 Poster: A snowHead
|
Anybody skied all three? How do they compare?
Which is the stiffer ski, Karma or Scott mission?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
DB, do you count skiing them in a fridge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| DB, do you count skiing them in a fridge? |
I was sort of looking for feed back like ski x floats better than ski y but ski Z is better in the bumps etc.
I'm curious, how do you get the fridge door shut with the skis on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DB,
I skied the Mission 2007, I preferred the Outlaw...a bit meatier, but then I only used them on a glacier
and the snow was very hard and icy. Both performed well enough there and I am assuming their fortes are
pretty far removed from that. I think the Mission is a bit easier into the turn and with a 15m radius I would expect that, so
that ski might have the edge all round, over the mountain. I'm not sure whether I'll use the skis you listed but if I do
I'll post. I know Kitenski will be on them next week in Engelberg so will ask him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Thanks JT.
Read that the tip of the 2007 Karma is softer. Worried about the missions having too much side cut and being too 'grabby' in soft snow.
Anybody know if the missions have changed much from last year?
Suppose I'll just have to try them myself when/if the conditions are right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
DB, so that's a no then - pity as I've skied all three
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, as I understand it the only change in the Mission from last year is the top sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eng_ch,
If by graphics, I agree. The ski is the same as last year but the graphics were terrible.
DB,
The ski has a light allround feel underfoot and would be easy to throw around. They are wide at 88mm and the shovel is a monstrous 128 IIRC which is a stretch of the hand and they don't go so well in gondola baskets, I'd say.
Whether the apparent weight underfoot would amount to the light weight you may want for uphilling, I don't know.
I get the impression that they aren't for touring as they are just too wide allround but I may be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
JT,
For skinning up I have a pair of touring skis (113-76-100). For piste / bad condition days I have a pair of 70mm waisted skis.
Just looking for something to replace my ageing Head Mojo 90's (124/89/117) with which I will use for day trips where I'm booting up. As long as it's not icy I'd be using these as my main (lift served) ski. Looking for something with similar or better float than the Mojo's that are still OK when the pistes are anything other than boilerplate ice.
I'm even thinking of going for a pair of Volkl Mantra's just to use on powder days and use my other skis at other times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, Scott Missions work extremely well in all conditions, from boiler plate to bottomless powder, and all things in between. I've skied them on and off piste in Whistler this season, and on and off piste in Les Deux Alpes, where conditions varied from light breakable crust, through slushy bumps, icy pistes, and onto full on boiler plate. They did not fail to perform well in any of those conditions.
I can not recommend these skis enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I've just bought a pair of Missions (today, as the snow has arrived) and have a dilema. I bought 168's but the guy suggested 178's. I'm 5' 7", 70kgs and an exprienced skier but hadn't even concidered going for 178's. And they looked huge and were far taller than me! He's given me the 168's for the rest of the week to try and said I can have the longer skis on saturday to test. What would be the benefit of the longer skis? The disadvantages? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
chris, Jules has the 178's , I would have thought they would be too long for you. But I'm not the expert. Looks like you may have some fresh stuff to try them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helen Beaumont, Jules is quite a bit taller than me so I can't really see 178's being right. Heavy snow is forcast all day tomorrow so I'll wait till wednesday to try them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I thought ski length was more dependent on weight and skiing style/ability than height
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
bucking bronco, I've quoted my weight, height and ability. Have you got any advice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
chris, yep, and he's heavier. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
chris,
We are about the same height and weight (5' 8'' & 73 kg) and have the same dilema - let me know how you get on.
I once tried the same ski in a 166, 176 and 186. The 166 was easy to turn but didn't give the best float in powder, it tended to prefer short swings to smooth powder turns. The 186 tired me out after a morning, it wouldn't of been much effort for a heavier person. The 176cm that I rented seemed just right. I still own the 166cm, bought and sold the 186cm from ebay without losing on the deal. I'm now considering the Scott Santiago Mission but can't decide between the 168 and 178.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I've got the 183s. They are big skis, but apart from the first couple of days, I've not had any problems with them tiring me out. I'm 5'11" and 103kgs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I'm 6'2" and 11st 2lb (a lightweight) and I had no real problems with the Missions in a 178 apart from a stinking hangover and adapting to such a wide footprint on ice. The 183 would be way too long for me. I didn't know they did a 168. Is it narrower to maintain the topology of the ski...like the Aztec Pro
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Sharkymark, the 168 is slightly narrower, the 183 slightly wider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Hubby is 5ft 11 and 79kg (about).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, I will let you know how I get on but the fact that I like skiing through trees and enjoy moguls, the 168's must be more agile than the longer versions and hence more suitable. The 178's only advantage that i can see is that be they will be better in powder (less than 5 per cent of my skiing is in powder anyway).
Kramer, do you alternate the skis or do you always wear them to read Mission? A stupid question maybe but I have a preference for left turns and they may wear the rails unevenly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i thought about mantra's for powder but plumped for gottoma's and haven't regretted it they were awesome in deep and steep!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
chris, depends how anal you are I suppose. Let's just say Jules swapped his over when he noticed they didn't read Mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chris, Helen Beaumont, I always wear them so that they read Mission across the front and back. I don't think that uneven wear is much of an issue to be honest, unless you're doing rail grinds and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I'm 5ft 10" 80kgs and have the mission in 178, interestingly JT had two pairs of Stockl skis that were 174 one day and 175cm the next day, both were within 1cm of the length of my missions.....
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Kramer,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, having used the Missions for 1 1/2 days, I'm going to stick with the 168's. If I was 20 years younger (I'm 51) the 178's would be the ski of choice but I think they would be a bit long for my weight, size and strength. A truely awesome ski! Whatever I threw at them today ( 50cms of fresh powder, windblown exposed icey pistes, badly cut up soft moguls etc) left me with a scense of almost disbelief. They are almost too easy to use! Even carving on cord seemed effortless compared to my carvers (Rossi Z5's). I must agree with Kramer, 'I can not recommend these skis enough'. PS. I've not tried them at very high speed yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Thanks chris. Did you actually try both skis or just decide to stick with the 168's?
My statts are pushing me towards the 168 cm's whereas 175 cm length skis suited me better. I also suspect the 175 cm's skis (Head Madtrix Mojo 90) were stiffer and harder to turn than the Missions. I really must try out both lengths.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 24-01-07 19:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
chris, jules has though, my lot don't ski at anything else but warp factor 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
glad you like 'em Chris, I've now skied 5 days on mine and love 'em, even on the rock hard pistes over the weekend.
regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DB, I'm more than happy with the 168's and I haven't tried the longer skis. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on both lengths, though. Good luck.
Helen Beaumont, warp factor 10! That's high speed skiing Jim (Helen) 'but not as I know it.'
kitenski, there seems to be a bit of a Mission fanclub growing on  's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Well my new missions arrived today. Went for 178 as I am 6ft and 175lbs. I would therefore say to Chris that for your height and weight (I was always told how the hell does a ski know how tall you are (?) therefore weight is the important consideration) you chose correctly with 168cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
DB, jambon2809, I ventured into more extreme off piste powder this morning to really test what's what. On steep angles, the skis were great, floating on the top of 50-70cms but my only critisim is on shallow angles. The skis sink quite easily and perhaps the 178's would be better? A small failing in what is the best ski I've ever tried out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
