's really just a decision between the SC and GS now. All the Stockli's are good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Powder Pete, a tiny tangent to your impressively Frodo-like quest if i may, but am working up in Preston for a bit - any suggestions for some decent boozers up there? Off-piste real ale pubs preferred (been to the excellent Black Horse so far)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha Frodo-like quest. I do love a good quest in search of the holy grail product. I don't really go to pubs. I know there's Lancaster brewery and a huge antiques place next to it. If you love real ale you've also got to love antiques haven't you? The Stork in condor green also is more that kind of pub. Not in Preston though. There are a few microbreweries in Longridge too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Tried the Blizzard Bhrama 82 the other day. Really nice ski. Great edge grip and carving, great confidence inspiring off piste and in dense wet powdery stuff. Really awesome all around. Felt like a very easy ski in the 180cm. I see in a lot of reviews they mention it's a very burly stiff ski but I didn't feel that it was difficult at all. Great fun for a do it all ski in a low snow area. I'd quite like to see what the 88 is like too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had a off piste powder day with the Bhrama 82 as we got about 40cm. It handled everything remarkably well for what most people seem to consider a piste ski these days. The tail is really great for moguls and much easier to release than a race ski. Amazing what a bit a lighter weight and a bit of tip and tail rocker can do to massively increase the versatility of a ski. Worked great in tracked out powder, chunky powder and pure powder too. I am curious about how the Rustler 93 would compare. I would definitely consider it as my go to all mountain ski which can nail it on and off the piste and all conditions in the Alps.
Also had a dabble on the Atomic X9 WB - I think it's my favourite so far. Amazing pop and rebound in the turn, ridiculous fun and really awesome for ripping really fast and dynamic short to medium turns. Definitely put a big smile on my face. More versatile than the X9s and G9 when the snow gets less than perfect. Reminds me of the Stockli SC but perhaps even more energy. The X9WB is way more responsive than the G9 at reasonable speeds. I think this could be my daily driver piste ski.
So I've found 2 skis that I love. Now I just need to think of this in terms of a quiver.
Piste - Redster X9 WB 75mm / Stockli Laser SC 72mm
All Mountain - Blizzard Brahma 82mm / 88mm
Off Piste - Blizzard Rustler 9 93mm / Rustler 10 102mm
A few options are to drop the piste ski and keep take the narrow all mountain 82mm Brahma and then choose a Ruster 9 or 10 as my off piste ski.
Forget the dedicated off piste ski as the Brahma can handle it but might not be as easy or fun as something like the Rustler - it would be nice to have something that was even easier to float and especially release the tail edge for short turns off piste though.
I could get the X9 WB and bump up the Brahma to the 88mm version which I haven't tested but should be similar to the 82mm. The reason being they are quite similar in width even though they are quite different skis. I'd e happy to own the X9 and Brahma 82mm though.
I could get the X9 WB Brahma 88 and Rustler 93 - I got the 88mm Brahma I'm not sure how much I would gain buying the rustler 9 as well even though they are quite different skis according to the reviews.
Get the X9 WB and the Rustler 9 as the Rustler is supposed to be quite like the Brahma but more dedicated for off piste.
Get the X9 WB, Bhrama 88 and Rustler 10 to cover all bases (but i'm not convinced I particularly like wide skis).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
