how to choose all-mountain skis?

As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?

I'm currently on a pair of relatively generic "recreational" level skis.
Recent discussions have emphasized the importance of "good" skis ... so now I
need to figure out what that means.

On any given day, I will ski both bumps and groomers ranging from Colorado
blue to black. I've done a few double blacks last season and expect to see
more this year. I'd like a ski that will handle all conditions decently,
although, considering my location, ice is the least important. Oh, and if I
can use the same skis for recreational racing, that would be good, too.

Okay, now that I've established my unrealistic hopes/expectations =P

1) Any suggestions on the types of skis I should consider?

2) My ski instructor suggested skis with a fatter waist, somewhere around
75-80mm ... mine are very wasp-waisted. He said that a narrow waist will
allow you to swap edges faster, but that he can go from edge to edge as fast
as he needs. He also said they are more fun if you want to try freestyle-type
stuff ... opinions on this opinion?

3) I like my old K2 Powers, except they're really too long for me, especially
now that I don't have the thigh strength that came from diligent martial arts
practice. So I looked at the K2 T-Nine (women's) lineup, but the only
wide-waisted ski they had looked to have a pretty narrow shovel. The
unisex/men's Apache Recon looks more like what my instructor described,
though. Any women have opinions on women-specific skis and on the T-Nine
series in particular? I've always liked K2, although it probably has more to
do with Glenn Plake than anything. Actually, my first ski was a gyrator, and
those made me happy, too.

--
monique
Longmont, CO

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?

Demo a K2 Axis X.

-- Mike Treseler

On 2004-12-20, Mike Treseler penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?

Demo a K2 Axis X.


Do you mean Apache X?

http://www.k2skis.com/products/skis/ski.asp?ProductID=4

I was really looking more for general characteristics, though specific
products are good, too. What do you like about the X? Can you identify
certain characteristics?

--
monique
Longmont, CO

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2004-12-20, Mike Treseler penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?

Demo a K2 Axis X.



Do you mean Apache X?

http://www.k2skis.com/products/skis/ski.asp?ProductID=4

I was really looking more for general characteristics, though specific
products are good, too.

Hrm, well, I guess this kind of points out that "all-mountain" isn't a
super-useful label, because it raises the questions, "What mountain are
you talking about?" -- which you already described -- and, "What kind of
skier are you?" My sense of it is that, in practice, "all-mountain"
tends to be the label that ski manufacturers are applying to their
higher-performance products that aren't more usage-specific (not
twin-tips, for example, or race skis or powder skis).

But I also get the feeling that the term has acquired a little marketing
cachet and has a sort of hard-charger, "I ski it all" aura to it.
Whenever that happens, with any kind of product, inevitably you get some
people who buy the gear because they think that by doing so, they'll
magically be transformed into someone who has that kind of ability (or,
in a milder form, they think that the gear will create a big
breakthrough for them without any real effort involved). And once that
starts to happen, you end up with product manufacturers attaching the
sexy tag -- "all-mountain", in this case -- to products that are a
little more toned down, so that people can buy a product with the
attractive label, and still end up with something that's a bit more
suited to their ability level, because customers who have just had their
asses kicked are not happy customers.

All that is by way of saying that I'd take the "all-mountain" label with
a big grain of salt. I can easily see it becoming the next euphemism
for, "really, really forgiving", and in some product lines, it's
possible that it may already be used in that way. What you might want
to do instead is describe your ideal ski in terms of performance:
demanding vs. forgiving, quickness/agility, speed, quietness, etc.
There are obvious tradeoffs, and some of those will point to details of
construction that can help get beyond the more subjective descriptions.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

On 2004-12-20, Mary Malmros penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I was really looking more for general characteristics, though specific
products are good, too.

Hrm, well, I guess this kind of points out that "all-mountain" isn't a
super-useful label, because it raises the questions, "What mountain are you
talking about?" -- which you already described -- and, "What kind of skier
are you?" My sense of it is that, in practice, "all-mountain" tends to be
the label that ski manufacturers are applying to their higher-performance
products that aren't more usage-specific (not twin-tips, for example, or
race skis or powder skis).

You're right, of course.

