I have a few thoughts.
One, I enjoy these Cage Match Comparisons. I like the format, enjoy the comments and analogies and I would think that they would be helpful for most of us. In this one, my takeaway is that K2 is building at least one good hard snow ski. I think that most of us would already consider Head to be, if not owning this category, one of the bigger factors. So yes, I think these reviews are both informative and fun.
Two, We're all different. We all take in information differently, and process it differently. Some of us prefer facts, data and logic to "prove" a point. Others of us relay on feel, experience, intuition, etc. "Soft data" for lack of a better term. If one has a strong preference, and in effect refuses to yield and just digs in their heels, it can get very tedious, I hope that we avoid it as much as possible on Pugski. In some situations there are no hard and fast facts and data. No tests, no research. In others we might be too quick to dismiss what exists. Maybe the data is of zero value to one of us, and seems incredibly important to others, I say, no right or wrong choice. This is skiing. It's about having fun. If it's about precision, there are a couple of other places for you to hang out. You know them!
Three, I have to jump in here on the point that
@chemist is sticking to regarding hard snow skis, and the best being <70mm at the waist. Hard and fast. As a bit of background, I have skied in New England, 50-80 days a season {or more} for close to 60 years. I know a fair amount about big North facing N.E, mountains. My wife is also a life long skier, and like me she grew up as a competitive racer. Kids, now adults followed suit. I've had a toe in the water in the ski world in a lot of ways over the years. One development over the decades is the quality of the ski surface on any given day. It's lightyears better than it was even five seasons ago. Technology in the entire snowmaking and grooming infrastructure just makes for far less "bulletproof" conditions. At Sugarloaf, one of the coldest and firmest, almost the minute the lifts stop spinning, the army of groomers heads up to till and groom the huge majority of the hill. Like clockwork. It does get skied off in places later in the day. Until the sun is higher in the sky. Same happens at Stowe, Sugarbish, Sunday River, Stratton, Whiteface. You name it. The arms race in NE is about the qualaity of the surface, more and more.
So, in my experience, what one needs to ski the "firm" well is very different than it once was. Part is the snow surface. Another part is the new ski technology, IMO. Our daughter had access to some great skis through her college years, and my wife often skied a pair of year old 155cm or 157cm SL skis as her real hard snow ski. I had access to some exceptional race skis, but was also a very early adopter of the GS cheater, when Fischer introduced the first ones. All under 70mm wide.
Today, my wife's hard snow ski of choice is a Head Super Joy, which is 75mm wide. Thinks it's as good on ANYTHING hard, and a lot more versatile. She hasn't touched a SL ski, or her older Head SuperShapes since getting the SuperJoy,
I have a number of GS cheaters. The one that I have skied the most is a Head i.speed, which IS <70mm wide. I also have a pair of Dynastar Cheaters, which are the widest in that category, 74mm wide. Both are tremendous hard snow skis. I have a couple of pairs of SL skis that actually have pushed out of a WC start gate, and I have had no need or interest to ski them on hard snow. They get almost no use.
However, I have a pair of Head Titans, which are 80mm at the waist. I am skiing them a lot more, even on the firmest and coldest of days. They are an exceptional hard now ski, IMO, and they are a bit more versatile. I don't think that anybody would consider them not to be a good choice.
@markojp mentioned the Nordica Firearrow 84 EDT, 84mm wide. We've had four pairs in my family. That is a serious hard snow ski. Sort of a one trick pony. Designed by the guy who designed all of the current generation Nordica and Blizz race skis. They are essentially a wide cheater GS, with an even beefier layup. Some skiers prefer a wider platform under their feet, and have no problem engaging and tipping the ski, and running on rails at a frightening speed on rock hard snow. The ski is no soft snow ski, no "all mountain" ski, no bump ski. It's damn close to a one trick pony. I know a lot of people who are exceptional skiers who ski it, and would not be suggesting that they need a narrower ski for the rare bulletproof proof stuff.
Both of our "kids" are in the West. Both work in the business, year round. Our son is on snow well over 250 days a year. There is obviously a difference between Western hard snow and that in New England. Elevation and humidity will do that. It's still hard. Both of them will occasionally ski on terrain that has been injected for racing. Doesn't get much harder than that. They are younger, and they are very, very skilled. They also tend to ski even that hard snow on skis that are 84mm wide, or wider. Son is on a 100mm wide ski almost every day. Is it "as good" as a <70mm ski, on rock hard? No. Is it just a ton better than what one could have imagined 5+ years ago, yes. Are they on SL skis every now and then? Yep. But nobody's going to suggest that he's on the wrong ski on any given day. Nor is he going to suggest that the mother of one of his athletes really needs a sub 70mm ski for the hard days.
No data. No scientific proof. There just seem to be a lot of skis to ski hard snow with, and the very concept of what hard snow is seems to be changing many, many days. IMO, it's not exclusive to <70mm skis. My brother is a former national team skier, who spends winters in CO. Skis 6 days a week. A year ago he told he that he skied 95% of his days on a 95mm wide Stockli. Where he is, there are plenty of cold firm days.
The reviews that Phil, Tricia, and others are putting together are really great. They are done by real skiers, spending a lot of time in varying conditions on these skis. The impressions that get relayed are valuable, and insightful. I'm very good with a statement like "the performance on steep, firm groomers really surprised me", if that's the case. That would make sense to me. I'd grasp that. Just as a comment like "The skis didn't have much edge hold on the firm, and in particular the tails washed out" would make sense. The last pair of skis that came my way through my son were based on his having skied them for a half day. His comment was that, "you'll really like these." All feel, all impression, etc. And I do like them. Bingo. He is VERY dialed into the ski world. His opinion is that even in the race world, people spend far to much time thinking about radius, and even length. Obviously width is not an issue there. A lot of factors go into designing a ski that works well for any one of us. And when it works, you'll feel it.
And there are so many good skis being made that we all have more choices than ever. In the GS cheater category, for example, pick any two, and see if you prefer one. Then buy it. They are ALL good. You can go insane trying to find the "perfect" ski in that category. If there was a "Cheater Spectator", like wine, they would all rate a 97 or better!
I'm not going to jump on anybody for how they choose to think this through, and what they feel they need for information. At the same time, I think as a community, we should realize that you can end up with skis that might do the job just as well, which are "different" in size, shape and layup, using a number of other screens. LIke a recommendation, and a demo.
The Firearrow 84 EDT is/was a perfect example. I don't know anybody who tried the ski, and said, "Nope, this can't be. It's too wide."
Nordica nailed it. They didn't market it, or price it so well. And maybe they should have offered it either flat or with a Piston Plate. Another story.
Feeling more like winter in New England. Fun on the way, for all of us.
