Please help me pick a ski (sales on the 2003 stuff)

I'd really like to buy a ski within a week or two tops to take
advantage of some really nice deals to be had on the 2003 stuff (50%
off list seems fairly common). Some more detailed info on me:

- 5'11" 165 (182cm 75kg)

- west coast skiing (Cypress, Whistler, practically never icy)

- skied for 10-15 years in Europe (ice most of the time) on crappy
pencil skis with badly adjusted boots, didn't ski at all the past 4
years, am going to get back in it this year (finally!) and have been
reading up a lot on shapes etc.

- fairly competent on pencils, never tried shapes: I can ski fairly
close to parallel on anything up to 'moderate' slopes (say, European
reds to some easier blacks) and can ski pretty much anywhere save
monster moguls on 80 degree-type slopes (been there, done that, didn't
enjoy it at all ).

- Hate moguls, dislike extreme speeds (only -extreme- speeds, I am not
a slowpoke by any stretch of the imagination), enjoy the most Giant
Slalom type slopes on groomed but don't mind some powder every now and
then. Really love carving mid-sized turns at 'cruising' speed (say,
20mph).

- looking for a swiss-army-knife type of deal obviously (can't really
afford 3 skis ) with a definite bias towards groomed.

Skis I've been considering (also because most of them I can find
locally) are

head ic160 (but how do they stand up in powder?)
head monster 70 (but what about the groomed?)
K2 5500 (heard good things about them)
Rossi XX (but I think they're a bit too wide)

the skis I'm going to buy should last me -AT LEAST- 4-5 years so
something I will outgrow in a season of weekly skiing is a definite
no-no.

Right now I'm leaning towards the ic160s but what's holding me back is
the fact that I wonder how they'll perform in crud/powder/choppy snow,
if I was still living in Europe they'd be a no brainer but the 70mm
mid-fats seem tempting. OTOH I don't plan to ski too much outside of
the groomed slopes, so maybe I'd do better on a carver than a mid-fat.

In terms of length I think 170 would be a good match for my
height/weight/skillset.

I'd really appreciate any help, thanks!

(Hi there) wrote in
:

I'd really like to buy a ski within a week or two tops to take
advantage of some really nice deals to be had on the 2003 stuff (50%
off list seems fairly common). Some more detailed info on me:

- 5'11" 165 (182cm 75kg)

- west coast skiing (Cypress, Whistler, practically never icy)

No, but I've skied in the cascades so water skis may be
a consideration.

- skied for 10-15 years in Europe (ice most of the time) on crappy
pencil skis with badly adjusted boots, didn't ski at all the past 4
years, am going to get back in it this year (finally!) and have been
reading up a lot on shapes etc.

- fairly competent on pencils, never tried shapes: I can ski fairly
close to parallel on anything up to 'moderate' slopes (say, European
reds to some easier blacks) and can ski pretty much anywhere save
monster moguls on 80 degree-type slopes (been there, done that, didn't
enjoy it at all ).

Prolly wasn't 80 degrees, maybe 80 percent (yeah, let's have
this discussion again, it's time).

- Hate moguls, dislike extreme speeds (only -extreme- speeds, I am not
a slowpoke by any stretch of the imagination), enjoy the most Giant
Slalom type slopes on groomed but don't mind some powder every now and
then. Really love carving mid-sized turns at 'cruising' speed (say,
20mph).

Sounds a little to me that you may be in something of a rut.
I might suggest a few lessons once you get your new kit in order.

- looking for a swiss-army-knife type of deal obviously (can't really
afford 3 skis ) with a definite bias towards groomed.

Might I suggest that 3 skis may be a little impractical unless
you have three legs?

Ok, ok, sorry, I really do know what you mean. I personally like
the "All Mountain Free-Ride" class of ski. Less demanding than
racing skis but can handle most anything. My current skis are
Blizzard FR22, with a pair of X-Screams for really soft conditions.

Skis I've been considering (also because most of them I can find
locally) are

head ic160 (but how do they stand up in powder?)
head monster 70 (but what about the groomed?)

Prolly OK, most of these 70mm wide skis are
considered pretty good here in the East (read firm
conditions), my X-Screams are in this class.

