 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi all,
As its now September and a bit grey outside thoughts turn towards the coming season and looking at a certain online French ski retailer there are some good deals on previous model skis, namely the Atomic Automatic 109 and Scott Punisher 2015 model (106 underfoot in a 173 length).
I'm 41, 170cm tall, 93kg (needs to be less I know!) and have been skiing for the last 15 years or so, usually 2-3 weeks a year. I'd say that I'm a fairly confident cruisey skier, tending to stick to blues and reds and chomping the km in somewhere like 3V or EspaceKilly. I like the sense of travel and the views rather then steep 'gnarly' blacks etc. I've recently begun dabbling in offpiste skiing, last year I went on a NonStop course in Canada where the highlight of the trip was a 3 day Backcountry Hut stay going on day tours and I was on loaned Dynastar Cham 107 (166cm as I was struggling with newly-learned kick turns on the 175) on frame bindings. The rest of the time I was in resort on my Fischer Watea 84, 167 (a ski I had for a number of years and loved until they got stolen - thats another story).
At the end of last years season I bought some Blizzard Brahmas 173. I'd read the Brahmas were for expert hard chargers which I didn't feel I was, but after testing Scott the Ski (I felt I was inbetween sizes 165 and 175 having tried both) and Atomic something (it was the equivalent of the 90Cti but the previous year model) I found I preferred the Brahmas which felt more stable and secure to me (maybe because I'm a bit heavy for my height). They needed more effort compared to the Scotts but I felt a bit nervous of going up to the 175cm.
This year I went on a Snoworks course in 3V which was great (and would highly recommend), it was meant to be their all terrain course but we were off piste pretty much all the time. Despite the Brahmas being 88 I managed ok off piste, certainly felt more confident compared to the previous year in Canada. For the coming season I'd like to continue building my experience off piste and thinking of getting a wider ski to make a 2-ski quiver.
The 2 skis that have caught my eye are the Atomic Automatic 109 in a 175 and the Scott Punisher 2015 model in a 173 (106 underfoot) as they both have pretty hefty discounts at present. I would probably quiver killer my Marker Griffons on them. Ideally I should test them I know (especially after my experience getting the Brahmas) but they're at a great price just now. So I was wondering if people have tried or own these skis and what their thoughts might be in terms of recommending them to someone as their first fat ski? I'm likely to be slow to medium speed to begin with as I build confidence.
In terms of other skis I've tried - Armada TST in a 174, I thought these were good until I tried the Rossignol Soul 7s 172 which I liked much more and were easier to ski on piste surprisingly (if there were some end of season models going I would probably get some, though would debate with myself about whether to go up to 180); Rossignol Sin 7, super fun easy ski in soft shin deep snow but I thought skied short in a 172 and that I would need a 180 hence wondering about Soul 7s in a 180.
Sorry for the long post, just trying to give as much info as possible so you have a sense of what kind of skier I am and my level of experience.
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Rashed wrote: |
Hi all,
T
In terms of other skis I've tried - Armada TST in a 174, I thought these were good until I tried the Rossignol Soul 7s 172 which I liked much more and were easier to ski on piste surprisingly (if there were some end of season models going I would probably get some, though would debate with myself about whether to go up to 180); Rossignol Sin 7, super fun easy ski in soft shin deep snow but I thought skied short in a 172 and that I would need a 180 hence wondering about Soul 7s in a 180.
Many thanks |
The new Rossis this season have supposedly been stiffened up and look nice and light too - the Sin is now called something else (? sky) but I think the Soul looks pretty awesome actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
If you like the Soul 7 and the Cham 107 why roll the dice on something else. Reading between the lines you're not completely thrilled with the Brahmas which suggests to me a more fun feeling ski may be better. Your best bet is probably to try to get to the Oktobertest and get on what you might still find on closeout from last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Thanks Dave and mishmash for replying. I've had 4 weeks now on the Brahmas and I like them, very solid and stable. But yes I wouldn't say I love them like I did with my old Wateas. Where is Oktoberfest? (Although might be tricky to get leave from work) I expect you're both right regarding the Soul 7, certainly preferred it over the Cham 107 (but maybe because that was quite heavy with the frame touring bindings), I guess I'm partly anxious over whether to get the 172 or 180. But then if I buy the current model then I'd probably demo both in resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Personally, I think you should be on a 180ish ski....whether a Soul 7 or a Punisher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Soul 7 and Cham were my favourites at the ski test ....you won't go wrong with either of those
I actually bought black crows Atris .... but it was a very close call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was the Cham 97 I tested - maybe not as wide as you want but a fab ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I am 75kg and have a pair of 188cm Soul 7, they ski really short, the demo pair at the test last year were 180cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've still got a few pairs of 13/14 Whitedot Ranger (trads) left in 177cm & 186cm going for boogerall money 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Ohh, that is interesting spyderjon, I'll PM you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
What Jon said. Personally if you already have you piste and all-round ski sorted I'd go wide with your off piste ski. Talk to Jon, he will make some suggestions that will end up being good.
I would suggest the hemel ski test in Oct, there will be a decent range of fat skis to play with, but from your OP I think you will want 110mm if not more as a second pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I had 98mm Nordica Enforcers as my only ski for 6 years, now have a quiver but find myself on Bent Chetlers at 120mm underfoot for almost all of my off piste skiing. Just seem to handle everything, even been down icy blacks on them with much tip flapping and have done up to 850m vert tours with no problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Digger the dinosaur wrote: |
I would suggest the hemel ski test in Oct, there will be a decent range of fat skis to play with, but from your OP I think you will want 110mm if not more as a second pair. |
Personally I don't see the point in this. You'll end up skiing fat skis on piste, which is what they're not designed for, and will end up selecting the one which is best (or "least bad"!!) on piste. Which won't necessarily mean they're the best in deep snow....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Dashed, you might not get the deep snow test, but you will almost certainly be able to rule skis out - I've tested most of the fat skis at the ski tests and about 50% go in the "probably great for powder, but I just can't stand the way they ski in anything else" bin. The other 50% go into my "interested" pile. Plus frankly I know that most fat skis will be ok in powder, but testing them in a more confined space on less than perfect snow is a good way to test for max length I'm comfortable with and whether a ski is going to be a pain in the backside getting to the fluffy stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I think the people who don't believe in testing powder skis in conditions which are less than ideal either have private access to a heli or don't really ski resort pow or sidecountry where 2000ft of glorious pow descent can be followed by crusty mank, refried bumps, climbs down fallen trunks, assorted bushwhacking and rocky traverses to get out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, again +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
FIFY
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| ... or don't really ski resort pow or sidecountry where 20ft of glorious pow descent can be followed by 2000ft of crusty mank, refried bumps, climbs down fallen trunks, assorted bushwhacking and rocky traverses to get out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I get the point about mixed conditions, but I can't think of an environment less mixed and less appropriate to test powder skis than a fridge! But then it depends what you're testing - the thread seems to be diverging in advice, from the 100-105mm all mountain stuff, to go wide and dedicated powder...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Ehhh fridge testing ain't perfect, but it's better than nothing, and it's an excellent excuse to get together with some old and new friends on an October evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
