I've skied all my career (4 seasons) on 75-80mm. Now I own Head Rev 80 pros. I usually stick to pistes or close to them and trees as I ski alone. And I am very happy with Heads there. But a week ago during my hols in Pyrenees I experienced 50cm of fresh on daily basis where I found my Revs killjoys at times. They were fine(ish) in trees and steeper pitches but utterly hopeless in flatter parts resulting in way too much poling (double tricky in such deep snow). I rented Dynastar Chams 97 which coped much better off-piste. Plus I came to the conslusion that I could handle them, considering width, on piste too. I'm thinking now about buying something around 100mm under foot for when conditions call. Narrowed down my chioces to Salomon Q98, said Chams 97, Rossi Sin 7 and maybe Blizzard Bonafide (all 180cm in length, myself 74kg on a scale). Now, given I may venture to Japan or Canada/US next year, would this ski be useful there as well? Or do I absolutely have to go wider? The skis would still see mostly European slopes.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Just spent a week with my mate in chamonix , he skis Cham 97 and they were great in all the conditions we had last week , great in the powder , really good on piste , great in the chop , so would vote for them , they are plenty for most canadian conditions
But if you go to Japan , take them for most days , and if ur lucky enough to get a full on powder day , just rent some 135mm pow weapons ,
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?
@wyspa, are you going to be taking both your old and your new skis on holidays or will your existing carvers be retired?
I think if you're retiring the carvers; your suggestions all sound good. I think 98mm is said to be a good minimum for off-piste antics, whilst still good on piste. Basically a fun upgrade that should give you the modern 'all mountain' experience.
If you're happy to continue using your carvers and plan to take them with you in addition to the new ski, however, I'd suggest looking at more like 110+mm, so you have a true 'pow weapon' at your disposal. Something maybe like a Salomon Rocker2 (maybe 108 or 122) ; linkee here http://youtube.com/v/LwG9rVvXf-M. I've been watching quite a lot of skiing vids recently and there doesn't seem to be a downside to having such a wide ski [except feeling a bit self-conscious on the ski lift, which I think will change in time...] - they seem like unbelievable fun on piste - and really come into their own off-piste. In other words; if you're sticking to <100mm to keep things fun and controllable on-piste; there may be no need - you may be able to jump up to a 120+mm ski and retain 90% of the performance on piste you're hoping to, whilst also having a super-fun, super-floaty pow experience, too.
Better link of someone having fun on-piste with wide skis (Days of My Youth from MSP) [ignore the blades bits!]: http://youtube.com/v/LcyDf5ibKQk
You could consider the Soul 7s which loads of people are skiing everywhere on.
I ski on Saffron 7s (but I'm female and not massively heavy). They are great at handling alsorts of conditions.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I ski on 92, 98 and 108mm and I think 98mm is the perfect sweet spot for all round skiing. If I was skiing 100% powder I'd go wider, but for a mix of piste/crud/powder I like the 100mm area, 98mm is good for me. It's more than enough for powder in my view. Caveat, never skied Japan, but have skied plenty of areas in Canada.
Soul 7's have them love them. really easy to ski on piste and lots of fun. tried the bonafide and they lifeless for me.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I skied in Japan in January on Soul 7's and they were fantastic in the deep powder. If you are going to Tokyo on the way out then there is a district where all the Ski Shops are. Ski's and bindings were 50 % of the price in the UK. I could have and should have bought a pair while there for just over £250 for Souls 7's with bindings.
Other option is to hire in the UK and take them with you. I used www.snowlab.co.uk. They delivered them to my door and then picked them up when i returned. 3 weeks hire was £140 inc insurance. Ski Hire in Japan is not the easiest in some areas and on long haul flights you get free sports equipment included in your allowance (well we did with Virgin, but they have now stopped flying that route).
After all it is free
After all it is free
MogulMonkey wrote:
Soul 7's have them love them. really easy to ski on piste and lots of fun. tried the bonafide and they lifeless for me.
Each to his/her own, but the Soul 7s are completely different to Bonfides, they're much wider, have much more sidecut and are a lot softer. The Bonafides have metal layers and are much 'damper', so it's really not worth comparing them - very much a case of apples and oranges. Both skis seem extremely popular and highly thought of, perhaps by different people or for different conditions.
[caveat, this is pure internet research, I've yet to ski either of them]
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.
@sah, agreed, but OP was comparing the Sin 7 to the bonafide so apples and oranges were already being compared.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
MogulMonkey wrote:
@sah, agreed, but OP was comparing the Sin 7 to the bonafide so apples and oranges were already being compared.
