What Skis for Moguls

I'm trying to figure out what kind of skis to get. I've been away from
it for so long that I am totally out of the loop. I'm not going to spend
$1200 on skis and bindings, so I've been looking at '03 -'04 models and
trying to find gear reviews from that period. Mainly though, I don't
find much discussion about skis for moguls. They talk about "All
Mountain" skis and "Big Mountain" skis and "Freeride" skis, but a lot of
these skis seem to ski like Giant Slalom skis and it seems like a lot of
skiers are skiing "on piste" and going real fast . They also talk a lot
about snow conditions. Surely the fatter "shaped skis" are going to
float better in the "off piste" conditions, but I don't see specs on
most of those skis that would make them good short turn skis, like the
slalom racing skis I used to use for bumping. The K2 Axis XT has quick
short radius capability, but its narrower under-foot, as you'd expect;
but I'm thinking -- how ya gonna float in powder on a narrow ski of 174
cm in length? Of course any ski I'd use in the midwest U.S. (where I
live) would have to be good on ice and hard, hard machine snow. That's
where I'd see the K2 Axis XP (as opposed to the above mentioned XT), a
top rated "All Mountain" being useful, but it looks like it's going to
ski like a GS ski with wide ski flotation. I hear the Atomic 9.22 is a
good All Mountain as is the Elan Mantis M10. And then there's RossignoI.
I haven't even scratched the surface on those, except thatI hear the
good ones have Bandit in their name :-)

I'd like a ski with good "All Mountain" capabilities that can also swing
some quick short radius turns and follow the terrain while keeping lots
of contact on the snow (the fluid finesse bump style).

I guess the only way to figure this stuff out is to take a trip to some
real ski area and demo a few of these different skis. In the mean time I
think I'm going to get a cheap set of 2 year old K2 demo skis.

-- Fred

Look for something fairly narrow with a long radius. Short radius (or big
side cut) doesn't make for a good bump ski.

Most manufacturers are making a twin billed as a bump ski. Those skis are
probably very limited in distribution.

The things that make a good bump ski don't really make for a good
all-mountain ski. If you need an all mountain ski that works well in bumps
look at something with a 20+m turn radius (subject to opinion), a lot of
taper, and a relatively soft tail. Your best bet is looking into something
in the twin tip category. That Dynastar Troublemaker was a pretty good all
around board at a reasonable price.

But then that all depends on what you want to do in the bumps.

-g

In article ,
"glareice" wrote:

Look for something fairly narrow with a long radius. Short radius (or big
side cut) doesn't make for a good bump ski.

Most manufacturers are making a twin billed as a bump ski. Those skis are
probably very limited in distribution.

The things that make a good bump ski don't really make for a good
all-mountain ski. If you need an all mountain ski that works well in bumps
look at something with a 20+m turn radius (subject to opinion), a lot of
taper, and a relatively soft tail. Your best bet is looking into something
in the twin tip category. That Dynastar Troublemaker was a pretty good all
around board at a reasonable price.

But then that all depends on what you want to do in the bumps.

-g


I used to ski bumps on 204cm slalom racing skis. Usually wood core,
"glass boxed" K2's The theory back in that part of history was that
there were two main categories of bump skiers, the bash and thrash group
and the fluid style/finesse group. The thrashers hit bumps straight on
using fronts of moderately soft skis and their spines to absorb the
impact and get launched airborne to the next impact. The finesse skiers
followed the terrain much more closely making precise edge sets,
decelerrating on the sides of bumps and then soaking up the next bump
like a shock absorber at the ankles, knees and hips with a relatively
motionless upper body. I like the later style (everybody over 25 did or
they just didn't do bumps). I think the advantage of the slalom skis was
the narrow waist and deep sidecut, which made them quick edge to edge.
Although I've never skied shaped skis I'm thinking the short length has
got to be a plus when you are snaking your way in and out of the
troughs, as long as they are not too stiff in the shovel and tail, but
if they are too fat under foot I'm wondering if they'll be quick enough
from edge to edge. -- Fred

In article ,
"F. Hayek" wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what kind of skis to get. I've been away from
it for so long that I am totally out of the loop. I'm not going to spend
$1200 on skis and bindings, so I've been looking at '03 -'04 models and
trying to find gear reviews from that period. Mainly though, I don't
find much discussion about skis for moguls. They talk about "All
Mountain" skis and "Big Mountain" skis and "Freeride" skis, but a lot of
these skis seem to ski like Giant Slalom skis and it seems like a lot of
skiers are skiing "on piste" and going real fast . They also talk a lot
about snow conditions. Surely the fatter "shaped skis" are going to
float better in the "off piste" conditions, but I don't see specs on
most of those skis that would make them good short turn skis, like the
slalom racing skis I used to use for bumping. The K2 Axis XT has quick
short radius capability, but its narrower under-foot, as you'd expect;
but I'm thinking -- how ya gonna float in powder on a narrow ski of 174
cm in length? Of course any ski I'd use in the midwest U.S. (where I
live) would have to be good on ice and hard, hard machine snow. That's
where I'd see the K2 Axis XP (as opposed to the above mentioned XT), a
top rated "All Mountain" being useful, but it looks like it's going to
ski like a GS ski with wide ski flotation. I hear the Atomic 9.22 is a
good All Mountain as is the Elan Mantis M10. And then there's RossignoI.
I haven't even scratched the surface on those, except thatI hear the
good ones have Bandit in their name :-)

I'd like a ski with good "All Mountain" capabilities that can also swing
some quick short radius turns and follow the terrain while keeping lots
of contact on the snow (the fluid finesse bump style).