Actually, I hadn't been thinking of the term "all-mountain" as a buzzword; I
meant "a ski that will perform acceptably in all snow and terrain situations
typically found at a resort." To me, that's everything from greens to
double-blacks, maybe even the terrain park on a powder day when there's enough
white stuff to cushion my falls. Everything from groomers to crud to moguls
to whatever else you can find. I want to go all day on a single pair of skis
without having to worry that I have the wrong equipment for the terrain. Of
course, that same description might point to a very different ski if I were at
Killington, rather than in Colorado. I would expect most of my skiing for the
forseeable future to be in Colorado, with occasional forays into Utah. I've
always wanted to go to Jackson Hole, but I'm not sure I'm good enough to get
the most out of such a trip ...

The mountain I'm talking about is pretty much any Colorado resort; two of my
favorites are A-Basin and Beaver Creek, but that may only be because the
Colorado Pass is such a good deal that I haven't done a good job of exploring
other areas. I can't remember the last time I've seen real ice like I saw out
East, so that's not something I feel I need in a ski.

Me as a skier: I skied maybe 18 days last year, many being half or
three-quarter days. When I take lessons, they're level 8 on a 9-point scale.
I can get down most anything, but it may not be pretty. I skied my first
double blacks, Pali at A-Basin and Bald Eagle (I think?) at Beaver Creek, last
year. On groomers, I tend to build up a decent amount of speed. I'm working
on moguls; last year, they scared me to death; this year, I can always get
down them, but it takes a while and I stop every 3-5 turns. Powder is still
my arch-nemesis; I'd love to learn to ski it well, but right now I tend to
freak out and use harsh, sudden movements to control my speed, which usually
controls me right into the snow, face-first. Fun in its own way, but not
really my goal.

All that being said, I progressed last year from being scared to even approach
blue moguls to going down some pretty serious stuff, and I hope to keep
improving at a similar rate. I'm big on learning proper technique and have no
qualms about taking lessons to get there. I also need to work on my leg
strength and/or cleaner technique, because my thighs are already tired after
the first few runs, probably from trying to skid through moguls to scrub off
speed. (My lesson this past weekend gave me some great tips on how to stay in
control in the moguls without fighting the slope; I think those will make my
thighs a lot happier.)

But I also get the feeling that the term has acquired a little marketing
cachet and has a sort of hard-charger, "I ski it all" aura to it. Whenever
that happens, with any kind of product, inevitably you get some people who
buy the gear because they think that by doing so, they'll magically be
transformed into someone who has that kind of ability (or, in a milder form,
they think that the gear will create a big breakthrough for them without any
real effort involved).

I don't expect the ski to take the place of good technique. I would like a
ski that rewards attempts at good technique. My current skis seem very
"blah"; I don't know that they're holding me back, but they don't seem to be
helping me out, either. They're 168 Elan somethingorother 6.0s. The intent
was to buy a cheap (last season) ski that wouldn't intimidate me as I got
reaquainted with skiing; they are pretty flexy, with a fairly narrow waist,
and I think they've served their purpose, but they were intended for solid
intermediate skiers, and I want something designed for what I'm doing now.

And once that starts to happen, you end up with product manufacturers
attaching the sexy tag -- "all-mountain", in this case -- to products
that are a little more toned down, so that people can buy a product
with the attractive label, and still end up with something that's a
bit more suited to their ability level, because customers who have
just had their asses kicked are not happy customers.

This reminds me of the lady who signed up for our "black diamond" lesson group
on Saturday, but didn't want to ski too many moguls ... can't we just work on
groomers? *sigh*

I am well aware that I have a lot to learn about skiing, but I am working hard
toward that goal. Eventually, I'd like to be able to say that if you dropped
me anywhere on the mountain, I could get down it on my skis. I'm a lot closer
to that goal than I ever would have expected, so I guess I need to revise it
to, "and feel pretty good while getting down it."

Fortunately, my husband and I were the only ones to return after lunch, and
almost everything that I learned came from those last few hours. I now have
two great, concrete techniques to use in the moguls; one will keep me from
lifting my inner ski; the other will help me keep the speed I want in the
moguls without going too fast or exhausting my thighs as much as I have been.

All that is by way of saying that I'd take the "all-mountain" label
with a big grain of salt. I can easily see it becoming the next
euphemism for, "really, really forgiving", and in some product lines,
it's possible that it may already be used in that way. What you might
want to do instead is describe your ideal ski in terms of performance:
demanding vs. forgiving, quickness/agility, speed, quietness, etc.
There are obvious tradeoffs, and some of those will point to details
of construction that can help get beyond the more subjective
descriptions.