Yes, my comment should probably have been directed at the OP... If you are not sure between these 2 skis then it's really worth trying them both because they will ski very differently, I suspect people will prefer one over the other, I doubt the same skier would like them both equally.
Edit: Of the 4 skis mentioned I'd say the Bonafide and the Soul 7 were at opposite ends of the spectrum. From reviews I've read the Bonafide is probably closer to the Cham 97. The Q98 has similar dimensions but I think is a bit softer but probably still has more stiffness and grip than the Soul 7.
Edit again: I was getting confused with the discussion of the Soul 7s. OP mentioned Sin 7, not Soul 7, the Sins are 98mm, Souls are wider. Anyway, I still think the Sin 7 will ski a lot differently than the Cham 97s or Bonafides as they have more sidecut (17m radius). So, I think if you liked the Cham 97 you'd *probably* not like the Sin 7 so much, you certainly shouldn't assume it will ski the same even though it has the same waist dimensions. If you liked the Chams I'd go with those, they seem to get very good reviews too
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Thanks to all for the input.
Yeah, I will try to test them. But that will be probably in Hemel or in Dolomites this March. Not expecting tons of fresh as a test set-up... And that is my biggest question mark - whether this width would have enough float on waist deep powder. Although, like I said, I ski mostly alone, so usually off-piste for me would be trees, below lifts, etc. rather than pristine open pitches with huge descents where you have to hike to get to. I suppose for that reason I would need to get something stiffer which could cope with crud and chopped stuff.
I know I may be comparing apples to oranges, but that's because I never skied on anything wider than 80mm, so no experience here. I think the time has come to get something wider. I quite liked Chams 97 (can't remember though if they were HM or not, which apparently makes a lot of difference) but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like other planks even more. They were 15m radius by the way, which was surprising given their width and length (178).
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.
Skied 90,98,102,108 and 125 in past 4 years.102(K2 Fujas) was most versatile.If Q98 stiffness is similiar to Q90 then they can handle everything.
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
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
I skied for 6 years on 98s, but for this season almost all of my off piste has been on a pair of 120mm Bent Chetlers. I love them and they are fairly nimble on piste too, 19m turn radius so even with the massive rocker they will still carve.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@wyspa,
98mm is plenty enough float to ski powder and ski it well, regardless of the model you choose. The wider you go the more fun you can have in very deep snow, make massive smearing turns on steep slopes and have a good chance of not wiping out But, as you say, if you go a lot wider it gets harder on hard pack so unless you buy several pairs you need to compromise. Some compromise at just over 100mm (108mm is manageable on-piste, and I really like skiing mine in big turns on groomers but I find it hard work after a week of pure hard pack), some compromise much narrower (a lot of tourers use narrower skis to save weight going up hill and ski just fine coming down). I am tending to think that around or just under 100mm is a good all round width for me personally, and reading the reviews a lot of people seem to agree so we're not alone. Others will disagree of course, it all depends on the skier and the terrain.
It's worth bearing in mind that a few years ago 98mm would be considered a pretty fat ski - when I first got my 98mm touring skis I went out with a guided group and I had the fattest skis out of about a dozen people, guides included, and by quite a big margin in some cases, some others were on 70 - 80mm and had no trouble in the powder, although I had a big advantage in very heavy wet snow I think. At that time the Salomon Pocket Rocket was considered the definitive off piste ski and that was 90mm underfoot. The Atomic Beta Carv was also considered a good off piste ski a few years before that (before fat skis were all the rage), I can't imagine that was much more than 70mm underfoot. I'm not saying I'd back to a 70mm ski, there's no point in making life too difficult
You're right about the Cham HM - big difference, they are much lighter than the non-HM.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Interesting hearing all this info about ski dimensions. Have Fischer Race RC 67 cm underfoot that I ventured into 80cm fresh in the Pyrenees. I think of myself as quite a good skier but it was hard work with the skis and boots disappearing completely in the snow!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
One important thing to take into account is what sort of conditions you will be skiing in.
If you are someone who will only be skiing in average to good conditions, then actually I would agree with those who say that you could go bigger, say up to 115ish, and retain 90% on piste performance, with a phenomenal ski for the powder.
If you ski on holidays, then even if you turn up and the pistes are icy with no snow in the last month you will be out there. This is where you will find the wider skis tough. Something around 95-98 would be a better compromise IMHO.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Dr. Will, I did the same on much shallower powder recently with my Atomic race SLs at 67mm, OK (ish) in the fresh snow but as soon as you hit the chopped stuff the tails were getting caught up and making turns difficult.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
have them love them. really easy to ski on piste and lots of fun. tried the bonafide and they lifeless for me.