I guess the only way to figure this stuff out is to take a trip to some
real ski area and demo a few of these different skis. In the mean time I
think I'm going to get a cheap set of 2 year old K2 demo skis.

I've skied the Atomic 9.22 (albeit the orange version they were selling
three years ago) and it is a very fine all moutain ski. It's got enough
sidecut for the groomed, enough width for the deeper snow and because
you can ski it fairly short (175 cm was good for me at 195 lbs) it is a
good ski in moguls too.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:


I've skied the Atomic 9.22 (albeit the orange version they were selling
three years ago) and it is a very fine all moutain ski. It's got enough
sidecut for the groomed, enough width for the deeper snow and because
you can ski it fairly short (175 cm was good for me at 195 lbs) it is a
good ski in moguls too.

I weigh in at a mere 150 lbs (68 kg) at 5'-10" (178 cm) in height. Would
I have to go even shorter than 175 cm in that ski?

In article ,
"F. Hayek" wrote:

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:


I've skied the Atomic 9.22 (albeit the orange version they were selling
three years ago) and it is a very fine all moutain ski. It's got enough
sidecut for the groomed, enough width for the deeper snow and because
you can ski it fairly short (175 cm was good for me at 195 lbs) it is a
good ski in moguls too.

I weigh in at a mere 150 lbs (68 kg) at 5'-10" (178 cm) in height. Would
I have to go even shorter than 175 cm in that ski?

Almost certainly.

For instance, the fall Skicanada Buyer's Guide issue lists the lengths
for available for the Atomic Metron B5 as 152, 162 and 172 cm. I would
probably ski the 162s now (I'm down to 180), but you'd probably want the
152s.

But for the new gear, that's normal. On the World Cup circuit, men's
slalom skiers are skiing on 155 cm.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"F. Hayek" wrote in message
...


I weigh in at a mere 150 lbs (68 kg) at 5'-10" (178 cm) in height. Would
I have to go even shorter than 175 cm in that ski?

One thing you run into, if you're using the ski as an all around, if you
go too short then you get bounced around by every little bump in the
cut up, whereas a longer ski would just surf right over a lot of it, and
cut through it.

That's one reason I don't usually ski shorter than 170 or so, even
though I have pairs that are shorter. I was miserable on 150's in the
crud. Sometimes I like to go with 180 in the cut up, if it's really
challenging for one reason or another. I'm not sure weight would
make a lot of difference in this aspect. You're long limbs give you
a lot of leverage to steer the skis, so you don't *have* to go short
at all.

It's something to think about anyway.

In article ,
"foot2foot" wrote:



"F. Hayek" wrote in message
...


I weigh in at a mere 150 lbs (68 kg) at 5'-10" (178 cm) in height. Would
I have to go even shorter than 175 cm in that ski?

One thing you run into, if you're using the ski as an all around, if you
go too short then you get bounced around by every little bump in the
cut up, whereas a longer ski would just surf right over a lot of it, and
cut through it.

That's one reason I don't usually ski shorter than 170 or so, even
though I have pairs that are shorter. I was miserable on 150's in the
crud. Sometimes I like to go with 180 in the cut up, if it's really
challenging for one reason or another. I'm not sure weight would
make a lot of difference in this aspect. You're long limbs give you
a lot of leverage to steer the skis, so you don't *have* to go short
at all.

It's something to think about anyway.

I think what you're experiencing in the "cut up" (by which, I presume
you mean unpacked snow that's been skied quite a bit) is that longer
skis have more surface area to support your weight and thus they keep
you more "on top" of the cut up. Then, when you hit a bump or firm
agglomeration in the snow, your skis don't rise up as much to go over it.

The trend is to shorter skis with a larger waist, but still keeping the
same radius sidecut (or even trending towards smaller radii). This adds
surface area to the ski and allows you to ski a shorter length and still
get the same support.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

F. Hayek wrote:

I weigh in at a mere 150 lbs (68 kg) at 5'-10" (178 cm) in height.
Would I have to go even shorter than 175 cm in that ski?

Probably. I skiied some powder steeps yesterday with a friend who lent me
his 175cm Pocket Rockets, and I sure wished they were a tad shorter. I'm
about your weight and a lot shorter.
And the Pocket Rockets are a soft twin tip.

--
ant

In article ,
"glareice" writes:
That Dynastar Troublemaker was a pretty good all around board at a
reasonable price.

I've skied the last 2 seasons on the predecessor, the Dynastar Candide and
they work pretty well as all around skis:

Powder: http://www.digis.net/~mellib/favski/dscn1192.mov
Bumps: http://www.digis.net/~mellib/favski/dscn1210.mov

I'm 6'3" and 195 lbs so length is pretty easy for me: I just get the
longuest that's available, 180cm in this case.
There are a very few times where I wished they were a tad longer but
that's pretty rare.

bruno.