K2 5500 (heard good things about them)
Rossi XX (but I think they're a bit too wide)

Double ex is not too wide, the Triple might be,
but I don't think so. Rossi's still have the rep
of not lasting. Around here the patrol used to
buy Elans for work and Rossi's for fun. Or, more
correctly they BOUGHT Elans for work and were
given Rossi's for work, but since they wouldn't
last and were lots more fun than the Elans....

the skis I'm going to buy should last me -AT LEAST- 4-5 years so
something I will outgrow in a season of weekly skiing is a definite
no-no.

Right now I'm leaning towards the ic160s but what's holding me back is
the fact that I wonder how they'll perform in crud/powder/choppy snow,
if I was still living in Europe they'd be a no brainer but the 70mm
mid-fats seem tempting. OTOH I don't plan to ski too much outside of
the groomed slopes, so maybe I'd do better on a carver than a mid-fat.

If I were to have one pair of skis in the gloppy PNW (I skied
on X-Screams when I was there), I'd go for the 70mm wide
mid-fats without batting an eye. The super-carvers, even my
Free-Rides I think could be TOO turny in certain conditions
and wouldn't float well enough in others.

In terms of length I think 170 would be a good match for my
height/weight/skillset.

170 is probably OK. My Free-Rides are 165 and my X-Screams
are 178. I'm 200lb, 6', 60yo, good shape, skiing over
50 years now.

I'd really appreciate any help, thanks!

Now, before LAL pipes up and tells you to stay with your
"pencil" skis and Astro, among others, tells you to go buy
boots first, I'll ask you if you have bought modern, good
fitting ski boots yet? If not, do that before you buy your
new skis. Spend more on the boots and buy left-over demo
skis if you budget demands. New skis and new bindings are
kewl, but the boots are still the most important.

BTW there are some good websites that talk about boots
and fitting. ask if you are interested.

All for now.
RW

- west coast skiing (Cypress, Whistler, practically never icy)

No, but I've skied in the cascades so water skis may be
a consideration.

lol

Prolly wasn't 80 degrees, maybe 80 percent (yeah, let's have
this discussion again, it's time).

heh, I was just trying to say 'too steep for sane people', I only
skied once on a slope where I honestly feared for my life, it was a
near-vertical-number with monstrous moguls that at the bottom had a
several hundred feet plunge-to-your-death-on-the-rocks-below drop
(argh!)

The 'only for EXTREMELY EXPERT skiers' sign at the lift and the lack
of people going up should've been an indication that I was in over my
head, but my 'friends' kept saying that they had already skied it and
it was no big deal etc. etc. etc. (one of said friends basically
learned to ski before he learned how to walk, and the other just
after).

Sounds a little to me that you may be in something of a rut.
I might suggest a few lessons once you get your new kit in order.

definitely, while I was living in Europe I was a poor student so I
couldn't really afford them, now since I do have a job I do plan to
get some

Prolly OK, most of these 70mm wide skis are
considered pretty good here in the East (read firm
conditions), my X-Screams are in this class.

I keep hearing a lot about 70mm but at the same time I hear that they
tend to not allow you to progress as much (in terms of technique) as
'thinner' carvers (the ic160 are 64mm IIRC). OTOH it might all be a
load of ******** and I'm gonna be perfectly fine & happy on a
mid-fat...

If I were to have one pair of skis in the gloppy PNW (I skied
on X-Screams when I was there), I'd go for the 70mm wide
mid-fats without batting an eye. The super-carvers, even my
Free-Rides I think could be TOO turny in certain conditions
and wouldn't float well enough in others.

thanks for the feedback!

Now, before LAL pipes up and tells you to stay with your
"pencil" skis and Astro, among others, tells you to go buy

there's no way I could 'stay with my pencils', first of all I didn't
bring them here to NA so it's kind of a moot point, and secondly they
were REALLY BAD, I mean, first of all they were too short (180cm) and
secondly they were some crappy low-end fiberglass (I think) number
that chattered at high speed, had trouble holding a line (any line),
had really bad edges (which on icy slopes were a lot of fun, ahem) and
on and on: they were really horrible but in some ways I was fond of
them as they were the skis I learned how to ski on and I never got
around to junking them like I should have...

boots first, I'll ask you if you have bought modern, good
fitting ski boots yet? If not, do that before you buy your

I am going to go to Whistler and get a well fitted boot regardless of
where I'm going to get the skis, my old boots sucked (even more than
the skis) and I definitely want a good, well fitted pair now. I could
get the best skis in the world but if I used something like my old
boots it wouldn't really make much of a difference...