See, this is where I'm not sure *how* to describe what I want. I was hoping
that, if I described the type of skiing I wanted to do, you guys could give me
some things to look for, like "wide/narrow waist" or "sidecut of about Xmm" or
"turning radius of Ym." And the tradeoffs may be obvious to you, but I don't
know if they are to me.

To go through your paragraph, "forgiving" kinda sounds nice, but then, will a
"forgiving" ski give me the control to handle tough terrain? Does "demanding"
mean I need very powerful thighs, or extremely good technique, or ..?

Quickness/agility: My problem right now seems to be a hamfisted (hamfooted?)
approach to turning on non-groomers. I turn my whole body, rather than just
my lower body, and I wrench myself to the side. (This description probably
makes it crystal-clear why I have trouble in powder.) So would a less agile
ski mask that tendency, and is that a good or bad thing? Ideally I want to
develop good technique, not have a ski that masks my faults.

Speed: I don't need a ski that's particularly fast. That is to say, after I
got past rental skis, the ski has never been the limiting factor in how fast
I'm going; it's been my comfort level. I go quite a bit faster than my
husband on groomed terrain, but I don't think I've ever felt that my ski
wasn't letting me go as fast as I'd like. That may change as I race more, but
then again, even in racing, the limiting factor was my ability to keep the
turns under control and get around the flags, not the ski's speed.

Quietness: I don't know what this means? Are you talking about chatter on
uneven terrain?


--
monique
Longmont, CO

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
Powder is still
my arch-nemesis; I'd love to learn to ski it well, but right now I tend to
freak out and use harsh, sudden movements to control my speed, which
usually
controls me right into the snow, face-first. Fun in its own way, but not
really my goal.

I love that description, and hope to try it soon.

All that being said, I progressed last year from being scared to even
approach
blue moguls to going down some pretty serious stuff, and I hope to keep
improving at a similar rate. I'm big on learning proper technique and
have no
qualms about taking lessons to get there. I also need to work on my leg
strength and/or cleaner technique, because my thighs are already tired
after
the first few runs, probably from trying to skid through moguls to scrub
off
speed. (My lesson this past weekend gave me some great tips on how to
stay in
control in the moguls without fighting the slope; I think those will make
my
thighs a lot happier.)
snip
Fortunately, my husband and I were the only ones to return after lunch,
and
almost everything that I learned came from those last few hours. I now
have
two great, concrete techniques to use in the moguls; one will keep me from
lifting my inner ski; the other will help me keep the speed I want in the
moguls without going too fast or exhausting my thighs as much as I have
been.

What were those hints?

Stephen
NYC

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-12-20, Mike Treseler penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?

Demo a K2 Axis X.



Do you mean Apache X?

Forget these kinds of skis, from all brands.


http://www.k2skis.com/products/skis/ski.asp?ProductID=4

Gawd, that's an evil website. May a thousand snow-fleas infest your
boots for even posting a link to the site.

I was really looking more for general characteristics, though specific
products are good, too. What do you like about the X? Can you identify
certain characteristics?

Re all mountain skis - I think the whole wiiiiiide ski thing is way
overdone.

Nothing has really changed on the mountain - the snow's the same, the
groomed's the same (if enlarged) the crud's the same, the slop's the
same, the steep's the same. What used to be said can still be said: (and
it answers you desire to race a bit as well) A solid GS race ski is the
closest thing to an all condition ski available.

A true GS only fails in genuine powder. Better to just get a soft powder
ski from the dumpster to fill out a quiver than to compromise all other
conditions with a wide "all mountain" ski. The only thing you get from
wide skis is easy powder skiing for those who don't want to invest the
effort in learning powder technique and instead just want to ride up and
out of the deep. (This assumes you can carve crud and slop on race skis
- it's not hard, it just takes patience.)

Plus a dumpster ski for powder works fine because you don't need edges,
you don't need torsion, hell, you don't even need a base, all you need
is a long enough soft flexing boards - classic broken-down dumpster ski.

Here's what you do - haunt swaps and backrooms near a mountain with a
big race program. Grab some 2 or 3 years old race GS skis in your
length. Serious racers switch skis every couple of years (they can
afford it because they get steep discounts) so excellent skis show up
cheap, with bindings. By careful selection you can get their designated
race skis instead of the identical training skis and essentially have a
brand new pair of skis. While there check the dumpster for your powder
rig, and you're set.