BTW there are some good websites that talk about boots
and fitting. ask if you are interested.

I heard good things about 'Wild Willies' in terms of boot fitters at
Whistler and plan to go there soon...

thanks for the feedback!

In article ,
(Hi there) wrote:


thanks for the feedback!

You support terrorists!
(just thought i'd say it first)

(Richard Walsh) wrote in
. 1.4:

170 is probably OK. My Free-Rides are 165 and my X-Screams
are 178. I'm 200lb, 6', 60yo, good shape, skiing over
50 years now.

HORVATH! Come here!

Hi there wrote:

I'd really like to buy a ski ..fairly competent on pencils,
never tried shapes: ... looking for a swiss-army-knife type
of deal... with a definite bias towards groomed.

Skis I've been considering (also because most of them I can find
locally) are

head ic160 (but how do they stand up in powder?)
head monster 70 (but what about the groomed?)

I had a chance to try both of these last season in Eastern Firm (TM)
condiditons. The Monster did quite well on the groomed; I have no idea
how the IC160 would handle powder. Both are very good to excellent
skis. ( I demoed over 30 models last season and I'd put both these skis
in the top 5). The Monster was a bit more work than the IC160, but not a
difficult ski by any means. Get the IC160 if you just want to go out
and have fun cruising the groomed. Get the Monster if you don't mind
trading less forgiveness for more versatility.

Since you've never been on shapes before, you'll probably be quite happy
with either ski after you get past the initial
get-used-to-these-newfangled-things adjustment period - usually about
three or four runs. Whether it's the best ski for you is another
matter - buying blind means that it probably won't be, but there's a
wide range between acceptable and the best. You'll probably find that
both the IC160 and The Monster are within that range.

The Usual advice is demo-demo-demo, but if you can get a great deal now,
go for it - if you hate the skis, sell them at a swap and take the $100
loss (you *are* getting a good enough deal to do that, right? - if not,
think twice about buying blind)


K2 5500 (heard good things about them)
Rossi XX (but I think they're a bit too wide)

I thought the 5500 was Ok, but not as good as the heads. YMMV. Didn't
try the Rossi XX.

the skis I'm going to buy should last me -AT LEAST- 4-5 years so
something I will outgrow in a season of weekly skiing is a definite
no-no.

As long as you don't go around demoing the latest new technology, you'll
probably do fine with any of these. You won't know what you're
missing. (c:

Right now I'm leaning towards the ic160s but what's holding me back is
the fact that I wonder how they'll perform in crud/powder/choppy snow,
if I was still living in Europe they'd be a no brainer but the 70mm
mid-fats seem tempting. OTOH I don't plan to ski too much outside of
the groomed slopes, so maybe I'd do better on a carver than a mid-fat.

Some days there is no groomed, or it's all tracked up by 10am. At least
that's my experience at Whistler. For those days, a mid-fat will do you
better than a carver.

In terms of length I think 170 would be a good match for my
height/weight/skillset.

Sounds reasonable.

--
//-Walt
//
// "Fair and Balanced"

Dynastar 'Trouble Maker':