I'm serious - this is how real people can afford to ski the top skis.

lal_truckee wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2004-12-20, Mike Treseler penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

As the subject of "good skis" came up ...

What would you look for in a pair of all-mountain skis?


Demo a K2 Axis X.



Do you mean Apache X?


Forget these kinds of skis, from all brands.


http://www.k2skis.com/products/skis/ski.asp?ProductID=4


Gawd, that's an evil website. May a thousand snow-fleas infest your
boots for even posting a link to the site.

I was really looking more for general characteristics, though specific
products are good, too. What do you like about the X? Can you identify
certain characteristics?


Re all mountain skis - I think the whole wiiiiiide ski thing is way
overdone.


Agreed, but with many things overdone, there's often a happy medium out
there that isn't being hyped as much. Don't disregard something purely
because of hype, just realize that hype is, well, hype. Bad marketing
doesn't make a bad product (and of course the converse is also true).

Nothing has really changed on the mountain - the snow's the same, the
groomed's the same (if enlarged) the crud's the same, the slop's the
same, the steep's the same. What used to be said can still be said: (and
it answers you desire to race a bit as well) A solid GS race ski is the
closest thing to an all condition ski available.


Not to say it's can't be done, but I'd say that a GS race ski wouldn't
be all that great in the bumps. Now I know some people like them in all
conditions, but I really prefer a slightly softer ski in the bumps. I
used to ski my Atomic Red Sleds all over the mountain, but once after a
day in the bumps one ski stayed in a permanent turn. My current favorite
Alpine board is like a GS race ski in some respects, but has a wider
waist which I like for making shorter radius turns in steeps and bumps.
They also lack the metal that many GS skis would have, which makes them
less likely to bend.
In the end it's primarily personal preference. You like a race GS ski
the best, I like a more recreational (used to be a bad word to me BTW)
high performance all mountain, tradeoffs and all.

I think tradeoffs are a good thing, because a typical ski day (or even
run) for me isn't just one kind of skiing. I like to carve it up on the
groomers, hit some bumps, and also find some powder stashes in the trees
(if it's not a day when the stashes are everywhere). I like a ski that
can do all relatively well and not make me want to go and swap skis for
different runs.

Matt

On 2004-12-20, MattB penned:

Not to say it's can't be done, but I'd say that a GS race ski wouldn't be
all that great in the bumps. Now I know some people like them in all
conditions, but I really prefer a slightly softer ski in the bumps.

This is key for me. I'm working on bumps, and my husband adores bumps (at
least as compared to groomers, which he hates), so I probably spend most of my
ski day in the bumps.

In the end it's primarily personal preference. You like a race GS ski
the best, I like a more recreational (used to be a bad word to me BTW)
high performance all mountain, tradeoffs and all.

Hey, Matt, could you enumerate some of those tradeoffs?

I think tradeoffs are a good thing, because a typical ski day (or even
run) for me isn't just one kind of skiing. I like to carve it up on
the groomers, hit some bumps, and also find some powder stashes in the
trees (if it's not a day when the stashes are everywhere). I like a
ski that can do all relatively well and not make me want to go and
swap skis for different runs.

This is very much why I'm asking the question I'm asking. I don't want to
have a quiver full of skis, or even more than one pair. I just want to step
into my bindings in the morning and be able to do whichever runs look
tastiest, which could be anything from a nice steep groomer to (widely spaced
right now) trees to a nice long mogul run .... or even powder, although it
still confounds me and I've yet to get into a lesson on a powder day before
all the runs were already tracked out.

Lately, some of the "most fun" runs to me have been the type with a bit of
fluff not quite covering the tops of baby trees and other vegetation. The
visible plants keep a lot of skiers away, so the snow's pretty nice.

--
monique
Longmont, CO

On 2004-12-20, lal_truckee penned:

A true GS only fails in genuine powder. Better to just get a soft powder ski
from the dumpster to fill out a quiver than to compromise all other
conditions with a wide "all mountain" ski. The only thing you get from wide
skis is easy powder skiing for those who don't want to invest the effort in
learning powder technique and instead just want to ride up and out of the
deep. (This assumes you can carve crud and slop on race skis - it's not
hard, it just takes patience.)

Well, powder and crud/slop are my two biggest problem areas, so ... getting a
ski that's more work in those conditions might not be my best move. I see
that once again, I haven't been detailed enough in describing my question =)

--
monique
Longmont, CO