Performs well in every situation: groomers at mach speed, bumps, trees, crud
and obviously the pipe and park. 165/175cm, 112-78-102, 1780g. New spring
blade construction. You do not have to engage in crazy antics to get the
most out of this ski! But ... it certainly helps.

~~~~
Redge

Inquiro Et Invenio...



"Hi there" wrote in message
om...
I'd really like to buy a ski within a week or two tops to take
advantage of some really nice deals to be had on the 2003 stuff (50%
off list seems fairly common). Some more detailed info on me:

- 5'11" 165 (182cm 75kg)

- west coast skiing (Cypress, Whistler, practically never icy)

- skied for 10-15 years in Europe (ice most of the time) on crappy
pencil skis with badly adjusted boots, didn't ski at all the past 4
years, am going to get back in it this year (finally!) and have been
reading up a lot on shapes etc.

- fairly competent on pencils, never tried shapes: I can ski fairly
close to parallel on anything up to 'moderate' slopes (say, European
reds to some easier blacks) and can ski pretty much anywhere save
monster moguls on 80 degree-type slopes (been there, done that, didn't
enjoy it at all ).

- Hate moguls, dislike extreme speeds (only -extreme- speeds, I am not
a slowpoke by any stretch of the imagination), enjoy the most Giant
Slalom type slopes on groomed but don't mind some powder every now and
then. Really love carving mid-sized turns at 'cruising' speed (say,
20mph).

- looking for a swiss-army-knife type of deal obviously (can't really
afford 3 skis ) with a definite bias towards groomed.

Skis I've been considering (also because most of them I can find
locally) are

head ic160 (but how do they stand up in powder?)
head monster 70 (but what about the groomed?)
K2 5500 (heard good things about them)
Rossi XX (but I think they're a bit too wide)

the skis I'm going to buy should last me -AT LEAST- 4-5 years so
something I will outgrow in a season of weekly skiing is a definite
no-no.

Right now I'm leaning towards the ic160s but what's holding me back is
the fact that I wonder how they'll perform in crud/powder/choppy snow,
if I was still living in Europe they'd be a no brainer but the 70mm
mid-fats seem tempting. OTOH I don't plan to ski too much outside of
the groomed slopes, so maybe I'd do better on a carver than a mid-fat.

In terms of length I think 170 would be a good match for my
height/weight/skillset.

I'd really appreciate any help, thanks!

In article ,
"Redge Egder" writes:
Dynastar 'Trouble Maker':

Performs well in every situation: groomers at mach speed, bumps, trees, crud
and obviously the pipe and park. 165/175cm, 112-78-102, 1780g. New spring
blade construction. You do not have to engage in crazy antics to get the
most out of this ski! But ... it certainly helps.

Isn't that the replacement for the Candide ? If it is, I second your
recommendation. (Although at 6'3" I wish they had made a 190cm...)

bruno.

I believe so Bruno, the TM also bridges the gap between Concepts and Little
Big Fats. I'm currently on 01/02 Concepts (leaf pattern) which have a softer
tail than the Candide, these things are fun so I can only imagine the
performance of a TM. I'm also 206 @ 5.9 so I'm looking forward to trying the
new spring blade suspension without having to go too wide.

Concepts: 95-72-103 .:. 165/180cm
Trouble Makers: 112-78-102 .:. 165/175cm
Little Big Fat: 117-89-110 .:. 158/168/178cm

~~~~
Redge
Inquiro Et Invenio...


"Bruno Melli" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Redge Egder" writes:
Dynastar 'Trouble Maker':

Performs well in every situation: groomers at mach speed, bumps, trees,
crud
and obviously the pipe and park. 165/175cm, 112-78-102, 1780g. New
spring
blade construction. You do not have to engage in crazy antics to get the
most out of this ski! But ... it certainly helps.

Isn't that the replacement for the Candide ? If it is, I second your
recommendation. (Although at 6'3" I wish they had made a 190cm...)

bruno.

Hey Walt

thanks for the nice reply

I had a chance to try both of these last season in Eastern Firm (TM)
condiditons. The Monster did quite well on the groomed; I have no idea

that's very interesting, given how the conditions tend to be around
here I was really thinking about a mid-fat, but I was really worried
about its performance on the groomed... while Whistler tends to be
more 'sloppy' the local mountain where I'm going to ski on all the
time does seem to have some icy days every now and then (even if I do
think that when locals say 'icy' it's not the same type of ice you get
on glaciers in Europe)

The Usual advice is demo-demo-demo, but if you can get a great deal now,

the problem with demo-demo-demo is that I haven't skied for 5 seasons
and I have never been on shapes, this means that even if I demo'd I
doubt I'd be able to make an informed decision... next season it would
probably be a whole different thing, but I don't want to buy a crappy
one-seasoner ski because I probably wouldn't enjoy myself at all (and
renting every week does not make sense from a money standpoint)

go for it - if you hate the skis, sell them at a swap and take the $100
loss (you *are* getting a good enough deal to do that, right? - if not,
think twice about buying blind)

the deals seem to be in the 30% - 50% off list (more towards 30% on
the 'nice' skis, I've seen even 70% off on 'weird' stuff) locally,
I'll go up to Whistler this w/end or the next (to get well fitted
boots) and will have a look at the deals available there.

As long as you don't go around demoing the latest new technology, you'll
probably do fine with any of these. You won't know what you're
missing. (c:

heh